In today’s article I want to do a little comparison of the pros and cons of 2 training methods that, while against the mainstream’s grain, were still popular during the golden era of bodybuilding and up all the way through the 1990s.

Both methods produced many champions and were used to train athletes, bodybuilders, recreational physical culturists, and even celebrities.

Each method was spearheaded, if not created, by 2 very headstrong, tough, no-nonsense – yet brilliant – trainers.

Arthur Jones was the catalyst for High Intensity Training (HIT) and Vince Gironda was the leading voice for cumulative fatigue and density training.

I won’t get into detail about either gentleman in this article because it is beyond the scope of simply comparing the 2 training styles. But, both the aforementioned trainers, despite being very

controversial figures, have been extremely influential in what is considered sensible, efficient training of the past half century.

Furthermore, both Arthur and Vince were aggressively opposed to the use of steroids and felt that anabolic drugs and hormones were ruining people’s health and their beloved sport/art of bodybuilding (or as it was originally known in a more general sense: physical culture). Therefore, it’s important to realize that

both methods of training were created with the intent of

maximizing the muscular potential of drug-free, genetically typical trainees.

Simply put: each training method was designed to help people like you and me, and either will yield better progress than what you read in cookie cutter muscle and fitness publications.

Let’s get to it!

HIT (High Intensity Training):

-Infrequent training

-Potentially longer sessions

-Often utilizes fewer total exercises per week, but more exercises per session

-Generally full body training

-Time efficient and effective. Low volume, high effort yields good bang for your buck type results

-Systematically very fatiguing due to full body and near failure efforts

-Mentally quite fatiguing. Requires you to be on your ‘A’ game each session. No room for mediocre sessions due to minimal training days per week and low volume.

-Typically more than 1 exercise per muscle group per session, unless doing a very consolidated, abbreviated routine, like some of Mike Mentzer’s recommended consolidated programs (and this method has been advocated for by minimalist HIT practitioners). But, it’s important to note that most HIT programs, inspired by Arthur Jones’ principles, required 2-3 exercises per muscle group and 8-12 exercises per session.

-Hitting each muscle no more than 3 times per week (many will eventually find they need to drop frequency to each muscle only once or twice per week)

-Unless on a hyper-abbreviated routine, duration of workouts will take closer to 45-60 minutes (some will claim training 1-2 sets of 6-12 exercises to failure in 30-45 minutes, but this is very unlikely for most trainees, and in my own practice, I have not seen anyone, myself included, achieve sub-30 minutes on a regular basis while using a HIT program unless doing 3-4 exercises for 1 set to/very close to actual failure)

-If using a hyper-abbreviated HIT routine, such as only 3 exercises per session, you run the risk of progress stalling sooner and lacking symmetry. Smaller muscle groups and slower responding muscle groups (on an individual basis) might lag behind in development due to minimal direct stimulus.

-the mindset is that muscular development follows increases in strength.

-Training to failure which causes the whole body to be put under great stress during exercise (joints, muscles, CNS, mental fortitude). So some bone structures may struggle to sustain this style of training.

-Training stress is high, so if you have a stressful lifestyle, recovery may be further compromised with a HIT program.

-The fewer required sessions per week may increase motivation to train hard when you are training. You won’t get sick of being in the gym because you will be in the gym so infrequently each week.

-Beat the log book every session. Add reps, load, or decrease training time as often as possible. This can be fun or frustrating depending on individual personality, outside stresses, and training experience.

-Recovery is of upmost importance and well-moderated, but should still take a deload/week or 2 off from training every 4-8 weeks to allow for full systematic recovery. If you train this hard week after week for too long, your immune system or muscular system will eventually become compromised. Most HIT programs and experiments last just 4-6 weeks at a time for this very reason.

Gironda style density training:

-Frequent training

-Fast pace sessions

-Can be cardiovascularly challenging if not conditioned for it

-Split routine (upper/lower, push/pull/legs, or back+chest+delts/biceps+triceps+forearms/legs)

-Train each muscle 2 times per week

-Cumulative fatigue method (straight sets using a load that’s about 85% of your max for the goal reps on the first set).

-Minimal rest between sets and exercises

-1 exercise per body part per session

-Vince believed that only negative consequences would result from training for more than 40 minutes (largely regarding hormonal effects of training beyond 40 minutes). I also notice lack of focus beyond 40 minutes. As such, in Vince’s opinion, sessions should last between 20-40 minutes, if rest periods are appropriately minimized.

-High amount of sets planned, but due to the very short rest periods, these sets are actually more like mini sets, or what we call nowadays “cluster” sets. EMOMs (every minute on the minute sets) are also heavily inspired by this cumulative fatigue model. It’s interesting that people like to claim they invented something new, when realistically, all they did was take something that’s been done in gyms for decades and put a new name on it.

-Fast pace of training prevents the mind from wandering during training

-To go along with the above points, though, you need to minimize and eliminate ALL distractions while training in this manner or you will miss out on the positive adaptations and will spend more time in the gym than necessary.

-Do more work in less time (definition of density training).

-Mindset of strength gains follow gains in muscular development.

-More localized muscular fatigue created during each session due to a training split, but LESS systematic fatigue session to session also due to the split routine. This allows for more productive training sessions per week without unnecessary CNS fatigue accumulation.

-The fatigue accumulates in one part of the body, rather than throughout the entire body, so recovery is still able to be appropriately moderated despite more frequent training. Each muscle group is still being trained only twice per week, which is no more, and often less, weekly frequency than HIT advocates.

-Necessitates being in the gym more days per week than not.

-Because of increased training frequency and cumulative fatigue approach (fatiguing the muscle via multiple sets) versus training to failure in 1-2 sets (HIT approach), you have less pressure to train 100% on your ‘A’ game, beating the last session every session.

-Deload/rest completely every 4th week (no strength training during this time).

-More exercise variety (exercise selection, sets, reps, etc). This can be a good thing and a bad thing depending on the individual and how liberally the principle of variety is executed.

-Can be mentally draining if you don’t like heading to the gym often.

-Each muscle group is given equal attention so less chance of any area lagging behind.

-If your goal is primarily strength performance-based, this style of training is not optimal.

-If your goal is primarily a physique/body composition focus, this style of training has been proven to work for almost a century with a wide variety of body types and experience levels.

-Because you’re using a split (usually 3 way is recommended) and you’re usually only training 1 exercise per muscle group (as Vince Gironda recommended for the bulk of your year’s training), your total exercises per session are limited to 3-5 depending on if you're doing a 3 way split (such as PPL) or a 2 way split (upper/lower). This is necessary to keep the sessions very brief, because almost always, each exercise is being trained with 3-8 sets (but again, with less than 45-60 seconds rest between sets typically).

The above list of comparisons is not an all encompassing list. It is, believe it or not, just a few key characteristics of each training method, from a general point of view.

I recommend using both methods of training throughout the year if you are aiming to improve body composition and achieve your maximum muscular potential. At the very least, experiment with both.

Personally, I think Vince Gironda’s frequent, brief, cumulative fatigue sessions are more sustainable long term (we will all eventually cease in our ability to progress simply via strength improvements in key lifts at a certain age, but we can always continue to improve our muscular size and body’s symmetry by focusing on superior muscle contractions and accomplishing more quality work in less time). But, even so, he recommended taking every 4th week off to allow the body to fully recover.

Both parties understand the importance of muscular and systematic recovery and taking time away from the gym.

For what it's worth, I, personally, don't believe most people need to take such dramatic deloads if they're training for hypertrophy and body composition. But, take lighter, easier sessions when you're body needs it.

With that said, I also have a pretty solid home gym setup which makes it easy for me to train more regularly. You may have less of an ideal setup if you need to commute to the gym, and therefore, may be better off practicing a full body HIT style routine

2-3 days per week.

Advocates of both camps preach the necessity of natural lifters to protect themselves against overtraining, in order to maximize strength and muscle gains and limit injury, illness, and other setbacks.

Either way, you should still abide by the 3 hour rule, which states that you shall not strength train more than 3 hours per week. This advice is specific for natural (not drug assisted) lifters, who live normal lives with normal adult stresses and responsibilities, seeking optimal progress. It does not mean that you will die or make zero progress if you train for 3 hours and 1 minute, or even longer per week. Rather, just that you will make

BETTER progress and be LESS likely to die if you limit your training to 3 hours per week, or even less.

When it comes to success in work or money, we Americans have been taught that if a certain amount of work or money is good, then more must be better. This is the consumerist and capitalist mindset, and I am not here to say there is anything wrong with this way of thinking. In business, this is often true, and yields positive results, I might add.

However, this mindset does not carryover into all areas of life. Our bodies are a prime example.

If protein is good, more protein, is not better beyond a

certain point.

If post workout carbohydrates are good, then more carbs beyond a certain point are also not better.

If a calorie surplus allows for increased muscle mass gains, continuously adding more and more calories that the body cannot actively use for energy or recovery beyond an ideal limit will have negative consequences.

With training, more is certainly not better. Stimulate and

recover. That’s the mantra of success in the gym.

Contrary to what social media and much of the fitness

industry may lead you to believe, optimal fitness is not achieved through extremes.

0 comments

Benen's Upper/Lower Program (November's Lifting Club Plan)

New Programs and Ebooks Directory

My Ideal Training Structure for Health & Aesthetics

Is Low Volume Good for Hypertrophy?

The Best Way to Gain Self Respect

See all posts from Garage Gym Bro