MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Why is it HIT or HVT?
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

physcult

Why is it always HIT or HVT?

It seems to imply if it isn't one it must be the other. Imagine if everything was like this in life.

Has no one thought of low volume training or medium volume or descending or ascending volume? Or even just the amount of volume a person found worked for them through trial and error? Why is it always HVT? Is there anybody who posts here who even does a VHVT routine?

I see people get great results from HIT and I see people get great results from basic strength training - it seems that might confuse some people here.
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

physcult wrote:
Why is it always HIT or HVT?

It seems to imply if it isn't one it must be the other. Imagine if everything was like this in life.

Has no one thought of low volume training or medium volume or descending or ascending volume? Or even just the amount of volume a person found worked for them through trial and error? Why is is always HVT? Is there anybody who posts here who even does a VHVT routine?

I see people get great results from HIT and I see people get great results from basic strength training - it seems that might confuse some people here.


I used to make the same erroneous assumption. It's not either black or white, but shades of gray. I realized this after changing my training recently.

Just remember - it's what you learn AFTER you thought you knew it all that counts.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Excellent point made and I have to agree, in fact I have pointed out many many times that there are many training styles in between HIT and HVT.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem good enough for some here, it's HIT or else its HIGH volume training, the thought of moderation is non existent.

I'm often seen as a HVT advocate and yet perform around 2-6 work sets per bodypart per workout, hardly HVT of 16-25 sets is it!!

I think this further highlights how unreasonable and dogmatic some HIT advocate can be.
Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

I think its a mistake to take what is said on this forum as being the "official" HIT line. The comments here are not vetted by any authority. Anyone here can say pretty much anything they want. And as the old expression goes: "Opinions are like assholes. . ."

I for one have never used the HVT acronymn. I've not even substantively criticised other systems. The only thing I have criticised is people saying as fact that which they cannot prove. Then I've criticised those same people for trying to dress their ideas up in inapplicable scientific jargon to make it seem more official.

And it's not just those of you who subscribe to the cult of bioforce. On the "HIT is the only way" side there are folks who are just as guilty of the same nonsense. These folks rail against tried, proven, brief and intense exercise on one technicality or other. Even the historically venerated 5*5 protocol is cast out (But somehow Brczyki's 3*3 is OK).

Fact is, if you beat youself up enough and rest enough in between, watch sleep and nutrition reasonably well, pretty much anything will work. Is anyone on this board close enough to their genetic potential that the nuances between philosophies matter all that much?
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Guess what ? This is a HIT forum after all . That said , why would anybody who advocates HIT want to hear the same old arguements in favor HVT or aerobics or Pilates , or Yoga etc. catch my drift ?
Open User Options Menu

physcult

Bill Sekerak wrote:
Guess what ? This is a HIT forum after all . That said , why would anybody who advocates HIT want to hear the same old arguements in favor HVT or aerobics or Pilates , or Yoga etc. catch my drift ?


I can kind of see what you mean but are the HIT advocates actually discussing much thats new? Or is there nothing new worthy of discussion in the field of exercise? I would say 3/4 of the site promotes HIT well for the new comers and the discussion forum is a nice free for all.

Everything has its pros and cons and I think the discussion on a variety of exercise topics makes the forum a much better place. I like to know about Pilates and Yoga as well - so I can persuade a potential client why strength training is a better pursuit (in most cases).If HIT is a good exercise system (which I think it is-but far from faultless) why do the HIT advocates sound so scared of discussing it?
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

physcult wrote:
Why is it always HIT or HVT?

It seems to imply if it isn't one it must be the other. Imagine if everything was like this in life.

Has no one thought of low volume training or medium volume or descending or ascending volume? Or even just the amount of volume a person found worked for them through trial and error? Why is is always HVT? Is there anybody who posts here who even does a VHVT routine?

I see people get great results from HIT and I see people get great results from basic strength training - it seems that might confuse some people here.


Intensity and Volume could certainly be looked at as having an inverse relationship. BUT THEY DON"T.

Intensity is the magnitude or density of momentary effort or tension.

Volume is related to the amount of work, power, or tension expressed.

You could train for 50 sets, and still display INTENSITY, and if you perform anything over a single reps or static tensioning and call it "volume".

I am not aware of some imaginary or even agreed upon line where volume begins. I find SS reps TOO HIGH in duration and subsequent volume of effort.

The primary foundation of Jones' idea was the least amount of stimulus to cause the DESIRED result.

Somehow that got lost, and became the longest slowest reps using a stop watch rather than intensity to measure them.

