Volume Training Vs. HIT

When considering “high intensity training” (HIT) and the classic “volume” training model, both have benefits and weaknesses.  HIT seems as though is a very useful method of training.  Since most lifters do not have the time and often the resources to attain a 1RM, the HIT method makes more sense.  I have also found that a 1RM does not necessarily reflect ones 6rm, 12rm, or any rm for that matter.  I have personally found that the 1rm is not a good training method for me.  Having said that, I feel that there are more problems with the HIT method than there are benefits.   Research has shown that a combination of high and low intensity is best for muscle growth and adaptation.  You cannot go “all out” every workout.   HIT also claims that as little as one set can be just as beneficial as several, and research has shown otherwise.

                My main problem with HIT is that I like to focus on one body part during a workout rather than flooding my workout with exercises across the spectrum.  When you are doing high intensity single sets and hitting several muscle groups, it becomes overwhelming.  It is better for rest and organization to split your workouts and follow a volume style workout plan.  I think that some principles of HIT can be added into a workout and can be done periodically to give a workout variety.  Perhaps HIT could help someone get past a plateau?  I feel that the workout can be organized in a volume fashion, and incorporate HIT principles in the last set of a particular exercise.  There are guidelines backed by years of research that recommend sets, reps and even rest between set recommendations for exercise.  NSCA puts these guidelines out because they have proven effective.  HIT might be great for muscular endurance, but is it good for strength and hypertrophy?  The bottom line is probably going to be one’s personal goals in the gym.  I think that overall the HIT principles of training cannot stand alone as a workout philosophy.