HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

Hi Guys,

listen don′t shot me for this one!!! its only a thought I want to run by you guys, I still do believe HD/HIT is the most efficient way to train, but at some point all we are doing is taking from one to give to another, let me explain. I think we have all reach our genetic potential at one point or another with out even realising it!! what I′m saying is we only have so much recoverability and adaptive energy and once its being used to its capacity then that′s IT!, so we have all been at the point of doing four exercise in two weekly workouts and showing no progress what so ever, so that is it we had reached our genetic potential to train with four exercises in two weekly workouts, e.g. take two guys and put them on the same workout and one will out perform the other guy, reaching an higher standard on the same workout because he has better recovery and more adaptation energy than the other guy, but when he stops progressing he as also reached his genetic potential to train with X number of exercises in one week, so he then reduces the exercise and add days rest, well of course this well help us show more improvement in the remaining exercises, as we have now got the same adaptive energy to split over three exercise that we had to split over four, so its not really progress is it, we now give the impression of adapting even further by dropping one more exercise,now training with only two exercise this now allows our recovery and adaptive energy′s be divided over just two exercises, so of course you would show improvement in the exercise that you are left with, as you have more energy to apply to the remaining exercises, what we are doing is specialising on a small number of exercises and thinking it is improvement, it is improvement but only in the exercises you now train with, at the expense of the exercises you have dropped, if you take the two guys that were mentioned above, the one with the better genetics will again do better than the other guy on two exercises, as he can apply his better genetics now to only two exercises, so we need to divide our recovery/adaptation energy over the exercises which give us the best physic, or which are best to supplement a sport we participate in, i.e football or rugby, or which may encourage hormone realise which improve recovery and adaptation, this makes one think of Mikes athletes routine, maybe that′s why he has never mentioned a one set workout, as he was by all accounts well aware of there use by others, but never really out lined one, I think he may have believed the last stop was the athletes routine!! to quote mike "this routine will stimulate maximum growth with minimum inroad" even if you split the four exercises of the athletes routine up you are still divining your recovery and adaptive energy over the four exercises, you end up with so many days between workouts you probably would be losing strength on one while training the others in the cycle of four, again all you are doing is dividing the recovery and adaptation over a longer time scale, is that really improvement!! the only way we would truly improve is by improving our recovery and adaptive energy, that is why steroids are so often used, and that is why I believe Steve is get such good results with his training clients, which are doing just one set of legpress, they are apply all there recovery and adaptive energy to the very exercise which my improve their over all potential, by causing the realise of hormones which improve our adaptability to stresses, its just a thought, don′t jump on me for this I′m just trying to make sense of a thought I have, had hope you guys can relate to what I′m saying, that real improvement would only come from our ability to improve our recovery and adaptive energy, or all we are doing is giving the impression of progress, by transferring our limited recourses form on exercises to another and saying that is improvement, its a bit like transferring money form one bank to another and saying you are richer, its still the same amount of money available but in one bank instead of it being split over the two banks, which gives the bank manager of one the impression you are richer but would not make the other manger very happy, you see what I′m saying you can split your recovery and adoption energy any way you like but its all you′ve got, so putting all in one exercise at the expense of others is not improvement, as something will have to suffer for the improvement of another!!!!!

Cheers HIT.

HIT,

It depends on how you define genetic potential. If it is purely how big and strong the muscle can get then your agrument is incorrect. If it′s based on an exercise or a group of exercises then you are correct.

However, I think that most people use the first case. I myself have trouble with the entire issue of how we measure strength. This prompted my topics on direct vs indirect and another post on measuring strength.

There is nothing wrong with what you are saying. It′s all a question of definition.

Cheers

Ferrari,

You said: "I myself have trouble with the entire issue of how we measure strength."

I think you′ve effectively answered this when you said true strength is an increase in an "unfamiliar" exercise or movement. I′m not sure you have convinced yourself of your own statement, but I think you are correct with that answer.

Darrell

HIT,

Those are all good questions and points. I think you may be right about "transferring" some energy to the other.

I think Ferrari (in the past) has actually stumbled upon the definition of TRUE strength, which I just replied about above. I think one reaches their genetic potential if they do an unfamiliar exercise with maximum effort to get like 6 reps and fail on the 6th rep, then if they do the SAME unfamiliar (not regular part of their routine) exercise like 1 year later, and there is an increase, they probably aren′t to their genetic potential yet. However, if the NEXT year, the person is the same strength on the unfamiliar exercise as before, they HAVE reached their genetic potential.

I think you have some good points in there, even if they don′t totally explain the genetic potential. I think you′ve brought up good points about neurological efficiency or "skill genetic limit".

Darrell

Darrell,

Stumbled? LOL.

In the earlier post I meant that I have trouble with how "we" measure strength. Surely you noticed the passion with which I argue direct vs indirect exercises.

In the engineering and physics fields, measurements are always an issue. So I have a little experience in poking holes in the way we evaluate any measurement and strength is no exception.

Cheers