# mike mentzer hit training



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

Just read his book regarding hit training and total rest between.sessions of up.to.8.days.

Seems a good theory on paper. But what are the.pros and.cons in this day and age regarding his techniques and philosophy about gaining size and strength.anyone successfully used.his.principles and gained better than using any other methods ??very interested in sensible views on this

thanks


----------



## solidcecil (Mar 8, 2012)

A lot of people gain well on HIT, try it and see if it works for you.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Similar philosophy, but I don't agree with his movement selection or reasons behind them.

But when I hit my PB's I was only hitting each body part every 14 days, and training 2x per week.


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

Anyone else actually follow this ? Or is it a lost method to dorians version ??


----------



## thehazzle (Jul 1, 2009)

Bit too extreme. I've been experimenting with 1 set per body part to failure and training 2 way split everything gets hit 2-3x a week depending how I feel and strength has sky rocketed. Breaking PRs on a cruise that I couldn't touch when blasting


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

Its the 6-8 days between sessions that struck me tbh.. Un todays training surely there is noone that stands by that philosophy anymore is there ??


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

With regard to hypertrophy, I understand that out of all the variables you can manipulate (such as rest between sets, volume, effort, %1RM, etc), the one most correlated to growth is total volume. Couple that with the fact that muscle protein synthesis only remains elevated for a day or so after a training session for a given muscle, and I think it's obvious that HIT is profoundly suboptimal. Current science seems to show that, for bodybuilding, more regular training with more volume is the way to go.


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> With regard to hypertrophy, I understand that out of all the variables you can manipulate (such as rest between sets, volume, effort, %1RM, etc), the one most correlated to growth is total volume. Couple that with the fact that muscle protein synthesis only remains elevated for a day or so after a training session for a given muscle, and I think it's obvious that HIT is profoundly suboptimal. Current science seems to show that, for bodybuilding, more regular training with more volume is the way to go.


Cheers for input mate.

I just wirking out the principles in my head and cant imagine.only training for examplr.chest 12/ 13 times per year. With less than.150 actual working reps per year. It just dont seem right. But thats why im interested to hear peoples thinking on it. The case he makes in hus book about digging a.hole and every rep after failure digs that hole.deeper so your inly ever building the hole back up first then buidling on top of it doesnt hapen if you train again within a week or until fully recovered etc. Its a massive claim and virtually blows 90% of other trainers ideas out the water.

Interesting stuff.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> With regard to hypertrophy, I understand that out of all the variables you can manipulate (such as rest between sets, volume, effort, %1RM, etc), the one most correlated to growth is total volume. Couple that with the fact that muscle protein synthesis only remains elevated for a day or so after a training session for a given muscle, and I think it's obvious that HIT is profoundly suboptimal. Current *science seems to show that, for bodybuilding, more regular training with more volume is the way to go*.


Where did you dredge up that nonsense? Volume of work has NO correlation to muscle growth, other than there obviously has to be a minimum amount,to cause effect, ie stimulate growth.

None of Mentzers writings that appeared during the 90s, are questionable IF, you understand and can grasp simple logic.

Re the bolded statement.Please direct me to double blind trials that can corraborate this claim.There is no "science" or application in what 99% of people do.Choices are made because of traditionalism, and mysticism.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

flinty90 said:


> Just read his book regarding hit training and total rest between.sessions of up.to.8.days.
> 
> Seems a good theory on paper. But what are the.pros and.cons in this day and age regarding his techniques and philosophy about gaining size and strength.anyone successfully used.his.principles and gained better than using any other methods ??very interested in sensible views on this
> 
> thanks


Flinty.Buy Body by Science(Mcguff) Its a very well rounded and researched application of exercise science, which strengthens most of Mentzers later writings, albeit slightly more in depth.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

I have always advocated HIT, not stringently following the guidelines as set out by Mentzer but by the intensity required in the gym and the recovery period needed afterwards.

I train for strength though so no idea about building muscle for show.


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

flinty90 said:


> The case he makes in hus book about digging a.hole and every rep after failure digs that hole.deeper so your inly ever building the hole back up first then buidling on top of it doesnt hapen if you train again within a week or until fully recovered etc. Its a massive claim and virtually blows 90% of other trainers ideas out the water.
> 
> Interesting stuff.


Yeah, that and the other analogy about tapping a stick of dynamite with a pencil are nice ideas, but the science just hasn't born them out.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

ive started following dorians training style , may well be the increased volume however i look bigger and ive dropped bodyfat , so far so good and i intend to sort diet out properly in new year and give dozzas style a good go


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

ewen said:


> ive started following dorians training style , may well be the increased volume however i look bigger and ive dropped bodyfat , so far so good and i intend to sort diet out properly in new year and give dozzas style a good go


Have you read any of mentzers stuff mate ? Could you personally wait 6-8 days between sessions to build mass ??


----------



## Steve 'B' (Dec 3, 2013)

Glad uve started this thread Flinty mate, I've not started training yet but I've been looking around gyms to find the one I think is right and I was talking to the bloke who owns a proper bodybuilding gym, asking his advise and he told me to research the mentzer HIT training method, and this fella was feckin massive....

Look forward to all posts on this as I've no idea if it's a good way to train for a beginner?


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

flinty90 said:


> Have you read any of mentzers stuff mate ? Could you personally wait 6-8 days between sessions to build mass ??


I couldn't but I can see how it works im just not convinced its the best approach but then what is .

See it worked for mike but he was top level before he came up with it so its difficult to say if he could have been as goodusing his methods from day one .


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

flinty90 said:


> Have you read any of mentzers stuff mate ? Could you personally wait 6-8 days between sessions to build mass ??


I can see how it would if you train with the correct intensity, indeed, the first time I did 260KG DL, it took me about 15s to get the weight up and I was wrecked for 2 weeks, I went gym but couldn't engage properly. Looking back, I should have had 2 weeks off.


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

I admit when i was only able to train twice per week i seemed to pack size on. Condition wasnt as good but then diet wasnt as tight. So i can see the merits in it. But thunking 1 session of 3 sets and 6-10 reps every 6 days seems silly when you say it out loud lol..


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

I've pretty much always trained bodyparts once every 8 days tbh. I have tried other methods with much poorer results.

I tried Mentzer's heavy duty training style way back when and found it very effective when used for one bodypart at a time. Trying to train all workouts in that manner led to some pretty swift burnout imo. Even nowadays I only do 1 or two high intensity sets for certain bodyparts.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

essexboy said:


> Where did you dredge up that nonsense?


I was wondering that? His bottom would be my best guess.



flinty90 said:


> Could you personally wait 6-8 days between sessions to build mass ??


Why are you hung up on the 6-8 days thing?

Start training less frequently, if you currently follow a more volume oriented approach and take it from there.

I do not think that waiting that long between training session is optimal, but if more people tried 2x per week, and 9 days between body parts, there would be a lot more muscle in the world.

I'm actually glad they are all sheep and don't TBH, as it makes me look better


----------



## El Toro Mr UK98 (Nov 11, 2011)

ewen said:


> ive started following dorians training style , may well be the increased volume however i look bigger and ive dropped bodyfat , so far so good and i intend to sort diet out properly in new year and give dozzas style a good go


Your defo looking bigger and leaner buddy, Im just starting to come round to HIT myself, hoping to get a training session in with the yates early next year


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

I bought Mentzer's original high intensity books (or more accurately booklets) in the early 80's, and there wan't anything in there about only training each muscle every week or less. His routine was a really basic 2 way split 4x per week.

I do 2 sets to failure per exercise 3x per week, and it's working better than anything I've ever done. I subscribe to the idea that the hypertrophy happens in the 36hrs or so after a workout, so it makes sense to hit muscles hard, brief & frequent.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

El Toro Mr UK98 said:


> *leaner*


 :lol:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

El Toro Mr UK98 said:


> Your defo looking bigger and leaner buddy, Im just starting to come round to HIT myself, hoping to get a training session in with the yates early next year


thanks :thumbup1:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Huntingground said:


> :lol:


shut it fattie


----------



## Sharp161 (Jan 31, 2010)

Iv trained hit for a while made some great gains. I read some of mentzer stuff but follow for of what I learned from dorian seems a bit more simple and logical to me.

I just go by feel, if something doesn't ache and it's been a few days il train it :-D my legs after heavy squats seem to take longer to recover so may do legs first one week then last the next. Seems to work for me. Not sure u could wait 8 days simply enjoy training too much.

Think it's took me a long time to get to the level of intensity needed and could probably stuff push further.


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

flinty90 said:


> Just read his book regarding hit training and total rest between.sessions of up.to.8.days.
> 
> Seems a good theory on paper. But what are the.pros and.cons in this day and age regarding his techniques and philosophy about gaining size and strength.anyone successfully used.his.principles and gained better than using any other methods ??very interested in sensible views on this
> 
> thanks


IMO hit/low volume training is good! The majority of my training has been low or lower volume.

The thing is when the volume is so low like with Mentzer I feel the frequency needs to be increased as its simply not enough...

The way I train atm is lower volume with higher frequency.

So I will usually stick to a ppl split that is 3 workouts but I'll do them over a 4 day split...

P,P,OFF,L,OFF,P,OFF.

Or Iv even gone as frequent as p,p,l,off,p,p,l,off,repeat.

The level of frequency is determined by the level of volume.

There were too many flaws in Mike's training but a couple of good points too.

Id say try it for a few weeks and see what you get out of it...

If you like some aspects then keep them in your training but imo you'll.need to add some thing to it, ether volume or frequency will need to be increased.

Jmo


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> Yeah, that and the other analogy about tapping a stick of dynamite with a pencil are nice ideas, but the science just hasn't born them out.


You have to ask exactly what science is.Its just a bunch of theories and notions, which are not concrete anyway.Its not a "nice idea" and recent research has verified what Jones discovered and applied in the 1960s.

The only real major flaw, was recovery.Jones recommended 3 full body workouts a week, of 12 movements, reducing to 2 w/os a week, and 10 movements.This amount of work proved far too much for many(me included)

Unfortunately the concept of what intensity actually is, has become the focus of the resistance to this type of workout.

Unless you have worked at the required intensity, and experienced the effects then its pointless.

Everybody thinks they work hard.Then when results are not forthcoming, blame the protocol.The protocol is legitimate and worthy.The variable is the perception of intensity.

You need to experience, 20 rep failure on a Nautilus Duo Squat, Double leg or Jones favourite combination of leg press to failure, leg extension to failure, Squat to failure with zero rest, and a partner pushing you to really grasp the potency of the regime.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Huntingground said:


> I can see how it would if you train with the correct intensity, indeed, the first time I did 260KG DL, it took me about 15s to get the weight up and I was wrecked for 2 weeks, I went gym but couldn't engage properly. Looking back, I should have had 2 weeks off.


