Objective Bodybuilding

[tnunamak]

Try this:

http://www.exercisecertification.com/artic...erobicmyth.html

The article that you posted is no longer online, but I would be interested in hearing about what the "aerobic myth" could be.

I took a physiology of exercise class last semester, and one thing that became very clear to me was that the aerobic and anaerobic systems each respond to very different stimuli. By hitting the gym, you are stimulating your anaerobic system, and not your aerobic system.

There is a reason for why oxygen consumption is measured in volume/bodyweight/time, instead of volume/time. What might be plenty of oxygen for a 150 lb person might be far less than ideal for a 210 lb person. Each unit of body mass/weight needs a certain amount of oxygen. If your pool of oxygen, that is, how much oxygen your system can circulate per minute, stays the same, but you increase your bodyweight, then you have a growing need for oxygen but the supply is not growing.

I could see this contributing to many heart-failure problems. While it might not be enough alone to induce a heart attack, studies have shown that having a higher heart rate is an indicator to an increase of the likelyhood of heart failure.

The real question becomes, does weight lifting stimulate the cardiovascular system to an extent which causes it to develop at a rate proportional to the amount of bodyweight being accumulated? Until I see specific evidence indicating otherwise (which is why I wish that the link you posted still worked), I'm going to have to say no.

[ex_banana-eater]

You mean training taxes only CNS and muscles (my interpretation) or just CNS?

Both, and the CNS at different rates depending on type of training.

At any rate, I question the idea that CNS recovery will not matter toward hypertrophy,

Mechanical load matters with regard to hypertrophy. Assuming the CNS is up for mechanical loads that do not induce the repeated bout effect, then one need not worry about the CNS.

though I'll have to dig into my magazines this weekend for any "proof."

Get proof from www.pubmed.com . I have repeatedly seen magazines (if they even care enough to site sources) misrepresent the studies the cite, use strength studies that don't measure muscle growth for hypertrophy routines they design, etc.

I will note that training also taxes the ligaments and/or tendons in disproportionately increasing amounts compared to the muscles as weight is increased, and that this can affect one's capacity to lift - and thus hypertrophy.

Focussing on hypertrophy (in contrast to other routines), one needs increased frequency and an increasing mechanical load. This does not mean increased loads.

Yes, ligaments and tendons effect one's capacity to lift. I think that's irrelevent to our discussion though unless we are talking about injuries or joints that are unable to support the weights required to train for hypertrophy.

Assuming you're not speaking of pre-exhaust, I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

I'm talking about taking periods off from exercise to replace the repeated bout effect, decondition one's muscles, lower one's strength capacity, etc., in order to increase mechanical loads while training.

Steroids can enhance existing (but untapped) capacities, but training principles still apply to them.

No. Reasons I've explained in last post.

I disagree here. If me and some 260 lb non-steroid person both go comparatively all out, he's going to have to rest more than me (I am, for intents and purposes, a "healthy, trained athlete," so IMO such a comparison is valid.)

What do you disagree with? I am not talking about anything you are talking about obviously.

Just as lifting weights does not increase cardiovascular endurance at the exact same rate as hypertrophy occurs, there is not a direct 1:1 correlation between increasing one's muscle mass/power and increasing one's recuperative capacity.

I do not disagree with this, but I see no relation to what I had emphasized in my post.

So is that it?

I can get increases in growth 50 days after a training session by altering diet.

Muscle biopsies show the factors active in creating muscular hypertrophy are reduced from their spike after 36-48 hours. "Growing" after these periods does not "contradict" any of that.

I'm about to start a weights routine (I currently weigh 145 pounds ). However, I do fairly intense martial arts training 3-4 days a week, which includes full-contact sparring at pretty much every session. I'm guessing that a program such as Mentzer's, which involves training to failure, would be a pretty bad idea given my circumstances - could someone more knowledgable than me confirm/deny whether this is true?

cheers.

We don't know what your circumstances are. What are your goals?

[hunterrose]

The problem still seems to me to be that you can't generalize what works for most people and attempt to apply it to everyone.

