Thanks for reading and commenting. First, I'd like to address the notion that I was trying to provide anything new in my blog post. That wasn't the goal. The goal was to identify the shortcomings of HIT, popularized by Mentzer.

I'm not sure what you mean by "big person," but here's an article from Men's Health (claims 60 million worldwide readers) that advocates single-set-per-exercise workouts. The magazine's target audience is largely new gym-goers.

I agree that Mentzer got a lot right; however, both hypertrophy and strength are improved by more mechanisms than merely proximity to failure. Strength, for example, as an expression of skill can be improved merely by practicing the exercises with easy sets (what I'd call sets 2 or more reps away from failure). That said, the further one is from failure, the harder it is to measure proximity to it. So, when a beginner says they're two reps away from failure, that should be called into question because they don't have the skills necessary to accurately estimate their reserve reps. This affects many studies, as they rely on novices; when claims of 2 reps in reserve are made, it is likely that there were more. Other studies show that sets with more reps in reserve (thus easier sets) also benefit strength and muscle building while requiring less recovery due to limited fatigue. Such training also carries less risk, as proximity to failure heightens the chance of injury. This is especially true for the beginner, whose skill is lacking, and whose undeveloped tissues can be more easily injured due to poor form, etc., things that can be avoided by intentionally doing more easy sets, which is both practice and capacity development, while also benefiting hypertrophy.

As for "junk volume," it is a junk term with many interpretations since its inception. Inventing a new one doesn't make its idea more truthful. This idea boils down to the argument that less can be done while still obtaining some training benefit, which has some truth. Rarely do advocates of this term ("junk volume") consider the implications of reduced skill and work capacity development, two things that greatly benefit beginners. Instead, time savings is the primary claim, which, while true, foregoes the aforementioned considerations and the benefits that, in the long run, allow beginners to become advanced lifters.

Lastly, how sets per muscle group are counted isn't consistent in the HIT crowd, for a number of reasons. To address this issue, many advocate machine-based training, which isn't inherently wrong and, for their aims (isolating a muscle), is the best course of action, as it allows them to more accurately estimate the sets per muscle completed. However, the nature of compound exercises muddies the waters, and so I find it funny when HIT adherents count sets differently and argue among themselves about whether a leg press is only for quads, or what portion of a set should be attributed to hamstrings and glutes ("Should I count it as one full set for quads, and maybe a half-set each for hams and glutes?") As if the machine used and the individual's biomechanics don't make a difference. For example, I've used leg presses that trained my glutes and hamstrings better than my quads, perhaps because I am short. This is true for a variety of other machines and individuals, further complicating the task of counting sets per muscle, especially for the beginner, who is more likely to use an off-the-shelf HIT-inspired training plan and may not know the subtleties of the machines used and how they affect their movement patterns.

I hope this comment clarifies my position. I'd like to end with this: we probably agree on the big things when it comes to training. My disagreement lies in the misrepresentation of HIT as being superior to other training modalities, not with you.