HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

I haven′t read this yet, but hope it′s good. Thought I′d post the link on here.

http://www.21minutefitness.com/docs/arthurjones.pdf

Az

A very interesting read Az, thanks!

i like the power of dense objectivity as demonstrated by the vast review of research in this paper! provides such strong evidence in support of HD.

I marvel at jones′ genius in the field of BB. How did he know to postulate such things?

A summary of the article:
research overwhelmingly supports "one set to failure per muscle group per week with 8-12 reps of a slow controlled and non-explosive modality" is the most effective BB method.

Peace.
Bayan

Interesting article, but didn′t find any mention backing the supposed superiority of multi-joint exercises over single-joint movements in building overall muscle mass. I suppose AJ just missed this one.

Andy

Hey, thanks a lot for that article. I really enjoyed it.

I liked this:

"I
n a review published in 1998, Carpinelli and Otto (35) concluded that the research to date strongly
supports the idea that single sets can produce optimal results. This was the case in 33 out of the 35 studies
they reviewed. Carpinelli (36) pointed out that many exercise physiology textbooks cite a 1962 study by
Berger (37) as supporting multiple-set training. This study found a small advantage from performing
multiple sets on bench press one-repetition maximum (1 RM; 22.3 % increase from 1 set versus a 25.5 %
increase from 3 sets, a 3 % difference in strength from 300 % more training)."

That′s what I was seeing from my blitz. For any increase I did get, it was WAY out of proportion. It′s definately not worth it at all to me, even if it is slightly better, because of the tremendous waste of time (and increasing your chance of getting sick and run down). 3% increase from 300% more training. That′s just horrible. If you read more, it even points out that study was flawed, because of not being controlled properly. So not only do the results show crappy results, the study ITSELF was crappy. So in reality, I can′t even SUPPORT the results. LOL.

Another funny thing related to that is, neurological efficiency (or skill) increases. You would THINK doing more volume would increase neuro strength a LOT more, because you′d get much more skillful at it. So, if you increase in strength by 3% ONLY from 300% more exercise, you′d think MAYBE the CNS improved by 5%, therefore, a net LOSS of 2% of strength from LOSS OF MUSCLE MASS. I just made up the numbers, but you catch my drift (I hope). It points out neuro efficiency either cannot improve as much as some claim, or there was actually a LOSS in muscle mass that offset the neuro gains. All of this is assumptions, so don′t take it to heart. But I find it pretty funny.

Darrell

"Again, this shows that fast movements do not
provide as much muscle tension as slow movements through most of the ROM, suggesting that faster
Strength Training and Arthur Jones
60
repetitions may not produce optimal strength increases through a muscle’s full ROM. This appears to be
strongly supported by a study by Westcott et al. (85), in which 147 previously untrained subjects were
assigned to either a ‘super-slow’ condition (4-6 repetitions/set, 10 s concentric contraction, 4 s eccentric) or
a ‘traditional’ (8-12 repetitions/set, 2 s concentric, 1 s isometric and 4 s eccentric) condition. Both groups
performed 1 set of 13 exercises 2-3 times/week for 8-10 weeks. The super-slow group increased their
strength to a significantly greater degree than the traditional group, suggesting that not only are faster
repetitions no more effective, but also that even slower movements than Jones advocated may be best.
Better results from slower repetitions were also found by Jones et al. (86), who found significantly greater
increases in 1 RM squat resulting from slower repetitions than from faster ones (though precise movement
cadence was not reported in this study)."

Man, I always have a hard time believing super-slow could be more effective than faster reps.

Darrell