MITÄ ON HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING (HIT)?
High Intensity Training is a form of progressive resistance exercise characterized by a high level of effort and relatively brief and infrequent workouts, as opposed to typical training methods involving low to moderate levels of effort and longer, more frequent workouts. Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones helped define and popularize high intensity training in the 1970’s, often summarizing the general philosophy as “…train harder, but train briefer” or “…train harder, but train less often”. - Drew Baye
YLIKUORMITUS
Treenaaminen kovaa ja intensiivisesti saa aikaan suuren ylikuormituksen, joka taas tekee treenistä erittäin tehokasta. Stimuloidaksesi voiman ja lihaksien kasvua on treenattava erittäin kovaa. Lihakset tulee kuormittaa rasituksella joka on suurempi kuin mihin se on jo ennestään tottunut. HIT-treenit tehdään "kaikki-irti-periaatteella", jossa tehdään VAIN YKSI - 1 - SARJA per liike, ja tuo sarja viedään ns. loppuun asti, eli failureen (MMF; momentary muscular failure). MMF tarkoittaa käytännössä sitä, että sarja tehdää siihen asti kun viimeisen toiston (määräävin toisto; Mike Mentzer) jälkeen ei ole enää mahdollista tehdä yhtäkään toistoa PUHTAASTI. Toistot tulisi tehdä erittäin puhtaasti ja kontrolloidusti - mistä tarkemmin alempana. Vaikka MMF ei ole tarpeellista stimuloidakseen kasvua (lihaksisto/voima), se on erittäin hyödyllinen keino varmistua, että tarpeellinen stimulaatio saadaan aikaiseksi. Tästäkin lisää alempana.
LYHYTKESTOISET TREENIT
Välttääksesi treenistä johtuvaa ylirasistusta on treenattava erittäin kovaa, mutta lyhytkestoisesti. Keskimäärin HIT-treeni kestää n. 30 minuuttia, mutta jotkin erittäin alhaisella volyymilla tehtävät treenit voivat kestää vain 10 minuuttia. Yksilötasolla on erittäin paljon eroavaisuuksia kuinka suurella tai pienellä volyymilla henkilö voi treenejä tehdä. Volyymi pitää optimoida tavoitteiden sekä kehon vastaanottokyvyn mukaan.
FREKVENSSI
Kun treenataan kovaa ja intensiivisesti, keho rasittuu erittäin paljon. Liian usein treenaaminen johtaa ylitreenaamiseen, koska keho ei palaudu treenien välissä. Ylitreenaaminen - kuten jokaisen tulisi tietää - pysäyttää kehittymisen ja pahimmillaan jopa huonontaa tuloksia, ja myös muut terveysongelmat saattavat nostaa päätään.
Enemmistön ei tulisi treenata kuin maksimissaan 3 kertaa viikossa. Treenejä EI tehdä peräkkäisinä päivinä. Keskiverto-Pertille (ja Martalle, tasa-arvon nimissä...) 2 koko-kropan treeniä viikossa on hyvä lähtökohta. Kehittyneiden ja/tai huonon palautumiskyvyn omaavien kohdalla frekvenssi voi olla vieläkin alhaisempi, esim. kerran viikossa tai jopa vielä harvemmin. Tästäkin tarkemmin alempana.
VAIN 1 SARJA - RIITTÄÄKÖ SE?
1. LIIKERATA
Mitä tahansa harjoitetta tehtäessä tulisi kiinnittää huomiota liikerataan. Liikkeet tulisi suorittaa maksimaalisella liikeradalla, jolla myös kuormitus on suurempi. Liikeradan maksimaalisuuteen vaikuttaa se, että tehdäänkö ko. liike vapailla painoilla vai koneessa. On olemassa erittäin hyviä ja tehokkaita vapailla painoilla tehtäviä liikkeitä, mutta yleensä ongelmaksi muodostuu vajaaksi jäävä liikerata. Esim. hauiskääntö tangolla. Kun otetaan huomioon miten yleensä hauiskääntöä (tangolla) tehdään, niin liikkeettä aloittaessa (konsentrinen osuus) ei juurikaan ole vastusta, varsinkin jos kädet ovat suorina. Sitten kun saavutaan liikkeen puoliväliin, vastus on suurimmillaan. Jälleen liikkeen loppuvaiheessa liikkeessä ei taaskaan ole juuri ollenkaan vastusta, ottaen huomioon, että yleensä tanko "lepää" liikkeen huipussa, varsinkin jos kyynärpäät menevät tankoa edemmäksi. Mikä tähän ratkaisuksi?
Hauiskääntöä tehtäessä käsivarsien ei tulisi olla pystysuuntaisesti lattiaa/kattoa kohti missään liikkeen vaiheessa. Eli liikkeen alussa vartalon tulisi olla suorassa, mutta käsien tulisi olla hieman koukussa ja painopiste tulisi olla hieman sinun edessäsi, niin että lihaksessa on merkittävä vastus heti liikkeen alusta loppuun asti. Loppu vaiheessa ei tulisi nojata taakse, niin että kyynärpäät työntyvät eteen tangon "ali", vaan tulisi nojata eteenpäin hieman, jotta painopiste pysyy kyynärpäiden edessä. (How To Build Bigger Arms | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye)
Jos liikkeessä on mahdollista ns. "lukitus" (esim. jalkaprässi: polvet lukittuvat kun jalat ovat suorina), niin tulisi sitä välttää. Ideana on se, että kun lihas pysyy mahdollisimman paljon kuormituksen alaisena koko liikeradan, niin luonnollisesti liike on tällöin tehokkaampi. Drew Baye mainitsee myös (Drew Baye Super Charged - YouTube), että jalkojen epäsymmetrisyydestä (eri pituiset jalat) johtuen "lukitus" voi lisätä tapaturmariskiä.
Liikkeistä saadaan myös täydempiä kun otetaan huomioon staattiset pidot, mikäli ne ovat ko. liikkeessä mahdollista. Esimerkiksi vipunosto sivulle käsipainoilla tai vaikkapa leuanveto ovat hyviä siihen. Kun käsipainot viedään yläasentoon vipunostossa, niin liike voidaan pysäyttää esim. 2 sekunniksi. Leuanvedossa sama onnistuu liikkeen yläosassa. Tämä onnistuu myös reisiojennuksessa, kulmasoudussa, ylätaljassa jne.
2. TOISTOMÄÄRÄ JA TOISTOJEN NOPEUS (LUE: HITAUS)
Yleensä HIT-sarjojen toistomäärä on keskimäärin 6-10 toistoa (Mike Mentzer, Drew Baye), mutta toki suurempia tai pienempiäkin toistomääriä voidaan käyttää (Ellington Darden, Arthur Jones). Kuitenkin se mikä yleensä jää mainitsematta, varsinkin yleisessä fitness-teollisuudessa, on toistojen nopeuteen liittyvät seikat, eli ns. kadenssi (Mike Mentzer, Drew Baye). Kadenssilla tässä asiayhteydessä tarkoitetaan käytännössä sitä, että kuinka kauan itse toisto kestää, ts. kuinka nopeasti tai hitaasti toistot tulisi tehdä. Mike Mentzer esim. käytti viimeisinä vuosinaan (ainakin joidenkin asiakkaidensa kohdalla) 4/4 kadenssia, mikä siis tarkoittaa sitä, että liikkeen positiivinen (konsentrinen) osuus kestää 4 sekuntia ja liikkeen negatiivinen osuus (eksentrinen) myös 4 sekuntia. Kontrolloidusti tehdyt toistot ovat turvallisempia sekä tehokkaampia:
Mike advocated that repetitions should be performed slowly and deliberately with the weight always under full control to maximise muscle tension. In Muscles in Minutes©, he advocated a duration of about four seconds on the positive (lifting) and the same on the negative (lowering) portion of the repetition on most exercises, with a two second pause in the fully contracted position. Comprehensive reviews of this topic (Bruce-Low & Smith, 2007; Carpinelli et al., 2004) have supported Mike’s claim that a relatively slow cadence can produce optimal gains in strength and hypertrophy, but that ‘super slow’ (10:4 to 10:10 cadence) training does not offer additional advantages (Mike held that conducting “super slow” training beyond his recommended cadence could actually hold back the bodybuilder’s progress, because he would get tired quicker). For example, Johnston (2005) considered force production in a case study, reporting little difference in forces generated or experienced where movement was performed at repetition durations that maintained muscular tension (including 10:10, 5:5, and 2:4 (concentric: eccentric). Nevertheless, when attempting to move the load explosively, forces increased by as much as 45% initially, but then decreased by 85% for most of the repetition. This is likely due to the excess force provided to overcome the inertia being so great that momentum carries the weight through the rest of the range of motion. Johnston suggested that explosive lifts would likely recruit fewer muscle fibres due to momentum and that the diminished recruitment through most of the range of motion would be less effective for enhancing muscle function. This has previously been reported by Hay et al. (1983) with arm curl exercises. A study by Tran, Docherty and Behm (2006) considered decrement in force production and rate of force development, noting significantly larger decreases following sets of 10 repetitions at a 5:5 repetition duration compared to 10 repetitions at 2:2, and 5 repetitions at 10:4 repetition durations. This larger decrease in force production suggests fatigue in a larger proportion of muscle fibres, potentially stimulating greater growth and strength/power gains. Also, Bruce-Low and Smith (2007) specifically considered the risk of injury from ballistic exercises, reporting some disturbing statistics suggesting that explosive lifting can cause injuries to the wrist, shoulder, elbow and lumbar regions. Overall, therefore, Mike’s recommendation of a relatively slow speed of movement during resistance exercise seems both efficacious and prudent according to the research findings. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
Lisäksi:
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 1 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 2 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 3 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 4 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 5 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Mikä sitten on riittävän hidas? Tarkoitus on eliminoida liikevoiman vaikutus, sekä lisätä lihakseen kohdistuvaa kuormitusta, siihen esim. Mentzerin suosittelema 4/4 kadenssi on varsin riittävä, ja jopa vanha Nautilus protokolla, eli 2 sekunnin positiivinen osuus ja 4 sekunnin negatiivinen osuus, ajaisi saman asian. 3-5 sekuntia voisi olla hyvä nyrkkisääntö.
Ks. myös SuperSlow Training, Ken Hutchins and the SuperSlow Zone | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
3. TUL
TUL eli "time under load". Ajallisesti yksi sarja on riittävä kuormittamaan lihasta:
[sarjat x toistot x kadenssi]
4 x 10 x 1/1 = 80 sekuntia (1 sekunnin positiivinen ja negatiivinen osuus: 2 sekuntia per toisto)
1 x 10 x 4/4 = 80 sekuntia (4 sekunnin positiivinen ja negativiinen osuus: 8 sekuntia per toisto)
Ja kun otetaan huomioon, että tuo yksi sarja tehdään failureen ja jos mahdollista niin liikkeessä käytetään staattisia pitoja, niin 1 toisto on helposti 10 sekuntia. "Vain" yhdeksi sarjaksi erittäin tehokasta, eikö vain?
Yleensä HIT:iä kritisoidaan kaikenlaisilla argumenteilla, ja yksi niistä argumenteista on, se ettei yksi sarja riitä. Ja miksi treenin kokonaisvolyymia ei oteta huomioon kun tällaisia argumentteja tehdään? Esimerkiksi, jos tehdään 2 liikettä (10:llä toistolla) vaikkapa yläselälle tuolla kyseisellä 4/4 kadenssilla, niin sehän vastaa samaa ajallisesti kuin 2 liikettä joissa tehdään 4 sarjaa (10:llä toistolla) 1/1 kadenssilla. Tietysti tuo 1/1 kadenssi on hyvin summittainen, mutta hyvin nopeita toistoja yleensä treeneissä käytetään. Ja itse vielä huomauttaisin liikevoiman vaikutuksesta. Vaikka näin matemaattisesti näyttäsikin olevan yhdentekevää, että tekisi nuo sarjat 4 x 10 x 1/1 menetelmällä versus 1 x 10 x 4/4, niin kuormitus on silti suurempi noissa hitaammissa sarjoissa, eikö vain? Toisto on todella paljon helpompi tehdä nopeasti.
4. MMF
1. There is no way to know the exact level of intensity required to stimulate maximum muscular strength and size increases. There is also no way to accurately measure intensity of effort during exercise except when one has reached MMF, at which point the intensity (the percentage of your maximum momentary capability you are working at) is 100%. The only way to know you have trained intensely enough to stimulate the maximum possible response is to perform an exercise to the point of MMF.
2. Optimum long term progress requires adjusting the volume and frequency of your training to your body’s response to exercise. Part of this is being able to compare exercise performance between workouts. If you do not perform an exercise to failure there is no way to know how many repetitions or seconds of time under load you could have done, so there is no way to objectively compare your strength between workouts.
3. Motor units are recruited in order from smallest to largest. Over the course of an exercise as smaller motor units are fatigued, more and larger motor units are recruited to maintain the required level of force (until all the motor units are recruited at which point rate coding is increased to maintain force output). The motor units with the greatest potential for strength and size increases are the last to be recruited. Training to MMF ensures you have recruited all of the motor units, including the high threshold ones. - Drew Baye
Mike often focused in his writing on his principle of ‘intensity’, which he defined as the percentage of momentary muscular effort being exerted (see, for example, High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way©, chapter 5). This in itself is controversial, as the term ‘intensity’ is often used in the literature to refer to load. For example, and typically, Willardson and Burkett (2008) and Fry (2004) point out that it is a common term for percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM). This definition is problematic. For instance according to this definition, if one individual performs an exercise with a weight of 80% of 1RM, and performs one easy repetition with that weight, this person is training more ‘intensely’ than another individual who performs a hard set to momentary muscular failure with 79% of their 1RM. Clearly this is nonsensical; Mike’s definition of intensity seems much more logical as it refers to how the word ‘intensity’ is usually used in the exercise setting, i.e. to refer to the severity of the exercise. He argued that trainees should exercise to the point of failure, as this will ensure individuals make a sufficient inroad into the body’s reserve capacity to stimulate muscular adaptations:
“Carrying a set to a point where you are forced to utilize 100 percent of your momentary ability is the single most important factor in increasing size and strength” --- Mike Mentzer (High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way©, p. 41).
