I would be interested to know people's opinions about John Broz' statement, that very high volume protects from injuries because the ever present fatigue hinders the body from using intensities where such injuries are likely to occur.
This is obviously in respect to weight training, not throwing a baseball etc. But that is a perspective that stands in large contrast to the points made in the article.
I think this position, volume as the main predictor of injury, can only be argued for when there is a minimum intensity requirement. To effectively train there certainly is. But regarding the bench press example one could certainly ask whether an injury had occurred, when 395 lbs were used for 5x5. I think it is less likely. So my counter-argument would be that injury risk is best predicted by an interaction of volume x intensity - much more so then one of those alone (which again leads to the author's point of view and the real questions: how much intensity is required to make progress and at which intensity can efficiency be maximized?)
On a side note: Volume as a predictor of injury could also have nothing to do with improper programming, but simple statistics. If there was a fixed injury risk of 0,1% per repetition at a given intensity, then doing more repetitions would increase the likelihood of an injury. But NOT because of fatigue and improper mechanics, but just because there are more opportunities for the incident to occur. The injury risk of 0,1% could still remain the same and injury could even happen when a heavy single is programmed (although less likely). The take-away message is that injury cannot ever be ruled out and not every injury is due to improper programming.
I dont know if there is much *or any* scientific backing to what broz is claiming, but if he thinks that from years of doing his program his way, then I would think there definitely may be some merit to the idea. Even if the reasoning behind WHY it works is different, eg. lifting a heavy weight more frequently actually makes you better "practiced" at lifting that weight, hence the less likely form breakdown, etc.
I agree with you on your analysis of the rest of that, though the comment posted was in context of his problem with the max effort method, which would entail only ONE set of 405, and that set would in that context in fact be less likely to cause injury.
There is also no real PROOF that working up to one heavy set is actually more draining on the cns than doing something like 5 x 8, only speculation from what Ive seen. In my personal experience I would say the days when working up to a low(ish) rep max, compared to the days with more volume via "bodybuilding" type schemes are actually LESS cns draining, and those days can potentiate things like sprints, jumps, etc, much more effectively.
In fact, thats what many program those days via the max effort method for, stimulation, not annihilation of the cns. The higher rep range work at a lower intensity is programmed as a hypertrophy stimulus primarily, and athletic events need to be spaced further apart from these days, as theyre actually MORE draining.
In the long run, progression of LOAD over time is king, however you choose to get there remains trivial as there is more than one way to skin a cat.
