Amazing how “horribly wrong” some people claim Mentzer was when there is ample evidence that his principles do and have worked. I have actually gained 20 lbs in 10 months strictly using his workout. With no fat addition.
I looked at that hypertrophy page and it sure does look scientific. If I were a professional trainer or body builder, I might actually try to read through it, but not anytime soon. I want to be healthy with a large muscular physique, but, like me, there are few who want to look like that guy in the photo or spend their time learning whatever that says and compare it to all the other “scientific bodybuilding” theories out there to go workout. If you do, so be it.
Mentzer’s thoughts were not the end-all in body building, but he laid a pretty good foundation. His workout is very simple and shows good results for some time. If you are a not a beginner and not a professional body builder, his high intensity workout is just fine.
As a person progresses, then his workout knowledge, his charts, and his knowledge of his ability will also.
Its great to learn how to workout the best ways and to keep up with current thinking, but I really disagree with those who scoff at worthy ideas. And its worse when they turn around suggest some highly complicated and difficult theory.
Think of it like this: “I’m learning math. I just got this great book on algebra.” “Oh, that stuff sucks. Here’s this great guy who writes about differential multi-variable equations.”
I don’t mean to bash Mentzer, but his theories have zero scientific evidence behind them, & are based strictly on his imagination. Sure HIT might work for some people, but that doesn’t mean another program won’t work better. I agree that HST can be confusing since it’s based on independent, peer-reviewed research, & not somebody’s imagination. There is a layman’s book being released soon, so wait for that.
"HIT or HD
To understand any comparison to HIT or HD use the following definitions:
Intensity = percentage of voluntary strength. In HIT terms it is equal to “perceived effort”.
Maximum capability - maximum voluntary strength
HST does not equal HIT. Except perhaps that they both have an H and a T in their acronyms.
-
HIT’s measuring stick is based on strength (performance).
-
HST’s measuring stick is based on growth (size).
-
HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight.
-
HST is based on progressively loading the tissue.
-
HIT’s goal is fatigue.
-
HST’s goal is hypertrophy.
-
HIT is based on a philosophy of stress.
-
HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells.
-
HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones.
-
HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers.
Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate “growth”. This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn’t necessary to push against a weight that won’t move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth.
After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn’t get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus).
HIT training takes this “deconditioning” too far. They think the muscle is “recovering” when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated."
"I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye’s GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.
HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle’s current condition. These types of things can’t be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn’t be expected to incorporate these methods.
My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to “intensity.” Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn’t necessarily measure a set’s ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80’s. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth."