Objective Bodybuilding

[Inspector]

I go to the gym twice a week. How about you?

I go on Saturday, then four days later on Wednesday. Then I go on the Sunday after that, and then on the following Saturday, and repeat from there.

It's 1.5 times a week, and I do it to shift most of my lifts to the weekends.

Also, I'm kind of hedging my bets against overtraining by putting in the 6 day rest every other week.

It's great fun!

[Fridon]

Mike Mentzer's Heavy Duty is based on the following:

1. Intensity training hard, which means moving fast between exercises and giving 100% effort in only one set per exercise.

2. Recovery (recovery: compensation)

3. Overcompensation

4. progression (signs of improvement in performance should be experienced every session)

5. Training sessions should take place after the recovery and overcompensation take place.

[Fridon]

Hi!

I go to the gym three times a week for the moment it looks like the most productive training frequency. I tend to regress on a one or twice a week schedulee. But sooner or later I would shift to 2 times a week as I grow bigger...

I am now 176 pounds (12 perecent body fat).

Get lifting...

[Michelangelo]

Your posts on physiology peaked my interest, Blacksabbath. I am a Cat 5 cyclists and I was wondering if you knew any information on increasing power without building wasteful muscles. My aerobic system is good but since I have just started, I lack strong enough legs to advance beyond Cat 5. My skill is in climbing--to much weight is detrimental to my success in the mountains so I have to avoid getting bulky muscles.

[BlackSabbath]

Your posts on physiology peaked my interest, Blacksabbath.  I am a Cat 5 cyclists and I was wondering if you knew any information on increasing power without building wasteful muscles.  My aerobic system is good but since I have just started, I lack strong enough legs to advance beyond Cat 5.  My skill is in climbing--to much weight is detrimental to my success in the mountains so I have to avoid getting bulky muscles.

If you train for strength, you will eventually gain muscle and weight.

If you can maintain your strength to weight ratio then you will be all right.

[Inspector]

Mike,

(can I call you Mike?)

You're looking at about the hardest thing to do with your body that there is. Bruce Lee did a lot of work into getting the kind of results you are looking for, and he hurt himself pretty bad. The key is that you want to lift more quickly, but the faster you lift the less safe it is and the more likely you are to injure yourself, like Bruce did.

[MI5]

http://highintensity.net/Forums/Forums.asp

Just go here to find out about Mike Mentzers HIT

[Inspector]

http://highintensity.net/Forums/Forums.asp

Just go here to find out about Mike Mentzers HIT

Thanks! It's hard to find a forum that focuses on Mike Mentzer's methods.

[hunterrose]

It's good to see so many people interested in physical fitness. I've never particularly cared for the single set ideas, but with the variety of body types existing, things that work perfectly for one might be less than adequate for another. I doubt there is a single weight program that is better than all others for all people. I have began trying some lower rep ranges, and find them effective.

If you look at the greek statues, you see they are much better proportioned than today's body-builders.

I don't think that's the case, at least at the less-than-super-superheavyweight level.

I just checked out Haycock's site. There was some information in there I was not aware of before. I'm going to try his system out for 6 weeks. If I remember, I'll post back to this thread with the results of this "experiment."

Well? Did you forget?

Has anyone else seen progress from their particular regimen?

Off to the gym... leg day

[mailegreene]

I think the best place to start for those interested in Mike Mentzer's training system would be in his book, Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body. This is by far his best work, as Mentzer not only givest the reader a basic understanding of Objectivism (which many of you won't need), he also guides him, in step by step fashion, through the formulation of his entire theory.

For all of you who aren't familiar with Mentzer, I would advise that you go straight to the horses mouth. Start with his books, particularly the one mentioned above, and then proceed to the forums if you wish. Don't try to learn in the opposite way.

His official website is www.mikementzer.com

[ex_banana-eater]

More studies being published proving HIT/Mentzer as unscientific and bunk. Another nail in the coffin for this group, who continue to burry their heads in the sand at this evidence:

J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jan 12; [Epub ahead of print]DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF STRENGTH TRAINING LEADING TO FAILURE VERSUS NOT TO FAILURE ON HORMONAL RESPONSES, STRENGTH AND MUSCLE POWER GAINS.

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Hakkinen K, Ratamess NA, Kraemer WJ, French DN, Eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga EM.

Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain.

The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 weeks of resistance training to failure vs. non-failure, followed by an identical 5- week peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic/catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically-active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n=14), non-failure (NRF; n=15) or control groups (C;n=13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1RM bench press (23% and 23%) and parallel squat (22% and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27% and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26% and 29%) and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66% and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press The peaking phase (T2 to T3) followed after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 following resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 in order to preserve IGF availability.

PMID: 16410373

From the full text article:

Body Composition. At the beginning of the training program, no significant differences were observed between the groups in age, height, body mass, or percent body fat. A significant decrease in percent body fat was observed at T3 for NRF compared with T0, and T1, as well as at T3 for RF compared with T0 and T2. A significant decrease in body mass was observed at T3 for RF whereas no significant differences in body mass were observed for NRF at any point (Table 1).

Edited January 23, 2006 by ex_banana-eater

[hunterrose]

I wouldn't say it's bunk, though I personally don't particularly use it. Do you mean that it's not effective at all, or merely not as effective as more volume-oriented weight programs.

At the least IMO a HIT program offers the advantages of

1)time (less workout time and greater recovery time)

2)increased strength over volume training(if applied in the proper manner)

My personal things against HIT are that they virtually require having a partner (I never do) and I just like high volume. But neither of these things are harbingers of doom for HIT.

[Inspector]

If it's bunk, then how do you explain this: http://www.maxcontraction.com/study.htm

?

[Hal]

The journal of applied physiology is a peer reviewed medical journal, whereas that is a random commercial website devoted to selling a product. Has the study it cites actually been published anywhere respectable? A google search for "Nautilus North Study" reveals no matches other than that site and some magazine which references it.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Hal

[Inspector]

The journal of applied physiology is a peer reviewed medical journal, whereas that is a random commercial website devoted to selling a product. Has the study it cites actually been published anywhere respectable? A google search for "Nautilus North Study" reveals no matches other than that site and some magazine which references it.

The study is for sale with them. He cites his sources in his books for the studies he is working off of.

Granted, his sample is quite small, as his funds are limited, but he does produce very good results using an extreme version of HIT. He has in fact isolated the principles of HIT and developed them further so that the volume is even less. (sometimes 1-6 seconds per exercise) If the principles behind HIT were "bunk," then he would be getting ZERO results as with Max Contraction, there is no way the growth would be from anything other than those principles.

And yet strangely he gets results.

I'm not in a position to say if the principles have been validated, but it is noteworthy that he appears to be using them to great success.

[Triumph$]

I haven't read any of Mentzer's stuff and I work out in HIT style.Mentzer didn't invent HIT,Arthur Jones did. I can recommend Dr. Ellingon Darden's work(He worked with Arthur Jones) as he is the only fitness author that actually uses extensive case studies in his books which number in 30+ range.

I also recommend Brian D. Johnston stuff at exercisecertification.com, have a look at his educational resources and in the articles section he has Arhur Jones Nautilius Bulletin 1 and 2 which started the whole HIT movement. Check out Brian D. Johnston interview with Arthur Jones at http://www.realfighting.com/0702/jonesart.html.

[ex_banana-eater]

And yet strangely he gets results.

I'm not in a position to say if the principles have been validated, but it is noteworthy that he appears to be using them to great success.

Greater success is achieved through avoiding neuromuscular failure during exercise, as the study I posted proves in both strength and body composition. Plenty of research also validates training a muscle every 48 hours as the most effective method of obtaining muscular hypertrophy compared to lesser frequencies (a cascade of hormones like IGF-1 are released for 48 hours, satellite cell activity is activated, the nutrient partitioning effect is greater). When training a muscle only once per week, it grows for about 48 hours and then the cells remain in a somewhat neutral nitrogen balance for the remainder of the week. Why not have them grow the whole period?

[Felix]

Why not have them grow the whole period?

As far as I have read the reason is that training puts a strain on your entire body (organs) and not just the muscles. They need more time off than the muscles themselves. I have no validation for this. So just take it for what it is for now: an opinion.

Maybe someone else can back up my claim.

[Inspector]

When training a muscle only once per week, it grows for about 48 hours and then the cells remain in a somewhat neutral nitrogen balance for the remainder of the week. Why not have them grow the whole period?

The data from the Nautilus North study contradicts this claim. They showed steady growth after 6,7,8,9+ days of rest.

[hunterrose]

Ultimately, the "proof" is in the pudding. The thing to remember with any of these scientific experiments is that they involve people of a wide variety of body types. The only thing you can get from these researches is what an "average" (i.e. theoretical) person will respond to.

A person would be hard pressed to find someone as physically developed as Mike Mentzer or Dorian Yates. Both used HIT-esque programs, and their results speak for themselves.

Then you have uber-freaks like Ronnie Coleman and Victor Richards, who train the whole body twice a week. And I probably shouldn't even mention that Arnold had success training the whole body three times a week during some of his Olympia reign times...

The fact that some people, statistically average people, or most people need X amount of rest says little for other people, other than that they should do what works for them

P.S. It's generally agreed that recuperative capacity does not increase at the same rate as strenght and size do, so the idea that a person needs more HIT-esque methods the further they get seems sound.

Edited February 1, 2006 by hunterrose

[ex_banana-eater]

As far as I have read the reason is that training puts a strain on your entire body (organs) and not just the muscles. They need more time off than the muscles themselves. I have no validation for this. So just take it for what it is for now: an opinion.

Maybe someone else can back up my claim.

Training puts a tax on the central nervous system (CNS), and nothing to do with other organs. Failure puts an enormous tax on the CNS. Whether or not the CNS has recovered fully does not matter for hypertrophy, infact strategic deconditioning should be employed to reduce the load a muscle is able to lift in order to maintain increasing mechanical loads to avoid the repeated bout effect.

The data from the Nautilus North study contradicts this claim. They showed steady growth after 6,7,8,9+ days of rest.

lol

Ultimately, the "proof" is in the pudding. The thing to remember with any of these scientific experiments is that they involve people of a wide variety of body types. The only thing you can get from these researches is what an "average" (i.e. theoretical) person will respond to.

A person would be hard pressed to find someone as physically developed as Mike Mentzer or Dorian Yates. Both used HIT-esque programs, and their results speak for themselves.

Then you have uber-freaks like Ronnie Coleman and Victor Richards, who train the whole body twice a week. And I probably shouldn't even mention that Arnold had success training the whole body three times a week during some of his Olympia reign times...

Infact, you probably shouldn't even mention any of these people, since superphysiological dosages of exogenous androgens activate myogenic stem cell activity without increasing mechanical load, or basically any training principle needed in a hormonally normal athlete. Most athletes do not take over a gram of testosterone per week, with IGF-1 and GH like Ronnie.

The fact that some people, statistically average people, or most people need X amount of rest says little for other people, other than that they should do what works for them

CNS recovery times will probably vary widely depending on the individual's genetics et al., but not the conditions needed to induce a growth stimulus in their muscles (hypertrophy) in a healthy, trained athlete.

P.S. It's generally agreed that recuperative capacity does not increase at the same rate as strenght and size do, so the idea that a person needs more HIT-esque methods the further they get seems sound.

P.S. It's generally agreed that we need more government intervention into health care.

[hunterrose]

Training puts a tax on the central nervous system (CNS), and nothing to do with other organs. Failure puts an enormous tax on the CNS. Whether or not the CNS has recovered fully does not matter for hypertrophy.

You mean training taxes only CNS and muscles (my interpretation) or just CNS? At any rate, I question the idea that CNS recovery will not matter toward hypertrophy, though I'll have to dig into my magazines this weekend for any "proof." 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.

Strategic deconditioning should be employed to reduce the load a muscle is able to lift in order to maintain increasing mechanical loads to avoid the repeated bout effect.

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

Superphysiological dosages of exogenous androgens activate myogenic stem cell activity without increasing mechanical load, or basically any training principle needed in a hormonally normal athlete. Most athletes do not take over a gram of testosterone per week, with IGF-1 and GH like Ronnie.

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

CNS recovery times will probably vary widely depending on the individual's genetics et al., but not the conditions needed to induce a growth stimulus in their muscles (hypertrophy) in a healthy, trained athlete.

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.)

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.

[Hal]

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.

[Inspector]

lol

So is that it?

[hunterrose]

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?

Probably. Burning your candle from both ends probably won't be best. I'd use a lower-key program to start out.