>one set per muscle group per week of 6 reps slow and controlled until momentary muscular failure

>one set per muscle group per week of 6 reps slow and controlled until momentary muscular failure
>at least 3-4 days rest between workouts
>60% carbs, 25% protein, 15% fat and plenty of sleep
Has this ever been debunked? Everyone that I know who has ever done a variation of HIT/Mike Metzger workout has seen massive gains and smashed through their plateaus.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    BASED MENTZPILLED RESTMAXXER, CAN ANYONE DEBOONK THIS??????

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >t. junk volume noobie who's already plateauing

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    mentzner was debunked as far as i know. not only this but i would rather stick to a system that feels okay and works 80% efficiency than a system that is torture and works 100% efficiency.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >spoon-feed me countless easy to find studies on rep ranges, volume, frequency, recovery that state the contrary to this roidtroony's meth-induced moronation
    No.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the best workout you should be doing as proven by BASEDIENCE!!
      These studies are so limited, poorly conducted, usually study only beginner-intermediate lifters, and oftentimes conflict with previous literature.

      It's like every week the community has a new study with some new bullshit until the next one debunks it.

      Post body

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >wtf is a 'meta analysis'?
        roidtroony is le good, science is le bad actually
        >testimonies from all the big non-science-based, ooga booga natties who have tried this moronation for more than a month don't exist
        >wojak
        Cope all you want. Your cult leader still got mogged by Arnold and all other "high" volume people of the time in every aspect of life.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >>wtf is a 'meta analysis'?
          A meta analysis is only as good as the studies it reviews. In the field of exercise "science" studies often are treated equally regardless of context.

          Also, the meta-analysis most refer to regarding volume doesn't really prove much. The number was 0.37% per additional set or something like that for the one everyone uses.

          >https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197

          Rounding up to 0.4% as a loose estimate for a 3 month period (since most of these studies are for 10-12 weeks), given 100 units of gainz for one set in three months, that's only 100.4 units of gainz doing one more set. 5 sets is 102 units of gains.

          Supposing that the gainz are linear with respect to time, one year of gainz would be 400 units for 1 set while 408 units for 5 sets. 8 units of gainz is at most two weeks of gainz. It would take 12.5 years of gainz just to reach the point which the 5 set guy would have at additional 3 months worth of gains compared to what he would have if he only did one set. In that context of taking the meta analysis seriously, is doing %500 of the work and time spent in the gym for only an additional 2% more gains worth it? How about 1500% for 10% more gainz? That extra three months of gainz may be imperceptible for someone advanced enough.

          And if we suppose gainz are linear and taper off over time, it would become even worse as you spend a whole lot of time in the gym to get even less. And perhaps if we to take into account the possibility that someone doing five sets just leaves the novice phase earlier, it may be possible in the long run that the gainz would equalize between the two and there would be no difference all else being equal.

          When you do the math, the results meta-analysis really does not favor high volume over low volume. Rather, the dose response is so low that it's not worth the time spent doing extra sets.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fricking thank you
            How meta analysis became the darling of exercise soience is beyond me
            >THIS STUDY SHOWS WAY BIGGER MUSCLE GROWTH FROM VOLUME TRAINING
            >difference: 1mm greater thickness by biopsy
            Literally fricking nothing
            Low volume will bring you toward your genetic ceiling over time just fine
            Honestly nutrition and rest, the non-training stuff is way more important than training and IST should really be IST and IST combined, but that stuff is boring and training is fun so here we are

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >These studies are so limited, poorly conducted, usually study only beginner-intermediate lifters,
        this was true 20 years ago. there are tons of studies that focus mostly on athletes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >please debunk this.. but like, without a framework which can make sense of evidence, debunk it entirely without logical means, vibe-bunk it!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Exercise science has caught up. I know this because all of the guidelines and good quality data just ended up saying the same shit that any non DYEL learns after a few years: mostly compounds, rep ranges from 3-20 all work and 5-12 is ideal, multiple sets, each muscle is optimally trained at 2-3 times per week, progressive overload, periodization when you're good, cardio is fine in moderation, and protein requirements are overblown but a rough range exists that you can google. Read ACSM's position paper on this exact thing, or read the CSCS textbook from NASM. I'm assuming you're not going to do this, which will prove to the entire world that you are in fact a stupid homosexual.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          see

          >>wtf is a 'meta analysis'?
          A meta analysis is only as good as the studies it reviews. In the field of exercise "science" studies often are treated equally regardless of context.

