Mike Mentzer (Genius or Lunatic)

[J-Bol]

I just listened to an interview with Mike Mentzer the other day. It was on a cassette tape called Muscle Media 2000. It was mostly about his training and how it worked. The man seemed brilliant and everything he said was right on the money. The way he explained his high-intensity training made perfect sense and it seems like if you had any common sense, you'd follow his advice. But I just can't grasp it. I mean, theoretically it's supposed to work and has worked for him and a few others, but why can't I just stop what I'm doing and follow his advice for awhile? So, what do you y'all think? Is he a brilliant man or a deranged lunatic? His techniques are so unconventional and avant-garde, but at the same time so basic and sensible.

[John Prophet]

poor Mike. I wish he could rest in peace. that being said, I think Mike was very passionate but he was not a genius.

Obviously he spent time in a loony bin. He had issues. He used drugs to help him get by. A lot of that writing that people hold as "genius" was written at 4am under the influence of amphetamines.

And I have to remark that as far as I understand, Mike himself built most, if not all, of his muscle the old fashoined Weider volume way, lol. The whole "HIT is the greatest thing since sliced cheese" stuff seems to have came AFTER he quit bb'ing.

for instance this is a quote from Mike from the "HIT vs Volume" thread in the workout section

"It wasn't until well after the end of my competitive career, in 1980, that I developed an impassioned, unswerving devotion to discovering the flaw in Jones' theory of high-intensity training. . ."


See my point? With no disrespect to Mike as a person, id say the quote might be more realistically read as "After I got totally disillusioned and quit bodybuilding, I sort of went off the deep and and my theories went off the deep end with me"

[Loctus]

100% Genius.. When it comes to training that is. But hey, who watches "Relentless" for Ronnies Nobel-prize winning quotes?

[EvilLion]

There's no question that he was a very intelligent and erudite man, and I find that his method works wonders for me, but as long as the workout is INTENSE, of course.
However, I'm not one of those fans who hangs on his every word and declares it as gospel. I just happened to find out about the HIT method, and was willing to give it a go. Fortunately, it's paying off for me so far over the last 2 years or so

....theoretically it's supposed to work and has worked for him and a few others, but why can't I just stop what I'm doing and follow his advice for awhile?

Most likely that you're too scared that you'll be just wasting your time But as long as you apply intensity to the workout and rest for long enough, it should work. But don't just take my word for it, other people have told me that it hasn't worked for them (although I suspect they didn't do it correctly :P )
Just go with whatever you're comfortable with. No harm in trying.

[John Prophet]

id be a little careful, lol. If u dont do ANY volume work you can eaily have the muscles get stronger while the tendons dont. The russians were very clear about that for their oly lifters. They stated that the tendons etc had to have some high volume/low intensity work done early in the year cycle or else when the poundages got up to record level the tendons/ligaments might pop.

Ask Dorian about that one

[J-Bol]

There's no question that he was a very intelligent and erudite man, and I find that his method works wonders for me, but as long as the workout is INTENSE, of course.
However, I'm not one of those fans who hangs on his every word and declares it as gospel. I just happened to find out about the HIT method, and was willing to give it a go. Fortunately, it's paying off for me so far over the last 2 years or so



Most likely that you're too scared that you'll be just wasting your time But as long as you apply intensity to the workout and rest for long enough, it should work. But don't just take my word for it, other people have told me that it hasn't worked for them (although I suspect they didn't do it correctly :P )
Just go with whatever you're comfortable with. No harm in trying.

Yep, that's it. I'm scared I'll be wasting my time. Eh, whatever. I'll give it a go. I know it has to be intense, though. The way he said it was like this:
"You want to perform the minimal amount of work to stimulate growth. So logically, you would perform one set and if that didn't work, move onto two sets, and so on and so on. The problem with many people is that they start with 15-16 sets for a bodypart. If that doesn't work, do they go down a set or up a set?"

[EvilLion]

You only need one set

[Guardian]

id be a little careful, lol. If u dont do ANY volume work you can eaily have the muscles get stronger while the tendons dont. The russians were very clear about that for their oly lifters. They stated that the tendons etc had to have some high volume/low intensity work done early in the year cycle or else when the poundages got up to record level the tendons/ligaments might pop.

