Golgo13
Rudy '08
High Intensity Training: Fitness and time are inversely proportional
By: John Jaquish
High Intensity Training, or Volume type training?
In the past 15 years, the term High Intensity Training (HIT) has been a controversial topic in the fitness industry. It is summarized as a method of training that is focused on the intensity of fewer exercises or a single exercise as the most efficient means to muscle growth and strength. This is entirely in contrast to traditional types of strength training, which are focused on the volume of exercise to be repeated on a daily or almost daily basis. HIT is a counter culture theory both in the fitness world and with the general public because it truly goes against the, “the more you work the better you get” attitude Instead it promotes a “work smarter, not harder” attitude.
Advocates of HIT feel that it is not only more effective than the volume training method, but in many cases the volume approach is counterproductive and can damage muscle tissue as well as hinder an individual’s ability to develop muscle on a long term basis. In fact, in a study conducted by R N Carpinelli, in “Berger in Retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength” [2], states,
The literature supports the recommendation of prescribing single-set programs performed to fatigue and indicates that the quality (intensity) and not the quantity of strength training may be the most important factor for developing muscle strength in sedentary persons (21-23).
HIT begin with the ideas of Arthur Jones, the founder of Nautilus. He started his company with the idea of making machines that the mainstream public could get interested in, as barbells and dumbbells seemed intimidating for many. As he begun to develop these machines he noticed that for many people, following the programs of professional weightlifters and athletes led to little or no success. Realizing that many of these athletes were not only genetic anomalies, but were also using various anabolic compounds (steroids) that altered their recovery ability, he and his colleague Ellington Darden, PhD. came to the conclusion that these programs for building muscle and strength were not practical for the mainstream public who was not genetically advantaged or supplementing themselves with steroids. Hence his prescribed programs involved an incredibly brief workout that only involved doing one set per muscle group and lasted only a few minutes, only to be repeated 3 times per week, specifically: Ellington Darden, PhD. quoting Arthur Jones (1986) [3],
You cannot stand much in the way of high intensity exercise. It must be brief and infrequent.
Through training many individuals Jones and his theories began to catch the interest of many in the fitness industry, one of those being Mike Mentzer, a professional bodybuilder.
Mentzer not only applied some of the HIT practices in his training but he analyzed and applied them to some private client training he was doing at the time. He noticed that many individuals he put through these High Intensity sessions made dramatic progress at first, then seemed to plateau. His conclusion was that these individuals just needed a longer recovery period as they progressed. In other words the more highly developed an individual’s muscle tissue became, a longer recovery period was required for the individual to both recover from a given exercise stimulation, and continue to the tissue fortification process which only takes place after the initial recovery. Mentzer’s conclusion to his theory was self-published in 1996 in his book “Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body”. Some of the prescribed workouts in the book detailed how some individuals should only do two different exercises per workout (meaning just two sets) alternated with a different two set workout every two weeks, meaning that an entire month could go by before repeating a single exercise.
After publicizing these conclusions Mentzer was basically considered insane by the strength training industry, as they used the rational of “that much exercise just isn’t enough.” To this day the majority of the industry chooses to ignore Mentzer’s research, even though the scientific process justifies its superiority.
Mentzer continued from the early 80’s into the late 90’s pushing his message against the traditional illogical approach to training. Though the majority of the strength-training professionals are still slow to understand Mentzer’s scientific studies, many individuals in the medical industry took notice and High Intensity Training has been a developing trend in rehabilitation clinics. Unfortunately Mike Mentzer passed away on June 10, 2001 of a heart attack, heart problems had plagued his family for generations.
The theories of Mike Mentzer were actually simple; make progress with each exercise session. When progress slows or halts, it is due to overtraining, therefore volume of exercise must decrease and intensity must increase. There are three elements that Mentzer identified as paramount in the effort to further development with HIT:
Lower volume:
As individuals continue to develop muscle, the existing muscle fibers that have increased in size already, need more time to recover, but at the same time less exercise is needed (as long as intensity doesn’t drop) over the same given period of time.
An example: An individual trains his/her entire body in a workout using 4 exercises. He or she makes progress each week for a few weeks, and then progress begins to slow down. The individual then begins to train only half the body one week then the other half the next week. Progress begins again.
Increase rest time:
Individuals who begin to make progress with one given program with a given amount of exercise over a certain amount of time will eventually need more time between workouts. It must be kept in mind that muscle growth is a three-phase process, the first being the stimulation (exercise session), then the body’s recovery system aiding the muscle in returning to the undamaged state it was before the exercise session, and finally the phase of tissue fortification. This last phase is where growth occurs, if an individual doesn’t wait for this phase to complete, he or she will just create a greater inroad in the system’s recovery ability in general and will not make any progress.
