Mentzer's HIT - Does anyone even use it?

[Beast]

I've been reading a lot about HIT, but it still does not make sense to me. I mean, I guess I couldn't see how someone could make good gains off of it, probably since i'm use to high sets/exercises. Anyone have experience with it?

[galileo]

I practiced HIT when I was 19 and I went from 155->185 within about 6 months of working out. My strength shot up and I loved working out. The only reason I don't do it now is because due to lower back injuries I can't handle 20 rep sets of squats and deadlifts.

Some people don't care for it, but I think it's just as valid as any other form of training. Most people can't get it to work because they don't know how to train to failure. Failure isn't mentally giving up, in case you wondered.

[tjwes]

I wouldn`t waste my time with it.Mentzer didn`t build his body this way he just maintained it while taking boatloads of juice.He was big long before Jones invented Nautilus Machines.

[galileo]

That was an intelligent response with a considerable amount of logic behind it.

[Neil]

The last time I tried a HIT style routine I gained 12 pounds in about 8 weeks. I would guess at least 6 or 7 of it was muscle. All my lifts shot up too. I played with moderate to high volume routines a bit after that and they did nothing for me. I regret going off of HIT and I am currently back on it. I would highly recommend it.

[RG570]

I am planning on returning to HIT after i am finished with westside.

I <3 Mentzer

[Berserker]

I tried 20 rep squats a couple weeks ago, there tough. Especially mentally. When your at 4 and know you have 16 more to go. I don't think I was able to use enough weight either. 155. First time i did them I was sore for 2 day then next time nothing. I can usually count on being sore after squats. I know its not a good indicator but I feel let down if I am not sore the next day.
20 rep deadlifts:eek:

[Beast]

I see... Anyone know of a good site with the exact routine, etc?

[Goin_Big]

Originally posted by galileo
That was an intelligent response with a considerable amount of logic behind it.

HAHAHA, LMFAO!!!! This is the greatest post of all time, lol.

[Neil]

Originally posted by NDBeast
I see... Anyone know of a good site with the exact routine, etc?

http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-hit-training.asp

I ran this routine by Mason before I started it and he recommended putting all the lower back/leg moves on the same day to avoid overtraining. That's the only change I would make to it.

[galileo]

http://www.cyberpump.com used to have all the information you could stand on the subject, but now you have to pay $10 to access it. It is a fair price for the knowledge you can attain throughout the pages, but if you follow the basic tennants you can't go wrong.

[tjwes]

The only reason you guy`s gained on it was probably due to the fact that you were overtrained from the higher volume of your previous routines.

[Neil]

.....or that higher volume routines lead to chronic overtraining in a majority of natural trainees.

[body]

you make gains with HIT. but if your a newbie you should make gains on most routines at 1st.

as people have mentioned there other routines beside HIT that can lead to better goals, especially if you want strenght gains.

[tjwes]

Galileo,My response was totally true.I don`t see where anyone can gain on one set per bodypart.To me it is not enough stimulation to ellicit a response of any kind from the body.It`s nothing more than a warmup.Yates and Mentzer used way more than one set, as it`s supposed to really be done.I know that everybody ios going to say you have to really go allout and train to total failure.I train hard doing 8-12 sets per bodypart .That`s just my opinion .I hate to see trainees waste their time falling for all this crap that`s come along.

[Beast]

This is what I found on the HIT subject. I'm going to try it after this summer.

This is an excerpt from Nautilus Bulletin number one; what Arthur Jones said, verbatim:

Using only a barbell, one light pair of dumbbells, a flat bench, a chinning bar, parallel bars, a squat rack and one fairly-simple pulley device, an enormous amount of results can be produced in a fairly short time by the proper practice of the following training program...

1. 2 sets of 10 repetitions full squats :06 (minutes)
2. 3 sets of 20 " one-legged calf raises :06
3. 2 sets of 10 " barbell standing presses :06
4. 2 sets of 10 " behind-neck chins :06
5. 2 sets of 10 " bench presses :06
6. 2 sets of 10 " regular-grip chins :06
7. 2 sets of 10 " parallel dips :06
8. 2 sets of 10 " barbell curls :08
9. 2 sets of 12 " pulley triceps-curls :06
10. 2 sets of 15 " wrist curls :02
11. 1 set of 10 " regular-grip chins :03
12. 1 set of 10 " parallel dips :03
13. 2 sets of 15 " stiff-legged deadlifts :06
14. 2 sets of 10 " dumbbell side raises :06

The above program - consisting of a total of 27 sets, to be performed in one hour and sixteen minutes, three times weekly - will build great overall strength and muscular mass in almost all cases; and in individual cases where the results produced are below expectations, it is probable that the program should be reduced, rather than increased.
I used the above outlined training program more than twenty years ago - and produced very good results with it - but in light of knowledge gained in the meantime, I would now alter it in several ways; instead of standing presses with a barbell, I would use a slightly different exercise with heavy dumbbells, strict presses with the elbows held back in line with the shoulders and with a parallel grip (with palms of the hands facing each other) - behind-neck chins would be performed with a fairly narrow grip and I would use a bar that permitted a parallel grip in this case also - a set of dumbbell supine lateral raises with nearly-straight arms would be added immediately before each set of bench presses - the barbell curls and pulley triceps curls would be performed alternately - and I would substitute a set of behind-neck presses for the second set of dumbbell side raises.

Performed in the proper manner, the above routine is certainly NOT an easy routine - on the contrary, it is an almost unbelievably hard routine; most trainees are not willing to work as hard as this routine requires for the production of best-possible results - and many trainees are simply not aware that it is even possible to work that hard - but if performed at a normal pace, or in the usual manner, then only a fraction of possible results will be produced.
If a wider selection of training equipment is available, then the previously-described routine involving three leg exercises - leg-presses, thigh-extensions, and squats - could be substituted for the squats in the routine outlined above; and, depending upon the exact equipment available, other changes could be made to improve the workouts - but since the possibilities are almost infinite, I will not attempt to outline all such possible changes.
If the pre-exhaustion principle is clearly understood, then any reasonably-experienced trainee should be able to design his own workouts in order to incorporate this principle; and beginning trainees should limit themselves to much shorter, less complex routines.

An underweight individual desiring to increase his overall size and strength would be well advised to limit his training activities to a program somewhat along the lines of the following routine.

1. 1 set of 15 repetitions stiff-legged deadlifts :04
2. 2 sets of 10 " full squats :08
3. 2 sets of 10 " barbell standing presses :08
.4. 2 sets of 10 " regular-grip chins :08
5. 2 sets of 15 " parallel dips :06
6. 2 sets of 10 " barbell curls :08
7. 2 sets of 15 " wrist curls :04
8. 1 set of 15 " stiff-legged deadlifts :04

Most beginning trainees are far too anxious to make rapid gains in bodyweight - and in most cases, this results in the addition of fatty tissue; an underweight but mature individual can usually gain at least an average of a pound a week for a period of six months by following a very brief (but hard) training program three times weekly - some subjects will respond much faster, but caution is required if addition of fatty tissue is to be avoided, as it almost always should be.

[Holto]

Originally posted by tjwes
Galileo,My response was totally true.I don`t see where anyone can gain on one set per bodypart.

many on here including myself had had tremendous gains in SIZE and STRENGTH from 1 set per bodypart

the fact that you can't see it has no bearing on the reality of it

[restless]

I used a one set per bodypart 3 X week HST routine, not to failure with great results for bulking.

[Beast]

Originally posted by restless
I used a one set per bodypart 3 X week HST routine, not to failure with great results for bulking.
Was it like the program I posted above?

[tjwes]

Hey if it works for you guy`s, go for it.I`ll stick to my own training philosophies.That`s what makes this sport interesting, certain things work for some, and not for others.Train Hard !

[PowerManDL]

I can't grow on one set unless I do it three times a week; but that's just me.

[galileo]

Again, it's all opinion. Whether you support or denounce it, I've yet to see anyone, including myself, state anything that could lead one to believe there is a right or wrong answer.

It worked for me. Period. I did warmup on occasion, but a typical routine looked like this:

Squats 1x20 [momentary failure] alternated with Deadlifts 1x20 [momentary failure]
Bench Press 1x8-12
Dips 1x8-12
Chins 1x8-12
DB Rows 1x8-12
OH Press 1x8-12
ab work, grip work.

Absolute failure on each of the non-dangerous motions. My last rep could last anywhere from 5-15 seconds and when I was done with that set, there was no need to do anymore. I did this once every 5 days and it worked out just fine. It wasn't the first thing I tried and it kept me motivated. If you eat properly and get ample rest, most low volume programs will produce nice results.

Conjecture is not a good way to build muscle.

[tjwes]

If it ain`t broke don`t fix it.I personally find it`s not a productive way for me to train, if it`s good for you and it `s working ,go for it.Everybody`s different,and will respond differently to various methods of training .

[Beast]

Galileo-
Did you warm up on all of those sets?

[BCC]

tjwes, if you actually read about it, you would then understand why it indeed works. There's no bull **** behind it. Purely scientific.

[blowdpanis]

mentzer's understanding of physiology and the human body was somewhere between arrested and retarded.

conventional hit training (ala cyberpump) is a good default mode of training, but if you get into their actual theory (or one of their offspring's theories, eg superslow, iart, etc), it's shaky to stupid.

all i mean by this is that they judge everything from the skewed interpretation of selye's adaptational 'laws.' they apply intensity of central nervous exhaustion as being synonymous with intensity of stimulus (muscular hypertrophic stimulus in this case), and this is completely incorrect.

'failure' is a feature of the nervous system, trying to go past this will result in central nervous system type adaptations (a pretty obvious case of SAID). on top of this, equating intensity with gains might be useful for people who aren't a fan of pushing themselves in a general sort of way, but a lot of their claims are completely incorrect.

1 set to failure is not as good as multiple sets for the trained, as a meta-review of the literature by the ACSM recently found. granted this varies with frequency (as another poster mentioned, i AM a fan of hst where 1 set is a good starting point if the stimulus is FREQUENT (as opposed to infrequent for the sake of 'intensity')). on top of that, HIT never actually identifies what makes muscle grow at a cellular level. 'supercompensation' of muscular tissue is rather the myth, and there is no reservoir of 'adaptational energies' that one might accidentally infringe upon to warrant staying out of the gym for extremely long periods of time. at least not in the sense they're using it.

again, nothing wrong with hit per se, but proponents like Mentzer and Jones' reasoning are very...sub par, and cultish. they dismiss everyone as being 'irrational' and then fail to understand pretty basic biology and empirical peer review.

[Blood&Iron]

:withstupi

[galileo]

Originally posted by NDBeast
Galileo-
Did you warm up on all of those sets?

I warmed up each new bodypart, just as I do now. If I am doing bench, dips, inc press I would warm up on the bench and not bother on the subsequent exercises.


---

Also, I did find them to be very cultish and part of the "we are right and everyone else is wrong" doctrine. That doesn't mean it didn't work for me, either way. I found with each different message board I go to I find another dominant training style that most everyone on the site adheres to strictly. WBB is one of the few that doesn't shove that down your throat, but most people here advocate low-volume with high-intensity. Not to the extreme of HIT per se, but not many are taking the 10 exercises per bodypart route.

I remember reading a quote from one of the HIT gurus that stated something along the lines of - If you're doing dips with 100lbs strapped around your waist, you're not going to be small. Well, I've thus far proved that to be wrong...

In the end, I think that HIT is a great program to throw in to change things up a bit. Just like some people do a few months of Westside, HST, 5x5, etc, I can definitely see the value in going ultra-low volume for a bit to change up your routine. Like I've said before, I'm not going to defend the science behind any training style, but if it works it works. Last I read scientists still say it's impossible (on paper) for a bumble-bee to fly.

[Neil]

Originally posted by galileo

I remember reading a quote from one of the HIT gurus that stated something along the lines of - If you're doing dips with 100lbs strapped around your waist, you're not going to be small. Well, I've thus far proved that to be wrong...


I'm sure you are much bigger than you were when you were only able to do bodyweight dips.

[galileo]

10lbs bigger, ace. I don't know how many 165lbers people consider huge.

[blowdpanis]

Originally posted by galileo
10lbs bigger, ace. I don't know how many 165lbers people consider huge.

identical circumstance here (about 165 at the moment cut up, 175 when i'm heavier). HIT was a great way to gain strength, but as soon as i upped frequency and volume, muscular gains followed. must be a coincidence :)

[galileo]

Actually, the +100lb dips came totally separate from HIT, so you can use your tagline elsewhere. I went from BWx8 to BW+100x8 over a few months using what I'd consider a normal frequency non-failure based workout.

[Neil]

Originally posted by galileo
10lbs bigger, ace. I don't know how many 165lbers people consider huge.

Well, Ace, if you ate more than 2000 cals per day you might see some growth:)

[galileo]

ROFL! I guess no one is permitted to cut for summer, eh?

[Neil]

Of course they are, I was just referring to your small weight gain. I just skimmed through the last few pages of your journal, I didn't realize you were cutting.

[tjwes]

Big Chasey Chase,Iread about it, and tried it long before you were even born.I trained for a while with someone who worked closely with Mentzer, and I met Mentzer a couple of times ,and spoke with him about his training methods.They just didn`t work for me. If you like it use it, I won`t.

[PowerManDL]

Nothing's gonna work forever, when it comes to strength training.

Near as I can tell, from both the literature and my own results, alternating periods of high and low volume, with wave-like variations of intensity inside each block, is what tends to yield the "best" results for any given goal.....that is, most gains (how ever you're choosing to measure that) per given unit of time.

[Beast]

Originally posted by tjwes
Big Chasey Chase,Iread about it, and tried it long before you were even born.
lol