HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

Yesterday I eventualy realised that surcompensation workout after workout is not necessary (maybe not even possible).

Let′s say we do 6x100kg to failure DAY 1, then we wait until DAY 10 and try to do 7×100 or 6×101.

But why not :

1/2 days 2x3x100kg (relatively easy workouts) at the 10th days we have 5 workouts and now we can test our new strength ! Maybe we would have gained more (or less) than with 1 set once every 10 days.

What I mean is that it′s not necessary to have surcompensation EVERY workout, it could be every 5 workouts, a sort of STEP progression.

What is the point of the low intensity workouts thrown into the mix? They aren′t not going to stimulate anything meaningful in the way of growth and can only serve to impede recovery. Of what benefit are they? You should expect a strength increase every workout and its not unrealistic to expect it either. If you aren′t getting stronger from workout to workout then something is not right and you need to fine tune at least one aspect of your program.

Well if the intensity/stimulus is the effort then ok the submaximum workouts will do nothing or very little. But if the stimulus is the weight then it might work ! I personaly don′t believe that the intensity of effort is the stimulus but the weight is.

Doing a set of 100 reps to failure is a very low stimulus for growth but 4 reps with 6RM is a strong stimulus !

It is so obvious that intensity of effort is the critical factor in stimulating growth. Submaximal sets that are well within your existing capacity don′t stimulate much in the way of growth if they stimulate anything at all. Remember Mikes example; in a set of 10 reps to failure, which rep do you think is more likely to stimulate growth, the first or the last? Any sane individual can see the last rep in the set, the most intense is the one more likely to stimulate growth. This is proof positive that intensity of effort is a requirement in the growth stimulation process.

What you are suggesting Vincent, that if weight alone is the stimulus responsible for growth stimulation why not just do 100 low intensity sets a day? You don′t have to worry about intensity since as you maintain the moving of weight is the key factor. You have more or less just advocated low intensity "more is better" training as the key to growth. Wrong.

Adman, yes mate! what i like about you is that when it comes to heavy duty training theory you dont take any bullshit! nice one geezer