I can see my arguments are a bit over your head so I will further clarify.
You have to distinguish between an actual workout routine and the HIT principles. Yes, Mentzer, I believe went overboard. I am reluctant to discount him completely because I have no empirical evidence. It seemed so counterintuitive that it wasn't worth experimenting with. Nonetheless, he still abided by the HIT principles: intensity, frequency, duration... it is how these principles are applies that varies widely.
Yes, Dorian retired not just because of injuries as he kept on competing even after his muscle tear. He, himself, stated that he just lost the drive and desire -- a condition quite common with many, if not most, of the professional athletes. And just because he injured himself does not mean he didn't follow the HIT principles. I don't see the connection. And Humble (may I call you "Humble" for sake of brevity?), if you want to have a serious discussion please refrain from hyperbole. It doesn't help your argument but only damages your credibility. Dorian wasn't, "tearing something almost every workout." Nobody, even you, believe that.
You keep bringing up NFL teams and their training. For one thing, this is not what we are debating. We are debating intensity. Furthermore, because something is in widespread use or practice doesn't in and of itself prove its validity. This is what I mean when I say it seems this subject is getting to a level a bit over your head. You're just throwing things on the wall hoping something will stick.
You make the blanket statement that I don't know what I am talking about and you presume you can speak for ALL strength coaches, yet offer no evidence, explanation, or argument to support this charge. Just an emotional-based accusation. You seem to not understand that there is often a case where force generated and intensity of effort are inversely proportional. The lower the force generated the higher the intensity.
Jones machines were designed as an improvement over the barbell. He didn't have to "con" anybody as it was obvious to a thinking person. Just compare a typical barbell movement with the Nautilus version. Look at, say, the barbell curl. You get no resistance at the beginning of the movement and the resistance starts to increase as you curl the bar. The resistance is limited to only a downward movement. With the Nautilus machine, you can see, because of its rotary design, which is how your joints move, that you get resistance throughout the full range of motion, and with the cam design try to emulate the strength curve of the movement. Now when I say this is superior it assumes one believes that full range, rotary, variable resistance are important factors. I will admit that I don't know if it really matters in the real world. Would Arnold have developed even bigger biceps if he substituted the barbell curl with the Nautilus curl. We will never know for sure.
My argument was about intensity. I have offered evidence by strength coaches proving my point. Here is a bodybuilding trainer spelling it out for you.
Factor #6 TRAINING SESSION VOLUME and INTENSITY
These two factors play a major role in any
weight training program. Traditionally, training
volume is emphasized by bodybuilders who want
to maximize muscle size. Intensity is emphasized
by power lifters, or strength-oriented athletes.
Training volume can be defined basically as the
measure of total weight being lifted in a workout.
It is determined by multiplying the weight being lifted by the repetitions and number of sets
performed together (Volume = weight ∞ reps
∞ sets). For example, if you bench-pressed 175
pounds for 5 sets of 8 repetitions each your total
volume would be:
EXAMPLE
175 lbs. x 8 reps x 5 sets = 7,000 lbs.
Intensity, on the other hand, measures the average weight lifted during a workout. Intensity
is determined by dividing the volume of weight lifted in a session by the total number of repetitions performed. For example:
EXAMPLE B
First Set: 225 lbs. x 10 reps = 2,250 lbs.
Second Set: 275 lbs. x 6 reps = 1,650 lbs.
Third Set: 325 lbs. x 4 reps = 1,300 lbs.
Total Volume = 5,200 lbs.
Total Intensity = 5,200 lbs. 20 reps = 260 lbs.
Total intensity for the first example (A) equals 175 lbs. simply because the same weight was
used for each set.
The definition of high-intensity training became confused by many during the 1980s. Some
26 BIG BEYOND BELIEF
misunderstood that “high-intensity” training meant you were putting out more effort or “training harder.” This in incorrect. In fact, if you were to duplicate the above workouts you might
well find the higher volume workout to be much more strenuous and difficult to perform than
the higher “intensity” session.
On the other hand, do not make the mistake of thinking that you could gain maximum muscle
growth by performing endless repetitions with little or no weight (no volume). This would essentially amount to calisthenics and we know this would not build a high-degree of muscle.
Understand that the terms volume and intensity are relative and our Training Model dictates
that a proper combination of both be used. As you will discover upon integrating the Big
Beyond Belief workouts, volume and intensity must be strategically adjusted over time. This
is accomplished through the application of micro-periodization, hyperacceleration, and hyperadaptation. These techniques will be explained later in this chapter.