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.
Mr. Hypertrophy: An Interview with Bryan Haycock
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…
Fact and Value
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.
Notes on “A Question of Sanction”
All of the above apply equally to Mentzer.