An example: Assuming the individual in the above example makes progress for a few months or so, then progress begins to slow, therefore half the body, including 2 exercises performed each week becomes overtraining, the only answer is to add an extra week of rest time. Therefore on week one the person will exercise half the body using two exercises, on week two the individual will exercise the other half of the body, then week three will be a rest week where no exercise will occur.
Increase intensity:
There are many different ways that Mentzer and others have developed to increase intensity, some of them being forced reps, negative-only, and rest-pause training, however the most powerful was one Mentzer called “Peak contraction.” [4] The statements of Mike Mentzer (2002) in regard to Peak Contraction training are,
As we must generate progressively stronger muscular contractions to stimulate maximum increases in size and strength, two conditions must be met: (1) since muscle fibers contract by reducing their length, a muscle would have to be in the fully contracted or peak, position if all the fibers were to be contracted simultaneously; (2) to get all the fibers contracted at the same time, one would have to impose a load that was intense enough to activate all of the muscle’s fibers.
Obviously when an individual does any exercise, momentary muscular failure doesn’t occur at this peak point… Quite the contrary is the case, using the bench press as an example; individuals doing this exercise go to failure at the bottom portion of this exercise, meaning when the bar is almost touching the chest, this is of course the most difficult portion of the exercise, so going to failure there would make sense, however why would one want to go to failure in the weakest part of the exercise? By definition this effort in inefficient, a person is going to failure in their weakest range of motion through the exercise goes to failure with the least amount of available muscle fibers contracted.
By using the Peak Contraction principal one would go to failure in the strongest part of an exercise, meaning where the maximum amount of fiber is contracted thus creating the greatest amount of growth stimulation. Using the bench press exercise as an example, one would load the bar with much more weight than he or she could work with in a full range effort and take the bar just 2 or 3 inches below where the elbows are locked out at the top of the movement. When the person goes to failure here after only holding the weight in position for a few seconds the exercise is completed.
Reference:
1. RN Carpinelli, Berger in Retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength,
Published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine (2002).
2. Greg Anderson, High Intensity Strength Training: More aerobic than “Aerobics,” Copyright 1995, 1997 Greg Anderson.
3. Ellington Darden, PhD.. Super High-Intensity Bodybuilding. Published by Perigee Books (1986)
4. Mike Mentzer, John R. Little (Contributor). High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way. McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books; (December 13, 2002).
By: John Jaquish
High Intensity Training, or Volume type training?
In the past 15 years, the term High Intensity Training (HIT) has been a controversial topic in the fitness industry. It is summarized as a method of training that is focused on the intensity of fewer exercises or a single exercise as the most efficient means to muscle growth and strength. This is entirely in contrast to traditional types of strength training, which are focused on the volume of exercise to be repeated on a daily or almost daily basis. HIT is a counter culture theory both in the fitness world and with the general public because it truly goes against the, “the more you work the better you get” attitude Instead it promotes a “work smarter, not harder” attitude.
Advocates of HIT feel that it is not only more effective than the volume training method, but in many cases the volume approach is counterproductive and can damage muscle tissue as well as hinder an individual’s ability to develop muscle on a long term basis. In fact, in a study conducted by R N Carpinelli, in “Berger in Retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength” [2], states,
The literature supports the recommendation of prescribing single-set programs performed to fatigue and indicates that the quality (intensity) and not the quantity of strength training may be the most important factor for developing muscle strength in sedentary persons (21-23).
HIT begin with the ideas of Arthur Jones, the founder of Nautilus. He started his company with the idea of making machines that the mainstream public could get interested in, as barbells and dumbbells seemed intimidating for many. As he begun to develop these machines he noticed that for many people, following the programs of professional weightlifters and athletes led to little or no success. Realizing that many of these athletes were not only genetic anomalies, but were also using various anabolic compounds (steroids) that altered their recovery ability, he and his colleague Ellington Darden, PhD. came to the conclusion that these programs for building muscle and strength were not practical for the mainstream public who was not genetically advantaged or supplementing themselves with steroids. Hence his prescribed programs involved an incredibly brief workout that only involved doing one set per muscle group and lasted only a few minutes, only to be repeated 3 times per week, specifically: Ellington Darden, PhD. quoting Arthur Jones (1986) [3],
You cannot stand much in the way of high intensity exercise. It must be brief and infrequent.
Through training many individuals Jones and his theories began to catch the interest of many in the fitness industry, one of those being Mike Mentzer, a professional bodybuilder.
