Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objective Bodybuilding

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Incidentally:

Last word about HIT/Mentzer. Be wary of the low volume. Chances are working out once every four or five days will not be enough of a calorie expenditure for most people. And if you further compound this with a ban on aerobics as most HIT advocates suggest (with this I strongly disagree), you could easliy start gaining weight.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but that's exactly why I keep the aerobic exercise to the minimum. My metabolism is through the roof, and I need to keep every calorie I can!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Incidentally:

Well, I can only speak for myself, but that's exactly why I keep the aerobic exercise to the minimum.  My metabolism is through the roof, and I need to keep every calorie I can!

You're lucky. If I so much as look at a donut or ice cream, I gain weight. If you are what they call a "hardgainer"; ie a lean body type that is resistant to putting on muscle mass, than HIT/HD (Mentzer's HIT) is probably better suited for your metabolism. This is what I meant by "metobolic individuality."

However, you should know a couple of things. If you go to Brian Haycock's site or if you read those comentators who actually read scientific studies, it seems that the notion that aerobic exercise automatically results in muscle catabolism is questionable. I've seen studies which suggest that this is not true or that it would take an extremely large amount of aerobic exercise. Couple this with the many studies that indicate that moderate level aerobic exercise results in many health benefits. This is one of my points of disagreement with Mentzer (even though I had great respect for him and actually personally consulted with him when he was alive). When I compare my health with and without aerobic exercise, keeping diet and training equal, my sense of wellness is far better with. Everything from sleeping patterns to skin dryness seems affected. I personally feel that some level of moderate level aerobic exercise is necessary for overall health.

Lastly, if your goal is to lower your body fat to single digits; ie to get that "ripped" look or those "six pack" abs, then aerobic exercise will be mandatory. You simply will not be able to loose the required bodyfat on diet and weight training alone (not unless you are a genetic freak).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mentzer's system is superb and I am making steady increases in strength on it  all the time.

End of story.

HST looks suspiciously like standard volume training with a few knobs on as far as I can see.

I could be wrong, but I do believe the goal of HIT is hypertrophy, not strength. If you're going solely after strength, then that's a different story. In any case, your anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific proof that HIT is "superb." Also, your comments on HST make me wonder if you have even read my posts or have ever looked at a physiology journal. I'm not interested in "ending the story," rather I'm trying to make people aware of the facts of reality already discovered by exercise physiologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, therefore, that the first principle that should guide are our physycal training sessions is not just more muscle - but better harmony, better general physical abilities and better health. I've been looking for the right, balanced, training program for years now, and I haven't found it yet. They are all giving too much focus to just one aspect, and pay almost no regard to the rest.

Can anyone recommend a good program, or a good book on the subject?

I find that combining banana bag training w/ free weights gives me a nice balance. For strength training, the bible is "Supertraining" by Siff. For hypertrophy, Haycock is currently writing a book on HST, so I'd wait for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed to be an expert.  :huh:

<Snip>It seems to me dangerously uneven to develop your body to such an extreme, while neglecting your heart and lungs.

If this is wrong, at least it seems very intuitive.

Now, if you have some contradicting facts - please enlighten me. I profess to know very little of this subject. :confused:

One does not need to be an expert on weightlifting to know that there are many contributing factors to heart trouble including lifestyle and genetics.

And even if you hear of a world's strongest man contestant dropping dead with a heart attack, then you can safely assume that he was loaded up on steroids which are never good for your heart.

That is why your fear that HIT was dangerous because it's prime proponent died of a heart attack was daft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I do believe the goal of HIT is hypertrophy, not strength.  If you're going solely after strength, then that's a different story.  In any case, your anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific proof that HIT is "superb."  Also, your comments on HST make me wonder if you have even read my posts or have ever looked at a physiology journal.  I'm not interested in "ending the story," rather I'm trying to make people aware of the facts of reality already discovered by exercise physiologists.

My comments on HST were made because I read the site linked here and found it to be just standard volume training with knobs on.

I have indeed read your posts and the site and I stick to what I said.

As for strength vs hypertrophy, I ask hopw you are supposed to measure hypertrophy over the short term.

If you gained 30lbs of muscle, an amazing feat, that averages out to slightly over an ounce a day. And that is assuming that gains are made linearly over time

HD states that you should train for strength, with plenty of explanation why, and using it, I have always gained regularly in strength. And if I persist, the strength is followed by hypertrophy and weight gain.

I've never looked at a physiology journal I admit but I don't think I need to. I know what to do in a gym

My mate has also taken up HD and gone from being a weed to working as a bouncer, gaining about 40lbs in weight in the process and gaining about 3.5 inches on his biceps as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One does not need to be an expert on weightlifting to know that there are many contributing factors to heart trouble including lifestyle and genetics.

And even if you hear of a world's strongest man contestant dropping dead with a heart attack, then you can safely assume that he was loaded up on steroids which are never good for your heart.

Except blaiming steroids, asserting there are "many factors" that contribue to heart trouble, and calling me daft - you have not addressed my concerns at all.

Is it, or is it not, dangerous to pump up your muscles to such an extreme, without excersizing your heart and lungs to be able to support them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except blaiming steroids, asserting there are "many factors" that contribue to heart trouble, and calling me daft - you have not addressed my concerns at all.

Is it, or is it not, dangerous to pump up your muscles to such an extreme, without excersizing your heart and lungs to be able to support them?

Bodybuilders of the size of Mentzer or bigger are genetic freaks and most people don't have the capacity to build thta much muscle full stop.

The steroid doses used by today's bodybuilders are literally hundreds or even thousands of times the medical dose. That is why they have such health trouble.

In Mentzer's case, he wasn't a freak in terms of his recoverability as some other bodybuilders are and I think that 70's bodybuilders didn't use the doses that today's ones do.

Mentzer admitted that he took drugs, in cycles, but he stopped using them after he stopped competing.

As well as that, his system is designed for the natural trainer.

You almost certainly will not reach the size of a competitive bodybuilder without being a genetic freak and a drug user anyway so there is no need to worry about it damaging your heart.

There are studies showing that weightlifting is more aerobic than aerobics but I would need time to look them up.

Even if you are worried then just add some aerobics anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are studies showing that weightlifting is more aerobic than aerobics but I would need time to look them up

I know when I lift my heart gets going pretty good and from reading what little I have read about Mentzer’s program, I’d think I’d be sweating pretty good by the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks BlackSabbath.

That's what I'm doing right now: combining aerobics and weightlifting.

I would like to hear more about the aerobic benefits of weightlifting. My heart-rate goes up when I lift, but I think never reaches 180% of my rest heart-rate.

When I do aerobics I keep at around 180% for at least twenty mintues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Snip>

I considered Mentzer's, but it bothers me that he died from a heart attack at so young an age - and nobody, as far as I'm know, ever asked if it has anything to do with his High Intensity program...

Maybe it has nothing to do with it, but until I hear more about it I will be suspicious of HIT.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's theory may seem wrong - but at least he is still alive and well!

Since my main interest in working out is keeping my health, and growing muscles is a distant second - I need to look at it from the health perspective .

This is the other reason that I thought you were being daft.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's twice-daily 2hour workouts six days a week will definitely attack your health and you won't have to wait till your 50's either.

The only thing that will save you is that your training will become highly aversive and the persistent soreness will force you to stop. Either that or your training will be so Mickey-Mouse in nature that you will get nowhere anyway.

Arnie was a genetic freak in his recuperative powers and he took steroids. Probably not the prodigious quantities of today's competitors but still a recuperative aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you could call it an ignorant question, which I admit it is. But daft?

What do I know about how many steroids did Schwarzenegger take?  I don't even like his movies...  :blink:

In the case of the weight-training, ignorant is probably a better description.

You have my apologies in that case but it did seem daft to me that 1 hour of training a week is bad for your heart but 24 hours a week, while wrong, will not affect your heart.

To be honest, I don't do aerobics because I hate stamina-type exercise. My aerobic capacity has improved markedly because I don't need to take as much rest time after squatting to get my breath back.

You could benefit from dropping your aerobics as well. It's up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never looked at a physiology journal I admit but I don't think I need to. I know what to do in a gym

Training for hypertrophy w/o understanding basic muscle-cell physiology is tantamount to formulating an ethical code w/o studying man's nature. If you don't think you need to study the science, then nothing I say will change your mind. I've lost interest in debating this thread any further. Exercise physiologists are discovering the facts of hypertrophy - either keep up to date on the research or listen to others who have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training for hypertrophy w/o understanding basic muscle-cell physiology is tantamount to formulating an ethical code w/o studying man's nature.  If you don't think you need to study the science, then nothing I say will change your mind.  I've lost interest in debating this thread any further.  Exercise physiologists are discovering the facts of hypertrophy - either keep up to date on the research or listen to others who have.

Given that the link you posted consists of nothing more than standard volume training with knobs on, I reject HST.

I also reject any theory that suggests that double split training may be beneficial as well.

I stick to HD because I have found it to be true and I have made excellent progress and there is nothing more to say.

p.s. Erandor, good luck and let us know what kind of progress you make if any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The best part of Mentzer's system is that it's geared towards natural bodybuilders. The key to his program is now pretty much universal to non-steroid-using bodybuilders (aside from the genetically blessed) in that LESS IS MORE.

The big mistake that many young bodybuilders make is in overtraining. I used to do this myself, and after a year of excercising with only chronic injuries to show for it, following Mentzer's advice has been a godsend.

The fundamental rules are:

1) Give absolutely EVERYTHING you have while working out and keep the workout down around 1 hr in duration. Keep number of sets low, but take each set to absolute failure.

2) Allow sufficient recovery time (Don't work out 2 days in a row).

3) Make sure to keep chest/shoulders/triceps on the same day, otherwise tris get overtaxed by being worked more than one time per cycle.

These basic principles have helped me a great deal. My injuries are healing up nicely and I'm lifting more than ever before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Training for hypertrophy w/o understanding basic muscle-cell physiology is tantamount to formulating an ethical code w/o studying man's nature.  If you don't think you need to study the science, then nothing I say will change your mind.  I've lost interest in debating this thread any further.  Exercise physiologists are discovering the facts of hypertrophy - either keep up to date on the research or listen to others who have.

I think you guys misunderstand Bang Sing's reasoning for posting the HST material. Its not about which system you like better. The philosophical issue (and more a scientific issue) is which system is more in line with the requirements for muscle growth. Now, again I don't want to be disrespectful to the dead, but Mentzer was not an exercise physiologist. There is alot of science on training systems. HIT has not proved itself to be the best training protocal universally although many people have positive experiences with it. It incorporates some of the necessities for muscle growth which is why people grow, but it can't be said to be scientifically superior to other training systems despite Mentzer's claims. Here, I feel that he oversimplified and spoke where he shouldn't have. He approached the subject almost rationalistically in that he was making universal claims while ignoring the mountains of data that were being collected in study after study. If all he had said was that HIT was a good training system which stimulated muscle growth for certain body types, no one would have had a problem with that. But by claiming HIT was the only or best system for buliding muscle and maximizing genetic potential, he left himself open for criticism.

Personally, after using both HIT and HST, I can say that I respond vastly better to an HST (or Periodiztion) type of protocol. I have greater size and don't have to deal with the huge demands on the central nervous system that training to failure produces. If you ever have time and you are a training enthusiast, I would recommend you read the forum at HST. Specifically read Haycock's writing. He has an excellent epistemology (I don't think he is an O'ist) and focuses on taking empirically tested research and building a training system that incorporates all that is known scientifically about building muscle. As an Objectivist I don't see how you can say anything bad about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck to you then.

It still looks like volume training with knobs on to me and don't get me started o periodization programs!

How do you record your progress week-by-week using HST?

Your training regimen is fixed before you even begin. You figure out 5RMs, 10RMs, and 15RMs and place each in a two week cycle. There are 6 days in the cycle. You do the same workout each of the six days. The sixth day will be your RM for that cycle. All the other workouts are done using weight that is less than your RM spaced out at either 5 or 10 lb intervals. You do an extra cycle using 5RM and negatives. Aftewards you do a 9-12 day Strategic Deconditioning (SD) and then you repeat the cyle. Its powerful I tell you. Coming off of a HIT routine, your muscles will respond even more IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...