Greater success is achieved through avoiding neuromuscular failure during exercise, as the study I posted proves in both strength and body composition.

No, it doesn't.

The study attempts to use people of nearly identical body types - what of people of different body types? How does it make the proof that everyone's body will respond to this minute group's response to failure? I could concoct an similar experiment that shows a group of people score better on tests via regular study over cramming... that doesn't prove that everybody will do better from regular study.

The participants are "physically-active," but they increased their 1RM bench and squat by 20+% in four months?? Even if we assumed that weight/rep amounts was a proper standard for determining hypertrophy, the fact that these "physically-active" people increased their numbers so drastically over a four month period suggests that they are poor indicators for those who actually are physically active.

The study uses the group averages to make its conclusions. It is quite possible (and unstated whether?) a few individuals in the RF group significantly outperformed their group members, or that some NRF people significantly underperformed compared to their group's average. Are we to merely assume that these special cases would have had similar results if they were put in a different group? If so, on what basis?

The study's interpretation of real failure is unknown. Popping 65 lbs off one's chest until it can no longer be lifted would have a significantly different effect than benching 315 to failure.

All the experiments in the world can be thrown around here, but they still pale to one's own experienced results, for their own particular body, in the gym. If someone tries different routines, and finds an unorthodox one works best for her, the idea that a lab experiment - that was never performed on her - supersedes any results she's found (obviously the poor fool has either trained improperly or misinterpreted her own results) doesn't work.

[Inspector]

Muscle biopsies show the factors active in creating muscular hypertrophy are reduced from their spike after 36-48 hours. "Growing" after these periods does not "contradict" any of that.

So if you can achieve significant, or even greater, growth after 36-48 hours by training to failure, then what use is it to say that "the factors active in creating muscular hypertrophy are reduced from their spike after 36-48 hours?"

[ex_banana-eater]

So if you can achieve significant, or even greater, growth after 36-48 hours by training to failure, then what use is it to say that "the factors active in creating muscular hypertrophy are reduced from their spike after 36-48 hours?"

Maybe I was too vague. The training stimulus has heightened satellite cell activity, intramuscular IGF-1, ribosomal activity, and other factors during that period. Growth can occur without training, for example, through increased calorie intake or protein consumption. That's why we need muscle biopsies, not Nautilus North studies to look at whether the effect is the result of training.

[Inspector]

Growth can occur without training, for example, through increased calorie intake or protein consumption. That's why we need muscle biopsies, not Nautilus North studies to look at whether the effect is the result of training.

Are you saying that all growth from any kind of training will completely cease after 48 hours?

[konerko14]

Who is willing to continue this discussion on Mike Mentzer's system with me?

[Cnqwst]

Hello all,

I agree with most of what Mike Mentzer has taught on the subject of HIT (High-Intensity Training).

I have owned and managed Uniflex Gym. My previous experience with weight training was High Intensity,

Long Duration weight lifting, like most anybody else that grew up in the Swarznegger, Platz, Coe, Zane era (70 & 80s).

I have read Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty books & Muscles in Minutes & watched Mike's HIT exercise video Secrets to Building Muscles in Minutes. It was Mr. Mentzer's book Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body, that introduced me to Objectivism.

In my research & study of the subject of Exercise Science, I have learned that the One Set to failure system

has resulted in negative results. Severe tear of the Sartorius (Inner thigh muscle). Brusing of the Pyramidalis (lower ab area). I was using

the Angled Leg Press apparatus. I have also injured myself to the Fascia thoracolumbalis (lower back area). I was performing the Deadlifts.

Mike's book Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body, Page 105 #6. Training to Failure: "Many bodybuilders fail to achieve optimal results due to their

reluctance to train to a point of momentary muscular failure. Contrary to widespread opinion, the last rep of a set carried to failure is not the

most dangerous. In fact, it should be the safest, because by the last rep you are actually at your weakest, barely able to generate enough

force to complete it. It is the first few reps, when you are strongest and able to generate more force than required to move the resistance,

which are most dangerous."

