Thoughts on Mike Mentzer

Is jacke Ned Flanders right about his claims?
Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets?
Has anyone here ever tried this out? What were your experiences?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No he wasn't right about some of his claims, Training once a week is worse than training twice

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What about doing just one set to failure for every excercise per workout?
      Dont advanced bodybuilders also split their workouts in a way they only train one muscle group once per week?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What is the logic behind doing something to failure once and being done instead of just squeezing all the gains in several sets close to failure (Cuz going to failure in all sets is not a good idea)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >going to failure in all sets is not a good idea

          I'm a moron can you explain please

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because going to failure causes exponential fatigue in your body meaning that it compromises the rest of your workout. Meaning if you didnt go to failure you could have done 100kg for 12 on other exercise and now you are so fatigued rhat you can only do 80k for 10.

            And mechanical tension causes muscle growth. The heavier weight for more teps you can do, the better. So if you just spam to failure, you are sabotaging your muscle hypertrophy significantly. Sure it still causes some growth but it could be much better. If you roid you can just throw all the principles out the window

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You are spending more calories/nutrients and rest time on recovery rather than building muscle at that point.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why are multiple sets to failure a bad idea?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry for late response b, they aren't. But going ALL the time to failure in all sets in all excercises is a bad idea because
            A) You will get tired much more and gas out earlier
            B) At some point when going all the time to failure constantly to you start damaging the muscle so instead of getting gainz when resting your muscles are mainly just healing the damage you did during the workout, which isn't getting gainz btw, is just healing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          one set really taken to failure stimulates hormonal response that triggers adaptation (muscle growth) and doing more than that causes only unnecessary mechanical damage while not increasing the intensity of the hormonal response
          years ago I cut one of the exercises to just one set and it started progressing better than the ones I was grinding for 3-4 sets

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's just bs. Every rep performed after type-I fibers are fatigued when full type-II recruitment is achieved contributes to the mTOR cascade that causes growth. Additional sets do contribute as do additional reps performed after a pause, or additional exercises or drop sets. Where this stimulus caps out is largely individual but usually somewhere around 10+ full type-II recruitment reps in a session is sufficient the strategy you use to get those reps is really only a trade off in time investment, relative effort and connective tissue wear if you opt for more sets because of superfluous extra reps before full type-ii recruitment is achieved.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              so by this logic it's way more time efficient to do drop sets / partial reps / rest pauses to get those type-II reps in, so you don't have to waste time on resting between sets, do I undestand it correctly?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                no because fatigue exists and shorter rest periods are more fatiguing
                fatigue limits your ability to even activate muscle fibers, specifically your type 2 fast twitch muscle fibers which drop off completely with enough fatigue
                sure rest pause can help in cutting down the number of useless repetitions you would do earlier in a moderate-high rep set but
                time efficiency during a single workout actually does not matter if your goal is to grow muscle over time as fast as possible
                if you want to be as effective as possible you should just do sets of 3-8 reps close to failure and rest 2+ minutes between sets without reducing the load on the bar and aiming for progressive overload on most of your sets over time
                this way you can guarantee that every single repetition of every set you do is recruiting your high threshold motor units whih means that both your slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers are being activated and experiencing mechanical tension from start to finish
                this way there is no guessing work involved

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Impressive post, very nice. Just one question though, ehy does israelitegle tell me to rest 30 to 90 seconds in between sets?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Yes of course, if you dont compensate your flux during a workout your whatchamacallits will not effectively translate over to your thingamajags which will eradicate your jamalamadingdongs.
              Dont be an egghead on a board made for jocks, kek

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >jocks
                >this east Indian crocheting forum
                Pick one

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Kek yeah i was cracking a little jokey jokey ofc were all neither eggheads nor jocks but rather psycho kids who got bullied from kindergarten to university. Lets get jacked and bash in bully skulls!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >one set really taken to failure stimulates hormonal response that triggers adaptation (muscle growth)
            not true
            hormone hypothesis was destroyed over the last 20 or so years of research on the matter
            what makes muscles grow is muscle fiber specific mechanical tension, it's not a hormonal response
            winning a game of chess elicits a hormonal response too and it doesn't grow muscle
            >and doing more than that causes only unnecessary mechanical damage while not increasing the intensity of the hormonal response
            doing more sets provides more opportunities for muscle fibers to experience mechanical tension
            >years ago I cut one of the exercises to just one set and it started progressing better than the ones I was grinding for 3-4 sets
            because you finally started to recover AND adapt from your training

            That's just bs. Every rep performed after type-I fibers are fatigued when full type-II recruitment is achieved contributes to the mTOR cascade that causes growth. Additional sets do contribute as do additional reps performed after a pause, or additional exercises or drop sets. Where this stimulus caps out is largely individual but usually somewhere around 10+ full type-II recruitment reps in a session is sufficient the strategy you use to get those reps is really only a trade off in time investment, relative effort and connective tissue wear if you opt for more sets because of superfluous extra reps before full type-ii recruitment is achieved.

