The problem is that this discussion gets bogged down into right or wrong… black or white… when the truth (much as the dogmatists have difficulty dealing with) as usual lies somewhere in the middle.
As any layman’s knowlege of training adaptation will tell you both protocol’s have beneficial effect’s both of which contribute to either hypertrophy (proliferation of intra and inter cellular components) and strength (maximizing neurological efficiency).
Periodizing ones yearly training according to the percentages of each needed to meet varying goals (since BOTH contribute) is fairly universally recognized by anaerobic performance coaches…(put a 100 meter sprinter on a year round program of exclusively maximal sprint training and watch how quickly his performance grinds to a halt…not only because you’ve ignored some of the more volume-based work needed to WITHSTAND that high intensity work …but also it is purely a one-dimensional neural stimulus leaving the neural side of the neural-muscular system flat (it takes 7 times longer for a nerve cell to regain homeostatic balance v.s. a muscle cell).
I trained world class swim sprinters and although you can get fast rsults with the high intensity work most specific to their event , if you truly want to maximize this capacity long term you MUST also do yearround slightly higher volume workloads to provide those support adaptations for ongoing anaerobic development.
I began bodybuilding in 1994 on pure ‘heavy duty’ for 3-4 years and went from 153-175. I halted for 2 years in the vacinity of 175 despite lots of dietary manipulation and supplement use.
I then began a multiset body part split ‘volume’ approach in 1998 andseemingly immediately went to 192. Interestingly my strength did not go up significantly at all.
I now use a periodized approach and get more out of both…and am at 204.
The body just is not as singular in it’s range of muscle-building adaptive capacity as the Mentzerites would have you believe.