It doesnt get much harder than this

[Bill Hartman]

HIT must stand for HIT the canvas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TfI3y4k2vs

Bill

[gregl515]

If you want to know more about HIT, read the New High Intensity Training by Ellington Darden. It is an entertaining book that explains what this type of workout is all about.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Eric Cressey

The intensities utilized with a 10-0-10-0 protocol are insufficient to elicit strength gains in trained subjects (need at least 70% in intermediates, 85% in more advanced lifters).

Eric - Very interesting. I didn't follow your meaning on part of your comments..What does it mean when you said "(need at least 70% in intermediates, 85% in more advanced lifters)".

Probably has an self apparent meaning to someone in your business..but I didn't follow that?

[RedLefty]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Eric - Very interesting. I didn't follow your meaning on part of your comments..What does it mean when you said "(need at least 70% in intermediates, 85% in more advanced lifters)".

Probably has an self apparent meaning to someone in your business..but I didn't follow that?

He was saying that for strength gains, intermediate trainees need to work with at least 70% of their 1-rep max (1RM). Advanced lifters need to work with 85% of 1RM.

Hypertrophy, fat loss and other goals can be reached in various ways. And almost anything will work for a newbie. But if a seasoned trainee wants to get stronger, he/she needs to lift heavy. And you just can't go very heavy with 10-second reps.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by RedLefty

He was saying that for strength gains, intermediate trainees need to work with at least 70% of their 1-rep max (1RM). Advanced lifters need to work with 85% of 1RM.

Hypertrophy, fat loss and other goals can be reached in various ways. And almost anything will work for a newbie. But if a seasoned trainee wants to get stronger, he/she needs to lift heavy. And you just can't go very heavy with 10-second reps.

Ahh. OK Thanks RL I see now.

[Lisa~]

Jimbo, This study might interest you also. Basically it says that if you do HIT training to failure you'll gain endurance but not strength. If you do multiple sets with greater loads you'll gain strength. Kinda DUH after you think about it for a minute, but still, sometimes we have to prove things to ourselves.

DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.

J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan 12;

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA,
Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic hormones.

Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure (NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and 29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press.

Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

[Steve-O-68]

Is that your new ride in your avitar Lisa?

[Lisa~]

Originally Posted by Steve-O-68

Is that your new ride in your avitar Lisa?

Not totally new, but wow was today a great day for driving! I put up a couple more pics in Off Topic.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Lisa~

Jimbo, This study might interest you also. Basically it says that if you do HIT training to failure you'll gain endurance but not strength. If you do multiple sets with greater loads you'll gain strength. Kinda DUH after you think about it for a minute, but still, sometimes we have to prove things to ourselves.

Makes sense.

I have adhered to the conventional wisdom of multiple sets with higher loads in my training and I have gotten stronger. So I made progress over the last couple of years. Being on the downhill side of 40 the progress comes pretty slow though and I guess I'm always open to new angles.

Good article.

Thanks Lisa

[Frank.S]

Originally Posted by BFG

and Eric come on if thats your level of understanding Im severely dissapointed.

Who's to say a month back he hadnt started at a very low weight and progressed to that level?

Its a demonstration of a training philosophy nothing more nothing less not the whole routine. As pointed out Darden always incoroporates a mix of free weights and machines.

Fair enough some of you get a kick out of strength training those that are aiming for body composition, ditch your usual routines for 2 months and give it a bash. The reason I say two months is the first month people always underestimate the weight they can lift at slow cadence as they wuss out.

Then when you have tried it and you see your gains are the same in half the time spent in the gym come back and post up constructive criticism.

and save the testosterone and ego driven I spend 5 hours in t'gym work a hard sweat up and so know I have done good macho bullshit, this forum has always been good for sharing ideas and training so lets not get all neanderthal and protective and keep an open mind until you have tried it

Yeah.. none of us here care about body composition Im pretty sure thats wrong man...

Trying to gain a good amount of size on a routine like this is going to be damn hard, if not impossible. Machines simply dont compare to free weights in most cases. And if some dude that looks like he weighs 50lbs less then me and a higher bodyfat wants to tell me differently. good for him.

[Lost Dog]

Sorry. I fell asleep after I clicked on the link. Did I miss anything?

[dos]

Originally Posted by Bill Hartman

HIT must stand for HIT the canvas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TfI3y4k2vs

Bill

And remember that Oscar was coming off a MAJOR wrist injury before this fight......

[BFG]

Originally Posted by Frank.S

Yeah.. none of us here care about body composition Im pretty sure thats wrong man...

