Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Training Q&A => Topic started by: dj181 on November 23, 2013, 04:42:31 AM
-
discuss
-
David Young who post here trained in the same gym as the Mentzer brothers back in the day. He said they used more sets than what they wrote about in the magazines. He also said that Viator was using 15 sets a body part for the London Olympia.
The routines that Mentzer wrote about after he retired he never used during his competing years. Mentzer used high sets and then after being inspired by Jones and Viator trained using a whole body routine for the IFBB Mr. America. From there he split his body in half training legs, chest and triceps one day and back, delts, and biceps the other. He trained four days a week using this. Then it seemed he was inspired by Mr. Florida Frank Calta and he used his rotation for recuperation split. It went like this. Monday: legs, chest and triceps. Wednesday was back, delts and biceps. Friday was a return to legs, chest and triceps. Weekends were off. The new week he would begin Monday with Back, delt and bicep. Wednesday now was legs, chest and tricep. Friday was back, delt and bicep. Every week was rotated. He also didn't cling to days of the week. If he was tired he would take off.
He always wrote during his competing days that he averaged 5 sets a body part. Was this true? According to David Young, no. Was Young counting maybe many warm up sets? I don't know.
Concerning is bodybuilding an endurance contest. In the world and context of strength training I would say yes. If the whole method of getting big was getting strong we would all be training with low reps trying to get stronger. Bodybuilding muscles are the results of for what is for lack of a better term muscular strength endurance training. Look at the upper bodies of gymnasts. They train for hours. If strength was the magic bullet we would warm up and do one set of of few exercises and call it a day. The majority of champions have use multiple sets.
-
6/7 days a week in a row is not needed,3/4 is optimul throw in 4/5 is good break up days '
labrada liked m,w,f,sun..every other day
ilike 4 day split up and throw in 5th a total upperbody pump type day do 2 sets of each movements i choose per muscle group.
the main 4 days i split up bodyparts and do abs/calves 2x per wk.
-
good post oldtimer
the thing about sets is that sets not taken til failure aren't considered "sets" because they do nothing to stimulate growth, according to both Mentzer and AJ
back in his training days Mentzer did roughly 4-6 productive sets ie. sets til failure per bodypart (4 for bis, tris, and traps and 6 for chest, back, legs and delts)
take a listen to this part here 4:22-6:52 this is something very important i believe
-
good post oldtimer
the thing about sets is that sets not taken til failure aren't considered "sets" because they do nothing to stimulate growth, according to both Mentzer and AJ
back in his training days Mentzer did roughly 4-6 productive sets ie. sets til failure per bodypart (4 for bis, tris, and traps and 6 for chest, back, legs and delts)
take a listen to this part here 4:22-6:52 this is something very important i believe
yeah ,,but you can see there are not many successful competitive bbers competing that follow his regimine.the problem is that his training was different from the norm and emphasis on drugs extreme drugs is what fuels bbers and muscle they build and retain so training is just a secondary portion of what builds them.i like to train foremost and i think 60/70/80's bbers would or could have benefitted moreso,less dependant on drugs then,they took them and alot but they trained hard too.
-
good post oldtimer
the thing about sets is that sets not taken til failure aren't considered "sets" because they do nothing to stimulate growth, according to both Mentzer and AJ
back in his training days Mentzer did roughly 4-6 productive sets ie. sets til failure per bodypart (4 for bis, tris, and traps and 6 for chest, back, legs and delts)
take a listen to this part here 4:22-6:52 this is something very important i believe
Sets that are warm up sets that really doesn't tax you shouldn't count. Talking about work sets, Jones and Mentzer were wrong to say non failure sets don't count. In the world of Power lifting and Olympic lifting do they train to failure all the time? Of course they don't. They cycle their training. Only near the end of their cycle are they going for broke. Were they wasting their time not going to failure for much of their training cycle?
If you lifted for curls for one set to failure did you exhaust all the muscle fibers? No, you didn't. Muscle fibers fire on or off. If you did 5 sets of curls with the last set being failure due to fatigue you hit more fibers. I'm going to say something radical from a HIT view point. Two sets is better than one. Three sets is better than two but the positive adaptation goes down fractionally with every set.
Maybe a better way to express my view point is the world of track. Imagine if a coach said every day doing intervals we are going to failure. Okay milers get on the track. Today we are doing 10 x 400 meters. Go all out from the first quarter and I will time you. Tomorrow you are going to beat those times. That approach might work with beginners but it would wreck seasoned milers times. If a HIT advocate was a track coach he would tell his milers today you are running a mile to exhaustion. We will take 4 days off where you will run another mile trying to beat your time. This takes care of the train to exhaustion principal and the specificity principal. Pure madness.
