Elite Fitness Bodybuilding, Anabolics, Diet, Life Extension, Wellness, Supplements, and Training Boards
Anabolic Discussion Board Mentzer and the 1980 Mr Olympia obsesion
|
Author | Topic: Mentzer and the 1980 Mr Olympia obsesion | ||
Pro Bodybuilder Posts: 456 |
This is an interview I found on the t-mag, read it�. It�s funny shit!! Back in the late seventies, Mike Mentzer was it. His impressive frame, combined with his idea that bodybuilders didn't have to train seven days a week for an hour or two at a time, created shock waves in the industry. Muscle builders began to realize that they, too, could have a life outside the gym. However, Mike's life both inside and outside the gym turned around in 1980 when he lost to an overconfident, less-than-perfect Arnold Schwarzeneggar at the Mr. Olympia Contest in Sydney, Australia. Mike felt robbed and he made no attempt to hide his feelings. There are those that say Mike's still obsessing about the contest, that he's overly obsessed with the teachings of Ayn Rand, and that his muscle building message is largely incomprehensible. We sought Mike out to put an end to those rumors, once and for all:
MM: There is only one valid theory of exercise science and most of what has been said has been said by people with no background in philosophy, logic, or science. For that matter, most of what has been said has been said by people who had no background in gardening or gynecology, either, which harkens me back to the 1980 Olympia Contest where history's ultimate non-Ayn Rand person, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, accepted the Olympia crown when every man, woman, and child in existence (I should know, I polled each of them independently, except for a contentious individual in Fresno who refuses to accept my calls) believes I should have been the winner. We may be able to send a man to the moon, but when it comes to recognizing the rightful winner of the 1980 Olympiad, mankind is surely arrested in its development. T: Uhh, okay�great. Listen, a lot of people are still interested in heavy-duty training and this concept of "one set to failure." For those readers who weren't around in the seventies, could you please clarify this interesting and provocative training theory? MM: Back in 1980, just before the 1980 Mr. Olympia contest, I was in phenomenal shape; I was the romantic and spiritual ideal of any self-actualized human being. Do you, perchance, remember that sonnet written by Karen Carpenter�who, incidentally, was a classic overtrainer�where she sang, "On the day that you were born, the angels got together and decided to create a dream come true, so they sprinkled moon dust in your hair, and la-de-da-de-da-da-da-da-da?" Well, I was that individual on whom the angels sprinkled their precious extra-terrestrial dust! I had trained with the ultra high intensity of a mad bull who had just heard his mentor, Ayn Rand, verbally attacked by the other bulls in the pen and various other farm animals in general. I had, in short, trained to failure! T: Mike, you seem to be rather obsessed with this 1980 Olympia� MM: One set! One set no matter what! I once had relations with a woman. One pelvic thrust! That's all. She refused to have an orgasm, but that was because of her own physical and intellectual limitations. I once was fed a turkey leg at Thanksgiving. I inserted the whole leg�which clearly came from a fowl who was a chronic overtrainer�into my mouth, chewed once, and swallowed. Now, this was before I had mastered the "one set to failure" concept, and the leg lodged in my throat and was expelled forcefully only after my brother Ray exerted a forceful Heimlich maneuver. No matter that the hurling fowl leg shattered most of dinner host Joe Weider's collection of fine china, the experience only reinforced my own ideas about the validity of heavy duty training. T: Why don't we talk some other time, okay? I really have to go service the laser printer� MM: Look, I'll prove it to you: Einstein proved the theory of relativity, correct? Well, then, ipso facto, if my sister has a house in Albany with a couple of infants�who happen to habitually overtrain, mind you�and she refuses to lend her brother any money even though he promised to pay her back once the world recognizes him as being its true intellectual leader, and this brother was robbed of the 1980 Olympia Contest, it becomes crystal clear, right? Now, given that the vast majority of bodybuilders are intellectually self-arrested, you couldn't possibly understand that, so don't bother getting contentious with me. Now, we can build a toaster that toasts bread until it's the color of Halle Barry's firm curvilinear backside, so why can't we understand that there's only one valid theory of training? T: Mike, gotta' go. Really. I'm needed back on the planet Earth. MM: Yes, it's true that I admire Ayn Rand, but I am slightly discouraged that she doesn't answer my mail or return my calls. Yes, she's been dead about sixteen years, but that seems to me to be a poor excuse for ignoring someone who is her intellectual equivalent. My biceps are considerably larger too, but I suspect that she, despite her inestimable intelligence, was a chronic overtrainer. Yes, yes, we may be able to build one of those funny little devices that gives a man a shock when you shake his hand, but it's apparent that mankind isn't ready to accept heavy duty training yet. Back in Sydney, in 1980, they also weren't ready to accept that man is a heroic being whose highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, whose noblest activity is productive achievement, and whose only absolute is reason, either. For that reason, I will not rest until I short-sheet the beds of all the judges involved in that reprehensible decision. T: Uhh, thanks for your time Mike! Gotta' run. Really. Thanks. You're the man. T LOL!!! ------------------ | ||
Cool Novice Posts: 28 |
Very funny mock interview. I agree that Mentzer obsesses over the 80 Mr. O WAYYYY too much as well as Philosophy. However, that doesn't make his theories of intense brief training invalid. YES, when you're on gear, training more frequently than once a week is needed. A person on gear can handle more volume. A person not on gear requires less training than someone that is on gear. Dorian Yates used his theories of single sets to failure and did he shrink? NAHHHH! Sure he trained like 4 days a week, but his body was so jacked up on gear, that it didn't matter. He was also much bigger than anyone else on stage. How many was it...6 Mr. O's? Alot of people bust on Mentzer because he smokes, looks like shit and just doesn't follow what he preaches. Simply because he doesn't follow what he preaches doesn't make him wrong. Yes, it's a shame Mentzer discredits himself by obsessing over the 80 Mr. O and all that Philosophy. I for one like his training theories. I've been natural all my life and made very good gains from his methods. I'm preparing to start my first ever cycle and will be adjusting my training schedule and routine accordingly. YES, i'm very excited! | ||
Pro Bodybuilder Posts: 456 |
Size, I�m 100% with you. Before my first cycle I used the Heavy Duty program and got realy good results. I still use it while not on gear. | ||
Pro Bodybuilder Posts: 465 |
So do you train once every 10-14 days? | ||
Cool Novice Posts: 28 |
I've been training once a week for the last several years. I've been natural my entire life. I'm 6'2" 225. I'm not 5% BF or anything like that, but I get down to about 210 lbs with a single digit BF %. My first cycle starts soon, so i'm bumping up the workouts to 3 days a week and splitting up upper and lower body training days (among a few other changes). Will be using Sust 500mg & Deca 300mg per week for 8 weeks. Will follow it up with Clomid and Clen. Bros, i'm SO F-ING PUMPED RIGHT NOW!!! Really looking forward to this. I'll post some updates on my progress. This Friday is shot #1. | ||
Elite Bodybuilder Posts: 908 |
"Dorian Yates used his theories of single sets to failure and did he shrink? NAHHHH! Sure he trained like 4 days a week, but his body was so jacked up on gear, that it didn't matter." Size, I guess you forgot that Dorian also did one set to failure with EACH exercise for each bodypart. You see, for example, he would do 4-6 different exercises for back doing one set to failure, so no, he really didn't follow Mike Mentzer's theories. In addition, Dorian also did around three "warm-up" sets per exercise. So what's that...12-18 sets? Sorry bro, Dorian didn't get that way by training with one set per body part every two weeks. This is fact, not speculation. -TG [This message has been edited by The Ghost (edited January 31, 2001).] | ||
Cool Novice Posts: 28 |
Thank you for clarifying. This is leading to an all out "Volume vs HIT" debate. I've gone through too many of them over the years. Nothing was accomplished. I feel overtrained just from the debates. The bottom line is...train hard, get your rest, eat and GROW!!! We can agree on that I suspect. | ||
Pro Bodybuilder Posts: 425 |
Mike may not have the idea of frequency done to a complete science, but I think my cliets results over the past 2 years have proven that 80% of the ideas held in the HIT idea are valid. If they weren't, I wouldn't have a single client, and would be greatly unsuccessful. I noticed that the people whom seem to shoot down HIT are usually the ones who didn't take any time off, even if they tried HIT, which in most cases, they didn't. I have done the volume thing, but when I hit 17, I realized it wasn't working. Mentzer isn't god, and training once every 10-14days is rediculous, but there is a larger portion of what he says that does hold water. | ||
Elite Bodybuilder Posts: 908 |
"The bottom line is...train hard, get your rest, eat and GROW!!!" Size, this is the best piece of advice you could ever give anybody if they ask you. Regardless of what principle you decide to use, it is hard work and dedication that will ultimately be responsible for your success or your failure. -TG | ||
Amateur Bodybuilder Posts: 66 |
You guys have to remember his target audience : the average person who hits the gym but doesnt train properly or overtrains. Most "normal" people I know go to the gym, do 2 sets of 8 or something, and never push themselves. I used to do that too, but then I read Heavy Duty and changed that. I did it for about a year and made tremendous progress. Now that I know more about workingo ut, diet, rest etc I do a mix of volume / hit and it's still working great for me. So take it all with a grain of salt. I for one think it's a great program for somebody new to bb'ing, and I recommend it to all my friends who're looking to start. my $0.02, keep the change :) | ||
Pro Bodybuilder Posts: 456 |
Ok, this is my thought: Dorian Yates way of training is the HIT for the steroid user. I personally believe on munzers theory so I use it every time. The only diference is that when I�m on gear I add a few exercises and lower the frecuency a little Like dorian), but it�s still a low frecuency low volume and high intensity training for a steroid user. ------------------ | ||
Elite Bodybuilder Posts: 1297 |
Meanone is right! Hit is a solid training system. I can't say I am a hitter since I use a little more volume. I train in almost the same fashion as Dorian Yates minus the constant forced reps and negatives. Look at the huge low volume fans: Dorian Yates, J-P Fux, Phil Hernon... ------------------ |
All times are ET (US) | |