I have replaced the One Set system, with a 3 set Light, Moderate, Heavy system. I have had great results without injuring myself.

If our muscles were made out of Tungsten, then the 1 Set system would be the one to use.

My workouts consist of:

8 workouts per month.

1 leg workout per week, 1 chest and back workout every other week, with an arm and ab workout in between weeks.

I go up in weight/stress every workout. I wrote a utility for the palm handheld that I was marketing on the web years back ( Iron Logic Trainer ver 1.0). I used the software to gauge my PPSI (Per Pound Strength Index) & monitor my muscle gains.

I removed it from most of the retailers for non-payment of royalties (moocher mentality).

Work out slow & controlled, control the forces of momentum & gravity & your body will compensate with added muscle mass.

Bob

[Alessa36]

I just saw a couple of posts on another thread about Mike Mentzer's weightlifting system. I had never heard of him before, but have been lifting weights for a couple of years. I googled him, but was unable to find any of the key points of his system. I am very interested. Could one of you who is familiar with his system outline some of the basics for me?

BINGBANGSingh: You asserted that Mentzer's system is incorrect. I would also be interested in seeing your side of things in this thread.

After a previous thread referred to HIT via mentzers system I read his book. His primary goal was to compete in weightlifting competitions and grow in size. He wasn't very concerned about health and fitness, just physique (looks for competition) and muscle growth (size for competition). He sported the classic inverted triangle look. He geared his diet to allow him to remain lean enough to show his muscles for competition.

Its true, if you use his system, it would be counterproductive to also pursue cardiovascular training say run 5 miles or do a spin class since his program requires excess amount of recovery time.

Had he done some cardio exercise he may have prevented his predisposition to a heart attack.

[Inspector]

Alessa, as you know I disagree with your statement about Mentzer's heart health, and also with the usefulness of cardio. This was covered extensively in the thread on aerobics, so I won't repeat it here.

Cnqwst, I have also appreciated Mike Mentzer's system and "upgraded" from it to a safer system. But, I didn't have to compromise the effectiveness or intensity of my workouts to do so. Quite the opposite, in fact. You should check out John Little's Max Contraction; it offers the best of both intensity and safety.

[Alfa]

Regarding Mentzer's health, I have read that Mike's heart failure was due to a rare blood disease, which basically made his blood "clot". This was was first discovered in his brother, Ray, but it's genetic so Mike got it too.

And regarding no cardio and only HIT, I think a better example would be Dr. Ellington Darden...

[Alessa36]

Alessa, as you know I disagree with your statement about Mentzer's heart health, and also with the usefulness of cardio.

I agree with this statement found on John Little's site ....Aerobic, as the name implies, burns mainly body fat for fuel and requires the presence of oxygen to do so. Aerobic training is a necessity if your objective is endurance-related activities such as distance running, cross-country skiing or other enterprises in which endurance is a factor. When your objective is building additional muscle mass, however, you will not be burning oxygen, but rather glycogen as your fuel of choice, which is stored within the muscles you are training. The first 1 to 6-seconds of muscular contraction are, in fact, fueled by ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is a compound responsible for all bodily functions, from muscular contraction to thought.

I wanted dondigitalia (spell check) to know what HIT is, and is not, based on what I have read.

[Alessa36]

Regarding Mentzer's health, I have read that Mike's heart failure was due to a rare blood disease, which basically made his blood "clot". This was was first discovered in his brother, Ray, but it's genetic so Mike got it too.

And regarding no cardio and only HIT, I think a better example would be Dr. Ellington Darden...

I'd like to see Jim Flannahan chase me down the block with all that bulk...lol... ( if he caught me, he'd curl me with one arm). You know, with all these hunky muscle guys on this site how come no one is sending me pictures (smile)

Alfa, if i am training for triathlons, there is no way just weight lifting would prepare me for that type of competition.

[Cnqwst]

Cnqwst, I have also appreciated Mike Mentzer's system and "upgraded" from it to a safer system. But, I didn't have to compromise the effectiveness or intensity of my workouts to do so. Quite the opposite, in fact. You should check out John Little's Max Contraction; it offers the best of both intensity and safety.