I don't think I'm expressing myself coherently. Maybe another time. Lifting to failure is an effective tool in the arsenal of a lifter. If it's the sole tool that a lifting program is based around that is a big mistake that will limit instead of advance progress. We can only get so strong. We can make a ton of progress though in muscular strength endurance.
I am very familiar with the teachings of Jones and Mentzer. Many HIT advocates are taking Mentzer's theories on recuperation to far by doing three to four exercises done every 3 to 5 days because they have to recuperate since they train so hard. Such bs. They also preach to avoid any cardio because it cuts into recuperation. Mentzer both biked and ran during his prime but when he retired he preached against any type cardio. Hit advocates claim the muscle they gain will burn more calories at rest so they don't need cardio. Talk about taking a known concept and corrupting it to fit simpleton thinking.
I trained for so many decades according to Mentzer's advice during his competitive days and not his retirement thoughts. I made great progress. Now in my mid 50's my shoulder joints are shot. I also find I can't train to failure frequently anymore. Like I said previously. Training to failure with low sets is a tool. It can't be your only tool and your sole focus in every training session.
-
but here's the thing...
"as you get progressively bigger and stronger the key to making even more progress is to train less"
i was training each muscle every 3-4 days and now im training each muscle every 7-9 days and i'm making better and faster progress (but this is just my own personal experience)
-
but here's the thing...
"as you get progressively bigger and stronger the key to making even more progress is to train less"
i was training each muscle every 3-4 days and now im training each muscle every 7-9 days and i'm making better and faster progress (but this is just my own personal experience)
well yeah,,,my the0ry as well...
-
Training each individual muscle every 7 day to 9 days or is it that you train every 7 to 9 days? Training a body part 7 to 9 days works due to over lap and it's a proven way to train. If you are visiting the gym every 7 to 9 days as some HIT advocates preach that is nonsense.
To make myself clear one trainer might do Monday: Chest. Tuesday: Back. Wednesday: off. Thursday: legs. Friday: Delt and arms. Weekends off. This type of work out split of training once a week is not a problem.
This is what many HIT lunatics recommend. Monday: Squats, weighted dips, back rows, military presses. Saturday: Deadlifts, bench, curls then take off 4 or 5 days off again. No cardio. One set to failure.
-
i'm lucky if i take 2 days off per week
but the thing is, i'd probably make better progress if i trained only about 2 times per week on a 2 or 3 way split routine
i now take 2 or 3 days off per week, but if i can get down to training just once every 3 or 4 days i'd make best and fastest gains me thinks
-
If you want to lift twice a week and have it be effective why don't you use a whole body routine instead of a split? Start with the biggest body parts and work to the smallest. Pick one or at the most two exercises per body part. This will work and achieve the twice a week work outs you desire.
I used this whole body routine effectively but it's brutal.
Power cleans 3 x 3 then 1 x 1
squats 2 x 8
lunges 1 x 8
standing leg curls 2 x 10
Flat dumbbell bench 2 x 8
Chins 2 x max
Low cable rows 2 x 12
military press 2 x 10
dumbbell laterals 2 x 10
weighted dips 2 x 10
barbell curls 2 x 10
hanging leg raises 2 x max
ab crunch machine 2 x 25
standing calf 2 x 15
neck and grip work.
Routine would take 90 minutes.
I know a true HIT follower would only do three of those exercises listed for one work set but this is a real world routine that gives good fast results.
-
K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)
Very old gym motto. Many banners & sign's have this hanging in plain sight. Still important basic knowlwdge for progress, which tends to be completly ignored these days. More is usually never better than less, when less is planned and throught out.
Want the workouts to be brief and to the point, with a somewhat fast pace for BB'ing. 90 seconds between sets and 3-4 minutes between execises. 45 minutes should be the targeted time period for a program based on 8-10 BB'ing reps. TUT (Time Under Tension) can be critical for muscle growth. 4 to 6 sets per body part should be more than enought if approaching each workout with serious intent. Don't waste your time looking and flexing in the gym mirrors, you can do that insecure ego stuff at home.
For a basic BB'ing strength/size program, might suggest 5X5's, using 4 to 5 exercise max each workout.
(With working out , it's not how many sets that are done, but how many reps. Sets only break down the total reps into managable units, for a muscle group. You don't expect to do 50 non stop reps for benches, so they may be broken down to 5X10's. A 5X5 program will allow a total of 25 reps per musclegroup, which should be more than enought for advancements in strength and muscle mass)
Full body workouts have given exceptional resuts over the years, as long as not too many exercises are added. The 5X5 system, 2 to 3 times a weeks, can be well designed for full body work. Another version is spliting the body into upper and lower workouts, using 5X5's.