This is exactly the point of long rest periods.If the object of training is examined,ie to cause an effect that needs time for the body to react to is examined then it makes perfect sense.If I cut my finger today, and expected it to be fully healed in 48 hours, I would be viewed as foolish.Yet this is exactly what is expected of bodies that are subjected to weight training.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

ewen said:


> I couldn't but I can see how it works im just not convinced its the best approach but then what is .
> 
> See it worked for mike but he was top level before he came up with it so its difficult to say if he could have been as goodusing his methods from day one .


youtube body by science Todd Beard.he has used Abbreviated training, drug free for many years.Check his results


----------



## Sharp161 (Jan 31, 2010)

essexboy said:


> You have to ask exactly what science is.Its just a bunch of theories and notions, which are not concrete anyway.


Urm?? Science is FACT based on research and proven results through testing/experimenting. A theory is just that a theory not science...

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."


----------



## ConP (Aug 18, 2013)

I think the biggest point that Mike tried to convey is that INTENSITY is needed to really push further growth in a muscle group.

A beginner can grow from training a muscle with sub average intensity every day of the week.

As the muscle grows and the genetic ceiling is approached the level of intensity muscle be high enough to push further growth.

I honestly only know a handful of guys that can train a set to an extreme level of intensity these are the largest strongest guys I know.

What I mainly disagree with when it comes to HIT is the lack of proper warm ups.

Do plenty of warm up sets and really get blood into the muscle before the final all out set.

You would be surprised at just how many top "volume" guys do this.

Lots of warm up sets but then only one all out set.

If you disregard the warm up sets these routines are actually very low volume! In my own experience workouts that have lots of moderately intense (none of them being all out just heavy and pretty taxing)sets yield the lowest results.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Sharp161 said:


> Urm?? Science is FACT based on research and proven results through testing/experimenting. A theory is just that a theory not science...
> 
> "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."


I was refering to exercise science,I should have made that clear.Which in effect, due to the nature of the subjects, and the very wide variables available, make accurate results very difficult to measure


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

essexboy said:


> I was refering to exercise science,I should have made that clear.Which in effect, due to the nature of the subjects, and the very wide variables available, make accurate results very difficult to measure


True, the adage ''what works for one may not work for another'' was never more apt than in strength and BB circles...up to a point anyway.


----------



## ConP (Aug 18, 2013)

mixerD1 said:


> True, the adage ''what works for one may not work for another'' was never more apt than in strength and BB circles...up to a point anyway.


Usually because of life circumstances.

Person A sits around all day works on the computer has a nap for 2 hours then sleeps 8 hours per night.

Person B works a manual job 8 hours per day then does door work and is lucky to sleep 6 hours per night.

Which one would be prone to over training?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

ConP said:


> Usually because of life circumstances.
> 
> Person A sits around all day works on the computer has a nap for 2 hours then sleeps 8 hours per night.
> 
> ...


Been there...know the answer mate.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

ConP said:


> Usually because of life circumstances.
> 
> Person A sits around all day works on the computer has a nap for 2 hours then sleeps 8 hours per night.
> 
> ...


Actually, my point was the difficulty in trying to prove the validity of a regime.

A good example, would be The Colorado Experiment.Take one genetic freak, whos lost a ton of weight and nearly died.Promise a substantial financial incentive for every pound of muscle gained, and all the rest, and food required.

The second subject me.Less than average genes, no recent weight loss due to ilness.

Both of us,of equal height, weight, and age.From the outside it might appear an equal "race" However, not until you factor in genes, motivation and ability would a likely outcome be more predictable.However, all those factors are imeasurable, and therefore any comparison inaccaurate.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

mixerD1 said:


> True, the adage ''what works for one may not work for another'' was never more apt than in strength and BB circles...up to a point anyway.


I truly believe that HIT or abbreviated training will work for everyone who gives it a fair chance, but most are afraid to, as it goes against the grain of the Flex reading masses, who when asked why they are doing, x,y or z in the gym, actually have no logical answer.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Interesting. I've just started reading his stuff and recently bought 1 of his books ''High Intensity Training The Mike Mentzer Way'' I think come late next year around Autumn I am gonna follow and give 12 - 20 weeks strictly training how he's instructed HIT. Just to REALLY see how this deal of training is, I like the style of training think it's Intense/Hardcore and new. as well as mentally challenging, it's just shear pain. problem is am actually a High volume guy lol or I would drop everything and try this HIT style of training and log it on here. but I simply enjoy spending time in the gym too much, I'd hate to only be performing 1 extremely slow contracted exercise per muscle group, course form is slow & controlled, but not in a fashion like Mentzers. I think come late next year I will give this a complete shot though for 3 - 5 months and log it. till then I will read more of his books and philosophy.

Check out his workout videos with clients on youtube:

Mike Mentzer's HIT: Chest & Back - Part I






Mike Mentzer's HIT: Chest & Back Part II


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Youngstarz said:


> I'd hate to only be performing 1 extremely slow contracted exercise per muscle group, course form is slow & controlled, but not in a fashion like Mentzers.


I totally disagree with this as optimal and also with his ideas on pre exhaust.

I did try the program as outlined in the original HD book many years ago, but it was not as good as my normal routine where I did the compound movement first.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Nytol said:


> I truly believe that HIT or abbreviated training will work for everyone who gives it a fair chance, but most are afraid to, as it goes against the grain of the Flex reading masses, who when asked why they are doing, x,y or z in the gym, actually have no logical answer.