A similar suggestion was made by Willardson (2008), who suggested that training to momentary muscular failure may provide greater stimulation to the higher threshold fast-twitch motor units which are capable of producing the greatest increases in strength and hypertrophy. Thus, training to momentary muscular failure is theoretically more beneficial simply because doing so would ensure recruitment of as many motor units and muscle fibres as possible. Unfortunately, few studies have directly addressed the concept of training to momentary muscular failure whilst accurately controlling for other variables such as load, volume and frequency. Those that have, however, have produced some interesting findings.
For example, Rodney et al. (1994) reported significantly greater gains (41.2% to 19.7%) in dynamic strength when training to muscular failure compared to sub-maximal sets of exercise. Similarly, Schott et al. (1995) reported significantly greater gains in isometric strength when training to failure compared to stopping the exercise short of failure (24.9kg to 14.3kg), and Drinkwater et al. (2005) reported significantly greater dynamic strength gains (9.5% to 5%), and also peak power for a bench press throw exercise when training to muscular failure compared to not training to failure (40.8W/10.6% to 25W/6.8%). Notably Folland et al. (2002) reported no significant difference in strength increase between a training time of around 7 minutes (to failure) and 25 minutes (not to failure), suggesting that the same strength gains could be achieved in approximately 30% of the time by training to momentary muscular failure. Overall, therefore, the evidence suggests that individuals should be encouraged to train to momentary muscular failure, as this appears to maximize muscle fibre recruitment and leads to greater improvements than sub-failure training. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
5. VOLYYMI JA FREKVENSSI
Mike argued that one set to failure per exercise was sufficient to trigger an adaptive response and that any more exercise would simply be wasted effort and possibly counterproductive in that it would increase the likelihood of overtraining:
“…one set to failure is all that is required to stimulate an increase in strength and size – with no number of lesser sets having the same effect” – Mike Mentzer (Muscles In Minutes, p. 26).
The number of sets is one of the most controversial issues in resistance training, and one of the most well-researched. Reviews, such as those conducted by Carpinelli and Otto (1998) and Smith and Bruce-Low (2004), have concluded that one set per exercise produces optimal results. In the Carpinelli and Otto paper, they found that single sets produced optimal results in 33 studies out of the 35 they reviewed. In contrast, Peterson et al. (2004, 2005) also analyzed this issue and claimed that multiple sets were superior. However, their own data clearly did not support their conclusions as in fact there was no statistically significant difference between the effect sizes of the different training volumes (see Carpinelli’s excellent 2009 article for a discussion of this issue). Overall, therefore, the weight of evidence strongly supports the HEAVY DUTY™, one set to failure approach. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
How much exercise you should do and how often depends on several factors. Due to genetic differences individuals vary in how much of any kind of physical stress their bodies can tolerate within some time period, and how quickly they recover from and adapt to it. This is also heavily influenced by your diet, how much sleep you get, and other stresses including the demands of your job and other activities. All else being equal, someone with a desk job who does a few hours of light recreational activity a few days a week can train longer and more frequently without overtraining than someone who has a very physically demanding job or does several hours of hard athletic training most days of the week.
Your goals must also be considered because some aspects of recovery may require more or less time than others, some adaptations may be produced or lost more slowly or quickly, and some goals may benefit from the acute effects of exercise thus more frequent training. For example, the optimal frequency for improving metabolic conditioning may be higher than for improving muscular strength and size for some individuals, so one might train with more or less volume or frequency depending on their priorities.
Fortunately, although the range of volume and frequency that is optimal for any particular goal (produces the fastest possible improvement) may be narrow (and is also a moving target since it is affected by many other non-constant variables), the range that is effective (produces consistent, measurable or noticeable improvement) is a bit broader, so for most people it is not necessary to fuss too much over it. If the requirements for effectively stimulating improvements in functional ability were too precise the adaptive responses would have been of no survival value and not have evolved.
As long as you train consistently and with a high level of effort very little exercise is required for good results. Minimally, you need to perform one set each of enough exercises to work all the major muscle groups (those involved in gross body movement as opposed to fine movements of the hands, fingers, feet, toes, mouth, etc.), and work out just frequently enough that you do not allow any improvements produced in response to the workout to be lost due to detraining. Considering clients consistently match or exceed their previous workout performance after being gone for a month or more due to work or vacations I suspect the minimum effective frequency for most people is very, very low. As your workout volume and frequency increases you will very quickly hit a point of diminishing returns; research shows no significant differences in strength increases between performing single and multiple sets of an exercise and little difference in results between training once, twice, or three times per week.
I recommend twice-weekly full body workouts as a starting point for most people because beginners usually don’t train hard enough to get as much out of less training and the higher frequency benefits learning and skill practice and neural adaptations, and once a trainee has become more skilled and capable of training more intensely it isn’t too much for most people to recover from and adapt to. That being said, for the majority of people just one, brief full-body workout a week is effective as long as they are training hard enough.
Diminishing returns is not the same as no returns, however, and while for most of people it makes little sense to invest fifty to one hundred percent more time and effort for only a few percent more improvement over weeks or months, for a few it does. If you are a competitive athlete or work in a profession where your life or the lives of others may depend on your physical capabilities a small percent can make a big difference. If you want to improve as quickly as possible you have to go past the point of diminishing returns to the point where any further training results in a reduction in progress, but no further. You must also optimize your eating, sleep, and other factors influencing response to exercise.
The principles for determining it are the same; keep accurate records of your workout performance and other goal specific measurements and other factors affecting your response to exercise for regular evaluation. Gradually adjust your training volume upwards (primarily frequency, you only need so many exercises to effectively hit all the major muscle groups) while paying very close attention to your rate of progress. When you reach a point where you begin to see a reduction in rate of progress, take a brief layoff to allow for full recovery, then resume training at the volume and frequency which produced the fastest improvement.
I think most people will be surprised to find this is still much lower than what is typically recommended, especially when it is combined with intense physical athletic or work training. I suspect most people will find a frequency of once every three to four days, around twice-weekly, to be as much as necessary for optimal results, and that in most cases doing more will result in slower rather than faster improvement if they really are training intensely. And, while there will be a few “fast responders” who do better with more there will probably be even more “hard gainers” who require significantly less volume and frequency just to avoid overtraining.
Keep in mind all of this assumes you are training as hard as possible. Your results have far more to do with the effort you put into your training than the volume and frequency of your workouts and you can not make up for a lack of effort by doing more work.