As; Mon...lowers
Examples- squats, leg curls, calf raises
Wed...uppers
Examples-inclines, BB rows, up-right rows
Fri....back to Mondays lower body wokout
Following Monday start with upper body, Wed the lower body and Fri upper bodys again. Alternate each Monday workout. Good Luck.
-
well ot2 i can only handle 3 or 4 exercises per workout, so it ain't really possible for me to do a full body routine with just 3 or 4 exercises
a 2 way split can work but 3 way might be even better
i'm discovering that i make best progress waiting 8 or 9 days btw bodyparts (except for legs, as i can train them every 5 days since they are "under-trained" ie. not as developed as my upper body)
but here's what's interesting... as i get bigger and stronger i need to take more days between bodypart workouts, just like Mentzer said
i'm just wondering if i'll ever get to the point where i need to wait 3 or 4 weeks between bodypart workouts
on a side note i didn't do any deads for over 3 weeks and then when i went back to do them again i got stronger ??? ??? ???
-
here's an interview with Mentzer where he talks about how he would have trained back when he was competing after he made his "latest discoveries"
1. Q. I have read many articles of yours and you always advise bodybuilders that they should train with high intensity, once every 5 - 7 days, and every training session should not last more than 20 minutes in order to achieve maximum muscle stimulation. My question to you is, if 20 years ago you had the knowledge that you have today, would you train with the same frequency and duration for a bodybuilding competition or might you change something?
M.M. Given the knowledge I have today, I certainly wouldn′t train in the same fashion I did 20 years ago. In fact, I wrote in my book "Heavy Duty I, "Despite having been the arch-advocate of lesser training [20 years ago] I, too, was still overtaining." What I have learned over the last 11 years, since taking up personal training, is that weight resistance is much, much more stressful than the average bodybuilder might fathom.
Lifting weights places stresses on the body that might be best illustrated by the following. Imagine a flat, horizontal line drawn on a piece of paper from left to right,with the flat line representing zero effort. Now imagine a squiggly sine wave come off the zero effort flat line, the sine wave representing efforts of various sorts. You get out of bed each morning, shower, brush your teeth, walk to your car, drive to work and so forth.
These are small efforts causing the sine wave to barely move above the flat line.
Then, all of a sudden, you come to that point in the day where you do a heavy set of Squats to failure. All of a sudden the sine wave departs straight up off the paper and across the street! The distance from the flat line to the apex of that spike represents not only the greater intensity with the Squats but, also, the much greater inroad into recovery ability than our usual, daily little efforts.
I wrote in my book "Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body" that the idea is not "more is better" or "less is better" but "precise is best"; and as I learned from training close to 2,000 people plus myself that the precise amount of exercise required to induce optimal growth stimulation isn′t nearly as much as you′ve been led to believe or would like to believe.
Remember, the idea is not to go into the gym to discover how many sets you can do or how long you can mindlessly endure. Instead, the idea is to go into the gym as an informed, rational individual and do only the precise amount of exercise required to stimulate growth and no more; then get the hell out of the gym, go home and GROW! A bodybuilding workout, by God, is not an endurance contest!
Last year I was in 80 percent of my shape, and my leg workouts lasted six minutes and upper body workouts 15 minutes, training once every four to seven days.
-
this section should be highlighted, so i'll just post that section here ;D ;D ;D
Remember, the idea is not to go into the gym to discover how many sets you can do or how long you can mindlessly endure. Instead, the idea is to go into the gym as an informed, rational individual and do only the precise amount of exercise required to stimulate growth and no more; then get the hell out of the gym, go home and GROW! A bodybuilding workout, by God, is not an endurance contest!
Last year I was in 80 percent of my shape, and my leg workouts lasted six minutes and upper body workouts 15 minutes, training once every four to seven days.
-
Realize that Mentzer when he retired after he recovered from mental illness and drug addiction was training clients. I find so many personal trainers are extreme HIT guys. Are you going to hang out with clients for an hour plus or give them a routine that's over in 17 minutes?
I wish nothing but the best for HIT followers. I just don't like their attitude of I have superior intellect because I follow HIT. When it really come down to it no one in the HIT community can even agree on what the proper protocol is for training.
I trained on Nautilus for awhile back in the day. I also was put through the paces at a pure Med X and Nautilus gym about 7 years ago. It was brutal and I literally had trouble standing. I think the whole routine took about 15 to 20 minutes.
-
Volume and endurance are relative terms. An olympic sprinter can maintain max speed for about 40 meters, this would in a way make the 100m sprint an endurance race to some degree. A 10 rep set to failure requires more endurance than a 1 rep max which would make the 10 rep set a test of endurance.
