If You Want Advice on Mentzer's Heavy Duty,This Is The Thread To Ask Your Questions

[Big Bamboo]

okay bamboo, honest question here

I was "brought up" to believe that there were a few HIT principles that were ABSOLUTES

1) Train to failure
2) Train briefly, 1 set per bodypart
3) Train infrequently, bodyparts and the body need a long time to grow

please explain when and where these became "not necessary"

and this is an HONEST question, as opposed to baiting.

kethnab: i don't think they are absolutes, per se, but then again, i'm not the official source for what is or isn't "hit". Is there an official source? Maybe the IART would be, I don't know.

I can only give you my *personal* opinion based on what I've seen/read. It seems like there a lot of different variations of "hit" as there are so many different people who prescribe it. For example, what Leistner would prescribe would be a *LOT* different than what Darden or Mentzer would, not to mention that he's a lot more successful with trainees than they are/were.

1) train to failure. is there an official rule that you should *always* train to failure? BTW, like I said before what does "failure" mean, exactly? I think the HIT camp's view as that the most productive sets are done to failure. This is a huge generalization, that's not always valid.

2) i've read 1-3 sets per exercise. i know nothing about how many exercises per bodypart. I'd guess 1-2

3) "infrequently" does not mean once every 2 weeks or whatever. 2 times/week is "infrequent".

again, my *point* is WHO CARES what you label this general approach? I think a lot of time is being wasted with this.

I *agree* with the view that the Mentzer routines are not a good long term approach, and in fact, like i've said, there are things that he recommended that I think are not a good idea. McRobert and Leistner make the most sense to me.

[kethnaab]

well, if we get to the point where you are stopping a rep short of failure, 3 sets per exercise, 2 exercises per bodypart, 2x per week for each bodypart, can't really argue with that.

But that just doesn't fit into what HIT is to me. I can CERTAINLY agree with the idea that Mentzer and Darden are/were crackpots.

[Big Bamboo]

each bodypart 2x per week, right? or are you saying the entire body 2x per week?

Now, I'm all over that compound movement thing as well as "high effort" thing, as long as it doesn't include failure training as well as basing the upper body work on pullovers

the main problem that I have with HIT is that it deconditions the body and creates an environment where the body's recovery just plain SUCKS.

by training so infrequently (2x per week is pretty damn infrequent to base a training plan around)) and by training so briefly, the body loses its ability to recover from longer exercise.

The deconditioning affect is very apparent to a guy like me who has been in the military for almost 15 years (And training for over 20)

I respect your perspective, and I think if the goal is conditioning that you need to increase the frequency. How often is required for this, I don't know.

I think that the hit strength and conditioning coaches at the collegiate and professional level recommend 3x/week for optimal conditioning, but I'm guessing here. Their workouts also involve (i think) shortening the rest time between sets to improve conditioning.

[kethnaab]

well, the idea is that it's almost a negative self-fulfilling prophecy

you think "my recovery sucks", so you train less frequently, which means you are sore everytime you go into the gym, which means you HAVE to train less frequently until the soreness subsides, then your recovery starts to really suck becuse you're only going to the gym 2x per week, so you get to the point where you CAN'T train anymore often than that, and, say midweek the wife asks you to move a couch or something and then you have to say "sorry sweetie, I'm trashed from my workout 4 days ago...." or your First Sergeant says "Sergeant Kethnaab, I need you to <fill in blank>" and you are too sore/tired to do it. Then you are just perpetuating the idea that weight lifting builds "nonfunctional showy muscles that aren't good for anything"

I dunno. I like to actually BE a badass, not just look like one. Conditioning is part of that, IMHO.

[/slight tangent]

[Big Bamboo]

well, if we get to the point where you are stopping a rep short of failure, 3 sets per exercise, 2 exercises per bodypart, 2x per week for each bodypart, can't really argue with that.

that pretty much sums up John Christy's training approach. He's a big advocate of stopping 1 rep short.

It is COMPLETELY false to say that failure is a prerequisite for growth. However, at the same time, failure training (positive only, no negs/forced reps) is also productive and can lead to some faster strength gains when used appropriately. several non-hit folks say this as well, i believe.

But that just doesn't fit into what HIT is to me. I can CERTAINLY agree with the idea that Mentzer and Darden are/were crackpots.

Darden is a con man that is disliked *intensely* by several of the hit guys, like Leistner. Mentzer was on the right track, i.e., lower volume works extremely well for most people, but the pendulum swung too far to the left.

If you say, I have to either train like Mentzer or train like Arnold, I'd pick Mentzer, but why do I even have to make that choice? Those people that force you into that narrow mode of thinking are dogmatic.

[Big Bamboo]

well, the idea is that it's almost a negative self-fulfilling prophecy

you think "my recovery sucks", so you train less frequently, which means you are sore everytime you go into the gym, which means you HAVE to train less frequently until the soreness subsides, then your recovery starts to really suck becuse you're only going to the gym 2x per week, so you get to the point where you CAN'T train anymore often than that, and, say midweek the wife asks you to move a couch or something and then you have to say "sorry sweetie, I'm trashed from my workout 4 days ago...." or your First Sergeant says "Sergeant Kethnaab, I need you to <fill in blank>" and you are too sore/tired to do it. Then you are just perpetuating the idea that weight lifting builds "nonfunctional showy muscles that aren't good for anything"

I dunno. I like to actually BE a badass, not just look like one. Conditioning is part of that, IMHO.

[/slight tangent]

I think you can accomplish that and still *weight train* 2x/week. Why not also do some conditioning work on the days you aren't in the gym? I read an article in "Men's Journal" (I think) a few months ago where a guy went to the gym 2-3x/week to lift weights, and also added some sprinting work on his off days. He lost a ton of fat, and his conditioning greatly improved.

I try to do *some* exercise every single day, even if it's just a brisk walk.

[kethnaab]

or sled pulling/pushing.

problem is, as always, excessive failure training, which ends up jacking tons of other stuff up.

anyway....wonder where kingfish and wayne went?

[Big Bamboo]

or sled pulling/pushing.

problem is, as always, excessive failure training, which ends up jacking tons of other stuff up.

anyway....wonder where kingfish and wayne went?

Yes, excessive failure training is a bad idea.

kingfish is nuts. But sometimes I crack up when I read his posts. The problem on this board is that people overreact to stuff like that. So someone says something insane, who cares? Just laugh. Kinda like I do with all pro.

[kethnaab]

kingfish takes the cake though. I honestly think he is nuts.

He talks a lot of smack, but I really wonder if someone would be crazy enough to put that fugger in as a moderator of a forum...egads..

[kingfish3]

whatever you say. For the way people talk about one set and going to failure being bad, then 6 sets wouldn't be enough either for how you bash it so bad.

[jason_m]

Darden is a con man that is disliked *intensely* by several of the hit guys, like Leistner.

Why would you say he is a con-man? (Just curious if there's evidence that he misrepresented something, etc.)

Jason.

[Andalite]

kingfish takes the cake though. I honestly think he is nuts.

He talks a lot of smack, but I really wonder if someone would be crazy enough to put that fugger in as a moderator of a forum...egads..

i agree..... damn.... please tell me why HIT advocates are such dicks...?

i mean, look at me...i'd train on any system just to see what its about... but do you find me ranting about how good only ONE kind of training is..?

jeez get a life Kingfish....

Andalite

[all pro]

well, the idea is that it's almost a negative self-fulfilling prophecy

you think "my recovery sucks", so you train less frequently, which means you are sore everytime you go into the gym, which means you HAVE to train less frequently until the soreness subsides, then your recovery starts to really suck becuse you're only going to the gym 2x per week, so you get to the point where you CAN'T train anymore often than that, and, say midweek the wife asks you to move a couch or something and then you have to say "sorry sweetie, I'm trashed from my workout 4 days ago...." or your First Sergeant says "Sergeant Kethnaab, I need you to <fill in blank>" and you are too sore/tired to do it. Then you are just perpetuating the idea that weight lifting builds "nonfunctional showy muscles that aren't good for anything"

I dunno. I like to actually BE a badass, not just look like one. Conditioning is part of that, IMHO.

[/slight tangent]

Twice per week in the weight room and twice per week of GPP work is a common approach. Anyone who thinks they can just lift weights twice per week and sit on thier butts for 5 days is just plain lazy. They will decondition and find themselves sore most of the time. When I say lift weights twice per week I mean hit all muscle groups twice per week not some silly assed upper/lower split.

[kethnaab]

hey, upper/lower splits are great, as long as you are doing BOTH upper AND lower 2x per week!

[all pro]

hey, upper/lower splits are great, as long as you are doing BOTH upper AND lower 2x per week!

Agreed, and it proves my point. Upper lower split four work outs per week or fullbody twice per week. You simply ajust the volume to try and keep the same total or use the the split to boost the volume. I've found 4 day splits and twice per week on the field to be too much for me.

[kethnaab]

2x per week on the field? you mean football? yeah, that is way too much

[Big Bamboo]

Why would you say he is a con-man? (Just curious if there's evidence that he misrepresented something, etc.)

Jason.

Take a look at the "before and after" case studies he has done where guys gain like 50lbs of muscle in 6 weeks.

[Big Bamboo]

Twice per week in the weight room and twice per week of GPP work is a common approach. Anyone who thinks they can just lift weights twice per week and sit on thier butts for 5 days is just plain lazy. They will decondition and find themselves sore most of the time. When I say lift weights twice per week I mean hit all muscle groups twice per week not some silly assed upper/lower split.

Hah, more insanity. Funny, I'm not sore most of the time, and I'm gaining very well, thanks. A LOT of people do very well on 2 workouts/week.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly before, the scientific literature doesn't show any advantage of training more often. Not to mention that some of your favorite NFL teams don't train more than 2-3x/week, whole body workouts.

[Andrew.Cook]

Take a look at the "before and after" case studies he has done where guys gain like 50lbs of muscle in 6 weeks.

Drug free? I would be curious to read this... wasn't published by Kingfish was it? 50 lbs in 6 weeks, that would be 8 1/3 lbs of muscle per week. Man, what kind of diet would you have to be on to support that kind of growth? Plus you are claiming 50lbs of muscle, which means that there was even more weight gain, and we have not even taken into account the fat that was added.

Anyone have a good calculator to figure out the caloric intake needed to sustain 50lbs of muscular growth and probably at least another 15-20lbs of fat? It is making me feel stuffed just thinking about eating that much.

[Andrew.Cook]

Hah, more insanity. Funny, I'm not sore most of the time, and I'm gaining very well, thanks. A LOT of people do very well on 2 workouts/week.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly before, the scientific literature doesn't show any advantage of training more often. Not to mention that some of your favorite NFL teams don't train more than 2-3x/week, whole body workouts.

On season NFL players certainly get more than 2-3 workouts a week. The weights that they are moving just take the form of large sweaty men Off season NFL players still workout 4-5 days a week, with personal trainers. But you have to remember that NFL really spans the gambit from very large strong guys, and smaller guys who don't need to be all that strong, just fast. Then there are small and strong guys, and bigger guys that need to be fast... Point being, there would be no advantage to training football players like a powerlifter all the time. Football players at that level need sport specific training.

Some people might do ok on 2 days a week. If the stimulus was right... but they might do better on another program. Then again, they might not. But nobody knows unless they stop claiming "this works..." and they figure out what works best. All kinds of things might work. Not sure that this has been called into issue. Even people that dislike HIT will tell you that it isn't awful in the short term.

[Big Bamboo]

Drug free? I would be curious to read this... wasn't published by Kingfish was it? 50 lbs in 6 weeks, that would be 8 1/3 lbs of muscle per week. Man, what kind of diet would you have to be on to support that kind of growth? Plus you are claiming 50lbs of muscle, which means that there was even more weight gain, and we have not even taken into account the fat that was added.

Anyone have a good calculator to figure out the caloric intake needed to sustain 50lbs of muscular growth and probably at least another 15-20lbs of fat? It is making me feel stuffed just thinking about eating that much.

I'm exaggerating. I can't remember the exact #s he used. I'm saying that the claims are bogus. Take a look at Darden's newest book and his case study trainee.

[Andrew.Cook]

I'm exaggerating. I can't remember the exact #s he used. I'm saying that the claims are bogus. Take a look at Darden's newest book and his case study trainee.

Roger that, I went back and re-read the post. I just took it the wrong way... and yet, I would still like to see that. It is very Kingfish. Could Kingfish be the second coming of the HIT Messiah?

[TheCore]

I don't know how you guys feel after training, but I feel great, powerful and good! Not trashed at all!

Sure I trained hard, sometimes (when peaking) it's brutal, but that's only a couple of weeks, than the deloading starts...

What's the point in training to failure, so brutal that you feel so fatiqued you can't lif your own weener, when going to the bathroom?

I want weightlifting to improve my everyday life and sport, not get in the way of that. But that's just me I guess...

[Andrew.Cook]

I don't know how you guys feel after training, but I feel great, powerful and good! Not trashed at all!

Sure I trained hard, sometimes (when peaking) it's brutal, but that's only a couple of weeks, than the deloading starts...

What's the point in training to failure, so brutal that you feel so fatiqued you can't lif your own weener, when going to the bathroom?

I want weightlifting to improve my everyday life and sport, not get in the way of that. But that's just me I guess...

I'm with you... when I leave the gym, I feel like a million bucks (sometimes my legs are a little wobbly). Most days I even go grab my son from school and play football or soccer or baseball for an hour or so, after my workout. And I'm getting stronger, bigger... not at 8 1/3 pounds a week, mind you, but it is coming along.

[all pro]

Hah, more insanity. Funny, I'm not sore most of the time, and I'm gaining very well, thanks. A LOT of people do very well on 2 workouts/week.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly before, the scientific literature doesn't show any advantage of training more often. Not to mention that some of your favorite NFL teams don't train more than 2-3x/week, whole body workouts.

Are you learning disabled? Or maybe you just forgot to take your meds. That's exactly what I said. I only weight train TWICE per week. Full body both times.

[Big Bamboo]

Are you learning disabled? Or maybe you just forgot to take your meds. That's exactly what I said. I only weight train TWICE per week. Full body both times.

Let's see what you said:

Originally Posted by all pro
"Anyone who thinks they can just lift weights twice per week and sit on thier butts for 5 days is just plain lazy."

I know, clear articulation isn't one of your strong points.

[all pro]

Let's see what you said:

Originally Posted by all pro
"Anyone who thinks they can just lift weights twice per week and sit on thier butts for 5 days is just plain lazy."

I know, clear articulation isn't one of your strong points.

So. What part of that didn't you understand ? Oh wait a minute, I was speaking to Keth not you. I said full body twice or upper lower split 4 times. I don't think an experienced lifter needs to hit a muscle group more than twice per week. Now stop being a smart ass. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...&postcount=315

[MoGeaYuglay]

8 and a 3rd pounds of muscle a week is insane and unbelievable, i don't care if you are fulfilling the following criteria:

1) have outstanding genetics
2) are eating a ****load of the right sort of foods
3) are a beginner
4) doing the juice
and...
5) training HIT style

not happening, sorry. anyone have a can of lysol handy? cuz i smell bull**** up the wazoo.

[kethnaab]

Take a look at the "before and after" case studies he has done where guys gain like 50lbs of muscle in 6 weeks.

by that token, Arthur Jones is a monster con-man/fake

glad we agree on this

Let's see what you said:

Originally Posted by all pro
"Anyone who thinks they can just lift weights twice per week and sit on thier butts for 5 days is just plain lazy."

I know, clear articulation isn't one of your strong points.

he doesn't sit on his ass the other 5 days per week though.

[Andrew.Cook]

So. What part of that didn't you understand ? Oh wait a minute, I was speaking to Keth not you. I said full body twice or upper lower split 4 times. I don't think an experienced lifter needs to hit a muscle group more than twice per week. Now stop being a smart ass.

Hmmmm, I think I disagree with this. Not on the concept of it... I mean, this may be exactly what YOU need, but I would say that an experienced lifter should be in the gym as often as he can, as long as the recovery is there. For me, I find that I can keep up a pretty solid every other day pace, which lands me in the gym, full body, about 6 days out of every 14 (on the average, taking into account those days when I just CAN'T get into the gym). Volume is down, but frequency is up. I think I prefer this approach to the more "traditional" muscle thrash followed by several days of recovery. But, as an experienced lifter, I have experienced several different training methods, and this is just what suits me best at this stage of my training.