Inspector, I have totally researched Peter Sisco and John Little's weightlifting methods.

I have the books Power Factor Training & Static Contraction Training.

I actually used a similar gauging system to that in Power Factor Training when I developed IronLogic Trainer http://pdamedisoft.com/PalmOS/IronLogic-Trainer . The deviation from their system was that I removed time as one of the input factors. I found that I needed more recovery time as the workload increased, so I decided against the predetermined rest periods. I also felt that rushing a routine to beat the clock was unsafe, my focus was not always ready by the time my lift was to occur. Range of motion was another reason against the maxcontraction system.

Bob

[Cnqwst]

Its true, if you use his system, it would be counterproductive to also pursue cardiovascular training say run 5 miles or do a spin class since his program requires excess amount of recovery time.

Had he done some cardio exercise he may have prevented his predisposition to a heart attack.

Alessa36, you are correct in your evaluation about mixing cardiovascular training w/ anerobic training for the purpose of Muscle hypertrophy.

Mike Mentzer was a bodybuilder, his purpose was to build huge proportioned muscles. Mike Mentzer advocated keeping the rest periods between sets short to keep the heart rate up. A hybrid system of anerobic/aerobic would have been counter productive in his goal.

As far as his heart health, Mike had shared his abuse of chemical stimulants during his research of both objectivism and his business of Mentoring HIT clientele. I'd not heard him admit to steroid use, but other bodybuilders at his championship level admitted that steroid use was a must.

Bob

[Alfa]

I'd like to see Jim Flannahan chase me down the block with all that bulk...lol... ( if he caught me, he'd curl me with one arm). You know, with all these hunky muscle guys on this site how come no one is sending me pictures (smile)

Alfa, if i am training for triathlons, there is no way just weight lifting would prepare me for that type of competition.

Mr. Flanagan would not have to chase you round the block, I bet he would catch you within 60 yards.

Seriously, of course he's got too much muscle to be a runner. You can't expect a bodybuilder to outrun a runner, that won't happen. But it has nothing to do with cardiovascular health.

Weight lifting alone cannot make you a good triathlete. You would, at the very least, need to develop some skill for the triathlons.

[Alessa36]

Inspector, I have totally researched Peter Sisco and John Little's weightlifting methods.

I have the books Power Factor Training & Static Contraction Training.

I actually used a similar gauging system to that in Power Factor Training when I developed IronLogic Trainer http://pdamedisoft.com/PalmOS/IronLogic-Trainer . The deviation from their system was that I removed time as one of the input factors. I found that I needed more recovery time as the workload increased, so I decided against the predetermined rest periods. I also felt that rushing a routine to beat the clock was unsafe, my focus was not always ready by the time my lift was to occur. Range of motion was another reason against the maxcontraction system.

Bob

My BF and I are curious and plan to do this system..me limited as i am training for a marathon in march , he can do it for as long as he likes.

Q: How do we decide the weight increase if we are using a forward chest press at say 100lbs. Do we increase 40% or 50% etc. Or is it trial and error?

Q: what is the warm up recommended?

[Inspector]

Inspector, I have totally researched Peter Sisco and John Little's weightlifting methods.

Oh, cool. He has developed new research since then, so it may still interest you to check it out. Happy workouts!

[Maarten]

I agree with this statement found on John Little's site ....Aerobic, as the name implies, burns mainly body fat for fuel and requires the presence of oxygen to do so. Aerobic training is a necessity if your objective is endurance-related activities such as distance running, cross-country skiing or other enterprises in which endurance is a factor. When your objective is building additional muscle mass, however, you will not be burning oxygen, but rather glycogen as your fuel of choice, which is stored within the muscles you are training.

There is a small mistake here in your statement. It is not possible to burn oxygen, so I think the statement in italic should have read: you will not be burning body fat.

The first 1 to 6-seconds of muscular contraction are, in fact, fueled by ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is a compound responsible for all bodily functions, from muscular contraction to thought.