One of the most important things to take away from this is, no matter how little free time you have you can exercise long enough and often enough to get worthwhile results, because very little volume and frequency is required for an exercise program to be effective. A lot of people believe you need to work out most days of the week for an hour or more to get something out of it and that if they aren’t willing to commit to that kind of schedule they might as well not bother, but that’s simply not true. You do have to commit to training hard, progressively, and consistently if you want results, but you absolutely do not have to spend several hours a week exercising to get something out of it, much less live in the gym like some people do. - Drew Baye
KRITIIKKI
1. "HIT TOIMII VAIN LYHYTJAKSOISESTI"
En tiedä mihin tämä on perustuvinaan, paitsi henkilökohtaisiin kokemuksiin? Ja kehityksen pysähtymisellä ei ole mitään tekemistä sen kanssa, että tehdään liikaa ja liian usein? Tai ehkä joissain harvoissa tapauksissa liian vähän ja liian harvoin? Jos ruokavalio on kunnossa, nukkuu riittävästi, treeniohjelma on laadittu huolella ja välissä on tarpeeksi lepoa niin miksi HIT ei voisi toimia ympäri vuoden? Samalla frekvenssi-volyymi suhteella ei voi jatkaa loputtomiin.
2. "YKSI SARJA EI RIITÄ"
Sen sijaan sanoisin, ettei nykyinen volyymisi ole riittävä (riippuen tavoitteistasi). Ja jos palautuu nopeasti, kannattaa sitä ehdottomasti käyttää hyödykseen.
3. "HIT ON HUONO LIHASKASVUUN, PAREMPI VOIMAN KASVUUN"
Lihaskasvu ja voiman kasvu liittyvät toisiinsa. Se kuinka paljon, on hyvinkin geneettistä. Treenivolyymi/frekvenssi tulee laatia tavoitteiden ja kehon vastaanottamiskyvyn mukaan - tulee seurata miten keho ottaa treenin vastaan!
Mike strongly emphasized in his writings that not everyone could develop to the same degree, and that although everyone can improve with proper training, few people have the genetic predisposition to enable them to develop a Mr. Olympia physique. Indeed, he devoted whole chapters in HEAVY DUTY© and in High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way© to this issue. This issue is often evaded in the bodybuilding magazines and books, and yet there is now a large body of evidence that various genes do indeed play a huge role in response to training. For example, myostatin [an “anti-growth” genotype, inhibiting muscular development] appears to be important, and research suggests the genetic variation in the IL-15RA (receptor-a gene) is a significant moderator of muscle mass in response to resistance training. Other genotypes include ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), where the G/G and G/A genotypes have shown significantly greater muscular strength compared with the A/A homzygotes. There is also alpha-actinin-3 (ACTN3), where the R577X genotype is generally associated with muscle function, contractile properties and strength/power athletes and could modulate responsiveness to training. Stewart and Rittweger (2006) provide a comprehensive review of molecular regulators and genetic influences, and suggest that these genetic effects likely account for 80-90% (!) of the variation in muscular strength and cross-sectional area.
A very simple demonstration of the importance of genetics is shown by Van Etten et al.’s (1994) study. This reported significant increases in fat-free mass for a mesomorphic (muscular) group after 12 weeks of resistance training, where an ectomorphic (thin) group recorded no significant improvement having followed an identical training routine. Therefore, it appears that those who are naturally lean and muscular to start with, can gain strength and size to a much greater degree than naturally ‘skinny’ individuals. So, as Mike often emphasised, genetics are a key factor in bodybuilding success. As Arthur Jones once said on this topic, you simply can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. However, as noted above, everyone can improve on their existing condition with proper training, and a great deal of exercise science research suggests that HEAVY DUTY™ is an effective way for individuals to maximize whatever potential they do have. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
For many bodybuilders, not all, strength increases precede size increases. In other words, they grow stronger for a while without getting bigger. It is important that this be understood for reasons related to motivation. As one continues to grow stronger, however, his strength increases will ultimately yield a muscle mass increase.
I was just such an individual who gained mass cyclically. I can recall numerous stretches during which my strength increased regularly for a few months without an accompanying size increase. Not knowing at the time that for some strength increases precede size increases; this was very frustrating for me. In fact, I was tempted to cease my training efforts a number of times, but I persisted: and my burgeoning strength always finally gave way to an appreciable size increase. I have observed this same phenomenon with some of my personal training clients. They'll gain continuously in strength for two to three months, with little or no mass increase and then - BOOM! - within a short period they'll find themselves six or seven pounds heavier. - Mike Mentzer
4. "KUKAAN HUIPULLA OLEVA EI KÄYTÄ HIT:IÄ"
Tämä on todella yleinen argumentti. Lienee ihan totta, mutta haluan painottaa genetiikan ja roinan roolia. Se, että huipulla olevat käyttävät milloin minkäkinlaisia treeniohjelmia ja metodeja, EI ole todiste siitä, etteikö olisi olemassa muita yhtälailla tai jopa paremmin toimivia treeniohjelmia/metodeja. Se, että joku saa tulosta jollain ohjelmalla, ei ole todiste siitä, etteikö vastaavia tuloksia oltaisi saatu jotenkin muuten. Ehkä jopa parempia tuloksia? Ja todentotta, hyvillä geeneillä ja/tai roinalla saa paljon aikaiseksi.
Esimerkiksi minulle Mike Mentzer on vain esikuva siinä mielessä, että hänellä oli yksi parhaimmista vartaloista mitä olen tällä saralla nähnyt. Mentzer kautta kiinnostuin HIT:stä, mutta en puolusta sitä siksi että Mike Mentzer. Sen sijaan minua alkoi kovastikin kiinnostamaan mitä Mentzerin väitteiden takana on, tieteellisesti.
Enkä kirjoita tätä siksi, että olen absoluuttisen oikeassa, ja että tietäisin HIT:n on olevan paras treenimetodi, sen sijaan minua kiinnostaa tieteellinen näkökanta tähänkin asiaan. Treenaan tällä hetkellä 2 kertaa viikossa, ja kehityn kokoajan. Käytän 2-jakoista ohjelmaa, ja pidän treenien välissä 3 päivää lepoa. Se miten päädyin kokeilemaan HIT:iä oli silkka vahinko. Satuin lukemaan Mike Mentzerin Heavy Dutyn. Sittemmin olen asiaan syvemmin paneutunut (Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, Drew Baye...).
En ole muutenkaan tänne foorumille koskaan kirjoitellut, eikä sitä kauheasti tule luettuakaan, mutta koska eksyin vanhaan "Heavy Duty"-ketjuun, niin päätinpä sitten vähän avautua. Jos tästä jotain keskustelua saisi aikaiseksi, niin voisinpa vielä paneutua treenijakoihin (koko kroppa kerralla vai osissa) ja erikoistekniikoihin. Saa nähdä...