Volume can go from zero to infinte, the terms low volume and high volume are very vague. One set per bodypart is low volume compared to 5 sets per bodypart. And 5 sets per bodypart is low volume compared to 20 sets per bodypart.
What is the point in all this? This stuff is not as simple and black and white as the HIT theories make it out to be.
A much more logical way to approach this is to acknowledge that there is a volume range that is the most effective for building muscle.
Psychologically it's much easier to feel the benefit of a set taken to complete failure, you have given it all you got and took your ability to it's current limit. But your muscles respond to mechanical work load not your need for self assurance on a job well done.
Talk to anyone that has worked physically demanding jobs and they will tell you that the first several weeks were rough but then got easier as their body adapted to the stress. These people aren't doing tasks to failure but it's the cumulative mechanical toll that they are exposed to.
The HIT theory is way too basic to explain how the human body reacts to stress and adapts, which is exactly why it ends up with training once every 2-3 weeks.
-
the title of this thread alone reminds me why bbing is irrelevant
you end up a puffed up, lean bodied guy who can't run, can't fight and can't win at anything other than bikini modeling...
is that the modern definition of a man?
i think not
-
that's true actually, but no one said that bodybuilders were "athletes", or at least they shouldn't have ever said that
-
that's true actually, but no one said that bodybuilders were "athletes", or at least they shouldn't have ever said that
they call each other warriors.... :P
hilarious
-
I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember the Superstars on ABC sports. They would take athletes from all sports and have them do different athletic events. Some of the events were a 100 yard dash, half mile run, swimming, biking, bowling, hitting baseballs, rowing a boat, obstacle course and power jerking a barbell taken off of squat racks. They had guys from the NFL, Baseball and other athletes. Every week they would have an episode and I think the week winner went on.
Lou Ferrigno won his week. He won the bike race, weight lifting, rowing a boat, second in the half mile, and he did well in the other events. Very impressive. I think his time in the half mile was somewhere in the very low 2 minute range. In the finals he had a bad day. He was really good at bowling and hitting baseballs but he just had an off day during the finals. He came in second in the weightlifting losing out to one of the most powerful men ever Brian Oldfield the shot put world record holder. Lou's technique jerking a weight over head was really bad. Mike Mentzer also competed one year but he didn't do very well. He was slow as a snail sprinting.
Big Lou also did well in the World's strongest man competition winning the car deadlift over power lifters.
-
I don't know if you guys are old enough to remember the Superstars on ABC sports. They would take athletes from all sports and have them do different athletic events. Some of the events were a 100 yard dash, half mile run, swimming, biking, bowling, hitting baseballs, rowing a boat, obstacle course and power jerking a barbell taken off of squat racks. They had guys from the NFL, Baseball and other athletes. Every week they would have an episode and I think the week winner went on.
Lou Ferrigno won his week. He won the bike race, weight lifting, rowing a boat, second in the half mile, and he did well in the other events. Very impressive. I think his time in the half mile was somewhere in the very low 2 minute range. In the finals he had a bad day. He was really good at bowling and hitting baseballs but he just had an off day during the finals. He came in second in the weightlifting losing out to one of the most powerful men ever Brian Oldfield the shot put world record holder. Lou's technique jerking a weight over head was really bad. Mike Mentzer also competed one year but he didn't do very well. He was slow as a snail sprinting.
Big Lou also did well in the World's strongest man competition winning the car deadlift over power lifters.
great show,franco blew out his knee carrying refigerator one yr i believe,,,
-
I remember watching that on tv when it happened to Franco. He kept saying his leg was dislocated. It was broken. The guy weighed about 175lbs and he was competing against 300lbs plus guys in the World's Strongest man contest.
-
franco had tiny arms, almost as tiny as mine ;D
if louie really did run the half mile in the low 2 minutes, then that is damn. damn impressive :o
i'm thinking about going back to some aerobic conditioning training, but the problem is when i train like that i lose "size" FUCK!!! >:( >:( >:(
it's basically something to do with aerobic and anaerobic training/conditioning interfering with each other and the compromise of results within both aspects, basically you can't be the worlds biggest and strongest man and be the worlds most aerobically fit man at the same time
-
franco had tiny arms, almost as tiny as mine ;D
if louie really did run the half mile in the low 2 minutes, then that is damn. damn impressive :o
i'm thinking about going back to some aerobic conditioning training, but the problem is when i train like that i lose "size" FUCK!!! >:( >:( >:(
it's basically something to do with aerobic and anaerobic training/conditioning interfering with each other and the compromise of results within both aspects, basically you can't be the worlds biggest and strongest man and be the worlds most aerobically fit man at the same time
I will look up that Ferrigno half mile time but I have to go through a lot of old Iron man magazines to find it. I want to say 2:21 but I will get the correct answer. Just give me some time. True you can't be your strongest and your best at cardio at the same time. I look at it this way. You might build a body like a Ferrari that can go 210 MPH but if you don't have gas in the tank it really is just useless strength because you will run out of gas quickly. On the other hand you can have a huge gas tank (conditioning) but have a small motor (low power). If you train for both there is compromise. Most want to concentrate in one area.
