I'm reading Mentzer right now and damn I wasn't expected IST tier writing. Is he the biggest brain in bodybuilding?
I'm reading Mentzer right now and damn I wasn't expected?
I'm reading Mentzer right now and damn I wasn't expected IST tier writing. Is he the biggest brain in bodybuilding?
what's your deal anyway
he's good at bloviating and restating things with eloquent wording
the entire first paragraph is just "you can't say knowledge is impossible because that's a self-referential statement"
second paragraph is "bodybuilding culture relies on pseudoscience"
there's nothing epistemological about his statements, it's just common sense
Shut up
Yeah that was his whole thing. The brainiac bodybuilder. He was special because he was the nerd bodybuilder but he actually looked good. The people who took up his role in the community these days all look like shit like that Mike Isretael homosexual.
How about you just chill out butthole
L
Post your fat ass in a thong so I can jerk off to my /for/ queen
Back in the day you had to write like a homosexual reddit pseud to get your shit published and have people listen to you. Also just like almost every other pro bodybuilder in history Mike Mentzer was a massively narcissistic homosexual.
He was right though, and mentzers' broscience > everyone elses broscience for the most part.
>because that's a self referential statement
he's not just saying its tautological, he's stating that it's self-contradictory
>there's nothing epistemological (it's epistemic by the way)
epistemology is literally what he's talking about and you know it, because you even tried (and failed) to insert that word into your post. you're just being purposefully obtuse because triphomosexuals get off on self aggrandising contrarianism. you saying its common sense is proof of that, your whole post amounts to shouting "I ALREADY KNEW THAT" in a class for 8th graders
It's long-winded but that's kind of the point of books you fricking brainlets. Great, you can summarize someone's writing in a few sentences, you've proven you're as smart as the average 3rd grader, and can do what ChatGPT can do in 0.05 seconds for hundreds of pages.
What the frick is your pretentious little ass getting at? Quit stroking your own ego and try taking the contents for what it is you fricking reactionist monkey. Not every piece of garbage that comes out of your mouth needs to be an ego stroke you little homosexual crybaby.
By your logic Plato and every other Greek philosopher were midwits for writing things out step by step, and every story should be reduced to two sentences because that's 'smart'. Go back to tiktok before promptly choking on dick and dying, you reductionist anti-aesthetic anti-human ADHD-ridden consumption-obsessed zikafaced broccolihair zoomer genetic scumtrash.
>he doesn't skim read looking for critical info only
ngmi
sorry man i enjoy hemingway-like prose and conciseness. unless it's a tolkien book where the imagery is part of the experience then i don't want to read the 18 ways to say that you're right and the plebs are wrong every description is materially different. tautology is the death of writing
*unless
Though you have a point, no one gives a shit what a tripgay thinks quite frankly.
>my personality is pictures greek statues
>bro saying little while writing much is the whole point of a book!
Hes a moron rand fanboy
What does that image have to do with schopenhauers correct observations on women
schopenhauer has no credibility because he was a proto-neet and lived alone with his poodles for most of his life. his own mother's writings and critiques disprove his words and it was a woman (George Eliot) that helped to disseminate his writings by providing him with good reviews. he's a massive hypocrite and generally disappointing as a philosopher
why do you talk like a gay?
my parents valued a good education, i see yours did not necessarily make that choice.
Schopenhauer was antisocial in his later life and his quote here reflects that rather than his philosophy written when he was thirty. it's the equivalent of a forum post written by a bitter old man who never found love. it means nothing. the fact that his philosophy encouraged asceticism and self-abnegation in the first place shows how he might have arrived at that point. his words should be a warning to you to not follow in his footsteps, not words to follow
Too bad your parents didn't value good nutrition too
Attacking philosophy with armchair psychoanalysis. How very female.
>he was only lead to that conclusion because of (insert personality disorder)!
moron
So that image you posted has nothing to do with schopenhauers views on women, got it.
>>bro saying little while writing much is the whole point of a book!
as the other guy said it, have a nice day.
> It's long-winded but that's kind of the point of books you fricking brainlets
Lol. Lmao even. The entire point of a book/good writing is to not be long-winded, good and eloquent writing conveys deep meaning and lots of info without using too many words.
Great analysis
Now can you analyze why you're still a fat pig despite spending all day on a fitness board where people constantly detail how to lose weight?
if you're quoting schopenhauer you already lost kek
Everyone knows schoppie was an incel chud.
nietzsche reads more like that to me on this article. gritting teeth at the idea of sympathy for fellow man, scoffing at the 'exuberant forms of life', which may well be easier found through measured asceticism than the manic chest thumping of zarathustra
You're don't understand Nietzsche's style. He was intentionally contrarian and aggressive to everything, perhaps especially philosophies near to his heart in actuality. He had extraordinarily high things to speak of Socrates for instance in his personal letters and some lesser known works for instance.