All seconds of muscular contraction are fueled by ATP. The only difference is in the way it is produced by the cells. Maybe what you mean is that the ATP stores in the cells are only good for 1-6 seconds of muscular contraction. That makes more sense to me, anyway. One thing to realize when talking about the cellular level is that cells cannot maintain high concentrations of small molecules, such as ATP. There are hundreds of different small molecules in a cell, and when you add their concentrations together you come up with some pretty high numbers, even though the concentration of each specific molecule is low. There is a certain maximum limit of small molecules that can be around in a cell, which is why they don't store enough energy in the form of ATP to last them for three days of muscular contraction. Athletes everywhere would thank their muscle cells if they did that, but alas

The important thing to realize is the following: most of the energy you are using at any given point in time is being continually produced. The rate at which this happens is quite high compared to the amount of a certain molecule that is present, and if metabolism were to ever shut down in a cell that cell would run out of ATP in a few seconds. So, the main issue here is the energy production, not the amount of reserves.

I haven't studied in detail how human muscle cells make their energy, but I am pretty sure the essence of the system is similar to how other living organisms produce energy. Normally speaking, higher eukaryotes (such as humans) have a very efficient metabolic system that is designed to extract the maximum amount of energy out of their chosen source of fuel. In the most straightforward way of aerobical glucose metabolism there are about 20ish chemical reactions. In some of these, electrons are freed up from the glucose molecule, and these are temporarily taken up by electron carriers. These electrons are then taken to the respiratory chain in the cell, where they are taken up and transported step by step through the protein complexes fixed in the membrane of the mitochondria (the cellular compartment responsible for producing energy). Eventually, these electrons are donated to oxygen. In this case, oxygen serves as the terminal electron acceptor, which is where the aerobic comes from.

Because of the transport of the electrons protons are pumped across the membrane, which are then used to "power" the protein complex that produces ATP. For example, a human cell burning glucose aerobically can get around 32-36 moles of ATP from one mole of glucose. However, as in most cases, maximizing the efficiency of a process comes at a cost; the process is relatively slow. As I mentioned earlier, the electrons that are freed during the stepwise combustion of glucose are taken up by electron carriers. These then need to be regenerated in order to be of use to the cell again. Doing this aerobically takes a much longer time, compared to anaerobic regeneration of the electron carrier.

In this case, the process cells use to obtain their energy is based on substrate-level phosphorylation (which means that ATP is produced directly as a by-product of the chemical reaction occuring in the body). These substrate-level phosphorylations also occur in aerobic metabolism, but in this case glucose is initially only broken down to pyruvate. Because this also causes a buildup of reduced electron carriers, the cell needs to regenerate these in some way, or the initial part of metabolism will just shut down. That is the point at which lactic acid is formed. While a cell's conversion of pyruvate to lactic acid makes its more efficient brothers cringe all throughout the body, this particular muscle cell doesn't care because it needed to reduce that electron carrier yesterday

This is highly inefficient from an energy efficiency standpoint, mainly because there is still a huge amount of energy in lactic acid and the cell is basically throwing this energy away. However, in some cases it is definitely better to be fast and inefficient, rather than slow and efficient. As the name implies, lactic acid is an acid, and it makes the cellular environment more acidic. As far as I am aware, that is the main reason your muscles eventually cannot function any more. Another problem is probably that at some point your sugar reserves will run out, but I am not sure if that is the case here.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Maarten

[Cnqwst]

My BF and I are curious and plan to do this system..me limited as i am training for a marathon in march , he can do it for as long as he likes.

Q: How do we decide the weight increase if we are using a forward chest press at say 100lbs. Do we increase 40% or 50% etc. Or is it trial and error?

Q: what is the warm up recommended?

Alessa36,

It would not be in your best interest to even attempt HIT training if you are training for your marathon. Opposite sides of the exercise spectrum.

Ex. If a 150 Lb. lifter were to lift 3 sets of 5 reps @ 175 lbs. This lifter would be lifting an AVWT (Average Weight) of 175 LBS.

