Lol. Mike Mentzer.

[OtisBDriftwood]

Dorian was aware of "IIFYM" back in the early 90's as well and he was always the most shredded guy on stage. Mentzer was always very wise on his approach to Bodybuilding.

[ErickStevens]

Mike Mentzer was crazy as fuk and I love him for it.

[ArchangelEST]

Is it just me or is everyone in this thread split in two either Loving Mentzer or calling him a nutjob who didn't know jack about bodybuilding?

[desslok]

Is it just me or is everyone in this thread split in two either Loving Mentzer or calling him a nutjob who didn't know jack about bodybuilding?

He was one of my idols when I started lifting long long ago, so he gets a hallpass for whatever personal demons he had, just like Arnold does.

[PerpetualMotion]

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.

I credit Jamie Lewis for awaring me on this. Jamie noted that many people think Reg Park built what he did using 5x5 but apparently he never had an established program and sometimes lifted quite frequently. If someone is able to post that link (and comment) I'd be grateful since I'm at work and obviously is blog is NSFW.

[JasonDB]

Is it just me or is everyone in this thread split in two either Loving Mentzer or calling him a nutjob who didn't know jack about bodybuilding?

I may have said in other threads on this forum that he was an insane drug addict whose mad rantings should be taken no more seriously than those of the crazy guy, who lives under a bridge, that talks to himself after smoking crack. LoL I am not a Mentzer fan even slightly.

[ArchangelEST]

I may have said in other threads on this forum that he was an insane drug addict whose mad rantings should be taken no more seriously than those of the crazy guy, who lives under a bridge, that talks to himself after smoking crack. LoL I am not a Mentzer fan even slightly.

Lol.

I don't really feel one way or the other as I've never paid much attention to him. To be honest I know ridiculously little about bodybuilders in general, though I attempt to lift hard myself. But after being awared about his scientific approach I atleast have to give some credit for his efforts in trying to get past the "bro" attitude and basing training on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Even if his methods weren't possibly much better in the end either.

[JasonDB]

Lol.

I don't really feel one way or the other as I've never paid much attention to him. To be honest I know ridiculously little about bodybuilders in general, though I attempt to lift hard myself. But after being awared about his scientific approach I atleast have to give some credit for his efforts in trying to get past the "bro" attitude and basing training on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Even if his methods weren't possibly much better in the end either.

The problem is of course that he said he was taking a scientific approach so much that maybe he even convinced himself that he was... but he did not understand even the basics of the scientific method. He instead wrote some philosophical ideas on training and recovery and without any evidence or tested set them in stone as gospel and based all of his methods upon these ideas and called it scientific... and those ideas have spawned a very large amount of the bro-science we see now today in training... after his ideas have been found to be very flawed and unworkiable by real science and by professionals whose job it is to train serious competative athletes.

[ArchangelEST]

Very interesting.

Well. Atleast he got the nutrition part somewhat right in some aspects. He did advise eating ridiculously low protein doses and bulking with 1 extra gram of protein a day and on a 16 calorie surplus.

Which probably isn't too far from theoretical science, but not applicable in real life and the myriad of factors involved.

[tswdan]

from Wikipedia page on Mike Mentzer

Diet has always been as important, if not more, as weight-training for bodybuilders. However, in his book Heavy Duty Nutrition, Mentzer demonstrated that nutrition for athletes did not need to be nearly as extreme as the bodybuilding industry would lead one to believe. His recommended diets were well balanced, and he espoused eating from all four food groups, totaling four servings each of high-quality grains and fruits, and two each of dairy and protein daily, all year-round.

Mentzer believed that Carbohydrates should make up the bulk of the caloric intake, 50-60%, rather than protein as preferred by others. Mentzer's reasoning was simple: to build 10 pounds of muscle in a year, a total of 6000 extra calories needed to be ingested throughout the year, because one pound of muscle contains 600 calories. That averages 16 extra calories per day, and only four of them needed to be from protein—because muscle is 22% protein, about one quarter.

[Lvisaa2]

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

No, I train, because I love to train not simply for the results. I certainly have physique goals and strength goals, but those come secondary to training. It informs every other aspect. Training is euphoric for me and I've said before that it is akin to a spiritual experience for me. When your muscles are crying, your tired, sweating, shaking from exhaustion; when your light-headed and on the verge of passing out and then you step up under that bar for another set - that's true love right there. I wouldn't get up at 4:30 in the morning to work out, go to class all day then go to work if I didn't love this. I wouldn't do what I do just to look pretty. Nah, I train because I love it so no I wouldn't reduce my time. Although, my sweet spot is 1 1/2 hours, 5x/weekly.

