H.I.T. stands for High Intensity Training and has quite a big following. The basic idea behind it is that volume should be minimal and every set should be taken to failure to maximize muscle / motor unit activation. Basically, it sounds good on paper but in reality is a bunch of crock. It might have a place in training for the purpose of variety but it’s purported benefits do not live up to the claims (indicated by several research studies as well as anecdotal evidence).
Keep in mind that almost all of the top olympic weightlifters in the past decade have used very high loads lifted for submaximal repitions for numerous sets. For example, 10 x 2 @ 90%. Under this protocol, an athlete is able to lift 20 total reps at a 90% load. If they were to take sets to failure they would perhaps only be able to lift a total of 6 reps @ 90%. Not only does this allow for a greater volume of work to be done at a very high intensity, but it also is slightly sub-maximal, meaning a faster and perhaps greater supercompensation. This would explain why even 4 x 2 @ 90% would yield greater strength gains than 2 sets taken to failure at 90% (for perhaps 3 reps on set 1 and then 2 reps on set 2).
I’ve used something similar to Kebba’s routine but have also performed straight sets without variation other than the load. I think doing it like this (straight sets with varying increasing load) offers a great opportunity to work the whole speed continuum. This however can only be done if the lighter sets are not just viewed as ‘warmup sets’ but rather as opportunities to develop power through higher velocity movement. Power is best developed with loads in the 55-65% range and the lighter sets that most would view as ‘warmup’ can actually be used for serious training.