I believe this is your response to my post? Not very open for other opinions, I hear.
Bear in mind Dr Stevenson has done a fair amount of studying/research in order to accomplish his PhD, which in turn has manifested in the HIT inspired Fortitude Training program. It’s interesting you neglect investigating what the program actually means, before rejecting it.
John Little actually stated Mentzer was gravitating towards some more volume, just before he died (in the High Intensity Podcast #18).
I often ask whether complaining readers on Tnation are here to criticize/complain or to contribute/learn?
Your suggested turn of progress will most likely turn up in a dead end. What about the frequency - to balance the volume and intensity?
OP, sincerely, what was the point of this thread? You asked a question, but now appear to be the one giving answers. Were you more just trying to point out your own theory?
I never realized how much stubborn dogma were part of old school HIT, as @Bane2 (and even Drew Baye) has proven. Don’t you even dare thinking about investigating further, doing it differently or attempt a modernized version of the theme.
This is unnatural considering every fashion is part of a movement. Dr Darden’s teachings is a fine example of further development/refining of the original ideas by Arthur Jones.
The growing volume in this intensity thread is going down in a faster frequency than a Mentzer workout.
I did many years ago … but just didn’t want to acknowledge it. Started to really sink in when I found the Cyber Pump site … anybody remember that place ? That is when I started to see you had to have a certain stubborn, belligerent, rock-headed attitude (like I had ) to be that taken by HIT - as 99% of everyone else who looked really good , didn’t train that way.
But … I think we’re the real nuts because I’d still bet that Bane is putting us all on and rolling on the floor laughing about the responses this thread has received.
I think it’s mostly in response to the nonsense you hear about training everywhere.
When you hear Mentzer or Trudel say “only one set to failure per muscle per week” - all the volume guys lose their minds. They cannot wrap their heads around how to generate enough tension to exhaust a muscle in one single set.
At one point, I was that way too. But I gave it a shot, saw tremendous results, and haven’t looked back.
When newbies start in the gym, they just grow from doing whatever. Eventually they stumble onto some form of routine, and still grow from it.
When they stop growing from that routine, the answer is usually “if more was good, more should be better” - so they jack up the volume.
At one point, I’m sure I was hitting 20+ sets per muscle per week on 6 days/wk. I now grow on 4 sets per muscle per week on 3 days/wk. Why? because I train to failure and beforehand, I might have only kinda sorta went to failure.
Even when evidence squarely points to greater growth when training in close proximity to failure, ideally with <RIR2, people still argue for more volume. Usually because “Arnold said…”
The HIT stuff is so vehemently argued against that it makes it’s proponents have to go just as hard in defense of it. Queue dogma.
I’ve got a mild approach to it, but at the end of the day - HIT will always produce better results than higher volume alternatives (if effective reps are equated).
