|
That article, entitled “An Open Challenge To Exercise Science” appeared in the March 1997 issue of ALL NATURAL MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT. After repeating his well-known arguments as to why high intensity training is the only valid scientific approach, Mentzer concluded with the following:
“Considering that neither the bodybuilding orthodoxy nor exercise science has provided either a formal theory or any solid evidence to support their mutual contention that the entirety of exercise science rests on the bootleg logic “more is better,” they are living a giant pretense; which, last point, is also true for those who have bastardized high-intensity training theory.
Since a theory, properly defined, is a set of abstract principles claiming to be either a guide for successful human action and/or a correct description of some aspect of reality and there is only ONE reality, there can be only one correct description of any aspect of it, i.e., one valid theory of anything. And, as stated at the outset, I have enough hard evidence – the unbreached progress of hundreds upon hundreds of training clients – to fully convince me that high-intensity training theory is the one valid scientific approach.
For far too long, Joe Weider, Robert Kennedy, Greg Zulak, Tom Platz, Leo Costa, Bill Phillips, Dan Duchaine, Steve Holman, John Little, Pete Sisco, Fred Koch, Michael Yessis, Fred Hatfield, and a host of others have been denying the validity of the one truly scientific approach to exercise; and all too rarely is it done honestly. My suggestion is that anyone sincerely interested in establishing the objective truth contribute time and monetary funds to an independent study that will compare the results from Weider System, Serious Growth, periodization training, POF, Power Factor Training and Heavy Duty (the proper version of high-intensity) training.
I personally am willing to put $5,000.00 of my own money towards such an experiment. The details would have to be worked out and mutually agreed upon. This article is a first effort to launch such a project. And to those readers who recognize the importance of such an undertaking: if the individuals I mentioned decline the invitation, I will enlist the help of independent, objective researchers entirely on my own – and prove, once and for all, that there can be only one valid theory of bodybuilding exercise.”
|
|
|
" Considering that neither the bodybuilding orthodoxy nor exercise science has provided either a formal theory or any solid evidence to support their mutual contention that the entirety of exercise science rests on the bootleg logic “more is better,”"
Here′s where Mentzer made his biggest mistake. Forget the pseudo-science and false premises, he stupidly lumped everyone into one big category.
While the "Bodybuilding Orthodoxy" may be out to lunch, "Exercise Science" has had a proven formal theory for DECADES. There is no confusion in this field. Profesional strength athletes all train in this manner and the results are completely predictable. Everyone knows what to do, there are only debates about the best way to go about it. There is no "more is better" philosophy dominating exercise science.
Mentzer was actually lucky that the best of the best pro strength trainers were too busy producing top notch physical specimines to be bothered with his stupid little "challenge." A semi-long term study would′ve made HD look like the novice training it is.
And LOL @ Kingfish and his retarted story above! Zoze krayzie walloome guyz!!!
Jeff
|
|
|
"Mentzer was actually lucky that the best of the best pro strength trainers were too busy producing top notch physical specimines to be bothered with his stupid little "challenge." A semi-long term study would?ve made HD look like the novice training it is."
Why is this "challenge" stupid? It would prove HD to be true or false. The weird thing is that NOT ONE person took the challenge. Proving HD wrong would not only reveal the truth to the world, but it would be great way to adverise a "real" trainer and his methods to the world. I highly doubt ALL trainers were too busy to prove the mighty Mike Mentzer wrong.
I don′t agree with everything Mike said, but I also don′t have to demean a person or his philosophy to prove a point.
The journey to truth is much more valuable than the destination. The journey is what builds character not the end result.
|
|