The PPSI (Pound for Pound Strength Index) would be at 100%. To determine the stress/resistance weight increase for the next workout,

This lifter would select the previous workout and click the duplicate icon (Double yellow sheets with red outline w/ blue +) to create another worksheet. Add 5 lbs to the 3rd set and click on the calculator icon. The AVWT would increase by 1 lb. but the PPSI would still be at 100.

Add 5 lbs to the 2nd set and click the calculator icon. The AVWT would increase by 2 lbs and the PPSI would now move up to 101.

I don't support the software any longer, some of the retailers have failed to pull it from their sites. If I can locate a 3.5 drive I may upload an excel version.

The warm up recommended is minimal. Ex. Bench press only one warm up set (olympic bar only) or push ups. A second partial set just to get the blood into the muscles and to get the crackles and pops out of the joints. Later as your stress/resistance needs increase, you will then have to add heavier warmup sets.

Lift Safe,

Bob

[Fireball]

Objective Bodybuilding

If most bodybuilders are stuck on the body side of the mind/body dichotomy, then most intellectuals are stuck on the mind side of the mind/body dichotomy. Neither situation is desirable. If you are an intellectual, you can develop your body in the most efficient manner possible by using Mike Mentzer's High-Intensity Training protocols.

First, it has been said by some people that Mentzer was not a scientist and thus his work is invalid. Such people cite scientists who have never lifted weights to disprove Mentzer's protocols. The fact is Mike Mentzer developed his bodybuilding protocols based upon his successful 30+ year career of weightlifting/bodybuilding and personally training thousands of clients. After extensive note taking, careful observation and a dedication to rational thinking, Mentzer assembled a program of objective bodybuilding.

The common approach to weightlifting & bodybuilding that is promulgated by the establishment is a high-volume/supplements approach. This has its origin in Europe -- particularly Germany -- during the early 20th century. Budding athletes such as Arnold Schwarzenegger & Franco Columbu adopted this approach in Germany in the mid-20th century. Upon immigrating to America, such people popularized it around the globe via magazines, books & seminars.

The high-volume/supplements approach is based upon German Idealism. This is expressed by the notions that you can "will" yourself into becoming muscular or "mind over muscle" or as Arnold says, "you must keep the muscles guessing". In practice, this translates into mindless activity: endless repetitions, endless sets, endless exercises, endless workouts. "If you will it, it will happen."

The problem with this approach is that it is subjective. Not being anchored in reality, adherents quickly burnout via overtraining and must turn to supplements to help the body recover from the exhaustive effects of chronic energy expenditure. Eventually supplements are not enough so adherents must turn to illegal/dangerous drugs such as steroids and growth hormones to endure endless exercise. Adherents that do not use copious amounts of supplements or illegal substances stagnate in their physical development. This is referred to as "hitting a plateau". Such people usually quit weightlifting within their first two years. The frustration is too much -- not to mention the chronic aches, pains & injuries.

The genius of Mike Mentzer was to take a road less traveled. He was viciously denounced and attacked for deviating from bodybuilding orthodoxy. Yet he was committed to a rational course of action even if the rest of the bodybuilding world rejected him. After extensive study, practice, experimentation and refinement, Mentzer developed a high-intensity/natural approach to bodybuilding. This literally took his entire life to complete. He died just hours after completing what he claimed was the final evolution of his High-Intensity Training protocols.

The high-intensity/natural approach to bodybuilding is based upon the research of Arthur Jones, Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Francis Bacon's scientific method. After much trial and error -- after developing theories and testing them in reality -- Mentzer revised & refined his protocols into an objective approach to bodybuilding. Contradicting the arbitrary assertions from the bodybuilding establishment such as "4 sets of 10", Mentzer propounded the idea of "1 set to failure". Yet the entire bodybuilding establishment, being based upon Subjectivism, was ensconced in supplements/drugs to keep it going. Mentzer's assertion meant that endless supplements/drugs were not necessary.

