This is what I was questioning:
"I believe that if one were to objectively evaluate a power lifting workout, he may discover a modified application of the High Intensity Training principles."
And I was asking you to explain it.
Not : "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there. "
However, I will try to discuss both.
I disagree with the first quote. I will compare guidelines from the HIT FAQ with the general guidelines of the conjugate training method for powerlifting as expoused by Simmons. Much of his work is based on research and theories by Siff, Zatsiorsky, Prilepin, Roman, and Medvedyev.
A. Definition of intensity. Why did the HIT camp feel the need to change it? HIT Definition: "Intensity can be defined as the percent of your momentary ability to perform an exercise."
Standard definition:" % of one rep max." This will be relevant later so I mentioning for more than one reason.
B. "Hard - as hard as possible in good form." This should be true of all training programs, and was true even before Weightlifting was introduced as an Olympic event more than one hundred years ago. So this is an application of a principle of long standing, not an application of a HIT principle.
C. "Brief - 1-3 sets of a few basic exercises performed in an hour or less." Using the conjugate method, one will often perform 10-12 sets of squats, or 8 - 10 sets of benches.
D. "Infrequent - No more than three times per week, often times two, or even one." 4 - 6 times a week, plus exercises sessions to increase GPP, plus recovery workouts.
E. "Safe - HIT is intended to be an extremely productive protocol, but also one that stresses safety. One of the fundamental goals of strength training is to act as injury preventative." Once again, this has been a principle of long standing, and keep your athletes healthy is the number goal of any good coach, and has been for many more decades, if not centuries.
F. "Intensity is defined as "a percentage of momentary ability". In other words, intensity relates to the degree of "inroad" or muscular fatigue, made into muscle at any given instant." How can one possible measure this?
"Research, going back almost 100 years now has conclusively shown that intensity is the single most important factor in obtaining results from strength training." I disagree again. It has been shown to be a factor, not the single most important one. And at least two of the studies referenced use the tradition definition of intensity, not the HIT definition. Other factors involved in strength training, such as maximal effort and maximal acceleration, have long been held to be important, if not equally important.
G. "Follow the "double progression" technique in regards to repetitions and weight." This is fine, and has long been a standard. To improve, you must work harder.
H. "Perform 1 to 3 sets of each exercise." See above.
I. "Reach concentric muscular failure within a prescribed number of repetitions." Why? This depends on your goals.
J. "Perform each repetition with proper form." Once again a standard long before HIT.
"A repetition should be performed by raising and lowering the weight in a deliberate, controlled manner. "Explosive" lifting is not only non-productive, but also dangerous.
This is one of the issues that is stressed most by HIT advocates. Anytime, anyone, be they Mr. Universe, or some "expert" trainer, whomever, tells you to move a weight fast, "ballistically", in an "explosive" style just walk away.
That person is a fool."
Several problems here, but I will basically state that one trains in a ballistic manner, both as a powerlifter and weightlifter, to learn to generate as much force as possilbe. This is, after all, essential to the goal of moving as much weight as possible. And as to the issue of safety, just because one is moving a weight quickly, this does not mean that it is done with poor technique. This is one of the reasons that lower intensity lifting is done in training, to insure that when the intensity is increased, one's skills are strong enough to ensure proper technique.
K. "Use a full range of motion." This is fine for most exercise, but partials are often used to work both specific sticking points within a lift, such as lockouts on the bench, or pulls from a certain height or to a certain height.
L. "Train for no more than one hour per workout." Not really a problem here.
M. "Move quickly between sets." Once again, the conditioning standard has been in place for more than one hundred years.
N. "Exercise the major muscle groups first." Decent general guideline, but numerous exceptions occur when a weak muscle or muscle group is limiting performance on a specific lift.
O. "Do not split your routine - do not work your body on successive days." See earlier comments about conditioning.
P. "Get ample rest after each training session." The muscles are not the only thing being exercised, and often, are relatively incedental to the goal of the workout when one is lifting to improve skill. The CNS recovers much faster, and so the highly skilled lifts can be trained far more often, such as the snatch and the clean and jerk.
Q. "Take periodic layoffs." Well, ok, but not necessarily. Many well trained athletes will only take a couple of days off after a competition, and are back in the gym trying to improve their skill levels quickly.
R. "As you get stronger decrease the frequency of workouts and/or amount of sets." Crap, conditioning should be improving as well. Witness the frequency of training of the most successful teams in the world (Westside, Soviet Dynamo Club, Bulgarians, Greece, etc.).
S. "Do not try to "mimic" a sports skill in the weightroom." See previous post about specific skill training/lifting.
T. "Avoid Orthopaedically Unsound Movements." What in the hell is wrong with Good Mornings, bent over rows, or t-bar rows?
Those pretty much seem to be the guidelines, and the few I do not disagree with I would still not term HIT principles, as they were principles that were common knowledge long before Jones ever came along.
As for the following "If Mike Mentzer advocated nothing else, it was for bodybuilders, weightlifters, and just average people looking to improve themselves, to stop going into the gym and blindly or mindlessly training. People just need to evaulate where they are, where they're going, and the best way to get there. "
Well, once again, this was the standard thing to do long before Mentzer even opened his mouth. And I do not want to turn this into a rant on Mentzer, as this discussion is staying reasonable.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
