Are there any scientific research articles out there that argue the validity of HIT?
I’ll give you my 20 years of experience with HIT in a nutshell:
1] It can give you some strength and size in a very time-efficient manner.
2] It’s quite safe with slow controlled movements.
3] But, it is extremely hard on the central nervous system, and can fry you for work, or more importantly on this forum, your athletic activities.
It competes strongly with sprinting and other CNS-intensive sports to the point where if you try and do both, you will often be reduced to a charred piece of smoldering rubble in a matter of weeks.
Summary: There certainly are good studies showing it’s HIT’s efficacy in people not trying to perform simultaneouly as athletes. But, if you are an athlete, as David W. and Charlie have pointedly stated, DO NOT train weights to failure.
So why is this method so prevalent in professional and collegiate athletics? I don’t understand how these coaches believe that hypertrophy is the “cure all” for all strength requirements. WHERE do they get their information to substantiate their claims?
Greater than 99% of people have no idea how to train.
- It’s easy to program.
- The strength coaches who do this, like Dan Riley, bring more to the table than just HIT, and tend to have been somewhat successful in keeping football players strong and injury free.
- HIT under the guidance of a good coach is better than flailing around doing some of the stupid stuff I’ve seen.
I am not a big fan of HIT, but there are some decent strength coaches, particularly at the high collegiate level and professional level (football in particular) who haven’t done a bad job using it.
What exactly does “haven’t done a bad job” entail!?!..Are these athletes essentially surviving on God given talent alone!?! A strength coach’s job shouldn’t be to maintain the status quo, he should ELEVATE their level of preparedness not develop highly hypertrophied athletes with little to no gains in neuromuscular control/output. I’ve heard more than one HIT coach sit around and joke…“Whatcha doin?”…reply:“Countin Reps!!!What are you doin!?”…
HIT while in official guise would not really be considered the ideology of choice for athletes. But some of the underlying concepts are noteworthy for all of us.
For instance, HIT points out that a great many trainers are overtrained, and that overtraining isn’t just kind of bad, it’s the worst thing one can do. Very true.
Secondly, HIT correctly emphasizes adherence to good form and perfect reps. Not exactly a bad thing.
You know, the concept of less sometimes being more makes sense to me. It is the “going to complete failure at all costs” mentality which I take issue with. Like I said-It will FRY you.
There are loads of published articles related to HIT but they rarely use the term HIT to describe their Rx perscription. Look for anything by Westcott, Nelson, Pollock etc. For a few examples goto www.medxonline.com and look at thier research.
The thing you have to realise is, it doesn’t matter what exercise system you use. What is more important is what CF preaches “Match the exercise to the ability of your athletes”. As Shaf pointed out regarding Dan Riley, these good coaches do more than just prescribe sets and reps.
Remember, strength is a skill. Absolutes strength is a skill, explosive strength is a skill, speed strength is a skill, strength speed is a skill. HIT just train the skill part outside the weight room but they are basically doing the same thing as Olympic guys in terms of conditioning the nervous system.
Check out Jim Kielbaso post on the NSCA forums http://www.nsca.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=221&KW=Jim+Kielbaso&PN=0&TPN=2
for more info on why OLs may not be that essential to overall speed development. There are more factors involved than just how fast you can turn on and off your muscles and how quickly you can raise the level of tension (RFD).
Especially with young athletes you can often make quicker gains my saving time spent teaching olympic lifts and simply spending it on other other aspects of speed development (such as good form, proper mechanics for change of direction and learning to run relaxed).
Hope this helps.
http://www.abcwebtv.com/BeFit.html
First hand experience from someone that who had to make the choice at College level. But not really an indepth scientific explanation.
[QUOTE=tc0710]QUOTE]
Especially with young athletes you can often make quicker gains my saving time spent teaching olympic lifts and simply spending it on other other aspects of speed development (such as good form, proper mechanics for change of direction and learning to run relaxed).
tc, good post.
However I don’d understand why coaches find it so time consuming to teach children the oly. lifts. If you break the lift up properly the powerclean should not take more than 3 or 4 session to teach. And maybe another few before they become proficent at it. In that amount of time learning in taking place as well as CNS and PNS stimulation so I would say it is a waste of time nor do I think that time would be better off being spent on other aspects of speed devel. as you mentioned.
“Remember, strength is a skill. Absolutes strength is a skill, explosive strength is a skill, speed strength is a skill, strength speed is a skill. HIT just train the skill part outside the weight room but they are basically doing the same thing as Olympic guys in terms of conditioning the nervous system.”
“Especially with young athletes you can often make quicker gains my saving time spent teaching olympic lifts and simply spending it on other other aspects of speed development (such as good form, proper mechanics for change of direction and learning to run relaxed).”
Shouldn’t you structure the development of the athlete in a logical progression (i.e. like an educational system: addition/subtraction–>multiplication/division–>calculas, etc.)? How does HIT develop RFD, Starting strength, etc. outside of the weightroom? Doing what exercises? And why would time be of such a concern when discussing overall athletic development…shouldn’t quality be a concern at all!?
Shouldn’t you structure the development of the athlete in a logical progression
Good points. I guess everything is relative. It depends how good form has to be for you to accept it as proficient. While I agree you can teach the basics in 4 sessions, it takes time to learn the double knee bend, time to develop the back muscles and learn to maintain posture during the lifts and time to gain the skill required to optimise the lift (become proficient). Try teaching the lifts to a friend who doesn’t lift and be strict. Correct everything. You will be out of breath by the end of 10min . :eek:
I personally spend 10min a session for 6 months with a 5Kg bar for girls 15Kg for guys going over form for snatch and clean before I add any weight. I don’t set the lifts using weight for the majority of my athletes but I know sometime down the line someone who doesn’t know how to teach them (or teaches them but doesn’t correct form) will set it in their programs and I’d prefer them to know how to do it properly rather than just pick up a bar smack on 60Kg and start wrecking their joints. But that’s a lot of $$ they are paying to learn how not to get injured. Then again, if you plan on being a pro athlete it is money well spent.
As for developing all the different strength “characteristics” outside of the weight room, you’d better ask Charlie how Big Ben managed to do it, because that’s the way the HIT guys do it as well!
Blinky wrote “Greater than 99% of people have no idea how to train.” Yeah I am in that 99%, I suck but hey maybe someday I can sell being small and weak with tee shirts that are pink and say “tough guy” 
Quikazhell wrote "
tc, good post.
However I don’d understand why coaches find it so time consuming to teach children the oly. lifts. If you break the lift up properly the powerclean should not take more than 3 or 4 session to teach. And maybe another few before they become proficent at it. In that amount of time learning in taking place as well as CNS and PNS stimulation so I would say it is a waste of time nor do I think that time would be better off being spent on other aspects of speed devel. as you mentioned."
I think your right quik but how many strength coaches in college truely know how to perform these exercises properly, I get some info on how to do them and it was all wrong, I suck at them and the dude who taught me was a certified strength coach :eek: …also in order to learn to do them that takes time and effort, something some strength coaches would rather ignore!!! One more thing…Penn State is always being mentioned as using HIT methods, funny thing is Zatsiorksy works at the school, I wonder what he thinks of there program for football…I also wonder if the S&C coaches at Penn state even talk to him…maybe they don’t speak Sputnik??? 
Yeah, i’ve always wondered this. It seems a bit weird really! I read an interview with one of the guys who manages their training programs and he said he has sat in on a few of Zat’s seminars but never really discussed things… when probed deeper he dodged the question! Must be some tention. I think Kraemer (SPELLING!) also works there! So the poor S&C staff must feel pretty outnumbered!