HIT vs. standard (3x10) training?
Posted by Moogy
A few months back, I started at a gym and took advantage of the two included one-hour training sessions to build a program. I've followed the program (which follows the standard "3 sets of around 10 reps, 3 times a week" theory) religiously for nearly three months, with modest strength gains (less in the upper body than lower body, but that's just me, I think).
As I said, these are pretty modest strength gains, with relatively little visible gains. I've also been doing 30 minutes of aerobic exercise 6 times per week.
I've heard a lot about the HIT theory, which seems to say "work each muscle group until it fails miserably, then leave 'em alone to regenerate for a week." Any thoughts?
Re: HIT vs. standard (3x10) training?
Posted by Paul
I would suggest you try the one set to failure approach and see if it works better for you.
My own experience is that I find 1 set each of 3 to 4 exercises work best for me. I don't go to failure on every set but I do make sure I progress in reps or weight almost every workout.
I hope this helps.