Go Back   Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > Main Forums > Training


Mike menzters training philosophy



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-27-2009, 07:01 AM
Riddick2112 Riddick2112 is offline
Rank: Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: vermont
Posts: 235
Default

My results were even worse than Hoppers and i wasted years trying to find the magic application of HD. i was ALWAYS sore 3-5 days after a workout and basically went nowhere wasting time trying every new "intensity" technique

we have to understand that what Mike was really trying to do was emulate his idol Ayn Rand.
Mike was a dogmatic Objectivist who claimed that Rand achieved "Intellectual and moral perfection" in her field of philosophy and he was trying to do the exact same thing in his field.

the other thing he was trying to do was earn a living!

Almost any training program will work in the beginning but over the long term Mentzer's "theory" will be self-defeating. Systematically adding more rest days and/or lowering volume will manifest itself in a dwindling work capacity and poor conditioning. That is a simple law of reality, the less you ask your body to do the less it will end up being capable of doing!
(just ask those guys who are still sore 5 days after doing ONE set of pulldowns!)
Mike was indeed a master at selling the "logic" of the theory but unfortunately when one takes a good close look at it, it is rife with contradictions and holes and based on a false premise i.e. that training to failure is an objective requirement for triggering muscle growth. Using Mike as an example of the efficacy of the theory is total BS because Mike was a genetic freak who used steroids and trained way more often and way longer than his theory advocates.
(just as it is equally BS to use Casey Viator as proof of Arthur Jones methods)
HD advocates will spout off that if you didnt get good results you just didnt train hard enough, use enough rest days, apply the theory properly etc etc etc, but it's all a smokescreen for what is a fundamentally flawed approach to weight training.

i mean do some math . . . Mentzer's "Athlete's program" has one in the gym once every 7 days using a 2 way split routine. ok that means 26 sessions a year of workout A and 26 of workout B, right? so i am to understand that within 26 sessions of squatting i will be able to reach my genetic potential on that exercise???

the other problem i see in the with training world is that a good number of people seem to think that you can use either "volume" training, as advocated in the Weider mags or "High intensity" training as advocated by Jones, Darden and Mentzer which is of course another huge load of BS! i remember when i used to post at high intensity dot net and informed everyone i was switching to Rip's program, they all started calling me a volume trainer!! 9 working sets in a session constitutes volume training? a ridiculous notion but that's the mind set Mentzer was perpetrating in his books and i have found that, despite Mentzer's advising that HD'ers think for themselves, most of them really just take his word as the gospel and any deviation from, or questioning of it is scorned instantly.

obviously lower volume-higher EFFORT training can be used very effectively at times (i.e. fridays session when using the Texas method etc etc) but as the be-all-end-all method to reaching ones genetic potential in less than one year, fughedaboudit!!!!
__________________
Quote:
You're not afraid of the dark are ya?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-27-2009, 10:39 AM
iron_worker's Avatar
iron_worker iron_worker is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saskatoon, Sk, Canada
Posts: 3,272
Send a message via MSN to iron_worker
Default

Seems like you aren't actually looking for oppinions. Seems like you were hoping someone would validate the fact that you're using this program. If you want to do the program then fine but don't expect stellar results. Other people are telling you it does not work well. I would advise you listen.

IW
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-27-2009, 11:25 AM
HIThopper's Avatar
HIThopper HIThopper is offline
Rank: Middleweight
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,029
Default

I was just thinking the yesterday, wondering when Riddick would chime in.I just knew he wouldnt be able to leave this one alone!! (as I couldnt!)

Quote:
so i am to understand that within 26 sessions of squatting i will be able to reach my genetic potential on that exercise???
It usually takes most people that long to learn the exercise properly!! Myself included!!
__________________
There are no shortcuts. The fact that a shortcut is important to you means that you are a pussy. Let me be clear here: if you'd rather take steroids than do your squats heavy and drink enough milk, then you are a Fucking Pussy. I have no time or patience for Fucking Pussies. Please tell everyone you know that I said this.- Mark Rippetoe

My Youtube
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Riddick2112 Riddick2112 is offline
Rank: Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: vermont
Posts: 235
Default

lol, yeah yer right Hops, i couldnt keep my mouth shut on this topic, no sireeeee! I hope things are well for you mate!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-27-2009, 01:41 PM
Jonson Jonson is offline
Rank: Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 209
Default

Mentzer's High intensity training is NOT the one true valid theory of bodybuilding,
But it is one of the few invalid theory's of bodybuilding.
Also its not so much a theory these days its more like a fanatical religous cult!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-30-2009, 10:04 PM
universe101 universe101 is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Posts: 14
Default

i am actually testing this program because volume training did not work out for me. and i just wanna see what the results are. And the reason i posted this up was to get your opinions on his flaws and why they can be applied to bodybuilding. but i guess no one doesnt really know or understand.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-31-2009, 05:50 AM
Pitysister's Avatar
Pitysister Pitysister is offline
Rank: Light Heavyweight
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iron_worker View Post
Seems like you aren't actually looking for oppinions. Seems like you were hoping someone would validate the fact that you're using this program. If you want to do the program then fine but don't expect stellar results. Other people are telling you it does not work well. I would advise you listen.

IW
yes.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-31-2009, 11:07 AM
Riddick2112 Riddick2112 is offline
Rank: Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: vermont
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by universe101 View Post
i am actually testing this program because volume training did not work out for me. and i just wanna see what the results are. And the reason i posted this up was to get your opinions on his flaws and why they can be applied to bodybuilding. but i guess no one doesnt really know or understand.
the program will probably work well for you at first, as i said just about any program will, but dont use the first few months results as "proof" that it is a sound method of training. if that were the case then pretty much ALL methods of training would be considered sound. myself, HIThopper and Jeffo all stuck with it way longer than we should have and paid the price with a lot of wasted time.

btw, when you say "volume training" you are being incredibly vague! what were you doing? 6 days a week 20 sets per bodypart or 4 days a week 20 sets per entire session? Despite what most HIT and HD advocates spout off, the term "volume training" is NOT an all-encompassing statement describing every other method of training outside of the HIT-HD bubble. Mentzer himself used the term "blind-non-theoretical volume training" many many times to describe all other training methods except HIT and HD. i often wonder if the only other method of training Mentzer even knew about was the junk espoused in the Weider mags!

i say go ahead and give it a try, you may make some very good gains at first! after you've eeked all you can from it, move onto something better.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-31-2009, 11:57 AM
universe101 universe101 is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Posts: 14
Default combining both worlds

I guess combining both worlds heavy duty and volume is best for best results. I guess the debate between this should end by combining both
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-31-2009, 03:44 PM
HIThopper's Avatar
HIThopper HIThopper is offline
Rank: Middleweight
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,029
Default

Pretty much (sort of) ^^^^

The best way I ever heard to describe HIT is that its nothing more than a glorified deload.Its good at getting you unloaded from some real hard and heavy loading, but not much else!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > Main Forums > Training


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



 



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.