1. High volume theory lacks specificity. It can not tell you at what exact point growth has been stimulated. Take the typicial 4-5 exercises per body part of 5+ sets of 10 reps. If you don't make progress, should you add or subtract a set? From which exercise? Add or subtract weight? From which exercise?
Does HIT really tell you at "what exact point growth has been stimulated"? Failure after one set? Now some authors may say they know when growth has been stimulated. But simply saying this does not make it so. Any research they point to overlooks one possibility, would they have grown more if they did a few extra sets? Whether the intensity was higher or lower, to failure or not, the researchers cannot say what the results would have been.
I understand what you're saying in the second half. If you're doing 4-5 exercises per bodypart, it is hard to gauge your progress. I like to focus on one exercise per major bodypart. I can go to failure. I can do more sets if I want. And I have a rough estimate of how I'm progressing (either in strength or total workload).
2. Body parts are exposed to more training due to overlap. When you work your chest, you are also using your tri's and shoulders. And working the back works your bi's. Again, when you don't see progress with your tri's (lets say), do you add or subtract a set from your tri routine or chest routine.
Overlap is a problem. Exposing the body parts to more training isn't necessarily bad, but strength levels can be affected.
I don't have a tri routine. I bench and I press overhead.
3. High volume does not give enough time for the body to compensate for growth. How can it? When you work out 5-6 days per week and working some body parts more than once, where is the opprutuniy to grow? Your body does not grow during the workout, it starts to compensate for growth while resting. Where is the rest time if you're working out 5+ times per week? As Arthur Jones pointed out, the more sets you do requires more of your body's resources. The more of the resources that are used up, the longer it will take to replenish them, and thats not even taking into account the time needed for growth.
What is enough time to compensate for growth? Who says? Researchers or Stuart McRobert?
How can it? I guess you've never ate 5,000 calories per day. I don't work the same bodyparts directly more than once a week right now but I definitely think it would be possible to follow a routine training each part twice a week on which you'd grow.
If you work out 5 days per week, you aren't working out 24 hours each time. you are working out for maybe an hour per workout. The other 23 odd hours of the day and while you're sleeping 9 hours your body is continually repairing muscle.
How can you grow? Eat enough and get enough sleep.
I think Arthur Jones is one of the most interesting characters in the iron game, but I don't think much of his training theories. He was trying to sell his nautilus equipment. The American public doesn't want to hear that they need to workout more than once or twice a week. BTW, have any of you guys checked out Arthur Jones 1,000+ page autobiography. It's available in electronic format from Ellington Darden's
www.classicx.com
4. I think the term high volume should be renamed over volume. The key to stimulating growth is maximal muscle contraction. You (meaning everbody) can acheive a maximal contraction in as little as 2 sets. Why would you need 15 sets to do what could take 2. When you take an exercise to positive failure, you have acheived a maximal contraction
This last one isn't really a point. I think it can be overtraining, but isn't as often as most people think. I agree that you can stimulate growth in 2 sets. But is it the maximum amount of muscle growth possible?
You can cause more microtrauma with more sets. I think we can agree on that. Our muscular systems are capable of a lot more than we give them credit for. But of course there is a limit. Our immune systems can easily be overwhelmed when we venture higher in sets.
Einstein, I'm enjoying this discussion.
Goahead,
I'm with you. I think it's good to change the volume every once in a while. Like I've said, less sets works well for strength. Although I think it's more mental than anything, knowing you just have to go all out on one or two sets to establish new personal bests.
I'm doing low to moderate volume right now. Around 10 sets 3 times a week. Some of the HIT guys are probably doing double takes right now as I basically described a low volume HIT program. I'm focusing on strength now like I said. Some sets are taken to failure and some aren't. Overhead presses are one exercise I'm really focusing on now and I can't mentally not go to failure. I just want more weight for more reps.
With a proper HIT routine, you will see an increase in either weight used or reps with each exercise of every workout and never hit a plateau
Even if I'm dieting? Just kidding.
