# The Mike Mentzer Appreciation Society



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

*For all things Mike Mentzer. Pics, videos, stories and discussions.*

These audio tapes are very good. Absolutly fascinating, and a real insight into the thought processes of Mike Mentzer.




































I hope someone gets something out of these, I really do. I know its long but hey, it's honestly worth it.

And then ofcourse, some comedy from Mike Mentzer:






Links if they don't show:


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)




----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Mingster said:


>


Are the videos showing?


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Sound only on 5, 6 & 7


----------



## LunaticSamurai (May 19, 2009)

Excellent. I have a book of Mike given to me by a member here. Fascinating read.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

LunaticSamurai said:


> Excellent. I have a book of Mike given to me by a member here. Fascinating read.


Whicch book is it?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Mike Mentzer: My Mentor

by Dr. Greg E. Bradley-Popovich

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must admit that it is indeed painful to pen this tribute to Mike, and I have undoubtedly been in some degree of denial over his unexpected passing. In as much as I wish to elaborate on Mike's influence on me personally, I hope to find this writing to be therapeutic.

Unlike accomplished bodybuilding philosophers, such as, John Little and Dr. Doug McGuff (whose tributes also appear at this website), I was too young to have known of Mike during his initial peak of physical and intellectual dominance. Instead, I could be categorized as one of the next generation, who was exposed to Mike during what may best be described as the Heavy Duty renaissance of the 1990s.

While I do not claim to have known Mike intimately on a personal level, my relationship with him over the past few years has provided several glimpses into his life beyond the text.

Mike was (and remains) a prolific writer. But, should anyone ever accuse the man's writings of being verbose or bombastic, I can attest that such writing and thinking was natural for Mike. Although I only can admit it to Mike in his posthumous state, quite frequently I had to consult a dictionary following our conversations because his vocabulary was nothing short of astounding. I fondly recall how I was amused, when one of our phone conversations was interrupted, when company arrived at Mike's abode. He politely said, "Gregory, friends have descended upon me and I believe I will join them for dinner&#8230;" As further evidence of his poetic prowess, he once referred to our professional relationship as "stimulating like a fragrant bouquet." Yes, Mike was hopelessly poetic, and that was part of his charm. (Actually, my name is not Gregory, but Mike nevertheless called me that, perhaps because it was polysyllabic and thus was preferable.)

It is my impression that Mike genuinely enjoyed helping people. Mike gave me my first break in bodybuilding journalism, and he graciously made business connections and recommendations that ultimately led to my gratifying position in a MedX-equipped physical therapy clinic. Interestingly, of all the places where I've published my articles, without question, Mike's Heavy Duty web site provided the largest readership. And what a loyal readership it is! I have received e-mails from all over the world because Mike possessed that kind of visibility and influence. Some enthused correspondence has hailed from countries such as India, Spain, Scotland, and -just last week-Japan! Clearly, it is not an exaggeration to say that Mike's influence transcends entire continents.

Like the scores of individuals whose testimonials appear at this website, I, too, am proof-positive that-as Mike repeatedly emphasized-bodybuilding does not exist in a vacuum. Of course, my physique responded well to the application of Mike's Heavy Duty ideology, because I was undoubtedly physically overtrained beyond belief. But, my mind was grossly undertrained, because I had previously failed to correctly recognize exercise science to be an extension of the medical sciences that were so familiar to me. In this way, Mike was very charitable. Although I possess no knowledge of his financial philanthropy, Mike Mentzer was willing to invest in my intellectual development. I have previously acknowledged Mike Mentzer's profound influence on myself and my academic pursuits in the two-part, guest editorial entitled "A Matter of Degrees" that has appeared at this web site. It can be said that Mike was an "intellectual philanthropist," and he undoubtedly invested innumerable hours in thousands of training devotees globally.

Losing Mike is like losing a bit of our intellectual selves. It seems that I practically adopted Mike's voice as my own superego, which students of psychology will recognize as that part of the brain responsible for maintaining rational thought and keeping the impulsive id in check. If ever my logistic thinking waned, and I was compelled to perform additional, superfluous exercise, that inner voice would say, "Gregory, dispense with the child-like, simplistic notion that more is better&#8230;"

The following is a most unfortunate coincidence-one that I regret terribly. Until recently, I had never been to the west coast. For the first time ever, I would be very close to Mike's home near Los Angeles. Realize that Mike's influence on me was no less significant than that of my own family, and I looked forward with indescribable anticipation at finally meeting my mentor face to face. I was visiting to accept a national award in physical therapy, for which I owed a debt of gratitude to Mike for his support, guidance, and opportunity that he provided me and which undoubtedly contributed my being named a recipient of the award. Ironically, Mike died just two weeks before my visit. This missed opportunity certainly brought a burgeoning solemnity to what would otherwise have been a most joyous and rewarding experience.

Perhaps my greatest personal disappointment related to Mike's untimely death stems from being unable to share with Mike the news that two colleagues and I had submitted a medical journal article that embodied many of Mike's training concepts. The manuscript marrying high-intensity resistance exercise principles and rehabilitation is the first to our knowledge to promote such an application in a peer-reviewed forum. Such information is sorely needed for rehabilitation professionals, as Mike would attest to based on his own experience following his knee and elbow injuries a couple years ago. I think Mike would be proud of our effort to apply Heavy Duty elements within a pathological, rehabilitative context. Without Mike's groundbreaking efforts, such an article would not have been conceivable.

How does one define friendship? I recall when Mike, the consummate intellectual, described me as a friend, and then proceeded to provide an operational definition of the word "friend." Mike described friends as "those of similar mind." If one subscribes to this definition of friend, then it can be said that Mike created unifying "friendships" worldwide through his intellectual influence.

In sum, I am honored to be able to say that Mike Mentzer was my friend, however defined. It is entirely possible that Mike saved me from intellectual and physical ruin. And for that, I am most thankful.

Michael J. Mentzer: Illustrious. Iconoclastic. Immortal&#8230;

Greg E. Bradley-Popovich, DPT, MSEP, MS

Director of Clinical Research

Northwest Spine Management, Rehabilitation, and Sports Conditioning

Portland, OR

P.S. -- Strength of a Nation: Knowing that Mike Mentzer viewed the United States as a beacon of capitalistic freedom, I am certain he would not have remained silent in the wake of the unspeakable horror that has befallen this great nation. In the spirit of Mike's love of mankind, please do your part to invest in others: give blood, time, or other support for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks.


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

FFS JP you should know better than to post this in the Gen Con section. :angry:


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

defdaz said:


> FFS JP you should know better than to post this in the Gen Con section. :angry:


LOL! The bad thing is I don't. Where should this have gone?

Don't be hating on me, I'm still a noob 

JP


----------



## Irish Beast (Jun 16, 2009)

His moustache the most impressive I've seen for some time!


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

JPaycheck said:


> LOL! The bad thing is I don't. Where should this have gone?
> 
> Don't be hating on me, I'm still a noob
> 
> JP


Erm... where it's been moved to... :lol:

How people can post stuff about pro bodybuilders in gen con is beyond me. Is the Pro's bit in 'Shows, Pro's and Inspiration' not clear enough or something? :ban:

Noob? 2000 posts, 6 months... noob? Pfft!


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

JP your obsessed


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

defdaz said:


> Erm... where it's been moved to... :lol:
> 
> How people can post stuff about pro bodybuilders in gen con is beyond me. Is the Pro's bit in 'Shows, Pro's and Inspiration' not clear enough or something? :ban:
> 
> Noob? 2000 posts, 6 months... noob? Pfft!


haha well.......I have honestly never seen that section. I'm usually in the spam section!

Have you broke out the ban hammer yet? Or still a hammer virgin?



fatmanstan! said:


> JP your obsessed


I just think what Mike did for bodybuilding was truly inspirational, he went against the grain even though it cost him untold amounts of money basically his Mr.O placing which would have solified his legendary status in bodybuilding. Although atleast this way he gets to be somewhat a myth!

JP


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!

By Mike Mentzer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this first of a two-part series, Mike Mentzer begins to align his reasons, deliver the unassailable logic, responsible for his belief that fulfilling one's potential should require very little time, less than even Arthur Jones believes possible! Although controversial, one must admit that Mentzer stimulates thought like no other writer in the field.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to the advent of most - no, all! - of this century's greatest scientific discoveries, e.g., the airplane, the radio, the television, interplanetary travel and personal computers, how many of the great American unwashed would have granted any plausibility to such. Damned few, aside from the literal tiny minority of scientists researching those areas. It wasn't that many decades ago that the philistine public had the attitude: "Go to the moon? Impossible!" And what about the television; which, to my mind, is the greatest invention in history? Before its invention, the overwhelming, predominant majority never even conceived that the television might some day exist. It's not that they questioned the possibility, or plausibility, it might happen, as was the case with the airplane; after all, men had been attempting to simulate the flight of birds since time immemorial. The idea of an actual television never, ever occurred to them because there was no imitation of it in nature, nothing that existed provided the slightest clue that someday there might exist such a superlative, unrivalled device. Think of what is actually involved in television: the artificial generation of radio and TV waves, inserting perfect color images and sound into the waves; then broadcasting them to every millimeter of space in a prescribed area - and so on.

(An interesting side note: In the Spring 1999 issue of Exercise Protocol, Arthur Jones stated in his article Strength Testing VII -- "Eventually, the Wright Brothers did build an airplane that would fly, but only after many years of trial and error tinkering, with no slightest help from the scientific community. In fact, most scientists continued to believe that flying was impossible for several years after the Wrights were flying on a daily basis in front of thousands of witnesses.