P.S. I can't find the magazine. If my memory of the event is wrong I apologize.
-
There was a time in the 60's and 70's when bodybuilders and powerlifters were athletes. As mentioned Franco and Lou competed in WSM. Kaz was setting records in powerlifting before he dominated WSM. These guys TRAINED rather than just letting the drugs do the work. Before the monolifts, the bench shirts, and squat suits, they trained to be strong all over because it was just you and the weight. And their physiques reflected that.
It's just sad what has happened to BBing and PLing over the decades.
Today there are running backs in the NFL under 6ft weighing 225lbs with 40" vertical jumps, low 4's in the 40, benching four plates and squatting 600lbs. I doubt that if they were to do a 5 mile run anyone would be impressed with their times. Yet very few would question their status as world class athletes.
-
from Mike... 38 pounds of LEAN muscle tissue in 4 months
Appoximately two years ago, I met a young man at Gold′s
Gym in Venice, CA, who complained of being a hard gainer. After
3 and a half years of training up to 2 hours a day, six days a
week, he had made little in the way of worthwile progress. He
therefore concluded that he was not genetically predisposed to
build large muscles and was considering giving up training. I
suggested that he not be so hasty and give Heavy Duty high-
intensity training a try. He did.
After 4 months of 3 weekly workouts under my personal
supervision-none of which lasted more than 20 minutes-we sat
down and analyzed his progress. He had increased his reps,
weight or both for a total of four hundred sets. His strength
doubled in some areas and tripled in others and he gained 38
pounds of lean muscle mass.
I emphasize lean muscle mass because his weight gain
was not a mixture of fat and muscle; it was all muscle as
evidenced by the fact that his definition had improved. In
fact, he was able to see his abdominals for the first time
in his life.
-
There was a time in the 60's and 70's when bodybuilders and powerlifters were athletes. As mentioned Franco and Lou competed in WSM. Kaz was setting records in powerlifting before he dominated WSM. These guys TRAINED rather than just letting the drugs do the work. Before the monolifts, the bench shirts, and squat suits, they trained to be strong all over because it was just you and the weight. And their physiques reflected that.
It's just sad what has happened to BBing and PLing over the decades.
Today there are running backs in the NFL under 6ft weighing 225lbs with 40" vertical jumps, low 4's in the 40, benching four plates and squatting 600lbs. I doubt that if they were to do a 5 mile run anyone would be impressed with their times. Yet very few would question their status as world class athletes.
totally on board with you... functional strength and ability has gone out the window and both events are more like freak shows than anything else now IMO
-
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey when you say in effect that no one would question if a running back is an athlete? There are aerobic athletes, anaerobic athletes and then there is a blend of ratios. I'm sure any NFL or Division I running back could post a really good 5 mile time but that time wouldn't impress a real endurance athlete.
I think for a guy who is mainly into looking good through bodybuilding but wants athletic attributes for sport, health and self defense would include some cardio. The way I worked it in when I was going that route was short runs. I would run 1 to 2 miles a couple of times a week. An ideal situation would be sprint intervals. Something like 6 x 800, 8 x 200 meters, or 6 x 400 would be ideal after warm up.
Now my priorities have changed to where I want more endurance and I go for 5 to 3 mile runs. It does compromise maximum strength but I feel leaner with certainly more endurance. If you're into the fight game of either boxing, wrestling or jui jitsu you better emphasize some real endurance training. Anyone who has ever done any fighting will instantly recognize the importance of conditioning. "Gassing" is a real problem when you are in the combat sports.
-
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey when you say in effect that no one would question if a running back is an athlete? There are aerobic athletes, anaerobic athletes and then there is a blend of ratios. I'm sure any NFL or Division I running back could post a really good 5 mile time but that time wouldn't impress a real endurance athlete.
I think for a guy who is mainly into looking good through bodybuilding but wants athletic attributes for sport, health and self defense would include some cardio. The way I worked it in when I was going that route was short runs. I would run 1 to 2 miles a couple of times a week. An ideal situation would be sprint intervals. Something like 6 x 800, 8 x 200 meters, or 6 x 400 would be ideal after warm up.
