Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

High Intensity Training Book Recommendation

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Yes if you could find those references I will give you a cookie :P

Okidoki, I can't resist cookies so.... :P

Here's the abstract:

Strength and endurance training produce widely diversified adaptations, with little overlap between them. Strength training typically results in increases in muscle mass and muscle strength. In contrast, endurance training induces increases in maximal oxygen uptake and metabolic adaptations that lead to an increased exercise capacity. In many sports, a combination of strength and endurance training is required to improve performance, but in some situations when strength and endurance training are performed simultaneously, a potential interference in strength development takes place, making such a combination seemingly incompatible. The phenomenon of concurrent training, or simultaneously training for strength and endurance, was first described in the scientific literature in 1980 by Robert C. Hickson, and although work that followed provided evidence for and against it, the interference effect seems to hold true in specific situations. At the molecular level, there seems to be an explanation for the interference of strength development during concurrent training; it is now clear that different forms of exercise induce antagonistic intracellular signaling mechanisms that, in turn, could have a negative impact on the muscle's adaptive response to this particular form of training. That is, activation of AMPK by endurance exercise may inhibit signaling to the protein-synthesis machinery by inhibiting the activity of mTOR and its downstream targets. The purpose of this review is to briefly describe the problem of concurrent strength and endurance training and to examine new data highlighting potential molecular mechanisms that may help explain the inhibition of strength development when strength and endurance training are performed simultaneously.

This is from a scientific article based on alot of different research(references included in the full length version, which I hope will get attached with this post)

Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: From Molecules to Man. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 38(11):1965-1970, November 2006:

Concurrent_Strength_and_Endurance_Training_From_Molecules_to_Man.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would appreciate it if you could create a separate thread for HST where you can argue for the merits of that method, after all, if you think that HST is the best method then it won't gain much attention hidden in a HIT thread. I have only looked at the web site and don't understand the scientific jargon so it is no use to me. However, feel free to recommend a book explaining it.

There's really no argument; it's either inductive science (HST) or rationalistic deduction (HIT) - the answer is clear to any Objectivist.

If you wish to understand bodybuilding, you must understand physiology - this is something that Mentzer never understood. With that in mind, I can recommend some books:

MaxStimulation.pdf

Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training

I'd also wait for Bryan Haycock's (HST) & Borge Fagerli's (Myo-Reps) magnum opuses. After reading these, it would take evasion on a massive scale to continue to accept Mentzer & his ilk.

Edited by abanger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really no argument; it's either inductive science (HST) or rationalistic deduction (HIT) - the answer is clear to any Objectivist.

If you wish to understand bodybuilding, you must understand physiology - this is something that Mentzer never understood. With that in mind, I can recommend some books:

MaxStimulation.pdf

Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training

I'd also wait for Bryan Haycock's (HST) & Borge Fagerli's (Myo-Reps) magnum opuses. After reading these, it would take evasion on a massive scale to continue to accept Mentzer & his ilk.

Since it is not clear to me I am no longer Objectivist, well it was nice while it lasted, I guess I'll turn to religion now. :P

Ok I don't understand physiology, I didn't evade on a massive scale, or even a small scale, and the link didn't help me. So HST may be great for bodybuilding scientists, but until it explains itself to the lay person, it won't be accepted by people, other than those that accept by faith or by authority. Although the author is just a name with no explanation as to who he is.

Please can you tell me what education you have undertaken in understanding physiology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that failure is superior for either strength gains or muscular hypertrophy has 1) Never been proven in the literature 2) Been repeatedly proven false for strength in experimental studies published in medical literature, and is decidedly inferior for strength compared to some general routines that don't incorporate failure.

Taken as a whole, the only thing the literature proves is that academic exercise physiology is an intellectual cesspool dominated by jocks and glorified PE instructors masquerading as scientists.

Edited by BRG253
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is listless friends, Mr abanger is on a mission. Training to failure is the best mass-inducing exercise protocol, and is used by top athletes worldwide, but is misunderstood as merely a piece of the overall training puzzle.... Yes, we use it :D

Please feel free to pose specific questions to me.

Edited by Seanjos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since it is not clear to me I am no longer Objectivist, well it was nice while it lasted, I guess I'll turn to religion now. :D

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

For the same reasons, in my judgment, anyone who follows HIT - in light of the overwhelming evidence against it - does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.

Ok I don't understand physiology, I didn't evade on a massive scale, or even a small scale, and the link didn't help me. So HST may be great for bodybuilding scientists, but until it explains itself to the lay person, it won't be accepted by people, other than those that accept by faith or by authority. Although the author is just a name with no explanation as to who he is.

...Objectivity demands that if you are only barely familiar with a field, you do not criticize, question, pontificate to or write about distinguished authorities (i.e., experts) in that field without, at the very least in some manner of form, taking the difference of knowledge into account ... independence requires objectivity, and objectivity requires acknowledgment of facts. One such fact is that human beings differ in knowledge, and are not all equal participants in some cosmic internet bull-session. Recognition of this fact does not make one a second-hander. It is a prerequisite for being a first-hander.

Who Is a (Non-Final) Authority in Philosophy?

Summary of HST principles, described in non-technical terms

Bryan Haycock: I entered college in 1990 and began my coursework primarily in psychology. Two years later, I considered going to medical school so I added pre-med to my major. Two years after that I added exercise and sport science to the list. I finished my pre-med undergrad work, but finding myself pretty unsatisfied with the pre-med scene I decided to enter graduate school and get a Masters in Exercise Physiology. All the while I continued to take psychology and philosophy classes for my own interests. Finally in 2000 I graduated with a Bachelors in Clinical Psychology and Exercise and Sport Science, and a Masters in Exercise Phys, with a minor in Nutrition.

Mr. Hypertrophy: An Interview with Bryan Haycock

Please can you tell me what education you have undertaken in understanding physiology?

BH: I've got to add something here, though, Chris. What a person actually gets out of their education, no matter what credentials they're awarded with in the end, depends entirely on the individual. Passion and personal dedication determine what you actually learn in school, not grades or degrees. I know lots of people who are prolific in science and exercise physiology and they don't have any formal degrees. They've simply taken it upon themselves to read the publicly available research and study it for themselves.

I'm not prolific by any stretch of the imagination, but I fall into the latter category.

This thread is listless friends, Mr abanger is on a mission. Training to failure is the best mass-inducing exercise protocol, and is used by top athletes worldwide, but is misunderstood as merely a piece of the overall training puzzle.... Yes, we use it :D

Please feel free to pose specific questions to me.

Unfortunately for the simplistic HIT ideas, we've learned a great deal since the 1970s. If you've read anything I've written on the growth process and the nervous system so far, you'll know right off the bat why the basic premises are flawed. The growth response is not signaled with a simple on/off switch, and muscular failure doesn't have much to do with growth signaling to begin with. Failure has a lot more to do with wearing out certain components of the nervous system than it does with the actual muscle fibers. Further, one set is not likely to bring about the best growth due to the dose-response relationship between exercise and gains. If anything, it's some blend of weight, volume, and fatigue, to create tension-time overload, that triggers growth. HITs central premise has been proven incorrect.

Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training, High Intensity Training And Muscular Failure, Page 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the same reasons, in my judgment, anyone who follows HIT - in light of the overwhelming evidence against it - does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.

Summary of HST principles, described in non-technical terms

I'm not prolific by any stretch of the imagination, but I fall into the latter category.

Is it not clear to you that physiology is a scientific subject that requires the study of scientific principles, and you can't understand its terms and experiments without knowledge of those principles. In which case you are judging someone as non-Objectivist on the basis of his inability to understand a field of science because he has not been educated in that field.

I don't see what the significance is of quoting Tore Boeckmann when:

a) I didn't even know the author was an expert, since it was just a name.

B) I didn't criticise his science.

Besides, I can criticise any expert on the basis of his presentation if his aim is to teach the lay person. I can point out that he doesn't explain or define concepts, that he does not logically develop his theory and he fills it with technical jargon.

Reading the research of a field of science requires an understanding of its principles. You cannot learn about physiology or any field by only reading about its experiments, since they are targeted toward the scientific community who have certain pre-requisites in knowledge that the lay person doesn't have. It also contains terminology that is taken for granted. Sure I could read it and maybe remember it, but it would only exist in my mind as a floating abstraction.

I hope you can grasp that I agree with HIT because I understand it and it makes sense. I disagree with HST on the basis that I don't understand it because it is filled with jargon and therefore it makes no sense to me. Also, whatever evidence there is against HIT I have not read since it has not been posted anywhere, and most likey it would make no sense to me.

Please try to convince people with clear arguments instead of threats, because the more threats you make the more likely I will just stop replying to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm open to new ideas and bar invalid concepts,never dismiss anything that I haven't investigated for myself. That said there is a mountain of personal and applied experience and results with others in relation to the HIT principles , this system would have to contend with. What are the actual empirical results behind this system? I know for myself it has consistently been the most efficient form of size gaining I have applied, on both myself and every client that had the goals and guts to apply it. Repeatedly I've seen folks who have tried all sorts of things for years experience the most effective training with HIT/ HD. If the HST is better then where are the results?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the look of it(i'm not too familiar with HST, so this is just based on what been posted here) the majority of people use similar principles as HST advocates; not necessarily the same routines, but training based on similar lines of thinking. So for empricial data a regular exercise forum should have lots to offer. I think the empirical support for HIT would be alot weaker. This is not to say that it doesnt work, because it does, the question would rather be if it produces the best possible results.

Just to be clear though, i'm not too interested in the old HIT Vs... debate. Having seen lots of them I know how nasty they can get, and with abanger already having set the standard for insults here I can sense where this is going.

My personal position is that i've managed a complete transformation using HIT, but that i've also been able to work through a long plateu with(so far) great results using a very different approach. So I kind of stand in the "I don't know shit" corner here(well, okay, I do know some shit, but exercise science is incredibly complex). B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read "Heavy Duty I", "Heavy Duty II", "Muscles in Minutes" and "High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way".

As far as understanding Mike's exercise program, my favorite is "Muscles in Minutes".

It is short, organized, straight forward and well written.

"Heavy Duty II" is the book that introduced me to Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Objectivism.

Mike talks more about philosophy and Ayn Rand in that book than he does about his exercise program.

"High Intensity Training" was published 2 years after Mike passed away, so I don't know which parts were written by him and which were written by John Little.

But "High Intensity Training" does contain the most information about how to properly perform each exercise, with photos.

I haven't put much effort into growing muscle in over 10 years, so I can't say with experience that Mike's exercise program works any better or worse than other programs.

But it's the only program I've found that actually explains the reasoning behind the chosen exercises and the recommended intensity, duration and frequency.

And Mike actually told his readers to spend less time in the gym, get their priorities straight, focus on their education and careers, learn philosophy, read Atlas Shrugged, read The Fountainhead and think independently.

Mike's advice in his books changed my life for the better.

As far as a recommendation, I recommend that you read all of his books.

If you can't buy them new somewhere, you should be able to find used copies at the library or eBay or on forum.bodybuilding.com.

Also read all of the books you can find by other bodybuilders.

Then try different programs and use your own mind to think independently and decide for yourself which way to exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused:

My post was meant to be a teaser - the essay will be more informative. However, if you've read the essays against Kelley (The ARI-TOC Dispute), my essay against Mentzer will be similar in nature. In fact, anyone talented in philosophical detection can do this on your own; substitute HST (Bryan Haycock, Dan Moore, Borge Fagerli, etc.) for ARI, & HIT (Mike Mentzer, Arthur Jones, Ellington Darden, etc.) for TOC, then digest the arguments against Kelley & see if you can notice the parallels against Mentzer.

I used to post as 'BIGBANGSingh,' where I previously argued against Mentzer.

Haycock is one of many in the fitness industry who create pseudo-scientific systems

to peddle their needless supplement lines. He should be mentioned in the same breath

with Joe Weider, not ARI.

And yes, Mentzer was guilty of rationalism -- like a young Peikoff and many "Objectivists".

They also like to deal in weak, questionable or false analogies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired of the blind praise for Mentzer in Objectivist circles :confused: Though I also grow tired of responding to every single Mentzer thread...

So I've decided to write an article entitled "Mike Mentzer: The David Kelley of Bodybuilding" - not sure when it'll be finished though. Stay tuned :P

Mike Mentzer was a good guy, and one of the best body builders in the world. Comparing him to David Kelley is a moral perversion. If you believe he was wrong, then point it out, but don't make such ludicrous analogies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it not clear to you that physiology is a scientific subject that requires the study of scientific principles, and you can't understand its terms and experiments without knowledge of those principles. In which case you are judging someone as non-Objectivist on the basis of his inability to understand a field of science because he has not been educated in that field.

There are many guys who’s motto is “Shut up and lift!” They intentionally avoid scientific discussion because it isn’t something they feel comfortable with it. There are relatively few people who are academically qualified to have a scientific discussion based solely on the research that lead to HST. Not everyone can be expected to follow the same academic path through college and grad school, and this is the way it should be. The problem is that people sometimes assume that discussing HST requires a bunch of scientific discussion. This is far from the truth. The principles of muscle growth and the methods employed to take advantage of these, are easy to understand and require no background in science or physiology.

You don't need to be a physiology expert to dismiss Mentzer based on his philosophic methodology. I'm judging someone as not understanding Objectivism based on his inability to distinguish b/w rationalism & induction.

I don't see what the significance is of quoting Tore Boeckmann when:

a) I didn't even know the author was an expert, since it was just a name.

:lol: I didn't criticise his science.

I quoted Tore to refute the notion, alluded to earlier, that being "guided by the greater knowledge of others" is tantamount to an appeal to authority:

The subjectivism and anti-intellectualism of Speicher's reply is obvious. In his view, to recognize some individual as an expert in a field, and to seek to learn from him, is ipso facto to "defer" to authority and to abandon reason and reality. (Otherwise, what is the relevance of his reply to my original statement?) As Ayn Rand describes this mentality: "Only a subjectivist, who equates facts with arbitrary assertions, could imagine that to 'learn' means to 'accept on faith.'" ("Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?")

Besides, I can criticise any expert on the basis of his presentation if his aim is to teach the lay person. I can point out that he doesn't explain or define concepts, that he does not logically develop his theory and he fills it with technical jargon.

Reading the research of a field of science requires an understanding of its principles. You cannot learn about physiology or any field by only reading about its experiments, since they are targeted toward the scientific community who have certain pre-requisites in knowledge that the lay person doesn't have. It also contains terminology that is taken for granted. Sure I could read it and maybe remember it, but it would only exist in my mind as a floating abstraction.

Try actually reading Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training before dismissing it as "technical jargon:"

Even making it a point to draw on review papers whenever possible, the reference list is still well over 200 citations. If I'd gone full-bore this could potentially reach over a thousand – since this isn't an academic work targeted to an academic audience, I feel that my shortcuts can be excused. If you feel that I'm missing a reference or that something is incomplete, by all means let me know. I really doubt this is going to inconvenience anyone reading this, but I do want it to be known in any event.

I hope you can grasp that I agree with HIT because I understand it and it makes sense. I disagree with HST on the basis that I don't understand it because it is filled with jargon and therefore it makes no sense to me. Also, whatever evidence there is against HIT I have not read since it has not been posted anywhere, and most likey it would make no sense to me.

The evil of Libertarianism is in no way mitigated by the fact that some, or many, of its followers do not understand its essence and its implications. This phenomenon pertains to all ideologies (honest and dishonest alike). There are Islamic fundamentalists who do not see that their philosophy leads to the murder of dissenters, there are Marxists who do not see that their philosophy leads to totalitarian enslavement, there are Kantians who do not see that their philosophy leads to nihilism. This does not alter the inherent irrationality of their viewpoints (any more than the rationality of a correct viewpoint is diminished by those who fail to comprehend it). Nor are these deluded individuals absolved from responsibility for in fact abetting the spread of destructive ideas.

Likewise, there are HIT Jedi who do not see that their philosophy leads to rationalism. In addition to the books I already posted, PubMed contains mountains of evidence against HIT (& for HST for that matter), regardless of your inability to understand it.

Please try to convince people with clear arguments instead of threats, because the more threats you make the more likely I will just stop replying to you.

I don't recall threatening you, & let me know where I can be more clear. I suggest studying Understanding Objectivism before replying further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm open to new ideas and bar invalid concepts,never dismiss anything that I haven't investigated for myself. That said there is a mountain of personal and applied experience and results with others in relation to the HIT principles , this system would have to contend with. What are the actual empirical results behind this system? I know for myself it has consistently been the most efficient form of size gaining I have applied, on both myself and every client that had the goals and guts to apply it. Repeatedly I've seen folks who have tried all sorts of things for years experience the most effective training with HIT/ HD. If the HST is better then where are the results?

An anecdote is a personal experience. Bodybuilding as a culture likes to use the hell out of anecdotal evidence - or as some of us affectionately refer to it, 'Bro-science'. Bro-science is when a claim is correct because it works for the person making the claim. Or because he's seen it work in like 10,000 clients that he's trained in the 50 years he's been doing this.

...

The big problem is that anecdotes aren't tested rigorously. Unless some steps are taken to minimize interference, you'll be dealing with all kinds of confounding variables that will skew cause and effect. What you believe to be the cause may not be – you could be giving credit to the wrong thing.

Maximum Muscle: The Science of Intelligent Physique Training, Why We Can't Ignore Anecdote, Page 18

I've read "Heavy Duty I", "Heavy Duty II", "Muscles in Minutes" and "High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way".

As far as understanding Mike's exercise program, my favorite is "Muscles in Minutes".

It is short, organized, straight forward and well written.

"Heavy Duty II" is the book that introduced me to Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Objectivism.

Mike talks more about philosophy and Ayn Rand in that book than he does about his exercise program.

"High Intensity Training" was published 2 years after Mike passed away, so I don't know which parts were written by him and which were written by John Little.

But "High Intensity Training" does contain the most information about how to properly perform each exercise, with photos.

I haven't put much effort into growing muscle in over 10 years, so I can't say with experience that Mike's exercise program works any better or worse than other programs.

But it's the only program I've found that actually explains the reasoning behind the chosen exercises and the recommended intensity, duration and frequency.

And Mike actually told his readers to spend less time in the gym, get their priorities straight, focus on their education and careers, learn philosophy, read Atlas Shrugged, read The Fountainhead and think independently.

Mike's advice in his books changed my life for the better.

As far as a recommendation, I recommend that you read all of his books.

If you can't buy them new somewhere, you should be able to find used copies at the library or eBay or on forum.bodybuilding.com.

Also read all of the books you can find by other bodybuilders.

Then try different programs and use your own mind to think independently and decide for yourself which way to exercise.

Mentzer's writing skills do not validate HIT.

Mentzer is a dangerous introduction to Objectivism, because he leads to rationalism.

Mentzer tried to deduce HIT from philosophy instead of inducing it from physiology.

Starting Strength: A Simple and Practical Guide for Coaching Beginners is a superior source for exercise technique.

HST is one of many programs that justify its variables:

First let me clarify that HST is based on physiologically sound principles not numbers. In short, they are:

• Progressive load

• Training volume

• Training frequency

• Conditioning (Repeated Bout effect)/Strategic Deconditioning

So we are dealing with 4 basic issues, Load, Volume, Frequency and Conditioning. Within these basic factors we have reps, sets, and rest. HST differs from previous training methods in many aspects, but particularly in how it incorporates knowledge of how the “cell” physiologically responds to the training stimulus in its methodology. Previous methods focus on effort (A.K.A Intensity), current voluntary strength, and psychological factors such as fatigue and variety.

• The number of Reps is determined by the minimum effective load (this changes over time based on Conditioning)

• The number of Sets is determined by the minimum effective volume (this changes over time according to current load and Conditioning.)

• The Rest between sets is determined by the amount of time required to regain sufficient strength to successfully achieve the minimum effective Volume.

• The Frequency (rest between workouts) is determined by the ability of the CNS to recover sufficiently to maintain baseline “health” indicators. It is also determined by the time course of genetic expression resultant from the previous workout.

• The interval of Strategic Deconditioning (SD) is determined by the time course of adaptation to the individuals maximum weight loads. In other words, SD is required to reset growth potential after plateauing. The duration of SD is determined by the level of conditioning attained during the training cycle.

Haycock is one of many in the fitness industry who create pseudo-scientific systems

to peddle their needless supplement lines. He should be mentioned in the same breath

with Joe Weider, not ARI.

And yes, Mentzer was guilty of rationalism -- like a young Peikoff and many "Objectivists".

They also like to deal in weak, questionable or false analogies.

BH: I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them.

HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods.

My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth.

You tell me which is the pseudo-scientific system.

EVEN IN REGARD to inherently dishonest movements, let me now add, a marginal third category of adherent is possible: the relatively small number who struggle conscientiously, but simply cannot grasp the issues and the monumental corruption involved. These are the handful who become Communists, “channelers,” etc. through a truly honest error of knowledge. Leaving aside the retarded and the illiterate, who are effectively helpless in such matters, this third group consists almost exclusively of the very young—and precisely for this reason, these youngsters get out of such movements fast, on their own, without needing lectures from others; they get out as they reach maturity. Being conscientious and mentally active, they see first-hand what is going on in their movement and they identify what it means; so their initial enthusiasm turns to dismay and then to horror...

The difference is Mentzer never matured.

You'll see why the analogy is accurate if I ever get around to writing that essay...

Mike Mentzer was a good guy, and one of the best body builders in the world. Comparing him to David Kelley is a moral perversion. If you believe he was wrong, then point it out, but don't make such ludicrous analogies.

In coming to a moral evaluation of David Kelley, three factors (any one of which alone is sufficient) are relevant.

First, he ought to know better. A man who served as an intellectual advocate of Objectivism, in fact, as a spokesman for Objectivism, should have made sure of his own agreement and consistency with the philosophy. Furthermore, his level of knowledge of Objectivism allows no room for such a basic and complete rejection of it. It is not honestly possible to have such a close familiarity with Objectivism and nevertheless to reject it.

Second, his views fly in the face of the facts, and sometimes result in massive self-contradictions within the space of a sentence. The number of facts which he must evade (about the nature of the issues, the nature of Objectivism, the nature of his enemies, and the nature of his supporters) is too great to be the result of honest error.

Third, his obfuscation and equivocation on key issues, as well as his claim to speak in the name of a philosophy which he is attacking, indicate a dishonest approach, an attempt not to let the reader—or himself—know his real position or motives.

In conclusion, it is clear that, whether Kelley recognizes it or not, “A Question of Sanction” is his declaration of a full and complete break with Objectivism on all levels, both in theory and in practice.

All of the above apply equally to Mentzer.

Edited by abanger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is Mentzer never matured.

That's as blatant an adhominem as I've ever seen. I don't give a damn what you think about Mentzer's maturity level. Prove that what he says is wrong. Until then, you're being out-argued by what you call a child.

You'll see why the analogy is accurate if I ever get around to writing that essay...

Even if you are right, and Mentzer's errors are similar to Kelley's, if you wish to prove your case, you must identify the errors Mentzer committed, and refute them. Appealing to a supposed similarity to specific points used by Objectivist intellectuals to refute David Kelley is not going to help your case, and is in fact a sign of fraud.