          Also, the meta-analysis most refer to regarding volume doesn't really prove much. The number was 0.37% per additional set or something like that for the one everyone uses.

          >https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197

          Rounding up to 0.4% as a loose estimate for a 3 month period (since most of these studies are for 10-12 weeks), given 100 units of gainz for one set in three months, that's only 100.4 units of gainz doing one more set. 5 sets is 102 units of gains.

          Supposing that the gainz are linear with respect to time, one year of gainz would be 400 units for 1 set while 408 units for 5 sets. 8 units of gainz is at most two weeks of gainz. It would take 12.5 years of gainz just to reach the point which the 5 set guy would have at additional 3 months worth of gains compared to what he would have if he only did one set. In that context of taking the meta analysis seriously, is doing %500 of the work and time spent in the gym for only an additional 2% more gains worth it? How about 1500% for 10% more gainz? That extra three months of gainz may be imperceptible for someone advanced enough.

          And if we suppose gainz are linear and taper off over time, it would become even worse as you spend a whole lot of time in the gym to get even less. And perhaps if we to take into account the possibility that someone doing five sets just leaves the novice phase earlier, it may be possible in the long run that the gainz would equalize between the two and there would be no difference all else being equal.

          When you do the math, the results meta-analysis really does not favor high volume over low volume. Rather, the dose response is so low that it's not worth the time spent doing extra sets.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >mostly compounds
          What data says this?
          >rep ranges from 3-20 all work and 5-12 is ideal
          If this the case either 3 sets is all you really need and the rest is just wasting time.
          >each muscle is optimally trained at 2-3 times per week
          See
          >https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/29/7/article-p1024.xml
          When volume is equalized once per week per muscle group is as good as two or more according to the majority of the decent studies.
          >progressive overload
          Has been known since the bronze age. This was never a question in any researcher or coaches mind.
          >periodization when you're good
          Periodization doesn't matter. It's not relevant unless you are a professional or amateur athlete who actually competes and has to perform at a certain level. For body building or general fitness, it doesn't do much for you.
          >protein requirements are overblown but a rough range exists
          The rough range found in papers is doubtable. However, more is better for beginners since if there is explosive growth for the individual, it's going to happen in beginners. On cuts, it is easier to maintain muscle mass with more protein. This is from anyone with experience. The only thing the studies try to do is optimize MPS. 1g/lb is still the gold standard for non-fatties.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Clinical Bottom Line
            There is moderate-to-strong evidence to suggest that a lower-frequency RT program, when volume is equated, will produce equal and, in some instances, greater improvements on muscular strength and hypertrophy in comparison to higher-frequency RT. The evidence is particularly convincing when lower-frequency RT is combined with a TB training protocol in well-trained male RT subjects.
            love to see it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRLVvEbt6ynpuBei0AIC0uMtq0v-sOna7FxSOpQ8ZvS2GDyVqlFdeQ7WROKap2VSv67qQOq_8g1XYCP/pub

      awaiting your citation to the contrary

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I got down to the claim:
        >Overhead presses do not significantly work the lateral deltoid
        When it comes to muscle activation studies, they tend to show that OHP is fairly similar to the lateral raise when recruiting the lateral head of the deltoids.
        >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343021588_Different_Shoulder_Exercises_Affect_the_Activation_of_Deltoid_Portions_in_Resistance-Trained_Individuals
        >https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/825880/fphys-13-825880-HTML/image_m/fphys-13-825880-g003.jpg
        >https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3887013/mod_folder/content/0/emg_deltoide_diferentes_exercicios_silveira_lima_2013.pdf
        The first study does not indicate the exact nature of shoulder press so it could be a barbell press, machine press, or dumbbell press.The second study performs front shoulder press seated on an incline bench. The third study is on a smith machine. Even with a standing press, often smith machines are varied enough with the angel of the bar path that it may have the same effect as sitting on an incline bench. Sitting on an incline bench can further change the mechanics of the exercise.

        The first in absence of any information of what is meant by shoulder press favors whatever press was used. The second when adjusting for the difference between say a dumbbell press or a strict standing press to the mechanics of the shoulder press may be enough to state that OHP is good for the lateral head. With proper failure and loading accounted for, the OHP may be as good as the lateral raise. The third is the only one that definitively rejects it though it has the same speculative problems as before as to the construction of the smith machine or whether it was performed seated or standing.

        In summary, there's a good chance that the standard overhead press is a fantastic lateral deltoid exercise.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >HIT Resources
        >Mike Mentzer
        Just roid dude
        >Dorian Yates
        Just pump yourself full of HGH dude
        >Jay Vincent
        >allegedly """accidentally""" fired a shot through a wall at his home in Florida
        >When they searched his home they found steroids. Whether or not they were for him is unclear
        >is unclear
        I'm sure the roids in the guy's house aren't for him.
        >maintenance dose of TRT
        I'm sure he's only on a maintenance dose.
        >Drew Baye
        >Jay Vincent’s Mentor
        I'm sure he's only on a maintenance dose too. Isn't he that clown that some homosexual kept spamming webm's of?
        >Mr. America, John Heart
        The only guy here who seems to have more integrity. But is he really natural or is this another guy who just hasn't been a proven roider yet? Fortunately for him, he doesn't seem to be big enough to make roiding obvious.
        >Mark Asanovich
        The only one of the guys so far who seems to have a steady job. Probably knows his shit.
        >Dr. Shawn Baker
        LMAO. Red from high blood pressure? Roids? Maybe both?
        >Anibal Lopez
        Roiding too?
        >Mark Chaillet
        Ah yes. More roiders.
        >Michael Bradley
        The second guy here who holds a steady job.
        >Elliot Hulse
        Roidmutt.
        >Dr. Doug McGuff
        The third guy who has a steady job and a very respectable one too.
        >Tim Ferris
        >gaining 34 lbs of muscle in 28 days to be exact, while also losing 3 lbs of fat. As to the question of whether or not steroids were in use, I couldn't really say
        I'm sure you couldn't really say. But anyone with a brain would say he was trenning hard.
        >Dr Ken Leistner
        >a doctor - a chiropractor
        Opening with a joke eh? At least he's the fourth guy here who had a steady job.
        >Steve Maxwell
        At least he's known for something more than being a professional dancer (pro body builder) or shill.

        But the HIT lesson overall? Roid hard for gainz. Not a very good roster of people to claim as examples for HIT.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Who would you listen to for fitness/nutrition advice?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Mark Rippetoe would still be a better person to listen to than most of them even where he's wrong.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Mark Rippetoe has admitted to former steroid use. What makes you think his methods will work for you?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                His methods are more in line with the classic methods in the bronze and silver eras.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Excuse me. See

                Who exactly did you have in mind from the Silver or Bronze bodybuilding eras?
                I don’t know much about the Silver era, but I have read books by Eugene Sandow, Arthur Saxon, Earle Liederman, and George Hackenschmidt. None of them trained in a way that was anything like Starting Strength.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Has this ever been debunked?
    Constantly by non stim addicted roidapes. The main issues with his advice is that it's way too rigid and it's definitely too low volume for most men. You need to switch up the stimulus every few months to keep growing after the noob gains phase and an increase in volume shows a direct long term increase in muscle size and strength only so long as you can recover from it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >too low volume
      Intensity is all you need. We're not talking about learning a kickflip.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then why are pl programs high volume and lowers rpe over a few weeks then rest for a week. You'd think a program for mass would have more volume. That or whoever created these programs had no idea what they were doing and it's a bunch of fat guys trying to legitimize their paycheck to some gays who care about the olympics and top athletes on steroids.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Intensity is all you need.
        So you've chosen a Tom Platz picture who routinely did 30-40 sets of 10-20 reps for lower body in one workout... to illustrate what point?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I picked an intense picture. If I could find that one of dorian training some dude to the point of vomiting i would have.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Where can I find more info on his principles and methods?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just look up high intensity training (HIT).

      The fundamental way to gain strength is quality sets to failure, and if you aren't able to reach your true failure potential either due to lack of rest/deload or too much volume at lower intensity, then that's where you run into a plateua.

      I would like to see more research specifically on low volume very high intensity, but some of the biggest guys out there like Dorian Yates swear by it, and anecdotally you can find extremely positive response within the community from those who have switched over

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Things to remember though
        >Dorian was already an Olympian when he switched over, and the other big guys like Jordan Peters also gained their mass using other methods.
        >the vast majority of anecdotes are people in the first two weeks of HIT,and there are almost as many stories of immediate stagnation and reversal of progress

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >and there are almost as many stories of immediate stagnation and reversal of progress
          wrong, nice try

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No. Haney reduced his volume over his career, same with Dorian.

          Dorian was already doing at most 2 sets per exercise at that point. He always talks about how he gradually reduced his volume to 1 set, it was never a drastic change.

          Lastly, all high-intensity trainers have a certain "depth" and thickness to the muscle that is never replicated by volume guys. Yes, Jay Cutler, Heath and even holy Arnold look soft next to people like Ronnie, Mentzer, Yates and olschool lifters like Grimek, Eiferman, Reeves and Park. This is still the case even without hte same level of conditioning, if you have eyes that see, you know.

          Now go cope with your glycogen muscles as you do 0 effort high volume workouts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      youtube

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Has this ever been debunked?
    as being the most effective routine? yes, the evidence is overwhelming
    as building muscle? of course not, the requirements for building muscle so long as you keep a routine of lifting are extremely low

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm being honest I don't think you need much more, and I am rather smart too.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Has this ever been debunked?
    Yes and no. The diet stuff is pretty spot on. The training intensity is spot on. The limiting to 1 set is iffy, and the amount of rest is downright moronic and has been shown repeatedly to stop yielding results very quickly.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're not going to stop seeing results from a couple extra rest days between lifts, it will just make you progress slower than you could if you found the perfect sweet spot.

      In general, most lifters massively overtrain with not enough proper rest and deload. They also don't use proper intensity due to too much junk volume. They also get frequent injury due to excessive junk volume. Metzger's plan fixes all of these which is why it's so effective for an idiotproof routine. Some of the biggest guys out there were mentored by and followed Metzger's routine.

      It was hilarious watching Israetel desperately try to lie and poke whatever holes in Metzger's routine that he could over the most pedantic cherrypicking shit possible, all because it conflicts with Israetel's flavor of peddled grift.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Some of the biggest guys out there.
        Literally no one. Not even Dorian.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Dorian Yates has said on record multiple times that he does very low volume and is usually not in the gym more than 40 minutes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, following his own version of high intensity which looked nothing like Mentzer's Heavy Duty. In fact Dorian started to distance himself from Mike after a while in part because Mike kept sperging out that Dorian was training too much.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I'm talking about today. Yates was even on Joe Rogan podcast attributing his success to very low volume and high intensity with Mentzer as his mentor

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What he said was he was influenced by Mentzer's ideas, but that they were taken too far. He has also said that he let mentzer use his name because he felt bad for the guy considering how out of shape he was and was obviously mentally unwell. He has never hesitated to give credit to Mike in the early days for being a physical inspiration, and later on for sparking the idea of changing his training methodology. He is also made it very clear that he did so of his own initiative and that he was hesitant to pursue anything with Mike due to his instability. You can hardly call that a mentorship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about the HIT routine, not Mentzer as a person. Dorian Yates does very low volume, very high intensity, short sessions, long rests between sessions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Some of the biggest guys out there were mentored by and followed Metzger's routine.
                Frick off moron

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Post body

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >dox yourself!!!
                Yeah, I'll get right on that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >and the amount of rest is downright moronic
      Eddie Hall only broke records when he started resting more.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >everyone I know
    so anecdotes, like every other claim that HIT works?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      everything Mike Mentzer has said was later backed up by actual research. He was like an oracle, it's insane.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Provide research.
        >imb4 "muh colerado experiment"

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wait you forget the most important part
    >blast steroids
    Fixed it

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    doing this shit once in a while helped me break up plateus. It's silly to do for a while but it got me to start doing 2pl8 for reps on incline where I barely could do a 185lb single there, in a three month program of hardly any volume but stupid intense.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think the issue a lot of people have with his minimalist style is the frequency. You can do one set to total failure every day and it would actually work better.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No it wouldn't because your muscles need rest and deload moron, and this gets especially important the more advanced you get.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They need rest, but the amount Methzer prescribed was basically not working out at all. That's where he lost people, and rightfully so

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >rest meme
        your body doesn't measure how much it rests but how much stress it accumulates
        >deloads
        lmao Black person moment

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          shut the frick up dyel moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Black person momento
            clipped and shipped
            what are you gonna do? take a deload week lmao Black personized

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I wasn't able to do a pushup 1.5 years ago and only worked out once every 7-12 days on average. Just hit 230 for one rep after training bench for about 4 months consistently (had about 5 total bench sessions sporadically in the first training year). Maxing out machines at the gym. Works for me, but I'm a fatass, so feel free to disregard my post. Just giving my anecdotal experience. Also, when I hit 315 bench and cut my fat off I will be on these boards incessantly posting body and Mentzer-posting. Give it another year or so. I hope I can annoy you all with the results to the point of becoming a local meme here.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    alright smart guy, why can't i have both intensity and volume huh?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why cant I do my 3rm for 5x10???????

