HIT vs. Volume Training

[Melissa]

There are two strength training advocates. High Intensity Training and Volume Training. I am just kind of wondering what everyone's thoughts and feelings are on these, and which program you feel is best and why?

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Melissa

There are two strength training advocates. High Intensity Training and Volume Training. I am just kind of wondering what everyone's thoughts and feelings are on these, and which program you feel is best and why?

Its going to be a mixed bag on this board, but if you use the search you will find pros and cons for both. This topic has been talked about a lot already.

[NateDogg]

*Runs*

......

[Chain]

I don't think there is one best way. When people fall into the trap of saying "this is the best way" they tend to exclude the other methods which can be useful as well. It's kind of like survival of the fittest. What is "fittest"? Superiority is specific to the circumstances.

We'd have to define HIT training and volume training. HIT training, as it was explained to you in A Practical Approach to Strength Training is using one set per exercise and performing a set with a certain weight until your muscle reaches muscular failure. By muscular failure they usually mean concentric muscular failure as there is more than one kind and a muscle will never reach full muscular failure since ATP is never fully depleted (which it never is). By their definition, volume training is using more than 1 set per exercise.

HIT training gained most of it's popularity during the 1970's through Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. It was the extreme opposite of Arnold Schwarzenneger's type of training which was an extreme volume of training using 20-25 sets per muscle group twice a week. Obviously most people cannot make gains on that type of training unless they have great genetics and are on steroids. Arnold had both those things going for him. So some people who tried to train like Arnold were severely overtraining. When Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer came around with their high intensity type of training and people tried it they experienced great gains because of the supercompensatory effect after overtraining on Arnold's system. Which isn't to say that the system would only work after you overtrained. For 99% of people HIT is better way to train than the way Arnold did. But it should also be noted that Mentzer was on steroids as well. Casey Viator was one of the people that Arthur Jones trained. But that isn't really an endorsement for HIT since Viator had an appreciable amount of size and strength well before using HIT type training AND there are rumors that he used to sneak in workouts behind Jones back (which may or may not be true). Of course, Jones also suggested his Nautilus machines were superior to free weights which by now everyone knows is not true for most purposes. So part of it was just Jones trying to market his machines. But I think we can see that, since different methods were successful for different people, that more than one method is effective. Mixing methods up once in a while is probably the best way to train.

I think HIT and Volume Training both have merit. But if I had to choose between the two I would choose Volume Training.

Some pros to HIT as I see them are...
- Saves time
- Good for in-season athletes who cannot devote as much recovery to strength training workouts because they need it to recover from games. The same is true for those who do not have a strong recovery ability.
- Helps keep one from overtraining

The cons to HIT as I see them are...
- Possible increased risk of injury due to the tendency to break good form as concentric muscular failure is approached and surpassed.
- One set training to failure usually yields less strength gains than 3 sets of 8-12 reps without even going to failure.
- Requires the willingness to experience more discomfort during a workout (sure, that's no problem for you and me. But try telling that to an 80 year old client who's never done strength training before).
- To reach and/or extend the set beyond concentric muscular failure as many HIT advocates suggest may require the use of a workout partner, or at least a spotter, which is not always avaiable.

The pros of Volume training...
- Better allows one to develop and maintain proper form because momentary fatigue is not as high as in HIT training.
- Generally produces greater strength gains than HIT training since multiple sets, up to a point, increase the training stimulus.
- Doesn't require the trainee to be as willing to deal with the discomfort of reaching and surpassing muscular failure.
- If proper recovery conditions are maintained (ie, proper sleep and diet) the body produces more of the recovery hormones to deal with the increased demand of training with more volume. This nullifies one of the main arguments of HIT training that volume training is detrimentally more demanding on the bodies ability to recovery. Obviously, past a point, more is not better (doing 10 sets per bodypart a week may be good, but that doesn't mean doing 20 sets per bodypart is better).
- Doing sets with a high intensity requires more sets to achieve an optimal adaptation. In high school the coach put us on a strength training program where we started with 2-3 sets of 10 and finished with 2 sets of 2-3 reps. We all had great gains at first but as the time went by we didn't experience very good strength gains doing the 2 sets of 2-3 reps. Then I learned how doing low reps required more sets. When me and my training partner modified the coaches program and increased the # of sets as we decreased the # of reps we experienced better strength gains.
- For certain types of strength training, like Olympic lifting and Powerlifting, performing multiple sets is better to help master the movements involved in those sport.

The cons of Volume training...
- Requires more time to train than HIT
- In overly enthusiastic trainers overtraining is more likely than when using HIT.

I know a lot of your advocation of HIT comes from Brzycki and his books have lots of good material. However, I have to question his positions on some things. like:
- His belief that single sets are just as good as multiple set methods.
- His belief that machines are as applicable to athletics as free weights.
- His denouncement of Olympic lifts for athletes other than weightlifters.
- The fact that he doesn't believe warming up aids in strength training. (Try to do a max effort without a warm up set and then the next workout do a warmup and try to max again, which is higher?). He states in his book that he believes if 6 or more repetitions are performed then a warm up is unnecessary. I find that if I warm up I can use more weight.

That's my 2 cents.

I didn't put references but these are some books I've read that helped form my opinion:

Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (2000) ed. by Baechle & Earle
Designing Resistance Training Programs (2003) by Kraemer and Fleck
Strenght and Power in Sport (2003) ed. by Komi
The Weightlifting Encyclopedia (1998) by Drechsler
A Practical Approach to Strength Training (1995) by Brzycki
Maximize Your Training (2000) ed. by Brzycki

[Jock]

The key to succes IMO is variety.

Jock

[Hero Doug]

This isn't really answering his question, but does anyone know where I can dig up a study done by the World Idea Confrence.

They tested two groups, one did one set, and the other group did three sets. After so long they found that the muscle gain was the same in both groups.

[swordfish]

i do HIT. i say to myselft whats the point of doing more exercises but not putting 100% intensity into it? i do hit and will never do high volume again.

[MAURER]

i prefer volume. after my workouts i feel more as though i have done a complete workout than with HIT

[Melissa]

First of all, thanks to all of you who replied.

The dispute on which strength training program is the best will continue for quite some time. Everybody has there own personal reasons for believing what program is best. Every individual is different in strength and body size or type, so of course their strength programs will be different.

Again thank you for your replies

[nickk23]

id just like to say that although Chain's repsonse was well-rounded, I have to disagree with a couple of points.

Chain, you say that there is less chance of overtraining with HIT than with volume. In fact I belive this to be the complete opposite. One overtrains because of the stress on the central nervous system (CNS), not the muscle itself. Since HIT advocates one set to complete failure, this stresses the CNS far more than multiple set sub-failure work. This is why Mentzer took so much time off between workouts. Often people take volume training to failure as well, which is probably why people don't encounter success on a number of volume training programs.

Overall I would say that volume training is less taxing and if multiple sets are performed below failure, then overtraining is less likely.

The second thing i disagree with is that you say HIT yields less strength gains. Well, again I believe the opposite. Hypertrophy (mass) gains are much quicker than strength gains due to the different recovery speeds of muscle fibres and ones CNS. Since it takes the CNS longer to recover, HIT (provided the loads are progressive) is in fact more suited to strength gains because a lot of hypertrophy gain is lost from the long layoff between workouts (necessary to avoid overtraining) but the rest period allows for complete CNS recovery and provided loads are progressive workout to workout, strength gains are more likely than with volume training.

Of course everyones recovery and relative recovery abilities will be different which is why people encounter success using both training methods. I strongly believe in periiodisation where you combine strength training with training for mass before taking a week to 2 weeks off. (see www.hypertrophy-specific.com). that way, the increased neural efficiency from strength training will allow a greater number of muscle fibres to be stimulated when you train for mass.

[abarlament]

HIT doesn't produce the best strength gains, sub-failure training does. You can workout more often (the CNS isn't stressed so much that it can't recover in 2 days), so you are exposed to more stimuli, and you get stronger.

This is why olympic and powerlifters do not do HIT.

[Chain]

Nick, those are both good points to ponder. I partially agree with you're first point about HIT and the CNS. But I stand by my statement because the CNS is not the only thing that can be overtrained. Overtraining can be neural, muscular, metabolic, endocrine,cardiovascular, immune, or even psychological. Taking all of these into account, along with the lack of willingness of many individuals to push themselves as hard as others during HIT training (which can help decrease that tax on the CNS), I consider volume training to pose a greater risk of overtraining. I see and hear of far more people doing too many sets rather than doing one set per bodypart too hard. So that's why I said it posed less of a risk of overtraining. But it probably depends on the individual.

But I have to disagree with your second point on two counts:

1) Hypertrophy gains do not necessarily occur quicker than strength gains. If you take untrained individuals and put them on a weight training program they will make more gains in strength than in size because the majority of initial strength gains are from neural adaptations.

2)

Hypertrophy (mass) gains are much quicker than strength gains due to the different recovery speeds of muscle fibres and ones CNS. Since it takes the CNS longer to recover, HIT (provided the loads are progressive) is in fact more suited to strength gains because a lot of hypertrophy gain is lost from the long layoff between workouts (necessary to avoid overtraining) but the rest period allows for complete CNS recovery and provided loads are progressive workout to workout, strength gains are more likely than with volume training.

If your statement is true then volume training (possibly with varying intensities and levels of effort) performed more frequently throughout a microcycle would be better at increasing strength than HIT training (which is what I believe). If you believe your statement above then wouldn't training without reaching concentric failure, but at an increased frequency of training, yield greater strength gains due to the fact it could prevent the loss of hypertrophy AND not overtax the CNS?

I agree with Abarlament's statement 100%. But I'm probably biased cuz I'm also a fan of Pyrros Dimas.

Pyrros Dimas

180 kg snatch (approximately 396 pounds) at a body weight of around 182 pounds. Gotta respect that kind of strength....

[abarlament]

He's awesome isn't he? An olympic lifter on FI says he has great "pwok".... gotta love that word

[nickk23]

In response to chain.......

Yeah, I see what you are saying. I agree, overtraining can take all the forms you mentioned, its just that I think they are all fairly insignificant with respect to the CNS which becomes overtrained far quicker and less noticeably than say muscle fibres. (muscles can be stimulated for further hypertrophy before complete recovery, for greater gains than if you waited until muscle fibre recovery is completed - this is relative to ones CNS where muscle coordination improvement (neural adaption) is independent from the stress recovery which is in fact biochemical and metabolic). i.e. neural adaption may be complete but the CNS still may have not recovered.

And yes, I take your point about people usually doing far more sets than they can handle ( i did mention this in my post with people performing volume to failure also). My point was that in both workout programs (if both performed with 100% efficiency lets say for arguments sake) with HIT you need a much longer layoff period for your CNS to recover (because it takes longer when HIT is performed to the correct intensity, than the recovery of the muscle fibres).

Secondly, your point about strength (neural adaption) is correct. My point was relative to training in the style of HIT, where hypertrophy recovery occurs quicker than strength recovery not because neural adaption is slower, rather than once again strength suffers (at a high frequency of training) due to the overtraining of the CNS. By this i mean, your neural efficiency may have improved but the overall overtrained condition of the CNS prevents efficient coordination of this increased neural efficiency (hence the long layoff between workouts).

Thirdly, i hadn't thought about the power lifting issue. I do agree with you here. But once again, I guess it is a point made against HIT. I think relatively you gain more strength from HIT than you do mass (unless you perform cyclical HIT), but yes volume training yields more strength overall. Relatively I think you gain more hypertrophy relative to strength in volume than you do in HIT.....which kinda means everything points to HIT as being inferior. At this point im sure it all comes down to genetics and variation, and how different people respond, because people do get results from HIT. The only way HIT would be superior is if HITs one damaging set caused more microtrauma than frequent multiple sets to offset the long layoff period need for HIT recovery and the lack of multiple sets....and who can prove that.