Ask Dorian about that one

I personally disagree. Higher volume will only put more strain on the tendons and connective tissue. The key to tendons is gradual progression and enough recup time.

Dorians injuries were more from his intensity then the tendons, chances are hed get injured whether he did high volume work earlier in the year or not. Plus, steroids and god knows what else tend to cause much more muscle growth then tendon which puts you at greater risk for injury when your enhanced especially when your dieting down and have low water retention and joint lubrication.

Ive used Dorians style of training for years and have been training for 5 years with no injuries.

[cabster21]

He also had different views on nutrition. Or at least, it changed after his career as a competitive bodybuilder did. He didn't think you needed anywhere near 1g per lb of bodyweight of protein. And that carbohydrates are the most important. He had an impressive physique, that's about where it ends with me. Although I do respect him for trying something different.

[J-Bol]

He also had different views on nutrition. Or at least, it changed after his career as a competitive bodybuilder did. He didn't think you needed anywhere near 1g per lb of bodyweight of protein. And that carbohydrates are the most important. He had an impressive physique, that's about where it ends with me. Although I do respect him for trying something different.

Anywhere online I can find his nutrition info?

[verbatim9]

His leg routine of leg press, leg ext. and leg curl all for one set I did couple of times, used to destroy me.

[John Prophet]

You want to perform the minimal amount of work to stimulate growth.

false oversimplification right there. So whatever you build onto that false statement is also false.

there are growth effects u get from volume that you cant get from super low vol workouts.

[Guardian]

I honestly think in terms of size it all boils down to cumulative force and time of tension. So if your doing lower volume chances are you can use greater force (resistance) and have lower time of tension. Higher volume is the oppsite you have higher time but less force.

I think each individual is different and each muscle is different and people need to experiement over time to see what works best for them. There are general guidelines for most people, for example 40-70 total time under tension seems to be the key timeframe for growth for most people. So split this up over sets and the average tempo and youll get around 3-5 sets which is what Yates and myself mostly do. Some people may need more, and some people like Mentzer may need even less. In my opinion ones training goals should be seeing what the shortest amount of time is needed to stimulate the growth and allow for higher poundages to be used. For example with me I find if I do 5 sets of chest my progress actually goes down, and if I do 3 sets I also lose progress, 4 sets seems to be the key number for my chest workout. On the other hand back I may use 10 sets.

[unique1]

Mentzer was a follower Arthur Jones was the genius.

[The Abomination]

It was kinda sad hearing stories of him wandering around on the streets naked and making Jesus Juice....MonsterG8r spoke with him before his death and he was still raging about his loss to Arnold.

[user23960508710783]

I just listened to an interview with Mike Mentzer the other day. It was on a cassette tape called Muscle Media 2000. It was mostly about his training and how it worked. The man seemed brilliant and everything he said was right on the money. The way he explained his high-intensity training made perfect sense and it seems like if you had any common sense, you'd follow his advice. But I just can't grasp it. I mean, theoretically it's supposed to work and has worked for him and a few others, but why can't I just stop what I'm doing and follow his advice for awhile? So, what do you y'all think? Is he a brilliant man or a deranged lunatic? His techniques are so unconventional and avant-garde, but at the same time so basic and sensible.

Mike was a smart guy with poor stress management techniques.

People point to his personal problems all the time to undercut his training theories, and it is obviously just ad hominem argumentation. I wouldn't listen to it.

If you are intrigued by his ideas, give them a try. It's not like you'll permanently kill your muscles by training them with less volume for a month or two.

[Gr8Ape]

wheres waynelucky when you need him?

[porcupinetree]

Here's a problem with Mike...if short and infrequent workouts were the way to go, then why did he look like crap for the last 10-15 years of his life? Why couldn't he find any time to train, even for 15 minutes?

He was asked that a few times and his answer was, "I'm so busy with my personal training and other businesses"

Right.................




I have tried reading his articles. I couldn't figure out what the heck he was trying to say. Lots of people can talk for an hour and say nothing.

I tried the HIT style of training for a while. I thought it sucked. It was very boring, I never felt like I got a complete workout, and I sure didn't improve anything.

[porcupinetree]

Mentzer was a follower Arthur Jones was the genius.

I just read Bill Pearl's book. Bill talks a lot about Arthur.
Arthur Jones was CRAZY.

[Bodysteele]

I think people grossly OVERESTIMATE to which extent either VOLUME or Intensity is the way to go.

In reality FOR NATURAL weighlifters optimal results come from varying the streeses you place on the body every 6-12 weeks with periods of rest between if needed.

I think everyone kind of knows this subconsciously but for some reason many lifters(including myslef) dont really internalize it as a lifting strategy and actually go to ultra high rep workouts or triples for 6 weeks at a time to shock our muscles into development.

I dont even think 6 weeks away from the weights is NECESSARILY bad thing if you hve enough equipment to really work the entire body from a bodyweight resistance perspective.

You gotta change it up folks to force growth...why do you think you see these guys in the gyms who lift for 10 years straight and are 5"10 190 lbs still benching right around 300 lbs and looking good and not great even though they do alot of the stuff right in the gym and in the kitchen.

[verbatim9]

I honestly think in terms of size it all boils down to cumulative force and time of tension. So if your doing lower volume chances are you can use greater force (resistance) and have lower time of tension. Higher volume is the oppsite you have higher time but less force.

I think each individual is different and each muscle is different and people need to experiement over time to see what works best for them. There are general guidelines for most people, for example 40-70 total time under tension seems to be the key timeframe for growth for most people. So split this up over sets and the average tempo and youll get around 3-5 sets which is what Yates and myself mostly do. Some people may need more, and some people .

About the time under tension - Mentzer advocated the 4 seconds up, 2 seconds peak contraction and 4 seconds down per rep. That means the time under tension was between say 70-110 seconds, done in one set.

[stealth_swimmer]

I think people grossly OVERESTIMATE to which extent either VOLUME or Intensity is the way to go.

In reality FOR NATURAL weighlifters optimal results come from varying the streeses you place on the body every 6-12 weeks with periods of rest between if needed.

I think everyone kind of knows this subconsciously but for some reason many lifters(including myslef) dont really internalize it as a lifting strategy and actually go to ultra high rep workouts or triples for 6 weeks at a time to shock our muscles into development.

I dont even think 6 weeks away from the weights is NECESSARILY bad thing if you hve enough equipment to really work the entire body from a bodyweight resistance perspective.

You gotta change it up folks to force growth...why do you think you see these guys in the gyms who lift for 10 years straight and are 5"10 190 lbs still benching right around 300 lbs and looking good and not great even though they do alot of the stuff right in the gym and in the kitchen.

x2, I like to help some of my friends with their training and tell them to change their training every two or three months from low volume to high volume and low reps to high reps. They all seem to make much faster improvements than anyone else at the gym. Even when I tell that to some of the people that were in football, who couldn't figure out why they were getting stronger but not bigger, they start making gains again.

IMO it boils down to one basic concept: platauing(sp?)

You should stick to what works best for you most of the time, but when your gains slow down then you should change your training for a little while. It gives you a break from monotony, gives your muscles something new to adapt to, and more often than not when you come back to your usual training it will work better than last time.

[J-Bol]

false oversimplification right there. So whatever you build onto that false statement is also false.

there are growth effects u get from volume that you cant get from super low vol workouts.

How so? You want to do the least amount of work and get the greatest gain. It's like that in every day life. His theory was so that you have "that much more to help you recover". If you have 100 units of muscle and only use 30 units for a workout, you still have 70 left. If you use all 100 and deplete yourself, you're left with 0 units and the body will have to work harder to recover and then start growing. You recover before you grow.

"The more is better theory only applies to money and pretty girls." - Mike Mentzer

[Amoral]

I personally disagree. Higher volume will only put more strain on the tendons and connective tissue. The key to tendons is gradual progression and enough recup time.


Ive used Dorians style of training for years and have been training for 5 years with no injuries.

Higher volume doesnt always put more strain on the tissues. Higher volume means more sets less weight less intensity. When you do this HIT **** you use so much weight and **** form and just force your body through movements often resulting in an injury for a noob.

Everyone always talks about how they love the golden age bodies well they all used high volume and like the other d00d said mike the maniac mentzer only advocated HIT after he went insane.

[J-Bol]

Higher volume doesnt always put more strain on the tissues. Higher volume means more sets less weight less intensity. When you do this HIT **** you use so much weight and **** form and just force your body through movements often resulting in an injury for a noob.

Everyone always talks about how they love the golden age bodies well they all used high volume and like the other d00d said mike the maniac mentzer only advocated HIT after he went insane.

He says that you have to do it with strict form.

[ElMariachi]

I will reprint part of an article from one of my Musclemag magazines from Sept 1980.

Article by Chris Lund.

Chris-"Mike, I remember some time ago reading an article by you in Muscle Builder that you changed from training your whole body three times per week, to splitting it up to 4 days, working each part only twice per week. Why did you do this?

Mike-"I simply couldn't recuperate properly from training the whole body at one time. The next day I would feel as if I wanted to sleep for two days."


Mike-"Most bodybuilders relate a workout week to be covered in 7 days. If you don't like working out two days in a row, then do what I've been doing myself recently and that is an "EVERY OTHER DAY" split routine, which covers each body part twice in every 8 days.

Remember this is 1980. I will check through some of my other magazines(I have a ton) but I don't recall any mention of the current day "Heavy Duty" training until mid 1985 or so....about 5 years after Mentzer's last competition.


Reading some of his early writings, it becomes clear that Mentzer was never an actual proponent of his later version "HEAVY DUTY" system until he had retired. He built his body mostly on volume work, and his training for the 1980 Olympia, where he was probably at his best, consisted of a whole lot of volume work.

He had some brilliant ideas, and I respect him a lot, but he was a very troubled man. He had some serious drug issues, along with alcohol issues and being a chronic cigarette smoker. I've heard people who knew him mention that he would often talk of "hurrying up" in terms of training a client so that he could go out and get a "drink." I think the results of the 1980 Olympia really devastated him, as he fully expected to win, and finishing so poorly, really shattered him, leading to all sorts of personal demons emerging.

[Amoral]

He says that you have to do it with strict form.

Yeah but most d00ds hear high weight so automatically form goes to ****. I guess what im saying is this is for seasoned bodybuilders.

[JOHN GARGANI]

He had some brilliant ideas, and I respect him a lot, but he was a very troubled man. He had some serious drug issues, along with alcohol issues and being a chronic cigarette smoker. I've heard people who knew him mention that he would often talk of "hurrying up" in terms of training a client so that he could go out and get a "drink." I think the results of the 1980 Olympia really devastated him, as he fully expected to win, and finishing so poorly, really shattered him, leading to all sorts of personal demons emerging.

which is why he died at such an early age......


I have all of the original Mike Mentzer training books and booklets....always keeping an open mind, I have always read everyone's point of view, everyone that was successful, to see just how they achieved that end......


for every Mike Mentzer there are 10 others that achieved the same results through volume training.....


but Mentzer lived in a "my way or the highway" world...it was a false world, buoyed by drugs and yet spouting psychobabble that he derived from reading all of Ayn Rand's works........


Mike, in a sense of the word, sounded like Tom Cruise does today, when he spouts on about Scientology.......


they are "experts" and they know all the answers....


but in reality, their personal lives are a mess....


I loved Mentzer's logic and enjoyed reading his works, but hardly found him to be someone to be emulated on many levels.....

[J-Bol]

which is why he died at such an early age......


I have all of the original Mike Mentzer training books and booklets....always keeping an open mind, I have always read everyone's point of view, everyone that was successful, to see just how they achieved that end......


for every Mike Mentzer there are 10 others that achieved the same results through volume training.....


but Mentzer lived in a "my way or the highway" world...it was a false world, buoyed by drugs and yet spouting psychobabble that he derived from reading all of Ayn Rand's works........


Mike, in a sense of the word, sounded like Tom Cruise does today, when he spouts on about Scientology.......


they are "experts" and they know all the answers....


but in reality, their personal lives are a mess....


I loved Mentzer's logic and enjoyed reading his works, but hardly found him to be someone to be emulated on many levels.....

I noticed that, too during the interview. It was all about "his way" and the only right way. He even said that his theory on training is the one and only right way.

[Guardian]

Higher volume doesnt always put more strain on the tissues. Higher volume means more sets less weight less intensity. When you do this HIT **** you use so much weight and **** form and just force your body through movements often resulting in an injury for a noob.

Everyone always talks about how they love the golden age bodies well they all used high volume and like the other d00d said mike the maniac mentzer only advocated HIT after he went insane.

**** form?

No HIT if done right uses good form, im not strict HIT but I do believe in lower volumes like Yates did.