Today's gyms contain few extremely muscular people. Many are quite slender and struggle to gain mass. Most fall between these extremes. Numerous members use steroids, especially at hardcore facilities. Many aspire to the elite's size but even matching their drug stacks proves ineffective. Taking more steroids fails too, despite no change in genetics.

The elite offer little help, having long used steroids without incident and sharing useful training advice. But their tips do little for poor responders.

These individuals often possess extensive libraries on building muscle. Yet the abundant information proves overwhelming and unhelpful.

They partially test hyped new programs. Some succeed, some fail. Goals are only occasionally met.

Nutrition and supplement optimizations also disappoint. Supplements profoundly effective for others provide them meager results.

They read contrasting articles touting high volume training or HIT. Volume training dominates but HIT promises deliverance. They try it. Though easy, HIT proves remarkably challenging.

HIT Fundamentals

HIT asserts brief, intense workouts sufficiently stimulate growth. One set per exercise is thought adequate.

Muscle grows during rest, not training. Rest days should outnumber training days.

The pump is not indicative of growth but simply accumulating lactate.

Since maximal effort is achievable once per session, one working set is prescribed. Additional sets lack rationale despite commonality.

Repeated sets are considered unproductive, merely hampering recuperation.

HIT stands for high-intensity training.

Arthur Jones pioneered the concept and Nautilus machines, a coincidental pairing.

With funding secured, he researched HIT and conducted thought-provoking experiments.

He mentored elite 1970s bodybuilders like Mentzer and Viator.

Rapid transformations contrasted with mainstream beliefs.

After selling Nautilus, Jones disengaged from bodybuilding. HIT fell from favor.

Only Mentzer persisted. He exemplified single set efficacy.

HIT reemerged in the 1990s with Dorian Yates. He swiftly placed 2nd at Olympia before winning.

HIT or Volume?

This debate fills books.

HIT enjoys renewed popularity, featured routinely in fitness media.

No drug-aided athletes demonstrate greater HIT efficacy.

Regimens with 3 or fewer brief weekly sessions qualify as HIT, terminology notwithstanding.

HIT properly asserts single all-out contractions promote growth and rest enables it.

With volume training, rest is limiting; premature training impedes expansion then stagnation.

Thus HIT became recommended for plateued career volume trainers.

In summary, neither approach universally trumps the other. Most respond best to blending methodologies over time. Seek personal experimentation to determine optimal individualized programming. The key is applying progressive tension while avoiding overtraining through strategic incorporation of recovery.