Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Bast175 on October 29, 2009, 05:46:55 PM
-
-
Ehm one went completely nuts in the 80's, died in 2001 probably flat broke, the other one won 7 mr. Olympias, became one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood with a trademark look and sound that's known over the entire world and now is the two time governor of California.
Who got owned here?
-
Isn't that Flanders from the Simpsons?
-
Ehm one went completely nuts in the 80's, died in 2001 probably flat broke, the other one won 7 mr. Olympias, became one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood with a trademark look and sound that's known over the entire world and now is the two time governor of California.
Who got owned here?
Money isn't the only currency of happiness.
-
The joke was on him and H.I.T
Arnold's will beat him and his superior mind. Let's entertain he did beat Arnold in 1980 what now? he beat a very sub-par Arnold Yipppeeeee he couldn't touch Arnold at his best so either way Mentzer - fail
-
Money isn't the only currency of happiness.
Did I ever mention his wealth?
Edit: I mentioned Mentzer probably being flat broke but that's just an indicator that he was not successful in his ventures.
-
this guy would have been even less without Arnold....
-
Did I ever mention his wealth?
Edit: I mentioned Mentzer probably being flat broke but that's just an indicator that he was not successful in his ventures.
what sources do you have that he was broke?
-
what sources do you have that he was broke?
I just got that impression... I did say "probably". Did he have much to his name when his body failed?
-
Nice guy (I met himn at Gold's Redondo Bch) but he blamed the Oak for everything!!!!
-
Mentzer was right about a lot. His philosophy of HIT helped me when I was making no gains. Classic case of over training and under eating. At one point I was training legs and back three times a week. now I train them only once a week and am able to constantly progress. I do two working sets per exercise, similar to Yates.
What he said about less training, but more intensity was right on the money; especially for a natural like myself.
-
Mentzer got so schooled in 1980 it's not even funny...wait yes it is. :D
-
I don't think HIT is all that - I think you need a bit of volume, but the opposite (high volume) is also a big load, especially if you aren't juicing. So to a degree Mentzer was right.
-
I just got that impression... I did say "probably". Did he have much to his name when his body failed?
I know Arnold had to pay Ray Mentzers medical bills so Mike obviously didnt have much.
-
The guy on Mentzer's film, Markus, is still circa 10 years after filming deadlifting barely 4 plates a side and isn't a little tiny bit bigger.
-
I was/am a huge Mentzer fan and he influenced my thinking tremendously. When I first met him at Gold's in Venice (I was introduced to him by the great Don Ross RIP) I couldn't get past the voice. The nasally drone didn't seem to fit him. But he was a good guy and always greeted me by my name.
You can't compare him to Arnold. Arnold owns the world. Mentzer wasn't broke. Not by a long shot. I think Ray was more down and out. But even if you are making a six figure salary paying for dialysis and other medical problems that Ray had would put anybody in the poor house. I think after Arnold retired from bodybuilding he had a less cut throat dog eat dog mentality when it came to other bodybuilders. They were his competition after all and nothing was going to get in his way. But I think when he retired he now looks back on bodybuilding as some his fondest years and grew a soft spot for those guys. He never forgot his roots and the people from that period in his life. He and Mentzer buried the hatchet and became friends. Arnold paying for Ray's medical bills was nothing for him financially and it was his way of giving back to those days of glory and not forgetting the people from that time period.
-
He used to hang with Dave Fisher and (the also deceased) Don Ross at Redondo's Gold's.
-
Disagreeing with someone is not owning them.
-
He seem bitter and regretful. Or like someone who does not really like to work out or the body building / fitness lifestyle.
-
He was depressed for crying out loud. Let the man rest in peace with his brother in his ass. ::)
-
It's a shame we lost this great man. RIP Mike and Ray.
-
I know Arnold had to pay Ray Mentzers medical bills so Mike obviously didnt have much.
Guilt is a hellva drug isn't it!
-
Sounds like Nasser /Dorian also :D
-
Disagreeing with someone is not owning them.
Exactly.
Pretty funny how Mike confused Arnold's name with Arthur not once, but twice. :D
-
Allmost every bodybuilder trains their muscles every 7-9 day nowdays thenks to Mentzer and Yates influence
I will say that he was a bit extreme on how little exercises and sets it takes for the best growth. But it works for some people it seems.
-
Allmost every bodybuilder trains their muscles every 7-9 day nowdays thenks to Mentzer and Yates influence
I will say that he was a bit extreme on how little exercises and sets it takes for the best growth. But it works for some people it seems.
But the best bodybuilder ever trained every muscle atleast twice a week. ;)
-
Exactly.
Pretty funny how Mike confused Arnold's name with Arthur not once, but twice. :D
Yes..because they were the two men in his life he was most obsessed with. Arthur Jones was his mentor and God...and Arnold became his Satan, the evil catalyst that triggered his downward descent into madness.
-
But the best bodybuilder ever trained every muscle atleast twice a week. ;)
Who? Arnold?
-
Well, to make things simple enough look where Arnold's thinking got him: 7 time Mr. Olympia, one of the most succesful hollywood actors and California governor. Then look where Mentzer got with his thinking.
Plus, Mentzer always seemed to be jealous of Arnold, why would he critize him so much then?
-
Who? Arnold?
Yep. :D
-
Did I ever mention his wealth?
Edit: I mentioned Mentzer probably being flat broke but that's just an indicator that he was not successful in his ventures.
at its zenith
Mentzer's mail-order business was generating 800K in sales per year
I know he had a home and several cars at one point, not necessarily indicators of 'wealth'
-
Mentzer sports Nasser-like bitterness.
-
Money isn't the only currency of happiness.
Being alive > Being dead
-
at its zenith
Mentzer's mail-order business was generating 800K in sales per year
I know he had a home and several cars at one point, not necessarily indicators of 'wealth'
Ok fair enough, he obviously had money then.
-
Being alive > Being dead
Have you been to the other side?
-
Being alive > Being dead
i guess u've been dead before?
-
i guess u've been dead before?
Fuck off ;D
-
Ok fair enough, he obviously had money then.
I also know he ended up living in an apartment with brother Ray at time of their deaths...so...who knows...maybe all that meth he supposedly smoked drained his resources
-
I think Arnold won this one.
-
Ehm one went completely nuts in the 80's, died in 2001 probably flat broke, the other one won 7 mr. Olympias, became one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood with a trademark look and sound that's known over the entire world and now is the two time governor of California.
Who got owned here?
Mike spoke the truth. Arnold didn't. Got him far too.
-
I disagree about the not trying part. People should work, hustle and try their hardest if they willing want something.
He has some good points tho.
-
Mike spoke the truth. Arnold didn't. Got him far too.
Bill Pearl said it best regarding Arnold. "He a taker not a giver."
-
I did a HIT workout yesterday. each rep was 6-8 seconds, very painful on the last few reps on sets to failure. I did 2-3 sets to failure for each muscle. biceps, triceps, delts, traps in that workout. I'm sore.
-
I did a HIT workout yesterday. each rep was 6-8 seconds, very painful on the last few reps on sets to failure. I did 2-3 sets to failure for each muscle. biceps, triceps, delts, traps in that workout. I'm sore.
Good stuff.
-
Mentzer was right about a lot. His philosophy of HIT helped me when I was making no gains. Classic case of over training and under eating. At one point I was training legs and back three times a week. now I train them only once a week and am able to constantly progress. I do two working sets per exercise, similar to Yates.
What he said about less training, but more intensity was right on the money; especially for a natural like myself.
QFT.
-
it is cool to try doing the ultra low sets heavy duty routine once in a while
-
at its zenith
Mentzer's mail-order business was generating 800K in sales per year
I know he had a home and several cars at one point, not necessarily indicators of 'wealth'
How do you know this? I find that very hard to believe. When I bought his courses in the early 1980's the whole set was like $25.00. Say an average order (books, courses, whatever) is $30.00. He'd have to be selling over 26,000 of these a year.
-
Is it true that both Mentzer brothers were regularly involved in seedy activities together for the benefit of wealthy supporters?
Not sure if they performed on the wealthy gays or performed with each other. That sort of stuff would certainly turn one insane and into an early grave.
-
How do you know this? I find that very hard to believe. When I bought his courses in the early 1980's the whole set was like $25.00. Say an average order (books, courses, whatever) is $30.00. He'd have to be selling over 26,000 of these a year.
Bob kennedy, publisher of Musclemag International, made that claim about Mentzer a few years back. This was supposed to be in the late 70's. When I met Mentzer when I was 16, in 1978, he was living in a two bedroom apartment, in Venice. So I'm not sure how accurate the 800k a year claim is, unless it happened after the time I was there.
-
Made some good points selling the HIT concept, but didnt he also believe that with the added exercise routine, one would only need an additional 7grams of protein a day to compensate? Literally, like one extra egg?
-
Made some good points selling the HIT concept, but didnt he also believe that with the added exercise routine, one would only need an additional 7grams of protein a day to compensate? Literally, like one extra egg?
He was talking about average gains in a yearly period for a natural and went on to explain biologically the amount of protein or aminos contained within one pound of muscle. There is studies that actually support the idea that trained athletes require LESS protein than non-trained athletes in SOME cases. This is because of the efficiency in their recylcing of aminos.
-
;)
-
No matter what happened to him later in life, no one can deny...that is an amazing physique there.
-
No matter what happened to him later in life, no one can deny...that is an amazing physique there.
One Thick dude for sure
-
No matter what happened to him later in life, no one can deny...that is an amazing physique there.
QFT. Rugged, strong and HEALTHY looking. That's what bodybuilding should be about.
-
QFT. Rugged, strong and HEALTHY looking. That's what bodybuilding should be about.
That's the look I'm shooting for, the thick-as-a-mother-fucker look. Mentzer owned that look.
Hope that crazy bastard's pumpin' in peace. PIP
-
Yip yip built pussy wreaked there.
-
Mods please press play and lock this thread down.
-
No matter what happened to him later in life, no one can deny...that is an amazing physique there.
mentzer dripping with muscle there
-
The joke was on him and H.I.T
Arnold's will beat him and his superior mind. Let's entertain he did beat Arnold in 1980 what now? he beat a very sub-par Arnold Yipppeeeee he couldn't touch Arnold at his best so either way Mentzer - fail
Beat Arnold?
He couldn't even be a SUB-PAR Frank Zane or a substantially smaller Chris Dickerson. Why do some of these Mentzer folks keep forgetting that he placed FIFTH?
-
He was talking about average gains in a yearly period for a natural and went on to explain biologically the amount of protein or aminos contained within one pound of muscle. There is studies that actually support the idea that trained athletes require LESS protein than non-trained athletes in SOME cases. This is because of the efficiency in their recylcing of aminos.
If the average natural trainer follows Mentzer's HIT advice, he'll quit within two weeks.
-
Ha! Mentzer having the last laugh.
Wait ...
-
One is in the dirt, the other is the governor of the entire state ....
-
One is in the dirt
... remembered mostly for drinking pee.
-
Beat Arnold?
He couldn't even be a SUB-PAR Frank Zane or a substantially smaller Chris Dickerson. Why do some of these Mentzer folks keep forgetting that he placed FIFTH?
Because just because he placed fifth doesn't mean he was the fifth best bodybuilder onstage.
Zane looked 120 pounds at that show and he beat Mentzer? Watch the video dude (oh but wait they don't show the legs in that video i wonder why. Plus they dub the booing at the end).
-
Mike was thick and had a very impressive physique........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/IpreferKeaton/misc/Mentzer.jpg)
But...........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/IpreferKeaton/misc/742.jpg)
While I respect Mentzer for thinking on his own rather than just accepting the traditional methods, he always came off very bitter and jealous of Arnold. In my opinion he couldn't measure up to Arnold on his best day even when Arnold was at 75% in 1980. All bullshit aside. Mentzer couldn't even beat Zane. He finished 5th, period. Not 2nd, 3rd or 4th. The facts are the facts. I don't like what ifs and BS about fixed contests. Every competitor thinks that they should have won, but 5th place is 5th fucking place.
-
Mike was thick and had a very impressive physique........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/IpreferKeaton/misc/Mentzer.jpg)
But...........
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/IpreferKeaton/misc/742.jpg)
While I respect Mentzer for thinking on his own rather than just accepting the traditional methods, he always came off very bitter and jealous of Arnold. In my opinion he couldn't measure up to Arnold on his best day even when Arnold was at 75% in 1980. All bullshit aside. Mentzer couldn't even beat Zane. He finished 5th, period. Not 2nd, 3rd or 4th. The facts are the facts. I don't like what ifs and BS about fixed contests. Every competitor thinks that they should have won, but 5th place is 5th fucking place.
In pics where Arnold is at his biggest it always looks like somebody shrunk his head. ;D
BOOM!
-
here is a recent pic of Mentzer ............
8)
-
No matter what happened to him later in life, no one can deny...that is an amazing physique there.
Not an Amazing upperbody compared to the average pro BB.
-
Not an Amazing upperbody compared to the average pro BB.
No..not size wise and I was referring more to his era plus the fact that that is a physique lots of people would want to have. Not everyone wants to look like the pregnant gutted average pro of today.
-
No..not size wise and I was referring more to his era plus the fact that that is a physique lots of people would want to have. Not everyone wants to look like the pregnant gutted average pro of today.
X2
-
Because just because he placed fifth doesn't mean he was the fifth best bodybuilder onstage.
Zane looked 120 pounds at that show and he beat Mentzer? Watch the video dude (oh but wait they don't show the legs in that video i wonder why. Plus they dub the booing at the end).
Mentzer had no chance of winning that show. If Arnold weren't there, Chris Dickerson would have picked up a Sandow, two years earlier than he actually did. Zane had already bested Mentzer TWICE before to win two Olympias.
If you can't beat a sub-par Zane, you ain't beating Arnold Schwarzenegger, PERIOD.
-
Ehm one went completely nuts in the 80's, died in 2001 probably flat broke, the other one won 7 mr. Olympias, became one of the highest paid actors in Hollywood with a trademark look and sound that's known over the entire world and now is the two time governor of California.
Who got owned here?
LOL, for real.... one went insane because he couldn't win a 'bodybuilding' contest...nuff said.
-
LOL, for real.... one went insane because he couldn't win a 'bodybuilding' contest...nuff said.
The way I understand it, Mentzer lost the Mr O in 1980, then lost his business, and girlfriend and parents enough to drive anyone crazy.
-
Beat Arnold?
He couldn't even be a SUB-PAR Frank Zane or a substantially smaller Chris Dickerson. Why do some of these Mentzer folks keep forgetting that he placed FIFTH?
hey got screwed on placing probably because he called out Arnold and Joe Weider for being butt-buddies.
-
monster forearms
(http://intenceman.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mentzer1.jpg)
-
hey got screwed on placing probably because he called out Arnold and Joe Weider for being butt-buddies.
bast have you now come round to heavy duty style training? if so I congratulate you sir. RIP Mike.
-
bast have you now come round to heavy duty style training? if so I congratulate you sir. RIP Mike.
Well I've only done two work outs so far. They are painful and I get more sore than a regular workout. I'm sticking to it.
-
No matter what happened to him later in life, no one can deny...that is an amazing physique there.
what type of cycle do you think he had?
E
-
Well I've only done two work outs so far. They are painful and I get more sore than a regular workout. I'm sticking to it.
Good stuff. I started training once every 3-4 days like Mike recommended and then inserted additonal rest days as necessary to stop the plateau like he says and I've been training once every week pretty much for the past two years. Best decision I ever made. At the age of 18 I was a lean 128lbs, 3 years later I'm leaning out 40 pounds heavier and can't believe how many years I wasted believing it was just because I was natural that I couldn't gain size so quickly.
-
what type of cycle do you think he had?
E
A 10 speed
-
It is very difficult to prove any hypothesis using either Mentzer or Arnold (or Casey for that matter).
They were all taking steroids, and introducing that substance into the training programs is of such a substantial effect, that it changes any & all results. I have no idea how you can factor that out.
By the way, I think Mentzer developed a speech pattern very close to that of Jones himself.
-
H.I.T is a scam , the warmup sets aren't accounted for, when you really tally it all up, HIT training barely defers from standard training.
-
H.I.T is a scam , the warmup sets aren't accounted for, when you really tally it all up, HIT training barely defers from standard training.
I do one warm up which includes walking from my car to the gym....so explain how it is a scam if I am doing one set to failure on a handful of exercises each workout?
-
H.I.T is a scam , the warmup sets aren't accounted for, when you really tally it all up, HIT training barely defers from standard training.
Agreed. I rememeber guy who knew mentzer back in the laste 70's early 80's said he did a bunch of sets and would get all crazy when they would call him out on it.
-
The notion that you need to train less the more conditioned you get is totally absurd... you train more you get more conditioned... you train less you get de-conditioned. Your body adapts.
-
The notion that you need to train less the more conditioned you get is totally absurd... you train more you get more conditioned... you train less you get de-conditioned. Your body adapts.
That's the cold truth right there. Nothing to add basicly.
-
That's the cold truth right there. Nothing to add basicly.
...impossible to find a big natural who trains with high volume, it just doesn't work without steroids.
Try reading a few natural boards... no one makes any progress with volume.
But 140 lb newbies and juiced-to-the-hilt to weigh 180 lb at 6' roid-boys are sure, absolutely sure that volume is the only way to go... because FLEX magazine tells them so.
I've been training HIT style with practically NO WARM UPS for 17 years, and I've made progress most people on this board (this board especially) would consider totally impossible. Never had an injury.
I now train only one and a half times a week... Monday, Friday and then just Wednesday the next week... I do only 10 sets total in a whole body workout...
...but of course none of that works.
The real test of efficacy here is one of like-for-like results.
Most naturals are only too aware (or at least should be aware) that the generally recognised limit for natural progress is somewhere around 3-4-5 territory:
-300 lb max bench for a single
-400 lb max squat for a single
-500 lb max deadlift for a single
How many on this board achieved that level before resorting to steroids?
I'm coming up on 10 reps with each of those weights, all thanks to HIT. I've been doing it ever since I plateaued with volume.
HIT is simply the very best training approach known... if you can't make progress with HIT you are either:
-not doing HIT properly
-not going to make any progress with any training system
The Luke
-
Bill Pearl said it best regarding Arnold. "He a taker not a giver."
I'm sure Arnold gave, when it benefited him most.
-
...impossible to find a big natural...
I agree. ;D
-
I agree. ;D
...hey, I'm pretty big, and I'm a lifetime natural.
The Luke
-
...hey, I'm pretty big, and I'm a lifetime natural.
The Luke
big as in fat ;D fat guys (or shall I say big-boned LOL) are generally pretty strong... dude... HIT stimulates next to little hypertrophy... and yes.... no dope no hope... don't care what your training is like. still bottom line is... the more you progress the more you need to train to exceed that level.
-
big as in fat ;D fat guys (or shall I say big-boned LOL) are generally pretty strong... dude... HIT stimulates next to little hypertrophy... and yes.... no dope no hope... don't care what your training is like. still bottom line is... the more you progress the more you need to train to exceed that level.
...so as you get bigger and have more muscle, damage more and more muscle by training more and more, somehow your body becomes faster and faster at repairing more and more muscle? Even though your intestines, stomach and CNS remain the same?
Don't you eventually end up training for hours and hours every day?
If a someone works up to training say, six hours every day, but is somehow inducing hypermetabolic recovery and repair... what happens if he misses a days training?
Does he explode in a huge ball of exponentially growing muscle?
Use a little logic.
The Luke
-
...so as you get bigger and have more muscle, damage more and more muscle by training more and more, somehow your body becomes faster and faster at repairing more and more muscle? Even though your intestines, stomach and CNS remain the same?
Don't you eventually end up training for hours and hours every day?
If a someone works up to training say, six hours every day, but is somehow inducing hypermetabolic recovery and repair... what happens if he misses a days training?
Does he explode in a huge ball of exponentially growing muscle?
Use a little logic.
The Luke
Perhaps his point was that it takes a longer time to progress from a certain level.. not that you have to invest more hours per day necessarily.
-
...so as you get bigger and have more muscle, damage more and more muscle by training more and more, somehow your body becomes faster and faster at repairing more and more muscle? Even though your intestines, stomach and CNS remain the same?
Don't you eventually end up training for hours and hours every day?
If a someone works up to training say, six hours every day, but is somehow inducing hypermetabolic recovery and repair... what happens if he misses a days training?
Does he explode in a huge ball of exponentially growing muscle?
Use a little logic.
The Luke
HIT supporters are like religious people - brainwashed. You have your guru or god. Cool. You want facts... go with science... you train more you body adapts & you get more conditioned. You train less you get de-conditioned.
-
HIT supporters are like religious people - brainwashed. You have your guru or god. Cool. You want facts... go with science... you train more you body adapts & you get more conditioned. You train less you get de-conditioned.
...MRI studies show eccentric/negative damage to muscle tissue can take up to 90 days to repair, and strenuous muscular effort can take many days to move from recovery into actual growth.
Your statements are only valid in terms of metabolic conditioning: ie you get better at training every day by training every day... it has little to do with muscle growth, which can only occur AFTER full recovery, and full recovery takes from a day/24 hours (strenuous effort in a newbie) to several days/48+ hours (strenuous effort in a heavily muscled advanced trainee).
These are just basic biological facts.
The Luke
-
Do a set to failure with 6-8 second reps then tell me if HIT training is similar to regular training. You'll have to use less weight of course.
http://www.enotalone.com/article/4848.html
-
HIT supporters are like religious people - brainwashed. You have your guru or god. Cool. You want facts... go with science... you train more you body adapts & you get more conditioned. You train less you get de-conditioned.
Too bad there is a law of diminishing returns that applies to bodybuilding.
It's easy to stagnate in training that way. If you are using the same weight and doing the same reps every week, you're not improving, no matter how many sets.
-
For naturals, heavy duty/HIT works LITERALLY miracles. Myself and all of the people I have trained with over the past few years have been converted and are constantly making gains above and beyond that which they even expected.
A lot of narrow minded people in this thread. If people believe that "more" training makes somebody more muscular than they are highly wrong. It's like people with weak calves who train them day in and day out, if they aren't growing off of a normal split they are more than likely overtrained, how can you solve the problem of overtraining with yes that's right; MORE OVERTRAINING. The bigger and stronger you get the more recovery it takes to reach a point at which overcompenstation takes place. It's like digging a hole, you use a bigger spade and it can dig more earth out but at the cost of more energy required by the body to move the damn thing around. But what if even one set to failure is too much for some individuals or some individual's bodyparts, what if the muscle needs COMPLETE rest, I'm talking weeks/months of rest and zero sets? What if the answer isn't MORE training but something RADICALLY different. What if the calves for example are stimulated as much as necessary for their individual growth potential by an exercise that is deemed an upper leg movement such as a leg press or a squat? Doing endless sets hoping for the right set that will suddenly trigger growth after hours and hours is like slapping on all the different tanning lotions available on different days of the week and then complaining they won't work by going outside only at midnight like Mentzer says!
-
For naturals, heavy duty/HIT works LITERALLY miracles. Myself and all of the people I have trained with over the past few years have been converted and are constantly making gains above and beyond that which they even expected.
A lot of narrow minded people in this thread. If people believe that "more" training makes somebody more muscular than they are highly wrong. It's like people with weak calves who train them day in and day out, if they aren't growing off of a normal split they are more than likely overtrained, how can you solve the problem of overtraining with yes that's right; MORE OVERTRAINING. The bigger and stronger you get the more recovery it takes to reach a point at which overcompenstation takes place. It's like digging a hole, you use a bigger spade and it can dig more earth out but at the cost of more energy required by the body to move the damn thing around. But what if even one set to failure is too much for some individuals or some individual's bodyparts, what if the muscle needs COMPLETE rest, I'm talking weeks/months of rest and zero sets? What if the answer isn't MORE training but something RADICALLY different. What if the calves for example are stimulated as much as necessary for their individual growth potential by an exercise that is deemed an upper leg movement such as a leg press or a squat? Doing endless sets hoping for the right set that will suddenly trigger growth after hours and hours is like slapping on all the different tanning lotions available on different days of the week and then complaining they won't work by going outside only at midnight like Mentzer says!
Quoted for fucking truth!
The only caveat I would have is that the only reason why HIT works so well for naturals is because it produces results beyond what is believed possible (for naturals).
Why steroid using bodybuilders are so averse to using what is obviously the most productive training regimen ever is a mystery. Could it be there is an overlap between those who lack the drive to train really hard, and those who opt to make progress by simply drawing back further on a syringe?
As a friend of mine says: "HIT works for everyone, absolutely everyone... everyone except pussies!"
The Luke
-
Luke, I'm a huge Mentzer and A. Jones fan. I believe their general principles apply to everybody though as with everything results may vary. It's true that everybody is unique and different but as a species we function in the exact same way. We need oxygen, carbohydrates, protein, have lungs, kidneys, liver... that all operate in the same way. If that wasn't the case then medical science could not exist. If you have a bacterial infection antibiotics will combat it. The exact type of antibiotic will vary. For instance, I'm allergic to pennicillin (sp?). So the specifics vary (what type of antibiotic) but the general principle (using an antibiotic) applies to everybody.
So I think Mentzer erred in his one size fits all. A. Jones use to say that below a certain threshold of intensity exercise will do little or nothing in stimulating size and strength. But exactly how much intensity? Positive failure? Static holds? Negative failure? All the time for every workout? A.J. also use to say that over training, beyond what is optimal, is wasted effort at best and counter productive at worse. And I subscribe to that. To expend time, energy and effort to actually halt or hinder progress is the worse thing a trainee can do. But how much is too much and how do you know? Can you compare recovery ability at 20 than at 50? I think there's a lot of fine tuning involved within each individual that seems to have been overlooked.
You say you do a full body workout. If you don't mind, I'd be very interested in reading what a typical workout is like, how long it takes, and how often it is done.
-
You say you do a full body workout. If you don't mind, I'd be very interested in reading what a typical workout is like, how long it takes, and how often it is done.
The fine tuning of HIT is probably the very hardest part.
I was introduced to HIT via the writings of Mike Mentzer, and the logic of it really appealed to me... but Mentzer never allowed for the idea that his theory might not be totally inclusive of all the factors involved. Arthur Jones took a more practical/empirical approach, which is probably best, because as any scientist will tell you: experiment is the final arbiter of reality.
I started HIT at 16 (after a three year plateau on very high volume training) and made frighteningly fast progress (15 lbs in six months).
Through my twenties I continued cutting back and cutting back till I was literally training only three or four sets every three days:
Day 1 -Chest (4 sets)
Day 4 -Delts and Triceps (4 sets)
Day 7 -Back (4 sets)
Day 10 -Biceps (3 sets)
Day 13 -Quads (4 sets)
Day 16 -Calves and Hams (4 sets)
...with two full days rest after each workout, I was only training bodyparts twice a month and the muscle soreness was absolutely incapacitating. I was slowly plateauing again, but I had reached what was considered the natural limit; FFMI (Fat Free Muscle Index) so I pretty much resigned myself to no more progress.
Then I considered trying Arthur Jones' approach... and that worked wonders: full body workouts; NO muscle soreness; and lots of supposedly impossible progress.
In fact it worked so well I had to cut back again and again to keep making progress.
Below is a routine I used to do 3 times a week, but progress necessitated cutting that back so now I'm only training one and a half times a week.
Here's my routine:
(warm-up) Bench Press: 2 sets x 10 reps
1 set -Bench Press
1 set -Dumbbell Flyes
1 set -Narrow-grip Dips
1 set -Close-grip EZ-bar Bench Press
1 set -EZ-bar Bent-over Rows
1 set -Close-grip lat-pulldowns
1 set -Bicep curls
1 set -Stirrup-grip Cable Curls
(warm-up) Barbell Squats: 1 set x 5 reps
1 set -Barbell Squats
1 set -Barbell Deadlifts
...this last double set somehow eliminates muscle soreness and boosts recovery by over-stressing the hip-flexors. Don't know why it works, but it really works.
...so three light warm up sets altogether; 10 work sets total and about 45 mins per workout. No direct trap work, no direct ab work; no direct forearm work; no direct hamstring work; no direct delt work; no direct calf work.
I don't bother with rep cadence but I do ensure I'm not throwing or dropping the weight (no ballistic reps). I don't do any forced-reps; negatives or drop sets... instead I just trained myself to put more real effort into my sets, meaning I usually faint and/or puke at the end of every workout.
Of course, this type of training is pretty tough... I train Monday and Friday one week, and only train Wednesday the next week.
Unusual...? Yes. Unorthodox...? Yes. Productive...? Fuck yeah!
When I started this type of very reduced training (a year ago), I usually managed 225 lbs x 14 reps on the bench... now I'm pushing 225 lbs x 20-22 reps... my squat is up over three plates (full depth; ass to the grass with a stop at the bottom) and my deadlift is up to 450 lbs (ten slow reps with a stop an inch off the ground on each rep and a properly arched back).
Okay, I like chocolate and don't do enough cardio... okay, I'm 20-23% bf... but I'm 220 lbs at 5'5'', and when I trim down for summer expeditions I'm usually a really solid (hint of abs) 195 lbs.
Hope this helps pellius.
The Luke
-
Okay, I like chocolate and don't do enough cardio... okay, I'm 20-23% bf... but I'm 220 lbs at 5'5'', and when I trim down for summer expeditions I'm usually a really solid (hint of abs) 195 lbs.
The Luke
Geez...I like to see your photo... sounds like a short fat stocky guy to me... just as I mentioned yesterday. Your routine will result in no muscle hypertrophy whatsoever.
-
Geez...I like to see your photo... sounds like a short fat stocky guy to me... just as I mentioned yesterday. Your routine will result in no muscle hypertrophy whatsoever.
My photo has been published in several newspapers (both in America and Ireland), judge for yourself.
If my routine produces no hypertrophy, I guess my contractile fat must be doing those lifts.
The Luke
-
I did a HIT workout yesterday. each rep was 6-8 seconds, very painful on the last few reps on sets to failure. I did 2-3 sets to failure for each muscle. biceps, triceps, delts, traps in that workout. I'm sore.
thats the point about HIT. 99% of people dont understand it and need to read every word written again.
you dont "just do a HIT workout". And you dont just apply HIT.
Its a process that needs to be applied over weeks, and to the extreme, and in balance with the maximal effort.
Also, it wont work over longer durations, or just thrown in every now and then.
Mike took what science was available about muscle growth and turned it into training.
i dont think anyone had done that before, and the only one since has been professor Laura.
Mike was misunderstood because, mostly, BB arent your smartest crowd and his principles could only be understood by a small portion of the population. Thats the major reason why HIT is poo poo'd.
People think they are doing what mike says and when they dont see gains, they cry foul when in reality they arent doing what mike says- instread they are making up their own interpretation of what mike said.
HIT, combined with periods of sub maximal training is what makes olympic champs and grows muscle. its the only scientifically proven approach.
other people grow because they stumble onto some mix of HIT by chance. Arnold himself grew because of that..oh, and drugs..they help lots.
-
luke,
my take would be that you broke the plateau by challenging your brain again.
alot of people think that mixing it up regularly is challenging the brain, but it is not. it confuses it and recruits more neurons than is required, and the brain never adapts to the scheme.
the idea is to train the brain to initially recruit loads of muscle, then recruit them efficiently, then maximally..and this takes weeks to a few months.
then the brain starts cutting back on that recruitment to conserve energy to ensure enough is left for fight or flight. when this happens people recognise it as a plateau.
So then its time to change. BUT, drastic change is counterproductvie. What is needed is only slight change. that might be a slightly differnt rep scheme, or different work load weights to get higher reps..but the point is that it also needs to be done for several weeks.
and then over and over.
drastic changes can induce results, but the more frequent those changes are, the better the brain recognises them and works against you.
So i would bet my left nut that its not the magic routine, rather the change of approach.
-
Thanks Luke! You sound like you train alone. If so, how do incorporate intensity variables like forced reps/negatives. What kind of intensity variables do you use?
-
So i would bet my left nut that its not the magic routine, rather the change of approach.
...I know what you are talking about, but that's not what's responsible for my improvements. I made those initial gains almost 15 years ago. Since then I've basically been doing the very same routine; same exercises; same sets; same exercise order.
It's not a case of sudden gains from a drastic change in routine. I've only changed my routine twice in the last 14 years or so.
It might sound pithy to someone who hasn't tried proper HIT, but having tried EVERY routine... I can honestly say HIT is the most efficient training system: no guess work; no plateaus.
Thanks Luke! You sound like you train alone. If so, how do incorporate intensity variables like forced reps/negatives. What kind of intensity variables do you use?
I don't use any extra intensity techniques... they aren't really necessary.
It's generally only over-trained people who believe in these techniques... I push so hard on my exercises that negatives or forced reps are redundant: if I did negatives on bench (for example) I wouldn't get any reps at all on my dumbbell flyes.
Trainees who are over-trained can only manage sub-maximal efforts, so they think such techniques actually work... I push till the point of SYSTEMIC failure (fainting/puking) because I'm always rested enough to be capable of such effort. I used to believe negatives/forced reps were possible on every exercise except squats and deads... now I feel the same way about bench and even bicep curls.
It's hard to explain... HIT is just so different.
The Luke
-
i was stronger this week on every exercise. :)
-
i was stronger this week on every exercise. :)
even on the buttblaster?
-
i was stronger this week on every exercise. :)
Keep a journal, I've been doing so for the past few years with no plateauing :)