I totally agree, also, I did say, ''up to a point anyway''.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

essexboy said:


> This is exactly the point of long rest periods.If the object of training is examined,ie to cause an effect that needs time for the body to react to is examined then it makes perfect sense.If I cut my finger today, and expected it to be fully healed in 48 hours, I would be viewed as foolish.Yet this is exactly what is expected of bodies that are subjected to weight training.


Agreed. What are we not agreeing about?


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

OK, can we see the physiques achieved by different techniques?


----------



## Inapsine (Dec 17, 2011)

I tried this for a month, yes you make good strength gains. But I couldn't keep doing it cause I just love training too much and waiting that long was torture!

I think if you did this for an extended period of time you would really need to focus on diet, as surely during the 8 rest days you can't keep eating excessive calorie surplus without gaining fat?


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

essexboy said:


> You have to ask exactly what science is.Its just a bunch of theories and notions





essexboy said:


> If I cut my finger today, and expected it to be fully healed in 48 hours, I would be viewed as foolish.Yet this is exactly what is expected of bodies that are subjected to weight training.


Did you really just call science a bunch of theories and notions, then directly compare the healing of training-induced micro trauma to a cut finger? I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were doing your best impression of a ketamine-addled peasant.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Huntingground said:


> Agreed. What are we not agreeing about?


We wasnt not agreeing! i was merely renforcing our view!


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

Nytol said:


> I truly believe that HIT or abbreviated training will work for everyone who gives it a fair chance


Oh, I do, too. I just think there are more optimal protocols.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> Did you really just call science a bunch of theories and notions, then directly compare the healing of training-induced micro trauma to a cut finger? I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were doing your best impression of a ketamine-addled peasant.


if you re-read the following post, youd realise that i was relating it to excercise science.However, nice try ,nothing of any substance left, so resort to an ad homien(sp) attack.


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

Nytol said:


> Why are you hung up on the 6-8 days thing?


Hey mate im not hung up on the idea mate im interested to see how other people felt about mentzers philosophy and if it still had a place in todays routines etc.. :thumbup1:



Inapsine said:


> I tried this for a month, yes you make good strength gains. But I couldn't keep doing it cause I just love training too much and waiting that long was torture!


Ok you tried what for a month the exact mike mentzer way ??? so you basically trained 4 times that month and made good strength gains ??


----------



## bail (Mar 19, 2010)

Youngstarz said:


> Interesting. I've just started reading his stuff and recently bought 1 of his books ''High Intensity Training The Mike Mentzer Way'' I think come late next year around Autumn I am gonna follow and give 12 - 20 weeks strictly training how he's instructed HIT. Just to REALLY see how this deal of training is, I like the style of training think it's Intense/Hardcore and new. as well as mentally challenging, it's just shear pain. problem is am actually a High volume guy lol or I would drop everything and try this HIT style of training and log it on here. but I simply enjoy spending time in the gym too much, I'd hate to only be performing 1 extremely slow contracted exercise per muscle group, course form is slow & controlled, but not in a fashion like Mentzers. I think come late next year I will give this a complete shot though for 3 - 5 months and log it. till then I will read more of his books and philosophy.
> 
> Check out his workout videos with clients on youtube:
> 
> ...


Haha watched the first one "notice how Marcus says a proper hello then moves on" cracks me up


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> Oh, I do, too. I just think there are more optimal protocols.


I don't, and my experience, and the experience of others who have adapted this style of training with me, from 40yr old guys, to pro BB'ers, have found the same.

But we can agree to disagree,


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

flinty90 said:


> Hey mate im not hung up on the idea mate im interested to see how other people felt about mentzers philosophy and if it still had a place in todays routines etc.. :thumbup1:


It does have a big place, but he is not 100% on the money IMO, but the overall philosophy of less, rather than more training, esp as we get bigger and stronger, should be at the foundation of everyones training routine.


----------



## Inapsine (Dec 17, 2011)

flinty90 said:


> Hey mate im not hung up on the idea mate im interested to see how other people felt about mentzers philosophy and if it still had a place in todays routines etc.. :thumbup1:
> 
> Ok you tried what for a month the exact mike mentzer way ??? so you basically trained 4 times that month and made good strength gains ??


I did the mike mentzer training program which was as follows:

Day 1: Maximum effort Chest and back

Day 2: Maximum effort Legs, shoulders

6-8 days rest

On each workout rep ranges where 6-8 reps, with the exclusion of legs which was 15-20 reps as suggested in Mike Mentzer's High Intensity traning.

In a month I trained 8 times, Added 5kg to bench, rows, squats each session. Shoulder press added 10kg in the month.

Wasn't on cycle either. Each workout lasted no longer then 45 minutes including warm up, one maximum intensity set per exercise.


----------



## LeviathanBodyBuilding (Jan 9, 2012)

this is why people should read his first book, heavy duty..which was written in 92/93

the program he outlined in it was basically a PPL routine that loads of people on this board love to recommend and/or take part in it as their own routine

he says, in the beginning...train every other day, ie mon,wed,fri or tue, thur sat. then at the end of each 3 day cycle..take two days off..so m/w/f are training days and take saturday and sunday off, then resume

"as you grow larger and stronger, the demands on your recoveryability become greater and the routine will *eventually* result in overtraining. Evidence of this will be an abrupt halt in progress..if you experience no progress in two weeks, take a week off..upon resuming your training, reduce the volume and frequency of your workouts" he gives examples of dropping certain exercises from each workout, and also states *instead of training every other day, train every 3rd or fourth day*

@ConP @essexboy and @Nytol have hit the nail on the head in their posts here about what mike was trying to put across in his books



Nytol said:


> I truly believe that HIT or abbreviated training will work for everyone who gives it a fair chance, but most are afraid to, as it goes against the grain of the Flex reading masses, who when asked why they are doing, x,y or z in the gym, actually have no logical answer.





Nytol said:


> It does have a big place, but he is not 100% on the money IMO, but the overall philosophy of less, rather than more training, esp as we get bigger and stronger, should be at the foundation of everyones training routine.





ConP said:


> I think the biggest point that Mike tried to convey is that INTENSITY is needed to really push further growth in a muscle group.
> 
> A beginner can grow from training a muscle with sub average intensity every day of the week.
> 
> ...





essexboy said:


> You have to ask exactly what science is.Its just a bunch of theories and notions, which are not concrete anyway.Its not a "nice idea" and recent research has verified what Jones discovered and applied in the 1960s.
> 
> The only real major flaw, was recovery.Jones recommended 3 full body workouts a week, of 12 movements, reducing to 2 w/os a week, and 10 movements.This amount of work proved far too much for many(me included)
> 
> ...


i dont think most people who try mikes workouts, are at the point where their body can generate enough intensity to take the long rest periods he prescribed, but most i think they are put off because they start to read his later writings where the up to 8 days rest is prescribed,even though it wasnt like this from his first routine, but more what it had evolved into based on the results his clients were getting and the adaptations he had to make to their programs. These up to 8 days or so (even more in some cases) rest periods between workouts are more suited to those people @ConP has mentioned,and all those who are big/strong enough to cause enough stress top their bodies each workout.

all they see is resting up to 8 days between workouts and it doesnt fit in with the 'i want to train 5-6 days a week for a few hours a day mentality' a vast amount of people have, so straight away dismiss it without giving it a go. however if they were to go back to the original workouts, with the everyother day frequency, i think a few opinions would be different.

i took the time out to read his books from cover to cover, and take in the theory of what he was trying to teach, and therefore i knew i was at the level where i was was able to train day on day off..i only stripped it back to 3 days per week as i wanted more of the weekend to myself, i followed it for months and made solid progress, but i knew i wasnt at that level where i would have to take 3,4,5,6 etc day in between workouts..i can just imagine the first thing when people read his later program, jumping straight to the routine part without taking anyting else in, and saying what the ****...4-7 days rest..no thanks

second to the program my coach has me on now, mikes routines were able to break me out of a plateau i was in and get me some of the best results iv ever had.


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

essexboy said:


> if you re-read the following post, youd realise that i was relating it to excercise science.


Which interestingly has zero mitigating effect on the original comment.



essexboy said:


> However, nice try ,nothing of any substance left, so resort to an ad homien(sp) attack.


There's a certain degree of seriousness warranted by people who make posts burgeoning with grammar and spelling errors, calling science a bunch of theories and notions, and directly comparing the healing of training-induced micro trauma to a cut finger, and that degree is pretty minimal.



Nytol said:


> I don't, and my experience, and the experience of others who have adapted this style of training with me, from 40yr old guys, to pro BB'ers, have found the same.
> 
> But we can agree to disagree,


Drugs introduce a pretty major confounding factor. I think a significant source of support for higher volume is that all of the top natural bodybuilders I know of use it. While it would be fallacious to make any solid conclusions based on that fact, for me at least it's highly suggestive.

On a personal level, I've used both ways. My results are incomparably better with higher volume (actually, most of my training career was with a low volume approach, and it's only recently since switching to higher volume that I've made any decent progress).

Regardless, bio-individuality is huge in living organisms, so I'm sure it's possible there are people who respond better to HIT. I suppose where we must disagree is in the more general prescription for most of the population-I think on average most people would see better results with higher volume, you think on average most would see better results with HIT.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

essexboy said:


> if you re-read the following post, youd realise that i was relating it to excercise science.However, nice try ,nothing of any substance left, so resort to an ad homien(sp) attack.


Take no heed EB, you do not look like a ketamine-addled pheasant. That was uncalled for Jesus H. Christ guy.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> Drugs introduce a pretty major confounding factor. I think a significant source of support for higher volume is that all of the top natural bodybuilders I know of use it. While it would be fallacious to make any solid conclusions based on that fact, for me at least it's highly suggestive.
> 
> On a personal level, I've used both ways. My results are incomparably better with higher volume (actually, most of my training career was with a low volume approach, and it's only recently since switching to higher volume that I've made any decent progress).
> 
> Regardless, bio-individuality is huge in living organisms, so I'm sure it's possible there are people who respond better to HIT. I suppose where we must disagree is in the more general prescription for most of the population-I think on average most people would see better results with higher volume, you think on average most would see better results with HIT.


Yes drugs are a factor, but I my opinion is the complete opposite of yours in that regard.

I trained drug free for many years using an abbreviated program as outlined in BRAWN, I gained over 60lbs of lean tissue, benched 180kg and Deadlifted 260kg before using any anabolic substances.

What is the logic behind your reasoning? Often genetically or anabolically blessed individuals can 'get away' with more training, but how is it more beneficial?

I should say that I have tried a more frequent training approach and a more volume oriented approach, and both led to a loss in muscle and strength. I like training, like being in the gym, am in a position to train for hours every day if it would lead to improvements, but it won't.

Maybe this is a character flaw on my part, but I always find I give less weight to people arguments regarding the benefits of a system, when they do not have a picture of themselves up as some kind of evidence.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

I've given my opinion on this in several threads. IME the huge majority of guys who have reached a muscular 250 lbs or so, have done so by using low volume/high effort routines. In 30 years of training I'm yet to meet anyone who has achieved this through volume alone. Yes, lots of lifters switch to more volume once they get big, but that's a different thing altogether...


----------



## bail (Mar 19, 2010)

Mingster said:


> I've given my opinion on this in several threads. IME the huge majority of guys who have reached a muscular 250 lbs or so, have done so by using low volume/high effort routines. In 30 years of training I'm yet to meet anyone who has achieved this through volume alone. Yes, lots of lifters switch to more volume once they get big, but that's a different thing altogether...


I agree with this


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

Mingster said:


> I've given my opinion on this in several threads. IME the huge majority of guys who have reached a muscular 250 lbs or so, have done so by using low volume/high effort routines. In 30 years of training I'm yet to meet anyone who has achieved this through volume alone. Yes, lots of lifters switch to more volume once they get big, but that's a different thing altogether...


keep banging your head against the wall bro..;-)


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Nytol said:


> Yes drugs are a factor, but I my opinion is the complete opposite of yours in that regard.
> 
> I trained drug free for many years using an abbreviated program as outlined in BRAWN, I gained over 60lbs of lean tissue, benched 180kg and Deadlifted 260kg before using any anabolic substances.
> 
> ...


Shamelessly guilty of the same thing.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

mixerD1 said:


> Shamelessly guilty of the same thing.


I imagine the son of God has got some f*cking amazing genetics though so he probably can get away with training like Phil Heath


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Nytol said:


> I imagine the son of God has got some f*cking amazing genetics though so he probably can get away with training like Phil Heath


Haha....poor oul Phil...body like God...personality like white paint.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

danMUNDY said:


> this is why people should read his first book, heavy duty..which was written in 92/93


I bought the Heavy Duty Manual around 1985, and it was a few years old then. His second book, Heavy Duty Journal, logged his training for the 1979 Olympia.

This probably explains the confusion here over training frequency, because in those books he very definitely advocated training either full body 3x per week or 4x a week / 2 way split. I know because I followed his routine for a couple of years.

Ellington Darden developed his ideas further in the High Intensity books, and that was all about full body 3x per week.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I bought the Heavy Duty Manual around 1985, and it was a few years old then. His second book, Heavy Duty Journal, logged his training for the 1979 Olympia.
> 
> This probably explains the confusion here over training frequency, because in those books he very definitely advocated training either full body 3x per week or 4x a week / 2 way split. I know because I followed his routine for a couple of years.
> 
> Ellington Darden developed his ideas further in the High Intensity books, and that was all about full body 3x per week.


Just for the record, I don't agree with that either.

I can't see how anyone can be progressing on lifts doing them 3x per week?

After an intense set of squats I was walking like I'd been abducted and rectally probed by aliens for 4-5 days.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Nytol said:


> I can't see how anyone can be progressing on lifts doing them 3x per week?


I made excellent progress when I switched over from complicated splits to a basic 3x a week routine, despite being 45 & natty when I did so.

The trick is to do enough to stimulate the muscle, rather than try to grind it into a paste & be forced to spend a week recovering.


----------



## LeviathanBodyBuilding (Jan 9, 2012)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I bought the Heavy Duty Manual around 1985, and it was a few years old then. His second book, Heavy Duty Journal, logged his training for the 1979 Olympia.
> 
> This probably explains the confusion here over training frequency, because in those books he very definitely advocated training either full body 3x per week or 4x a week / 2 way split. I know because I followed his routine for a couple of years.
> 
> Ellington Darden developed his ideas further in the High Intensity books, and that was all about full body 3x per week.


I dont have anything before the 92 heavy duty, the 2 way split is touched briefly upon in the wisdom of mike Montezer, which he refers to as his most successful routine. Would love to see the heavy duty journal as its one of the books that seem hardest to find, is gonna be reissued in the future according to his site but I can't wait that long haha

Just goes to show how much he revamped his sytems over the years. I don't know anyone that would need that much time between workouts, but it just goes to show how people differ in terms of recovery, but I wouldn't dismiss it just because it advises 8 days or so rest, just have to adapt it to what works for the individual

Do you still have the earlier books?


----------



## DazUKM (Nov 22, 2012)

You need to look at the individual, the training isn't going to be the same for a novice/intermediate/advanced trainee


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

danMUNDY said:


> Just goes to show how much he revamped his sytems over the years.


Let us not forget that Mike wanted to sell books and make money.

So if he did not write something different then no one would have bought them.

Unfortunately this is the case with the majority of writers from all genres.

Even BRAWN, which I recommend to every one, was followed up with pointless sequels.

I've said it to many people over the years, that I could write everything you need to know about training, diet and drugs on one side of A4, and it would likely get you to 95% of your genetic limit.

But who is going to pay money for that?


----------



## LeviathanBodyBuilding (Jan 9, 2012)

Nytol said:


> Let us not forget that Mike wanted to sell books and make money.
> 
> So if he did not write something different then no one would have bought them.
> 
> ...


Going by the size of you I wouldn't have any doubts on that last statement you just made


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

danMUNDY said:


> Going by the size of you I wouldn't have any doubts on that last statement you just made


Thank you 

But would you pay me a tenner for it? Could I get Waterstones to stock it?


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

Nytol said:


> What is the logic behind your reasoning? Often genetically or anabolically blessed individuals can 'get away' with more training, but how is it more beneficial?


My only point in that respect is that anabolics change the equation. I train drug-free so don't know enough to say definitively how they change training requirements, neither has it been studied to such a comprehensive extent that we can fall back on a pile of literature to reinforce our perspective.



Nytol said:


> Maybe this is a character flaw on my part, but I always find I give less weight to people arguments regarding the benefits of a system, when they do not have a picture of themselves up as some kind of evidence.


A personal photograph as an avatar isn't any type of meaningful evidence. Add to that the fact that photos can be set up to falsely maximize the impression of muscularity (such as how you've photographed your arm at an angle-instead of straight on-to make it look bigger).

I'm a natural trainer on a board where anabolic use is rampant, and my genetics are unimpressive. It's no mystery that I'm not exactly rabid about displaying the modest level of development I've attained. However, what is significant and probably my main qualification as far as credibility goes is that I've managed to make substantial improvements.


----------



## LeviathanBodyBuilding (Jan 9, 2012)

Nytol said:


> Thank you
> 
> But would you pay me a tenner for it? Could I get Waterstones to stock it?


Not sure about waterstones, but honestly mate..if I wasn't being coached by bigbear then yeah I probably would pay you for the info


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Nytol said:


> Let us not forget that Mike wanted to sell books and make money.
> 
> So if he did not write something different then no one would have bought them.
> 
> ...


Yup.Its also very difficult to sell hard work.Which is why, we are overwhelmed with routines, with catchy titles to try and sell fat poeple exercise regimes.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> My only point in that respect is that anabolics change the equation. I train drug-free so don't know enough to say definitively how they change training requirements, neither has it been studied to such a comprehensive extent that we can fall back on a pile of literature to reinforce our perspective.
> 
> A personal photograph as an avatar isn't any type of meaningful evidence. Add to that the fact that photos can be set up to falsely maximize the impression of muscularity (such as how you've photographed your arm at an angle-instead of straight on-to make it look bigger).
> 
> ...


That is a great post.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> My only point in that respect is that anabolics change the equation. I train drug-free so don't know enough to say definitively how they change training requirements, neither has it been studied to such a comprehensive extent that we can fall back on a pile of literature to reinforce our perspective.
> 
> A personal photograph as an avatar isn't any type of meaningful evidence. Add to that the fact that photos can be set up to falsely maximize the impression of muscularity (such as how you've photographed your arm at an angle-instead of straight on-to make it look bigger).
> 
> I'm a natural trainer on a board where anabolic use is rampant, and my genetics are unimpressive. It's no mystery that I'm not exactly rabid about displaying the modest level of development I've attained. However, what is significant and probably my main qualification as far as credibility goes is that I've managed to make substantial improvements.


Of course we all take our best photographs, but here are lots of videos of me that show me from all angles, so I back up what I say with the evidence of my progress.

As I've stated previously, my genetics are pretty poor too, I was 6'2 and 11st when I first went to the gym.

Older videos

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mattatministry

More recent videos

https://vimeo.com/user407389/videos

You also made a comparison between drug assisted and drug free training, yet you have no experience in that field.

The the majority of top BB'ers in all federations can train like $hit, because of their genetics, which trump any training, diet or drug use that us mere mortals could undertake.

I have had guys like this train with me, and honestly say that psychologically they could not deal with having to push themselves that hard, even though physically their results were better than they had ever been.

But I understand that to a degree. If you can develop 20" arms, curling no more than 14kg DB's, then why put in the extra effort?

Most of us are not that fortunate.

PS

There was no explanation of how more sets equal more muscle, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts behind it?

Your writing style reads as quite scientific, so surely you have logical reasoning behind your approach?


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

essexboy said:


> That is a great post.


Thank you, Essexboy.



Nytol said:


> You also made a comparison between drug assisted and drug free training, yet you have no experience in that field.


That's a strange comment; first-hand experience is hardly a prerequisite for noticing that drugs change the situation.



Nytol said:


> There was no explanation of how more sets equal more muscle, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts behind it?


Hell, man, I don't know for sure, I'm not a research scientist within the field, I'm just a dude doing his own experimentation in the gym, and consuming a ton of reading material and interviews with experts. How could more sets equal more muscle? Probably via there just being more of all the ingredients of muscle building-more micro-damage, more mechanical tension, and more metabolic waste products (which are integral to the whole muscle building cascade). Oh, and more regular stimulation of muscle protein synthesis for a given muscle, which science seems to point to lasting only a few days at most post workout. If you wait for much longer than two days to train again, it can be argued that you're missing opportunities to prompt more growth.

Anyway, I don't want to present an overly aggressive front about this; I'm not really interested in convincing you that I'm right. My years of experience in the gym and other exploration of physical culture have lead me to my current position, and your experience has lead you to yours. It's interesting to discuss, but as long as we're both getting results we're happy with, I see no benefits to endless debate. What's arguably more important than absolute optimization is finding a program you enjoy and can stick with long term.



Nytol said:


> Of course we all take our best photographs, but here are lots of videos of me that show me from all angles, so I back up what I say with the evidence of my progress.
> 
> As I've stated previously, my genetics are pretty poor too, I was 6'2 and 11st when I first went to the gym.
> 
> ...


