Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The RedMeatKid on January 24, 2010, 03:07:57 PM
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
The mentzer way is best for naturals due to recovery from excercise. If you take roids then volume is ok.
-
The mentzer way is best for naturals due to recovery from excercise. If you take roids then volume is ok.
I'm currently doing a cycle of Hot Stuff and doing Arnold's routine and I can't wait to get back in the gym tonight.
-
There's no set rules. Everyone is at different stages of training and being able to put stress on the muscle.
I would do more sets for a beginner because they don't have the strength or time in the gym to break down the muscle in only a few. Training heavier also helps with this. But as you get stronger you need less. The longer you train the better you can break down the muscle with a set so you need less. That's all there is, that's how Dorian did it.
Arnold doing that much in his prime says to me he didn't have enough intensity....but it was Arnold so i guess he did. So drugs definately offset things there. I know even when i was on gear doing even 10 sets per bodypart would have compeletely fucked me so i can only say he wasn't really putting everything into every set. You just can't do that for 10 sets for one bodypart if you are strong enough.
-
Yeah right.
(http://themusclecouple.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/arnold-abs_washboard7.jpg)
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
HIT doesn't work for everyone and Arnold is the man
-
;)
-
Sigh. Intensity will always stand triumphant over volume, this isn't even a debate. PROPER HIT training will give you the most bang for your buck.
-
;)
;)
-
Sigh. Intensity will always stand triumphant over volume, this isn't even a debate. PROPER HIT training will give you the most bang for your buck.
Get bent
-
;)
Nice pic ND where the hell did that come from? Ken Waller getting ready to somebody's ass
-
I'm currently doing a cycle of Hot Stuff
That's like stacking Plazmosis with Animal Pak and MuscleTech - crazy :o
P.S: Arnold >>>>>> Mentzer
-
Get bent
To each their own. It works for me and at least a dozen other people I train with and have trained.
-
Nice pic ND where the hell did that come from? Ken Waller getting ready to somebody's ass
Notice Mentzer in the background? not amused by Arnold's bullshit? textbook jealously
-
To each their own. It works for me and at least a dozen other people I train with and have trained.
(http://thatsonpoint.blogspot.com/Arnie.jpg)
So you look equal to or better than this?
-
Notice Mentzer in the background? not amused by Arnold's bullshit? textbook jealously
Arnold has a much better shirt than him
-
Notice Mentzer in the background? not amused by Arnold's bullshit? textbook jealously
I saw that drinking a vodka and orange juice I assume
-
(http://thatsonpoint.blogspot.com/Arnie.jpg)
So you look equal to or better than this?
Of course I don't, I'm 21 and devoid of all drugs. I do however look better than all of the natural volume trainers at any of the gyms that I train at, especially considering how little time compared to them I actually spend training.
-
Might I add, I love Arnold AND Mentzer for different reasons.
-
FRIENDLY REMINDER - BODYBUILDING IS NOT A SPORT
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
QFT
-
;)
hey ND,,,
"I vant to start gaining some muscles."
;)
-
Of course I don't, I'm 21 and devoid of all drugs. I do however look better than all of the natural volume trainers at any of the gyms that I train at, especially considering how little time compared to them I actually spend training.
No further questions.
-
hey ND,,,
"I vant to start gaining some muscles."
;)
;D
Arnold owns
-
;D
Arnold owns
QFT
it's funny that some people think it's even close,,, or even better than mentzer was robbed... lol
i mean mentzer had a great build, don't get me wrong but to compare to or say a "few percent better as" arnold ::) c'mon now.
arnold owned all for a long time.
-
;D
Arnold owns
I'll admit Arnold looked good but have you seen the ab-thigh comparison and some of Mentzer's video footage from that contest ND?
-
Arnold had no legs in 1980
-
QFT
it's funny that some people think it's even close,,, or even better than mentzer was robbed... lol
i mean mentzer had a great build, don't get me wrong but to compare to or say a "few percent better as" arnold ::) c'mon now.
arnold owned all for a long time.
Let's say Arnold didn't win , Mentzer sure as fuck didn't he was in 5th
-
Let's say Arnold didn't win , Mentzer sure as fuck didn't he was in 5th
When Arnold lost, he regrouped, came back and dominated for years. When Mentzer lost, he went down that slippery slope of mental illness and ultimately into his demise. The mind is a powerful instrument...
-
When Arnold lost, he regrouped, came back and dominated for years. When Mentzer lost, he went down that slippery slope of mental illness and ultimately into his demise. The mind is a powerful instrument...
Yep thats when Mentzer went off the deep end
-
When Arnold lost, he regrouped, came back and dominated for years. When Mentzer lost, he went down that slippery slope of mental illness and ultimately into his demise. The mind is a powerful instrument...
Exactly and that's the measure of a true champion how he handles defeat
-
they just lifted weights everysingle day for hours between gay for pay sessions with old rich "sponsors" , ate whatever they wanted and popped dbols like candies, that's their only "secret" and they both share the same.
-
Exactly and that's the measure of a true champion how he handles defeat
I thought that was the measure of a podiatrist...?
-
I thought that was the measure of a podiatrist...?
Or Al Bundy :-X
-
Or Al Bundy :-X
He had a dream job. Ever see the original Red Shoe Diaries?
-
He had a dream job. Ever see the original Red Shoe Diaries?
Hahahaha wasn't that on Showtime? or HBO
-
Arnold got under Mike 'Cry Baby' Mentzer's skin so much that he commited suicide. :D
-
Arnold got under Mike 'Cry Baby' Mentzer's skin so much that he commited suicide. :D
Mike-no-pecs-Mentzer
even a 180lb Zane has thicker pecs
-
Mike-no-pecs-Mentzer
even a 180lb Zane has thicker pecs
Agreed, ND. 8)
I should post an article Mikey had to say about the '80 Olympia. :D
-
Agreed, ND. 8)
I should post an article Mikey had to say about the '80 Olympia. :D
I actually posted that eons ago but it's always an interesting read
-
This thread is ridden with fags.
-
This thread is ridden with fags.
yet you clicked on it and read through it... ::)
your not even a member for a year,,,
its a bodybuilding board,,, this thread is about one of bb'n pioneers/legends
looks like your just fishing with a comment like that. it's always the person that screams fag first is well,,, everyone knows what.
board veterans posted on this thread,,, you have to earn the right before you think you can hand out any kind of knock...
-
Who got the most fucks out of Arnold and Mentzer.
-
yet you clicked on it and read through it... ::)
your not even a member for a year,,,
its a bodybuilding board,,, this thread is about one of bb'n pioneers/legends
looks like your just fishing with a comment like that. it's always the person that screams fag first is well,,, everyone knows what.
board veterans posted on this thread,,, you have to earn the right before you think you can hand out any kind of knock...
This thread is ridden with emotional fags.
-
This thread is ridden with emotional fags.
whether there is or isn't,,, what kind of "emotional" personality must feel compelled to comment on someones sexuality.... hhhmmmmm whats that term,,, closet what...? ::)
even if some people are gay, lezi schmoe what ever,,, why people feel the need to state the obvious is beyond me...
nothing like going through a thread of posts that not one post mentioned or has anything to do with any hint of someones sexual preference and feeling the need to voice some conjectured opinion about peoples sexuality.
thank you for your input johnny come lately. we have the new resident sigmund freud of the board who can tell peoples preference by reading some posts about bodybuilding... another internet genius Psychologist.
someone that joined this site not even a year ago and would mock and make sexual comments in a thread about a legend of bb'n.
there is no question of your preference,,, clearly just to look at guys oiled up in thongs... because you obviously have no interest in the sport, bb'n or lifting weights because if you did you would never make comments like that. unlike others I won't mock you because your gay... or stupid. other getbig memebers surley will though. :D
-
Compare Arnolds drug stack to Mentzers or just STFU.
They each did their share of HIT and volume training.
You really think Arnold would have looked that much different if he had changed his training style?
Just give Arnold the same dope that Mike was using and subtract the crackpipe. Fuck. Stupid, stupid and stupider.
(http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x263/timeamajorova/arnie.jpg)
-
Phycologist
Phycologist: pronounced "fuckologist"
-
it often comes down to finding that optimum between avoidance of overuse injuries (shoulders, knees, back etc.) and the training load required to progress
-
Phycologist: pronounced "fuckologist"
fixed,,, lol
was frustrated with silly posters
-
it often comes down to finding that optimum between avoidance of overuse injuries (shoulders, knees, back etc.) and the training load required to progress
QFT
-
HIT - just ask Dorian
-
by the way, why did mentzer keep saying he was robbed and held it against arnold. Mentzer wasn't even in the top 3. He might have a case if he was 2nd in 1980. he shouldn't hold it against arnold.
-
Mentzer had relatively more mass on his frame. In 1980 Arnold had a BMI of 30.6 and Mike 34.1 which is 11% more than Arnold.
Arnold had a larger frame & more charisma which was to his advantage.
I've seen more shrunken Arnold pics than Menzer pics.
So my conclusion: HIT works! It's not perfect but more effective than the crazy volume shit on the long term, esp for naturals and people with jobs.
-
Arnold had no legs in 1980
He never had
-
Mentzer has relatively more mass on his frame. In 1980 Arnold had a BMI of 30.6 and Mike 34.1 which is 11% more than Arnold.
Arnold had a larger frame & more charisma which was to his advantage.
I've seen more shrunken Arnold pics than Menzer pics.
So my conclusion: HIT works! It's not perfect but more effective than the crazy volume shit on the long term, esp for naturals and people with jobs.
And Mentzer's density was unrivaled at the time. Arnold's density was never that great (except maybe his back). But at the time, that was not such an important standard.
-
LOL, it's remarkable to notice Arnold's BMI wasn't that impressive compared with other men those days
Table with BMI-Values of Pro IFBB Bodybuilders
Year - Name - Length (cm) - Weight(kg) - BMI - Length(ft) - Weight (lbs)
1950 Steve Reeves 185 97 28.3 6'1" 213
1966 Larry Scott 170 93 32.2 5'6" 205
1967 Dave Draper 180 102 31.5 5'10" 224
1971 Bill Pearl 175 100 32.7 5'8" 220
1973 Reg Park 187 102 29.2 6'1" 224
1975 Serge Nubret 180 96 29.6 5'10" 211
1975 Jim Morris 178 98 30.9 5'10" 216
1978 Kalman Szkalak 178 95 30.0 5'10" 209
1980 Arnold Schwarzenegger 187 107 30.6 6'1" 235
1980 Mike Mentzer 173 102 34.1 5'8" 224
1981 Franco Columbu 165 84 30.9 5'4" 185
1981 Ken Waller 183 104 31.1 6'0" 229
1982 Casey Viator 178 109 34.4 5'10" 240
1982 Dennis Tinerino 183 100 29.9 6'0" 220
1983 Frank Zane 175 84 27.4 5'8" 185
1983 Ed Corney 170 88 30.4 5'6" 194
1984 Chris Dickerson 170 86 29.8 5'6" 189
1984 Bill Grant 175 89 29.1 5'8" 196
1984 Boyer Coe 170 98 33.9 5'6" 216
1985 Sergio Oliva 178 109 34.4 5'10" 240
1985 Mohamed Makkawy 160 72 28.1 5'2" 158
1985 Danny Padilla 157 79 32.0 5'1" 174
1986 Jusup Wilkosz 185 115 33.6 6'0" 253
1988 Berry Demey 185 102 29.8 6'0" 224
1988 Phil Hill 173 102 34.1 5'8" 224
1988 Scott Wilson 178 96 30.3 5'10" 211
1989 Bertil Fox 178 107 33.8 5'10" 235
1990 Albert Beckles 170 99 34.3 5'6" 218
1990 Mike Christian 185 109 31.8 6'0" 240
1991 Lee Haney 180 112 34.6 5'10" 246
1991 Bob Paris 180 104 32.1 5'10" 229
1991 Rich Gaspari 173 102 34.1 5'8" 224
1992 Mohammed Benaziza 160 85 33.2 5'2" 187
1993 Lee Labrada 167 84 30.1 5'5" 185
1993 Lou Ferrigno 195 125 32.9 6'4" 275
1993 Flavio Baccianini 147 65 30.1 4'9" 143
1993 Ron Love 175 88 28.7 5'8" 194
1994 Samir Bannout 172 90 30.4 5'7" 198
1994 Porter Cottrell 168 88 31.2 5'6" 194
1995 Vince Taylor 175 104 34.0 5'8" 229
1995 Paul Demayo 178 114 36.0 5'10" 251
1995 Sonny Schmidt 178 109 34.4 5'10" 240
1995 Ian Harrison 178 117 36.9 5'10" 257
1996 Roland Cziurlock 173 102 34.1 5'8" 224
1997 Charles Clairmonte 180 112 34.6 5'10" 246
1997 Dorian Yates 178 120 37.9 5'10" 264
1997 Michael Francois 173 107 35.8 5'8" 235
1998 Jean Pierre Fux 180 117 36.1 5'10" 257
1998 Aaron Baker 173 107 35.8 5'8" 235
1999 Milos Sarcev 180 109 33.6 5'10" 240
1999 Paul Dillett 185 129 37.7 6'0" 284
2001 Shawn Ray 170 93 32.2 5'6" 205
2001 Mike Matarazzo 178 112 35.3 5'10" 246
2002 Flex Wheeler 175 104 34.0 5'8" 229
2002 Ernie Taylor 173 106 35.4 5'8" 233
2002 Craig Titus 173 110 36.8 5'8" 242
2002 Bob Cicherillo 183 109 32.5 6'0" 240
2003 Kevin Levrone 176 116 37.4 5'9" 255
2003 Lee Priest 162 103 39.2 5'3" 227
2003 Art Atwood 180 111 34.3 5'10" 244
2003 Nasser El Sonbaty 180 127 39.2 5'10" 279
2003 King Kamali 178 113 35.7 5'10" 249
2004 Darrem Charles 173 107 35.8 5'8" 235
2006 Chris Cormier 178 113 35.7 5'10" 249
2006 Gunter Schlierkamp 185 135 39.4 6'0" 297
2006 Dennis James 173 117 39.1 5'8" 257
2007 Ronnie Coleman 180 134 41.4 5'10" 295
2007 Jay Cutler 175 124 40.5 5'8" 273
2007 Victor Martinez 178 110 34.7 5'10" 242
2007 Dexter Jackson 167 100 35.9 5'5" 220
2007 Markus Rühl 178 130 41.0 5'10" 286
-
who gives a fuck about BMI?
arnold had pecs, mike had pancakes end of story.
-
who gives a fuck about BMI?
Somebody who for some reason can't post pics to support his argument.
-
FRIENDLY REMINDER - BODYBUILDING IS NOT A SPORT
ok "jimmyjam" ::) ::) ::)
(http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/116/l_e870331b5435603a65bb8db7897e7d8d.jpg)
-
who gives a fuck about BMI?
arnold had pecs, mike had pancakes end of story.
BMI says a lot about the effectiveness of a training method & muscle density.
Yeah Mike's pecs weren't the ultimate but his overall proportions were way better than Arnold. Arnold had weak tri's compared with his bi's, had no thick legs compared with his upperbody, had a wide waist, his chest overpowered his delts and he had only serious conditioning in 74-75.
Arnold was and is way overhyped because of his large frame, charisma and his careers outside the bbing area.
-
Somebody who for some reason can't post pics to support his argument.
Show me Klaus doing those preacher curls, you lamer
-
ok "jimmyjam" ::) ::) ::)
(http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/116/l_e870331b5435603a65bb8db7897e7d8d.jpg)
;D
-
Show me Klaus doing those preacher curls, you lamer
Are you doubting the power of Klaus? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
-
Are you doubting the power of Klaus? :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
STFU or post pics
-
mike looked better winning the universe and america than in 1980...
-
mike looked better winning the universe and america than in 1980...
Agree, he looked awesome in his '78 Uni win. WTF happen to him between 78-80 ???
-
Agree, he looked awesome in his '78 Uni win. WTF happen to him between 78-80 ???
amphetamine abuse
-
Here is a picture to give an idea of the difference in muscle density between Arnold and Mike:
(http://www.mikementzer.com/mikearn.jpg)
-
Here is a picture to give an idea of the difference in muscle density between Arnold and Mike:
(http://www.mikementzer.com/mikearn.jpg)
Not much use for muscle density if you are a tiny tit.
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
As far as Arnold vs Mike, of course Arnold was the bodybuilder with the most success, 7 time Mr Olympia, etc. Also, in his prime he had a better physique than Mike.
This has absolutely nothing to do with which training method (Volume vs HIT) is better. Too many variables and differences between Arnold and Mike to conclude that Volume is better simply because Arnold had the better body.
In my opinion, HIT is the best training method (Jones' HIT or Dorian's HIT, not Heavy Duty) because its the training that gave me best results. Some people say volume is better because it gave them the best results, so to each their own.
One thing is for sure: instead of worrying about whether HIT is better or Volume is better, just train as hard as possible, with the maximum intensity and adjust volume according to your own individual recovery ability and frequency.
-
Mike-no-pecs-Mentzer
even a 180lb Zane has thicker pecs
HaHaHaHa....yes.
Arnold owned Mentzer and told him "you have small pecs and a fat stomach!!"
Arnold was a true Getbigger, Mentzer never recovered.
-
;D
Arnold owns
I thought so too by looking at pictures form that show, but after watching a video I changed my mind.
Firstly, Mentzer deserved higher than 5th for sure, at least higher than Zane.
Did he deserve to beat Arnold? I'm not sure.
-
As far as Arnold vs Mike, of course Arnold was the bodybuilder with the most success, 7 time Mr Olympia, etc. Also, in his prime he had a better physique than Mike.
This has absolutely nothing to do with which training method (Volume vs HIT) is better. Too many variables and differences between Arnold and Mike to conclude that Volume is better simply because Arnold had the better body.
In my opinion, HIT is the best training method (Jones' HIT or Dorian's HIT, not Heavy Duty) because its the training that gave me best results. Some people say volume is better because it gave them the best results, so to each their own.
One thing is for sure: instead of worrying about whether HIT is better or Volume is better, just train as hard as possible, with the maximum intensity and adjust volume according to your own individual recovery ability and frequency.
On the other hand, there is something that I forgot to add: maybe the effectiveness or superiority of either training method could be analyzed by observing results on the same individual. The best example for this? Sergio Oliva.
Remember, he trained volume for years and had a great physique, but then remember when he was trained by Arthur Jones, he got into his biggest and best ever. Then he went back to volume and never achieved the same again.
I won't say that this example is an absolute proof that HIT is better, but its something interesting to think about.
-
if only some of you morons trained their brains as often as they hammer they poor muscles...
-
if only some of you morons trained their brains as often as they hammer they poor muscles...
Exactly. This thread comes from the same person who thinks that by hitting each muscle group 3 times a week they will end up looking like Arnold...
-
Agree, he looked awesome in his '78 Uni win. WTF happen to him between 78-80 ???
Probably started using HIT in 78
-
You can argue all you want that Arnold shouldn't have won in 1980 but Mike sure as fuck didn't
-
HaHaHaHa....yes.
Arnold owned Mentzer and told him "you have small pecs and a fat stomach!!"
Arnold was a true Getbigger, Mentzer never recovered.
yeah,,, remember seeing something about that,,, didn't arnold tell him that during the press conference or something....
also,,, think there was a story about some type of crowd unrest after the winner was announced...
if any knows any stories regarding the 80 O,,, feel free to share. :)
-
You can argue all you want that Arnold shouldn't have won in 1980 but Mike sure as fuck didn't
QFT ND
that last pic is very telling,,, standing relaxed is a very important "pose" especially years ago... knowing how to do it the right way is signs of being pro,,, show strengths, hide weakness, bb'n in essence. like ND said, fine argue about arnold but by looking at that last pic,,, just in that pose mentzer was last,,, and thats just relaxed... dennis, frank and arnold have him beat there so...
obviously the contest isn't make or break on 1 pose,,, it's the whole/everything,,, mentzer on that day didn't have it/or enough anyway.
-
Probably started using HIT in 78
Wrong, he started using HIT around 1972.
-
You can argue all you want that Arnold shouldn't have won in 1980 but Mike sure as fuck didn't
Again, pics don't offer enough to judge a physique completely.
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
no ,, walk the middle road not road of extremes,, science backs this in the gym and results too for naturals..both arnie and mike were drug users so waste of time to analyse their training in general
-
The mentzer way is best for naturals due to recovery from excercise. If you take roids then volume is ok.
no no,, please stiop this,, drugs change everythiung and create bigger error of margin when it comes to training and nutrition,,neither of those ways is best,, HIT vs volume is too polarized and best is in between..,
-
I feel like HIT is superior but yet so few adhere to it long term compared to volume so which is really superior?
I still think HIT should be cycled with periods of sub max effort once a plateau is reached... max effort all the time just doesn't seem to work.
-
I feel like HIT is superior but yet so few adhere to it long term compared to volume so which is really superior?
I still think HIT should be cycled with periods of sub max effort once a plateau is reached... max effort all the time just doesn't seem to work.
you must define hIT,, there are many kinds of HIT,, some ok, some disastorus,, in general waste of time to limit thinking to HIT vs volume...
-
I feel like HIT is superior but yet so few adhere to it long term compared to volume so which is really superior?
I still think HIT should be cycled with periods of sub max effort once a plateau is reached... max effort all the time just doesn't seem to work.
Naturals should periodize and get off weeks quite. You can't put your under stress all the time.If you only train HIT, your joints and nervous system will just give up on you at one point. Too much volume will also wear you down. You also have to adjust your nutrition so it creates a balance problem on the long term. There's no "real" way to go.
-
you must define hIT,, there are many kinds of HIT,, some ok, some disastorus,, in general waste of time to limit thinking to HIT vs volume...
I agree with you, no need to think HIT vs Volume.
Why not train as hard as possible and adjust training volume according to your own ability to recover and frequency.
-
for me HIT is 7-8 sets per session of balls to the wall supra max efforts (maybe 20-24 total sets per workout with prep sets if you believe in them).
that is damn hard to keep up for very long.
-
for me HIT is 7-8 sets per session of balls to the wall supra max efforts (maybe 20-24 total sets per workout with prep sets if you believe in them).
that is damn hard to keep up for very long.
training must be periodized :: period of heavy progressive traiing then period of lighter training so body gets a break
1 set failure per body part ;; shit training for anyone except total newbie, way supoptimal proved by science MANY years ago,, proved in gym MANY years ago,,
20 set failure ; overkill for anyone,, some peopel can get result from this trining abut uncessacary volume per bodypart,, many wont get any result from this training
middle road:: 4-10 set per body part depending on what training level you are on. failur not a must and never do all set to failure,, but yes some people can but many cant and will burn out,,
total newbie: 1-3 set via fullbody 2-3 workout per week (1-6monyhhs..sometimes 1-12 months)
intermediate 1: upper/lower 3-4 workout per week 4-8 set ,, mostly5-12 reps (1-2 year too forever depending on goals,.,)
intermediate stage 2 + advanced: many times necessary to split body in more parts...body partds worked every 5th day or pick 1-2 muscle group and specialize and work them 2x timer per week rest once per week at maintaince,, sets 4-10
-
BMI says a lot about the effectiveness of a training method & muscle density.
Yeah Mike's pecs weren't the ultimate but his overall proportions were way better than Arnold. Arnold had weak tri's compared with his bi's, had no thick legs compared with his upperbody, had a wide waist, his chest overpowered his delts and he had only serious conditioning in 74-75.
Arnold was and is way overhyped because of his large frame, charisma and his careers outside the bbing area.
no,, this is crazy post,, BMI says NOTHING about the training,,, it tells you they USE drugs and have higher (lean) BMI than natural can ever have,,,
very very crazy reasoning trying to compare HIT vs volume via BMI comparison of mentzer vs arnie,, on MANY levels.,
rubbish
-
HaHaHaHa....yes.
Arnold owned Mentzer and told him "you have small pecs and a fat stomach!!"
Arnold was a true Getbigger, Mentzer never recovered.
He also said "Reg Park is a judge and I just swallowed his load, Im a shoe in Metzner!"
-
Wrong, he started using HIT around 1972.
Haha, don't take that fucker so serious ;)
-
training must be periodized :: period of heavy progressive traiing then period of lighter training so body gets a break
1 set failure per body part ;; shit training for anyone except total newbie, way supoptimal proved by science MANY years ago,, proved in gym MANY years ago,,
20 set failure ; overkill for anyone,, some peopel can get result from this trining abut uncessacary volume per bodypart,, many wont get any result from this training
middle road:: 4-10 set per body part depending on what training level you are on. failur not a must and never do all set to failure,, but yes some people can but many cant and will burn out,,
total newbie: 1-3 set via fullbody 2-3 workout per week (1-6monyhhs..sometimes 1-12 months)
intermediate 1: upper/lower 3-4 workout per week 4-8 set ,, mostly5-12 reps (1-2 year too forever depending on goals,.,)
intermediate stage 2 + advanced: many times necessary to split body in more parts...body partds worked every 5th day or pick 1-2 muscle group and specialize and work them 2x timer per week rest once per week at maintaince,, sets 4-10
Glad to hear about periodization. Both HIT and V training have their weaknesses, esp when done for a long periods. BB-wise, I see the human body not as a machine but rather as a complex control system which adapts itself to certain parameters like training (more specific: volume, frequency, workload, etc), food (calories from macronutrients, water, supplements, etc), rest and mental state. The challenge in bbing is to adjust these parameters continuously to get the best results.
One of the most interesting training methods I've tried the last decade is HST training. I won't say it's 'perfect' but it's a well thought & practical training protocol.
-
no,, this is crazy post,, BMI says NOTHING about the training,,, it tells you they USE drugs and have higher (lean) BMI than natural can ever have,,,
very very crazy reasoning trying to compare HIT vs volume via BMI comparison of mentzer vs arnie,, on MANY levels.,
rubbish
I won't say that BMI is the ultimate performance indicator. Mike didn't had the best genes as Arnold had (flat chest, smaller frame and so on) but IMO he utilized his potential much more than Arnold did. In this perspective I see a guy like Branch Warren in the same light. Both Arnold as Mike had access to the best PED's those days, so I don't see that as an excuse that Arnold didn't achieved his (almost) fullest potential like Menzer did in '77-'78
-
DO WATCH THE ARNOLD VS MIKE MENTZER PART -I AND PART - II , VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE , BY
http://www.youtube.com/user/goli0477
-------------------------------------------------------
PART 2
&feature=related
------------------------------------------------------
PART 1
&feature=related
-----------------
-
ARNIE'S 1980 SHAPE ....
-
PROOF HIGH VOLUME INCREASES LIFE SPAN ... !
-
PROOF HIGH VOLUME INCREASES LIFE SPAN ... !
::) I hope you were joking.
-
PROOF HIGH VOLUME INCREASES LIFE SPAN ... !
Hi Arnold's PR representative ::)
Yeah lets forget his open hearth surgery in '97, this was just a 'genetic' thing ::)
-
PUMPING AT COPENHAGEN
-
PUMPING AT COPENHAGEN
These pics show he highly trust his pacemaker
-
Arnold had the structure, chest and arms. Mentzer had conditioning and legs. Mentzer's achilles was his chest and front traps. Overall, I see Arnold is clearly better.
-
Even after 5 years of retirement and only 8 weeks of training for his comeback,Arnold was better than Mentzer and it was not even close...
-
Arnold was right about Mike's stomach after all...
-
Even after 5 years of retirement and only 8 weeks of training for his comeback,Arnold was better than Mentzer and it was not even close...
Ha ha, exactly. I've seen some pictures of Mike Mentzer where he looked amazing. Really mind blowing. However, those pictures weren't taken at the 1980 Olympia. 5th place is 5th fucking place. Mike wasn't at his best and he wasn't even in the same league as a sub-par Arnold. Anyone with two eyes should be able to see that.
Even as a huge Arnold fan, I recognize that the Arnold worship can be a bit much at times. With that said, I’m also really sick of all the Mentzer/Jones/HIT zealots in this place always carrying on about 1980 and how much better HIT is than volume. Yawn. Get over it. Arnold won, Mike was 5th. Also, some people prefer to do a little more volume when they train. So What?
I think that the pro-Arnold people are just that.....pro-Arnold. They aren't hell bent on destroying and undermining the reputations of Mentzer and Jones every chance they get. The same can't be said of the pro-Mentzer crowd. It reeks of pettiness and jealousy. It's sad really.
-
HIT doesn't work for everyone and Arnold is the man
A great part of the huge size increase of pros from the 1970s to the 1990s have to do with decreased volume and increased intensity in training and not only with insulin and GH use like lots of people think. Endurance type I muscle fibers don't hypertrophy no matter what, and types II and III only hypertrophy in response to either great speed or intensity of muscular contractions and not volume, so volume training is pointless. Most of the muscular hypertrophy that volume trainers experience comes from the last one or two reps in a set(high intensity), and all the volume only drains glycogen and ATP stores and causes structural damage to the sarcomeres mitochondria which is useless for growth - growth comes from damage to the proteinaceous contractile part of the sarcomeres which only comes from either high intensity or speed training
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
A great part of the huge size increase of pros from the 1970s to the 1990s have to do with decreased volume and increased intensity in training and not only with insulin and GH use like lots of people think. Endurance type I muscle fibers don't hypertrophy no matter what, and types II and III only hypertrophy in response to either great speed or intensity of muscular contractions and not volume, so volume training is pointless. Most of the muscular hypertrophy that volume trainers experience comes from the last one or two reps in a set(high intensity), and all the volume only drains glycogen and ATP stores and causes structural damage to the sarcomeres mitochondria which is useless for growth - growth comes from damage to the proteinaceous contractile part of the sarcomeres which only comes from either high intensity or speed training
SUCKMYMUSCLE
how can you be so fukkking naive... it has everything do with the increased drug usage. if you take enough drugs and have top level genetics it doesn't matter how you train.
-
how can you be so fukkking naive... it has everything do with the increased drug usage. if you take enough drugs and have top level genetics it doesn't matter how you train.
I disagree. Insulin and GH were introduced in the 1980s and the guys still competed at around 220 to 240 lbs at heights between 5'8 and 6'1. In the mid to late 1990s, their bodyweights shot to 240 to 290 lbs after Yates had become Mr.Olympia and advocated his HIT style of training. Jean Pierre Fux even mentioned that his muscle growth increased dramatically after he cut back on the volume and increased the intensity. He even mentioned that he had been using insulin and GH since he was amateur and he was still stuck at a competition weight of 245 lbs.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Sigh. Intensity will always stand triumphant over volume, this isn't even a debate. PROPER HIT training will give you the most bang for your buck.
spot on.. the reason why it doesnt work for lots of people is that they dont know how to do it, dont really train HIT, and dont rest at the right frequency.
so they cry foul and whine that it doesnt work and mentzer was a wierdo.
the only "problem" with HIT is the demand on the nervous system...but that can be managed.
any successful athlete employs HIT to become great these days...thats a fact.
thats why "match fitness" is still revered.
and its why muscle gets built...it (nervous system AND muscle) adapts to demand..its a physiological fact.
-
A great part of the huge size increase of pros from the 1970s to the 1990s have to do with decreased volume and increased intensity in training and not only with insulin and GH use like lots of people think. Endurance type I muscle fibers don't hypertrophy no matter what, and types II and III only hypertrophy in response to either great speed or intensity of muscular contractions and not volume, so volume training is pointless. Most of the muscular hypertrophy that volume trainers experience comes from the last one or two reps in a set(high intensity), and all the volume only drains glycogen and ATP stores and causes structural damage to the sarcomeres mitochondria which is useless for growth - growth comes from damage to the proteinaceous contractile part of the sarcomeres which only comes from either high intensity or speed training
SUCKMYMUSCLE
no,, it is mostly increased drug use and more people doing bodybuilding,, what you say would be interesting for natural traines as too much volume will be counter productive for a natural
what is muscle fiber type3 ? primary stimululs for growth of type II fiber is progressive tension increase on the muscle but there is a fatigue component too which says you need a certain amount of volum,,,
-
spot on.. the reason why it doesnt work for lots of people is that they dont know how to do it, dont really train HIT, and dont rest at the right frequency.
so they cry foul and whine that it doesnt work and mentzer was a wierdo.
the only "problem" with HIT is the demand on the nervous system...but that can be managed.
any successful athlete employs HIT to become great these days...thats a fact.
thats why "match fitness" is still revered.
and its why muscle gets built...it (nervous system AND muscle) adapts to demand..its a physiological fact.
no no, this post is absolute nonsense on so many levels:, when will you people start educating yourself and stop with HIT vs volume and look at real science and not muscle magazinge nonsense??
i would write more but quoting fucntion is annoying me so much i cant type any more
-
does mike still compete
-
hormonization allows you to grow even if your training iss stuipid,, so why are you guys constantly analyzing how these drug users train? it is pretty much irrelevant,, and certainly not something you can draw conclusions from other than massive amount of drugs work,,,
for natural bodybuilder; total newbie should do full body workout 3 days per week,, then after maybe 6-12 mmonths of serious training; 2-day split 3-4 days per week so you maintain frequency off about twice per week per body part then when you advance more you can start doing some other things,, specialization routine and/or 3 day split on 5 day rotation to keep frequency to atleast every 5th day,.,etc etc
stop talking about HIT vs volume and look at science;; science says ,, work muscle twice per week (or three times per week if you are total newbie),,
volume ;; there is optimal range, according to wernbom review it is 40-60 reps, which means about 3-9 sets per body part if you use rep range 5-12,, which is rep range bodybuilders should mostly use,,
intensity ( percentage of 1 RM);; mostly 75-85%,, sometimes abit higher and abit lower but average intensity approx 80 %, look at wernbom meta review, look at rhea studies,, total newbie can and should work at lower intensity,, approx 60% works for newbies
failure or not ;; failure is NOT a must like many HIT maniacs say,, this is VERY big mistake they make,, because too much failure training (even small amount for many peole) will force you to reduce volume too much also it will burn you out,. and create under-frequency in your training...most cases stopping one rep before failure is best because it doesnt stress your CNS so much but still gives plenty of stimulation for gtrowth
-
Arnold may have looked better than Mentzer in 1980, but fact is, Mentzer looked damn good, and he trained so much less than everyone else around that time... Arnold just happens to have better genetics, he would have achieved the same results in less time if he applied a lot more intensity in his style of training than doing 20 sets per musclegroup.
-
also there are many variations of HIT,, many are stupid,, some are ok,,
the variations that are stupid:: too much focus on failure and forcred reps etc >>> too low volume+ too low frequency...
-
Arnold may have looked better than Mentzer in 1980, but fact is, Mentzer looked damn good, and he trained so much less than everyone else around that time... Arnold just happens to have better genetics, he would have achieved the same results in less time if he applied a lot more intensity in his style of training than doing 20 sets per musclegroup.
please,, stop it (analyzing hormonized pro training as it mattered to who won what),, mike at the time didnt do extreme low volume training,, yes probably less than arnold but he certainly didnt do VERY low volume training,, not that it matters at all as to who won the mr olympia,, mike: i like his physique but he certainly didnt win mr olympia in 80,, which is the past and people should move on,..
-
please,, stop it (analyzing hormonized pro training as it mattered to who won what),, mike at the time didnt do extreme low volume training,, yes probably less than arnold but he certainly didnt do VERY low volume training,, not that it matters at all as to who won the mr olympia,, mike: i like his physique but he certainly didnt win mr olympia in 80,, which is the past and people should move on,..
I don't care who won 1980, I'm just saying that Mentzer hasn't trained as much, by far, as other bodybuilders around that time, and I'm aware of the fact that he was using rest pause training at that point, not the later proclaimed ultra low volume approach.
-
I don't care who won 1980, I'm just saying that Mentzer hasn't trained as much, by far, as other bodybuilders around that time, and I'm aware of the fact that he was using rest pause training at that point, not the later proclaimed ultra low volume approach.
i dont either really care who won 80 ;),, but like i said i always liked mikes physique but it is wrong when people call him some kind of training genius,, MANY of the things he talked about training- and nutritionwise is rubbish (but people only see him as some kind of martyr),, and has been proven wrong,, problem is people rely on muscle magazines and other traditional bodybuilding sources for their information instead of really educating themselves,,
not that it really matters,;; but many people who saw him train at that point saw him do 7-12 working set for body part,, less than arnold and many other who did crazy training volume but certainly not extreme low volume HIT that he later said was best approach,,,
-
Martyr is the right word.
All this bullshit is a waste of time. You aren't going to look like Arnold or Mentzer unless you juice. And if you juice, either volume or HIT will probable work pretty well for you. As long as you train hard and heavy you are going to be just fine either way. Genetics play a part as well but this is not worth going over like a bunch of phony scientists. It's laughable.
-
Mike mentzer
-
I'm ready to bring the Arnold VS Mike Mentzer (Volume Training VS HIT) to a conclusion for once and for all. I hereby go on record saying that Arnold is The Man, that Volume Training is the best way to go, and Mike Mentzer was a weirdo. End of story.
I agree 100%.
-
wow, great thread
-
no,, it is mostly increased drug use and more people doing bodybuilding
This is a good statistical point that people miss. More people are doing bodybuilding than before. This will give a larger pool of people to naturally sift out the genetically best.
-
One guy rules the third biggest economy in the world...the other turned into a tweeker who killed himself...it was never really a contest ..
-
mentzer looks far too concerned with arnold in almost every pose. all the relaxed poses seem to have mike not hitting the pose right due to his breaking his neck looking back at arnie. mike was good, but not great. That is what it comes down to and mike just couldn't handle it. as far as HIT vs. volume, in my earlier years I would have told you volume, but for me, more rest= more muscle.
-
One guy rules the third biggest economy in the world...the other turned into a tweeker who killed himself...it was never really a contest ..
Bigger than China, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia...perhaps you should review your "facts"
-
Proper h.I.t is the most efficiant and optimal way for natural bodybuilders, but saying that volume works also but not as efficiant ad hit.
-
Proper h.I.t is the most efficiant and optimal way for natural bodybuilders, but saying that volume works also but not as efficiant ad hit.
X2
-
Mentzer lost to Robby Robinson in the Universe and his fans said he should have won. I think Robby beat him. Mentzer lost to Kalman Skulak (sp) in the Universe and his fans said he should have won. Kalman was bigger and more cut. He did lose to Mentzer in the calf department. Mentzer came in 5th in the Olympia and his fans have him winning? Give me a break. The film actually shows more than the pictures that Arnold at 80% still was better than Mentzer.
Who is doing more work? A guy who does 5 sets of 8 reps in the bench with 200 lbs. failing on the last set or the same guy doing one set of 250 lbs to failure at 8 reps? Obviously the one set is more intense but from a mathematical point of view the high set guy is clearly doing the most work.
I am a high intensity trainer. I think I have every artical that Mentzer ever wrote that I collected through the years.
-
neither of them had legs...
-
mike looked better winning the universe and america than in 1980...
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH THAT SHOT OF MIKE WAS FROM THE MR NOORTH AMERICA CONTEST.
THE BEEF
-
mentzer wasnt even close to arnold in that show...
-
IMO mentzer was better in 79 then 80, he went crazy on the conditioning in so far he lost a but if mass especialy his chest