"Then, when a few scientists finally did become aware that flight was possible, the first thing they tried to do was steal credit for the discoveries of the Wright Brothers; both Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, and the then director of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, entered into a criminal conspiracy to steal credit from the Wright Brothers. . ."

This conforms to the pattern, the mode of response, to Mr. Jones' discovery of the Nautilus machines, exhibited by members of the bodybuilding orthodoxy and, to some degree, by the so-called exercise "science" community. I refer to the pattern using a mnemonic device - namely, IRACS; first they ignore the discovery, then ridicule it, attack it, copy it and, finally, they steal it. With no presumption of stature intended, this is happening to me, with my further development and promotion of the theory of high-intensity training. The most remarkable involves a widely-recognized, first rank physique champion of 30 years ago; one who, not long ago, claimed to have discovered (and is now selling) an "exciting, startling new approach to training centered around intensity and workouts lasting ONLY nine minutes!" Most interesting is that this same individual had written a few articles over the years attacking my theory of training; then, recently, purchased a sizable number of my books wholesale to sell through his own distribution company. He apparently had read my books, as soon after his receipt of them, prior to his "exciting new discovery," I received a very laudatory letter from him indicating how great my ideas are, concluding with a sincere "thanks" for my having educated him on how to best proceed with training.)

*** *** ***

For most of this century, everyone - not merely a majority - uncritically accepted the notion that it would take five to 10 years to actualize one's muscular/strength potential. Why has that belief prevailed for so long? Why does it still predominate? Largely because of the inability or unwillingness of most bodybuilders to engage in the mental effort required to understand the requisite theoretical knowledge. (I say "inability" because, while that knowledge does exist, it is so lost amidst the reams of concrete-bound, unscientific hypotheses posing as scientific fact, that many never find their way to it.) The only source of knowledge for the small number of alleged misfits involved in the "esoteric" activity of weightlifting/bodybuilding early on was physical culture magazines; which published exercise information that revolved around the use of the Swiss ball, the Indian club, calisthenics, some weights and the specious, sophistic "notions" of their eccentric publishers.

It was at the conclusion of World War II that weight training gained a wider recognition. Doctors at that time realized the need for rehabilitation procedures to restore strength to various injured bodily areas was acute. The need for truly effective rehabilitation of war veterans prompted a scientific evaluation of weight training protocols; and it was the pioneering - albeit, rudimentary - investigations by De Lorme and Watkins that were primarily responsible for the increased acceptance of weight training by the scientific community; which, then, trickled down to the muscle magazines.

The continued research conducted in this area are not in close agreement, although a general overview emerged. The original work of De Lorme and Watkins recommended the following program:

1 set of 10 repetitions, with one half of 10 RM

1 set of 10 repetitions, with three-quarters of 10 RM

1 set of 10 repetitions, with 100 percent of 10 RM

In essence, De Lorme and Watkins were recommending three sets for each exercise, usually 10, all to be performed three days a week. As I've explained before, the number "3" has a certain traditional magic in our culture: there's the three bears, the three stooges, the Holy Trinity, three square meals a day and the mystic belief that catastrophes occur in lots of three. (I found it interesting recently, while reading Aristotle, that he noted the ancient Greeks' propensity for the number "3," also.) And why would De Lorme advocate the performance of three sets; where the first set is done using one half of 10 RM; the second set with three-quarters of 10 RM; and, finally, the last set was with 100 percent of RM - all for 10 reps? The use of one-half, three-quarters and, then, 100 percent of RM, always for 10 reps, represent a misguided, but scientific groping.

De Lorme's approach was quickly picked up by Bob Hoffman, the publisher of Strength and Health magazine, the premier muscle publication of the 50's and 60's, one that purportedly existed to advance "the science of modern exercise." Hoffman's publication advocated three sets of 10 reps for each exercise, with a total of 12 exercises (the "Baker's Dozen," as he referred to it) to be conducted three days a week. I'm always suspect when so-called scientific discoveries rely on convenient numbers, ones that are traditional favorites, like three, ten and twelve. As I've, also, stated before, there is no room in science for the arbitrary or the traditional. A truly productive, scientific approach to exercise involves the application of factual, theoretical principles discovered through a "genuine empiricism," or logic applied to the material provided by sensory experience.

In the 1960's, Joe Weider made his way onto the scene, intent on wresting the lion's share of the bodybuilding/weightlifting market away from his nemesis, Bob Hoffman. In order to do so, he had to present the reading public with something new. He accomplished his goal by using more modern - "hip" - terminology in his articles and ads; making celebrities out of bodybuilders to use on his garish magazine covers and to sell his supplements; last but not least, he had to establish a new, superior, "scientific" approach to bodybuilding exercise. To this end, he started the "Weider Research Clinic," a quasi-scientific forum, really, made up of his bodybuilding champions and writers, a few of which were exercise scientists. And Joe, like others in this field, sincerely believed that if an individual was an exercise scientist, with a Ph.D. affixed to his name, this somehow made that individual's proclamations on the subject of exercise unquestionable and absolute; and that their contributions made his publications "scientific."

*** *** ***

(To the young, sincere and uninformed: No, not all scientists are hallowed seekers or guardians of the objective truth. Remember the Wright brothers and Alexander Graham Bell. And don't make the mistake of thinking that a Ph.D. is a perfect reflection of a Platonic archetype in this, the real world. In fact, as Ayn Rand identified, because of the collapse of philosophy in the 19th century, science is following a similar, though slower, course in this century. This is as it must be, by the grace of reality, as philosophy is the fundamental, integrating science. Or, as Aristotle, the man responsible for the discovery of logic and, thus, of science, put it: Philosophy is the base of science. The purpose of philosophy, ideally, is to identify the fundamental nature of reality so that the special sciences can then study isolated aspects of the universe.

Unforutnately, there is little today that promises a Second Renaissance, or the return of philosophy to its proper role. This is because our universities are teaching the evil views of Immanuel Kant, who was a subjectivist - he held that reality is not real and that man's mind is impotent - the man ultimately responsible for the collapse of philosophy mentioned earlier. It is our universities that are the major villains in today's intellectually-morally bankrupt culture, as there exists an overwhelming preponderance of professors teaching Kant's ideas, including the notion that absolutes don't exist; therefore, fundamental principles don't exist.

If nothing is of fundamental importance what does one think about? Anything or nothing, since no-thing is more important than anything else. It is people's unwillingness or inability to think in terms of fundamentals, essentials and principles that leads to confusion; and is what prompted someone to designate ours the Age of Complexity. Inundated by a ceaseless profusion of data, facts, notions, information and (dis) information, the philosophically bereft, unable to identify what is of fundamental importance, cannot structure his thinking; and is overwhelmed by an unnecessary "complexity." Such is why bodybuilders are agonizingly confused, never certain as how to best proceed with their training or nutrition, almost hysteric in their perpetual search for the "answer."

Let me remind you that Ph.D. literally means Doctor of Philosophy. Considering that today's philosophy departments are dominated by Kantians; and that philosophy's role in the intellectual division-of-labor is to establish the epistemological (intellectual) criteria to guide human knowledge in general and the special sciences, it is little wonder that we are witnessing the continuing destruction, or dis-integration, of science, including exercise science. As I've explained in the past, many exercise scientists don't even understand the simple fundamentals of their own field.

If you are thinking that this is too professorial or intellectual, let me remind you: It was 23 centuries ago, in the Golden Age of Greece, that men simultaneously exalted the power of the mind and admired the beauty of the human form. They clearly understood that to achieve one's full human stature requires more than a healthy, muscular body; it requires "a healthy mind in a healthy body."

The ultimate purpose of my articles is not merely to provide the readers with another training program(s), and expect him to blindly follow it. That would not be worth much long range. Instead, my purpose is to help you gain a firm intellectual/conceptual grasp and understanding of the basic principles of bodybuilding/exercise science; which is a prerequisite for learning how to think logically about it. Having procured a logical, rational perspective, makes it possible for one to become more or less intellectually independent on the subject; never again having to rely on the vascillating, suspect opinion of others. In the process of learning to think logically about bodybuilding, you'll discover that you've learned something about the nature of thought itself; which can then be extended to other areas of human life. And with continued study and effort, you will progressively expand your intellectual range; and, thereby, mature as a human being should.)

*** *** ***

The core principle that guided the Trainer of Champs and his minions was the bootleg logic "more is better." To them it seemed self-evident: more knowledge, more money, i.e., more values, are better than less; therefore, more exercise is better than less. (In fact, nothing is self-evident except the material provided by the senses, e.g., the "redness" of an apple is self-evident, it doesn't have to be proven.) The development of a practical, scientific approach to productive bodybuilding exercise requires knowledge that goes beyond the self-evident to the highly abstract, i.e., that which is not directly perceivable, e.g., the concepts "theoretical" "logic" "growth stimulation" "growth production "recovery ability" "fundamentals" " derivatives" "principle," and, yes, "ethics." (Bear in mind, also, that since man's knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of his knowledge depends on the validity of his concepts, i.e., their definitions. Along with the fact that the bodybuilding orthodoxy's conceptual range is profoundly limited, they never define their major concepts - making the use of logic impossible.)

