Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Mike Mentzer - His Theories...
- Thread starter JKurz1
- Start date
SgtSlaughter
New member
Everyone is the same in that if you eat a caloric surplus you WILL put on weight.nails said:
c3bodybuilding
New member
Mike was a nut in his later years. He was actually put in a mental hospital in the mid-late 80's. Right before his death he was preaching crazy training concepts which were NOTHING like what he did in the 70's.
Mike started with full body workouts three times a week that were *very* similiar to hst. Then after meeting Arthur Jones and Casey Viator he would train everything twice a week and do about 5-10 sets per body part using mostly compound movements. It was nothing like the 1 set, everything once every few weeks/month stuff he was talking about in the late 80's through the 90's.
If you follow his methods be prepared to lose size and quickly. If you want me to, I will type up his old workout schedule tomorrow. That's the one where he did a split similiar to animal's dual factor. It's actually not that bad. But please, stay far, far, far away from the shit Mike taught in his later years.
Mike was a brilliant man but with his health and mental state on the decline, he sort of lost his way. It's truly sad he wasn't able to get over his defeat at the 80 O. Arnold called him to patch things up, but it was too late. Mike was just too far gone.
Mike started with full body workouts three times a week that were *very* similiar to hst. Then after meeting Arthur Jones and Casey Viator he would train everything twice a week and do about 5-10 sets per body part using mostly compound movements. It was nothing like the 1 set, everything once every few weeks/month stuff he was talking about in the late 80's through the 90's.
If you follow his methods be prepared to lose size and quickly. If you want me to, I will type up his old workout schedule tomorrow. That's the one where he did a split similiar to animal's dual factor. It's actually not that bad. But please, stay far, far, far away from the shit Mike taught in his later years.
Mike was a brilliant man but with his health and mental state on the decline, he sort of lost his way. It's truly sad he wasn't able to get over his defeat at the 80 O. Arnold called him to patch things up, but it was too late. Mike was just too far gone.
JKurz1
Banned
Actually diet, I am finding out is far less than I originally thought....prob. half of the overall equation and maybe less.....training, rest and recooperation are much greater success factors.....Granted, if you don't eat anything, your results won't change...but the avg. joe who eat 3-4 good wholesome solid meals can put on mass quite nicelly.
C3 - you are preaching half assed......I have a trainer at my gym who preaches the Mentzer concept and has his clientelle using it with great success.....
C3 - you are preaching half assed......I have a trainer at my gym who preaches the Mentzer concept and has his clientelle using it with great success.....
silver_shadow
New member
the important thing is what kind of gear are his clients on?JKurz1 said:
also, if they are newbies, then i wouldn't bother much.
to be honest, i don't doubt mentzer's HIT wouldn't pack on some amount of mass on someone who is eating a caloric surplus. the problem i have with it would be that it takes away the focus of bodybuilding from training and puts it on diet. in the old days, eating and rest was a given... so much so that i'm guessing that if someone said "you gotta eat big", that would be like stating something so obvious, it didn't even merit a big mention. importance would probably have been given more to training in order to have the best possible symmetry and muscle density. now i really doubt you'd NEED to follow MM HIT to gain some mass while eating. you could just go in to the gym, with just a plan to do x sets for each body part. then you eat whatever's in your refrigerator and hope for the best. you're bound to get stronger over a period of time and hence grow (because of the caloric surplus). throw in some drugs and you grow some more. is it the most efficient way (symmetry & muscle density)? i doubt it.
Protobuilder
New member
All I know is an awful lot of people complain the HIT doesn't do shit but burn the crap out of their nervous systems. And they standard reason given for their failure is that they "aren't hardcore enough."
I think there's a reason why pretty much NO professional teams / olympians train w/ HIT-style training.
I think there's a reason why pretty much NO professional teams / olympians train w/ HIT-style training.
nails
New member
Hey thats funny....Last fall when I was doing the 5x5 both madcow and biggt were very helpfull to me and both questioned my eating.Granted I'm not a huge eater I ate all I could with weight gain drinks in between.I'm no newby to the weights either .I'm 46 and 210lbs.On my last 5x5 I was using 305 for bench.Thats nothing compared to the big boys here but probhably more than some.I know it's blasphemous to say here but isn't it possible that for some there is a better way?ZGzaZ said:
enigma4dub
Active member
Better meaning what?
The thing that people have to realise is that the 5x5 is not the end all answer. It can not be stressed enough that it is a teaching tool. The principles behind it are proven. As long as your program calls for good organization of compound movements, progression over a period of time, with frequency and fatigue management accounted for you, are in good shape. Dont get caught up in 5x5, the rep range is not important as long as it stays constant.
The thing that people have to realise is that the 5x5 is not the end all answer. It can not be stressed enough that it is a teaching tool. The principles behind it are proven. As long as your program calls for good organization of compound movements, progression over a period of time, with frequency and fatigue management accounted for you, are in good shape. Dont get caught up in 5x5, the rep range is not important as long as it stays constant.