Mentzer not only applied some of the HIT practices in his training but he analyzed and applied them to some private client training he was doing at the time. He noticed that many individuals he put through these High Intensity sessions made dramatic progress at first, then seemed to plateau. His conclusion was that these individuals just needed a longer recovery period as they progressed. In other words the more highly developed an individual’s muscle tissue became, a longer recovery period was required for the individual to both recover from a given exercise stimulation, and continue to the tissue fortification process which only takes place after the initial recovery. Mentzer’s conclusion to his theory was self-published in 1996 in his book “Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body”. Some of the prescribed workouts in the book detailed how some individuals should only do two different exercises per workout (meaning just two sets) alternated with a different two set workout every two weeks, meaning that an entire month could go by before repeating a single exercise.
After publicizing these conclusions Mentzer was basically considered insane by the strength training industry, as they used the rational of “that much exercise just isn’t enough.” To this day the majority of the industry chooses to ignore Mentzer’s research, even though the scientific process justifies its superiority.
Mentzer continued from the early 80’s into the late 90’s pushing his message against the traditional illogical approach to training. Though the majority of the strength-training professionals are still slow to understand Mentzer’s scientific studies, many individuals in the medical industry took notice and High Intensity Training has been a developing trend in rehabilitation clinics. Unfortunately Mike Mentzer passed away on June 10, 2001 of a heart attack, heart problems had plagued his family for generations.
The theories of Mike Mentzer were actually simple; make progress with each exercise session. When progress slows or halts, it is due to overtraining, therefore volume of exercise must decrease and intensity must increase. There are three elements that Mentzer identified as paramount in the effort to further development with HIT:
Lower volume:
As individuals continue to develop muscle, the existing muscle fibers that have increased in size already, need more time to recover, but at the same time less exercise is needed (as long as intensity doesn’t drop) over the same given period of time.
An example: An individual trains his/her entire body in a workout using 4 exercises. He or she makes progress each week for a few weeks, and then progress begins to slow down. The individual then begins to train only half the body one week then the other half the next week. Progress begins again.
Increase rest time:
Individuals who begin to make progress with one given program with a given amount of exercise over a certain amount of time will eventually need more time between workouts. It must be kept in mind that muscle growth is a three-phase process, the first being the stimulation (exercise session), then the body’s recovery system aiding the muscle in returning to the undamaged state it was before the exercise session, and finally the phase of tissue fortification. This last phase is where growth occurs, if an individual doesn’t wait for this phase to complete, he or she will just create a greater inroad in the system’s recovery ability in general and will not make any progress.
An example: Assuming the individual in the above example makes progress for a few months or so, then progress begins to slow, therefore half the body, including 2 exercises performed each week becomes overtraining, the only answer is to add an extra week of rest time. Therefore on week one the person will exercise half the body using two exercises, on week two the individual will exercise the other half of the body, then week three will be a rest week where no exercise will occur.
Increase intensity:
There are many different ways that Mentzer and others have developed to increase intensity, some of them being forced reps, negative-only, and rest-pause training, however the most powerful was one Mentzer called “Peak contraction.” [4] The statements of Mike Mentzer (2002) in regard to Peak Contraction training are,
As we must generate progressively stronger muscular contractions to stimulate maximum increases in size and strength, two conditions must be met: (1) since muscle fibers contract by reducing their length, a muscle would have to be in the fully contracted or peak, position if all the fibers were to be contracted simultaneously; (2) to get all the fibers contracted at the same time, one would have to impose a load that was intense enough to activate all of the muscle’s fibers.
Obviously when an individual does any exercise, momentary muscular failure doesn’t occur at this peak point… Quite the contrary is the case, using the bench press as an example; individuals doing this exercise go to failure at the bottom portion of this exercise, meaning when the bar is almost touching the chest, this is of course the most difficult portion of the exercise, so going to failure there would make sense, however why would one want to go to failure in the weakest part of the exercise? By definition this effort in inefficient, a person is going to failure in their weakest range of motion through the exercise goes to failure with the least amount of available muscle fibers contracted.
By using the Peak Contraction principal one would go to failure in the strongest part of an exercise, meaning where the maximum amount of fiber is contracted thus creating the greatest amount of growth stimulation. Using the bench press exercise as an example, one would load the bar with much more weight than he or she could work with in a full range effort and take the bar just 2 or 3 inches below where the elbows are locked out at the top of the movement. When the person goes to failure here after only holding the weight in position for a few seconds the exercise is completed.
Reference:
1. RN Carpinelli, Berger in Retrospect: effect of varied weight training programmes on strength,
Published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine (2002).
2. Greg Anderson, High Intensity Strength Training: More aerobic than “Aerobics,” Copyright 1995, 1997 Greg Anderson.
3. Ellington Darden, PhD.. Super High-Intensity Bodybuilding. Published by Perigee Books (1986)
4. Mike Mentzer, John R. Little (Contributor). High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way. McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books; (December 13, 2002).