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > larping about muh 1 set to failure
    > no body posted achieved with this great routine
    sounds about right for Mentzer fans

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. Mentzer himself didn't even build his body that way, only started advocating for that later in his career when his body was already built
    2. Mentzer happened to have amazing genetics plus he was using massive amounts of anabolics, factoring in each of these he would've made incredible gains no matter what he did

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >later in his career when his body was already built
      He advocated for it after working with Arthur Jones and getting beaten by Casey Viator. In his initial magazine articles, he was telling people he was doing five sets per muscle group which is what he was doing in the 70's. His brother Ray started his lifting career on the method Mike learned from Arthur Jones.
      >his body was already built
      He was fairly large in quite a few ways. But he really didn't reach his peak until the late 70's when he won Mr. Universe and competed in Mr. Olympia. He added 30 lbs of muscle to his body during that time. But then again, you can always go to the cope:
      >amazing genetics
      >massive amounts of anabolics
      >he would've made incredible gains
      which could be applied to Arnold, Oliva, and most of the other Mr. Olympia winners.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    mentzertards should be laughed out of existence.
    I mean look at this shit.
    16 days between chest day???

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To be honest, you can probably maintain whatever physique you have by doing this but you're unlikely to make any gains. I pretty much did this during COVID because I had limited access to weights. I made absolutely no progress in my strength or the way I looked, came out of lockdown in the exact spot I went in. No gains were made but I didn't lose any gains either

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >repeatedly hit momentary muscle failure with proper rest and nutrition
        >made no gains
        physiologically impossible.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The science has proven that momentary muscle failure is overrated.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why there is no hamstring or biceps exercise in this routine?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Reverse grip pulldown is the biceps exercise. Deadlift is the hamstring exercise. He also has some pages following with a list of recommended alternative exercises or exercises that you can integrate into the program.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Reverse grip pulldown is the biceps exercise
          that's moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No actually I did some the other day and I was sore for like a day but when I decided to train biceps I got a massive cramp.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reverse grip pull down are biceps exercises. Some people like to associate pull downs entirely with lats and back. But the reality is that the elbow flexors are used heavily in those exercises to the point where they affect how strong you are in those motions. i.e. chinups v. pullups. Most people will be stronger in chinups because their brain will more readily recruit the biceps due to supination. When it comes to muscle activation studies, we get a similar picture.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC449729/
            https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Fulltext/2013/02000/The_Effect_of_Grip_Width_and_Hand_Orientation_on.12.aspx

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              not reading your stupid studies. both chin ups and pull ups are mainly lat exercises, because the main movement is pulling the humerus down, which is all lats, the biceps are only supporting muscles.
              now i'll let you in on a little secret of us gym guys. it's quite an unknown, niche exercise, you probably haven't heard of it.
              >bicep curls
              no lat involvement, no pec involvement, nothing but biceps. the biceps exercise, you should try it sometime.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In a bicep curl, the bicep experiences no loading at the fully contracted position. This is opposite to the chinup, where the bicep is maximally loaded at the contracted position.
                Therefore, the chinup is a better bicep exercise.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It really is. I did deadlifts and chin ups and blew my arms up from spaghetti arms to people being able to notice.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you want to maximally load at the most extended part of the eccentric/the deepest stretch, what are you talking about. also your wrong, you have quite a bit of leverage at the top you're just weaker there, chinups would be a pretty bad exercise if what you said was true. curls are not ideal for biceps but a preacher curl bench helps with the resistance curve, note that it makes it harder at the EXTENDED position, like every good exercise ever. imagine how shit a goated exercise like full nordics would be if the most contracted part of the motion needed the most resistance.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >In a bicep curl, the bicep experiences no loading at the fully contracted position
                This problem occurs when it is performed on a preacher bench or you see people do the thing where they sometimes lift the arms though it's entirely unnecessary. If the elbows are kept say behind the torso and not allowed to move in front of the torso, then you will get loading in the contracted position.

                Does the loading in that position really make much of a difference? Probably not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Slow chinups can make arms way thicker.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the main movement
                There is no main movement during such compounds. The feature of a compound exercise is that there are multiple motions occurring simultaneously. In the case of chinups, lat to bicep activation is about 1.11:1. This makes a lot of sense as mechanically the biceps are doing as much work as the lats and are going through an equal portion of their range of motion. The only thing that stops chinups from being a bodyweight curl is the necessity of shoulder extension to move the torso upward (or the forearms downward in the case of pull downs). If the loading was heavier in the studies and perhaps a much closer proximity to failure, it might be even closer to 1:1 with some people who have the ideal proportions for chinups getting to 1:1.

                BTW, the Bench Press and shoulder press are also great triceps exercises.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You will not make sufficient progress with such low volume without steroids

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not trying to discount everything he said or the hard work he did put in but didn't he use a frickton of steroids and was also a meth head?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you really need to ask?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Zero sets is all you need. You even touching exercise equipment is overtraining.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Keep in mind dear reader than women are the best exercise equipment. Just make sure you don't use them more than once every 4-7 days.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    literal roidhomosexual

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    .

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wait a minute did he seriously get that bug just by lifting only once every 4 days?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >4 day rest
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    his approach, or rather the simplified version of it, thus
    >go all out until your failure has a failure
    >take longer rest
    is pretty good for breaking plateu if you've been stuck somewhere, but i wouldn't train like that normally

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What do you fellas think the difference would be, with regard to CNS performance, between full body once per week (7 working sets on one day) vs bro split (one working set per day)?
    I’m more accustomed to full body, but do you think that the CNS recovers more quickly and I should utilize it more frequently with fewer sets per session?

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it was debunked.
    Also mike was caught by others working out 5+ hours a day, he admit it himself.
    He also took steroids and crystal meth and died at 40.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It's such a great system with so much proof it works that no high level bodybuilders actually use it!
    It's debunked by anyone that does HIT and finds it sucks ass for gains.
    You don't know anyone who saw massive gains from it, you lying Black person homosexual, so stop making these gay threads and just go jack off to Mentzer pics like you normally do.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >8 weeks of 3-4x a week squat and bench respectively
    >go so hard you go from say 365 5x3 to 285 4x10 from 4pl8 1rm
    >take 2 weeks maybe 1 week off entirely

    If you rest so long your lifts don't go down you will take a year to put on considerable muscle.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    99% of modern bodybuilders follow normal training programs, corroborated by basically every study done in the last 20 years... but a few idiots find it easier to do one set to failure a week than follow a proper diet/training plan so it's better... and muh anecdotes
    you'd have to come up with human moronation if it didn't exist for keks

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and yet another metzBlack person thread with no bodies posted by dyel metzner followers kek

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Whenever someone here posts body it's either a roider or an anglefrauding skelly with abs and the slightest pec definition claiming to be an authority on lifting.

      Neither matter, and no I'm not posting body.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Oh god I gotta go to the gym or I'm gonna lose all my gains

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    are volumetards serious right now? THIS is the "BASEDENCE!!!" they keep clamoring about? Do 10x the fricking weekly sets for 4% larger muscles, no mention of strength, because your strength is going to be absolutely fricked trying to do all that junk volume leading to low intensity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >52 sets per muscle per [unit of time]
      I'm glad that the science has been settled. You should only do 52 sets per muscle per year.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I went back and looked it up. It was TWICE PER WEEK. Unbelievable.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just listen to the science and do 52 sets per muscle per [unit of time]. That’s the scientifically optimum way to become a bodybuilder.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    From listening to a shitload of experts the summary is that 2 (working) sets are better than 1 for hypertrophy, so Metzger was less right than he could have been. If you want to do 1 and minimize your gains, it's your life.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >a shitload of experts
      Malicious, moronic chimpanzees.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    mentzer cultists are the worst
    he made all his gains on volume yet preaches high intensity, probably just to market it to morons

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Menzter solved bodybuilding and the israelites killed him because they wanted t make a bussiness out of it...

    1 workout per 6-7 days i probably not going to work for most people since you need spotters on every excersise, but 3 workouts per week for 20-30 minitues to failure is enough to attain o body tht will mog 95% of the population.

    i miss menzter and hate israelites... we need a real holocaust.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why does this smoke cloud look like a dude with a beard on his knees with his hands behind his back?

      It's really crazy. I saved this image.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They've had AI images like this all over the internet for months.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just lift eat and rest. It could not be easier and yet everyone makes a basedence out of it.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Who exactly did you have in mind from the Silver or Bronze bodybuilding eras?
    I don’t know much about the Silver era, but I have read books by Eugene Sandow, Arthur Saxon, Earle Liederman, and George Hackenschmidt. None of them trained in a way that was anything like Starting Strength.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Interesting read here. The author makes no mention of Mentzer, Jones, or HIT, but comes to similar conclusions. https://www.rdlfitness.com/blog/do-each-exercise-once-a-week

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *