It is obvious to me that the writings of Mike Mentzer are philosophical discourses. He was systematic and had a structure and cohesion that is the hallmark of philosophy. His theory may be mistaken but his work stands out as one of the few hypertrophy theories ever. Besides that he linked hypertrophy theory to other philosophy. I don't support objectivism but Mike did and I always was amazed to read such discourse in a bodybuilding magazine.
First of all it's not his theory - he called it his own even though it was all devised by Arthur Jones, who being the true genius here probably came up with it because he wanted to spin a new marketing angle when he introduced his line of machines viz. Nautilus. Nothing like a new, exciting line of machines with an unprecedented design that promises to deliver the same, if not better results with just 1 set rather than the usual 3 or more sets that was the norm those days.
The fact that Mike M was a good writer doesn't mean he was a Philosopher. He didn't really come up with a new or original metaphysical statement or anything. He just injected a lot of philosophy (that was Ayn Rand's) in his writings. If that makes him a philosopher, then anyone who quotes a philosopher automatically becomes one.
It is easy to be mistaken or partly mistaken when it comes to theories about anything that is complex. Mike always supported his ideas with anecdotal reports about his clients who all made progress according to him. I don't recall that there has ever been a definitive debate about hypertrophy theory. All that I have seen are various people championing one theory or another. I am not aware that anyone has ever written a doctoral thesis on human maximum muscular hypertrophy. There literally are no experts out there on this subject but many claim that they know all about it. /color]
Again, he didn't really mention any specific examples - he just said that his clients improved in terms of their shape, strength etc which just about every personal trainer can do. His theory was false and a lot of his conclusions were non-sequitors. To give you an example, he frequently said that hitting a muscle is the same as hitting dynamite with a hammer - you can keep hitting it mildly and it would never go off. But if you hit it hard enough once, it will and the same therefore, goes for inducing growth through hypertrophy.
Going by that example, then why get the person to do a single set to failure? Why not just get him to do his 1 rep max and say that he went to failure, therefore the workout is over and that's all he needs to do? There isn't really much to hypertrophy - you stimulate growth through progressive overload and if you do everything else right (diet, lifestyle etc), you are going to see some change, regardless of whether you work out at 70% or 80% of your capacity or whatever. Of course, the actual solution is not so simplistic, but that's the general idea on which the different theories are based upon.
In my opinion, based on what he wrote, I would credit Mike with sufficient intelligence to have done a medical degree. I wonder if Arnold could have done one? Apparently he went to some college in LA but I don't know the particulars but it was not one of the esteemed universities. Mike never accepted Arnold as his intellectual peer and rightly so.
I'd say Arnold is the (way more) intelligent one of the two. If Arnold put his mind to doing what Mike Mentzer was i.e. talking about theories and such, I'm sure he'd have been equally successful in his own way, even though his linguistic skills may not be on par with Mentzer's. Arnold did something that's a lot harder and way more rarer - he accomplished in reality what Mike Mentzer could never do but only talk about. And let's not forget how much drive he must have had to overcome the frequent handicap of not being a local - something that Mike never had to worry about. There is no comparison between Arnold and Mike.
As to Arnold not being ethical all the time about everything - you can't go to the top without ruffling a few feathers on the way
