- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
27 M 6’0″. I’ve been on a strict Keto diet for 4 months and have gone from 287 to 237 in that time (diet only – completely sedentary). I’m wanting to begin a HIT program, once a week (Big 5 from Body by Science). My understanding is still pretty limited but I’m looking at Carb Nite as a complement to that, integrated in kind of a CBL. I’m thinking I would train on Friday evening and then go straight into CNS after that. This would be once a week and I would be Keto the other 6 days. I saw someone advising Carb Nite the day before a HIT workout, but I read Kiefer’s post about there being no benefit to eating carbs prior to working out. Am I missing something? Is this a good plan or should I be doing something else. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
It really depends on that person. It could be preference or something different. My opinion would be the day after a CN, just because you have all that glucose in your body that you need to get rid of, so something depleting like Big 5 wouldn’t be a bad idea, since it is once a week.
Is there a reason why you are considering HIT? HIT is a method that many have used successfully, but it is not the preferred resistance training method for a few reasons. Especially for beginners. You would get better results most likely from traditional strength training.
Thanks Big Tex! Is there a metabolic benefit to working out after carb night as opposed to immediately before?
ibobland, I have a couple of reasons. First and foremost is time. Not having to initially commit a large amount of time to working out lowers the barrier of entry for my SO and I. We aren’t currently doing anything and previous attempts at exercise failed, in part, because we hated losing three evenings per week. Another reason is that I have zero proper experience and a shoulder injury (dislocated/fractured humerous last year). HIT as outlined in BBS allow me to utilize machines and slower, fewer reps with an emphasis on proper form. There’s a good chance that I’ll move on to something else eventually, but for right now this seems like a good option.
ibobland08 wrote:
“HIT is a method that many have used successfully, but it is not the preferred resistance training method for a few reasons.”This is a matter of opinion. Many (most?) folks going to the gym want to brag about how much time they spend there, and how much they lift. For obvious reasons, HIT isn’t very popular with that crowd.
But I don’t care to argue whether conventional training or HIT is best (there’s plenty of that online already). In any case, what works well for one person may not be the best for another.
I am no longer doing CNS, but I lost around 40 lbs on it [EDIT: this may have been closer to 30, not sure]. HIT was (and still is) my preferred workout method.
I had trouble with sufficient energy for working out on CNS until I moved my weekly HIT workout to the day following carb nite. This made a big difference for me, but many people don’t seem to have the energy problems I did.
You sort of have to pick a goal, as it’s hard to increase strength while losing weight (it’s doable, but slows down both processes). Weight loss requires a calorie deficit, and that just isn’t conducive to adding a lot of muscle.
However, resistance training is a huge plus for any weight loss program, as it makes the body more likely to burn fat rather than muscle in a calorie deficit. Just don’t expect to look like Schwarzenegger while on CNS.
<strong class=”d4pbbc-bold”>ibobland08 wrote:
<em class=”d4pbbc-italic”>“HIT is a method that many have used successfully, but it is not the preferred resistance training method for a few reasons.”This is a matter of opinion. Many (most?) folks going to the gym want to brag about how much time they spend there, and how much they lift. For obvious reasons, HIT isn’t very popular with that crowd.
But I don’t care to argue whether conventional training or HIT is best (there’s plenty of that online already). In any case, what works well for one person may not be the best for another.
I am no longer doing CNS, but I lost around 40 lbs with it. HIT was (and still is) my preferred workout method.
I had trouble with sufficient energy for working out on CNS until I moved my weekly HIT workout to the day following carb nite. This made a big difference for me, but many people don’t seem to have the energy problems I did.
You sort of have to pick a goal, as it’s hard to increase strength while losing weight (it’s doable, but slows down both processes). Weight loss requires a calorie deficit, and that just isn’t conducive to adding a lot of muscle.
However, resistance training is a huge plus for any weight loss program, as it makes the body more likely to burn fat rather than muscle in a calorie deficit. Just don’t expect to look like Schwarzenegger while on CNS.
Mac, if you have constraints or you have a lot of experience with resistance training, it’s fine to use HIT. I just don’t recommend to people, especially beginners because it’s not easy to do correctly. Like I said many have done it successfully, but a lot more do it and fail.
Unless you can cite some studies to that effect, we’re still just swapping opinions.
HIT uses a much slower rep speed than conventional lifting, and therefore MMF (momentary muscle failure) is easily achieved with much less weight.
IMO, both of these points actually make it easier to learn and maintain proper form with HIT (newbie or otherwise). Obviously, proper equipment is advised for safety when going to MMF with any training method.
But once again, arguing the issue is somewhat pointless, as chances are slim that either of us will change our stance. 🙂
It is my opinion.
That being said, while slow lifting is a good technique for learning form, it’s only good if you are far from muscular failure. You aren’t going to learn a new motor pattern if the muscle is exhausted. The lifter will default to the most efficient way to lift the weight. For everyone except the most experienced and talented lifters, that default condition is not correct form.
Another thing is repetition. Repetition is the mother of skill. This applies to any athletic movement, which includes lifting. Pitchers practice pitching a lot and quarterbacks throw a lot. They do this to master the competition exercise (throwing a baseball or football).
Slow lifting and pausing can mimic more reps, but that has limitations. For example the most important part of a deadlift is separating the barbell from the platform. It doesn’t matter how slowly you perform the deadlift, the only way to practice that separation is to do a lot of reps. And each those sets have to be no where near failure or else you will default to bad mechanics.
I think HIT is fine to use on low skill exercises like cable tricep extensions and leg presses, but on higher skill exercises that require much more coordination, like the major barbell exercises, you have to do the volume to learn to them. When you get to that point, then HIT can be a viable option if you are neurologically able to do that on a regular basis.
It’s nice that we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I started out with slow reps back in the early ’90s (before I even knew what “HIT” was) and it has always worked well for me.
MMF isn’t absolutely necessary btw. With only a bench, I had to leave enough reserve to rack the weights, and squats were limited by the max I could lift over my head. Results were still impressive, but I only weighed around 190-200 lbs and was in much better health back then.
Maybe some of our resident HIT trainers will chime in on this.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.