Dealing with higher, abstract knowledge is exactly what today's most celebrated "post-Modern" (Kantian) philosophers don't want you to do. Revelatory of the post-Modern's approach to the realm of the intellect is this quote from its most celebrated proponent, Michael Foucault, "My work irritates people because my objective isn't to propose a global principle or analyze anything. . . .The conception of philosophy is no longer that of a tribunal of pure reason which defends or debunks claims to knowledge made by science, morality, art or religion. Rather the voice of the philosopher is that of informed dilettante." And if you think that junk is relegated merely to ivory tower intellectuals, you are wrong. It has already penetrated bodybuilding (and every other area of human life), as two of my most virulent detractors have made statements reflective of Kant's and Foucault's influence. Jeff Everson, for instance, stated a few years ago in M&F, that ". . . in bodybuilding, there are no fundamental principles" - while more recently, Fred Hatfield exclaimed "All training theories are good!" These two statements express essentially the same thing because, if all training theories are good, then neither fundamental principles nor derivative principles exist. If fundamental or derivative principles don't exist, then knowledge doesn't exist; and for some, it doesn't; at least it has little value to them. Fundamental principles of bodybuilding science do exist, dear reader; and by the time you finish this two-part article series, you'll be able to grasp them and their important inter-relationships.

(The Greeks, as I stated earlier, lived in a Golden Age - precisely because they believed in the existence - the importance - of principles. Today we are no longer living in a Golden Age nor even a Dark Age -- but, instead, a Black Hole; and it's because of the abandonment of philosophy, i.e., fundamental principles. And when fundamental principles are denied, then ethical principles, too, are inexorably rejected since they are derivatives, i.e., based on and derived from philosophical fundamentals. Anyone with a child going to a public school need not be convinced that we are living in a Black Hole. Death and murder was the goal of Kant and it was the goal of Foucault. And it's no co-incidence that Hitler and Eichmann were Kantians? After all, if reality is not real, then man is not real; so, why not butcher him? It won't matter. No one will know because, as Kant posited, the mind is impotent. To those still reading this: keep in mind that the first requisite for building a healthier, more muscular body is that you have a live body, something that too many in today's world, including the students at Columbine High, are losing prematurely.)

It wasn't long before Joe Weider had taken over the market via skilled "manipulation of the masses," as he was once quoted. Now, rather than training in a reasonably sane fashion as advocated by De Lorme and Hoffman, Weider had an entire generation of new bodybuilders training for two, or more, hours per session using the Weider Double Split System - involving two such long workouts a day - and later, three times a day - with the Weider Triple Split. Of course, this mad, marathon training conducted six days a week - (an arbitrary, blind, doubling of De Lorme and Hoffman's three day a week protocol) - worked for none of his natural, non-steroid readers; despite their wasting of hundreds of dollars a month, in many cases, on his ever-enlarging inventory of "miraculous" nutritional supplements.

Many of his readers failed to realize that the heavily-muscled champs purportedly using this volume (over)training approach were taking ever-increasing quantities of steroids and other drugs to enhance their recovery abilities; and, thereby, compensate for what otherwise would have amounted to chronic, gross, mindless overtraining. (Who, in their right minds, would want to train for four to six hours a day, six days a week? And why six days a week? Well, there's an easy "scientific" answer to that: the seventh day was off for Sabbath, or religious observance!)

It wasn't until the early 70's, that there arrived on the scene an unusual individual, one smart enough to boldly and successfully challenge the insanity, and to provide a more rational alternative to what Weider and Schwarzenegger was advocating - namely, Arthur Jones. While Weider operated semiconsciously on the unchecked, unchallenged premise "more is better," Jones reacted violently (having developed a keen disdain for Weider's intellectually sloppy, pseudo-scientific approach), and brazenly proclaimed that "less is better." With that, Jones recommended, not 12-20 sets per bodypart involving six day a week workouts; but, instead, his notion of 'less is better' led him to advocate 12-20 sets, not per muscle group, but, for the entire body; and to be conducted three times (again, the magic number " 3") a week.

The more intelligent bodybuilders of the time immediately recognized that Jones was on to something, as we sure as hell weren't making any progress with the Weider approach; and because Jones was offering what this field sorely needed - a truly theoretical approach to training.

Within a short time after Jones' proffered his theory through the very pages of Ironman, myself and numerous others realized we weren't experiencing the progress that the theory suggested was possible. Jones, in fact, stated repeatedly that the actualization of one's muscular/strength potential should not require the 5-10 years as everyone had thought; instead the actualization of potential should require but two years! As much as this small minority believed in Jones and his revolutionary, theoretical approach, it was soon apparent that there was a flaw in it. As much as we hated to admit it, we weren't realizing anywhere near the results we had expected; the progress being only slightly better than that delivered by the blind, nontheoretical, volume approach. Better, but not good enough.

It wasn't until well after the end of my competitive career, in 1980, that I developed an impassioned, unswerving devotion to discovering the flaw in Jones' theory of high-intensity training. . .


----------



## defdaz (Nov 11, 2007)

JPaycheck said:


> haha well.......I have honestly never seen that section. I'm usually in the spam section!
> 
> Have you broke out the ban hammer yet? Or still a hammer virgin?
> 
> ...


Ban hammer well and truly used and abused unfortunately. :/


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!

By Mike Mentzer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While part-one of this article certainly piqued the interest of our readers, the following is certain to do the same, as Mike Mentzer levels damning indictments against the bodybuilding orthodoxy, exercise science and, even, Arthur Jones. Here he explains more of the thought processes, and identifies the basic principle, that led to his conviction that bodybuilders can actualize their potential in a very short time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Part One, of this three-part series, I made the point that for most of this century the predominant majority of bodybuilders and strength athletes sincerely believed that it should take 5-10 years to actualize one's strength/muscular potential. This was because both the bodybuilding orthodoxy and the exercise science establishment were - are - unaware of the logical requirements of developing a truly scientific, theoretical approach to exercise; and that such was the direct result of living in a period of philosophical default. Today, many academicians are devoid of even a nominal grasp of the rudiments of rationality; which is why confusion is the intellectual hallmark of our time; and explains why bodybuilders are impotent against the ceaseless tide of false ideas, fraudulent claims and outright lies promulgated by many in the bodybuilding/fitness media. As a result, many are wasting hundreds of hours a year, year in and year out, in the attempt to develop a physique that they could have developed in one year!

*** *** ***

The subject of logic is vast; a complete examination of which is certainly outside the scope of this work. I will address, however, one of the most crucially important aspects of logic - (completely overlooked by all of the bodybuilding orthodoxy and, to a large degree, by exercise science) - which relates to the role played by unequivocal definitions. Because man gains and holds his knowledge in conceptual form, it is the validity of his concepts, i.e., the precision of their definitions, which determines the validity of his knowledge.

To quote Ayn Rand, from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, on this issue, "Since concepts in the field of cognition, perform a function similar to that of numbers in the field of mathematics, the function of a proposition is similar to that of an equation: it applies conceptual abstractions to a specific problem.

"A proposition, however, can perform this function only if the concepts of which it is composed have precisely defined meanings. If, in the field of mathematics, numbers had no fixed, firm values, if they were approximations determined by the mood of their users - so that "5," for instance, could mean five in some calculations, but six-and-one-half or four-and-three-quarters in others, according to the user's 'convenience' - there could be no such thing as mathematics."

A theory, properly defined, is a set of principles, or propositions (statements of fact), which claims to be either a correct description of some aspect of reality and/or a guide for successful human action. A theory can fulfill its proper intellectual function only if the major concepts that make it up have precisely defined meanings. This is true of any theory, whether it be the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution or the theory of high-intensity training. The process of establishing precise definitions is rigorously demanding; which is why the mystics and skeptics (most people, today) turn away from the realm of the intellect. Concepts are the tools of thought; the better your tools, the better, i.e., more precise, the closer to the actual facts of reality, will your thinking be. (From Chapter Three, Another Kind of Definition, of my book "Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body.")

Balancing the Theoretical Account

Since starting my personal training business in the late 1980's, I've had considerable success with my clients. Their progress, early on, was primarily satisfactory (better than most); at times dramatic; and, in a few cases, phenomenal. In the very rare cases where progress was poor, such was the result of either very poor genetics and/or mistakes on my part, mistakes which I won't make again.

During the first couple of years, all of my clients trained three times a week - Monday, Wednesday and Friday - averaging seven to nine sets a workout, on a split routine. (I had learned much earlier that Jones' prescription of 12-20 sets per workout for the full body, conducted three times a week was too much for almost everyone.) While most trainers and trainees settled - and still do - for progress unpredictably in tiny dribbles every now and then, I, on the other hand, expected my clients to make progress, i.e., grow stronger, every workout.

The reader may be wondering how I had ever come to think that bodybuilding progress should be experienced every workout. Allow me to explain. I was in the midst of a period of very intensive study of philosophy, logic and the nature of the theoretical knowledge. I had arrived at a juncture in my studies where I clearly recognized that, if in possession of a truly valid theory, and the proper, practical application of the theoretical principles is made, then progress - no matter what the field of endeavor - should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile, until the goal has been reached.

My belief gained currency when I looked at other contexts of knowledge. In medicine, for instance, once the "germ theory" of disease had been discovered by Louis Pasteur in the 1880's, researchers couldn't work fast enough; and it was less than a century before they had discovered cures for practically every infectious disease that had plagued man from the beginning. In aviation, the Wright Brothers' first successful flight of 1903 led to the Russian's Sputnik orbiting the earth in 1957 and the United States putting a man on the moon in 1969. In physics, it was Einstein's theory of relativity, developed in 1905, that rapidly resulted in the theory of fission and the discovery of the cyclotron in the 1930's.

Given the knowledge and depth of understanding described above, I developed an intransigent conviction that the bodybuilding orthodoxy, the exercise science establishment and even the leading high-intensity theorists were off the mark. Yet, I couldn't ignore the evidence regarding my own clients' progress. While their progress was practically always immediate from the outset of their training, it wasn't always continuous and worthwhile. Why not, if, in fact, I was in possession of a valid theory and was making the proper, practical application?

I was left to conclude that there had to be a flaw(s) in the theory of high-intensity as proffered by Arthur Jones; and uncritically accepted by just about everyone within his sphere of influence. Encapsulated, Jones' theory held that, to be productive, exercise must be intense, brief and infrequent.