High Intensity Training is a form of progressive resistance exercise characterized by a high level of effort and relatively brief and infrequent workouts, as opposed to typical training methods involving low to moderate levels of effort and longer, more frequent workouts. Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones helped define and popularize high intensity training in the 1970’s, often summarizing the general philosophy as “…train harder, but train briefer” or “…train harder, but train less often”. - Drew Baye
YLIKUORMITUS
Treenaaminen kovaa ja intensiivisesti saa aikaan suuren ylikuormituksen, joka taas tekee treenistä erittäin tehokasta. Stimuloidaksesi voiman ja lihaksien kasvua on treenattava erittäin kovaa. Lihakset tulee kuormittaa rasituksella joka on suurempi kuin mihin se on jo ennestään tottunut. HIT-treenit tehdään "kaikki-irti-periaatteella", jossa tehdään VAIN YKSI - 1 - SARJA per liike, ja tuo sarja viedään ns. loppuun asti, eli failureen (MMF; momentary muscular failure). MMF tarkoittaa käytännössä sitä, että sarja tehdää siihen asti kun viimeisen toiston (määräävin toisto; Mike Mentzer) jälkeen ei ole enää mahdollista tehdä yhtäkään toistoa PUHTAASTI. Toistot tulisi tehdä erittäin puhtaasti ja kontrolloidusti - mistä tarkemmin alempana. Vaikka MMF ei ole tarpeellista stimuloidakseen kasvua (lihaksisto/voima), se on erittäin hyödyllinen keino varmistua, että tarpeellinen stimulaatio saadaan aikaiseksi. Tästäkin lisää alempana.
LYHYTKESTOISET TREENIT
Välttääksesi treenistä johtuvaa ylirasistusta on treenattava erittäin kovaa, mutta lyhytkestoisesti. Keskimäärin HIT-treeni kestää n. 30 minuuttia, mutta jotkin erittäin alhaisella volyymilla tehtävät treenit voivat kestää vain 10 minuuttia. Yksilötasolla on erittäin paljon eroavaisuuksia kuinka suurella tai pienellä volyymilla henkilö voi treenejä tehdä. Volyymi pitää optimoida tavoitteiden sekä kehon vastaanottokyvyn mukaan.
FREKVENSSI
Kun treenataan kovaa ja intensiivisesti, keho rasittuu erittäin paljon. Liian usein treenaaminen johtaa ylitreenaamiseen, koska keho ei palaudu treenien välissä. Ylitreenaaminen - kuten jokaisen tulisi tietää - pysäyttää kehittymisen ja pahimmillaan jopa huonontaa tuloksia, ja myös muut terveysongelmat saattavat nostaa päätään.
Enemmistön ei tulisi treenata kuin maksimissaan 3 kertaa viikossa. Treenejä EI tehdä peräkkäisinä päivinä. Keskiverto-Pertille (ja Martalle, tasa-arvon nimissä...) 2 koko-kropan treeniä viikossa on hyvä lähtökohta. Kehittyneiden ja/tai huonon palautumiskyvyn omaavien kohdalla frekvenssi voi olla vieläkin alhaisempi, esim. kerran viikossa tai jopa vielä harvemmin. Tästäkin tarkemmin alempana.
VAIN 1 SARJA - RIITTÄÄKÖ SE?
1. LIIKERATA
Mitä tahansa harjoitetta tehtäessä tulisi kiinnittää huomiota liikerataan. Liikkeet tulisi suorittaa maksimaalisella liikeradalla, jolla myös kuormitus on suurempi. Liikeradan maksimaalisuuteen vaikuttaa se, että tehdäänkö ko. liike vapailla painoilla vai koneessa. On olemassa erittäin hyviä ja tehokkaita vapailla painoilla tehtäviä liikkeitä, mutta yleensä ongelmaksi muodostuu vajaaksi jäävä liikerata. Esim. hauiskääntö tangolla. Kun otetaan huomioon miten yleensä hauiskääntöä (tangolla) tehdään, niin liikkeettä aloittaessa (konsentrinen osuus) ei juurikaan ole vastusta, varsinkin jos kädet ovat suorina. Sitten kun saavutaan liikkeen puoliväliin, vastus on suurimmillaan. Jälleen liikkeen loppuvaiheessa liikkeessä ei taaskaan ole juuri ollenkaan vastusta, ottaen huomioon, että yleensä tanko "lepää" liikkeen huipussa, varsinkin jos kyynärpäät menevät tankoa edemmäksi. Mikä tähän ratkaisuksi?
Hauiskääntöä tehtäessä käsivarsien ei tulisi olla pystysuuntaisesti lattiaa/kattoa kohti missään liikkeen vaiheessa. Eli liikkeen alussa vartalon tulisi olla suorassa, mutta käsien tulisi olla hieman koukussa ja painopiste tulisi olla hieman sinun edessäsi, niin että lihaksessa on merkittävä vastus heti liikkeen alusta loppuun asti. Loppu vaiheessa ei tulisi nojata taakse, niin että kyynärpäät työntyvät eteen tangon "ali", vaan tulisi nojata eteenpäin hieman, jotta painopiste pysyy kyynärpäiden edessä. (How To Build Bigger Arms | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye)
Jos liikkeessä on mahdollista ns. "lukitus" (esim. jalkaprässi: polvet lukittuvat kun jalat ovat suorina), niin tulisi sitä välttää. Ideana on se, että kun lihas pysyy mahdollisimman paljon kuormituksen alaisena koko liikeradan, niin luonnollisesti liike on tällöin tehokkaampi. Drew Baye mainitsee myös (Drew Baye Super Charged - YouTube), että jalkojen epäsymmetrisyydestä (eri pituiset jalat) johtuen "lukitus" voi lisätä tapaturmariskiä.
Liikkeistä saadaan myös täydempiä kun otetaan huomioon staattiset pidot, mikäli ne ovat ko. liikkeessä mahdollista. Esimerkiksi vipunosto sivulle käsipainoilla tai vaikkapa leuanveto ovat hyviä siihen. Kun käsipainot viedään yläasentoon vipunostossa, niin liike voidaan pysäyttää esim. 2 sekunniksi. Leuanvedossa sama onnistuu liikkeen yläosassa. Tämä onnistuu myös reisiojennuksessa, kulmasoudussa, ylätaljassa jne.