Now my priorities have changed to where I want more endurance and I go for 5 to 3 mile runs. It does compromise maximum strength but I feel leaner with certainly more endurance. If you're into the fight game of either boxing, wrestling or jui jitsu you better emphasize some real endurance training. Anyone who has ever done any fighting will instantly recognize the importance of conditioning. "Gassing" is a real problem when you are in the combat sports.
Completely agree with you. I have had conversations with people who didn't even consider WSM competitors athletes because they can't run long distances. Then when I ask them if they would consider an NFL running back an athlete they say yes. I am not sure exactly what times those guys would be able to post in a 5 mile run, a lot of them probably have nevet ran it before.
It's like you said, different sports require various amounts of endurance.
-
Completely agree with you. I have had conversations with people who didn't even consider WSM competitors athletes because they can't run long distances. Then when I ask them if they would consider an NFL running back an athlete they say yes. I am not sure exactly what times those guys would be able to post in a 5 mile run, a lot of them probably have nevet ran it before.
It's like you said, different sports require various amounts of endurance.
hmmm
adrian peterson would destroy 5 miles....
-
hmmm
adrian peterson would destroy 5 miles....
AP is definitely a freak of freaks and you may be right. But if I had to put my money on him or a decent high school cross country runner, I would go with the high school kid.
-
AP is definitely a freak of freaks and you may be right. But if I had to put my money on him or a decent high school cross country runner, I would go with the high school kid.
a decent high school cross country runner could easily run 5 miles in under 30 minutes
-
a decent high school cross country runner could easily run 5 miles in under 30 minutes
That's kind of my point. There a thousands of decent high school cross country athletes in US alone. Adrian Peterson is a world class athlete. That is a HUGE gap.
The things that go into making an elite speed/power athlete are worlds apart than the things that go into making an elite endurance athlete. And in the 60's and 70's the kind of training that the very best powerlifters and bodybuilders did is close (not identical) to the kind of training that the elite speed/power athletes do today. They were athletes, the rest of the world didn't give them credit for it. But today cheer for those who's training is based off of what those guys knew and were doing decades ago.
-
That's kind of my point. There a thousands of decent high school cross country athletes in US alone. Adrian Peterson is a world class athlete. That is a HUGE gap.
The things that go into making an elite speed/power athlete are worlds apart than the things that go into making an elite endurance athlete. And in the 60's and 70's the kind of training that the very best powerlifters and bodybuilders did is close (not identical) to the kind of training that the elite speed/power athletes do today. They were athletes, the rest of the world didn't give them credit for it. But today cheer for those who's training is based off of what those guys knew and were doing decades ago.
You write good Posts. I said this before.
-
Great posts on this thread! I think. Far too drunk to understand any of it. Ok I joke a bit. But.. I don't see why people love 4, 5 sets, etc.. Rehabbing from surgery, even using light weights - up to no more than 100 lbs in second week of light training for 20 rep sets, I still don't do more than 3 sets. I just don't see the point. Do 1,2 or maybe 3 including warm up set, then move on to something else.
-
Great posts on this thread! I think. Far too drunk to understand any of it. Ok I joke a bit. But.. I don't see why people love 4, 5 sets, etc.. Rehabbing from surgery, even using light weights - up to no more than 100 lbs in second week of light training for 20 rep sets, I still don't do more than 3 sets. I just don't see the point. Do 1,2 or maybe 3 including warm up set, then move on to something else.
training has alot of variables and all should considered/done,whether its training frequency 'days on/off/sets/reps//execises per bodypart.then changes whether its supersets/tri sets for faster/quicker workouts/pumps.then doing some heavier training with more rest days to recoup and build .main thing is what are you training for an 'event'or personal strenght goal,to a physical physique improvement or combo all 3 spanned over say 6 month period and breaking it up strenght /heavy portion to the faster endurance type training for pump anf then fine tuning the body for a certain look as end result.
-
You write good Posts. I said this before.
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
yeah agree there yev too,,,
-
i'm thinking about adding in some areobic/cardio training into my routine, but i'm not sure how much of it to do/add in?
i'd basically do it for health and a good level of fitness, but not an extreme level of fitness
Dr. Cooper says to do 30 minutes 3 times a week or 20 minutes 4 times per week, but i think that may be too much for me
AJ said that getting the heart rate to a high level ie. 160 bpm and maintaining it at that level for about 10 minutes 2 times per week is all that is required for health and a decent level of fitness, and i think that's about right
-
yeah agree there yev too,,,
Thanks guys.
-
so break this down to simplicity:
1 set of
rows
leg press
military
chin
dips
bench
3x a week until get big?
then 2x a week?
no warm up set?
no cardio?
right??
-
but here's the thing...
"as you get progressively bigger and stronger the key to making even more progress is to train less"
Mike admitted in his later years that this was not true. You would have guys training once every 2 weeks and not making any progress. What were they to do? Train once a month for 15 minutes?
-
from Mike... 38 pounds of LEAN muscle tissue in 4 months
Appoximately two years ago, I met a young man at Gold′s
Gym in Venice, CA, who complained of being a hard gainer. After
3 and a half years of training up to 2 hours a day, six days a
week, he had made little in the way of worthwile progress. He
therefore concluded that he was not genetically predisposed to
build large muscles and was considering giving up training. I
suggested that he not be so hasty and give Heavy Duty high-
intensity training a try. He did.
After 4 months of 3 weekly workouts under my personal
supervision-none of which lasted more than 20 minutes-we sat
down and analyzed his progress. He had increased his reps,
weight or both for a total of four hundred sets. His strength
doubled in some areas and tripled in others and he gained 38
pounds of lean muscle mass.
I emphasize lean muscle mass because his weight gain
was not a mixture of fat and muscle; it was all muscle as
evidenced by the fact that his definition had improved. In
fact, he was able to see his abdominals for the first time
in his life.
This is the exact reason why Mentzer was a fraud. The gains he quotes here, nearly 10lbs of muscle per month aren't even possible on a massive stack. No way would you be cutting up while making this weight gain either. Mike was more into marketing. He wanted people to think they could get earth shattering results training an hour a week or less. His last book 'Muscles in Minutes' was targeted at Joe Public who wanted muscles without putting in the years or time. Get your best gains training 15 minutes every 5-7 days he claims.
I never train to failure. I usually stop 2 reps from it. I also go light 2 workouts for a body part after a heavy one for recovery. According to Mike I would never make any progress, yet I have made great progress in strength and size. I became a Mentzer disciple for many years as his writing was so convincing. I got a little stronger initially but never really progressed. My joints took a pounding, wasn't getting stronger or bigger and thought I had reached my genetic potential. Then I began learning about strength and conditioning and started gaining again. Following Mike's programs and teachings cost me about 5 years of training progress.Not doing any cardio, and following his calorie is a calorie dieting principles likely impacted health wise.
The only thing I still take from Mike Mentzer is lowering volume, and monitoring the body for overtraining. For any trainee who is reading Mike's material thinking they have found the answer, beware. There is no pot of Gold at the end of the Mentzer rainbow.
-
If intensity was the magic bullet we would all be doing 4 sets of 1 rep after warm up on an exercise for every exercise. That's the most intensity anyone can generate. Of course it wouldn't work long term. A bodybuilder's muscle for lack of a better description is built through muscular endurance not pure strength training. In the end how strong can you get if muscle size was determined by purely getting stronger as in one rep strength. Most guys after less than 5 years of training are relatively the strongest they ever will be in their life. Then it's time to train for muscular endurance. Not to be confused with cardio though volume has a cardio edge.
-
Mentzer was full of s**t.
He took massive amounts of steroids which was the true reason he built his over-muscled body.
It sucks when you find out Santa Claus isn't real.
Another thing is why do most personal trainers look like stickmen?
-
A LOT of Bodybuilders are volume lifters my friend, Its not about heavy lifts and moving on..... Its about putting your muscles through so much hell that they grow bigger/stronger.
-
Mentzer was a Jones devotee but clearly got a little too obsessed with the philosophical idealism side of things, latching onto the principle of what made jones different from everyone else (more intensity, less duration and frequency) and becoming derviative of that until you get to his final product in which Mentzer was advocating as little as one session every 10 or 14 days?
Jones never went that far, in fact the standard AJ "protocol" was a full body training session 3 x a week. Jones after about 20 years of continuous research (I think a lot of people are unaware or don't appreciate the work that came out of the nautilus facility... nobody was, or has, since, devoted as much money to bodybuilding research as Jones did) stated that they found some people got better results out of only twice a week, and some individuals still had to be limited to once a week. Jones was not ignorant of individual variability. Jones was also not ignorant of genetic suitability to tasks, and said something to the effect of "most people involved in the earnest pursuit of bodybuilding are completely wasting their time, deluded into believing they have a hope in hell of competing with the absolute genetic freaks that are placing on stage today"
Mentzer's work is admirable in being one of the few literary treatises on the theory of hypertrophy... its just that his conclusions were self-evidently wrong. HIT in general, however, it must be said, will always get an unfair rap because it is simply hard work. I remember reading the study conducted at west point using Jone's training methods pitted against Dr Cooper's then standard military prescription of long distance jogging and calisthenics. The HIT group ended up making gargantuan improvements in all measures of fitness, including cardiovascular, and blew the cooper group out of the water. That was in the 70s. It was never adopted. Well the army continued in the fashion of lots of jogging and lots of calisthenics up until the 00s when the special operations groups discovered that weight training was reducing their rates of muscular and joint injuries in the field as well as improving their capacity to perform in field conditions. Jones probably wouldve been chortling in the grave, finally vindicated.
