Hats off to Lawrence Neal for his excellent podcasts. I have not been finding sufficient time to catch all of them, but have caught several and find very interesting. I believe he is providing a valuable service and I regularly share his links on social media and have decided in a small way to support him through Patreon, and encourage others to do so.
I sincerely wish him great success, (selfishly as well as for him.)
However, I'm seeing a trend in both some of the opinions shared by some of his guests, and also in some of the dialogue I'm reading from various social media sources that seems to point to a change in thinking.
What has long been a mainstay of HIT, (dogma, some would say) which is that brief, intense, infrequent training is the superior methodology overall, and now there appears by some to be a concession, that it may not be "optimal" but simply "most efficient" and "safest", however, optimal results will be obtained by greater volume and or frequency and or variety.
Most, however do admit that there is a major application of the law of diminishing returns here, and that HIT will provide 90-95% of available benefits from strength training and that any alleged additional benefits may make little difference to the vast majority of population, however, for elite athletes, bodybuilders or people who are seeking to reach 100% of their genetic potential in terms of muscle hypertrophy, HIT will simply not get you all the way there. (hate labels, but for purpose of blog, I will assume HIT to mean "brief, infrequent, intense, and in good form to properly target muscles and avoid injury from excessive force from momentum or in overstretched positions".)
On this alone, one could term HIT to be "best" for sheer safety, efficiency and sustainability, as a recent guest of Lawrence has stated, "the best workout is the one you actually do". One will not continue a lifelong exercise program if time constraints make it impossible or overly disruptive to lifestyle, or obviously, if acutely or chronically injured. (see link to previous blog). The only people who will devote the extra time, if that is indeed, optimal, are people for whom conditioning is in fact directly, or indirectly what they do for a living, (models, athletes, trainers) or obsessive types who have little else going on in their lives outside the gym (careers, relationships, etc)
However, one of the general premises, as I interpreted the writings of Arthur Jones, was that, although genetically gifted and or drug aided specimens could obviously achieve spectacular results on high volume * programs, they did so, DESPITE their methodologies and not BECAUSE of them, and would have achieved superior results following HIT principles, or the same results in less time.
In the end, the debate should be, in my opinion, whether the above underlined statement is true, or whether the previous assertion referring to HIT only getting you part way, albeit more efficiently is true. It must be one or the other; it can't be both.
Now there are a number of confounding issues that are major obstacles in determining the answer to the above.
No clear definitions or delineation between HIT and HVT: Long before the term HIT was even coined, traditional strength training, was of a relatively lower volume and frequency and consisted primarily of 3 full body routines per week. Early iterations of HIT as per early Darden books advocated 20 set workouts including 2 sets of 20 squats in the same workout, and performing these 3 times per week, which would be considered very high volume compared to most of the more abbreviated routines that purport to be HIT today. If you were to time the actual time under load of so called HVT practitioners, you would find in many and perhaps most cases, that, after taking away, socializing, water drinking, and endless warm up sets with insignificant loads, and rapid cadences that enable a 10 rep set to be done in 20-30 seconds, that HIT practitioners, actually have more volume in their methodology than otherwise.
Selection bias: virtually no one is satisfied with their results, including genetically gifted drug using freaks and certainly not natural, genetically average and genetically below average people, (in terms of response to exercise and potential to have excessively large muscles) and as such we are ripe to be exploited. We know that extremely small percentages of the population even exercise consistently. One of the main reasons for this is that people who tend to get quick results tend to stick with it, and those who don't, tend to move on to other activities. Of those who do exercise consistently, a significant number do not even have muscle hypertrophy as a goal, and may find large muscles unsightly, Also, many world class athletes who are, by definition several degrees to the right of the bell curve, do not have very large muscles, and yet, when we see photos, or just the guy next to us, at the local gym with big muscles, we find it very difficult to remain objective, and wonder whether we've missed out on something that would be the recipe for greater success, (seemingly forgetting that we did exactly what this individual is doing, years ago and didn't get good results..)
