Well, part of the problem is the terms we are using…
I’d say there’s three kinds of intensity (feel free to chime in y’all):
Intensity as a % of your 1RM. If you can squat 315lbs x 1, then 315 x 0.85 = 267.75lbs or 85% of your 1RM
Intensity in “training to failure.” If you can do 10 pull-ups with a gun to your head, then that would be full effort.
Intensity from special approaches. Drop sets, super-sets, burnout sets, anti-glycolytic training as Sangoma mentioned, etc.
For volume, although there are lots of ways to count it (e.g., total weight lifted in a session), I use only one:
Volume as a measure of work sets. If I do a set of barbell curls, that’s one set of biceps. If I do two sets of barbell curls, and two sets of dumbbell hammer curls, that’s four sets of biceps.
—
Now, if you accept the difference here between “intensity” and “volume,” then volume isn’t the issue per se. Yes, if you give a beginner 8 sets of moderate intensity biceps curls, then you’re an idiot. It’s too much of a training effect. But if you start them with 2-3 sets, then add 1-2 more sets every 2-4 additional weeks, you allow the beginner to adapt.
—
Last point that comes to mind…
Having had the luxury to get into lifting in my early 20’s, I found very little benefit from things like “drop sets,” “burnout sets,” “forced negatives,” etc.
All I’ve ever had to do to pack muscle on was a) eat, and b) slowly up the work sets and training frequency (almost never training a muscle more than twice a week). Weight per work set would come up naturally. I might start with 5 sets of dumbbell bench (2 incline, 2 flat, 1 decline), using 35’s-40’s on Week 1, then by Week 4 be doing 8 sets with 50’s or heavier.
There are hybrid systems (starting with a max effort lift or dynamic lift), but this general approach has been safe and effective.