Recall from above that, in the field of cognition, concepts play a role similar to that of numbers in equations; but that they may do so only if the concepts are precisely defined.

If any of the major concepts of the theory of high-intensity training were improperly defined, practice would be skewed to that extent; and progress would be compromised. In checking Jones' theory, the first thing I did was go to the cardinal fundamental, the principle of intensity; and found it properly defined. He defined intensity as "the percentage of possible momentary muscular effort being exerted." (The theory of high-intensity training further maintains that to stimulate optimal increases in strength and size one must train to failure, i.e., where he's exerting himself with 100 percent intensity of effort. If one doesn't train to failure, where does he cease the set? Stopping anywhere short of failure is inexact and arbitrary.) Jones was correct, as he had defined intensity in terms of its essential characteristics. Using Jones' definition, in other words, one could conceivably identify the intensity of any activity from low-intensity aerobics to training to failure with weights, where 100 percent intensity of effort is required. This stood in sharp contrast to the bodybuilding orthodoxy, who was using the term 'intensty' with greater frequency, but never defined it, often using it interchangeably with volume. Then there was the exercise science establishment, who had denied the validity of Jones' definition-by-essentials; and defined it loosely, by non-essentials. Two of today's more celebrated exercise scientists, William Kraemer, Ph.D., and Steven Fleck, Ph.D., defined intensity in their book Periodization Breakthrough, as "a measure of how difficult training is" and even more loosely, less philosophically acceptable - "a percent of the maximal weight that can be lifted for a specific number of reps." (To what is one referring when pointing to the "difficulty" of training? And, once difficulty is defined, is it the difficulty of a set, a workout or what? And by identifying the percent of a maximal weight that can be handled for a specific number of reps, how was the weight and the number of reps to be performed arrived at? One may be instructed to perform six reps with 80 percent of his one rep maximum when, in fact, he's capable of performing 10 reps to failure; therefore, his intensity of effort would be low; and little in the way of growth stimulation would be induced. As Jones has indicated, the number of reps performed by individuals with 80 percent of their one rep maximum will vary greatly, depending on the individual's fiber type and neuro-muscular efficiency. In his own research, Jones found one individual who could perform only three reps to failure with 80 percent of his one rep max on the Curl, and another who could perform 27 reps with 80 percent of his one rep max on the same exercise!)

After having precisely defined intensity, Arthur Jones made a grievous mistake, one that seriously compromised the efficacy of a superior approach to training, such that I and thousands of others who thought we had happened upon the Rosetta Stone of bodybuilding quickly grew frustrated. It was here that Jones left the realm of science and cognitive precision, and slipped into the arbitrary. Whereas the dominant training ideology of the time, as espoused by Weider and Schwarzenegger et al, advocated that everyone train each muscle with 12-20 sets two to three times a week, for a total of six days a week, Jones properly countered, stating that such a regimen amounted to gross overtraining. His prescription for the problem, however, wasn't much better: He suggested that everyone train the entire body three times a week, with a total of 12-20 sets per workout. This, too, given the higher intensity levels than advocated by the Weider approach, soon resulted in gross overtraining.

Jones' theory, recall from above, stated that - to be productive, exercise must be intense, brief and infrequent. However, what does brief and infrequent mean exactly? Jones equivocated, and left his legion of devoted followers - many of whom seemed to regard him as omniscient and infallible - bereft of rational training guidance.

In a very real sense, Jones was merely reacting to Weider in knee-jerk fashion. This was due to a critical blind spot on his part. Jones wasn't intellectually ensconced in theoretical fundamentals as much as he was literally obsessed with discovering methods for making extremely accurate measurements of certain derivative aspects of exercise science; with things like torque, muscular friction, range of motion and stored energy, to name a few. As noble an endeavor as this may be, the appropriate integration and application of such knowledge is possible only within the context of having first fully grasped the fundamentals.

Science is an exacting discipline whose purpose is to discover the specific, precise facts of reality. Weider's notion that one should perform 12-20 sets for each muscle is not exact, far from it. What is it exactly: 12 sets or 14 or 17 or 20 sets? And if 12 sets is sufficient, why do 20 sets? Since Weider never provided any explanatory context to support his notion, it amounts to nothing more than a groundless assertion. Jones' response wasn't based on a scrupulous process of thought either. To advise people to train with 12-20 sets for the whole body, instead of each muscle, is just as arbitrary as Weider's prescription.

Scientific Precision

"A number of the bodybuilding orthodoxy's self-styled "experts" have even alleged that there are no universal, objective principles of productive exercise. They claim that since each bodybuilder is unique, every individual bodybuilder requires a different training program. And then they contradict themselves by advocating that all bodybuilders train in the same fashion, i.e., two hours a day, six days a week." (From Chapter One, Bodybuilders Are Confused, of my book "Heavy Duty I.")

That allegation was leveled primarily against Joe Weider and his bodybuilding orthodoxy, at the time I wrote my book in 1993. I have since come to learn that the exercise science establishment holds the exact same belief; and that they lifted it from Weider. You don't believe me? You don't believe that exercise scientists, the supposed guardians of rationality and logic in this field, could be so wanting that they would steal false, contradictory ideas from that catch-all of irrationalists?

As evidence, I quote from the book "Science and Practice of Strength Training," authored by Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky, professor of exercise science at Penn State: "Each of you is a unique individual in every way; and your resistance training program must meet your unique needs - for there is no one all-encompassing 'secret' program." Dr. Zatsiorski - remember, he is an exercise scientist - inexcusably contradicts himself later in the same book when he recommends that bodybuilders perform 15-20 sets per bodypart virtually every day, with up to 60 sets per workout. And later, Professor Zatsiorsky spills the beans, confessing that he gained such knowledge from "observations of professional bodybuilders," and from "studies which show greater hypertrophy from such high-volume training." (Some readers may recall past writings of Jones and myself indicating that, all too often, alleged 'studies' in the field of exercise science were never conducted at all.)

If, according to Weider and exercise science, there are no universal, objective principles how could bodybuilding exist as a science since the purpose of science is to discover universal principles? And since this Zatsiorsky eschews the universality of principles, claiming we are all "unique in every way," why, then, go ahead and advocate a universal training prescription?

*** *** ***

So far, I've indicted Weider (and the orthodoxy), exercise science and, to a lesser extent, Arthur Jones; everyone there is to indict, in fact, as all training approaches - except mine - are based on the same basic principles, differing only in degree. The primary problem with the Weider and the exercise science approach is that it's based on the premise "more is better." The idea that "more is better" means precisely that - more is better means more is better. You see, there's a (false) built-in guarantee, you can't fail. If 20 sets is good, i.e., yields satisfactory results, then 40 sets would be even better, and 80 sets better still. The advocates of the "more is better" approach won't go that far because they "sense" that there's a factor involved that precludes the possibility of performing such a high number of sets. Factor X was first identified by Arthur Jones - namely, the fact of a limited recovery ability. Jones' awareness that the human reserve of biochemical resources needed to recover from a workout is not infinite; and is what led him to state: "It is only rational to use that which exists in limited supply as economically as possible." However, Jones didn't carry that fact to its logical conclusion, and merely advocated "less is better," i.e., less than Weider. The principle that I am advocating, the one that makes it possible for the bodybuilder to actualize his potential in a very short time, is that neither "more is better" nor "less is better," but "precise is best."

Part III of This Article Will Be Coming Soon


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!

By Mike Mentzer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In part-two of this series, Mike Mentzer identified the erroneous principles that guide the training of most bodybuilders; thereby, explaining why they are agonizingly confused with regard to how to best guide their training; and, thus, fail to ever actualize their physique potential. In this last article of the series, Mentzer cites more compelling logic, but, also, the evidence required to prove that bodybuilding progress should be nothing short of spectacular, until one actualizes his potential - in one year, or less!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** *** ***

Last month, in part-two of this three-part series, I denounced the exercise science establishment for failing to properly define, or identify, the nature of the training stress responsible for inducing growth stimulation. Lacking knowledge of the nature of the exercise stimulus, one cannot know anything else of value about exercise. (Remember, too, that exact definitions are an absolute, objective prerequisite for using logic.) Later in that article, I explained that many exercise scientists today deny the existence of the one fundamental that makes all science possible - namely, the universality of principles.

Recall the quote from Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky, professor of exercise science at Penn State, denying universal principles: "Each of you is unique in every way"; who then unconscionably contradicts himself later by advocating all bodybuilders perform 15-20 sets per bodypart, virtually every day, with up to 60 sets a workout. And how might he have arrived at such numbers? He claims in his book "Science and Practice of Strength," that such were arrived at "from studies which show greater hypertrophy from high volume training," and - here's the clincher - "from observations of professional bodybuilders."

A number of years ago, a book was published which maintained that many famous scientific studies at the highest levels of academia - even Galileo and John Hopkins University were accused - are bogus; all in the name of "publish or perish." Do you think exercise science would be the one academic arena exempt from the publishing of fraudulent studies? I seriously doubt it.

Not only did I contend that studies "proving the superiority of high volume training" were never done - but, later, that the contention of Zatziorsky's regarding volume training coming "from observations of professional bodybuilders" meant that he mindlessly lifted, or stole, the notion from Weider and some of his top IFBB professionals. Of course, neither Mr. Weider nor the exercise science establishment informs us that any results obtained from 60 sets per workout training is possible only with the attendant use of nightmarish quantities of steroids, growth hormone and a panoply of other drugs, many of which I have neither the time nor interest to learn how to spell or pronounce. Make no mistake, dear reader, these drugs are extremely potent recovery ability enhancers that allow a few to get away with what otherwise would constitute chronic, gross overtraining.