2. TOISTOMÄÄRÄ JA TOISTOJEN NOPEUS (LUE: HITAUS)
Yleensä HIT-sarjojen toistomäärä on keskimäärin 6-10 toistoa (Mike Mentzer, Drew Baye), mutta toki suurempia tai pienempiäkin toistomääriä voidaan käyttää (Ellington Darden, Arthur Jones). Kuitenkin se mikä yleensä jää mainitsematta, varsinkin yleisessä fitness-teollisuudessa, on toistojen nopeuteen liittyvät seikat, eli ns. kadenssi (Mike Mentzer, Drew Baye). Kadenssilla tässä asiayhteydessä tarkoitetaan käytännössä sitä, että kuinka kauan itse toisto kestää, ts. kuinka nopeasti tai hitaasti toistot tulisi tehdä. Mike Mentzer esim. käytti viimeisinä vuosinaan (ainakin joidenkin asiakkaidensa kohdalla) 4/4 kadenssia, mikä siis tarkoittaa sitä, että liikkeen positiivinen (konsentrinen) osuus kestää 4 sekuntia ja liikkeen negatiivinen osuus (eksentrinen) myös 4 sekuntia. Kontrolloidusti tehdyt toistot ovat turvallisempia sekä tehokkaampia:
Mike advocated that repetitions should be performed slowly and deliberately with the weight always under full control to maximise muscle tension. In Muscles in Minutes©, he advocated a duration of about four seconds on the positive (lifting) and the same on the negative (lowering) portion of the repetition on most exercises, with a two second pause in the fully contracted position. Comprehensive reviews of this topic (Bruce-Low & Smith, 2007; Carpinelli et al., 2004) have supported Mike’s claim that a relatively slow cadence can produce optimal gains in strength and hypertrophy, but that ‘super slow’ (10:4 to 10:10 cadence) training does not offer additional advantages (Mike held that conducting “super slow” training beyond his recommended cadence could actually hold back the bodybuilder’s progress, because he would get tired quicker). For example, Johnston (2005) considered force production in a case study, reporting little difference in forces generated or experienced where movement was performed at repetition durations that maintained muscular tension (including 10:10, 5:5, and 2:4 (concentric: eccentric). Nevertheless, when attempting to move the load explosively, forces increased by as much as 45% initially, but then decreased by 85% for most of the repetition. This is likely due to the excess force provided to overcome the inertia being so great that momentum carries the weight through the rest of the range of motion. Johnston suggested that explosive lifts would likely recruit fewer muscle fibres due to momentum and that the diminished recruitment through most of the range of motion would be less effective for enhancing muscle function. This has previously been reported by Hay et al. (1983) with arm curl exercises. A study by Tran, Docherty and Behm (2006) considered decrement in force production and rate of force development, noting significantly larger decreases following sets of 10 repetitions at a 5:5 repetition duration compared to 10 repetitions at 2:2, and 5 repetitions at 10:4 repetition durations. This larger decrease in force production suggests fatigue in a larger proportion of muscle fibres, potentially stimulating greater growth and strength/power gains. Also, Bruce-Low and Smith (2007) specifically considered the risk of injury from ballistic exercises, reporting some disturbing statistics suggesting that explosive lifting can cause injuries to the wrist, shoulder, elbow and lumbar regions. Overall, therefore, Mike’s recommendation of a relatively slow speed of movement during resistance exercise seems both efficacious and prudent according to the research findings. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
Lisäksi:
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 1 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 2 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 3 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 4 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Evidence-Based Resistance Training Recommendations: Part 5 | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
Mikä sitten on riittävän hidas? Tarkoitus on eliminoida liikevoiman vaikutus, sekä lisätä lihakseen kohdistuvaa kuormitusta, siihen esim. Mentzerin suosittelema 4/4 kadenssi on varsin riittävä, ja jopa vanha Nautilus protokolla, eli 2 sekunnin positiivinen osuus ja 4 sekunnin negatiivinen osuus, ajaisi saman asian. 3-5 sekuntia voisi olla hyvä nyrkkisääntö.
Ks. myös SuperSlow Training, Ken Hutchins and the SuperSlow Zone | High Intensity Training by Drew Baye
3. TUL
TUL eli "time under load". Ajallisesti yksi sarja on riittävä kuormittamaan lihasta:
[sarjat x toistot x kadenssi]
4 x 10 x 1/1 = 80 sekuntia (1 sekunnin positiivinen ja negatiivinen osuus: 2 sekuntia per toisto)
1 x 10 x 4/4 = 80 sekuntia (4 sekunnin positiivinen ja negativiinen osuus: 8 sekuntia per toisto)
Ja kun otetaan huomioon, että tuo yksi sarja tehdään failureen ja jos mahdollista niin liikkeessä käytetään staattisia pitoja, niin 1 toisto on helposti 10 sekuntia. "Vain" yhdeksi sarjaksi erittäin tehokasta, eikö vain?
Yleensä HIT:iä kritisoidaan kaikenlaisilla argumenteilla, ja yksi niistä argumenteista on, se ettei yksi sarja riitä. Ja miksi treenin kokonaisvolyymia ei oteta huomioon kun tällaisia argumentteja tehdään? Esimerkiksi, jos tehdään 2 liikettä (10:llä toistolla) vaikkapa yläselälle tuolla kyseisellä 4/4 kadenssilla, niin sehän vastaa samaa ajallisesti kuin 2 liikettä joissa tehdään 4 sarjaa (10:llä toistolla) 1/1 kadenssilla. Tietysti tuo 1/1 kadenssi on hyvin summittainen, mutta hyvin nopeita toistoja yleensä treeneissä käytetään. Ja itse vielä huomauttaisin liikevoiman vaikutuksesta. Vaikka näin matemaattisesti näyttäsikin olevan yhdentekevää, että tekisi nuo sarjat 4 x 10 x 1/1 menetelmällä versus 1 x 10 x 4/4, niin kuormitus on silti suurempi noissa hitaammissa sarjoissa, eikö vain? Toisto on todella paljon helpompi tehdä nopeasti.
4. MMF
1. There is no way to know the exact level of intensity required to stimulate maximum muscular strength and size increases. There is also no way to accurately measure intensity of effort during exercise except when one has reached MMF, at which point the intensity (the percentage of your maximum momentary capability you are working at) is 100%. The only way to know you have trained intensely enough to stimulate the maximum possible response is to perform an exercise to the point of MMF.
2. Optimum long term progress requires adjusting the volume and frequency of your training to your body’s response to exercise. Part of this is being able to compare exercise performance between workouts. If you do not perform an exercise to failure there is no way to know how many repetitions or seconds of time under load you could have done, so there is no way to objectively compare your strength between workouts.
3. Motor units are recruited in order from smallest to largest. Over the course of an exercise as smaller motor units are fatigued, more and larger motor units are recruited to maintain the required level of force (until all the motor units are recruited at which point rate coding is increased to maintain force output). The motor units with the greatest potential for strength and size increases are the last to be recruited. Training to MMF ensures you have recruited all of the motor units, including the high threshold ones. - Drew Baye
Mike often focused in his writing on his principle of ‘intensity’, which he defined as the percentage of momentary muscular effort being exerted (see, for example, High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way©, chapter 5). This in itself is controversial, as the term ‘intensity’ is often used in the literature to refer to load. For example, and typically, Willardson and Burkett (2008) and Fry (2004) point out that it is a common term for percentage of 1 repetition maximum (%1RM). This definition is problematic. For instance according to this definition, if one individual performs an exercise with a weight of 80% of 1RM, and performs one easy repetition with that weight, this person is training more ‘intensely’ than another individual who performs a hard set to momentary muscular failure with 79% of their 1RM. Clearly this is nonsensical; Mike’s definition of intensity seems much more logical as it refers to how the word ‘intensity’ is usually used in the exercise setting, i.e. to refer to the severity of the exercise. He argued that trainees should exercise to the point of failure, as this will ensure individuals make a sufficient inroad into the body’s reserve capacity to stimulate muscular adaptations:
“Carrying a set to a point where you are forced to utilize 100 percent of your momentary ability is the single most important factor in increasing size and strength” --- Mike Mentzer (High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way©, p. 41).
