Wanted to get the discussion going on a big question that’ll have a ton of different answers: What is High Intensity Training?
When someone says they’re “a fan/follower of HIT” or they “train in a HIT-style”, what does that mean and, really, what does someone think it means when they hear it?
Traditionally, HIT is best associated with Arthur Jones or Mike Mentzer and is synonymous with full-body workouts; often, but not necessarily, machine-based exercises; generally one work set per bodypart; and training up to or beyond muscular failure. If you checked some or all of those boxes, you were training “HIT style”. If you didn’t, then you didn’t.
Training with multiple sets per bodypart is one classic example of not HIT, presuming that it cannot be “high intensity training” if you have the energy for multiple sets.
John Meadows will surely have his eyes opened on learning that a leg day with 4 sets of leg curls with a drop set, 2 sets of stiff-leg deads, 3 sets of 3-second eccentric leg presses, and 3 sets of hack squats with drop sets isn’t actually high intensity.
So, what’s the deal? Is it just a matter of people getting hung up on semantics and unnecessary labels while being drawn towards cliques? Or is there any reason to acknowledge valid differences between “this way of training” and “that way of training”?