Mike Mentzer's Training Philosophy

[Donica]

Hello. I'm posting this here in the Over 35 section because I believe that I will probably find more experience and knowledge about this topic from all of you here than anywhere else in Bodybuilding.com.

To begin, I am a personal trainer and a natural, non-competitive bodybuilder, and generally I train with relatively high volume (35-45 sets, 90 minute workouts), barring those cyclic workouts I perform for general recovery and et cetera. I am continuing to make progress using this template of training although I know others might overtrain with such high volume. Even so, I have been curious about Mike Mentzer's unique training philosophy for some time; and as I am almost done reading "High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way", his concept of 3 or 4 sets per 15-minute workout is very foreign and intriguing to me. Much of what he says I actually find mirrors what is in my PT textbook, and is based on logic and science, as opposed to popular bodybuilding theory, which causes me to wonder even more about using his techniques and revamping my personal workout programs in the future.

Nevertheless, I have no experience with this kind of training. Once I finish his book, I am going to experiment with his techniques and philosophies and see what comes of it for myself. Then perhaps, if I find them worthwhile, I will begin to incorporate them into various programs for certain clients.

Therefore, I was wondering if any of you ever tried training "the Mike Mentzer way" over the years, and what came of it for you? Any constructive and respectful input would be very much appreciated, thank you.

[BuckSpin]

I've never done hard core HIT like Mentzer, but I do employ a variant of HIT that has worked really well for me.

You may want to check out some of the literature on Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden & Dorian Yates as well.

[mvanlone]

Originally Posted by Donica

Hello. I'm posting this here in the Over 35 section because I believe that I will probably find more experience and knowledge about this topic from all of you here than anywhere else in Bodybuilding.com.

To begin, I am a personal trainer and a natural, non-competitive bodybuilder, and generally I train with relatively high volume (35-45 sets, 90 minute workouts), barring those cyclic workouts I perform for general recovery and et cetera. I am continuing to make progress using this template of training although I know others might overtrain with such high volume. Even so, I have been curious about Mike Mentzer's unique training philosophy for some time; and as I am almost done reading "High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way", his concept of 3 or 4 sets per 15-minute workout is very foreign and intriguing to me. Much of what he says I actually find mirrors what is in my PT textbook, and is based on logic and science, as opposed to popular bodybuilding theory, which causes me to wonder even more about using his techniques and revamping my personal workout programs in the future.

Nevertheless, I have no experience with this kind of training. Once I finish his book, I am going to experiment with his techniques and philosophies and see what comes of it for myself. Then perhaps, if I find them worthwhile, I will begin to incorporate them into various programs for certain clients.

Therefore, I was wondering if any of you ever tried training "the Mike Mentzer way" over the years, and what came of it for you? Any constructive and respectful input would be very much appreciated, thank you.

I have researched a little of Mike Mentzer's techniques and I think he truely was close to the superior workout, except one thing, he needed to add more exercises for each body part for different angles. You know who took Mike Mentzer's workout and made it better? Look up information of Dorian Yates. He actually used Mike's techniques and improved it. The only issue that I had with Dorian Yates workout was he would do like back for example and than do tricep training. Samething with chest and than work bicep training. I am TOTALLY against this type of training. WHY???? Cause you can injure yourself because the opposite arm muscle was too fresh and cause you to use too heavy weight that causes injuries. That is one of the reasons that Dorian Yates had to retire because he suffered from torn triceps ligaments from his arm. I love Dorian Yates workouts which he used Mike's principles, but, if you train back with bi and chest and tri....I think that is the winning training combination and lessens the chance to injury because these smaller muscles are warmed up and tired to the point that you aren't can't use heavy weight and they will grow. Look him up.....great training material that he has. With the exception of the stated above.

I read that book as well tried it for awhile years ago and it was not for me. I dont remember the results being bad but I dont remember them being good either. It sounds great on paper though. I mean you can either work out hard or long makes sense. Extra rest time. It all sounds great. I remember reading an interview with Dorian Yates years ago and he said he never was trained by Mike and that it was blown way out of proportion.

I dont think I agree with the chest/bi and back/tri cause injuries. I trained for years that way and some of the only body parts I have that are not injuired and never have been are my bi's and tri's.

I do a seperate arms day but I also do 3-4 heavy sets for bi's and tri's each week. Bi's are done after chest and tri's after back.

[mharrislove]

Originally Posted by Donica

...I was wondering if any of you ever tried training "the Mike Mentzer way" over the years, and what came of it for you? Any constructive and respectful input would be very much appreciated, thank you.

Oh boy...I'll post before a ton of people start berating the HIT ideologues, 1-set Jedi, etc, etc. Even though this post has the potential to be a waving red flag in front of an angry bull, it is a legitimate question.

First off, BuckSpin is both ripped and wise. Variants of HIT work very well, and like salt, it will enhance the whatever is on your plate when used in moderation. I attempted a straight Heavy Duty program in my younger days, and I incorporate elements of it in my training in my current "JFT" program.

Confusion comes into play when people don't fully appreciate that there is more than one way to get big. There are numerous examples in the human body of physiologic redundancy, and the act of becoming swole involves multiple body systems and biochemical responses that respond in varying degrees based on training load, volume, mode, tempo, etc. So, people tend to gravitate towards theories that fit their personal physiologic advantages.

If you have thick joints and a vice-like grip similar to Casey Viator, then you will gravitate toward heavy lifting or HIT-like training because you will excel at this approach. On the other hand, if you have small joints and a body structure that does not lend itself to powerlifting, like Vince Taylor, then you will swear by higher volume and tons of cable work. Most people on this site would plunder a small village to have the size of either Casey or Vince. While many will say that "everyone is different", I would venture that our physiology is more similar than dissimilar, and that our subtle differences in structure, metabolism, etc largely informs our training biases. I would also guess that Casey would have been a pretty good bodybuilder even if he used higher volume, and Vince (while not setting any world records) would have still been successful even if he spent a few extra hours in the power rack.

Another way to put the question is: under "what" conditions is HIT the most beneficial?

1) HIT will really work for those who are truly overtraining and/or not obtaining optimal recovery time

2) A neutered version of HIT will work for beginning to intermediate trainers (see ACSM guidelines or BR Ronnestad et al, 1997)

3) HIT may need to be modified for increased volume for the lower extremities (again, see the Ronnestad paper)

4) Techniques associated with HIT may be beneficial for individuals who cannot or will not incorporate heavy phases into their training regimen. The "tools" of high intensity can maximize the usefulness of moderate weights (it should be said that this approach has been around a lot longer than either Mentzer or Jones)

5) Variants of HIT should be considered by people seeking training efficiency due to limited time

6) A purist approach to HIT "may" work for more experienced trainers, but there is a cost/benefit ratio to carefully consider. Everyone does not have the testicular fortitude to stick to this type of program. Also, it should be said that the ability to work hard and capacity for muscle recovery does not perfectly correlate with one's tendon/joint recovery abilities. Dorian took this approach to its logical conclusion, but few are able or willing to endure the price that Dorian paid when it was all said and done.

7) If you are not consumed by the dogma of HIT and can appreciate the kernels of wisdom in its approach, then elements of HIT are easily incorporated into a basic periodized training program. All elements of training intensity may be cycled based on sport specific needs and physical constraints.

If you have more questions about the research involving HIT, then you can PM me. Good luck.

Originally Posted by mharrislove

.

If you have thick joints and a vice-like grip similar to Casey Viator, then you will gravitate toward heavy lifting or HIT-like training because you will excel at this approach. On the other hand, if you have small joints and a body structure that does not lend itself to powerlifting, like Vince Taylor, then you will swear by higher volume and tons of cable work. Most people on this site would plunder a small village to have the size of either Casey or Vince. While many will say that "everyone is different", I would venture that our physiology is more similar than dissimilar, and that our subtle differences in structure, metabolism, etc largely informs our training biases. I would also guess that Casey would have been a pretty good bodybuilder even if he used higher volume, and Vince (while not setting any world records) would have still been successful even if he spent a few extra hours in the power rack.

Interesting theory might explain why I seem to respond better to higher volume.

[BuckSpin]

mharris:

1) 1st, thanks for the kind words. My avatar was taken almost 40lbs ago (Thanksgiving 08') so I've lost some of that definition, but to segue into your reply I've gained almost 40lbs in the 6 months since then (223 this AM, avatar was 186.5) & still have a few finger's worth of room in the 32" waistband of the jeans. I was wearing 31" at that time, so HIT is working for me.

2) Outfreakin' standing reply & repped if I could. A lot of what you mention is dead on. I think it was either the 92' or 93' Olympia (the one that Dorain shocked the world) that he stated he was spending only 3 HOURS A WEEK training. Many of his competitors would log that in a day. What many people forget is that if you do routinely push to concentric failure within a certain rep range (and then even often past that) that you need a lot of rest time to recover, eat, repair & grow. It is NOT easy physically, mentally & spiritually.

I'll definitely check out those articles you cite.

[Wildtim]

Originally Posted by mharrislove

Not quoting but want to give credit where it is due

This post above was great. Interesting about joint sizes, I have what some have described as tiny joints and I just start to hurt if I go to really short sets while I can recover from much more volume in ways other guys can't

[Hortonized]

Dorian Yates in an interview(1993) followed by him on stage weighing 257lbs. States the hours he worked out per week. He looks outstanding. Buckspin, from what I can see in your avatar, you are ripped. Your hard work certainly pays off. I agree with mharrislove, MODERATION is key. The second part is that I use to be one of those that use to think there was only one way to get big. ( high school years of thinking I knew it all lol) My grey matter developed and then I actually started listening to what others had to say. This is when my body started changing. ( had to change the ideology first) then came the gains.
Enjoy the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpTaacEtkmQ



First off, BuckSpin is both ripped and wise. Variants of HIT work very well, and like salt, it will enhance the whatever is on your plate when used in moderation.



Confusion comes into play when people don't fully appreciate that there is more than one way to get big. There are numerous examples in the human body of physiologic redundancy, and the act of becoming swole involves multiple body systems and biochemical responses that respond in varying degrees based on training load, volume, mode, tempo, etc. So, people tend to gravitate towards theories that fit their personal physiologic advantages.

Originally Posted by BuckSpin

mharris:

1) 1st, thanks for the kind words. My avatar was taken almost 40lbs ago (Thanksgiving 08') so I've lost some of that definition, but to segue into your reply I've gained almost 40lbs in the 6 months since then (223 this AM, avatar was 186.5) & still have a few finger's worth of room in the 32" waistband of the jeans. I was wearing 31" at that time, so HIT is working for me.

2) Outfreakin' standing reply & repped if I could. A lot of what you mention is dead on. I think it was either the 92' or 93' Olympia (the one that Dorain shocked the world) that he stated he was spending only 3 HOURS A WEEK training. Many of his competitors would log that in a day. What many people forget is that if you do routinely push to concentric failure within a certain rep range (and then even often past that) that you need a lot of rest time to recover, eat, repair & grow. It is NOT easy physically, mentally & spiritually.

I'll definitely check out those articles you cite.

[Donica]

Thank you, all of you, for your replies. I truly appreciate all of the information and your shared personal experiences.

3 hours of weight training a week isnt that low. I do a fair amount of volume and probably lift about 4 hours total.

[ironwill2008]

Back in the day, I got very interested in Mentzer's approach. I bought the book, "Heavy Duty," and was determined I'd stay on the program for 8 weeks. At the end of about 6, or so, I was a bit stronger, but had lost about 5 previously hard-earned pounds, and went back to a more conventional volume-style of training that I still use today. I liked Mike's philosophy of "limited recovery ability," something I keep in mind at all times. The problem I had with "Heavy Duty" was the "one set to failure;" eventually, you're going to plateau, and Mike's dogma stated the only thing to do was to train with even less volume. Following his plan to it's logical conclusion, you might train only once a year! I believe he later recanted on the "less and less" theory; by then I had long since moved on.

If you are interested in training logically (which we all should), then use Mentzer's ideas for what they are; simply another training method to use and evaluate. If it works for you, then great; everything usually works for a while. If you make less progress than you'd like, you've at least learned a few things about your body's reaction to 'failure and beyond' training, and can move on to another training method. Like I said, they all work--for a while.

[Enduro]

In my experience Mentzer's HIT type workouts are better suited to those "supplementing" with pharmaceuticals, as was typically the case back in day.

I've tried them all (workouts that is) and as a natural lifter I've come back to full-body workouts 2-3 times a week. I know full-body workout are not in vogue in most gym's but it's what works for me

[mharrislove]

Originally Posted by BuckSpin

What many people forget is that if you do routinely push to concentric failure within a certain rep range (and then even often past that) that you need a lot of rest time to recover, eat, repair & grow. It is NOT easy physically, mentally & spiritually.

Thanks, BuckSpin. I agree with your observation. Augmenting your routine with HIT-style training without modifying recovery time is a recipe for disaster...

Originally Posted by ironwill2008

The problem I had with "Heavy Duty" was the "one set to failure;" eventually, you're going to plateau, and Mike's dogma stated the only thing to do was to train with even less volume. Following his plan to it's logical conclusion, you might train only once a year! I believe he later recanted on the "less and less" theory; by then I had long since moved on.

This is a great point. Mentzer did not account for the Law of Diminishing Returns when he initially presented his Heavy Duty philosophy.

[BuckSpin]

Originally Posted by mharrislove

Thanks, BuckSpin. I agree with your observation. Augmenting your routine with HIT-style training without modifying recovery time is a recipe for disaster...

I learned this the hard way via the classic noob mistake of overtraining. When I started last June (geeze, its been a YEAR now????) I did 15 weeks straight of 6x/week doing something in the HIT manner. It left me with shoulders so raw I couldn't lie down. Lesson learned.

I know utilize 5 splits over a 4x/week approach (M,Tu, Th, F) where each split is done once every 9 days with a complete down week every 5 weeks, and no week is the same for 5 weeks. I'm making great gains in size & strength by training "less" often but harder & heavier, plus with 2 different leg splits I'm hitting those twice each 9 days instead of just once every 7, a classic "less is more". There is a reason that 75% of the "Eat, Lift, Sleep, Repeat" mantra has nothing to do with lifting.

[Old-Time-Lifter]

How did Ayn Rand contribute to Mike's death? I think it had more to do with the 'speed' that he used, not his philosophy? But I don't know the 'whole' story of Mike's death.

[AFChief]

Originally Posted by mharrislove

If you have thick joints and a vice-like grip similar to Casey Viator, then you will gravitate toward heavy lifting or HIT-like training because you will excel at this approach. On the other hand, if you have small joints and a body structure that does not lend itself to powerlifting, like Vince Taylor, then you will swear by higher volume and tons of cable work. Most people on this site would plunder a small village to have the size of either Casey or Vince. While many will say that "everyone is different", I would venture that our physiology is more similar than dissimilar, and that our subtle differences in structure, metabolism, etc largely informs our training biases. I would also guess that Casey would have been a pretty good bodybuilder even if he used higher volume, and Vince (while not setting any world records) would have still been successful even if he spent a few extra hours in the power rack.

Outstanding observation.

[JOHN GARGANI]

OLD TIME: here is an excerpt about AYN:

Ayn Rand was a major intellectual of the twentieth century. Born in Russia in 1905 and educated there, she immigrated to the United States after graduating from university, where she studied history, politics, philosophy, and literature. Rand had always found capitalism and the individualism of the United States a welcome alternative to the corrupt and negative socialism of Russia. Upon becoming proficient in English and establishing herself as a writer in the U.S., she became a passionate advocate of her philosophy, Objectivism.

Rand?s philosophy is in the Aristotelian tradition, with that tradition?s emphasis upon metaphysical naturalism, empirical reason in epistemology, and self-realization in ethics. Objectivism is rational self-interest and self-responsibility ? the idea that no man is any other man?s slave. The virtues of her philosophy are principled policies based on rational assessment: rationality, productiveness, honesty (in order to rationally make the best decisions we must be privy to the facts), integrity, independence, justice, and pride.

with the emphasis on SELF-interest......and to Mentzer, empirical reasoning meant his way was the only way........which is absurd, since as we all know, there are many ways to many things, of which in Bodybuilding, it most certainly applies.......


Ayn contributed to his death, indirectly, because of the savage self reliance it instilled in him, but in his case, he was self relying on a faulty and needy personality that insisted upon self validation all the time, and thought that he could "handle" everything on his own, without help, but he was WRONG!

the man needed help in a big way.........

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Originally Posted by JOHN GARGANI

OLD TIME: here is an excerpt about AYN:




with the emphasis on SELF-interest......and to Mentzer, empirical reasoning meant his way was the only way........which is absurd, since as we all know, there are many ways to many things, of which in Bodybuilding, it most certainly applies.......


Ayn contributed to his death, indirectly, because of the savage self reliance it instilled in him, but in his case, he was self relying on a faulty and needy personality that insisted upon self validation all the time, and thought that he could "handle" everything on his own, without help, but he was WRONG!

the man needed help in a big way.........

John,

Okay, I am aware of Rand's philosophy, and whereas I don't agree with her ultimate philosophy, her book 'Atlas Shrugged' is an interesting read in context to the current situation in the world. (see my sig line ).

I would have to say that perhaps her thinking pushed Mike even farther than he was by nature, but I don't think anyone could become what he did without having a natural tendency to being extremely bullheaded to begin with. (and I still have to think the drugs played a huge role, I remember reading also that he seldom slept, that'll make you nutty real quick!)

[JOHN GARGANI]

I would have to say that perhaps her thinking pushed Mike even farther than he was by nature, but I don't think anyone could become what he did without having a natural tendency to being extremely bullheaded to begin with.

I think you hit that nail RIGHT on the head!

[BuckSpin]

FWIW, from Rand's essay, "Apollo and Dionysus,":

"Is there any doubt that drug addiction is an escape from an unbearable inner state, from a reality one cannot deal with, from an atrophying mind one can never fully destroy? If Apollonian reason were unnatural to man, and Dionysian "intuition" brought him closer to nature and truth, the apostles of irrationality would not have to resort to drugs. Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get "stoned."

Drug addiction is the attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obscene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity."

If Mentzer was really into Rand's beliefs, he would NOT have taken any "help".....

[Chris_T]

Originally Posted by Old-Time-Lifter

John,

Okay, I am aware of Rand's philosophy, and whereas I don't agree with her ultimate philosophy, her book 'Atlas Shrugged' is an interesting read in context to the current situation in the world. (see my sig line ).

John Galt. . . is Prometheus who changed his mind.

[Donica]

Wow, this is starting to get pretty philosophical here. But I'm gobbling up every word! You guys have added quite a few dimensions to my original take on this subject, thank you, I'll enjoy reading more of your posts until the topic here in this thread, inevitably, runs dry...

I have decided to give Mr. Mentzer's original workouts as they are broken down in his book "a go" for four weeks... that is enough time for me personally, I think, to see what type of effect such a spaced-out training routine would have on my personal physique; and it will give me a good idea of how his Heavy Duty training feels, once I really get comfortable with it. I have a gut feeling though, that if I wanted to continue with his training philosophy for a longer period, I would have to add some more volume--not a ton, nothing like I'm doing now, but more volume nevertheless. My body seems to react so well to high-volume training that I'm wondering if I'll feel "starved" with the "one set to failure" concept. But this is an experiment for me, a learning experience, and I'm willing to sacrifice (or gain, perhaps--that would be awesome!!) a few pounds in order to find out something new about myself and other training methods that are out there.

PS--And I can see why the s()s would help retain the muscle-mass with such extended periods of down time... I finished the book last night, and was a bit miffed that Mentzer never ONCE admitted to augmenting his training that way, when it is very obvious that he did, especially in that one picture while he's standing with all of the other "less than natural" (or shall I say more?) Olympians...

[Fifty+]

Originally Posted by Donica

Wow, this is starting to get pretty philosophical here. But I'm gobbling up every word! You guys have added quite a few dimensions to my original take on this subject, thank you, I'll enjoy reading more of your posts until the topic here in this thread, inevitably, runs dry...

I have decided to give Mr. Mentzer's original workouts as they are broken down in his book "a go" for four weeks... that is enough time for me personally, I think, to see what type of effect such a spaced-out training routine would have on my personal physique; and it will give me a good idea of how his Heavy Duty training feels, once I really get comfortable with it. I have a gut feeling though, that if I wanted to continue with his training philosophy for a longer period, I would have to add some more volume--not a ton, nothing like I'm doing now, but more volume nevertheless. My body seems to react so well to high-volume training that I'm wondering if I'll feel "starved" with the "one set to failure" concept. But this is an experiment for me, a learning experience, and I'm willing to sacrifice (or gain, perhaps--that would be awesome!!) a few pounds in order to find out something new about myself and other training methods that are out there.

PS--And I can see why the steroids would help retain the muscle-mass with such extended periods of down time... I finished the book last night, and was a bit miffed that Mentzer never ONCE admitted to augmenting his training that way, when it is very obvious that he did, especially in that one picture while he's standing with all of the other "less than natural" (or shall I say more?) Olympians...

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud here, but 4 weeks of HD is not going to produce appreciable results. The amount of intensity that goes into the few sets of each workout is not obtainable for the majority of lifters. Which is one reason many do not meet their goals. Mentzer and Yates and every other professional BBer who now uses HD started their physiques with volume training, powerlifting or a combination of both. IMO, HD has got to be the most mentally challanging aspect of bodybuilding that exists. I do wish you luck with your goals and the next 4 weeks. Rest and quality nutrition are going to be your best friends. Why would you be surprised that a professional bodybuilder uses steroids?

[GuyJin]

FWIW, OP, I did Mentzer's version of HD for a number of years, and even though it sounded "logical" on paper, in reality, it didn't pan out that way. This isn't to say it can't be effective--it can, if and only if it's cycled properly, but while it got me much stronger, it didn't get me a whole lot bigger.

The biggest problem I had with it and with HIT in general, is the proposition that as one gets stronger, the less training one needs and the greater the rest periods i.e. days off. Mentzer's "Consolidation Routine"--very minimalist i.e. one set of squats, incline presses or dips, and rows--lead to me becoming terribly deconditioned, and even though I was going to pants-poopy failure, all that intensity of effort didn't translate to greater gains. When I let up a little on the weights and did not train to failure, I started to gain again. While some have reported great gains on HD or SSTF, I have to say that it got me nowhere. Maybe it's my crappy DNA or maybe it just wasn't for me--who's to say.

By all means, give the HD-way a try and see how it goes. If you cycle how hard you train in the gym, then it may be just the thing for you. Best of luck with it.

[Donica]

Originally Posted by Fifty+

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud here, but 4 weeks of HD is not going to produce appreciable results. The amount of intensity that goes into the few sets of each workout is not obtainable for the majority of lifters. Which is one reason many do not meet their goals. Mentzer and Yates and every other professional BBer who now uses HD started their physiques with volume training, powerlifting or a combination of both. IMO, HD has got to be the most mentally challanging aspect of bodybuilding that exists. I do wish you luck with your goals and the next 4 weeks. Rest and quality nutrition are going to be your best friends. Why would you be surprised that a professional bodybuilder uses steroids?

In terms of the HIT experiment I'm going on: I think 4 weeks is enough for me to gauge how I might respond to other and perhaps longer bouts of it in the future. My periodized training cycles at present, anyway, rarely last more than four weeks for the longest microcycle (mass being that, then comes limit strength, then recovery). I can bomb away for 40 or so sets each workout for my mass-building cycles, but ask me to extend that mass cycle another four weeks and I'll go nuts... it's just the way I am at this point.

But thanks for the thumbs-up.

PS--Oh, and GuyJin, thank you for your input too. I really appreciate you outlining your personal experiences with HD/HIT for me to consider.

[just.demi]

Great thread. Rand and bodybuilding is a perfect combination, IMO

[egoatdoor]

Originally Posted by Donica

In terms of the HIT experiment I'm going on: I think 4 weeks is enough for me to gauge how I might respond to other and perhaps longer bouts of it in the future. My periodized training cycles at present, anyway, rarely last more than four weeks for the longest microcycle (mass being that, then comes limit strength, then recovery). I can bomb away for 40 or so sets each workout for my mass-building cycles, but ask me to extend that mass cycle another four weeks and I'll go nuts... it's just the way I am at this point.

Donica, I haven't read the book, but have done some similar programs. Does it involve some warm up sets before the "money" set? How many bodyparts are worked during a workout?

I think you can see some results in 4 weeks, especially if you train hard, eat and REST enough. Your body is used to high volume and the shock of this low volume approach may create appreciable growth in just a short period of time.

My two cents on my experiences. I did a variation of this called MAX OT ( which is practiced by natural bodybuilder Skip LaCour and is very similar to Dorian Yates' training) a few years ago. It didn't work for me and it was because the program does not have any built in periodization. Once you hit a plateau, you are stuck. This should not be a problem if you do Mentzer's for four weeks or possibly a bit longer, but you are already familiar with periodized training cycles, so I am sure you know what to do if you hit a wall.

I started DC Training in 2006 which is another low volume high intensity program. The big advantage over MAX OT is that it has built in "cruise periods" where you back off for 1-3 weeks after an all out "blast" cycle of 6-12 weeks ( for us older folks, six weeks is all we can muster). The program also states that if you plateau on an exercise ( whereby you don't beat your previous best in two consecutive workouts), you drop it and add another for the same bodypart. You do 1, sometimes 2, working sets only for each bodypart, but there are warm up sets before the money set(s). DC worked better in 2006 through the early 2009 in building muscle size than any program I've ever done.

I am now alternating between low volume and high volume routines every few weeks. These planned switches are shocking to my body and is I feel preventing me from hitting plateaus. This is something you can try after you finish this program.

Good luck!

[Donica]

Originally Posted by egoatdoor

Donica, I haven't read the book, but have done some similar programs. Does it involve some warm up sets before the "money" set? How many bodyparts are worked during a workout?

You're supposed to do only the warm-up sets that you have to. As in, if you don't need to warm-up, then don't. But Mentzer did give the example of, before your one all-out set of deadlifts, do one set with 12 reps with a lighter weight (I think it was 12 reps) and then one of 3 reps with a weight closer to what you'd use for your working set ("to prepare yourself mentally"). Then you do your main set.

The way Mentzer breaks down the body in the book, unless you are performing the Consolidation Routine, there are four workouts in the cycle, two for legs/abs (essentially), one for chest/back (including lower back), one for delts/arms. There are usually five sets per workout, not counting the warm-ups.

Originally Posted by egoatdoor

I think you can see some results in 4 weeks, especially if you train hard, eat and REST enough. Your body is used to high volume and the shock of this low volume approach may create appreciable growth in just a short period of time.

My two cents on my experiences. I did a variation of this called MAX OT ( which is practiced by natural bodybuilder Skip LaCour and is very similar to Dorian Yates' training) a few years ago. It didn't work for me and it was because the program does not have any built in periodization. Once you hit a plateau, you are stuck. This should not be a problem if you do Mentzer's for four weeks or possibly a bit longer, but you are already familiar with periodized training cycles, so I am sure you know what to do if you hit a wall.

I started DC Training in 2006 which is another low volume high intensity program. The big advantage over MAX OT is that it has built in "cruise periods" where you back off for 1-3 weeks after an all out "blast" cycle of 6-12 weeks ( for us older folks, six weeks is all we can muster). The program also states that if you plateau on an exercise ( whereby you don't beat your previous best in two consecutive workouts), you drop it and add another for the same bodypart. You do 1, sometimes 2, working sets only for each bodypart, but there are warm up sets before the money set(s). DC worked better in 2006 through the early 2009 in building muscle size than any program I've ever done.

I am now alternating between low volume and high volume routines every few weeks. These planned switches are shocking to my body and is I feel preventing me from hitting plateaus. This is something you can try after you finish this program.

Good luck!

Thank you for all your input, ego! I performed my third Mentzer HIT workout today... didn't go so well as my one for legs did a few days ago. I got kind of confused about the static contractions and all that on some of the exercises, but I still really just tried, tried, tried my best anyway on those goofy sets!

Mentzer wrote somewhere in the book (I came across it again last night while reading up on how I should go about performing today's workout) that it's better to do two or three sets improperly than nine or ten. So even if a trainer/trainee thinks they do a workout incorrectly according to his HIT standards, they still should contain the urge to do more sets in an attempt to do them properly. He said that was a sign of not doing HIT right, too: that you have energy left over and feel the need to workout more. I was shaking like crazy during my dips but even so, I knew I could have done one more if I'd really gritted my teeth. It was just one of those moments, and I lost it. But like I said, I think I did the first part of the workout incorrectly anyway (the DB laterals were all over the place with cadence and whatnot!) but, really, it's a learning experience and I'm still getting my toes wet. And I think a part of me is convinced it will all really be of some benefit once all is said and done.

[Fifty+]

[QUOTE=Donica;344572271]You're supposed to do only the warm-up sets that you have to. As in, if you don't need to warm-up, then don't. But Mentzer did give the example of, before your one all-out set of deadlifts, do one set with 12 reps with a lighter weight (I think it was 12 reps) and then one of 3 reps with a weight closer to what you'd use for your working set ("to prepare yourself mentally"). Then you do your main set.

The way Mentzer breaks down the body in the book, unless you are performing the Consolidation Routine, there are four workouts in the cycle, two for legs/abs (essentially), one for chest/back (including lower back), one for delts/arms. There are usually five sets per workout, not counting the warm-ups.



Thank you for all your input, ego! I performed my third Mentzer HIT workout today... didn't go so well as my one for legs did a few days ago. I got kind of confused about the static contractions and all that on some of the exercises, but I still really just tried, tried, tried my best anyway on those goofy sets!

Mentzer wrote somewhere in the book (I came across it again last night while reading up on how I should go about performing today's workout) that it's better to do two or three sets improperly than nine or ten. So even if a trainer/trainee thinks they do a workout incorrectly according to his HIT standards, they still should contain the urge to do more sets in an attempt to do them properly. He said that was a sign of not doing HIT right, too: that you have energy left over and feel the need to workout more. I was shaking like crazy during my dips but even so, I knew I could have done one more if I'd really gritted my teeth. It was just one of those moments, and I lost it. But like I said, I think I did the first part of the workout incorrectly anyway (the DB laterals were all over the place with cadence and whatnot!) but, really, it's a learning experience and I'm still getting my toes wet. And I think a part of me is convinced it will all really be of some benefit once all is said and done. /QUOTE]



You have a great attitude. You'll do well.