Talk:High-intensity training

Controversial
Anyone who's actually looked into the merits of HIT versus other methods would realize that there is a near religious zealotry on both sides of the issue(which has even crept into this forum in some cases). As such, any neutral moderators should take any suggested drastic changes that seem to dismiss HIT techniques or overly endorse them with a grain of salt. (75.9.42.38 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, for starters I'd suggest actually reading (and citing) arthur jones's original works before making stupid statements that prove you haven't (not to the previous user, just in general). The description of HIT in this article is nothing related to what arthur jones actually supported. Either stop giving him credit or actually read, cite, and describe what HIT actually is. Also mind you that HIT applies equally to body building as it does to strength training, and arthur not only hated bodybuilders (and by the discussion here you can easily see why) but he also did all of his research in a well controlled manner and using meaningful physical measurements. Mind you he also states (truthfully) that the reason arnold and related bodybuilders win using conventional training is because they trained for a very very long time. HIT doesn't give you "bigger" arms. Lifting heavy weights does. Arnold's arms would look exactly the same no matter which way he trained, the only difference is which one gets you there faster. AeoniosHaplo (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, allow me to point you in the right direction. Nautilus Bulletin #1 and Nautilus Bulletin #2. PDF scans of the original nautilus bulletins by arthur jones himself. These documents are an explanation of HIT as he developed it, and also explain the value and purpose of nautilus equipment. AeoniosHaplo (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, why not add these to the article? I did this now. --Cyfal (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed?
It'd be nice if someone slapped a 'disputed' notice on this article. --User:72.56.156.23 03:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just did. Later!!! Chili14 05:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this article is being disputed. I don't believe the article proclaims any superiority of HIT. It simply describes what it is.

HIT does not advocate training near one rep max. It advocates training until failure as a primary rule. stevefdl

HIT is not only for weight training
Another reason that this page should be restructured, is because HIT is also used for running (and less often) cycling training. This article intones that it is exclusively a weight training methodology. Perhaps the main HIT link can direct the reader to either ?
 * You're talking about HIIT. That's a seperate method altogether. --81.178.234.99 13:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

High intensity training for endurance sports is not exclusively for interval training. High intensity can also refer to tempo training, muscular strength and muscular endurance training. I agree with the first poster that this is not used exclusively in bodybuilding anymore.

I am a proponent of HIT, and I hardly view this article as "HIT" enough! It is clearly not a partisan HIT piece! I would know if it were. Professor Jeff Governale

Sergio Oliva used HIT?
No successful bodybuilder has ever achieved Olympian status using this method, instead the volume approach has been more succesful for adding large amounts of muscle. this statement is false Sergio Oliva won Mr. Olympia in 1967, 1968, 1969 --User:146.145.27.41 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Does anybody have sources. (The comment above was moved (and edited) by me from the article to the talk page) --Silvestre Zabala 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you read Arthur Jones' old articles in Ironman, he talks about training Sergio Oliva. However, I'm not sure how long he trained Oliva, and whether Oliva's Mr. Olympia titles can he claimed to be a result of his HIT training.  Apparently Oliva was huge even before he started HIT.  Here's a link to an interview with Ellington Darden, talking about Arthur Jones and the bodybuilders that came to Jones for HIT training: http://www.baye.com/interviews/ellington_darden_interview1.html --SweetP112 15:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dorian Yates seems to train one set to failure. --Silvestre Zabala 11:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Many False Claims are Made by HITters
Sergio Oliva, among others, trained for a few weeks at Nautilus under Arthur Jones. Before he even heard of Arthur Jones, Oliva built his physique with a traditional high volume approach. HITters are so desperate for an Olympia winner who trains HIT that they claim any bodybuilder who visited Nautilus was built using their methods.

Arnold and Boyer Coe built their physiques using volume workouts before any contact with Nautilus or Jones. Yet you can see claims that these guys use HIT in the promotional material for Ellington Darden’s books.

Hitters claim Yates built his physique using their methods because of Yates’ brief involvement with Mike Mentzer and his “Heavy Duty” training which is an off-shoot of HIT. Dorian Yates uses multiple sets and split routines as detailed in his videos.

It’s ironic that many HITers put their lack of muscle down to poor genetics, and at the same time claim that genetic freaks like Oliva and Yates use their methods..

Casey Viator, who was the Nautilus poster boy in the 70’s, is another prime example. Jones handpicked Viator because of his obvious genetic potential for building muscle. Viator was already massive from using volume workouts before he met Jones, but HITters claim he was built using one-set-to-failure Nautilus routines.

Cleanup needed
Okay, folks, I am not an advocate or a critic of HIT. I'm just an editor who stumbled onto this. Someone who knows more than I do about weight training needs to do some cleanup work on this. Specifically:


 * Unreferenced sections need citations
 * Sections regarding advocacy and controversy have overlap/redundancy
 * There is heavy usage of weasel words
 * The References, HIT publications, and External links sections need to be made cohesive somehow

The scientific evaluation section is well done. With some more effort like that, this could be a nice article that explains well (both pro and con) what many bodybuilders appear to feel passionately about. Twisted86 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Move?
Shouldn't this be moved to High Intensity Interval Training? -- AS Artimour 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. --81.178.234.99 13:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And not "Specialized high intensity training" either. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit
Changed "aerobic exercise" to "anaerobic exercise" to describe high intensity interval training at the end. 72.200.217.230 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High intensity training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928120051/http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf to http://www.asep.org/files/OttoV4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)