But I'm interested in what you said. Listen, I think that sometimes there may be inherent ceilings for some lifts which make it hard to make continual progress every workout. Take overhead presses for example. I'm up to using 175 for a set of 3 and I weigh around 210. How exactly would I make better progress with HIT? How am I not going to hit a plateau before getting to 205 for 3 like I want to? If you have any ideas I really am very open to them.
feel free to correct me but if you can do 25 sets / body part. I think you don't train like an animal or you're on juice. Do you rep until the moment you're feel like you're head is going to explode?
Don't train like an animal? What is your definition of training like an animal? Because most HITters could be felled by one of my high volume workouts
Is training like an animal doing 2 sets to failure for one exercise? What if you do that and then continue doing set after set to muscular failure? What if after the 5th set every rep of every set makes you "feel like your head is going to explode"?
Now, I'm not talking about your typical biceps pumper. I'm talking bent rows. Have you ever tried to 10 sets of rows to failure? Have you ever done more than 2 sets of deadlifts in one workout?
If training like an animal is the issue then HIT loses. You can combine heavy sets to failure with more.
I think the only area where HIT stands at the top of the hill is in terms of recovery. For those who can't tell when they're going over the line, it gives them stricter limits.
If you have tried HIT and wasn't impressed, my guess is you didn't follow the theory through 100%. Maybe you didn't go to + failure, worked out to often, or did to many sets
Einstein, why is it that he must not have followed the program right. What if he did all that and still didn't gain?
High volume literally breaks every physiological rule for muscle growth.
I'm glad the muscle scientists finally figured this out. I think some of the guys who grow off high volume should be informed.
Sarcasm aside, I'm very impressed that you're willing to help out those who you feel need guidance.
you obviously don't train with enough intensity, or have a near perfect diet.
What if he trains with the same intensity you do but does more sets and he has a near perfect diet? Unbelievable I know.
The 'HITer's central philosophy is never at fault' because it works for 999,999 people out of a million.
Oh thank god the training Holy Grail. We'll never have to worry about plateaus again.
What is your definition of "works"? Any program will produce results if you put the work in.
However everybody requires the same workload to stimulate growth.
I find this to be the most unreasonable statement in this entire thread. Even more so than this one ...
Cats fly carrots.
The same workload?
The same workload!?!
What?
Workload is the total amount of weight lifted in a session. Not just intensity.
Individuals can even stimulate growth with different workloads. Yes the same person. Like when you switch from low volume to high volume (if you ever do) you'll find that you stimulate growth even though you're using a different workload.
Is the hardest rep of a set the first rep?the 5th?No it is the last rep, because it is that rep that requires more bodily resources to complete it. The last rep that takes you to + failure is requiring maximal intensity and contraction.
Bodily resources. You mean glycogen. (With a little will power mixed in)
Bodily resources are the most taxed on the last rep of a set.
But why just one final rep?
What if you had two, three or even 10 last reps in a workout?
If you could curl 120lbs for 10 reps but only did 4 do you think you would ever grow? No. If you did 8 reps would you grow? No, you must carry a set to positive failure if you are to stimulate an increase in strength and size.
All right, put down your copy of Heavy Duty 2 and come out with your hands up.
If you can curl 120 lbs for 10 reps, well firstly if it's without body swing, congratulations.
Here's a scenario for you. What if you did 10 sets of 5 with 120 lbs? Only the last set or two would actually be taken to failure.
You don't think you'd grow?
Your second argument is what works for me may not work for you. That is also physiologically incorrect. Using the biecp as an example: Your bicep works the same way as mine. The sole purpose of the bicep is to contract. This is universal in all humans. Likewise, our bicep is composed of the same material, there is no human that is born with a bicep made out of fat, magnesium, or anything else wierd. Since we are similar in physiological structure, we also share the same stimulus needed to produce growth and size (training to + failure).
Sorry but that is incorrect. You're forgetting those who grow off super high volume. If it works for them, why doesn't it work for you?
You share the same physiological makeup....
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
In my experience, HIT advocates that can't see another way have been either stupid, lazy, and/or lack a high school diploma (immature and lacking real, tested experience). HIT is not the end all, be all of workout philosophies. Anyone who believes so deserves to have their opinion cast aside as irrelevant.