A similar suggestion was made by Willardson (2008), who suggested that training to momentary muscular failure may provide greater stimulation to the higher threshold fast-twitch motor units which are capable of producing the greatest increases in strength and hypertrophy. Thus, training to momentary muscular failure is theoretically more beneficial simply because doing so would ensure recruitment of as many motor units and muscle fibres as possible. Unfortunately, few studies have directly addressed the concept of training to momentary muscular failure whilst accurately controlling for other variables such as load, volume and frequency. Those that have, however, have produced some interesting findings.
For example, Rodney et al. (1994) reported significantly greater gains (41.2% to 19.7%) in dynamic strength when training to muscular failure compared to sub-maximal sets of exercise. Similarly, Schott et al. (1995) reported significantly greater gains in isometric strength when training to failure compared to stopping the exercise short of failure (24.9kg to 14.3kg), and Drinkwater et al. (2005) reported significantly greater dynamic strength gains (9.5% to 5%), and also peak power for a bench press throw exercise when training to muscular failure compared to not training to failure (40.8W/10.6% to 25W/6.8%). Notably Folland et al. (2002) reported no significant difference in strength increase between a training time of around 7 minutes (to failure) and 25 minutes (not to failure), suggesting that the same strength gains could be achieved in approximately 30% of the time by training to momentary muscular failure. Overall, therefore, the evidence suggests that individuals should be encouraged to train to momentary muscular failure, as this appears to maximize muscle fibre recruitment and leads to greater improvements than sub-failure training. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
5. VOLYYMI JA FREKVENSSI
Mike argued that one set to failure per exercise was sufficient to trigger an adaptive response and that any more exercise would simply be wasted effort and possibly counterproductive in that it would increase the likelihood of overtraining:
“…one set to failure is all that is required to stimulate an increase in strength and size – with no number of lesser sets having the same effect” – Mike Mentzer (Muscles In Minutes, p. 26).
The number of sets is one of the most controversial issues in resistance training, and one of the most well-researched. Reviews, such as those conducted by Carpinelli and Otto (1998) and Smith and Bruce-Low (2004), have concluded that one set per exercise produces optimal results. In the Carpinelli and Otto paper, they found that single sets produced optimal results in 33 studies out of the 35 they reviewed. In contrast, Peterson et al. (2004, 2005) also analyzed this issue and claimed that multiple sets were superior. However, their own data clearly did not support their conclusions as in fact there was no statistically significant difference between the effect sizes of the different training volumes (see Carpinelli’s excellent 2009 article for a discussion of this issue). Overall, therefore, the weight of evidence strongly supports the HEAVY DUTY™, one set to failure approach. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
How much exercise you should do and how often depends on several factors. Due to genetic differences individuals vary in how much of any kind of physical stress their bodies can tolerate within some time period, and how quickly they recover from and adapt to it. This is also heavily influenced by your diet, how much sleep you get, and other stresses including the demands of your job and other activities. All else being equal, someone with a desk job who does a few hours of light recreational activity a few days a week can train longer and more frequently without overtraining than someone who has a very physically demanding job or does several hours of hard athletic training most days of the week.
Your goals must also be considered because some aspects of recovery may require more or less time than others, some adaptations may be produced or lost more slowly or quickly, and some goals may benefit from the acute effects of exercise thus more frequent training. For example, the optimal frequency for improving metabolic conditioning may be higher than for improving muscular strength and size for some individuals, so one might train with more or less volume or frequency depending on their priorities.
Fortunately, although the range of volume and frequency that is optimal for any particular goal (produces the fastest possible improvement) may be narrow (and is also a moving target since it is affected by many other non-constant variables), the range that is effective (produces consistent, measurable or noticeable improvement) is a bit broader, so for most people it is not necessary to fuss too much over it. If the requirements for effectively stimulating improvements in functional ability were too precise the adaptive responses would have been of no survival value and not have evolved.
As long as you train consistently and with a high level of effort very little exercise is required for good results. Minimally, you need to perform one set each of enough exercises to work all the major muscle groups (those involved in gross body movement as opposed to fine movements of the hands, fingers, feet, toes, mouth, etc.), and work out just frequently enough that you do not allow any improvements produced in response to the workout to be lost due to detraining. Considering clients consistently match or exceed their previous workout performance after being gone for a month or more due to work or vacations I suspect the minimum effective frequency for most people is very, very low. As your workout volume and frequency increases you will very quickly hit a point of diminishing returns; research shows no significant differences in strength increases between performing single and multiple sets of an exercise and little difference in results between training once, twice, or three times per week.
I recommend twice-weekly full body workouts as a starting point for most people because beginners usually don’t train hard enough to get as much out of less training and the higher frequency benefits learning and skill practice and neural adaptations, and once a trainee has become more skilled and capable of training more intensely it isn’t too much for most people to recover from and adapt to. That being said, for the majority of people just one, brief full-body workout a week is effective as long as they are training hard enough.
Diminishing returns is not the same as no returns, however, and while for most of people it makes little sense to invest fifty to one hundred percent more time and effort for only a few percent more improvement over weeks or months, for a few it does. If you are a competitive athlete or work in a profession where your life or the lives of others may depend on your physical capabilities a small percent can make a big difference. If you want to improve as quickly as possible you have to go past the point of diminishing returns to the point where any further training results in a reduction in progress, but no further. You must also optimize your eating, sleep, and other factors influencing response to exercise.
The principles for determining it are the same; keep accurate records of your workout performance and other goal specific measurements and other factors affecting your response to exercise for regular evaluation. Gradually adjust your training volume upwards (primarily frequency, you only need so many exercises to effectively hit all the major muscle groups) while paying very close attention to your rate of progress. When you reach a point where you begin to see a reduction in rate of progress, take a brief layoff to allow for full recovery, then resume training at the volume and frequency which produced the fastest improvement.
I think most people will be surprised to find this is still much lower than what is typically recommended, especially when it is combined with intense physical athletic or work training. I suspect most people will find a frequency of once every three to four days, around twice-weekly, to be as much as necessary for optimal results, and that in most cases doing more will result in slower rather than faster improvement if they really are training intensely. And, while there will be a few “fast responders” who do better with more there will probably be even more “hard gainers” who require significantly less volume and frequency just to avoid overtraining.
Keep in mind all of this assumes you are training as hard as possible. Your results have far more to do with the effort you put into your training than the volume and frequency of your workouts and you can not make up for a lack of effort by doing more work.