Results subjective.... I listen to many of the guests on Lawrence's podcasts from both the HIT and HVT camps and I'm very disappointed to hear them refer to results using terminology such as "muscles feeling fuller"..... "looking better", increases in reps/tul's or weight lifted. With the possible exception of the latter, these terms are of no use to me at all in evaluating whether said source is making a valid point or not. And even performance can be extremely subjective, unless reps are standardized. Gary Knight made a good point of only counting reps that are 4 second up or 4 seconds down or 4 seconds up, 2 second hold and 4 seconds down. (I assume the former is where the upper turnaround has no resistance such as a leg or chest press and latter is where there is resistance at upper turnaround, such as a pulldown or row.) I personally like 10 seconds up and 4-5 seconds down on conventional equipment, but the long positive does give one the opportunity to linger in the easy part of the rep and move quickly out of the tough part, which is more difficult with a 4 second positive. Nonetheless, even with standard cadence, there is still a fair amount of subjectivity. (skill acquisition vs strength gains) When I first began this blog, my main argument was to be that only a dexa scan or bod pod measurement should be used to determine whether a given method was superior or not, because this presumably would tell you whether or not you are actually adding lean muscle mass. However, apparently even these methods may be subjective. More on this later.
How results of studies can be exaggerated based on small sample sizes (link to last McGuff podcast)
Perhaps a final definite answer is not even possible. As has been pointed out, exercise research is generally very poorly done, with small samples (both in terms of time and number of participants) and poor measuring tools. Gary Knight also pointed out that quite a large majority of folks will simply never put in the required effort that HIT demands, and Doug McGuff has suggested that certain individuals may be literally unable to "go to failure" but can still get good results.
So here is where I land: First of all, rather than speak of HIT or HVT as polarities, I think it is more helpful to think of things as a continuum, or perhaps a number of continuums that will likely involve most if not all of the list below. (several of which overlap each other)
Volume
Intensity
Frequency
Variety
Load/Progression
Form.
Sleep.
Nutrition.
Non exercise activity.
Volume: We can agree there is a limit, however what that limit is will vary greatly from individual and affected by intensity, sleep and nutrition, in that order. Exceed the volume you can recover from and results will stall or regress. While I disagree with the idea of doing the least amount needed, I simply don't think this is where I would put my money in terms of which factor to increase to make any measurable difference. I would add that greater volume may, in some individuals, for some periods of time, produce marginally greater results, it may do so at the cost of increasing chronic overuse injuries.
Intensity: Hard work, which may or may not involve failure, going beyond failure, negatives, jreps, x-force etc., is critical and I don't think any camps dispute this. Again, though there is a limit and while this is one of the areas, I would suggest can be pivotal in making a difference, one should be careful to not fall into the "more is better" mistake here either.
Frequency: This is likely the area, that I have, using Lawrence's standard, "what have you changed your mind about?" question, become far more open minded. I no longer believe that one must necessarily wait X number of days to be fully recovered. Analogies have been drawn between suntans (Mike Mentzer) and the forming of callouses (Darden) and, as a wannabe guitar player, I know that callouses grow from daily low intensity practice. Again, this likely varies from individual to individual, but I can see where greater frequency may well benefit some, even if they do lower intensity (ntf workouts?).... Bringing volume back into the equation.... an example: If someone does work out 4, 5 or even 7 days a week, but the total number of intense sets are still moderate to low, then I do think the greater frequency can be beneficial to some, but even if not, I can't see how it would be detrimental. Perhaps my bias, but I also find a set of push ups or chin ups is a great way to start my day, and my own experience has been that I often increase the number of reps I do of the same exercise even repeating it 2, 3 or even 4 days in a row. Certainly skill acquisition could explain partially, and I will concede that reps are not standardized, but it does seem to contradict the idea that I need to be fully recovered, which would suggest that my performance should regress rather than progress.
Variety: Going back to measuring, I think a combination of standardized reps and bod pod measurements may be as close as we can get to objectively measuring results short of a muscle biopsy. While standardized reps offer an excellent measuring tool, I do believe variety helps me to keep intensity high because I train myself. When being trained by someone else, standardized reps to positive failure seem far more intense than when I train myself. However, by adding things like breakdowns, jreps, myo reps, rest pause, negatives, I make it impossible for me to "wimp out". There is evidence that different individuals will benefit more from lighter or heavier loads, shorter or longer sets etc, and some have suggested ways of determining this, but I'm not sure how accurate those methods, are, and I also suspect that they change over time, so I see no harm in adding variety and I think there would be a benefit in ensuring different fiber types are all getting stimulus.
Load/Progression: Recently evidence has been presented that one can get good results with lighter loads as long as they go to failure. That actually does make sense to me. In fact, if it is the last rep or three that is the actual stimulus, the number of reps that precede it, are likely not that relevant. Having said that, again, this will vary from individual to individual so to repeat my comments in variety, why not vary loads so that all fiber types can be stimulated. As for progression, not sure how much that matters other than as a measuring tool. I stated that measuring would be a combination of standardized reps and body composition measurements but the challenge I've long had with progression is that even very modest increases over a period of years quickly become huge numbers. If I do 10 reps in the pulldown with 100 lbs using the 4 seconds up, 2 second hold and 4 seconds down cadence, and I progress at the agonizingly slow pace of 1 lb per month, a 20 year old person would be using 340 lbs by the time he/she was 40. I don't know of too many people who can do that. Not really making a hard point here, but just stating that I take progression with a grain of salt.
Form: Critical for three reasons, the first being the most vital: Safety: Doesn't matter whether you agree with me on anything else, if you injure yourself, your results will suck. Secondly, effectiveness of an exercise by properly working the targeted muscles; important but probably overly emphasized, and I base this simply on the fact that big compound movements tend to work your body as a whole, however, back to point one safety, and thirdly for measurement: see previous comments on measuring progress in conjunction with measuring body composition. And, in defense, of loosening form... I have also speculated the following: while fully acknowledging the dangers inherent in bad form for the sake of more weight and/or reps, I have also considered that when focusing on form and "feeling" the burn, a set may be ended prematurely ended because one fully senses the effort, whereas someone fully focused on reaching a pre determined number of reps, may be more apt to ignore the pain, as they single mindedly drive towards their target.... also placebo effect: when people hit measurable targets, they believe in their progress, and albeit, it may be in large part be skill acquisition, the power of belief (placebo) may also contribute to actual progress. A balance between the two?
Sleep: Likely should be at the top of the list. All the research, the anecdotes, the arguments etc etc. are largely being done on a sleep deprived population. No matter what else you may be doing right, it is straightening chairs on the Titanic if you are actually sleep deprived. (in my not so humble opinion)
Nutrition: Can I summarize in one paragraph? Here goes: get enough protein, depending on your current size, gender, etc....between 120-220 grams per day most of it from animal sources. If your goal is muscle gain, then calories should be in a slight surplus, and if your goal is fat loss, then a slight deficit. Somewhere in that range, I do believe you can achieve both simultaneously. A wide variety of food from unprocessed sources including fruits and vegetables. (though I don't see a problem with carnivore diets) Breakdown of fat and/or carbs within these parameters likely not that big a deal. Your body can deal with either if total calories are as stated above, and you are getting from good sources. Don't seek to eliminate or overemphasize either. (carnivore? still thinking that one over) Grains are not the devil but I don't think the majority of your carbs should come from them. Processed vegetable oils are bad. Fasting, intermittent or occasional water fasts are good, and this could include potato hacks (google it), which in my opinion is just a variation on fasting, where the main benefit is to give your body a protein break. Most of the above is about health rather than hypertrophy, though obviously the two overlap.... for directly related to hypertrophy, it is about protein and calories. (speculation: alternating between carnivore and potato hacks?)
Non exercise activity: The idea that you need to do nothing between workouts in order to avoid interfering with your recovery is neither practical or advisable and I believe that is now generally accepted as having been early hit dogma. The logic seemed to make sense at the time, but new research shows differently. There are a myriad of health benefits from just moving a lot especially for those of us who are desk bound. It might make sense for a construction worker or an athlete. Taking the stairs, parking a block away and getting up and stretching, arm circles etc throughout the day, can enhance recovery, and in any case, what is the point of getting a stronger body if you don't take it out for a spin. Again, another thing I've changed my mind about.
So is HIT superior? I don't really know, or can't prove, but assuming you can find the optimal spot on all the continuums above, I suspect what you will end up with, whatever you choose to label it, will involve a greater emphasis on intensity than it will on volume and will by necessity, due to Arthur's principle that you can work hard but not very much, or you can work long but not very hard.
Thanks for reading.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
