Been reading a lot recently about HIT routines, and the variable versions of, and although there are slight variences between Mentzers HIT routine and others (Yates, Taylor etc)...the basis is that you figure out what is the MINIMUM amount of exercise that your muscles need in order to grow - instead of what is the MAXIMUM they can take before you are considered to be over training.
Which, in essence, is quite an interesting theory....i mean, why do 10 sets for chest when you can do 4? Or why do 6 sets for biceps....when you can do 2?
The whole 'weight training' world is filled with people that want to train harder, longer and so on....but sometimes, the 'less is more' theory can prove fruitful...certainly when overtraining, is just as bad (if not worse) than under training.
And if it were as simple as ' i'm not growing on 5 sets....so i'll up it to 7 sets' or 'i put on 2 lbs this month with 5 sets, so if i do 10 sets ...i'll put on 4lbs!'...then we'd all be huge, and certainly if it were just down to...'who trains the hardest'....then legions of those skinny little guys that train flat out for 2 hours per night, 5 days per week.....would actually be massive!
But ultimately...its not about who trains longest...or who trains hardest....or who can do 18 sets for biceps.....its about who trains smartest! (Given variences in genetics and responsiveness to training!)
So has anyone here thought about (or actualy applied) any of the HIT priciples? All out and crazy intensity on a few breif but BRUTAL sets, workouts that are mental, but lasting maybe only 20 minuts, applied only twice a week......as opposed to lots of multiple sets, over 60+ mintue workouts, maybe 5 days per week?