Thread: HIT training
08-15-2005, 05:56 PM #1
anybody here beleive that the HIT routines or Dorian yates style training for and example (one set to failure) works as good of better than say multiple sets to faliure???
08-15-2005, 07:26 PM #2
In my college days, I used Yates method of one set of an exercise to failure with forced reps, negatives, etc. When you perform one set of an exercise, you can really put everything into that one set. The strength you will build is incredible. The advantage of multiple sets to failure would be, IMO, the opportunity to cause more damage to the muscle fibers and thus, result in a greater level of supercompensation of the targeted muscles. That's only if it's followed by proper nutrition and rest, of course.
10-11-2005, 07:09 PM #3Originally Posted by striker93
10-12-2005, 06:10 AM #4Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
You won't always get a full pump with just one set so multiple sets can achieve that. Notice that after the second set the muscles feel even tighter.
As for the first set, that is when most damage is done because you are not limited by other factors such as lactic acid buildup, lack of glycogen, lack of creatine and reduced nervous coordination. The first set allows your muscles to perform at their optimum so therefore the most damage is caused in that first set. Subsequent sets cause greater damage, but IMO the first set is really the one that counts and that is why I always go to complete failure with everythin I've got. I don't care if the second, third and fourth sets are quite a bit lower on reps.
10-12-2005, 07:10 AM #5
yates training method is great,it works very well ive use it for some years now but i do swap and change different methods all the time to confuse my body,,,,but i hurt like mad with the yates method,,,,always warm up tho
10-12-2005, 01:12 PM #6Originally Posted by Flexor
10-12-2005, 02:50 PM #7Banned
Originally Posted by IronReload04
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
Well this time I can't be bothered to consider anything
10-12-2005, 06:05 PM #8Originally Posted by Flexor
I mean think about it, to what extent do our muscles really need to be damaged to adapt and change. If we damage them too much, is it possible that maybe they will have a harder time adapting?
10-13-2005, 02:57 AM #9Junior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
hope u dont mind me chiming in...
yates is an idol of mine too, been following his program from the very start...
at first, i did the one-set strategy, but i felt that something wasn't right, so i did a litle research...m now doing the same program as before with some slight modification to suit my needs and with 3 sets on the big boy movements and 2 sets on the isolation excercises...
my basis was the following...read on...its from the shadow himself...
I started doing one main set per exercise only after I won my first Olympia in 1992. Prior to that, I had done two sets per exercise. Here's how my training workload and intensity evolved.
I started training in 1983 when the vogue was volume training--20 sets per bodypart was not uncommon. My instincts told me that was not the way to go, and as I researched bodybuilding, I became attracted to Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty system, which advocated intensity instead of volume. I started training four days a week, but very quickly felt I was overtraining and cut back to three times a week, working half the body at each session. After warm-ups, I did three sets of three exercises for large bodyparts and three sets of two exercises for smaller ones. With some slight modifications, this was my approach until 1986.
Feeling I'd gotten the most out of that format, I devised a three-way split in which I trained two major bodyparts per session. In conjunction with that, I reduced my workload and increased the intensity by cutting my main sets to two per exercise. With each workout lasting about 45 minutes. I was able to hit a four-times-a-week training schedule in which each bodypart was worked three times over a 14-day period. I was incorporating forced reps and sometimes rest-pause and negatives I applied these principles only to the last set of certain compound exercises. I stuck to this modus operandi right up to winning the 1992 Olympia, after which I was looking to increase the intensity even more.
My theory was that I had advanced to a stage where, with my strength and abilities to mentally focus, I could put 100% into one main set, go to failure and get the optimum muscular response. Even when I had been doing two sets per bodypart, I felt that maybe during set one I was holding something back in reserve for set two. Now, by doing one set, I knew everything could go--had to go--into that one effort.
In preparation for that one all-out effort, I would warm up thoroughly. For heavy compound movements, I would do three warm-up sets. The accompanying chart shows a typical schedule for incline barbell presses.
So that's how I developed my one-set strategy. It had taken nine years of hard training and application to build up to that level. It's tough, physically and mentally, to consistently put everything you have into one main set, but I believed in it. And with six Sandows, I have to believe it worked
hope i shared something worthwhile...
10-13-2005, 10:09 AM #10
amen a thousand times. great read. yates is also my favorite
10-13-2005, 10:09 AM #11
10-13-2005, 02:10 PM #12
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)