Trying to gain a good amount of size on a routine like this is going to be damn hard, if not impossible. Machines simply dont compare to free weights in most cases. And if some dude that looks like he weighs 50lbs less then me and a higher bodyfat wants to tell me differently. good for him.

Since when has the image of a trainer added value to the knowledge and application of their trade? I think we covered this in a previous argument when you all slated a trainer on here saying he was fat so why listen to him? Is Lou the most fittest person on the board with the greatest body, no offence meant Mr

I think you are all blowing this way out of proportion any way it was an example of a method I didnt say damn guys ditch your training this is the best and only way, maybe the guys blurb in the video did but I dont know about you but I only pay lip service to stuff like that as with all trainers and all sports men they all think their methods are the best and only way.

Somebody cited NROL earlier, as far as I can see from NROL its just HIT and basic training structure with a little HIIT thrown in, unnecesarily in my opinion as average weightloss for most people when they settle into their bodies natural rhythmn appears to be circa 2lbs a week anyway.

As for strength gains, fair enough if you aspire to be a strongman then this would not be the best approach for you, again dont recall saying it was. Its horses for courses and depends on your goal. besides it helped me put over 2 inches on my chest and almost 1 3/4 inches on my biceps this year and Im more than happy with that.

Leg Press this time last year 90kg this year 300kg
Bench press last year a measly 40kg this year 80kg
Ohead dumbell extension 20kg this year 36kg

Im not professing they are humongous increases but progression is the key with HIT either one extra rep each session or indeed upping the weight. If strength did not increase you would not be able to do this. As for % well I dont overtly focus on 1 RM's myself I aim for a weight I can do a 4RM on often forgetting that Im going to be doing it at a slow cadence and normaly surpass my expectations. If I lived the gym maybe I'd take a different approach but 4 days out of 7 Im sitting on my arse in an office so it would be of little benefit to take a different approach.

HIT has always received the scorn of many in the body building fraternity, but its just another tool in the arsenal, we have all agreed a multitude of approaches work.

Instead of taking the piss out of exercises like leg extensions and other machines, why dont some of you add value with your thoughts about these exercises and why you think people should not be doing them when thousands do.

[BFG]

Originally Posted by Eric Cressey

Um, if he'd only been lifting a month, I doubt he would have preceded that demonstration with a ten minute sermon on why HIT rules and why his shit doesn't stink.

And you might be interested to know that I was actually a study subject in a colleague's master's thesis intervention that looks at super slow vs. regular speed training. The intensities utilized with a 10-0-10-0 protocol are insufficient to elicit strength gains in trained subjects (need at least 70% in intermediates, 85% in more advanced lifters). I squatted for one minute, 50 seconds with 60% of my 1RM - 5.5 reps total. Sure, it sucked, but I can't say that it was any tougher than grinding out a 1RM squat - and the training benefit wasn't there.

Root canals are painful. They don't make you stronger or leaner, though.

what I meant by that was weight is relative to the individual. Who's to say what other activities he may have been doing that day or a whole manner of things.

Fair enough you believe a 1RM is harder but it also shows that theres many wasted unnecesary hours spent in the gym as a leisure pursuit rather than being beneficial. At the end of the day theres nothing wrong with that as after all we all love working out.

[Irishdazza]

Steve - I resent the "lack of an open mind" comment. I have trained like this, see above - it's pretty much the way any complete novice trains before he learns anything. Certainly that was my experience.

In the above thread, you have several links showing the relative lack of effectiveness of this type of training, not to mention the comments of some acknowleded experts, who automatically assumed you were joking with this thread...as did I.

As regards NROL, I recommend you read it, in it's entirety - you seem to have picked up a very jaundiced view of the methodology.

Regarding your specific gains, well done. But I'm pretty sure you would have enjoyed better gains with another approach.

Once again, the flippent comments weren't meant as jibes or to be neanderthal - I didn't realise you were trying for a serious debate on this.

[BFG]

I wasnt after a debate at all per se just posting up a link showing a valid training method. I doubt many novices would start training with this approach but its a lever to another level and a different training approach to relieve boredom.

I dont have a jaundiced view of NROL at all I think its a very valid training method and approach as are many others with the results equating to the same but with just a greater amount of time invested. I just dont see it as a panacea. Its well structured and any book that gives a whole body plan for such a period of time I personaly think is fantastic as it gives people goals and a direction in their training.

Subsequent comments backed up with theory were incredibly helpful and indeed very warmly received, unsubstantiated claims with no substance to back them up as the thread started are not helpful, and just got my back up.

At the end of the day even the experts hopefuly pick things up from these and many other boards we are all here to broaden our knowledge and understanding. OK you can call a spade a spade, but to start straight away ridiculing someone is just downright rude.

Anyhow nuff said shall not bother again