One of the most important things to take away from this is, no matter how little free time you have you can exercise long enough and often enough to get worthwhile results, because very little volume and frequency is required for an exercise program to be effective. A lot of people believe you need to work out most days of the week for an hour or more to get something out of it and that if they aren’t willing to commit to that kind of schedule they might as well not bother, but that’s simply not true. You do have to commit to training hard, progressively, and consistently if you want results, but you absolutely do not have to spend several hours a week exercising to get something out of it, much less live in the gym like some people do. - Drew Baye
KRITIIKKI
1. "HIT TOIMII VAIN LYHYTJAKSOISESTI"
En tiedä mihin tämä on perustuvinaan, paitsi henkilökohtaisiin kokemuksiin? Ja kehityksen pysähtymisellä ei ole mitään tekemistä sen kanssa, että tehdään liikaa ja liian usein? Tai ehkä joissain harvoissa tapauksissa liian vähän ja liian harvoin? Jos ruokavalio on kunnossa, nukkuu riittävästi, treeniohjelma on laadittu huolella ja välissä on tarpeeksi lepoa niin miksi HIT ei voisi toimia ympäri vuoden? Samalla frekvenssi-volyymi suhteella ei voi jatkaa loputtomiin.
2. "YKSI SARJA EI RIITÄ"
Sen sijaan sanoisin, ettei nykyinen volyymisi ole riittävä (riippuen tavoitteistasi). Ja jos palautuu nopeasti, kannattaa sitä ehdottomasti käyttää hyödykseen.
3. "HIT ON HUONO LIHASKASVUUN, PAREMPI VOIMAN KASVUUN"
Lihaskasvu ja voiman kasvu liittyvät toisiinsa. Se kuinka paljon, on hyvinkin geneettistä. Treenivolyymi/frekvenssi tulee laatia tavoitteiden ja kehon vastaanottamiskyvyn mukaan - tulee seurata miten keho ottaa treenin vastaan!
Mike strongly emphasized in his writings that not everyone could develop to the same degree, and that although everyone can improve with proper training, few people have the genetic predisposition to enable them to develop a Mr. Olympia physique. Indeed, he devoted whole chapters in HEAVY DUTY© and in High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way© to this issue. This issue is often evaded in the bodybuilding magazines and books, and yet there is now a large body of evidence that various genes do indeed play a huge role in response to training. For example, myostatin [an “anti-growth” genotype, inhibiting muscular development] appears to be important, and research suggests the genetic variation in the IL-15RA (receptor-a gene) is a significant moderator of muscle mass in response to resistance training. Other genotypes include ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF), where the G/G and G/A genotypes have shown significantly greater muscular strength compared with the A/A homzygotes. There is also alpha-actinin-3 (ACTN3), where the R577X genotype is generally associated with muscle function, contractile properties and strength/power athletes and could modulate responsiveness to training. Stewart and Rittweger (2006) provide a comprehensive review of molecular regulators and genetic influences, and suggest that these genetic effects likely account for 80-90% (!) of the variation in muscular strength and cross-sectional area.
A very simple demonstration of the importance of genetics is shown by Van Etten et al.’s (1994) study. This reported significant increases in fat-free mass for a mesomorphic (muscular) group after 12 weeks of resistance training, where an ectomorphic (thin) group recorded no significant improvement having followed an identical training routine. Therefore, it appears that those who are naturally lean and muscular to start with, can gain strength and size to a much greater degree than naturally ‘skinny’ individuals. So, as Mike often emphasised, genetics are a key factor in bodybuilding success. As Arthur Jones once said on this topic, you simply can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. However, as noted above, everyone can improve on their existing condition with proper training, and a great deal of exercise science research suggests that HEAVY DUTY™ is an effective way for individuals to maximize whatever potential they do have. - Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty
For many bodybuilders, not all, strength increases precede size increases. In other words, they grow stronger for a while without getting bigger. It is important that this be understood for reasons related to motivation. As one continues to grow stronger, however, his strength increases will ultimately yield a muscle mass increase.
I was just such an individual who gained mass cyclically. I can recall numerous stretches during which my strength increased regularly for a few months without an accompanying size increase. Not knowing at the time that for some strength increases precede size increases; this was very frustrating for me. In fact, I was tempted to cease my training efforts a number of times, but I persisted: and my burgeoning strength always finally gave way to an appreciable size increase. I have observed this same phenomenon with some of my personal training clients. They'll gain continuously in strength for two to three months, with little or no mass increase and then - BOOM! - within a short period they'll find themselves six or seven pounds heavier. - Mike Mentzer
4. "KUKAAN HUIPULLA OLEVA EI KÄYTÄ HIT:IÄ"
Tämä on todella yleinen argumentti. Lienee ihan totta, mutta haluan painottaa genetiikan ja roinan roolia. Se, että huipulla olevat käyttävät milloin minkäkinlaisia treeniohjelmia ja metodeja, EI ole todiste siitä, etteikö olisi olemassa muita yhtälailla tai jopa paremmin toimivia treeniohjelmia/metodeja. Se, että joku saa tulosta jollain ohjelmalla, ei ole todiste siitä, etteikö vastaavia tuloksia oltaisi saatu jotenkin muuten. Ehkä jopa parempia tuloksia? Ja todentotta, hyvillä geeneillä ja/tai roinalla saa paljon aikaiseksi.
Esimerkiksi minulle Mike Mentzer on vain esikuva siinä mielessä, että hänellä oli yksi parhaimmista vartaloista mitä olen tällä saralla nähnyt. Mentzer kautta kiinnostuin HIT:stä, mutta en puolusta sitä siksi että Mike Mentzer. Sen sijaan minua alkoi kovastikin kiinnostamaan mitä Mentzerin väitteiden takana on, tieteellisesti.
Enkä kirjoita tätä siksi, että olen absoluuttisen oikeassa, ja että tietäisin HIT:n on olevan paras treenimetodi, sen sijaan minua kiinnostaa tieteellinen näkökanta tähänkin asiaan. Treenaan tällä hetkellä 2 kertaa viikossa, ja kehityn kokoajan. Käytän 2-jakoista ohjelmaa, ja pidän treenien välissä 3 päivää lepoa. Se miten päädyin kokeilemaan HIT:iä oli silkka vahinko. Satuin lukemaan Mike Mentzerin Heavy Dutyn. Sittemmin olen asiaan syvemmin paneutunut (Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, Drew Baye...).
En ole muutenkaan tänne foorumille koskaan kirjoitellut, eikä sitä kauheasti tule luettuakaan, mutta koska eksyin vanhaan "Heavy Duty"-ketjuun, niin päätinpä sitten vähän avautua. Jos tästä jotain keskustelua saisi aikaiseksi, niin voisinpa vielä paneutua treenijakoihin (koko kroppa kerralla vai osissa) ja erikoistekniikoihin. Saa nähdä...
via Pakkotoisto.com http://ift.tt/1jWfi21
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire