HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

Here′s a few comments from a few HIT training “Gurus” that I′ve read over the years. Some of these writers have been Bob Whelan, Dr Ken, Dr Darden and Drew Baye – just to name a few:

1.Not one person trains hard enough or knows what hard training is.
2.Not many people, if any, train to absolute failure on each and every set.
3.Most people give up way before they are “spent” on an exercise, they aren′t willing to push harder.
4.In order to make one set to failure work, that is grow bigger and stronger from workout to workout, you have to train to absolute failure – not many, if any trainee can do this.
5.Most weight trainees think they are working to failure or really hard but they aren′t.

This particular comment really got me thinking:

Many people who do not push to failure (true failure), that is, most unsupervised weight trainees should perform three sets per exercise because the one set to failure model won′t work, due to the fact that most HIT trainees are not training anywhere near hard enough for it work.

The belief system behind these HIT trainers is that unless you are supervised by one of them, then you are not training anywhere near hard enough to make the one set to failure concept work and you should do multiple sets per exercise.

Even though these comments and concepts stink of commercialism (you need a personal trainer to get big and strong), there maybe a valid point – do many people, really train to absolute and utter failure on each and every set of an exercise – or are they only fooling themselves that they are ?

How can you ever no that? i train at home on own,so proberly i dont. i think i do, but i guess if a guy came in with a gun and said five more else your dead, i may just get them!! but i wouldnt like to risk doing that ever workout, as i may just not make them extra five one day! 😉 in seriusness, all you can do is give 100 % at that point in time! can not ask anymore from yourself!! and your right about these personal trainers, must of them just think about MONEY!! like dr darden, most of his books are basically the same, with new pics and cover! can not say that about mike mentzer. he wrote books as he found new things out! drdarden and lots others, are just cashing in on arthur jones and mike mentzer its sad! even the mike mentzer offical site is dead! forgot the womans name that runs it, she seems like just keeps it going to pay her a wage! if her heart was in it, she would have updated it by now!! not been updated since mike died!! sorry, went on a rant there!! im just passionate in what i believe in! and mike mentzer is one person to get passionate about!!

I kind of agree with the "experts", there is a big difference between almost going to failure, and hitting that sweet point of doing no more without using poor form. I think it is a matter of "digging" down within yourself to get that last solid rep. I train at home by myself so, I have to try to find that "sweet point", without going to far that I hurt myself or use bad form.(just getting back to working out after a two month layoff, using to Ideal routine-not a bad workout–flat fly 50lbs-11 reps;incline press 185-3reps–homemade pulldown 160lbs-8 reps; deadlifts 275-5 reps) good luck to all

Good responses – just another observation. I don′t recall Arnie, Frank Zane, Yates or even Coleman having a Personal Trainer, they did it themselves. Then again they are JUST bodybuilders who haven′t a clue. They were probably lazy and didn′t work hard enough :wink;wink: (sarcasm).

All man-made conclusions are to be "judged critically", as in looked into their premises and bases in fact.

Looking at the five numbers enumerated above, one′s judgment to accept them as truths or falsehood depends on his/her intellectual range brought about by asking the premises, observation and own experience.

What are those gurus premises or bases in fact? They weren′t mentioned.
What are the exact definitions of their terms? Again, not elaborated.
For example, would their absolute failure mean only to the positive, or does it include the static and negatives, too?
How can we judge critically then those statements′ truth when all that is presented are sweeping generalizations?

Bringing these statements to this forum is ok,
but without the necessary definition of concepts, proposition and theories touched by them, no intelligent and critical judgment might be concluded as to their specific use for us.