            >That's just bs. Every rep performed after type-I fibers are fatigued when full type-II recruitment is achieved contributes to the mTOR cascade that causes growth
            it's the exact opposite
            type 1 fibers fatigue earlier in a set yes, but they are never dropping off, and in fact you're always using them even if you do 50 sets of 100 reps to failure every day every single one of those reps will activate your type 1 muscle fibers
            type 2 muscle fibers actually do drop off with the more reps and sets you do, they experience actual damage no matter your training status and also are the FIRST ONES to become inactive during exercise no matter how hard you push yourself due to CNS fatigue.
            this is why the first set you do in a workout is by far the most anabolic, and in order to get 2x the growth of the first set you have to do 6 set, because the more fatigue you accumulate the more muscle fibers drop out and become impossible to access.

            Sorry for late response b, they aren't. But going ALL the time to failure in all sets in all excercises is a bad idea because
            A) You will get tired much more and gas out earlier
            B) At some point when going all the time to failure constantly to you start damaging the muscle so instead of getting gainz when resting your muscles are mainly just healing the damage you did during the workout, which isn't getting gainz btw, is just healing.

            >You will get tired much more and gas out earlier
            you will also need less sets
            high volume is both more damaging and more fatiguing even if you don't train to failure

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I did not say they fall off and stop working, especially not on consecutive sets. Since they recover faster than type-ii fibers. But it is either nessisary to heavily load an exercise (5 or less rep max) or fatigue type-i fibers firsts to get full type type-ii recruitment. Full type-ii recruitment being the primary driver of hypertrophy is exactly what mentzer "discovered" but the conclusions he made about it are wrong. In that hypothetical 100 rep set the last 6-7 reps are going to be most productive ones because you've reached the limit of type-i fibers and are peaking on type-ii. 3 sets of that would still be mostly equivalent to 3 sets of 10 reps (assuming they're properly loaded) or a single pause set that has a total of rep count of about 29 reps (with 10 rep max weight) since it priorities proximity to failure and thus type-ii recruitment

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I did not say they fall off and stop working, especially not on consecutive sets. Since they recover faster than type-ii fibers.
                didn't intend to imply you did
                > But it is either nessisary to heavily load an exercise (5 or less rep max) or fatigue type-i fibers firsts to get full type type-ii recruitment.
                you're right but fatigue gets involved in the second scenario and depending on how many reps or sets or the training frequency you're doing it can become a serious hindrance
                it is much harder to recover from short rest work than long rest work from a CNS standpoint and CNS fatigue inhibits your ability to voluntarily contract your muscles
                so sure 1 rest pause set is better than 1 working set but it cannot be as good as 2 working sets separated by 3 minutes of rest
                not unless ofc you intended on doing 2 sets of 30+ reps to failure in which case the rest pause would be way better yes but it would be much better to just increase the load to the point where you're getting almost all muscle fibers activated and stimulated from the first to the last rep because that type of loading would also provide future motor unit recruitment gains

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm pretty sure that's the why HIT became low frequency and short session times. Since all volume generates fatigue and we're just fretting over what ratio of fatigue:volume is preferable. I personally don't see a reason to go for more volume and the strategies that are just emergent if the volume I have is productive consistently.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >t's the exact opposite
              type 1 fibers fatigue earlier in a set yes, but they are never dropping off, and in fact you're always using them even if you do 50 sets of 100 reps to failure every day every single one of those reps will activate your type 1 muscle fibers
              type 2 muscle fibers actually do drop off with the more reps and sets you do, they experience actual damage no matter your training status and also are the FIRST ONES to become inactive during exercise no matter how hard you push yourself due to CNS fatigue.
              this is why the first set you do in a workout is by far the most anabolic, and in order to get 2x the growth of the first set you have to do 6 set, because the more fatigue you accumulate the more muscle fibers drop out and become impossible to access.

              That means Mentzer was right all along doesnt it?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The logic is you increase fatigue doing more sets. That fatigue takes away from growth. Body too tired to build. Even longer now to rest. See you next month.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What is the logic behind doing something to failure once and being done instead of just squeezing all the gains in several sets close to failure
          because of diminishing returns of each additional set in terms of growth(due to CNS fatigue) but almost linear increase in muscle damage which limits your ability to train productively in other sessions
          aiming for the biggest stimulus possible in one session doesn't make that much sense when you look at the big picture

          The logic is you increase fatigue doing more sets. That fatigue takes away from growth. Body too tired to build. Even longer now to rest. See you next month.

          pretty much

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        shit thread

        >Is jacke Ned Flanders right about his claims?
        who?
        what?
        >Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets?
        sufficient for what?
        >Has anyone here ever tried this out? What were your experiences?
        I did and it worked except I didn't just do 1 set every 14-21 days or any of the moronic shit he came up with in the 90s

        >What about doing just one set to failure for every excercise per workout?
        that's fine as long as you don't just train a muscle group once a week

        1 set every 7 days is not enough to grow
        1 set every 4 days is enough to grow
        1 set every 2-3 days is more than enough
        >Dont advanced bodybuilders also split their workouts in a way they only train one muscle group once per week?
        yeah but they also have a lot of overlap in their training sessions that is hard to calculate so they shouldn't be looked at as just "once a week"
        1 set once a week is not enough to grow

        >going to failure in all sets is not a good idea

        I'm a moron can you explain please

        it's a good question which btw no one can answer
        it's bda ato go to failure in all sets if you're doing a frickton of them
        but doing a ton of sets produces fatigue and damage even if you don't go to failure
        it doesn't matter

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I meant to say jacked ned flanders as a joke because he kinda looks like him.
          Thank you very much for your comment you adressed the main thing i was wondering.
          I always did calisthenics and i found pullups insanely hard, so much that i could not finish my 5 sets of 12 for all the 5 exercises i had written down after watching a youtube video (i did that 3x per week) i just thought then as long as i squeeze them in somehow i will be ok, meaning i first did a set of 8, couldnt anymore then a set of 5 and then subsequently many sets of 1 or 0.5 haha listening to that guy i felt like a fool about wasting that time and it made me wonder.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you're doing just one set you have to go to failure including either chest reps, isometric holds at the end, or both.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I do FBW twice a week with 1 set per exercise and to extended failure, i.e. when I can't do any rep with proper form (2s concentrics, 4s eccentrics) I cheat or do eccentrics until I'm really out of gas. I think it pretty much works - even though I'm a long time lifter. It's fairly easy on the joints, which is important for a 30yo geezer like me.
        I've always felt like all the sets after your strongest one were kinda pointless, this is why HIT resonated with me and I wanted to try it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Is jacke Ned Flanders right about his claims?
      Mike's frequency recommendations are extreme and most people can do his routine with 48-72 hours between workouts rather than 4-7 days. His "ideal routine" is good if you run it for 3-4 days per week in light of this. Personally, I would just do MWF chest/back, legs, arms/shoulders with the ideal routine. His PPL routine is good and his AB routine ("most productive routine") is good.
      >Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets?
      Potentially yes. However, I would recommend 1-2 sets per exercise for 2-3 exercises per muscle group while training to failure.
      >Has anyone here ever tried this out? What were your experiences?
      Don't do legs more than once a week if you're training them like this. Even at beginner phases, you really can't handle more than once per week leg training to failure. And don't do this with barbell squats do the 3x5, 5x5, or whatever with that unless you are already really good at squatting. You're best using a hacksquat or leg press machine with some kind of safety so you can get out of the machine after failure without a spotter. Upper body can go as much as twice per week.

      >Training once a week is worse than training twice
      No evidence for this. Of the papers with at least level 2 evidence, 3/4 papers find that there is little difference between once per week and twice per week when volume is equalized
      >https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/29/7/article-p1024.xml
      It's really only High volume shill Schoenfeld and those want to be on his lecture circuit who push the need for more frequency. Bro splits work BTW. You'll grow as big on one if you're training hard enough as you will on any other split.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No evidence for this. Of the papers with at least level 2 evidence, 3/4 papers find that there is little difference between once per week and twice per week when volume is equalized

        What do you mean equalized

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he was right about everything, granted you are injecting steroids

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You should read up on Modern HIT

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks alot mate, do you by chance know where i can get that for free?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not OP but thank you for the book recommendation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >muh heckin science!!!!
      i bet you're vaxxed too

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets
    who are you quoting?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mike mentzer, he said that

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Obviously he found what works for him.
    That much is clear, try finding what works for you.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hey guys what if I post the same fricking thread again
    have a nice day Black person. Mentz juiced. Anything works if you blast and cruise.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mike got everything he knew from Arthur Jones

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who was a raging lunatic

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ned Flanders was already jacked

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True, he was, shouldve calle mentzer juiced ned flanders cause flanders was natty

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What Mike had right
    >train hard
    >prioritize recovery
    >carbs are good
    What he had wrong was dialing all of this shit up to 11. Your recovery abilities are far more robust than he thought. Additionally looking at training to failure as a 0-1 binary was a mistake. One set to failure is good. But you may potentially reap more benefits from additional sets. It's a bell curve. At some point you will reach the peak of the Bell, and that's likely to be farther down the line than just one set. Don't be afraid to do more sets if you feel like your muscle hasn't received enough stimulus. Working out one body part once every 2 weeks is fricking moronic. Workout as frequently as you can recover. Take Deloads every now and then.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This
      Training with high intensity is good. Training so infrequently that your body barely notices you did anything is bad

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The main thing he was really wrong about is the time table. I think he was also wrong about drop sets and things like forced reps (where the spotter helps you by allowing momentary rest) not being useful for intermediates and novices. But stimulus:recovery it's and larger recovery begin detrimental to super compensation was right, and has been the concept behind all the modern adaptions of HIT. Which are mostly individualized a/b or upper lower splits with a 1.5 weekly frequency instead of 1 or even less in a lot of cases. The pre-fatigue with accessories thing to target growth places also might be wrong because it moved the point of failure to smaller groups rather than just doing the accessory after as a superset and reaching the point of failure on as many related groups simultaneously.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homie what?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I ended up making an a/b program that I do 1-1.5× a week after a few months of experimenting with HIT. I think that instead of using HIT to avoid overlapping fatigue it is actually better for growth and easier to program if you weaponize overlapping fatigue. For instance I cut out shoulder isolation and instead made most pulling and pushing exercises shoulder biased.

      homie what?

      Dumbass niqqa

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is jacke Ned Flanders right about his claims?
    Most of his claims about training are wrong. Also, he built most of his physique using high volume at the beginning of his career, not HIT. That, and steroids.
    >Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets?
    No. That's one of his moronic claims. Unless you're on steroid, you need a minimum of 6-8 sets (maximum is about 20 for most people) per muscle group per week, divide that into however many workouts per week you do, with a maximum of 5-6 sets per muscle group per workout at most.
    >Has anyone here ever tried this out? What were your experiences?
    No, but I know a natty dude with religious/cultist-like personality tendencies who got suckered for this BS for a while and got zero result and had to admit that it doesn't work

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks alot for that comment, when you talk about 5-6 sets per muscle group per week do you mean 5-6 sets to failure or near failure, right?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I keep saying it but I don’t think it’s making any purchase. You NEED volume as a beginner and even as an intermediate. You need to build the mind muscle connection and you’ll never do that with low rep low frequency workouts. When you’re advanced AND on steroids you can train less frequently and you can really annihilate the muscle in fewer sets. But very few people who get to the advanced stage want to work out that infrequently. If they didn’t love working out they wouldn’t be advanced. So it’s kind of a catch 22 where the vast majority of guys doing HIT are not the ones who it could actually work for

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice post, thanks for the insight, what do you think of his post

      >Is jacke Ned Flanders right about his claims?
      Most of his claims about training are wrong. Also, he built most of his physique using high volume at the beginning of his career, not HIT. That, and steroids.
      >Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets?
      No. That's one of his moronic claims. Unless you're on steroid, you need a minimum of 6-8 sets (maximum is about 20 for most people) per muscle group per week, divide that into however many workouts per week you do, with a maximum of 5-6 sets per muscle group per workout at most.
      >Has anyone here ever tried this out? What were your experiences?
      No, but I know a natty dude with religious/cultist-like personality tendencies who got suckered for this BS for a while and got zero result and had to admit that it doesn't work

      Are you d'accord with what he says about the rep amount?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Are you d'accord with what he says about the rep amount?
        Not really. His rep range for the upper body works for the lower body and vice versa (though, his lower body rep range can be a bit high), and IMO, about 5-12 reps works for most big muscles for most people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I agree with this. You need a few years under your belt and to have a decent base before you can move onto HIT

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've been trying it for the last half year and it seems to be working. I've been consistently gaining strength since I started (I plateaued for a year), and I look bigger, arms measure a little bigger. I haven't gained more weight, weirdly enough.
    When a full year passes I think I'll have a pretty good idea of how effective HIT is. So far it seems like the principles are mostly true.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And this is me six months ago

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lol you look almost exactly the same. I would think you even took the pictures just a few minutes apart.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Anon that's unfair... It would take at least fifteen minutes to shave my head and shower.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      based friend giving thumbs up in the background

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/oCuKWCl.jpeg

      And this is me six months ago

      looks the fricking same, god damn some of you are so mentally ill it is pathetic

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is one set to failure per workout sufficient without any additional sets?
    If you`re on gear then yes.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mentzen is gaining popularity now because a lot of people are not making progress and lifting is hard so they look for any reason to lift less and try less hard.
    You have to argue that Mentzer is correct because it means you can lift once a week. You didn't have much progress as is and now you want to lift less and have just as little progress (0) but this time you will have an excuse to not lift. You're doing muh Mentzer

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah. Also doing like a single set a week to failure will give results to beginners anyways. The question IMO is, when do the gains slow down or completely plateau and could you have gotten your gains faster? Im pretty sure when you get to that point it all depends on how your body responds to training, some people need more, some less. Bodybuilding is a VERY individual thing, these things never work the same between different people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >try less hard
      How do you figure thats what draws people to it? Anyone who's ever recommended HIT says you have to try as hard as humanly possible.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone thinks they try hard. There is no objective measurement for how hard you train. If you were going hard and didn't want to look for shortcuts, you wouldn't be looking for people who train less to justify training less. People who actually want to progress train 7 days a week until they burn out and realize they may need a rest day or two. No one who works hard will look for reasons to lift less.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He was right about training less often with high intensity.
    I've made serious progress ever since I started taking more rest days.
    He was wrong about carbs and only doing one set.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sensible, thanks. Why was he wrong about carbs?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >He was wrong about carbs
      If carbs aren't 60% of your diet you'll always be a DYEL

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Studies have shown that 10-15 sets per muscle group per week is the best interval to train within. Training more has only deminishing returns. You can split the sets into 2 workouts, with 2 exercises per muscle group with 3 sets. That's 2 x 2 x 3 of 8-12 reps per muscle group. That's 12 sets per week.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And you go to failure with each one?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No but close to it. You should at the very least be able to do 3 x 8 reps. From there you will try to increase your reps to 3 x 12. Once you're able to do 3 x 12 reps, increase the weight and repeat this process. This way it's high intensity, almost close to failure, without the danger of overtraining and risk of injury

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Straight sets are a complete waste of time.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Blessed digits (7 is the number of the Lord) but can you elaborate in that further

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              He wants to do gay sets instead.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >close grip palms down pull-downs
    >dips
    >deadlifts
    >squats
    >all 1 set to failure
    This is all you need

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Great post, thank you, do you do this daily? For things like squats and pulldowns do you add weight or volume until you fail?

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >jacke Ned Flanders
    What do you mean "jacked Ned Flanders"?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kek, yeah shoulda said juiced ned flanders cause the real one would never tarnis his god given body with roids.
      >Verification not required

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't matter what a roid troony claims.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I keep seeing this guy pop up on YouTube? Is there some conspiracy or something?

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Great physiques through tradition methods - millions
    Great physiques through HIT - 0

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you will know them by their fruits
      Alright im sold

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Post body, Mentzergay

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My results speak for themselves

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Im not doing arms and shoulders 1x a week. Bench maybe but still id rather hit 2-3x. Legs or abs sure ill do 1x a week.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Works. Gained more more muscle and strength since doing HIT I should have placed more emphasis on recovery

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. He did incorrect extrapolation with some surface level fitness knowledge at the time. Not everything he said was wrong though, like his takes on nutrition.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think he was selling a lifting program for nerds so he can get an audience or something.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >start hit
    >workout about 2x/week
    >notice small gains
    >gym renovation
    >take a month rest
    >friend says I got bigger
    The once a month is real.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Take awayyy
    n do for me
    niiijinda kono koe e woahh
    carry on
    and burn it down
    you gotta be the one you want
    breath in
    breath out
    fill out
    your voice
    calling
    calling
    find out
    your name
    thiz iz
    your life
    never loze yourzelf
    [tun tun tun]
    why tont
    [tun tun tun]
    you come
    [tun tun tun]
    peace out
    [tun tun tun]

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