It could be worse. You could be quoting Nietzsche
it's ez to shit on nietzsche but he's probably the most relevant philosopher to the 21st century
suck my ass chud
Weak
Seethe more gayet
Lol he failed hard with women and even his own mother intensely disliked him, look up the letter she wrote him, it's blisteringly scathing
His obsevations come from sour grapes
sure hope you navel-gazing fricks don't just read these schizo ramblings (the greeks and ancient easterns already solved philosophy) and are actually living your lives
gayest thread on IST
pseud take, tripgay
pathetic samegay still seething after 7 hours
have a nice day, brownskin
Take a break from IST for a few days.
Part of me wants to call him a midwit but he is somewhat intelligent. Though with some of his insane conclusions I think it points more to him being a little bit insane rather than stupid.
What exactly are his insane claims though?
Off the top of my head, one of his insane claims is that one of his phone consultation clients gained 50 pounds of muscle in 9 weeks
That's not even as much gain as the Colorado Experiment though. Arthur Jones conducted that experiment and he also mentored Mentzer.
10-14 days rest does seem excessive but I've never known anyone to try it. I don't know anyone personally who has done high intensity training 1-2 times per week tbh.
the claim that you can do 1 set for a particular muscle group every 10-14 days and grow
muscle doesn't grow for a week after training it, it isn't how it works and no animal has such pattern of physical activity so it makes little sense as to why our bodies would have this moronic(literally) muscular adaptation
muscle fibers start detraining once the exercise stimulus is gone, there is no "maintenance" and we know that a muscle fiber starts detraining as soon as 24-48h after being stimulated with enough tension
>we know that a muscle fiber starts detraining as soon as 24-48h after being stimulated with enough tension
We know that dyel academic gays who couldn't produce intensity if you injected them with adrenaline only need 24-48 hours after their lackadaisical sets.
I agree he was more insane than stupid. I think the intelligence is real, just he was bitter and wrong.
Bro he sounds like every pseudo intellectual philosophy major. I think Mentzer was a professor on top of bodybuilding so it makes sense
it sounds smart to people who are very dumb
Reading this brief excerpt was right to put me off mentzer. He writes like a guy desperately trying to pad his paper to reach a page count.
It was so refreshing reading something that wasn't just "you gotta find what what works for you bro! Some people grow better legs with 5 reps and some build better legs with 10 reps!" You're not a snowflake, the principles of building muscle are the same for everyone. Intense contractions under load. Everyone's primary energy source for muscles is glucose and if you're in a starvation state you're not building shit anyway. It's so nice being treated like an adult. I don't agree with his methods laid out in his book but the principles are there. I've written in-depth refutations to his claims but they get ignored because I think it's too high IQ for fit, who watch kissing prank channels for motivation to go to the gym.
>I've written in-depth refutations to his claims but they get ignored because I think it's too high IQ for fit
Go away, namegay. Nobody likes you.
sorry we're not high IQ enough for your detailed destruction of Mentzer :^) or is that just cope
Go back to IST where anti-social pseudointellectuals like you hang out.
IST isn't even pseudo-intellectual it's either full of schizos, drama posters who dox people and never get banned, or high schoolers looking for help with their homework. and IST is even worse. this is the superior board in all aspects unironically
You forgot to mention shitton of commies. IST and IST are full of them.
Commies? IST is just a bunch of weird idealists obsessing over their lecture hall distractions like the topics of consciousness, just spamming "gotcha!"'s at each other all dang day.
If you were actually smart, people would react to you very differently than they do.
This is what really drew me in to Mentzer, as well. Seriously, training isn't some RNG generator per person. Every human has principles that must be followed, therefore there are common characteristics among optimal training styles. This is embraced in science but morons in the bodybuilding scene deny it as an excuse to make dogshit workouts and not do any research.
Meth is a hell of a drug.
All the mentzer doubters: Please show solid proof that MORE than one proper set (not including warmups) per exercise and MORE than two times a week is superior to Mentzer's HIT training.
The majority of people who do well in bodybuilding competitions do more than one set per exercise. If it were actually superior, you would expect more people to get world-class results with it.
The main issue I have is I have never seen a single person who subscribes to his ideas post their physique and look good. It’s not the most scientific analysis but still not one single person has every said I do HIT and then posted a great physique. Everyone I’ve seen with a great physique that’s not full on bodybuilder tier has posted surprisingly basic routines
Don’t knock it until you try it
Jordan Peters is a pretty popular bodybuilding coach who does HIT training, but he and his clientele are turboroiders who would undoubtedly also respond to volume training.
Well, that's just because most people on IST are DYEL, I think that applies universally to every bodybuilding style.
Funny how you can tell the color of the hands typing the post based on its contents.
Uberbrainlet who did hard drugs to cope with his moronic training methods
For a moment I actually thought the thread would have an interesting discussion about the material posted but instead it's a bunch of whiney homosexuals trying to see who's better at being an butthole, really don't understand why you Black folk have to shit up every single thread
Didnt that Guy lie his whole life saying hé usually spent no more than 30 mine in the gym everyday ? I mean that IS an obvious lie
Nah. There is no difference to hypertrophy with small weights high reps and big weights low reps. Total amount of mass lifted is what counts.
If HIT worked, every single training autist out there would already be doing it, but they aren't. 10-15 hard sets per week is fairly typical, with stronger individuals on the lower side and weaker individuals on the higher side, unlike the 1 set 1-2x a week that HIT preaches. The ONLY time I have seen volumes get this low are for exotically strong lifters (ie 800+lb deadlift territory) on specific heavy compound movements (low bar squats, conv deadlifts), but that can be explained by the fact that because they're so immensely strong, they produce enormous amounts of stimulus (and thus fatigue) from very low amounts of volume, which allows them to get away with just one or two sets on these motions. But this only applies to like 3 people on all of IST, therefore HIT isn't worth bothering with
I dunno man, I've applied some of the HIT/DC rules to my weighted calisthenics supplemented by some lifting (no big three because not enough equipment) routine and I'm pretty content so far. I made some genuine strength progress on a cut and I can wrap up a workout in around 45 minutes when I'm not distracted. It's worth mentioning my joints feel way better now.
I do 1 set per exercise, usually with one or two rest pauses and 3 FBW sets of exercises, 3 workouts a week.
I might not look like much, but mind you I'm a natty 6'3 lanklet and whenever I post my lifts people start to seethe. Mentzer and his followers might be definitely onto something imho.
>1 set per exercise
>with one or two rest puses
>3 FBW sets of exercises
>3 workouts a week
that's not HIT or DC
no wonder you got results, you trained your muscles regularly enough so that you didn't lose adaptations from your low-moderate volume workouts
DC has you train a muscle once every 5 days
HIT has you train a muscle every 4-14 days
you train a muscle every 2-3 days
it's not even close to being the same
Maybe, but it's still a big step away from a conventional approach (3-5 sets for one exercise) and I sometimes skip a workout and come back stronger, I'd swear it didn't feel that harmless when doing a medium-volume routine.
>but it's still a big step away from a conventional approach
this, if you switch to low volume the diff is day and night on what you were doing before. i was in the gym 6 times a week for 2 hours in 2021 LOL. couldn't even get a boner with my ex gf
>HIT has you train a muscle every 4-14 days
oh yeah my gym bro only lifts on fridays now and some body parts are trained every two weeks.
he is a true hit advocate he was a drew baye shill aswell but nowadays he just go by feels and lifts only once 20 mins per week. he has better body than me. if your execution is correct and you reach true mechanical failure you will win. at the end of the day is all genetics tho so i doesn't matter.
well here is my split. its drew baye style very very minimal and i got good results
A: Pull Up
L press
Ez Curl
Tricep pushdown
Calves
Neck ex
Neck fl
Crush Gripping
B: Incline DB press
Pronated Row
Leg curl
Abductor
Adductor
Wrist ex
Wrist fl
Abs
C:Chin up
Dips
Lateral raise
Shrug
Low back
Tibia raise
Leg extension
Pinch Gripping
No warm up sets btw. Workout C to A is always at least 2-3 days rest
>The ONLY time I have seen volumes get this low are for exotically strong lifters (ie 800+lb deadlift territory) on specific heavy compound movements (low bar squats, conv deadlifts), but that can be explained by the fact that because they're so immensely strong, they produce enormous amounts of stimulus (and thus fatigue) from very low amounts of volume, which allows them to get away with just one or two sets on these motions. But this only applies to like 3 people on all of /fit
Once my lifts got to the advanced level I had to cut the volume like you describe.
It's too hard. They got to the top training like shit with good genetics and can't stand to work hard to get to the next level. Chris Cormeir for example. Also this
#
>It's too hard. They got to the top training like shit with good genetics and can't stand to work hard to get to the next level. Chris Cormeir for example.
I don't buy this. HIT adovcates always say it's too hard but imo HIT is physically and mentally the easiest training system there is. I don't care if every set is beyond failure. Lifting weights is intrinsically an easy activity. Knowing you only have to do a few sets and can go home is much easier than a volume workout even if the weights are slightly lower.
Knowing how many reps you're going to do is what's easy. I could do that all day. I get ready for a lift wondering for a second how much stronger I got since last week and how many reps it's gonna mean for this set. Just that second feels like forever. Then there's actually doing the last two reps.
I find it interesting that neither him nor Dorian Yates trained a single bodybuilder of note that I’m aware of (Yates said mentzer spent like a week with him after he was already established and tried to take credit for his success). You’d think if they’d really figured out the secret and they already have the cred to attract top clients they would have trained at least a top 5 Olympia finisher.
No I would not think that a neo nazi and the sacrificial lamb of arnold would do well on the more israeli side of this israeli business.
Lol mentzer was a pseudointellectual moron and even that is a generous description. Guy read some ayn rand in his 30's and sperged out over it like a middle school edgelord.
It's interesting because he talks about how to engage the biological stimulus for creating muscle growth, you need only to go to mechanical failure.
He doesn't advocate for drop sets, which to me is odd, as this will push the muscle past initial failure, training the cns to recruit and exhaust more muscle fibres.
However Yates absolutely advocated for drop sets. And when you look to the likes of Tom Platz videos, he's pushing a 'set' as far as it will go.
What i think is great about the general principles, is that results can be achieved with less total output or volume, and bring to focus extended periods of rest.
When he was actually training for bodybuilding he did more than one heavy set and did drop sets sometimes. What he did and what he preached after he retired are very different
This guy is literally giving momscience for fat men
"Dude do ONE set a week for each muscle group and you'll see better results than the guy busting his ass for two hours a day running a brosplit"
Yeah sure lmao
yeah but those moms weren't athletes competing in the literal 'golden' age of their sport lol
Can't speak for Mentzer or HIT in general, but the greatest program I've ever come across is the 20 rep squat program.
Doing one set to failure in the 20-ish rep range 2 or 3 times a week. My legs got a lot bigger, a lot stronger, my joints responded positively to the lower volume. Practically everyone I've ever met who's tried it said the same. The main problem is that it's very painful and mentally challenging, dreadful even.
I haven't quite found it to be as effective for other body parts or exercises. I think it works so great with squats because you can always "do one more", and push yourself. So even average people are able to push themselves to "true failure". But it definitely seems plausible that highly motivated and borderline masochistic people can find great success with the same method for any body part or exercise.
>I haven't quite found it to be as effective for other body parts or exercises
Thats because you dont have tension on your quads when standing straight so they can recover, also works with deadlifts. You have to modify other exercises for it to work though like you can with machines.
Also the way you describe it makes me doubt that you even do it properly tbh
>Thats because you dont have tension on your quads
Fair enough, but that's true for plenty of exercises and machines as you mentioned. It's not the whole explanation.
>Also the way you describe it makes me doubt that you even do it properly
Not sure what you're referring to here. Maybe the "you can always do one more" thing, I've found that the power of will is more important for squats than any other exercise. Even if my legs are tired as frick and I'm out of breath I can often use my mind to squeeze out another rep as long as i'm willing to endure the pain.
I think it has something to do with how cardio intensive high rep squats are. Taking just two seconds of rest on top is enough to gather yourself just that little bit to keep going. While a couple seconds rest for most exercises is meaningless, because when you're done, you're done. The struggle against self is greatest for squats. I hope that made more sense for you, also I'm ESL so keep an open mind
>Even if my legs are tired as frick and I'm out of breath I can often use my mind to squeeze out another rep as long as i'm willing to endure the pain.
I hope you have some good safeties, failing a rep on squats can be dangerous
>Fair enough, but that's true for plenty of exercises and machines as you mentioned. It's not the whole explanation.
On machines you can relieve the tension by simply letting the weight down again to starting point (like before the first rep) and give your muscle a short rest. You cant really do that with say db/bb shoulder presses for example as you would have to put the weight down to the ground after each rep (and get it up again).
On a machine the weight obviously stays at a certain level, so you can easily take a short break
>states mystics don't exist
He's the devourer of sacred bodybuilding if anything, he should have been sentenced to death like Socrates was
they gave socrates every opportunity to not die though
>Lrn2Classics
>he got friends
wow , amazing
He deserved death and he was Chad enough to follow his discourse, I'll give him that
I would have killed Socrates if I were there.
Mentzer is peak Mid-wit
The concept of logic is socially constructed and doesn't hold any intrinsic value.
> ALL that seethe over getting MOGGED to oblivion by an UNCONDITIONED Arnold