heavy weight less reps or lightweight more reps , or both

[MrFreshmaker]

Absolutely correct. Pullbacks, rest, etc., all play into individual success. In the video he compares squatting to failure vs volume during a routine where he's squatting 3 days a week. It's a flawed comparison as in a true HIT routine you would not even consider squatting to failure three times per week. All that said, there is no "one correct way" to build muscle. You have to find what works for you and take it to it's limit. I do enjoy his video's though. I've watched many of them.

Also in that video,when he talks about squats,on the first set he goes to failure,he does all sets with same weight,which is weird for me,i wouldnt call that training to failure!

[novastepp]

Also in that video,when he talks about squats,on the first set he goes to failure,he does all sets with same weight,which is weird for me,i wouldnt call that training to failure!

I don't know what his adaptations are (from his level of training, I would say they are advanced) but it does seem extremely difficult to believe that failure on the first set, would produce those reps on subsequent sets. I suppose his ability to recover after a set may be more than I've giving him credit for, but still seems very tough.

I think many gurus and well respected guys also refer to failure as the moment your form during the rep is compromised. That being said, it may help understand what he is referring to.

[kelkel]

I don't know what his adaptations are (from his level of training, I would say they are advanced) but it does seem extremely difficult to believe that failure on the first set, would produce those reps on subsequent sets. I suppose his ability to recover after a set may be more than I've giving him credit for, but still seems very tough.

I think many gurus and well respected guys also refer to failure as the moment your form during the rep is compromised. That being said, it may help understand what he is referring to.

True. His definition of failure does not seem to be what a HIT aficionado's would be.

[marcus300]

True. His definition of failure does not seem to be what a HIT aficionado's would be.

Norton is a well know knob who is out to extract money from guys who think he is natty who produces great gains, he's no idea IMHO and goes again everything I see as the way forward. The guy is a joke with an annoying voice. Studies what are funded by his sponsors and come on he is classed as a joke across the you tubers.

A good solid HIT workout would destroy each member in this thread apart from Kel who actually says what he does and not just copies other peoples work and writes about it.

some cvnts are very sad

Now not every body is suited to HIT even though they say they are but some are more suited to different approached like volume but for my body type and the thickness and size I want to gain and maintain there is no option but attack HIT

[novastepp]

Norton is a well know knob who is out to extract money from guys who think he is natty who produces great gains, he's no idea IMHO and goes again everything I see as the way forward. The guy is a joke with an annoying voice. Studies what are funded by his sponsors and come on he is classed as a joke across the you tubers. A good solid HIT workout would destroy each member in this thread apart from Kel who actually says what he does and not just copies other peoples work and writes about it. some cvnts are very sad Now not every body is suited to HIT even though they say they are but some are more suited to different approached like volume but for my body type and the thickness and size I want to gain and maintain there is no option but attack HIT

Many of Norton's comments in regard to research and volume are empirically proven. That training style has served him well, as an award winning strength athlete and as a trainer of literally thousands of people. I see no reason to attack him personally and generalize about what some may say about him; everybody has haters.

I also don't see the need to passive-aggressively say that other members would be destroyed by HIT style training. If it is not for them, and they choose to employ other methods, then I would think it should be applauded that they are trying to find what works for them. I would support anyone in that journey.

His video about periodization should be viewed by everyone on their journey to improvement in training. It is a sound principle that he helps break down and explains it very well; not all of his videos are winners but some are very well thought out and helpful!

[marcus300]

Many of Norton's comments in regard to research and volume are empirically proven. That training style has served him well, as an award winning strength athlete and as a trainer of literally thousands of people. I see no reason to attack him personally and generalize about what some may say about him; everybody has haters.

I also don't see the need to passive-aggressively say that other members would be destroyed by HIT style training. If it is not for them, and they choose to employ other methods, then I would think it should be applauded that they are trying to find what works for them. I would support anyone in that journey.

His video about periodization should be viewed by everyone on their journey to improvement in training. It is a sound principle that he helps break down and explains it very well; not all of his videos are winners but some are very well thought out and helpful!

Those comments were not address to anyone except you

please stop quoting me I really don't want to respond to you I thought we had an agreement

[novastepp]

Those comments were not address to anyone except you please stop quoting me I really don't want to respond to you I thought we had an agreement

I don't see how any of that is helpful to the thread. I'm not following you around posting stuff.