HIT vs Volume Training

[zipkid]

I had lunch today with some personal trainers - some of them have trained some of the top bbers - and all concurred on one thing about training for mass - Volume Training. They said no matter what is said or written in magazines today - the guys (esp. those hitting their 30's and 40's) MUST do Volume Training to maximize mass gains. Period.

This just threw me right off. For a Mass Cycle I usually just up my protein / eating and do the typical HIT style of compound, multi-joint exercises.

They all casually stated that a 6 week Volume Training Cycle (using isolation exercises) followed by a 6 week HIT was the way to go for all out maximal mass gains. Seems this shocks & wakes up other muscle fibers not normally used in HIT training and causes a good mass gain in the short term and also allow you to train even better once doing a HIT cycle - as you now have MORE MUSCLE fibers activated.

This goes against EVERYTHING that I have heard about training. I have been hearing over and over that Volume Training was a myth – that no one really does this anymore, as it causes one to over train, etc.

What is your opinion in all of this; does this make sense? What would a program for you look like? What is your philosophy? Say a 12 – 14 week mass gain phase was the goal. That, with a good AAS Cycle at the same time.

ZipKid

[hermiti]

What did they consider volume training? Volume training to me is the average person's workout. My body has always responded best to hiting a body part 2x/week with low volume compound excercises for strength. For size I grow more with 2-3 workouts/week hitting a body part 1-2x/week using compound and accessory excercises. Of course the way that I workout, rest interval, exercise organization, rep and set range, varies greatly between the two. Either way, I'm doing nothing close to volume training.

---
8D~

[zipkid]

Each body part would be split up into 4 exercises of 5 sets each, hitting different muscle angles. This would be like 15-20 reps per exercise, using about 50% of your poundages, for up to 20 sets per body parts in total.

Rest would be 3 minutes between sets. To save time, you may combine say chest and biceps, and alternate between the two body parts for each set.

Volume Training done for 6 weeks, followed by 6 weeks of HIT. This would be a MASS Cycle.

ZipKid

[syphonfilter]

I think far more people do standard volume training, i.e., 10-15 or more sets per bodypart, than HIT training. You gotta remember there are so many different variations of HIT routines out there now as well.

Personally, I like HIT training, the standard one to two warm up sets, then an all out set to failure. I think it can provide fresh new gains, especially if one is overtrained, however, those gains seem to come quickly to an end. One can only train balls to the wall for so long and even HIT can result in overtraining. With that being said, I don't think you can build a good physique without "volume" training either.

The longer you train, the better your body responds to variation in training, both exercise and routines, adding HIT will certainly help, but IMO it's not the be all to end all training approach.

When I die I want to go like my grandfather, peacefully, in my sleep, not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car.

[jn6047]

I don't volume train at all and I've made some of my best gains in the last year. When I feel I'm running a little ragged, I take a few days off (4-7) and then change my routine a little. I'll follow a routine for around 3 months or more. Right now I just started doing a 4 day split (like Yate's in his Blood and Guts video, but less excercises in each workout), but normally stick to a 3 day split. You can definetly over-train on HIT, the key thing is knowing when to take a rest.

jn6047