While that essay is coming along, ponder this: "Analogies, like fire, are useful servants but dangerous masters." (David Kelley)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mentzer's writing skills do not validate HIT.

Mentzer is a dangerous introduction to Objectivism, because he leads to rationalism.

Mentzer tried to deduce HIT from philosophy instead of inducing it from physiology.

Starting Strength: A Simple and Practical Guide for Coaching Beginners is a superior source for exercise technique.

HST is one of many programs that justify its variables:

"You tell me which is the pseudo-scientific system."

Why do I have to choose one or the other? This is a Morton's Fork.

Your approach here consists of quoting the formulations of others,

then expecting the reader to be convinced of an argument that you

can't quite articulate. This amounts to "Mentzer sucks! And, um -- my

current guru, Haycock, will explain the 'how and why' in this quote."

If this is true, you don't really know it yourself; iow, there's not much

you in your argument. So, I suspect that your essay is delayed

by more than time constraints.

Trying to fit everything into your analogy template might prove problematic

in light of the inherent rationalism required for such an approach.

But take as much time as you need. I just hope that you don't jump

to another training protocol in the meantime; you might have to change

the name of your essay to "Haycock: the Nathaniel and Barbara Branden

of Weight-training." -- then post some quotes from James Valliant, and

Greg Glassman of CrossFit -- to tell us all why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's as blatant an adhominem as I've ever seen. I don't give a damn what you think about Mentzer's maturity level. Prove that what he says is wrong. Until then, you're being out-argued by what you call a child.

Even if you are right, and Mentzer's errors are similar to Kelley's, if you wish to prove your case, you must identify the errors Mentzer committed, and refute them. Appealing to a supposed similarity to specific points used by Objectivist intellectuals to refute David Kelley is not going to help your case, and is in fact a sign of fraud.

While that essay is coming along, ponder this: "Analogies, like fire, are useful servants but dangerous masters." (David Kelley)

Mentzer was a long-term rationalist, therefore he never matured intellectually. Mentzer's maturity is relevant "in coming to a moral evaluation" of him. My posts (not to mention mountains of research) are littered w/ ample proof that Mentzer was wrong, though it's interesting to note that Mentzer (& his ilk) never proved that he was right.

Mentzer was guilty of rationalism (by evading physiology), & do I really need to refute that on this forum? I don't see how conceptualization is fradulent, in fact your argument stinks of an anti-conceptual mentality.

The analogy to Kelley serves the master premise of the primacy of induction.

Why do I have to choose one or the other? This is a Morton's Fork.

Your approach here consists of quoting the formulations of others,

then expecting the reader to be convinced of an argument that you

can't quite articulate. This amounts to "Mentzer sucks! And, um -- my

current guru, Haycock, will explain the 'how and why' in this quote."

If this is true, you don't really know it yourself; iow, there's not much

you in your argument. So, I suspect that your essay is delayed

by more than time constraints.

Trying to fit everything into your analogy template might prove problematic

in light of the inherent rationalism required for such an approach.

But take as much time as you need. I just hope that you don't jump

to another training protocol in the meantime; you might have to change

the name of your essay to "Haycock: the Nathaniel and Barbara Branden

of Weight-training." -- then post some quotes from James Valliant, and

Greg Glassman of CrossFit -- to tell us all why.

You have to choose b/w induction (science) & rationalism (pseudo-science) - “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”

Ever hear of the idiom "reinventing the wheel?" If it's been said better before, why say it again?

Trying to evade all the inductive science against HIT might prove problematic in light of the inherent dishonesty required for such an approach.

The essay was originally my way of giving back to the Objectivist community, but given the evasive mentality encountered in this thread, I'm beginning to doubt its value.

Has anyone else looked at abanger's public profile?

Amateur mixed martial artist, professional poker player, only 6 total posts on this forum, all in this thread?

Seems kind of strange to me.

Speaking of ad hominem...

Edited by abanger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I have to choose one or the other? This is a Morton's Fork.

Your approach here consists of quoting the formulations of others,

then expecting the reader to be convinced of an argument that you

can't quite articulate. This amounts to "Mentzer sucks! And, um -- my

current guru, Haycock, will explain the 'how and why' in this quote."

If this is true, you don't really know it yourself; iow, there's not much

you in your argument. So, I suspect that your essay is delayed

by more than time constraints.

Trying to fit everything into your analogy template might prove problematic

in light of the inherent rationalism required for such an approach.

But take as much time as you need. I just hope that you don't jump

to another training protocol in the meantime; you might have to change

the name of your essay to "Haycock: the Nathaniel and Barbara Branden

of Weight-training." -- then post some quotes from James Valliant, and

Greg Glassman of CrossFit -- to tell us all why.

"You have to choose b/w induction (science) & rationalism (pseudo-science) - “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”"

I don't accept your premise that Haycock represents "induction (science)". So, the Morton's Fork remains.

"Ever hear of the idiom "reinventing the wheel?" If it's been said better before, why say it again?"

Interesting. Your defense of parroting others with no genuine input from yourself begins with more parroting?

No, you don't have to reinvent the wheel -- but you do need to understand how a wheel works.

"Trying to evade all the inductive science against HIT might prove problematic in light of the inherent dishonesty required for such an approach."

And continues with even more parroting -- of me?

"The essay was originally my way of giving back to the Objectivist community, but given the evasive mentality encountered in this thread, I'm beginning to doubt its value."

I think we all had our doubts regarding its value -- and more doubts that an essay containing an original formulation from you was forthcoming.

Like any other bad poker player, you had to fold once your bluff was called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna ask a retardedly simple question. Banger is it your position that more weight-less reps- going to failure- followed by plenty of rest, is not more efficient at gaining muscle than ,more reps- without failure- more often in frequency?

For the record when I was 14 I tried HIT after a freind was personnally trained by Mike. This was before I ever read his book or heard of Oism.I went from 145 to 170 in three months. All my positions on HiT are from personal experience with it and other systems. This cannot be rationalism. Here's my point, if HST is better than HIT than it must be incredible at building muscle. What I have a problem with is the rejection of HIT as "not even wrong" so to speak. I know it works more efficiently than all the systems/ methods I've encountered so far.

The whole anecdotal thing is silly. When I worked in a sports medicine center I used to laugh at how NACSM journals would say one thing this year and then claim it was disproved the next.

Again Im not saying HST can't be better. But if it is, holy shit!! Just don't tell me HIT doesn't work well.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, Objectivism and HIT, again. This shouldn't have to be said... HIT is good but it's certainly not the end-all be-all of bodybuilding techniques. I've gotten to 210-215 lbs from ~165, and I only sparingly incorporate HIT ideas. If it's working for an individual, fine. If it's not, change to something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the look of it(i'm not too familiar with HST, so this is just based on what been posted here) the majority of people use similar principles as HST advocates; not necessarily the same routines, but training based on similar lines of thinking. So for empricial data a regular exercise forum should have lots to offer. I think the empirical support for HIT would be alot weaker. This is not to say that it doesnt work, because it does, the question would rather be if it produces the best possible results.

Just to be clear though, i'm not too interested in the old HIT Vs... debate. Having seen lots of them I know how nasty they can get, and with abanger already having set the standard for insults here I can sense where this is going.

My personal position is that i've managed a complete transformation using HIT, but that i've also been able to work through a long plateu with(so far) great results using a very different approach. So I kind of stand in the "I don't know shit" corner here(well, okay, I do know some shit, but exercise science is incredibly complex). :D

HIT has never been practiced on a large enough scale to justify even raising the question of empirical support. Dismissing HIT due to lack of empirical support is like dismissing Objectivism because it doesn't enjoy widespread acceptance in academia.

Edited by BRG253
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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