HIT styles: Dorian VS Mentzer

[PistolPete]

Hey guys,

I know a lot of you guys are HIT advocates, so I thought this would be a great place to bring this up. I'm just starting to learn more in depth about H.I.T. training, and it's been making a whole lot of sense to me. My question/discussion is what (if any) are the differences and likenesses between Dorian Yates style of HIT training and Mike Mentzer's style. Also, if there are any differences, does anyone perfer one style to the other? Please feel free to discuss success of unsuccess stories.

I know Dorian gets a lot of credit on this site, and I too and one of his praisers. But we shouldn't forget about Mike Mentzer. He created an incredible physique with a very similar style of training.


Thanks a lot guys! I really look forward to all the input, science, and opinions.

 

[Natzo]

well , in the science aspect I can't be very helpfull. But in personal experience I have something to say.

I train HIT Dorian style since september last year. And must sayit has worked wonders! my strengh improved to the roof and keeps improving at a slower pace though.

I realized this...the amount of volume I was lifting wasn't for my type of body, I tend to burn quickly and was wasting to much energie and time with sets that are only to "play with weights". With low volume and more time to fully recover my progress was amazing.!

What I understand is that muscle grows to try to adapt to a knew kind of poundage something that is new. so if I can do 10 easy reps with 50's why to keep doing it like the 3rd set of an exercise I should keep my energie and try to do the 60's for 8 that I am only able to do 7 so far.. do you
understand?

But the warm ups that decrease while we progress trough the workout are very important to prepare the muscle and keep the blood flowing for the all out set. but no need to 3 wu sets in every exercise.I only do that for the first exercise 3-2 wu sets than 1 wu set.

my average is 2 sets per exercise.

the principle of longer contraction period and going to failure and past failure with rest-pause and drop sets. all seem to work and be effective for muscle hipertrophy. and make some heavy ass intense workouts!

that makes sense to me. and my body approves.

I don't know much about mentzer style but I find it to be a little extremist. Just one set per workout ok it's slow..but..I don't know.

I think every body should try HIT. and see how it works for them.

 

[PistolPete]

Thanks Natzo! That was a great contribution. I understood everything you had to say.

Do you ever use any pre-exhaustion techniques? Also, you said that your average amount of sets per exercise is 2. Isn't the point of HIT to go to absolute failure on one set, thus making all other sets unneeded? Another question I have is, how fast do you do your reps? Do you use any explosive strength, or do you control the positive just as slowly as the negative?

Thanks man!

 

[Natzo]

Thanks Natzo! That was a great contribution. I understood everything you had to say.

Do you ever use any pre-exhaustion techniques? Also, you said that your average amount of sets per exercise is 2. Isn't the point of HIT to go to absolute failure on one set, thus making all other sets unneeded? Another question I have is, how fast do you do your reps? Do you use any explosive strength, or do you control the positive just as slowly as the negative?

Thanks man!

Thanks pete. those are good questions.

No I usually don't use any pre-exhaustion techniques, I do one thing for legs that works great though and is a kind of pre-exhaust, try to hit your hams first, doing that you are able to have less ham influence in your quad exercises cause their already fatigued. it has made the diference for me, I'm able to feel my quads much more since I do that. It's not really a pre-exhaution but it is what it is and works.

Yes you're correct the point of HIT is to go all out in one set. But once again I train Dorian style I think it's important to hit the muscle with one set at 70% - 80% to focus well on the mechanics of the exercise, to tell your body what your going to do and also to increase the blood flow, all to prepare that one all out set that comes next. Usually if I do 4 exercises, I start with 2 warm ups in the first, and in the 2nd and 3rd only one and in the last exercise most of the times the warm up insn't needed anymore cause the blood flow can´t be increased and the last exercise is often a simple exercise like cable crossovers for example.

I believe in Contraction time, I think it is the most important thing, the muscle has to feel the weight and the movement, shooting 10 second sets is pointless, at the end, the time that the muscle was under contraction was only 2 seconds or less.
I do an explosive positive, feel the contraction and slowly do negative part. but once again that muscle has to be under contraction for atleast 1 second.
I'll repeat the most important thing is the contraction.

I love debating HIT. :gaysign:

 

[tim290280]

I used to train "hardgainer" which is based on Arthur Jones' HIT. I would not go back to this style of training again unless I had absolutely no time to train. There is some research on HIT, but most of it is rather flawed. What little good stuff that has been done confirms it works, but not as well as other methods with higher volume.

Couple of comments:
1) HIT requires proper failure or drop sets (or other overreaching techniques)
2) 1 set is never enough, 2-3 plus warmups.
3) Science says that you need at least 2 work sets and they need to be >75% of max
4) The science really doesn't support HIT as a good way to train for hypertrophy or strength.

 

[PistolPete]

I think what I'm going to do is for most exercises I'll do a working set that's heavier, but come close to failure. Then on the second set I'll go to absolute failure.

And on the topic of not getting hypertrophy, HIT can give you a massive pump. If you control the weight in perfect form and go to absolute failure, it will give a crazy pump. I did my arm workout last night in HIT fashion and my arms measured bigger after that workout than they ever have in my life. My right arm was just shy of 17inches and my left was just a bit over 17. This is over a 1/2 inch bigger than they have ever been.

 

[Natzo]

I think what I'm going to do is for most exercises I'll do a working set that's heavier, but come close to failure. Then on the second set I'll go to absolute failure.

And on the topic of not getting hypertrophy, HIT can give you a massive pump. If you control the weight in perfect form and go to absolute failure, it will give a crazy pump. I did my arm workout last night in HIT fashion and my arms measured bigger after that workout than they ever have in my life. My right arm was just shy of 17inches and my left was just a bit over 17. This is over a 1/2 inch bigger than they have ever been.

yeah man I think the way you're going to do it is good. that's how I do too.

And hell yeah HIT works!

 

[PistolPete]

Thanks Natzo! I appreciate the support

 

[tim290280]

I think what I'm going to do is for most exercises I'll do a working set that's heavier, but come close to failure. Then on the second set I'll go to absolute failure.

And on the topic of not getting hypertrophy, HIT can give you a massive pump. If you control the weight in perfect form and go to absolute failure, it will give a crazy pump. I did my arm workout last night in HIT fashion and my arms measured bigger after that workout than they ever have in my life. My right arm was just shy of 17inches and my left was just a bit over 17. This is over a 1/2 inch bigger than they have ever been.

Pump has little to nothing to do with hyptrophy.

The research I've read says that HIT has to be failure on all working sets.

You lifted weights, ate right and your arms got bigger: congratulations. I didn't say that there wasn't hypertrophy (I actually said the opposite) I said that it isn't a great way to go about it. There are many downsides of HIT, not least of which is the lower levels of hypertrophy because of the lack of regular stimulation and less oportunities for progression (the two cornerstones of strength and hypertrophy).

But of course you've added extra volume with FST7. Not really HIT anymore, more like a regular training regime

 

[power]

I have been training with HIT for almost 3 years, and I have made excellent progress. I train using Mentzer style. Two or three warm up sets and one set to failure. The fact is that in order to get big you must get stronger. HIT is about getting stronger, and in turn a person will get bigger. If a person was to train to failure 5 times a week he would be over trained, unless he is on steroids. Getting stronger= bigger muscle. A person who doesn’t train to failure accomplishes noting in regard to getting big. In order to get big you must get stronger. Therefore it logically follows that since the body has limited recovery ability, a person should employ brief and infrequent workouts. Why you ask, because of limited recovery ability. If recovery wasn’t an issue, I would train for six or seven days a week to failure, in order to produce more muscle. A fact that recovery is an issue is that if a person tries to train five or six times a week, he cannot train to failure without the consequences of losing strength; as I explained in the former strength is the key factor in increasing muscle

 

[tim290280]

I have been training with HIT for almost 3 years, and I have made excellent progress. I train using Mentzer style. Two or three warm up sets and one set to failure. The fact is that in order to get big you must get stronger. HIT is about getting stronger, and in turn a person will get bigger. If a person was to train to failure 5 times a week he would be over trained, unless he is on steroids. Getting stronger= bigger muscle. A person who doesn’t train to failure accomplishes noting in regard to getting big. In order to get big you must get stronger. Therefore it logically follows that since the body has limited recovery ability, a person should employ brief and infrequent workouts. Why you ask, because of limited recovery ability. If recovery wasn’t an issue, I would train for six or seven days a week to failure, in order to produce more muscle. A fact that recovery is an issue is that if a person tries to train five or six times a week, he cannot train to failure without the consequences of losing strength; as I explained in the former strength is the key factor in increasing muscle

I remember reading this same statement years ago and it really is mostly junk.

Most of it is disproved by any amateur or competitive athlete. Hell it is disproved by just about any gymnast, labourer or farmer. Show me any of the later three that are not strong and muscular (relative to their diet of course, not everyone wants to he huge and lean), yet they lift/work/train everyday and often all day.

Also failure isn't required for muscle growth or strength gains. What is required is frequent bouts of progressive exercise. SIMPLE AS THAT.

 

[power]

I remember reading this same statement years ago and it really is mostly junk.

Most of it is disproved by any amateur or competitive athlete. Hell it is disproved by just about any gymnast, labourer or farmer. Show me any of the later three that are not strong and muscular (relative to their diet of course, not everyone wants to he huge and lean), yet they lift/work/train everyday and often all day.

Also failure isn't required for muscle growth or strength gains. What is required is frequent bouts of progressive exercise. SIMPLE AS THAT.

It’s interesting that you offer no conclusive rational statements as to why HIT is junk. You cite several persons as beings examples of why HIT doesn’t work, but where is the rational thought that shows that HIT doesn’t work. You have disproved noting about HIT.

 

[PistolPete]

Tim I don't do FST-7 anymore. I gave it a try a while back, and i didn't really like it too much. I don't think it was very accommadating for my type of body. Also, How does HIT have less oppurtunity for progression? Just because there are fewer sets, doesn't mean there aren't enough chances to progress. Progression can be as little as one more rep than the week before. And when working with heavy weights to failure, that's a big improvement.

And about my arms growing, seriously don't undermine the fact that my growth was something unsubstantial. I don't know about you, but I fight for every 1/4 , 1/2, 3/4 etc inches of growth possible. To gain an inch on your arms usually will take 10-12 pounds of lean mass added to your frame. I gained 1/2 an inch with only a pound of two difference in weight since last time I checked my weight and arm measurements.

 

[PistolPete]

And in regards to your discussion with power. I totally agree with you

What is required is frequent bouts of progressive exercise. SIMPLE AS THAT.

If that is the case though, then why the bashing of HIT? After all, isn't the main idea behind HIT to get stronger every workout?? Whether it be one more rep, one more pound on the bar, etc. It's still progressive resistance!!

 

[Natzo]

I'm with you on this one pete.

I don't see how there is less progression oportunity using HIT.

I think there's more acually cause failure makes more progress than just close to failure in my experience.

 

[Lionheart]

I always find it a bit funny when someone blindly defends some "training style" or calls it "shitty".Study,experience and find the best exercises,reps,sets whatever that works for you.Every one is individual.If your buddy has founded a program that made him gain 5lbs a mucle in a month ,its very unlike youll get the same results.
I happy to hear about your results Pete,but if in the end of the day HIT doesnt work for,dont call it waste of time ,but rather journey to knowing more about your body.

 

[PistolPete]

I'm with you lionheart. It's all about experience. Studies can say whatever they want, but I still believe you can't put a label on everyone in regards to training styles that work and don't work. I'm still finding what works best for me. It's going to be a long journey, but thats why I love bodybuilding.

And I've never called any training style I've done "a waste of time", merely a stepping stone, and a learning experience to better understand my body.

 

[tim290280]

It’s interesting that you offer no conclusive rational statements as to why HIT is junk. You cite several persons as beings examples of why HIT doesn’t work, but where is the rational thought that shows that HIT doesn’t work. You have disproved noting about HIT.

Rational thought??? Pots calling kettles?

I'm afraid that the rational argument does not need to be made to nail the lid shut on HIT. There is so much research and evidence showing that HIT is a lesser way of training. You need progression and frequency.

How about reading some of this:
NSCA has a list of recognised books and publications.
The plethora of science done on weightlifters who train every day, lots and lots of sets every session, no failure training.
The work by Zatsiorsky.
The work of Siff.
Or just about any of the threads I've started on this site.

And in regards to your discussion with power. I totally agree with you

If that is the case though, then why the bashing of HIT? After all, isn't the main idea behind HIT to get stronger every workout?? Whether it be one more rep, one more pound on the bar, etc. It's still progressive resistance!!

No the main idea behind HIT is to train to failure at the least number of sessions possible. This means that you have less frequency of overload for the muscles to adapt.

Tim I don't do FST-7 anymore. I gave it a try a while back, and i didn't really like it too much. I don't think it was very accommadating for my type of body. Also, How does HIT have less oppurtunity for progression? Just because there are fewer sets, doesn't mean there aren't enough chances to progress. Progression can be as little as one more rep than the week before. And when working with heavy weights to failure, that's a big improvement.

It gives less opportunity for progression because you aren't training as frequently. If you train 2x week and I train 4x week, I will have the opportunity to have double the number of sessions to improve in. Naturally you can't improve at every session, and it also depends on what measurement you are using for progression, but there is still more benefits from regular training.

Growth stimulation from training lasts for ~36hrs. So you are ready to stimulate the muscles you have used in a session more than once a week. Were there is overlap in exercises you will need to cycle intensity over a month (like the powerlifters, weightlifters, athletes..... do). So if you are ready to train your muscle group again 36hrs later and don't train it for another week, and in that time only train once more, then the body doesn't recieve a maximal amount of stimulus to adapt.

Now HIT works on the idea of overloading the muscle in 1 set. The HIT research has shown that if failure is actually reached then more sets aren't really needed. But research also shows that it is really hard to actually reach that level of intensity, especially on compound exercises that will give the most stimulation for growth (as the smaller muscles will ultimately limit the movement). This was why Arthur Jones made machines to train on. This overload can work at hypertrophy and some strength, but it also means you have to accumulate a lot of DOMS and neural fatigue (as you essentially overreach every session).

The disadvantages here are obvious. You are going to have to be sore. You will not perform well at other tasks. You don't train regularly enough to develop the skill to recruit and fatigue muscles (and motor units). You don't train regularly enough to develop skill at the lifts. You don't accumulate as much time under tension (a key driver of hypertrophy) Etc etc.

I could go on and on, but simply put: show me an athlete that only trains twice a week and performs as well as that same athlete when they train many times a week.

And about my arms growing, seriously don't undermine the fact that my growth was something unsubstantial. I don't know about you, but I fight for every 1/4 , 1/2, 3/4 etc inches of growth possible. To gain an inch on your arms usually will take 10-12 pounds of lean mass added to your frame. I gained 1/2 an inch with only a pound of two difference in weight since last time I checked my weight and arm measurements.

Huh?
I was insinuating that you could have made your arms grow with any number of methods. Some will have made a bigger gain than the HIT method.

 

[Duality]

tim, when you refer to HIT, exactly what do you mean? meaning, a HIT style leg workout, how many working sets are we referring to? HIT to me has always meant what it stands for, high intensity. and with that it's a given you really shouldn't be doing more than 10 sets for a given bodypart and if you are you aren't going hard enough. but just out of curiousity what in your mind is a HIT style workout?

 

[tim290280]

tim, when you refer to HIT, exactly what do you mean? meaning, a HIT style leg workout, how many working sets are we referring to? HIT to me has always meant what it stands for, high intensity. and with that it's a given you really shouldn't be doing more than 10 sets for a given bodypart and if you are you aren't going hard enough. but just out of curiousity what in your mind is a HIT style workout?

HIT as described by Arthur Jones and Mentzer is one set to failure. So any one exercise is only one set.

Others such as Yates and Stuart McGill liked 2-3 work sets per exercise.

But this is also coupled with only a couple of workouts a week, only short sessions (30mins usually), and only a couple of exercises per body part. Usually full body as well, but not necessarily.

Of course the hipocrasy of this entire field is that there are "warmup" sets. So a lot of the HIT crap that gets bandied around often ends up with programs that are actually pretty similar to splits in execution. This is because they will have a short session, but many days training, and then have several sets leading to their top set that is the only one they count. It really is stupid how diverse the HIT crowd is given their rabid dogmatic approach.