Although, you picked the wrong person to ask. My current routine is full body 3x/weekly with two hypertrophy days. 3 days of bench, 3 days of squats, 3 days of rows(only 1 day of DLs currently unless you count SLDLs - as my current focus is squats). On the days I don't bench, I'm still doing CGBP and dips so I still hit chest. Basically, I have 5 days of shizz just getting hammered. The bulk of it is compounds with some iso work. Rest time is short. 1 1/2 or less on compounds(sometimes a little longer if right around my 1RM) and a minute or less on isos.

[drewzon87]

The problem is of course that he said he was taking a scientific approach so much that maybe he even convinced himself that he was... but he did not understand even the basics of the scientific method. He instead wrote some philosophical ideas on training and recovery and without any evidence or tested set them in stone as gospel and based all of his methods upon these ideas and called it scientific... and those ideas have spawned a very large amount of the bro-science we see now today in training... after his ideas have been found to be very flawed and unworkiable by real science and by professionals whose job it is to train serious competative athletes.

welcome to meth

[Casey Butt]

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.

I credit Jamie Lewis for awaring me on this. Jamie noted that many people think Reg Park built what he did using 5x5 but apparently he never had an established program and sometimes lifted quite frequently. If someone is able to post that link (and comment) I'd be grateful since I'm at work and obviously is blog is NSFW.

Park trained most of his early career on a 3-day per week full body routine, but not by any means exclusively. He was using splits as early as 1949 (contest preparation for the Mr. Britain) and was training lifts as infrequently as once every four to five days by 1951 as part of his intention to become the "strongest man in the world". So he was by no means pinned to a single training routine or type of routine - though one could say the basis of his early training certainly was 3-day per week, full-body routines based around his 5x5 scheme. Reeves trained exclusively on full-body routines.

That article is geared towards the novice in that they are the ones who need proper "instruction" the most. However, it is just as applicable to experienced lifters who either don't know or have drifted away from what they really need to be most concerned with ...in some cases, they are the ones who need it the most. As with anything, it depends on the individual.

HIT is a simple, single-factor training based philosophy. It appealed to the masses because it seemed "scientific" based on the limited logic used to support it. Jones created a lot of buzz in Iron Man with it and used that publicity to promote his then new machines. Seemed like a good idea at the time ...to people who didn't have enough experience to know the difference and those gullible enough to believe it. Not that HIT is completely "bad", but there's simply no such thing as a rigid "best" training philosophy. The body just doesn't work that way.

[drewzon87]

Park trained most of his early career on a 3-day per week full body routine, but not by any means exclusively. He was using splits as early as 1949 (contest preparation for the Mr. Britain) and was training lifts as infrequently as once every four to five days by 1951 as part of his intention to become the "strongest man in the world". So he was by no means pinned to a single training routine or type of routine - though one could say the basis of his early training certainly was 3-day per week, full-body routines based around his 5x5 scheme. Reeves trained exclusively on full-body routines.

That article is geared towards the novice in that they are the ones who need proper "instruction" the most. However, it is just as applicable to experienced lifters who either don't know or have drifted away from what they really need to be most concerned with ...in some cases, they are the ones who need it the most. As with anything, it depends on the individual.

HIT is a simple, single-factor training based philosophy. It appealed to the masses because it seemed "scientific" based on the limited logic used to support it. Jones created a lot of buzz in Iron Man with it and used that publicity to promote his then new machines. Seemed like a good idea at the time ...to people who didn't have enough experience to know the difference and those gullible enough to believe it. Not that HIT is completely "bad", but there's simply no such thing as a rigid "best" training philosophy. The body just doesn't work that way.

click on avi to see it bigger

its even smaller

[Lvisaa2]

http://www.blogger.com/profile/08028267895500189112

He's the author of the posted article

[JasonDB]

Park trained most of his early career on a 3-day per week full body routine, but not by any means exclusively. He was using splits as early as 1949 (contest preparation for the Mr. Britain) and was training lifts as infrequently as once every four to five days by 1951 as part of his intention to become the "strongest man in the world". So he was by no means pinned to a single training routine or type of routine - though one could say the basis of his early training certainly was 3-day per week, full-body routines based around his 5x5 scheme. Reeves trained exclusively on full-body routines.

That article is geared towards the novice in that they are the ones who need proper "instruction" the most. However, it is just as applicable to experienced lifters who either don't know or have drifted away from what they really need to be most concerned with ...in some cases, they are the ones who need it the most. As with anything, it depends on the individual.

HIT is a simple, single-factor training based philosophy. It appealed to the masses because it seemed "scientific" based on the limited logic used to support it. Jones created a lot of buzz in Iron Man with it and used that publicity to promote his then new machines. Seemed like a good idea at the time ...to people who didn't have enough experience to know the difference and those gullible enough to believe it. Not that HIT is completely "bad", but there's simply no such thing as a rigid "best" training philosophy. The body just doesn't work that way.

However you would agree that Park wasn't hitting each body part once a week and he did build the vast majority of his size and strength using full body training methods... and his splits were more refinement work in preperation for contests and not responsible for his size or strength (both of which are pretty extreme for a natty)?

Again my issue with Mentzer on the scientific basis is because making up a theory without testing it, doing any type of peer review or multi-variable analysis and proclaiming it "the way it is" is not even close to scientific. It was a philosophy based upon a chain of logic, that wasn't completely without merit, but still very flawed... and not scientific at all.

[Casey Butt]

However you would agree that Park wasn't hitting each body part once a week and he did build the vast majority of his size and strength using full body training methods... and his splits were more refinement work in preperation for contests and not responsible for his size or strength (both of which are pretty extreme for a natty)?

I actually agree with just about everything you said ...but maybe my post made it sound like I didn't.

Park's early routines, up until he was within several pounds of his peak muscle mass, were practically exclusively full-body routines, three times per week. He only used splits for contest preparation in the early days, and only for a few weeks/months at that. As far as I understand, he began taking longer breaks between training sessions, hitting a lift once every four days or so (what he called "irregular training") only after he was already the 1951 Mr. Universe and his only interest was getting as strong as possible. At that time, he considered himself "retired" from competitive bodybuilding and not training specifically to get bigger as his main priority. He "returned" to bodybuilding in 1958 because he wanted the publicity of being "Mr. Universe" to promote his newly opened gym(s) in South Africa ...and then he went back to his "standard" three times per week, full-body, 5x5 routines to bulk up as quickly as possible.

It was only later in his career - after 1961/62 - that he went to more elaborate split routines to allow more volume in an attempt to compensate for injuries preventing him from following his "traditional" heavy, full-body routines. So Park probably followed a thousand different types of routines over the course of his 25-year career, but it was most certainly the basic 3-times per week, full-body routine that he built his physique with in the first place.

Again my issue with Mentzer on the scientific basis is because making up a theory without testing it, doing any type of peer review or multi-variable analysis and proclaiming it "the way it is" is not even close to scientific. It was a philosophy based upon a chain of logic, that wasn't completely without merit, but still very flawed... and not scientific at all.

Logic drawn upon incomplete information at that. It made sense in light of Seyle's simple GAS theory, but they (Jones, Mentzer, Darden, etc) used a general overall bodily response (getting stronger) to apply to a very specific goal (muscle growth). The problem is, and always has been, that the overall response is made up of a lot of things other than just muscle growth ...which Jones and his followers seem to have ignored.

[RusticYukon]

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.

u mad?

If his training protocol was so "moronically insane" then how did he build such an impressive physique? And you can't say steroids, because 99.9% of guys on steroids never achieve a physique as impressive as Mentzer's.

[necon76]

u mad?

If his training protocol was so "moronically insane" then how did he build such an impressive physique? And you can't say steroids, because 99.9% of guys on steroids never achieve a physique as impressive as Mentzer's.

Strong bump numbnuts.

[Gemuadrken]

Any1 wanna cliffs on this thread?

I'm lazy.

Have we determined whether or not IIFYM works yet?

[necon76]

Any1 wanna cliffs on this thread?

I'm lazy.

Have we determined whether or not IIFYM works yet?

Dbol+pancakes+HIT+amphetamines+drinkingyourownpiss = Victory.

[peanut-butter]

Thanks for the Input!

I'm almost certain I've seen you post these exact pictures quite some time ago...perhaps a even a year.

[peanut-butter]

Dbol+pancakes+HIT+amphetamines+drinkingyourownpiss = Victory.

Dbol is more suited to higher volume, just sayin.

[necon76]

Dbol is more suited to higher volume, just sayin.

I don't really know nothin bout no bike ridin.

[WonderPug]

This thread delivers, even after its expiration date.

[germaine07]

If his training protocol was so "moronically insane" then how did he build such an impressive physique? And you can't say steroids, because 99.9% of guys on steroids never achieve a physique as impressive as Mentzer's.

Steroids + genetics.

[snrygo]

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. "

holy fukking shiiiiitttt youre alive!!!!

[psychodiver9]

holy fukking shiiiiitttt youre alive!!!!

Or at least he was a year ago

[snrygo]

Or at least he was a year ago

oh sht lol.

[ArchangelEST]

I'm almost certain I've seen you post these exact pictures quite some time ago...perhaps a even a year.

Lets see - 1 year, 2 months and 4 days?

Why the hell did this thread get bumped, lol. Oh right... we oversaturated those Pulcinella threads with pics of Mentzer, lol.