I had a quick peak. Impressive physique, and wicked strength, man. 200 kg bench is a monstrous lift. That would probably drive my humerus bones back through the floor if I tried to even unrack it.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Jesus H. Christ said:


> *What's arguably more important than absolute optimization is finding a program you enjoy and can stick with long term*.
> 
> I had a quick peak. Impressive physique, and wicked strength, man. 200 kg bench is a monstrous lift. That would probably drive my humerus bones back through the floor if I tried to even unrack it.


I can certainly agree with that 

Thank you, there is a 220kg in one of the videos, 227.5kg is my PB.


----------



## Chunkee (Sep 1, 2012)

ConP said:


> I think the biggest point that Mike tried to convey is that INTENSITY is needed to really push further growth in a muscle group.
> 
> A beginner can grow from training a muscle with sub average intensity every day of the week.
> 
> ...


Been yet another great thread to read this.

The part in bold above - How many warm up sets is classed as enough before the one all out set?


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

I like the look of Dorians blood and guts more but training on my own in the shed would probably mean a suboptimal effort because I wouldn't be able to do forced reps, would positive failure be enough? I have a power rack so I can go to positive failure... Does anyone think it would be worth a go anyway given my limitations?


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

36-26 said:


> I like the look of Dorians blood and guts more but training on my own in the shed would probably mean a suboptimal effort because I wouldn't be able to do forced reps, would positive failure be enough? I have a power rack so I can go to positive failure... Does anyone think it would be worth a go anyway given my limitations?


I do this in similar circumstances to yourself. I substitute partials or a drop set to replicate the intensity of forced reps.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

36-26 said:


> I like the look of Dorians blood and guts more but training on my own in the shed would probably mean a suboptimal effort because I wouldn't be able to do forced reps, would positive failure be enough? I have a power rack so I can go to positive failure... Does anyone think it would be worth a go anyway given my limitations?


They are only limitations if you see them as such.

I've trained the majority of my years alone, and continue to do so now to a great extent, and most of those years I did not even have access to a power rack, so you are one up on me 

Over the years I've gone through phases when training with people of using forced reps, and TBH I'm not sold on their necessity or even desirability as a regular part of training.


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Mingster said:


> I do this in similar circumstances to yourself. I substitute partials or a drop set to replicate the intensity of forced reps.


Thanks mate I might try that


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Nytol said:


> They are only limitations if you see them as such.
> 
> I've trained the majority of my years alone, and continue to do so now to a great extent, and most of those years I did not even have access to a power rack, so you are one up on me
> 
> Over the years I've gone through phases when training with people of using forced reps, and TBH I'm not sold on their necessity or even desirability as a regular part of training.


Nice one mate, I'll give it a go so and see how I get on.


----------



## Pancake' (Aug 30, 2012)

Nytol said:


> Of course we all take our best photographs, but here are lots of videos of me that show me from all angles, so I back up what I say with the evidence of my progress.
> 
> As I've stated previously, my genetics are pretty poor too, I was 6'2 and 11st when I first went to the gym.
> 
> ...


Good channel mate, Ruthless Deadlift/Bench.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Youngstarz said:


> Good channel mate, Ruthless Deadlift/Bench.


Thank you mate


----------



## raptordog (Oct 9, 2008)

Nytol said:


> Let us not forget that Mike wanted to sell books and make money.
> 
> So if he did not write something different then no one would have bought them.
> 
> ...


You take PayPal....... :lol:


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Chins + 50kg Nytol...f**k sake man that's savage. Im finished with BB....strength all the way anymore for me.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

mixerD1 said:


> Chins + 50kg Nytol...f**k sake man that's savage. Im finished with BB....strength all the way anymore for me.


And I'd bet you would grow better than ever, every one does, even the genetic elite who don't need to push the limits.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Nytol said:


> And I'd bet you would grow better than ever, every one does, even the genetic elite who don't need to push the limits.


Ill be counting on it. I focused on diet and BB'ing this year and didn't enjoy it half as much as strength training either. Cheers for the good words mate and again, impressive lifting.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

mixerD1 said:


> Ill be counting on it. I focused on diet and BB'ing this year and didn't enjoy it half as much as strength training either. Cheers for the good words mate and again, impressive lifting.


Thank you mate


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Nytol said:


> I truly believe that HIT or abbreviated training will work for everyone who gives it a fair chance, but most are afraid to, as it goes against the grain of the Flex reading masses, who when asked why they are doing, x,y or z in the gym, actually have no logical answer.


Yes agree totally.

Recently with my clients on each exercise I explain why we are doing an exercise a certain way and how it fits in with all the other exercises to achieve a goal. This develops a mind muscle connection better.

My own training recently has changed to some weird hybrid that utilises Dorians method of very focused explosive reps but with extreme control so I can squeeze each rep if I want to.

A lot of what he says makes great sense to me. I'm not built for powerlifting so I don't try for a one rep max at all. I prefer to stay around 80% max for my heaviest lift and get a few more reps but I've started pausing before each rep to fully explode into the rep rather than just banging out reps for a total.

Recently I've grown a lot better and look a lot more thicker in my muscles.

I still do a bit of volume work but it's mostly at the end when I want to get more blood into the muscle to expand the fascia better. I've found sub 10 reps doesn't really do it for me with that goal in mind.


----------



## Jesus H. Christ (Nov 8, 2013)

Nytol said:


> I've trained the majority of my years alone


Me, too. Used to train with others, but funnily enough now I find a partner just gets in the way. Here's to antisocial training. :stuart:


----------