In part-one of this series, I made the point that Weider (and the exercise scientists) regard their operative principle 'more is better' as self-evident; which is not true. Nothing is self-evident except the material provided by sensory experience, e.g., the "redness" of tomato, as it is immediately evident to man's sensory-perceptual apparatus, requiring no proof. It is this type of epistemological ( intellectual ) savagery - failing to precisely define your concepts and mistaking the self-evident for abstract knowledge - that has left exercise science stalled indeterminately at an intellectual dead end, until recently.

I concluded part-two, contending that the two dominant training ideologies are both fallacious: Weider's and the scientists', with their "more is better" premise; and Jones' -despite his cognizance of the fact of a limited recovery ability - with his notion "less is better." With a truly scientific approach the guiding, operative principle should be "precise is best."

Medical and Exercise Science

One of the major philosophic themes of my articles over the past few years has been, in effect, because there is only one reality - which is an objective absolute guided by one set of never-changing principles - there can be only valid theory of anything. The following is a discussion of one aspect of this issue from my most recent book, Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body.

"Recently, I was discussing the 'one valid theory of bodybuilding exercise' controversy with one of my favorite clients. My client is the esteemed Gregory Kay, MD, a highly trained Western, theoretical medical scientist. An experienced cardiac surgeon, who performs close to 300 open-heart surgeries a year, the good doctor has close to a 100 percent success rate in the surgical suite. Dr. Kay made the point, in effect, that his success, not to mention the overall success rate of modern medical science is proof positive that 'there is - and can be - only one valid theory of medicine.' And I happily rejoined, ". . .indirectly it proves the same for exercise theory.

"To stress the point one more step: If you were to find yourself in the jungle tomorrow, and you happened upon a voodoo witch doctor, he would have close to a zero percent success rate with his patients. Then, suppose you were to introduce him to this miracle: Western, theoretical, medical science, i.e., logical diagnostic procedure, antibiotics, analgesics, sterile technique and surgery, etc. All of a sudden the witch doctor's success rate skyrockets off the charts. He can't figure it out; he thinks you're in league with God and the Devil.

"To say that there cannot be one valid theory, or, that all theories have merit, is tantamount to stating that the intellectual method of the voodoo witch doctor is as likely to correct a brain aneurysm as would that of a highly-skilled neuro-surgeon. (The phenomenon just described is close to the intellectual state of bodybuilding today.)

"Obviously, there is a life-and-death difference between the application of false ideas and the application of true ideas. Knowledge (truly valid ideas), remember, is man's means of achieving all of his goals, including that final goal, or end, which makes all the others possible - the maintenance of his life."

*** *** ***

If you were to undergo surgery, you would obviously very much want the anesthesiologist to apply the precise amount of chemical compound required to induce a state of anesthesia. If, instead, as you were being wheeled into the surgical suite, you overheard the anesthesiologist say, "Pump him up," something like is said in bodybuilding, "pump the patient up! Give him more, more anesthesia is better than less," you wouldn't feel very confident about the situation. In fact, even a semi-rational individual would jump up and run out the door. Or, if you heard the doctor say something slightly different, "Let's give this patient less anesthesia than we gave that one yesterday; we killed the poor man" you wouldn't feel much better. In this particular case, where life-and-death clearly is the issue, it's quite easy to grasp why scientific precision is so very important. However, that same principle from medical theory carries over and has direct practical application to bodybuilding/exercise science theory. (Keep in mind that exercise science derives from medical science; and that the ideal in both situations is to correct, or improve, human physiology with as high a degree of precision as is required.)

In bodybuilding, the idea is to impose a training stress onto the body that will serve to induce the biochemical changes which result in muscular hypertrophy. Applying any more of the training stress (high-intensity) than is required by nature will result in the equivalent of over-dosing on a medicine; or, as we say typically in bodybuilding - overtraining.

A person exposed to the sun's ultraviolet rays at the equator in summer would not have the slightest concern whether the intensity of the sunlight stress is high enough to disturb the physiology sufficiently to induce an adaptive response, i.e., the buildup of a suntan. His only concern, his overriding consideration, would be to properly regulate the volume (or duration) and frequency of exposure time so as not to overdose on the stress/stimulus; and, thereby, incur a sunburn or, in extreme cases, death. A person seeking to develop a suntan at the equator, or wherever the intensity of the sunlight is high has no concern that he will develop a suntan; but only if he doesn't overexpose. (Note that bodybuilding science is largely based on the medical discipline of stress physiology. Also, that the end result of the healing of a sunburn is not a suntan, just as the end result of the healing of overtraining is not greater strength or added muscle.)

Bodybuilders utilizing the blind, nontheoretical volume approach to training do fret continuously over the prospect of ever developing their muscles because they know next to nothing about the nature of the specific stress/stimulus required to induce a buildup of muscle tissue beyond normal levels. Their obsession is with the volume, or amount, of training. Unlike the suntanner, however, who is rationally concerned with the proper regulation of the imposition of the sunlight stress, the bodybuilder has an irrational obsession with (over)imposing the training stress; and, unwittingly, allows his workouts to degenerate into an endurance contest.

An Air Bubble in the Sea of Causality?

Since I had my earlier clients performing considerably less than what Jones advocated - 7 to 9 sets three days a week versus 12-20 sets three days a week - I initially found it near impossible to believe that their less-than-satisfactory, long-range progress was due to overtraining. I, also, realized that it couldn't be the effect of undertraining. So, what was the cause?

At about the time I was considering this question, I signed up a wildly enthusiastic training client, one who had studied Heavy Duty, high-intensity training theory rather seriously; and thought he had found the "answer," after years of practically no progress with volume training. Interestingly, after two months on the seven to nine sets of three days a week training, it became starkly evident that the program was not working. His strength had only increased negligibly at best; and he had even started decompensating - losing strength - slightly by the end of eight weeks. And, of course, there was no visible increase in muscle mass.

Since I had informed this young man of some of the results my other clients were obtaining with the same routine, and we were both conversant with the theory, it was decided to reduce his program to only five sets once every 72 hours, or third day. And after a few weeks, it was once again apparent that something was wrong, as he made absolutely no progress.

This threw me into a bit of a quandary. This was the first time that I had ever trained someone who was so thoroughly nonresponsive to high-intensity; at least as I was practically applying it; and, to the best of my knowledge, I was the only trainer in the world who had any of his clients performing so little exercise. Could it be that I was wrong about the universal validity of these training principles? Or, was this a species of metaphysical churlishness, an air bubble in the sea of causality? I knew better, of course, because the laws of nature are universal and immutable. Just because I had a firm grasp of the theory, however, didn't mean I possessed certain ancillary knowledge that might be crucial. There had to be something about this individual's physiology which could be cited for his lack of progress with the given routine. There had to be something that would explain why on so brief and infrequent a program, this individual was still overtraining.

This led me to review some of what I knew about the role of genetics. I reasoned that, since genetically mediated traits such as height, sunlight stress tolerance and intelligence were expressed across a broad continuum, such would most likely be true of individual exercise stress tolerance. With regard to height, there are midgets at the left end of the continuum and giants at the other. In the area of individual sunlight stress tolerance, there are light-skinned people, such as Scandinavians at one end, who tolerate very little in the way of sunlight stress, and dark-skinned people who obviously tolerate more. And with intelligence, you have literal medical morons at one extreme and super geniuses at the other. I was very excited upon recognizing that a similar situation had to be true for individual exercise stress tolerance, with those at one extreme who tolerated a lot less exercise than those at the other.

As my client liked to tease and cut up a lot, I met him at the gym - armed with my new understanding - and referred to him as a midget, or moron, of recovery ability. Although even hard for me to accept at first, my conclusion about genetics led me to reduce this fellow's workouts again - this time to only three sets once every four to seven days. And it worked; he finally began growing stronger and larger on a regular basis, although his progress was never dramatic. He properly concluded that he didn't have the genetic predisposition to gain in strength and size at the greater rate exhibited by some of my other clients.

Where I had been very apprehensive earlier at the prospect of reducing training volume and frequency to so low a level with other clients, my success with our "recovery moron" emboldened me. It was at this time, about five years ago, that I finally reduced all my clients' training to three to five sets once every four to seven days, or less, depending upon their innate recovery ability, or individual exercise stress tolerance. (Interestingly, while thousands of people around are the world are individually establishing their own exercise prescriptions based on their own exercise stress tolerance, the orthodoxy and the exercise science community are still advocating everyone train everyday with up to 60 sets!)

What's Possible

With a properly conducted high-intensity training program, the individual will grow stronger every workout, without any serious breach in progress, until he has actualized his strength/muscular potential. I had a client several years ago who improved the functional ability of his quadriceps such that he was able to perform 10 reps with the whole stack, or 250 pounds, on the Nautilus Leg Extension after only being able to do seven reps with 170 pounds two months prior, a tremendous increase. (This type of response is not experienced by every one of my trainees; but it is far from atypical.)

The strongest client I ever had was able to perform 33 reps on the Nautilus Leg-Extension with the whole stack. And that was an incredibly well-developed, strong "genetic freak," the famed David Paul of the Barbarian Brothers. When David first started having me supervise his workouts, he performed 15 reps on the Leg-Extension and then went immediately, in superset fashion, to the Nautilus Leg Press where he performed 18 reps to complete failure with the full stack, 510 pounds. One week later David performed 25 reps on the Leg-Extension and immediately ran to the Leg Press where he did 38 reps. Impressive? You better believe it. But, keep reading.

One week after that, he did 33 reps on the Leg-Extension followed by a hard-to-believe 71 reps on the Leg Press! In both exercises, he again, employed the entire weight stacks. No, the above is not a misprint. David improved his Leg-Extension from 15 to 33 reps and his Leg Press from 18 to 71 reps as a result of only two leg workouts that lasted less than 15 minutes each. That represents an improvement of 388 percent in the functional ability of the quadriceps of an already highly advanced bodybuilder. In the one month I trained David, he gained seven pounds of muscle. These are phenomenal increases, especially when considered against the fact that for the previous five years, David's volume training, involving training sessions that lasted for at least two hours (sometimes twice a day ) six days a week, yielded zero strength and size increases.

Since David was capable of such a rate of improvement, imagine what a rank beginner - (with similar genetics) - might achieve on such a program. I've already provided you an indication, with the description of the first individual. If a beginner can improve as I described above, going from 170 for seven reps to 250 for 10 reps on the Leg-Extension in two months, he has only 23 reps to go with the same weight before achieving the functional capacity of a super genetic freak. How long would that take him? He'd probably never achieve it, as he, by all appearances, was only average - or slightly above - in genetics. My point is: Given the enormous improvement he made in only two months, it wouldn't even take year before he actualized his strength/muscle potential. (We'll never know exactly; because of enormous career pressures he had to cease training after two months.)

Bear in mind that a prerequisite for growing larger muscles is that one grow stronger. Since the individual I described would cease growing in strength in less than one year, his muscle growth would cease soon thereafter.

Conclusion

I am not suggesting that everyone who buys my books and/or tries a Heavy Duty, high-intensity training program will actualize his potential in so short a time. This is because, as I've learned through conversations with those who have read my books, that they don't always fully understand the theory's proper, practical application.

My main point is that with a sound, valid theoretical approach to training, progress should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile all the way to the full actualization of one's potential. Also, that the actualization of one's potential, too, is a genetically determined trait; therefore, there will be those who reach their upper limits in a matter of a few months, some a year and others slightly longer.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

The following is an excerpt from Mike Mentzer's

HEAVY DUTY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 1

BODYBUILDERS ARE CONFUSED!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explaining the relationship between man's mind and art, Ayn Rand wrote, in an essay titled, The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, "While, in other areas of knowledge, men have outgrown the practice of seeking the guidance of mystic oracles, in the field of aesthetics this practice has remained in full force and is becoming more crudely obvious today."

To my knowledge, Miss Rand had no interest in bodybuilding, but if she had, she would have observed a similar phenomenon. The bodybuilders I communicate with on a daily basis are agonizingly confused. The sole source of information for many of them is muscle magazines, which they read with almost religious zeal, regarding the words contained therein as if they were the revealed truth of Sacred Scripture, or as oracular pronouncements, not to be questioned, but passively accepted, on blind faith.

Most bodybuilders fail to recognize that muscle magazines are not science journals, but rather commercial catalogues whose primary reason for existence is to sell nutritional supplements and exercise equipment. (One simply can't be too careful in this time of philosophical default. Even science journals have become suspect recently, as the proliferation of cases involving fraudulent research data at the highest levels indicates.) While these publications do contain factually-based, well-reasoned articles, these are rarities so at odds with the reams of contradictory misinformation that they are rendered valueless to those with atrophied critical faculties and often overlooked by the more intelligent readers.

The notion that bodybuilding is a science has been written and talked about for decades by muscle magazine writers and certain exercise physiologist. To qualify as a legitimate, applied science, however, bodybuilding must have a consistent, rational theoretical base, something that none of the aforementioned -- aside from Arthur Jones and myself -- has ever provided. In fact, what passes today for the so-called "science of modern bodybuilding" is actually a pseudo-science. Propogated by the bodybuilding traditionalists, or orthodoxy, it is nothing more than a wanton assemblage of random, disconnected and contradictory ideas.

A number of the orthodoxy's self-styled "experts" have even alleged that there are no objective, universal principles of productive exercise. They claim that since each bodybuilder is unique, every individual bodybuilder requires a different training program. This implies that the issue of what is the best way to train to build muscle is a subjective one that can only be resolved by the random motions and blind urges of each bodybuilder.

Despite their belief that no universal principles exist, many of these same people advocate that all bodybuilders should perform 12-20 sets per bodypart, for up to two hours per session. For best gains, they recommend two and even three sessions per day six days a week, with the seventh day off -- for sabbath, I suppose. Very scientific!

The principle implicit in such thinking is "more is better." This is an ethico-economic principle: more money, more success, i.e., more values are better than less. (This principle does have a certain limited application to endurance training.) Taking a principle from one context, such as economics, and applying it uncritically and blindly to another, such as bodybuilding, is to commit the logical fallacy known as "context-switching." Some years ago, Mr. America Steve Michalik carried this erroneous notion to its logical conclusion by advocating 75-100 sets per bodypart! Michalik practiced what he preached and ended up almost literally in the grave!

So which is it: 12-20 sets or 75-100 sets? Actually, more fitting would be this line of questioning:

Why the contradiction? If each and every bodybuilder, being unique, requires a different training program, why advocate the same range of sets for everyone?

Why the equivocation? Whose word should we take -- and on what basis? Who is relating the truth: the advocates of 12-20 sets or the advocates of 75-100 sets? Or are they both unintentionally relating a falsehood?

Why the lack of exactitude? Will bodybuilders obtain equal results from 12 sets and 14 sets and 20 sets, or from 75 sets and 87 sets and 100 sets? Since science is an exact discipline, a proper science of bodybuilding should tell bodybuilders precisely what to do.

Why the evasion? Should all of the sets be performed with the same degree of intensity by the same individuals all of the time?

While the issues involved in the questions raised above represent only the tip of the iceberg, they do serve as telling testimony to some of the disastrous intellectual consequences that follow from lack of a sound, rational theoretical base.

A scientific theory is a set of principles that serves either as a correct description of reality or a guideline for man's actions. A farrago of unwarranted assumptions, false conclusions and irreconcilable contradictions does not constitute a valid theory and, thus, cannot serve as a guide to successful action.

(The orthodoxy commits other intellectual errors as well. A prime example is their capricious misuse of concepts. Aside from an occasional arbitrary, out-of-context reference to the "overload principle," they have never adequately identified the specific stimulus responsible for inducing muscular growth. As a result, they feel justified in stealing the concept of intensity and providing it with a rubber meaning, though never using it properly. Another is the concept of overtraining. Unwilling or unable to define the term, only dimly aware that it means something negative, they use it as a "floating abstraction," i.e., a concept with no ties to reality. As such, it is not so much misused, but barely used at all, and plays no significant role in their thinking.)

Where can a confused bodybuilder find the answer to these and other pressing questions? Rick Wayne, erstwhile editor of Flex magazine, answered that question a number of years ago, claiming, "Each bodybuilder has to be his own scientific agent, and find the routine that works for him." But what if a particular bodybuilder isn't a very good scientist? No answer has ever been given.

Others have responded by suggesting that confused bodybuilders resort to instinct. An acquaintance of mine responded to this notion humorously by suggesting that if bodybuilders resorted to the "instinctive principle" to guide them in their training efforts, many of them would probably defecate and urinate on a barbell rather than lift it. Man is not an instinctual creature whose knowledge is automatic, or "hard-wired" into his nervous system, but a conceptual being who must acquire and use knowledge by a volitional cognitive effort.

The most philosophically revealing response was made by a well-known authority, and I quote, "There is a realm of truth higher than that known to scientists, and only certain people have access to it." Since reality is the realm of truth, one can only wonder as to what other realm he was referring to, what it might have to do with bodybuilding in this one, who has access to it, and by what means. All of this points to the fact that bodybuilding has brought about its own Dark Ages -- and why, therefore, so many bodybuilders become cynical and give up.

The advocates of the orthodox approach, possessing no possible theoretical defense of their argument, are forced to cite some very shabby evidence to back up their position. Quite frequently, I get the question, "If 12-20 sets is not the best way to train, how do you account for the success of guys like Arnold and Lee Haney?" The answer is that, while their physiques are, in part, the result of such training, so are the physiques of all the failures, whose numbers are legion.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to point to the "apparent" success of a couple dozen top title winners as indubitable proof that a certain training approach is efficacious. If one were to look back through the course of their bodybuilding careers, and calculate the hours, months and years of wasted effort resulting from their blind, non-theoretical, volume approach, one would have to question whether their achievement could properly be termed success at all.

It should be understood also that genetic endowment is the prime determinant of bodybuilding success. Arnold and Lee, not to mention myself, Dorian Yates and all who have achieved extraordinary levels of muscular development, possess an abundance of the requisite genetic traits, including long muscle bellies, greater than average muscle fiber density, and superior recovery ability.

The best way, therefore, to compare the efficacy of the two training approaches is to examine the results obtained by a genetically superior practitioner from each camp. On May 1, 1973, Casey Viator entered into an experiment -- conducted at Colorado State University in Fort Collins -- for the purpose of discovering how much muscle he would gain on a high-intensity training program in one month.

Casey trained only three times a week, with each workout lasting no more than 30 minutes. Since the duration of the experiment was a month, this meant that Casey trained 12 times, for a total of only six hours. The result was that Casey went from a starting bodyweight of 166 pounds to his previous highest bodyweight, in top muscular condition, of 212 pounds. The exercise physiologist who conducted the experiment, Dr. Eliot Plese, discovered (using a sophisticated radioisotope assay machine) that Casey lost 17 pounds of fat during that month. Casey's actual lean body-mass gain, therefore, was not merely the 46 pounds as evidenced on the scale, but a whopping 63 pounds -- and all from only six hours of training!

Casey Viator, one of the greatest bodybuilders ever and the man who introduced Mike Mentzer to Arthur Jones.

Now contrast Casey's achievement with what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to prepare for the 1975 Mr. Olympia contest. Arnold has gone to considerable lengths advertising the fact that, starting in July of that year, he trained twice a day for two hours each session, or four hours a day, six days a week, right up to the contest date in November. As a result of training that totalled 288 hours, Arnold put on approximately 25 pounds of lean mass, going from his starting weight of 200 pounds to 225. It is interesting to note that Arnold, in gaining back only 25 pounds of muscle, failed, in that four-month period, to reach his previous best muscular bodyweight of 237 pounds.

Not only are Casey and Arnold genetically gifted, both were also regaining muscle mass, which happens more readily than gaining it in the first place. And since both were taking steroids during these periods of training, one is left to conclude that the factor accounting for Casey's vastly superior achievement was his use of high-intensity training principles. (When I asked Arnold, in 1979, why he had failed to attain the same 237 pounds for the 1975 Mr. Olympia that he competed at in the 1974 Mr. Olympia, he responded by saying that the four months he had to prepare wasn't enough time.)

To those who question the validity of the abbreviated high-intensity training approach, by noting the numerical superiority of those utilizing the "more is better" volume approach, I need only point out that statistical generalizations do not constitute valid proof in matters open to individual choice. A good historical example is that for thousands of years millions of people sincerely believed that the earth was flat, but that didn't make it so.

A mistake made by many muscle magazine readers is to assume that the routines currently ascribed to the top champs are of the same variety they've always used. In most cases, the champs started their bodybuilding careers, and developed the bulk of their muscle mass, with abbreviated routines performed two to three times a week, using basic exercises and heavy weights. As they progressed into the competitive ranks, they made the mistake -- as I did for a while -- of increasing the number of sets along with the number of workouts per week, which explains why many stagnate and even retrogress. Increasing the duration and frequency of their workouts was done in conjunction with the use of steroids, which help to prevent, or at least reduce, the loss of muscle mass that otherwise results from chronic marathon training.

Considering the fact that the self-proclaimed experts have neither provided a consistent, rational theory of training, nor addressed the issues raised here, it is little wonder that so many cynical bodybuilders remain painfully bewildered.

About 20 years ago I found myself in a situation similar to that experienced by many of the aspiring bodybuilders I now communicate with on a daily basis. I avidly read all the muscle magazines, and had memorized the training routines, dietary regimens, and even the personal habits of all the top champs. Following their lead, I utilized the "more is better" principle, performing up to 30 sets per bodypart, training three hours a day, six days a week. After months of training in this fashion with no progress, my motivation waned so much I began thinking seriously about ceasing my training efforts altogether. I reasoned that if training three hours a day wasn't sufficient to cause an increase in my muscle mass, then perhaps I would have to up my training to four hours a day. And it was difficult to justify spending even more time in the gym every day, as I was already tired from my 12-hour work days in the Air Force and the three-hour daily workouts. If developing a championship physique meant giving up all social life and spending one-fourth of my waking hours in some dank gymnasium, it just wasn't worth it.

Agonizing over the prospect of forsaking my dream of ever being a champion bodybuilder, I was fortunate, at that time, to meet Casey Viator at the 1971 Mr. America contest in York, Penn. Not only was Casey the youngest man, at 19 years of age, to win the coveted title, he was also being favorably compared to Arnold (who was in York that day to check out the upstart). What made Casey even more interesting was the type of training he was doing. While Arnold, Franco, Dave Draper et al were training up to five hours a day, Casey was training less than three hours a week!

Casey was impressed by my physical potential, and suggested that I call his mentor, Arthur Jones, the inventor of Nautilus machines. I placed a telephone call to Jones early one evening, but, as he wasn't in, I left a message that I had called. He called me back at 2 a.m. the next morning, something, I learned later, that was typical of the radically independent businessman. Before I could suggest that it might be more appropriate that we speak later that day when I had my wits about me, Jones launched into an impassioned disquisition concerning the actual nature of productive exercise, as opposed to that which was being promulgated in the muscle magazines.

So awe-inspiring was his fiery oratory that the leaden fumes of my somnambulistic stupor evaporated in short order. For well over an hour, I listened in rapt attention as Jones explained to me, in the most scrupulously objective language imaginable, the cause-and-effect relationship between intense exercise and muscular growth; and why, in light of the fact that the body's ability to tolerate such demanding exercise is limited, high-intensity training had to be brief and infrequent.

Before Jones finished, I realized that I was not the bodybuilding expert I had thought. In fact, I knew very little of value about exercise. Memorizing training routines from muscle magazines doesn't make one an expert. For the first time in my life, I had listened to someone who took the values of knowledge, reason, logic and science very, very seriously. Having clearly understood what Jones had to say about exercise that early morning over 20 years ago, I promptly switched to a high-intensity training program, and within only a year and a half, my mediocre physique underwent such a dramatic transformation that I was able to easily win the Mr. America contest.

Many bodybuilders sell themselves short. Erroneously attributing their lack of satisfactory progress to a poverty of the requisite genetic traits, instead of to their irrational training and dietary practices, they give up training. Don't make the same mistake. Don't make the mistake of granting validity to all training theories, and then waste precious time frantically trying one after the other in the hope that someday you'll find something that works.

There is no good reason why you should proceed with your bodybuilding career confused and uncertain any longer. Progress should not be an irregular, unpredictable or even nonexistent phenomenon. A rational approach to bodybuilding, one based on an understanding and implementation of the scientific principles of exercise and nutrition, will put you on a more satisfying path of regular progress.

Arthur Jones, the inventor of the Nautilus Machines, taught Mike Mentzer the theory of productive bodybuilding exercise.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

jpay do you think a newbie could follow mikes idea from the start and have a greek god like body after 3 years using only the idea set out ?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

uhan said:


> jpay do you think a newbie could follow mikes idea from the start and have a greek god like body after 3 years using only the idea set out ?


I believe he could produce the absolute best condition and size available to him in that time frame.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

interesting as this stuff has been around for years i know no one that has done it from start and seen it through to body frame limit for example mike didnt get big using his teachings he only maintained and if i remember rightly he lost gains from doing it too .

but it would be good to see what would happen but obviously the trainee would need to be clued up on diet gear and the regime .


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

uhan said:


> interesting as this stuff has been around for years i know no one that has done it from start and seen it through to body frame limit for example mike didnt get big using his teachings he only maintained and if i remember rightly he lost gains from doing it too .
> 
> but it would be good to see what would happen but obviously the trainee would need to be clued up on diet gear and the regime .


Personally I have trained people successfully and given programmes of HIT that have been very successful.

In regards to Mike, it's not entirely true. He competed from a young age, I believe 18 from memory but maybe 19. He had a terrible placing. He lost to Casey Viator. Casey put him in touch with Arthur Jones, the father of Nautilus and High Intensity, following this Mike returned (75-76) and placed much better, and in 78' took a perfect 300 in the in Mr. Universe, thats a pretty big testement to HIT.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

JPaycheck said:


> Personally I have trained people successfully and given programmes of HIT that have been very successful.
> 
> In regards to Mike, it's not entirely true. He competed from a young age, I believe 18 from memory but maybe 19. He had a terrible placing. He lost to Casey Viator. Casey put him in touch with Arthur Jones, the father of Nautilus and High Intensity, following this Mike returned (75-76) and placed much better, and in 78' took a perfect 300 in the in Mr. Universe, thats a pretty big testement to HIT.


hmmm im not convinced in the concept myself , do you train under HIT ?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

uhan said:


> hmmm im not convinced in the concept myself , do you train under HIT ?


Yes I do.

Ofcourse I also take deload periods, like I am currently to rest tendons and joints.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

And ofcourse check the audio tapes in post one, very very informative, if you have time.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

i will check them out thanks 

thing is im not into bodybuilding so might not ever try it but you never know bro


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

LunaticSamurai said:


> Excellent. I have a book of Mike given to me by a member here. Fascinating read.


That was me mate  Glad you enjoyed it.


----------



## LunaticSamurai (May 19, 2009)

JPaycheck said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> Ofcourse I also take deload periods, like I am currently to rest tendons and joints.


This is great stuff and pretty much what is in my book. Can i ask if you take any form of supplements for joint aid.?


----------



## LunaticSamurai (May 19, 2009)

kieren1234 said:


> That was me mate  Glad you enjoyed it.


That was you, lol... Am looking at it right now...


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

LunaticSamurai said:


> That was you, lol... Am looking at it right now...


Good stuff mate, i really enjoyed it! Glad the postman still let you have it when the name i put on it was Lunatic Samurai lol.


----------



## LunaticSamurai (May 19, 2009)

kieren1234 said:


> Good stuff mate, i really enjoyed it! Glad the postman still let you have it when the name i put on it was Lunatic Samurai lol.


Haha, yeah i did actually laugh at that, why on earth did i not give you my name, lol...


----------



## Suprakill4 (Jul 11, 2008)

LunaticSamurai said:


> Haha, yeah i did actually laugh at that, why on earth did i not give you my name, lol...


God knows lol, i didnt know what else to put and didnt think about if you had to sign for it and prove identity LOL.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

uhan said:


> i will check them out thanks
> 
> thing is im not into bodybuilding so might not ever try it but you never know bro


Your into your strength stuff arn't you?



LunaticSamurai said:


> This is great stuff and pretty much what is in my book. Can i ask if you take any form of supplements for joint aid.?


Big_jim has reccomended me Cissus for tendons, but I don't take anything as of the moment. Generally the pain is usefull as it lets me know that its time to take a break from it and deload.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

JPaycheck said:


> Your into your strength stuff arn't you?
> 
> yeah m8 strong int arm thick int head lol


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

uhan said:


> LOL!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

A littlwe picture that always inspires me:


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

awesome but mike looks pretty stoned lol


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

uhan said:


> awesome but mike looks pretty stoned lol


LOL funny you said that because I always think that!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Special Tip for Lagging Body Parts

For some, even one set for certain body parts may prove more than the individual can tolerate or even need. For instance, over the years, I have had training clients, who informed me at the start that they couldn't stimulate growth in their calves, whether they were training them with 12 sets three times a week or just one set once a week. They took my advice, acknowledging the possibility that even one set may be too much, then ceased training their calves entirely. These individuals reported to me on a regular basis, claiming calf increases of 3/4" to 1 1/2" in several months.

Similarly, I've had clients who gained quite well overall with their greatest circumference increase in the neck. These examples prove the reality of "indirect effect", i.e., when growth is stimulated in one muscle, growth is stimulated through the entire musculature - though to a lesser degree; and the larger the muscle being worked, the greater the degree of indirect effect.

The calf increases reported above were likely the result of the effect provided by Leg Presses, Squats and Deadlifts; with those experiencing tremendous increases in their neck being the indirect result of growth stimulation induced by Shrugs and Deadlifts.

Conclusion: If you have a lagging body part, stop training that part entirely for a few weeks, then resume training with a lesser number of sets, or, with calves and neck, stop training them entirely.

Mike Mentzer


----------



## tiptoe (Jun 22, 2007)

an amazing guy. went off the boil near the end with the don't train for 7 days stuff i think but his earlier stuff was great. now i know my heart is functioning 100% (hole in the heart :-( ) i am back to it after a long break of just taking it easy 3 sets of 8-12 ect.

I would of loved to have had a session with him but gonna do the next best thing and go have sesh with dorian later this year for my birthday!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

tiptoe said:


> an amazing guy. went off the boil near the end with the don't train for 7 days stuff i think but his earlier stuff was great. now i know my heart is functioning 100% (hole in the heart :-( ) i am back to it after a long break of just taking it easy 3 sets of 8-12 ect.
> 
> I would of loved to have had a session with him but gonna do the next best thing and go have sesh with dorian later this year for my birthday!


Ahhh, hole in the heart ey? Can you give me some more info on that?

Yeah the end wasn't a particularly good part for him, although I must admit I do not believe the stories of him running naked through the streets and drinking his own urine, but in regards to the even less training frequency, like once every 28 days, maybe at his level that amount of rest is needed, i'm a long way off knowing.

Love what Dorian has done for HIT. When is the session?


----------



## &lt;JAY_JAY&gt; (Jan 4, 2007)

Love listening to this guy


----------



## tiptoe (Jun 22, 2007)

dunno yet mate not arranged it will be about december time for my birthday. want to have some time getting myself back into hit for a few months first.

hole in the heart well long story really. had an undiagnosed chest problem for a year kept loosing my breath couldn't train really which as a pt you can imagine isn't great. anyway this was causing palpitations. chest problem got diagnosed as asthma! this was after going private! (stupid nhs!) so due to the palpitations they refered me for a scan and it showed something but not 100% sure what it was! a year later after 3 appointments its a small hole in the heart. luckily its ok doesn't effect the function of my heart. 3 specialists couldn't hear it which normally they can hear if you have one. also it can cause left venticular hypertrophy but i am 26 and he sid by now he would expect to see it enlarging if it was going to and no signs of that luckily even though i have dabbled with gear years ago and done too many recky drugs years ago too. anyway he just said put it to the back of your mind and get on training properly and come back and see us in 5 years!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

tiptoe said:


> dunno yet mate not arranged it will be about december time for my birthday. want to have some time getting myself back into hit for a few months first.
> 
> hole in the heart well long story really. had an undiagnosed chest problem for a year kept loosing my breath couldn't train really which as a pt you can imagine isn't great. anyway this was causing palpitations. chest problem got diagnosed as asthma! this was after going private! (stupid nhs!) so due to the palpitations they refered me for a scan and it showed something but not 100% sure what it was! a year later after 3 appointments its a small hole in the heart. luckily its ok doesn't effect the function of my heart. 3 specialists couldn't hear it which normally they can hear if you have one. also it can cause left venticular hypertrophy but i am 26 and he sid by now he would expect to see it enlarging if it was going to and no signs of that luckily even though i have dabbled with gear years ago and done too many recky drugs years ago too. anyway he just said put it to the back of your mind and get on training properly and come back and see us in 5 years!


Ahhh good old quality NHS!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

MENTZER JUDGES YOU!


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)




----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

I find it curious that the great majority of bodybuilders, knowing that overtraining means something decidedly negative, never look into the issue more seriously. The term is always used in a negative context. In fact, try using the concept in a positive light, and you'll quickly realize it's impossible. By definition, overtraining means performing any more exercise than is required in terms of both volume and frequency than is minimally required to stimulate growth.

Mike Mentzer


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2011)

damn i sometimes forget just how good this guys physique was!

not a big fan of how he took credit for "coaching" dorian though and you can tell in dorian's interviews even though he talks about mike mentzer with respect you can sense a tone of annoyance.

no doubt mike mentzer was onto something but imo he got carried away and saw it as more of a business opportunity (training one bodypart every 28 days for max gains sells to the mainstream) ,

but good to see people remember him for his positives though


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

ricky23 said:


> damn i sometimes forget just how good this guys physique was!
> 
> not a big fan of how he took credit for "coaching" dorian though and you can tell in dorian's interviews even though he talks about mike mentzer with respect you can sense a tone of annoyance.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I really think his phsyique is perfect.

I am never actually sure what went on between Mentzer and Dorian, I're heard so many stories about how often they trained together, when they met, how they met and so on. I watch ALOT of Dorian interviews and seminars and he always gets the Mike Mentzer question, and your right, he does seem rather annoyed when people question it. And he always has to correct them about Mentzers involvement.

Its nice that as one of the many dead bodybuilders that he has so many inspiring words and books, some bodybuilders go without much of a mark, so I suppose were very lucky he got things written down.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/bodybuilding-gossip/72293-mike-mentzer-steroids.html

awesome thread


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

Just over ten years since Mike died.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Speeches/SI-02-01.pdf


----------



## daniron (Jul 26, 2011)

I love Mike! and I am a firm believer of high intensity training, works very well for me personally!

Been doing 1-2x warm up set + 1x 100% effort working set, 1min rest between sets on all my exercises using the dorian yates blood and guts routine.. found that i'm hitting the muscles alot harder and my strength is increasing well also. works better for me than any other type of training i've used.

Liked his explanation of intensities and muscle stimulus, something like.. "1st rep around 10% intensity, 2nd is harder around 30%, but when you get to the 10th rep and your shaking all over the place at 100% thats when your muscles are been stimulated the most.... Who do you thinks gonna grow more someone stopping at rep 6-7 holding out for another set or someone pushing themselves 100% to failure, its not an endurance contest.

Great thread. Mike mentzer was a very educated, opinionated and inspirational individual and a legend in bodybuilding, on stage and in theory.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

dannyiron said:


> I love Mike! and I am a firm believer of high intensity training, works very well for me personally!
> 
> Been doing 1-2x warm up set + 1x 100% effort working set, 1min rest between sets on all my exercises using the dorian yates blood and guts routine.. found that i'm hitting the muscles alot harder and my strength is increasing well also. works better for me than any other type of training i've used.
> 
> ...


I too love what Dorian has to say on the matter and how he has adapted HIT. I train the same way. I've never seen something increase strength so fast, other than this. Theres so many Mike quotes that are fascinating. Truly an intellectual giant.


----------



## daniron (Jul 26, 2011)

JPaycheck said:


> I too love what Dorian has to say on the matter and how he has adapted HIT. I train the same way. I've never seen something increase strength so fast, other than this. Theres so many Mike quotes that are fascinating. Truly an intellectual giant.


Yeah, the fact that dorian became mr.o whilst been in the gym for only around 2 1/2 hours a week when other competitiors were in the gym for hours day after day shows that HIT WORKS! I think the psychological effects it has on your training have a huge benefit on stength gains also, knowing you only have 1 set to give it everything encourages you to go heavier, no second chances. love the negatives involved in the blood and guts routine also.. can really feel the benefit of emphasising the negatives, static of the movements after years of doing concentrating mainly on positives.

The only thing that puzzled me in his interviews was that he rarely mentions diet atall. Do you know of an article in which he explains diet? Be interesting to hear his views.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior (Dec 20, 2010)

dannyiron said:


> Yeah, the fact that dorian became mr.o whilst been in the gym for only around 2 1/2 hours a week when other competitiors were in the gym for hours day after day shows that HIT WORKS! I think the psychological effects it has on your training have a huge benefit on stength gains also, knowing you only have 1 set to give it everything encourages you to go heavier, no second chances. love the negatives involved in the blood and guts routine also.. can really feel the benefit of emphasising the negatives, static of the movements after years of doing concentrating mainly on positives.
> 
> The only thing that puzzled me in his interviews was that he rarely mentions diet atall. Do you know of an article in which he explains diet? Be interesting to hear his views.


Yes, he wrote a book called "Heavy Duty Nutrition".

Send me a pm with your email and i'll shoot it across


----------



## daniron (Jul 26, 2011)

Nice one. Thanks alot!


----------



## Dav1 (Sep 25, 2009)

Mentzer no doubt had his place in BBing, not a particular fan and also not a great fan of HIT and have competed at a high level and tried all sorts of regimes, horses for courses imo. Serge Nubret and someone I trained with Wilf Sylvester (both had as good or better physiques as Mentzer) trained very high volume and got great results. There's no one perfect way and thats what is great about BBing.


----------

