Mentzer - High Intensity

[mphowells]

Had this book for Christmas and think the theory behind it is generally quite good.

Has anyone tried the Mentzer approach?

My main concern is that it has a negative effect as i will not be training as much as I do now (granted not by a hell of a lot as I only do 1hr 4 times a week).

Any thoughts would be good.

 

[musketeer]

read it for inspiration and then ignore that shit

I love Mentzers physique and his amazing charisma and thought that he would have been a great Mr O, but the training theory is convincing but just plain wrong.

My judgement is from 14 years of training experience as well as what I have read and heard and seen. Trust me on this, do a 5x5 format.

 

[Numani]

great read, nice theory, wrong in practice.

stresses CNS too much. does very little for muscle growth unless your a newbie.

steadily increasing volume(tonnage) while training in the right %age ranges on the big exercises, stopping short of failure and incorporating back off periods is the way forward. If you can't design a program and manipluate the variables of intensity, frequency and volume yourself...then try 5x5..it does it for you and works for practically everyone.

 

[mphowells]

sorry what us 5x5?

I'm a bit gutted about that, I was looking forward to putting it into practice.

 

[Guinness5.0]

The problem with HIT as I see it is that it can be a decent (at best IMO) system for a short period. The biggest problem with HIT, as madcow2 said to me, is the people who use it They have a tendency to be EXTREMELY dogmatic - basically, proponents tend to claim that it's the only way to go, period, and that everything else is stupid/inefficient. Also, they tend to use analogy to back claims rather than science. That's a huge red flag because if you want to believe something, it's pretty easy to use an analogy to make it sound plausible.

As alluded to above, there are more factors in training than simply hitting failure constantly. Nothing particularly wonderful happens at the muscular level at failure, but there is significant nervous system activity that is generally thought to be counterproductive if overdone.

Extremely simplified generalization: few sets taken to failure and beyond = not enough muscular stimulation, too much nervous system fatigue. More sets done to short-of-failure: more muscular stimulation, lessened nervous system fatigue.

Not sure where you're at in terms of training experience, but here's a great thread with some debate on the topic. It's long but worth the read if you're up to speed on some of the terms. You can clearly see what I meant by characterizing HIT proponents as dogmatic (at one point, the HIT guy actually says that if he doesn't already know something, he doesn't need to know it ) :

http://www.fortifiediron.com/invision/index.php?showtopic=6685

 

[Madcow2]

1970's Western Understanding a la HIT/Mentzer:
-Adaptation must be forced
-To optimally drive muscular adaptation you must push the muscles to do what they cannot currently do (i.e. failure)
-To be as efficient as possible one should apply enough stimulus to drive adaptation but no more as making additional inroads into recovery is unnecessary and wasteful


Now that's a really nice tight little package and very clean logic. And the logic is good, makes a lot of sense, and is intuitive and easily graspable which is why people latch on and have this "ah ha, it's right there and it was so simple all along" moment. But there's a problem in that the underlying premise on which the logic is based isn't right.

Failure is a neural event and has nothing to do with the muscle. The major additional stress at failure is a nervous system red lining itself with increased rate coding to deal with the demands. I'm not saying failure is always wrong and that one should never fail, I'm saying that failure should not be a goal or barometer for a training session but arrived at naturally in some point of a progression (i.e. the end or final few weeks where you are struggling to make additional progress). Workload is the stimulus not failure and the reason why HIT wound up defaulting into low volume and lower frequency with experience is due to neural issues and not being able to handle significant workload or frequency under that continuous and unabated stress.

Of course another issue is that Mentzer was fairly well known for drug issues and mental problems. Steroids (response/recovery) and amphetamine (supperior stimulus during workouts) which likely played a major part in his mental breakdown and issues post the 1980 Olympia. He later made a big resurgence after that (marketing to an ignorant population IMO) but it doesn't seem he ever updated his theories despite being a professed lover of science and knowledge.

Now I'm not saying Mentzer is 100% bad and that nothing he has to say will work. I'm just pointing out some major issues that you should be conscious of. If you are really curious about some of the issues behind HIT and failure, read that thread in Guiness' post above as it goes on to cover a lot of very important topics in excruciating but easy to understand detail (as the person we were explaining this to was a total moron - but nevertheless, it makes a nice resource).

 

[mphowells]

That's a great help, thanks guys.

I take it though that there is nothing wrong with doing for example a 5x5 cycle and then doing a HIT cycle? or vica verca

 

[musketeer]

knock yourself out!

 

[Madcow2]

That's a great help, thanks guys.

I take it though that there is nothing wrong with doing for example a 5x5 cycle and then doing a HIT cycle? or vica verca

You don't need to do or not do anything. You can do HIT and a lot of people make some decent progress on it (visit some forums and you'll find that HIT is the best for everything from elite strength to french onion soup all while achieving guaranteed instant spiritual perfection). What is critical is that you understand it and don't fall into some very outdated Mentzer or HIT propoganda because for some reason there is something cultish around HIT (not everyone but a certain minority that is overly loud, obnoxious, unreasonable, and unrelenting).

So use it if you like. Best of luck whatever you do. But don't turn your brain over to anyone. Take in the whole picture and then form your own opinions or hold decision in abeyance until you get enough knowledge/understanding to make an opinion on it.

 

[Tweakle]

mike was on the right path but he was too black and white .. read up on DC's methods as they make far more sense when looking at the bigger picture.

 

[coolcolj]

Hit would work well at the tail end of a 5x5 block

 

[Kane Fan]

great read, nice theory, wrong in practice.

stresses CNS too much. does very little for muscle growth unless your a newbie.

steadily increasing volume(tonnage) while training in the right %age ranges on the big exercises, stopping short of failure and incorporating back off periods is the way forward. If you can't design a program and manipluate the variables of intensity, frequency and volume yourself...then try 5x5..it does it for you and works for practically everyone.

that's odd I have trouble following 5x5's explinations but I have an easier time setting up programs for myself
I guess I'm backwards

 

[mdm1]

Hi everyone. I have been a long time lurker, but this is my first post.

I used Mentzer's Heavy Duty for over two years and I have to say the results were somewhat disappointing. The pattern was always the same: Gain strength for about 5 or 6 sessions then stagnate. Change exercises. Gain strength for 5 or 6 sessions. Stagnate. Repeat cycle.

The theory seems sound, but after doing a lot of research into DFT I have come to realise that his methods were based on false underlying assumptions. His definition of intensity is fundamentally flawed, as is his idea that growth is somehow "switched on" by going to failure. I can categorically say that the claims Mentzer made about his clients' progress is nothing short of pure bullsh*t. Complete fabrication.

I have been a member of a couple of HIT boards for a while now, and believe me, it is impossible to get ideas about another training theory in edgeways. There are some good ideas in HIT, but a lot of flawed thinking and dogmatism too.

In my opinion, having tried both methods, a DFT approach (especially 5*5) is a much better way to train.

Don't hesitate to ask if you think there is something about HIT I could answer for you.

Take care,

Mdm

 

[mphowells]

Thanks for all the information. I definitly think I will give it a go but am 100% open minded and take on board that the majority of opinion here is not with mentzer.

ne thing whioch does stick in my head, how bull sh*t is his theory if he did infact use it himself. He was a big old boy!

 

[musketeer]

He was NOT big by modern (or even 80's) standards at 210 or so on stage.

He looked great and posed well because of genetics and natural charisma. The fact taht he was able to build the respectable amount of muscle was due to the fact that (and it just goes to show) you can build a bodybuilder physique if you take enough drugs and are crazy enough about your diet - pretty much regardless of how you train.

 

[Madcow2]

If you take enough drugs, you can make even a shitty stimulus fairly effective. How many steroid users today started out as the "I'm plateaued at 5'10" 175lbs 12% bodyfat, training and diet are perfect." They don't change much at all in their workouts but scale drugs fast and eat a lot of food to override their shitty training. I'd say that's the majority story. Probably the typical story of most competitive bbers these days, although obviously there are exceptions.

 

[mphowells]

I see. Still thinks he looks good but didn't realise he was heavy into juice.

 

[Jim Ouini]

BTW, they were showing the Arnold Classic 2005 on HDTV and The Guv made a speech about getting rid of drugs in the sport, like what they show in magazines and TV *cough*

Obligatory but hardly enthusiastic applause from the audience, nothing like when they handed Dexter Jackson his trophy. In fact I'd call it 'slow clapping'

Just kind of funny because the latest issue of M&F has Arnold back in his glory days right smack on the cover.