Fooled by HIT

In the 1990s, HIT or High-Intensity Training generated quite a lot of interest.  The idea focused on brief, infrequent training as compared to the traditional marathon-type workouts of bodybuilders.  Writers like Mike Mentzer believed that one set to failure, done every 4 to 7 days or even less, was the optimal protocol.

The arguments were persuasive.  And some research done in the 90s showed that single sets were as effective as multiple sets.  But newer research has been showing that multiple sets and more frequent training appear to be superior.

Part of the problem was the idea of a tight correlation between strength and muscle mass.  HIT training can lead to an increase in strength, no doubt.  But does this strength correlate to muscle mass?  Perhaps, though I don't think it is very conclusive.  Instead, it appears that more volume and frequency are associated with muscle growth.

I bought into HIT.  For many years, I have done a few compound exercises once a week.  And while I have maintained or increased my strength levels, I don't think this type of training has generated much new muscle mass for me.  So from both a research perspective and my own training experience, HIT does not appear to be that effective for building muscle mass.

In the next few posts, I will discuss some of the newer research on building muscle.