So Mentzer was attacked and dismissed as crazy. Advocates of subjective bodybuilding launched ad hominem attacks at Mentzer, even claiming he drank his own urine. In 1980 Arnold Schwarzenegger summoned his influence to "teach Mentzer a lesson". Yet reality cannot be denied for long. Thus people eventually learned his protocols and made consistent progress from minimal work. And this is the key to objective bodybuilding.

Nature is stingy when it comes to building muscles. A person will not build muscles by lifting a pencil 10 times or 100 times or a 1000 times. Such activity merely wastes time & energy. The key is doing the minimal amount of work necessary to stimulate muscular growth and then do no more. The rest of the body's energy is used in (1) recovering from the workout and later (2) repairing the damaged muscle fibers in a manner that causes a slight increase in their size and strength. That's it.

Upon integrating Mentzer's most developed works -- High-Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way (book) and Mike Mentzer's HIT Exercise DVD -- I've summarized his ideal workout:

Week 1: Torso (3 sets, 25 minutes)

Week 2: Legs (4 sets, 12 minutes)

Week 3: Shoulders/Arms (4 sets, 15 minutes)

Week 4: Legs (4 sets, 12 minutes)

This 4-week workout cycle takes approximately one hour per month and is repeated from month to month. Below are the actual exercises.

Torso Workout

Chest: 1 set chest flye (6-10 reps) superset with incline press (1-3 reps)

Back: 1 set straight-arm pull-down (6-10 reps) superset with palms-up pull-down (6-10 reps)

Entire body: 1 set deadlift (5-8 reps)

Legs Workout

Quadriceps: 1 set leg extension (8-15 reps) superset with leg press (8-15 reps)

Hamstrings: 1 set leg curls (8-15 reps)

Calves: 1 set standing calf raise (12-20 reps)

Abs: 1 set sit-up (12-20 reps)

Shoulders/Arms Workout

Shoulders: 1 set lateral raise (6-10 reps). 1 set bent-over raise (6-10 reps)

Biceps: 1 set curl (6-10 reps)

Triceps 1 set cable press-down (6-10 reps) superset with dip (3-5 reps)

Here are some tips for implementing Mentzer's High-Intensity Training protocols:

* Do the minimal amount of warm-up required to get your mind & body prepared.

* Machines such as Nautilus & Smith Machine are recommended for safety, good form & working the muscles in the fully contracted (isometric) position.

* Use Mentzer's 4-2-4 count on each rep: count 1, 2, 3, 4 on the positive portion of the lift then count 1, 2 on the isometric or contracted position and count 1, 2, 3, 4 on the negative portion of the lift. This works each aspect of the muscle fully and increases the intensity of the exercise by removing momentum (and makes each exercise safer).

* Workout approximately once per week -- some people might be ready for another workout in 6 days, others in 8 days or longer.

* Keep notes of each workout and make sure you progress in strength each workout. If you are not progressing, you might require more time between workouts.

* Beginners (0-1 year of lifting experience) should perform basic compound movements like the squat, deadlift, power clean, military press, bench press, bent-over row & chin-up to develop a basic foundation of strength and muscle mass.

* After 1 year or more of lifting experience, a person is ready to use High-Intensity Training protocols.

* According to Mentzer, you can fulfill your genetic potential for muscular development in 1 year using HIT protocols properly.

* Consult Mentzer's HIT book (2002) & HIT DVD (2004) for more information.

* Supplements such as creatine & protein powder are not inherently bad, but they should not be used to overcome improper training methods. Illegal drugs such as steroids & growth hormones should be avoided because they can distort body parts and permanently damage organs.

Edited February 14, 2007 by Fireball

[hunterrose]

If you are an intellectual, you can develop your body in the most efficient manner possible by using Mike Mentzer's High-Intensity Training protocols.

I have no problem with HIT or Mentzer. I do have a problem with the insinuation that only "high intensity"/low volume approaches are Objective.