But the fact remains the stimulus package needs to fit the goal. All this banter about "tough gainers" and "genetic celebrities" is rationalization from those who would rather make excuses, than face reality. That doesn't mean one may not have a greater or lesser genetic potential,

What it does mean is that trying to make distorted ideas real, is not the way to grasp what or understand the science of training. A large portion of HIT is a cult. Does anyone in their right mind think that everyone is BLIND that they somehow have missed the LOGIC of HIT??

It IS NOT a Volume versus HIT. It is Scientific Training versus, those who wish to promote something less.

This does not mean that much if not most of SOME of the HIT ideas are not effective, because they are. Infact at the beginning they are INCREDIBLY effective. It is the "projection" of these good qualities, to ALL TRAINING MODELS that creates the problem.





Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Dr. Darden coined the phrase and it stuck. I think he was just trying to be sensible when describing the essence of rational, proper exercise.

By its very nature what we are doing while trying to become stronger, more muscular and all the related benefits...is train with high intensity. I think everyone knows this at heart some just want too much to quick and act irrationally.

Nothing wrong with chasing a dream in my books as long as you do your best to remain objective, sensible, rational and so forth. Too much of a good thing and all that.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

physcult

HSDAD wrote:
These folks rail against tried, proven, brief and intense exercise on one technicality or other. Even the historically venerated 5*5 protocol is cast out (But somehow Brczyki's 3*3 is OK).


I would guess it is a fact that (for those that stick at it) a 5x5 routine (or 3x3 or 5x3 or 3x5 or 5x2 or any combination etc etc) with basic powerlifting movements is the most successful strength training system ever (if success is measured by being strong). I don't see why anyone would want to argue this.

It could be argued its not best for size, or it has a higher risk of injury, or it doesn't cover my CV requirements, or its not as time efficient, or any number of similar issues, but as far as strength goes, historically it works well. (maybe not best - but well)
Open User Options Menu

physcult

BIO-FORCE wrote:

The primary foundation of Jones' idea was the least amount of stimulus to cause the DESIRED result.

Somehow that got lost, and became the longest slowest reps using a stop watch rather than intensity to measure them.



Most of the recent HIT you-tube stuff seems to be long drawn out sets with fairly light weights and lots of set extenders (hard to endure but not HIGH INTENSITY IMO). The cult of HIT seems to be a Ken Hutchins spin-off more so than an Arthur Jones thing (IMO)

I see superslow (and all of its spin-offs) as a gimmick designed to make money and the problem is that if HIGH INTENSITY EXERCISE becomes synonymous with SUPERSLOW (or its spin-offs) the baby will get thrown out with the dirty bath water.

Dorian is the best thing that happened to HIT in recent times and look at the reception he gets on a supposedly pro HIT site.
Open User Options Menu

coomo

Natural2 wrote:


I think this further highlights how unreasonable and dogmatic some HIT advocate can be.

well if you dont like the views of HIT advocates on a HIT site! then fuck off!

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

coomo wrote:
well if you dont like the views of HIT advocates on a HIT site! then fuck off!

I'm quite glad when you lose your rag and are unable to reason on a higher level and resort to insults, all it does is show the silent readers just how dogmatic, bitter and twisted that some HIT advocates can be. Not really a good advert for your training style is it.
Open User Options Menu

Paul25

Quote Phys
Most of the recent HIT you-tube stuff seems to be long drawn out sets with fairly light weights and lots of set extenders (hard to endure but not HIGH INTENSITY IMO). The cult of HIT seems to be a Ken Hutchins spin-off more so than an Arthur Jones thing (IMO)

I don't know what HIT You-Tube videos you have seen lately but HSDAD and Coomo's, Matt are certianly not EASY and are HIGH INTENSITY! Set extenders like NO not HIGH INTENSITY, then what is m8?? I know that when I did NO Chins with 47.5kg +bw a month ago for a change where not easy and HIGH INTENSITY fella!
Open User Options Menu

physcult

coomo wrote:
Natural2 wrote:


I think this further highlights how unreasonable and dogmatic some HIT advocate can be.
well if you dont like the views of HIT advocates on a HIT site! then fuck off!



I think Nat2 has brought up one of the most important developments in exercise theory that those promoting HIT will need to be aware of.

When AJ designed his basic HIT principles he was working from the established One Factor Theory of Supercompensation. I doubt we can guess what he would of made of the Two-Factor theory but in 2008 we need to know about it, its pointless trying to ignore whats going on - being ignorant will not help you promote HIT.
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

Bill Sekerak wrote:
Guess what ? This is a HIT forum after all . That said , why would anybody who advocates HIT want to hear the same old arguements in favor HVT or aerobics or Pilates , or Yoga etc. catch my drift ?


Right On! Not trying to throw anything around here (especially as a "Newbie" to the board), but as you say this is a "HIT" Forum. I can appreciate other points of view and will respect their opinions, but I came to this board to learn, understand, incorporate and get support to questions to HIT. After all the title of the board it Dr. Darden's High Intensity Training - not "HIT Debate Board". Why don't those who seem to argue against the HIT principles that Darden expresses go to a Forum that supports their principles? I'm not trying to start SH&!! by any means, because I think a good debate is good and I will respect other points of view (some debates here have been quite entertaining - LOL). So I'm not saying that they should NOT be here, but I have no interest in going to a HVT (yes I know we're trying to stay away from this acronym) forum and argue against what they believe....(I feel like they are arguing against Darden himself). I'm just another Asshole I guess - I MEAN OPINION. LOL Seriously, let's keep things cool here. We could all potentially learn something new....
Open User Options Menu

Mr Flibble

Hitit wrote:


Right On! Not trying to throw anything around here (especially as a "Newbie" to the board), but as you say this is a "HIT" Forum. I can appreciate other points of view and will respect their opinions, but I came to this board to learn, understand, incorporate and get support to questions to HIT. After all the title of the board it Dr. Darden's High Intensity Training - not "HIT Debate Board". Why don't those who seem to argue against the HIT principles that Darden expresses go to a Forum that supports their principles? I'm not trying to start SH&!! by any means, because I think a good debate is good and I will respect other points of view (some debates here have been quite entertaining - LOL). So I'm not saying that they should NOT be here, but I have no interest in going to a HVT (yes I know we're trying to stay away from this acronym) forum and argue against what they believe....(I feel like they are arguing against Darden himself). I'm just another Asshole I guess - I MEAN OPINION. LOL Seriously, let's keep things cool here. We could all potentially learn something new....


Nice post from Hitit there. In my opinion the main problem with the "debates' on this board is that there are far too many "experts" and not enough novices.

The most contentious posters on this board consider themselves firmly ensconced as experts. They are not here to learn anything as they're certain they know everything already. They are here on an ego trip and it can get quite distasteful to see.

Perhaps if the self-styled experts left their egos at home and employ a less dogmatic approach they might find themselves more likeable.

I'm probably paraphrasing somebody famous here but I find the more a person learns the more they realise how little they know.

A truly educated person understands humility, a trait severely lacking in the "experts" who post here very regularly.
Open User Options Menu

physcult

Paul25 wrote:


I don't know what HIT You-Tube videos you have seen lately but HSDAD and Coomo's, Matt are certianly not EASY and are HIGH INTENSITY! Set extenders like NO not HIGH INTENSITY, then what is m8?? I know that when I did NO Chins with 47.5kg +bw a month ago for a change where not easy and HIGH INTENSITY fella!


Im not saying that it's not hard - but I dont think sets of 2 mins plus are particularly high intensity. I am not ignorant as to how this 'feel's as I have experimented with this.

Open User Options Menu

physcult

Hitit wrote:
We could all potentially learn something new....


Yes we could, but not if we don't discuss it.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Hitit

Ellington told me during a PM interchange that he is a believer of freedom of speech, he allows free and open discussion about all topics on his board, so long the moderators and Ellington allows it, then there should be no issue with members.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

Hitit wrote:
Bill Sekerak wrote:
Guess what ? This is a HIT forum after all . That said , why would anybody who advocates HIT want to hear the same old arguements in favor HVT or aerobics or Pilates , or Yoga etc. catch my drift ?

Right On! Not trying to throw anything around here (especially as a "Newbie" to the board), but as you say this is a "HIT" Forum. I can appreciate other points of view and will respect their opinions, but I came to this board to learn, understand, incorporate and get support to questions to HIT. After all the title of the board it Dr. Darden's High Intensity Training - not "HIT Debate Board". Why don't those who seem to argue against the HIT principles that Darden expresses go to a Forum that supports their principles? I'm not trying to start SH&!! by any means, because I think a good debate is good and I will respect other points of view (some debates here have been quite entertaining - LOL). So I'm not saying that they should NOT be here, but I have no interest in going to a HVT (yes I know we're trying to stay away from this acronym) forum and argue against what they believe....(I feel like they are arguing against Darden himself). I'm just another Asshole I guess - I MEAN OPINION. LOL Seriously, let's keep things cool here. We could all potentially learn something new....


There are many HITters that argue against Dr. Darden's "New HIT". For some odd reason, they feel threatened by Bio Force. Bio Force's theories are quite close to Jone's original theories. The main difference is he uses only 1 exercise in different rep ranges. With that said, I believe the problem doesn't lie so much with the different theories as much it does with the messengers. Those that continuously make derogatory remarks, without adding anything useful to the discussion, just are not taken seriously. Then, they wonder why people question or ignore their opinions. They come across as inexperienced and ignorant about training. We all know that if your ideas are sound, you can logically discuss and debate your views....and who knows? You may open someone's eyes to your ideas!
Open User Options Menu

Paul25

physcult wrote:
Paul25 wrote:


I don't know what HIT You-Tube videos you have seen lately but HSDAD and Coomo's, Matt are certianly not EASY and are HIGH INTENSITY! Set extenders like NO not HIGH INTENSITY, then what is m8?? I know that when I did NO Chins with 47.5kg +bw a month ago for a change where not easy and HIGH INTENSITY fella!


Im not saying that it's not hard - but I dont think sets of 2 mins plus are particularly high intensity. I am not ignorant as to how this 'feel's as I have experimented with this.



I agree with you there, sets which last longer than 2 mins are not as INTENSVIVE as sets that last below that. I don't see commo,HSDAD and Matt doing that on thier you-tube videos thoughas they are performing very ITENSIVE sets.

Open User Options Menu

physcult

fbcoach wrote:
We all know that if your ideas are sound, you can logically discuss and debate your views....and who knows? You may open someone's eyes to your ideas!


GREAT STUFF. The discussion forum should speed up the turn-over of new idea's. not stifle them.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

I think our recent election brought another pointed example of how the extreme sides of any argument are always the loudest.

Reasonable people are, by nature, more quiet and even-keeled.

Focus on the common areas of the middle ground and you may find that the extreme noise on your right and left fades away.

There's more of us quieter open-minded types on this site than you may realize.
(though I can be pretty loud on some topics!)

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

Natural2 wrote:
Hitit

Ellington told me during a PM interchange that he is a believer of freedom of speech, he allows free and open discussion about all topics on his board, so long the moderators and Ellington allows it, then there should be no issue with members.


Maybe he should change the title of the Forum then to "Dr. Darden's whatever the hell you want to talk about Forum" instead of HIT. Gee we could talk about the theory of why we pick our noses while driving even though we know others can see us. How about we discuss what the composition Toe Jamb is? Ok seriously no offense, I'm seriously just joking here. I respect "Freedom of Speech" as well and I respect Darden for allowing the open discussions. But really, I came to this board to learn more about HIT because it's what I'M interested in. If I wanted to learn about another style, then I would seek out a different Forum. It doesn't mean HIT has to (obviously) be the ONLY way, but it's what I chose because it's fits my style. So why do I need to debate other people's choice? At the same time I didn't come her to argue what is my choice. My choice is for me, not for everyone and visa vera. I guess it's a bit distracting listening to arguements that just become mud-throwing (even though I do laugh allot when I read some of them) and seem to detract (sometimes frustrate) me from what I understood HIT as (from Darden's writings). All that aside, there can be some useful info in different beliefs we might gain, but DAMN I'm here to learn about HIT more first. With due respects...
Open User Options Menu

physcult

Hitit wrote:

Maybe he should change the title of the Forum then to "Dr. Darden's whatever the hell you want to talk about Forum" instead of HIT. Gee we could talk about the theory of why we pick our noses while driving even though we know others can see us. How about we discuss what the composition Toe Jamb is?

Ok seriously no offense, I'm seriously just joking here. I respect "Freedom of Speech" as well and I respect Darden for allowing the open discussions. But really, I came to this board to learn more about HIT because it's what I'M interested in. If I wanted to learn about another style, then I would seek out a different Forum. It doesn't mean HIT has to (obviously) be the ONLY way, but it's what I chose because it's fits my style. So why do I need to debate other people's choice? At the same time I didn't come her to argue what is my choice. My choice is for me, not for everyone and visa vera. I guess it's a bit distracting listening to arguements that just become mud-throwing (even though I do laugh allot when I read some of them) and seem to detract (sometimes frustrate) me from what I understood HIT as (from Darden's writings). All that aside, there can be some useful info in different beliefs we might gain, but DAMN I'm here to learn about HIT more first. With due respects...

As I suspect your about to find out there are many different takes on what HIT is. Dr Darden's version is only one of many variants, if we were to be true to the title of the site, should we exclude all other versions of HIT and just discuss Dr Dardens work?

I personally prefer Dorian Yates version of HIT but I don't feel the need to talk about it or use it exclusively (on my clients). Neither do I think it is a perfect, flawless training system - especially for the majority of my clients.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy