Lol. Mike Mentzer.

[ArchangelEST]

Sh!t. I've been missing out.

Mike used to follow IIFYM to the fuking letter decades ago. Fuk. I wish I had been awared on this guy earlier (Didn't know about his nutritional advice). Would have made turning some Bro-s heads much easier.


Mike Mentzer - Heavy Duty Nutrition

[Lvisaa2]

Nice find, I'd rep you hard if you weren't on spread

[axxlef]

was pretty forward thinking in his training. Followed a similar training philosophy to dorian yates

[desslok]

The results of him trying to get people to change their views and grasp the simple concepts of DCA?:

Quoted from wikipedia-
"Mentzer reportedly suffered a mental breakdown. [4] According to Peter McGough, editor-in-chief of FLEX magazine, stories began to surface of Mentzer exhibiting some very erratic behavior. Stories of him running naked through the streets, directing traffic, telling prophecies about the end of the world, being arrested by the police numerous times and even waiting for aliens to land were all published in magazines at one point or another. Popular bodybuilding writer Dan Duchaine even suggested that Mentzer was drinking his own urine at the time. "

[ArchangelEST]

Nice find, I'd rep you hard if you weren't on spread

Thanks. A friend forwarded me his book for translations to use on his website. Should have seen my eyes when I read that part.

was pretty forward thinking in his training. Followed a similar training philosophy to dorian yates

He awared Dorian.

[PerpetualMotion]

This doesn't save him from his awful training methodology. HIT sucks. Yeah, I said it.

[fad3d]

If he came in here and said he was eating below 2000 calories, he would be negged and told to read the stickies.

[ArchangelEST]

This doesn't save him from his awful training methodology. HIT sucks. Yeah, I said it.

Heheh. I use Dorian's version of HIT to a certain extent and love it. I believe the concept behind it is quite solid. But I do believe that you can lower the "intensity" part of it a bit and get away with it just fine, but keep the rep ranges and set amounts similar. Kinda what Martin does I suppose. Only a few sets, but all of them heavy with long breaks in between.

No excessive loitering in the gym. Just all business, all heavy sets with mostly compound exercises.

If he came in here and said he was eating below 2000 calories, he would be negged and told to read the stickies.

Heheh. Probably. Though "Contest Prep" - a whole other ballgame. Not saying you have to lower yourself into extreme deficit ranges for a fact, but most likely the majority of people have to drop pretty low to lose the last major pieces of fat.

[HunterCML]

That guy looks natty for sure.

[mannydawg]

Didn't he die at an early age?



Phuck that! if you wanna live to be old you gotta eat clean. Just look at how long Jack Lalanne lived.

[joelash302]

Yea, he used an insane amount of gear and his HIT methodology has been disproven enough times and from enough perspectives that no one in their right mind should even consider it.

[ArchangelEST]

That guy looks natty for sure.

Which makes it all the more hilarious. A Mr. O second place, Mr. Universe winner who is advising anti-bro approaches to dieting? Awesome really. Fight fire with fire when it comes to turning Bro's. They don't care about us tiny natty's anyway. Might as-well give them a solid Pro as an example who followed IIFYM basically.

Didn't he die at an early age?

Phuck that! if you wanna live to be old you gotta eat clean. Just look at how long Jack Lalanne lived.

If you read about his life -A little a few posts up-, you'll see that he got addicted to drugs, spent a good deal of his life in institutions and was suffering from many health issues. And finally his heart gave up. Seeing as his Brother died of a medical condition - I don't think it's all that conclusive that Bodybuilding related drug-usage caused any direct long term damage from that period. Though OBVIOUSLY very likely.

I know that his example kinda sucks when he has admitted drug usage and died early.

Just wanted to share this, as I don't think such advice from a Pro Bodybuilder, a MR. O candidate no less, is particularly common. Aside from Dorian himself who has hinted of also following basic IIFYM principles.

[mannydawg]

If you read about his life -A little a few posts up-, you'll see that he got addicted to drugs, spent a good deal of his life in institutions and was suffering from many health issues. And finally his heart gave up. Seeing as his Brother died of a medical condition - I don't think it's all that conclusive that Bodybuilding related drug-usage caused any direct long term damage from that period. Though OBVIOUSLY very likely.

I know that his example kinda sucks when he has admitted drug usage and died early.

Just wanted to share this, as I don't think such advice from a Pro Bodybuilder, a MR. O candidate no less, is particularly common. Aside from Dorian himself who has hinted of also following basic IIFYM principles.

[PerpetualMotion]

Heheh. I use Dorian's version of HIT to a certain extent and love it. I believe the concept behind it is quite solid. But I do believe that you can lower the "intensity" part of it a bit and get away with it just fine, but keep the rep ranges and set amounts similar. Kinda what Martin does I suppose. Only a few sets, but all of them heavy with long breaks in between.

I'm unsure of Dorian Yates' program but I know Mentzer was fond of training infrequently with very few sets with high intensity and basically all out failure. I also feel the rest periods in between workouts are too long (usually 4-5 days, I believe). I'm definitely a sceptic but the ultimate takeaway I see is that basically anything works in the gym. On your other end of the spectrum you have Arnold and Frank, who trained quite often with a ton of volume and both were incredibly strong individuals.

To say the least, many people are afraid of overtraining, which is quite difficult to achieve in my opinion.

[ArchangelEST]

You know me. I don't accept the existence of trolls until they admit it.

I have a Troll ignoring glasses lvl 200.

I'm unsure of Dorian Yates' program but I know Mentzer was fond of training infrequently with very few sets with high intensity and basically all out failure. I also feel the rest periods in between workouts are too long (usually 4-5 days, I believe). I'm definitely a sceptic but the ultimate takeaway I see is that basically anything works in the gym. On your other end of the spectrum you have Arnold and Frank, who trained quite often with a ton of volume and both were incredibly strong individuals.

To say the least, many people are afraid of overtraining, which is quite difficult to achieve in my opinion.

Well. Dorian approved more sets and exercises to achieve a better over-all physique development. Though he continued to advise 6-7 days between work-outs for any particular muscle. Or depending on the individual and muscle in question - even as long as 10 days in certain conditions.

I do believe that there is a great deal of solid info hidden in there.

Arnold and Frank may have trained ridiculously heavily, but were they any bigger than Dorian? Obviously not. You can say that Dorian used a lot of gear and that might be true - though I think he was on one of the smallest reported doses among Pro-s.

Basically Dorian explains that more volume/overall stress can benefit muscle growth, but at a certain point that "muscle damage and fatigue" induced growth may not be good enough to compensate for the actual damage caused as recovery time gets longer and longer.
He theorizes that people like Arnold were in a constant state of over-training due to their addictive nature towards bodybuilding and the desire for perfection. The mindset back then was, that the more effort you put in - the better you'll get. But that mindset didn't always carry over to the "quality" of effort.


I think the actual applicable "truth" is hard to pinpoint and all approaches have their merits. But when you consider Mike's and Dorian's approach for the pure "time" it saves you... well. I'd say it's definitely something to try.

Would you rather work out 2h and 5x a week, or 3-4x a week and less than an hour?

[Lvisaa2]

I'm unsure of Dorian Yates' program but I know Mentzer was fond of training infrequently with very few sets with high intensity and basically all out failure. I also feel the rest periods in between workouts are too long (usually 4-5 days, I believe). I'm definitely a sceptic but the ultimate takeaway I see is that basically anything works in the gym. On your other end of the spectrum you have Arnold and Frank, who trained quite often with a ton of volume and both were incredibly strong individuals.

To say the least, many people are afraid of overtraining, which is quite difficult to achieve in my opinion.

I think the right application of any technique can be relatively successful(especially with copious gear use).

[rhizome]

brb training once every 21 days and continually getting stronger
brb i must be overtrained

[Lvisaa2]

Would you rather work out 2h and 5x a week, or 3-4x a week and less than an hour?

2h, 5x a week. Completely cheerios.

[PerpetualMotion]

Well. Dorian approved more sets and exercises to achieve a better over-all physique development. Though he continued to advise 6-7 days between work-outs for any particular muscle. Or depending on the individual and muscle in question - even as long as 10 days in certain conditions.

I do believe that there is a great deal of solid info hidden in there.

Arnold and Frank may have trained ridiculously heavily, but were they any bigger than Dorian? Obviously not. You can say that Dorian used a lot of gear and that might be true - though I think he was on one of the smallest reported doses among Pro-s.

Basically Dorian explains that more volume/overall stress can benefit muscle growth, but at a certain point that "muscle damage and fatigue" induced growth may not be good enough to compensate for the actual damage caused as recovery time gets longer and longer.
He theorizes that people like Arnold were in a constant state of over-training due to their addictive nature towards bodybuilding and the desire for perfection. The mindset back then was, that the more effort you put in - the better you'll get. But that mindset didn't always carry over to the "quality" of effort.


I think the actual applicable "truth" is hard to pinpoint and all approaches have their merits. But when you consider Mike's and Dorian's approach for the pure "time" it saves you... well. I'd say it's definitely something to try.

Would you rather work out 2h and 5x a week, or 3-4x a week and less than an hour?

2h, 5x a week and I'm serious. I'm actually working up to decent volume on 6 day, full body. I'm a maniac, son.

But I don't disagree that it has some merits and it can certainly work very well. I'm unsure of its applications to strength, though, but I can see it being quite useful if "aesthetics" are your goal.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Yates and Mentzer both achieve their base physique with other programs and only implemented HIT later? I believe this was one of the large criticisms of their program, as their physiques were not built using it but simply honed (I hope that's a good word to use).

[ArchangelEST]

brb training once every 21 days and continually getting stronger
brb i must be overtrained

Well. Not sure anyone is advocating training every 21 days. More like 6-7 days for any specific muscle growth. Which still ends up being 3-4x a week for a reasonable split of Back, Chest, Legs, Arms

2h, 5x a week. Completely cheerios.

But would you do less, if you knew the results were the same?

2h, 5x a week and I'm serious. I'm actually working up to decent volume on 6 day, full body. I'm a maniac, son.

But I don't disagree that it has some merits and it can certainly work very well. I'm unsure of its applications to strength, though, but I can see it being quite useful if "aesthetics" are your goal.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Yates and Mentzer both achieve their base physique with other programs and only implemented HIT later? I believe this was one of the large criticisms of their program, as their physiques were not built using it but simply honed (I hope that's a good word to use).

Have you read this? http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html

Another member showed me this (The author posts here too). Awesome stuff concerning training. Touches on this topic quite a bit. Also suggests 3-4x and less than an hour for building muscle. Following closely the principles set by the natural bodybuilders of the 50-s.


I'm not saying any of this is optimal or set in stone. But it does ring a bell for me, and I'm not really aware of any research on the topic that states higher volume results in better muscle growth stimulation per say.
Not that it states very low volume is better either.


In my head, I see a lot of the members here who work out 2hrs a day - doing either too many various exercises and sets/reps and thus their weights are low or they are using heavy weights and lower sets/reps, and simply rest longer. The latter being understandable and the former simply pointless waste of time akin to doing crossfit to build muscle.

Those that do 5 days a week might similarly be splitting up their work-outs in a manner that still allows several days for a specific muscle group to recover. Which would be just fine. And another bunch of people might be doing 5x a week and hitting the chest hard 2x a week, which would be over-kill for most people. Unless the weights are light, which in turn brings me back to the first point. Wasting time in the gym.


But that's just me. I totally agree that any method can work, if one puts enough time and effort into it. But obviously I'd love to get away with doing less. As I don't exactly have an over-abundance of time generally.

[JasonDB]

Brb comparing Arnold and Franco (both using conservative amounts of sterons... less than some of your local gym rats with 16" arms) to Dorian Yates (tons of sterons, hgh and... insulin)... and calling what Yates does "HIT"... he did like 12 sets per body part not one or two all out sets to failure... again we are seeing a man capable, due to his training effort and strength, to stimulate a massive amount of muscle growth in one session... then grow for a full 7-8 days on it because of the drugs (keeping in mind non-enhanced individuals only see increased protein synthesis in a muscle for 28-48 hours after training it).

Also as has been said we know HIT to be complete garbage and the worst broscience of all time in the training world, and has resulted in people obsessing over overtraining who have full time jobs or are full time students (like they have enough free hours to actually achieve a truely overtrained state).

I do find it interesting that Mentzer was a head of his time regarding cutting but so moronically insane when it comes to training concept.

[ArchangelEST]

Brb comparing Arnold and Franco (both using conservative amounts of sterons... less than some of your local gym rats with 16" arms) to Dorian Yates (tons of sterons, hgh and... insulin)... and calling what Yates does "HIT"... he did like 12 sets per body part not one or two all out sets to failure... again we are seeing a man capable, due to his training effort and strength, to stimulate a massive amount of muscle growth in one session... then grow for a full 7-8 days on it because of the drugs (keeping in mind non-enhanced individuals only see increased protein synthesis in a muscle for 28-48 hours after training it).

Also as has been said we know HIT to be complete garbage and the worst broscience of all time in the training world, and has resulted in people obsessing over overtraining who have full time jobs or are full time students (like they have enough free hours to actually achieve a truely overtrained state).

I do find it interesting that Mentzer was a head of his time regarding cutting but so moronically insane when it comes to training concept.

You definitely have a ton of experience concerning training - especially for both a natty and a juicer.

Would you give the article I linked in my last post a read? I know full well to not take a single individuals advice as gold, but seeing as there aren't overly many scientific studies done on actual bodybuilding training routines - I'd like your opinion on it.

Thanks ahead if you bother to do it!

Because heck. I'm all for new information. Even though what I'm doing now works just great. (Which is a mix of Yates's ideas and my own fantasy)

http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html

"But there's still no need to train more than 3-4 days per week if you're after maximum muscle mass and strength. Reg Park didn't, and even by today's standards he was one of the biggest and strongest drug-free men who ever lived. So, if you are genetically gifted for building muscle, a 3-day-per-week training program won't hold you back ...but if you are not it might make the difference between some gains and no gains.

What about the idea that training three times a week is only for beginners and more advanced trainees should train more often? Again, bull****. Dave Goodin, the current era's most winning drug-free competitive bodybuilder, trains three times per week in the off-season and he's certainly no beginner. Park built up to 230 pounds of solid muscle, with a 500-pound Bench Press and over 600-pound Squat to boot, by training "only" three times per week. He also won the Mr. Universe title twice around that time. How many drug-free men do you know who can Bench Press 500 pounds, with no bench shirt or assistance gear, while still being lean enough to see their abs. Let me guess. None."

"But perhaps you don't feel like believing me. In that case, I challenge you to scour the published research regarding strength and hypertrophy training. See if you can find "proof" that 4,5 or 6-day-per-week programs are more effective than 3-day-per-week programs. I did. Guess what I found? The answer is not so cleverly hidden in the title of this rule."

[PerpetualMotion]

Have you read this? http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html

Another member showed me this (The author posts here too). Awesome stuff concerning training. Touches on this topic quite a bit. Also suggests 3-4x and less than an hour for building muscle. Following closely the principles set by the natural bodybuilders of the 50-s.


I'm not saying any of this is optimal or set in stone. But it does ring a bell for me, and I'm not really aware of any research on the topic that states higher volume results in better muscle growth stimulation per say.
Not that it states very low volume is better either.


In my head, I see a lot of the members here who work out 2hrs a day - doing either too many various exercises and sets/reps and thus their weights are low or they are using heavy weights and lower sets/reps, and simply rest longer. The latter being understandable and the former simply pointless waste of time akin to doing crossfit to build muscle.

Those that do 5 days a week might similarly be splitting up their work-outs in a manner that still allows several days for a specific muscle group to recover. Which would be just fine. And another bunch of people might be doing 5x a week and hitting the chest hard 2x a week, which would be over-kill for most people. Unless the weights are light, which in turn brings me back to the first point. Wasting time in the gym.


But that's just me. I totally agree that any method can work, if one puts enough time and effort into it. But obviously I'd love to get away with doing less. As I don't exactly have an over-abundance of time generally.

I wouldn't train for 2 hours but it would be split into an AM and PM such as the Bulgarians did (I believe Ivan Abadijiev popularized training under an hour). But I like training the entire body 5-6 times a week.

My approach to training is mostly for strength purposes but I think there may be some muscle building merits to it. Check lifters earlier than the 50s (think early 1900s) such as Peoples, Saxon, Maxick, Sandow etc. They had decent physiques (especially Sandow) but their strength is comparable to today's lifters despite the complete absence of steroids. Yet we fear overtraining (we avoid it like the plague) and those lifters trained full body 4-6 times a week with high volume and intensity.

But I'm talking about strength and not mass gain, so this is where I might be going wrong. But I don't think these individuals wasted time in the gym nor do I think frequency training is a waste. It might be for mass gains since less frequent training seems to be enough to optimally stimulate the muscles but I am not convinced on the strength front.

[lee__d]

cool little article

[drewzon87]

maybe the only guy in bodybuilding who i'd like to be LESS than palumbo

[BringtheNoise]

You definitely have a ton of experience concerning training - especially for both a natty and a juicer.

Would you give the article I linked in my last post a read? I know full well to not take a single individuals advice as gold, but seeing as there aren't overly many scientific studies done on actual bodybuilding training routines - I'd like your opinion on it.

Thanks ahead if you bother to do it!

Because heck. I'm all for new information. Even though what I'm doing now works just great. (Which is a mix of Yates's ideas and my own fantasy)

http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html

"But there's still no need to train more than 3-4 days per week if you're after maximum muscle mass and strength. Reg Park didn't, and even by today's standards he was one of the biggest and strongest drug-free men who ever lived. So, if you are genetically gifted for building muscle, a 3-day-per-week training program won't hold you back ...but if you are not it might make the difference between some gains and no gains.

What about the idea that training three times a week is only for beginners and more advanced trainees should train more often? Again, bull****. Dave Goodin, the current era's most winning drug-free competitive bodybuilder, trains three times per week in the off-season and he's certainly no beginner. Park built up to 230 pounds of solid muscle, with a 500-pound Bench Press and over 600-pound Squat to boot, by training "only" three times per week. He also won the Mr. Universe title twice around that time. How many drug-free men do you know who can Bench Press 500 pounds, with no bench shirt or assistance gear, while still being lean enough to see their abs. Let me guess. None."

"But perhaps you don't feel like believing me. In that case, I challenge you to scour the published research regarding strength and hypertrophy training. See if you can find "proof" that 4,5 or 6-day-per-week programs are more effective than 3-day-per-week programs. I did. Guess what I found? The answer is not so cleverly hidden in the title of this rule."

Not going to speak for Jason, but on his advice I went from 5 day split to 3 day full body with great results so far, especially on my legs.

[mannydawg]

Not going to speak for Jason, but on his advice I went from 5 day split to 3 day full body with great results so far, especially on my legs.

Exact same situation.

What week are you in? I am on week 6.

[JasonDB]

You definitely have a ton of experience concerning training - especially for both a natty and a juicer.

Would you give the article I linked in my last post a read? I know full well to not take a single individuals advice as gold, but seeing as there aren't overly many scientific studies done on actual bodybuilding training routines - I'd like your opinion on it.

Thanks ahead if you bother to do it!

Because heck. I'm all for new information. Even though what I'm doing now works just great. (Which is a mix of Yates's ideas and my own fantasy)

http://www.weightrainer.net/training/rules.html

"But there's still no need to train more than 3-4 days per week if you're after maximum muscle mass and strength. Reg Park didn't, and even by today's standards he was one of the biggest and strongest drug-free men who ever lived. So, if you are genetically gifted for building muscle, a 3-day-per-week training program won't hold you back ...but if you are not it might make the difference between some gains and no gains.

What about the idea that training three times a week is only for beginners and more advanced trainees should train more often? Again, bull****. Dave Goodin, the current era's most winning drug-free competitive bodybuilder, trains three times per week in the off-season and he's certainly no beginner. Park built up to 230 pounds of solid muscle, with a 500-pound Bench Press and over 600-pound Squat to boot, by training "only" three times per week. He also won the Mr. Universe title twice around that time. How many drug-free men do you know who can Bench Press 500 pounds, with no bench shirt or assistance gear, while still being lean enough to see their abs. Let me guess. None."

"But perhaps you don't feel like believing me. In that case, I challenge you to scour the published research regarding strength and hypertrophy training. See if you can find "proof" that 4,5 or 6-day-per-week programs are more effective than 3-day-per-week programs. I did. Guess what I found? The answer is not so cleverly hidden in the title of this rule."

90% of what he says is already common knowledge, and again when someone like Reg Park or Steeve Reeves is mentioned keep in mind they did not train on splits. They trained full body every workout... so don't think a 3 day split is anything remotely close to how these individuals trained. Not a bad article just very geared towards the novice.

[BringtheNoise]

Exact same situation.

What week are you in? I am on week 6.

I'm on week 5 or 6.

[ArchangelEST]

90% of what he says is already common knowledge, and again when someone like Reg Park or Steeve Reeves is mentioned keep in mind they did not train on splits. They trained full body every workout... so don't think a 3 day split is anything remotely close to how these individuals trained. Not a bad article just very geared towards the novice.

Thanks for the Input!