HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

To me, Mike was right about "how to lift weights."
He was wrong about three things: aerobics, stretching, and Ayn Rand.
In terms of "how to lift weights" he is the only consistent theorist; all other
theorists, including the super Ph.D.s and doctors and UConn professorswe are all supposed to worship, have created systems
that involve either unwarranted assumptions or mutually contradictory premisses.
Love him or hate min, Mike is the only strength theorist who could make it into Copi′s 20th edition (?)of BASIC LOGIC. Ell is disqualified because he accepts the 96-hour myth; Pete and John L. have not yet proven that partials or holds can totally replace full-range reps. Mike and only Mike qualifies.

Mike was also wrong about failure and since it is one of the axioms of his theory, the whole thing falls apart logically.
there are also plenty of contradictory premises in HD, most notably that volume is a "negative with a capital N!"
if this is so, then why is one supposed to work their way up using the double progression system of weight AND rep increases and also utilize techniques such as forced reps, negative reps and pre-exhaust all of which can increase the volume, sometimes dramatically.

Also, it is an unwarranted assumption to believe there is a way to "trigger the growth mechanism" or "pass the breakover point" when the existence of either one has never been proven physiologically. It is pure speculation on the part of HIT theorists.

as much as I admire Mike, HD has no place in a basic logic textbook.
I admire Ayn Rand quite a lot as well, but Mike′s notion that she achieved "intellectual and moral perfection" (HDII) is utter nonsense.

to really put Mentzer in perspective is to admire his brilliant intellect and acomplishments as a BBer and thinker but at the same time realize and be aware that he was quite over zealous, philosophically, and tried waaaay too hard to emulate Arthur Jones and Ayn Rand.
(I hardly think it′s a coincidence that Rand claimed to have created the first non-contradictory system of thought and Mike claimed the same for a theory of anaerobic exercise)

btw, as far as i can tell, Darden has abandoned the "96 hour" decompensation myth.

B&G;

Mike was also wrong about failure and since it is one of the axioms of his theory, the whole thing falls apart logically.
there are also plenty of contradictory premises in HD, most notably that volume is a "negative with a capital N!"
if this is so, then why is one supposed to work their way up using the double progression system of weight AND rep increases and also utilize techniques such as forced reps, negative reps and pre-exhaust all of which can increase the volume, sometimes dramatically.

Also, it is an unwarranted assumption to believe there is a way to "trigger the growth mechanism" or "pass the breakover point" when the existence of either one has never been proven physiologically. It is pure speculation on the part of HIT theorists.

as much as I admire Mike, HD has no place in a basic logic textbook.
I admire Ayn Rand quite a lot as well, but MikeŒs notion that she achieved "intellectual and moral perfection" (HDII) is utter nonsense.

to really put Mentzer in perspective is to admire his brilliant intellect and acomplishments as a BBer and thinker but at the same time realize and be aware that he was quite over zealous, philosophically, and tried waaaay too hard to emulate Arthur Jones and Ayn Rand.
(I hardly think itŒs a coincidence that Rand claimed to have created the first non-contradictory system of thought and Mike claimed the same for a theory of anaerobic exercise)

btw, as far as i can tell, Darden has abandoned the "96 hour" decompensation myth.

B&G;

Mike was also wrong about failure and since it is one of the axioms of his theory, the whole thing falls apart logically.
there are also plenty of contradictory premises in HD, most notably that volume is a "negative with a capital N!"
if this is so, then why is one supposed to work their way up using the double progression system of weight AND rep increases and also utilize techniques such as forced reps, negative reps and pre-exhaust all of which can increase the volume, sometimes dramatically.

Also, it is an unwarranted assumption to believe there is a way to "trigger the growth mechanism" or "pass the breakover point" when the existence of either one has never been proven physiologically. It is pure speculation on the part of HIT theorists.

as much as I admire Mike, HD has no place in a basic logic textbook.
I admire Ayn Rand quite a lot as well, but MikeŒs notion that she achieved "intellectual and moral perfection" (HDII) is utter nonsense.

to really put Mentzer in perspective is to admire his brilliant intellect and acomplishments as a BBer and thinker but at the same time realize and be aware that he was quite over zealous, philosophically, and tried waaaay too hard to emulate Arthur Jones and Ayn Rand.
(I hardly think itŒs a coincidence that Rand claimed to have created the first non-contradictory system of thought and Mike claimed the same for a theory of anaerobic exercise)

btw, as far as i can tell, Darden has abandoned the "96 hour" decompensation myth.

B&G;

Mike was also wrong about failure and since it is one of the axioms of his theory, the whole thing falls apart logically.
there are also plenty of contradictory premises in HD, most notably that volume is a "negative with a capital N!"
if this is so, then why is one supposed to work their way up using the double progression system of weight AND rep increases and also utilize techniques such as forced reps, negative reps and pre-exhaust all of which can increase the volume, sometimes dramatically.

Also, it is an unwarranted assumption to believe there is a way to "trigger the growth mechanism" or "pass the breakover point" when the existence of either one has never been proven physiologically. It is pure speculation on the part of HIT theorists.

as much as I admire Mike, HD has no place in a basic logic textbook.
I admire Ayn Rand quite a lot as well, but MikeŒs notion that she achieved "intellectual and moral perfection" (HDII) is utter nonsense.

to really put Mentzer in perspective is to admire his brilliant intellect and acomplishments as a BBer and thinker but at the same time realize and be aware that he was quite over zealous, philosophically, and tried waaaay too hard to emulate Arthur Jones and Ayn Rand.
(I hardly think itŒs a coincidence that Rand claimed to have created the first non-contradictory system of thought and Mike claimed the same for a theory of anaerobic exercise)

btw, as far as i can tell, Darden has abandoned the "96 hour" decompensation myth.

B&G;