The common approach to weightlifting & bodybuilding that is promulgated by the establishment is a high-volume/supplements approach... Not being anchored in reality, adherents quickly burnout via overtraining and must turn to supplements to help the body recover from the exhaustive effects of chronic energy expenditure. Eventually supplements are not enough so adherents must turn to illegal/dangerous drugs such as steroids and growth hormones to endure endless exercise.

The "high-volume" approach neither requires supplements (safe and unsafe) nor necessarily leads to overtraining.

In 1980 Arnold Schwarzenegger summoned his influence to "teach Mentzer a lesson".

Hehe.

The key is doing the minimal amount of work necessary to stimulate muscular growth and then do no more. The rest of the body's energy is used in (1) recovering from the workout and later (2) repairing the damaged muscle fibers in a manner that causes a slight increase in their size and strength. That's it.

The main problem with that is the assumption that one set at max weight is more stimulating than multiple sets at less than max weight.

This 4-week workout cycle takes approximately one hour per month and is repeated from month to month.

Working out 12-13 hours per year? How much have you grown since you began this ideal workout? How much bigger are your arms from one set of curls a month?

According to Mentzer, you can fulfill your genetic potential for muscular development in 1 year using HIT protocols properly.

So in other words, no one has ever done HIT properly? Or is there someone out there who actually has, in one year, developed to the point that they can't ever lift 10 pounds more?

[Inspector]

I do have a problem with the insinuation that only "high intensity"/low volume approaches are Objective.

Hehe, you should try it and then tell me that.

[Fireball]

I have no problem with HIT or Mentzer. I do have a problem with the insinuation that only "high intensity"/low volume approaches are Objective... The "high-volume" approach neither requires supplements (safe and unsafe) nor necessarily leads to overtraining... Hehe... The main problem with that is the assumption that one set at max weight is more stimulating than multiple sets at less than max weight... Working out 12-13 hours per year? How much have you grown since you began this ideal workout? How much bigger are your arms from one set of curls a month?... So in other words, no one has ever done HIT properly? Or is there someone out there who actually has, in one year, developed to the point that they can't ever lift 10 pounds more?

Below is a response from someone who was a practitioner of the Weider/Scwarzenegger high-volume approach. This person then implemented Mike Mentzer's high-intensity approach. In his own words:

"Using Mike's training protocall, I went from 190 to 205 at 5'4 1/2 in six weeks, gained muscle, lost fat and got incredibly strong. I went from doing inclines with 275 to 325 for six reps, heavy DB flyes with 45's to 90's preexhuasted with dips, leg ext ext with 100 lbs to 200 lbs pre-exhausted with squats from 300 to 400 lbs for 10 reps, straight arm pulldowns from 110 lbs to 175 lbs preexhausted with T-Bar rows from 125 to 215 lbs. Side DB laterals from 20 lbs to 40 lbs preexhausted with seated press behind the neck from 130 to 190, from 275 on bb shrugs to 425 preexhausted with upright rows from 125 to 195, preacher curls from 90 lbs to 145 lbs preexhausted with curl grip pulldowns from 125 to 200 lbs, 130 to 185 for 8 reps on standing curls using a wide grip on a olympic set and up to 225 lbs for cheat curls and negatives. Mr arms actually broke the 20 inch mark with this program. I also went from 115 on lying tricep presses to 185 preexhausted with close grip bench presses. On calf raises I went from 400 lbs to 800 lbs, going up on two feet and down on one..." (source)

[hunterrose]

Hehe, you should try it and then tell me that.

I'm not saying that HIT isn't Objective, I'm just saying that other methods (e.g. "high-volume") are also Objective when done properly.

While I still haven't done an official "high intensity" program, I do understand how it could be beneficial. A lot of times, after a week or two off from the gym, I come back stronger for the rest. Of course, this is also after having worked out 4-5 days a week, for several weeks.

I still think it's a matter of different strokes. Though for myself, all of my big gains have come when I'm doing "high volume".

Below is a response from someone who was a practitioner of the Weider/Scwarzenegger high-volume approach. This person then implemented Mike Mentzer's high-intensity approach. In his own words:

Ah, so it worked well for someone. But it'd be hard to make those kinda gains using the ideal workout.