HIT argues that it is the right method. If followers do not make gains do they abandon the method? Nope. They simply come up with excuses or explanations to account for the lack of results. It is plain to me HIT theory is false. Period. There are some half truths that might be useful. The whole system is rubbish. Ditto for HST. Those methods are not going to work for massive gains.
Vince has some valid points, but is also prone to talking at people (pontificating: not much back and forth, answering selectively) and making blanket statements. Someone with that degree of experience should know better than to talk in absolutes, given the fact that there is nothing conclusive yet about many of these theories.
Smarter, in the absence of perfect knowledge, to assume that each has some validity, to pick and choose from each those things which work-most of Gironda's & Jones' theories make sense, but not all. I am not a HIT practicioner but am aware that it can be effective in theory and practice for those with the proper psyche needed to use it on an ongoing basis-not a large segment of trainers. True HIT is agonizing; most HIT trainers aren't doing real HIT nor is it satisfying for most trainers. Thus we have to separate effectiveness from desirability, as well-if it's effective but unappreciated for the long-term, it's efficacy is limited.
We also aren't sure whether HIT or any system works for the long-term vs. immediate short-term gains realized by the shock engendered by a change to any new and effective protocol, which can be misleading.
Lastly, it's still not established how much of the benefits of Jones' training was due to:
-The effectiveness of the equipment
-The effectiveness of HIT
-The effectiveness of being forcibly driven beyond normal training bounds, with a training partner. Those advantages might apply equally to conventional training as well as HIT.
-Synergies involving the above.
A better interview might've drilled down below the surface on these.