Point being: even if something is demonstrably superior, if it is too hard, people will come up with excuses so profoundly complex and contrived you could scarcely believe it.
-
The West Point study was biased in that Arthur Jones had a say in the protocol. The 1975 test involving Nautilus machines involved athletes as in Army Division I football players. They were involved in other exercise involving football training. The conclusions drawn were not scientific concerning cardio endurance gained from HIT. Too many variables to be controlled. Body weight exercise is incredibly tough and you need endurance. If you disagree with this you have never trained hard with body weight exercises. Seen many a weight guy sucking wind in exhaustion in basic and advanced military training involving body weight and running.
-
The West Point study was biased in that Arthur Jones had a say in the protocol. The 1975 test involving Nautilus machines involved athletes as in Army Division I football players. They were involved in other exercise involving football training. The conclusions drawn were not scientific concerning cardio endurance gained from HIT. Too many variables to be controlled. Body weight exercise is incredibly tough and you need endurance. If you disagree with this you have never trained hard with body weight exercises. Seen many a weight guy sucking wind in exhaustion in basic and advanced military training involving body weight and running.
i was a boxer for 10 years. Trust me, I'm familiar. And I still disagree.
There is no sound reasoning behind this belief. The only advantage bodyweight exercises have is they are incredibly cheap, free in fact, requiring little to no equipment.
otherwise it is just a less efficient form of creating resistance against muscular contraction. Indeed many a guy sucking wind from doing pushups and burpees on end. Also many people damn near passing out from doing 20 reps in the squat rack, but are you then going to tell me that such an activity is somehow not taxing the cardiovascular system simply because it involves a loaded barbell? That's completely absurd.
its all one system, muscles, heart, lungs, brain. The only thing needed to turn conventional weight training into an extremely taxing conditioning session is to drop the rest periods.
-
Saying doing 1 set to failure on 12 Nautilus machines is better than doing body weight and running in gaining cardio vascular endurance is outrageous.
Researchers from the St. John's Hospital in Minnesota combined with Arizona State University as reported in 1985 April issue of "The Physician and Sports Medicine" did a research study. They used a Nautilus circuit of 14 exercises. They had the subjects move from one machine to another with as little rest as they could push the subjects. 8 to 12 reps for upper body and 8-20 lower body. While the men subjects (leaving the women out for typing sake) maintained an average heart rate of 139.9 BPM. Here's the thing with anaerobic exercise. The mean oxygen uptake was only 35.9%. It wasn't close to the recommended minimum of 50-75% of VO2 maximum recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine for aerobic exercise.
Calories used was also low 113 for the Nautilus session for the women and 171 for the men. A slow 2 mile run exceeds that.
The reason why a Nautilus session isn't a good aerobic trainer is that one exercise doesn't last long enough to make demands on the aerobic system. An elevated heart rate isn't proof in it self of training the aerobic system.
Another reason is while each exercise lasted 60 to 90 seconds the next exercise moved to a different body part. The aerobic mechanism in each body part wasn't worked long enough for an aerobic training effect.
I could go on but I just came back from my Yates inspired one set to failure routine followed by a hard 3 mile run in 91 degree humidity. Feeling shot. LOL.
I was a boxer too. Turns out after being 4-1 I didn't like getting hit in the face. That's why I'm still pretty. ;D
-
Mentzer was full of s**t.
He took massive amounts of steroids which was the true reason he built his over-muscled body.
It sucks when you find out Santa Claus isn't real.
Another thing is why do most personal trainers look like stickmen?
All Pro Bodybuilders roid the shit out of themselves lol. I believe that 99% Of "personal trainers" Look like stickmen because they solely rely on textbook knowledge to try and start a career while not even considering they could learn twice as much by actually training with the knowledge they have acquired while studying for their certification. In other words.... They're fucking idiots.
-
All Pro Bodybuilders roid the shit out of themselves lol. I believe that 99% Of "personal trainers" Look like stickmen because they solely rely on textbook knowledge to try and start a career while not even considering they could learn twice as much by actually training with the knowledge they have acquired while studying for their certification. In other words.... They're fucking idiots.
I can only conclude from your post that we are in agreement.