HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

Hi guys,

What I would like to see is if a routine is offered as an improvment on Mikes theorises then give us some solid logical reasoning as to why it is an improvement and how it expands on HEAVYDUTY. In my eyes an open mind is a dangerous thing, what you should have is an OBJECTIVE outlook on things. If some one offers a very logical way of training, one I think maybe better than the one offer by Mike, I would look at it objectively and I would make my choice. Just because MR O or Val offers a routine you should not just accept it as the best way to train or that because someone has made or is making progress does also not make it the best way to train. They could be making even more or faster progress on alternate routine.
People keep saying Mike wants us to push on with his theories and improve HD. I agree he would want us to do so, but he would not want us to accept anything with out a valid and well explained logic to support that improvement. Every improvement that Mike made, he would offer very sound advice to why it was an improvement and let us decide. He said many times don′t just except what I say because I′m bigger or stronger or have better shape or I was Mr Universe, except what I say because you have looked at what I offer as a logical way to train, try to find fault in it and if you cant, then you will know it is the right way to train not because I OR ANY ONE ELSE SAID SO!!!! I WILL ACCEPT IT BECAUSE IT CAN′T BE PROVEN WRONG!!!! It has been said by Val to post pictures of ourselve′s to prove a certain training routine is superior, this is not an accurate way to Judge how good a routine is or how good someones knowledge on the subject of exercise. There are two many things that cant effect a persons appearance ′A SMALL REASON THIS IS INACCURATE GENETICS′. I ask for proof of any improvement with good reason, and let us make our own minds up on the subject, because it cant be proven wrong as Mikes workings cant be proven wrong…so far. If the theory is improved on, all I ask is good reason behind it, that does not contradict the theory of HD, like three sets for triceps – if one set stimulates the growth in the tricep, then you will not stimulate any more growth with two more sets. This is not improvement on heavy duty it contradicts one of the major fundamentals, ′no more exercise than the minimum to stimulate growth!′ The very definition of over training is any more exercise than the minimum needed it stimulate growth, any more is counter productive. multiple sets for each body part is the exact opposite to what Mike offers, but like i said GIVE ME THE SOLID REASONING YOU USE TO SUPPORT MULTIPLE SETS, AND WE WILL MAKE OUR MINDS UP!!!!
HAVE AN ACTIVE MIND, NOT AN OPEN MIND!!!!

Cheers….HIT.

Quick comment on one point in your post…

We always say "the minimum to stimulate growth". Is there such a thing? OR does more stimulate MORE growth? If growth is stimulated with damage, then more damage would stimulate more growth, so what would be optimal would be based on recovery?

Az

HIT, thanx, very nicely written.

If you do more excersice than is requerd you dont grow more because your digging a deeper hole into your recovery ability. Our goal is to get an adoptive responce.

I dont think the thoery of HD/HIT can be improved on. I think its perfect. Medical science have theorys that are perfect. When it come′s to heart surgery. Now with the new technoligy its aplication has been perfected. Open heart surgery use to take longer back in the days. Now they have laser and minicameras now the process is much shorter. The theory is the same the aplication has been improve upon.

Intense, Brief, and ifrequent thats perfect. Mike came up with the ideal routine and then the consolidation. And like Hit4life said he even consolidated the consolidation. Less is more…….. Now people are going back to more is more. That is not HD

HIT, I agree with you that anything anyone says here should be backed by logic and explanation. I also agree that the routines listed by Val and Abbas may seem like a bit too much for most of us. I know for a fact that if I did Abbas′s routine that I would not gain mass or strength, although I do think I might have a more solid look than the look I have doing my current consolidation routine (just my opinion, take it or leave it).

HOWEVER, the thing you are failing to accept is that RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES !!! If a person is making progress on a particular routine then apparently that routine works for them. Apparently this type of routine is working for Val and Abbas. Val also claims that many if not all of his clients are seeing gains with a similar type of routine. THAT DOESN′T MEAN THAT WE ALL WILL!!!!!! IN FACT I AGREE THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO EMULATE ABBAS′S ROUTINE WILL PROBABLY NOT GAIN STRENGTH AND MASS, BUT MAYBE A FEW WILL!!!! If a person is not getting the results they want from a consolidated approach then maybe a consolidated approach is not the best way for them to acheive their goals. I understand your arguement about not just emulating someone because they are really huge and strong and I TOTALLY AGREE (imagine that)!!!!

IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO WHAT WORKS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. At the end of the day we all just want to acheive certain goals via our routine (whether that be strength, mass, and/or looks) and if a routine is helping someone achieve those goals then WHY COME DOWN ON THEM?

IN THE END RESULTS MATTER MOST. Beleive it or not I agree with you that this type of training will probably not produce sustained strength and mass gains for MOST people. All I am saying is that there is no need to antagonize or accuse. Let results tell the tale. If people start trying this type of routine and like the results that they get, SO BE IT, BE HAPPY FOR THEM. However, I concur with you that eventually MOST people will end up consolidating if they want to reach their peak strength and mass.

I REALLY THINK WE AGREE FUNDAMENTALLY HIT, I just don′t think it is necessary to slam people because they have a different view, give your views on why you think it wont work and why you think consolidation is superior and let people experiment and find out for themselves what routine gives them the results they want. (p.s. I think in the end they will end up consolidating if they want to continue growing I know that′s what worked for me)

Latino, I believe that nothing is perfect. You say heart surgery is perfect. Tell that to my grandpa (its a long story but there were many unforseen problems with his surgery, they had to reopen his chest twice, he was legally dead 2 times). They still haven′t perfected an artificial heart that really works. In the future they may though. They definitely won′t if they accept your veiw that their methods are perfect and there is no need to experiment any further with new methods. In fact, new methods for surgery are developed all the time. When we stop moving forward with our thinking we stagnate and die.

Hit

Good post, just a few thoughts. If someone has far better results with a routine and doesn′t know why it is better. Are you saying that you won′t look at it? Why not just analyze it yourself? Most discoveries come by accident. I wouldn′t rely on every individual to have the knowledge or experience to know why it′s better.

With regards to prving something wrong. The only proof can be through the testing of many individuals and looking at the results. Cause and effect seems to be an easy thing to measure but it′s not. There could be other unseen factors such as medical problems. One measurement isn′t enough to go by.

I am with you on not looking at someone′s success as the only measurement. In order to be valid it must apply to the majority. My friend was telling me that his female coworker gained muscle from jogging 4 times a week. If she was asked how to gain muscle, I am sure that she would respond with "Jog 4 times a week".

I think that we spend too much time asking for routines as this is a fool′s gold. A perfect routine is a moving target if you believe in HIT.

I looked at Val′s routine and although it is not specific in details it doesn′t seem to me to be in the volume camp.

I perform 6-8 exercises every 6 days and I have seen results with this. Now my progress is starting to slow so soon I will drop a set. When progress slows again I will drop another one. Right now I would say that I am an intermediate. At some future point I will try consolidation. If it works then I will continue to use it.

Mike stated that as you advance intensity must be increased in order to continue to advance. Neither he nor Arthur knew the right level of intensity to work at. They both believed that there was a level that stimulated and below this level there was nothing. Because tey didn′t know where this level was they said to train to full intensity so that you know you reached it.

Mike further stated that for advanced routines, you need to perform higher intensity workouts that include either partial reps, negatives, forced reps etc. This implies that this theoretical bar moves upwards as you get stronger.

Taking this a step further to relate intensity of training to your level. A beginner can make gains by training somewhere just below full intensity. Intermediates should train at full intensity to make gains. Advanced must push harder to make gains.

Val, you state your clients are getting great results. Does this mean better than any other way? Are they advanced trainees?

Are you and Abbas getting better results, or simply maintaining? If the cut back is being done for health reasons, then by all means protect your health.