all posts post new thread

Barbell People who have done H.I.T, how strong did you get?

Hmmmm

Level 1 Valued Member
Please say what version of H.I.T
For example: Dorian Yates' version, Mike Menzter's, some other version, dante trudel's dogcrap training etc

You may have gotten stronger in the higher rep ranges like 8 or something but I'm talking like one rep max type stuff or 1-5 rep max.
 
I'm speaking for myself here mate, but I reckon from a quick read about HIT:

"YATES’ HIT BASICS

Work each body part once every seven days.
Do one all-out, beyond-failure set per exercise. This is the working set.
Do four working sets for smaller body parts, like biceps, and six to eight working sets for larger body parts, like back.
Do two to three progressive, moderate-intensity warmups, pyramiding up to the working set."

It's not really what Strongfirst is about. Pretty much the opposite IMO. If you are looking to gain strength and a bit of size, I'd look into something more "Pavel flavoured". I'm sure others will chime in but that's my 2c worth
 
I've had moderate success with single set per exercise training. Done in a circuit, have used this approach with nautilus and kettlebells, neither to a vessel bursting all-out failure.

I've done a number of "last set to failure" regimens, primarily modified DeLorme and modified Cluster Set with the last Cluster repeated to failure (unable to complete a full rep count). Both of these worked well for strength, very well for size. Using Clusters in this manner left me in good strength to weight but pretty beat-up in my day to day.
 
I‘ve done classic Mentzer one vein-bulging-set-to-heroic-failure HIT plus Super Slow. They both work for strength and muscle and if you’re really time poor they’re a great option. But orthodox multi set training is orthodox for a reason, it works better
 
In the late 80s/early 90s, a training partner and I followed HIT principles (a la Ellington Darden's edition of the day) pretty closely. Not a great approach probably as far as strength building goes, but I think I hit my first 315lb squat/deadlift and 225lb bench press while doing it. I wouldn't call those results any kind of testament to the efficacy of the training approach as much as just youthful enthusiasm coupled w. late teen natural testosterone.
 
I kind of accidentally did a HIT program once. Got decent results and had some fun. I was fairly new to lifting at the time.

I was looking at a classic PL cycle and decided that calculating my weight each week was too much work plus I didn't understand the logic of weight jumps, setting goals, etc.
So I went 2 weeks working up to an all out set of 12
2 weeks of 10s
2 weeks of 8s
2 weeks of 5s
2 weeks of 3s
2 weeks of 2s
rested a week and tested maxes.

I also did 2 compound accessory movements for 8/3 (eg, squat day had front squat and RDL) with 2ish isolation movements for 15/2 (eg leg extension and curl)

I don't think it would have worked as well if I wasn't in that late beginner early intermediate stage where I hadn't explored intensity+volume very much to that point. (volume meaning more than five reps)
Note: the accessory movements are from memory and most likely were different. The app I logged this cycle in shut down a long time ago. Make sure to log your workouts offline folks. Preferably pen and paper. No pencil.
 
I followed Heavy Duty by Mike Mentzer for two years in the early 90s. Exercises were performed as detailed in his book. In my experience the program was good for building mass. I was 20 when I started it and gained 30 lbs of muscle over the two years. It is difficult to understand if the muscle growth was due to only the program or the typical growth that occurs for most men during that age. However it seems clear to me that the program was helpful for building mass.
 
When I was over trained, it worked great for 4-6 weeks. When I was coming off a lay off, it worked great for 4-6 weeks. Notice a trend? Everything works for 6 weeks.
 
I am doing it right now, with a twist. Perform 1 set of max effort to failure for a given rep range and then do 90% for a second set AMRAP. This is followed by 2 sets of failure for 4 assistance exercises.

Bench responds well with mild rep range increases but lower does not. It is a quick training and easy to recover from but not optimal for me. You must really train to real failure and that is hard
 
It is a Bodybuilding program. After doing it for the last 12 weeks , with some minor twists i find it's principles good for assistance work but not main lifts. Good for maintenance as well but not great for strength building
 
A single all out set works fine for strength. I would stick to lower rep ranges.

If you do less accessories you can likely increase your training frequency, and get more done on your main lifts.
 
First time posting here. I used to use Mentzer type, Heavy Duty training exclusively as a younger man. It does work, but as Solarbear stated after 6 weeks(ish) you start to go over. Dorian Yates as mentioned this, too. With hindsight, I would say the main problem with the high intensity approach is that you don't get to "consolidate" the rapid gains that are often made. The mind set is to improve each and every workout. In reality, and as is often spoken about here and in Pavel's writing, you need to spend some time with the weights to get your body accustomed to them, then progress a little more. Also, with regard to the strength vs. hypertrophy debate, Mentzer himself used to say that you should train for strength and the size will follow. Which is why his repetition recommendations were lower that those of Jones and Darden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom