Was Mentzer a disingenous grifter or just a slow yet somehow booksmart, bitter man who genuinely believed in what he preached?
I really don't get the fascination with him. None of what he preaches makes any fricking sense nor is it substanciated by evidence yet a lot of people seem to be captivated by his semantics.
To me he really isn't much more than the "I can't be wrong so the whole world must be in denial and is trying to sabotage me." schizophrenic narcissist archetype, but somehow also the first victim in his obsession to overcompensate his failures.
I don't doubt that making enemies with Arnold possibly turned the industry against him, gaining the status of persona non grata, but are we really gonna ignore that HIT was created by the same guy that basically invented commercial gym equipment, and Mentzer found himself as the poster boy for that?
What do you think, IST?
Nobody wants to admit that they were just born lucky and their hard work was only 50% of the equation. He had great genetics, would've looked good regardless of what he did. Plus he was on PEDs too
I don't think he ever understood this, although I believe that he believed in what he was preaching
Coincidentally, he really built his physique doing the same shit Platz, Arnold, Columbu and Zane were already doing, so there's a huge misconception about that as well. He only switched to HIT not long before retiring.
No, this is a lie. He switched to HIT when he met Viator around 1972/3. He didn't do 1 set, but he never went over 2 per exercise/superset. That is pretty damn HIT to me.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MfaE4Zh7uBo
What do you believe is the driver of hypertrophy?
Adequate Stimulus/Fatigue ratio followed by sufficient recovery :^)
It's not a black/white absolute volume vs absolute intensity.
Training to absolute failure is extremely fatiguing without providing more stimulus, therefore needing more time to recover.
If you could provide maximum stimulus to let's say, your quads, and be able to train again in 72 hours, why the frick would you decide to train more, to the point of providing no ulterior stimulus, and wait a week to train your quads again? And even if going to failure was proven to provide more hypertrophy stimulus in a vacuum, you don't think the guy who would be having three times the amount of training sessions is gonna have better results anyway?
>the guy who would be having three times the amount of training sessions is gonna have better results anyway
You understand that muscle is only built when you stop lifting right? Lifting damages muscle, then during rest the body repairs it and makes it a bit stronger so it won't get damaged as easily. Surely we can all agree that the optimal time to work a muscle again is when it has finished repairing itself. Why would having training sessions partway through recovery be better? It's like saying a wound will heal faster if you pick at it.
>Why would having training sessions partway through recovery
I think his point is that you fully recover in 72 hrs
which is true imo, if you train regularly you arent supposed to get get doms ever again, your body adapts to recovering faster so 3 days seem plenty of time
Sure but how do you know the muscle is recovered in 72 hours? Frequent training is for skill, not strength (I don't do frequent cardio but I assume the heart, being a muscle that must constantly work, can adapt faster than skeletal muscle)
>Frequent training is for skill, not strenght
Bigger muscles are always stronger, yet expressing strength largely depends on skill and conditioning. 3-6 reps is considered the ideal range for strength because even if you could, let's say, Squat 315 for 25 reps, there's no way to know if your body could handle 500lbs. Not because your muscles aren't strong enough, but because your body hasn't adapted. So yeah, skill plays a huge role in being able to express absolute strength.
Another misconception is that if a muscle takes longer to recover, it means it will grow more. Again, even if that were true, it would only be convenient if HIT gave you net double or triple the results compared to traditional training, since you have to rest for a whole week.
Not only this isn't the case, but it shows that people fall for semantics without giving a single thought about what they're listening. An average workout takes about 90 minutes, four times a week is 6 hours. There's 162 hours for you left to rest. So you guys really believe that a 45 minute HIT workout nets you better results by going 10% harder for 45 minutes and the "longer rest period" is basically just 5 hours more spread over a week? Cmon man
The argument for long rest has always been that you cut yourself short of your growth because you redirect the growth of one muscle to the recovery of another when you workout again. A re-prioritization of where calories should go.
I dont know the truth of it, or how trivial/significant it may be. If it were significantly true however, you and i could do the same workout (volume) and if i rest more days that you within reason, i might gain more muscle than you over a long period of time while going to the gym significantly less.
>if you train regularly you arent supposed to get get doms ever again
this is the most moronic talking point of all time. you either don't lift or are under 1 year of experience if you believe this shit. put anything over 3 plates on the bar and squat it for reps and you're going to be sore the next day, it's not a factor of "getting used to it" past a certain point the load is going to damage you enough to cause soreness no matter how used to it you are.
>You understand that muscle is only built when you stop lifting right? Lifting damages muscle, then during rest the body repairs it and makes it a bit stronger so it won't get damaged as easily
not true, muscle growth is the result of growth signaling, so the cause of growth is metabolic, mechanic. The "microtear" argument is outdated, though it was always self-evidently false.
ask a metzBlack person to post body for evidence they never will because they don't lift
They lift, just once in a blue moon
>Adequate Stimulus/Fatigue ratio followed by sufficient recovery
You haven't answered the question. Would you please be more specific? What exactly is causing the stimulus? What exactly is causing the fatigue?
They will never answer because they don't think in terms of first principles. The mental belly-flopping of volumetards is strikingly similar to that of Keynesians.
>volumetards
Excessive volume can be just as fatiguing as excessive intensity. You accuse me of lacking "first principles" yet you're the one engaging in dychotomous thinking like a brainlet, or a bot.
Alright:
1. Skeletal muscle has a definite nature.
2. Part of its nature is the fact that, to grow, a certain workload must be imposed on it.
3. An unknown, but relatively elevated threshold of fibre activation (or contraction intensity in terms of force) is required for the triggering of this stimulus.
4. Overstepping this threshold leads to a breakdown, instead of an eventual buildup, in tissue.
In view of these four objective facts, what leads you to believe that total work volume is a help instead of a hinderance to muscle growth?
>i don't know what a pump is
metzBlack folk are all psuedos too kek post body
>and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: "I’ve been found out"
This post is very "Mentzerian" in the sense that you're trying so hard to sound all logical and semantically coherent, yet it barely makes any sense at all.
>Overstepping this threshold leads to a breakdown, instead of an eventual buildup, in tissue.
Nobody ever said this. Training to failure can be useful and does yield results, but it is mostly unnecessary because the increased resulting fatigue makes it so that, compared to a 2 RIR set, it's harder to recover from without increasing the stimulus in terms of hypertrophy. Again, for you it HAS to be X VS Y, so you're unable to understand the nuances.
>What leads you to believe that total work volume is a help instead of a hinderance to muscle growth?
This question doesn't make any fricking sense. You mean higher total work volume? Do I really have to explain why 4 sets with a optimal stimulus/fatigue ratio that you can recover from in two/three days and do it again is more helpful, for muscle building, than doing 1 or 2 sets a week of extremely fatiguing work that doesn't really provide any increase in stimulated hypertrophy?
Not the guy you replied to, but would you please actually explain why 4 sets is optimal and how you recover from it? I genuinely don't know anything about the fundamentals. All I know is that everyone at the gym do 4x10 sets on many exercises
>4 sets is optimal
I didn't say 4 sets is optimal, I just used the number 4 because 4 sets is a very common layout in bodibuilding splits. What SHOULD be optimal is the ratio between stimulus (how hard can you work in order to stimulate the muscles to grow) and fatigue (how much stress your body accumulates while working out).
This largely depends on how advanced is your experience in bodybuilding, how strong are you, whether you're natty or not, caloric intake and sleep schedule.
What's an optimal ratio between stimulus and fatigue implied to be here then? 1:1?
There's no clear cut answer.
Let's say you're training chest 3x week, 8 sets per workout and you've been stalling out. You try 4x week , 8 sets and feel like you've been losing strength, so you try 2x, twelve sets and feel great, and you're starting to grow again. That would mean that higher volume with lower relative intensity and biweekly frequency is what you were looking for in terms of that ratio.
>Excessive volume can be just as fatiguing as excessive intensity
It cannot. Intensity is capped at 100%. There is only limited by the number of hours you can spend moving the weight.
>There
Pretty sure I typed *volume. Whoops.
What I meant is that you can accumulate stress by working out for 4 hours a day that doesn't translate into better hypertrophy gains even if that work isn't really hard per se, just as doing 10 reps > 4 partials > 3 past failure > 30 seconds static holds is excessively intense without providing any benefit.
Stimulus might be summarized as time under tension, fatigue is the combination of metabolite accumulation, glycogen depletion and overall neuro-physiological stress (feeling tired/burned out).
Research has proven time and time again that putting the muscle under tension past a certain threshold, provides no advantage in terms of muscle volume increase, even after a longer rest period.
>Training to absolute failure is extremely fatiguing without providing more stimulus, therefore needing more time to recover.
>Training to failure can be useful and does yield results, but it is mostly unnecessary because the increased resulting fatigue makes it so that, compared to a 2 RIR set, it's harder to recover from without increasing the stimulus in terms of hypertrophy
Mentzer would say, per his audiotapes, that you are correct. The intensity threshold that you need to hit to stimulate growth is probably somewhere around 80%, not 100% total eccentric failure. This is an issue of measurement. The problem we run into is that we're not computers. We cannot precisely measure intensity while in the middle of a set. The only true intensity levels you can be certain about are 0% (sitting on the couch) and 100% (hitting eccentric failure).
In my personal opinion, I would guess that if eccentric failure is 100%, then isometric failure would be 95% and concentric failure is probably 90%. Going to regular technical failure is enough to stimulate growth. Spotters/negatives/isometric holds etc are unnecessary.
Volume work gives you more cardio gains, a better pump and is simply more fun. That's good enough for me even if Menzer was right and intensity matters more for pure hypertrophy work.
>I really don't get the fascination with him.
He had a really really good body, with an aesthetic many prefer to Schwarzenegger. And he suggested that people could get results by exercising hard but without the balls to the wall time commitment Arnold advocated. Add in the whiff of scandal about the competition and you've got a classic tribalist split.
>And he suggested that people could get results by exercising hard but without the balls to the wall time commitment Arnold advocated.
That's the sketchy part. It wasn't Mentzer, it was Arthur Jones that tried to sell the idea that, with his Nautilus machines, one could just do one set to failure and move on to the next exercise, work out the whole body in 30 minutes a week and get BETTER RESULTS THAN ARNOLD. If you put this into perspective, HIT is no different than modern day "30 day abs" programs. Mentzer's body served as a way to mud the waters and give legitimacy to a scam.
He never addressed CNS issues. Olympic lifts for me, dog.
Not for hypertrophy not for strength just to avoid a heart attack death as young as Mike
Don't sell your ass for meth to use as prewo like Mike did and you'll be fine
No way...
Bros...
No no no no...
Gay AND Junkie?
I don't believe it man
He used amphetamines, not meth, it's not the same thing although I can understand why some volumegay morons would confuse the two
Mf went insane, there's stories of him running around naked, directing traffic and prophesying the end of the world while waiting for aliens to land.
Maybe it wasn't meth, but there was definitely something wrong with him.
>running around naked, directing traffic and prophesying the end of the world while waiting for aliens to land.
Our guy
you mean the incels guy go back to /LULZ/ if thats your guy
Cope
So he liked to blow off a little steam from time to time.
thats how gay meth heads blow off steam? acting like a Black person kek
>noo he used this degenrate drug not that other degenrate drug
He never used meth, he abused prescribed shit like adderal. that shit along with pain killers were prescribed like candy in the 70s and 90s.
It's just too good to be true.
>erm less work = better results
When is this true with LITERALLY ANYTHING IN LIFE
obviously you can overdo it but it's pretty obvious when that's happening
>lift hard til failure
>let muscle recover
How is that bad?
>lift hard enough but not too hard so that muscle recovers quickly and can workout again sooner to get more gains
Duh
>Higher stress stimulus drives more adaptations hence requires more recovery
Both options are viable I see no reason to prefer your way of training. I also get a bigger adrenaline rush so it feels OBJECTIVELY better.
Because there's diminishing returns for reaching failure or even exceeding it with partials and assisted reps. Training with a 1-3 rep buffer gives you all the stimulus you need, without fatiguing you to the point you need a week to rest.
It really is that simple.
Imagine bulking at ~3000kcal and 250g of protein, then deciding to add another 500kcal of protein. Will it help you build more muscle or will it make you just fatter?
I get that training hardcore is fun and there's definitely some usage for testing your limits in the final week of a program, but unless you enjoy feeling destroyed more than having a muscular physique there's no advantage to HIT as a training methodology whatsoever.
>completely ignoring the repeated bout effect and tells you to take a 7 days break before going to the gym again
>source: dude trust me, twitter
:0
This dude talks a big talk about the 'literature' and then goes ahead and uses PEDs like they were candy. Take what he says with a grain of salt.
I genuinely feel bad for him, he's right that Arnold fixed the 80 olympia but he shouldn't have thrown away his entire career over it. His life really went downhill and it's sad when you think about how he threw the entirety of his hopes and dreams down the shitter like that.
Then on top of that he was too dogmatic and opinionated which detracted from his intensity message. If he would have been just a little more open minded he could have been the face of a new training paradigm, as the extreme volumes of the 70s was in need of correction. But his advice and views became more and more erratic and he was abrasive in the way that he spread his message.
Again it's an absolute shame because he could have been so much more. His physique was truly spectacular, absolute tank. If he would have kept on his aesthetic could have been at least as iconic as a Frank Zane.
>I really don't get the fascination with him
Being very dogmatic and deriding everything else as nonsense is a quick and dirty hack to get a cult-like following without putting in a frickload of work. When you're absolutely positive what you're doing is right and you outright insult anyone who doesn't do it your way as wrong, its magnetic on a certain level to many people. They think "well this guy is so sure and so vocal, he wouldn't be this adamant if he didn't have good reason to believe it" so it attracts people.
For example this is like 75% of the reason Mark Rippetoe exploded in popularity even though his advice was extremely cookie cutter and not original to him, he packaged it in a no-nonsense personality with Texan sensibilities that insisted that his way was right and if you even so much as squat high bar you're wrong.
>None of what he preaches makes any fricking sense
How so?
Yes white man stop going to the temple of iron. Science says you should barely train at all! You might feel amazing but don’t listen to your body. You need to spend MORE time inactive. Don’t trust YouTube shorts for a damn minute anon. Whatever message it’s pushing on you is a LIE.
I cant figure out if you are you for or against HIT? lol
when you're on the kind of gear Mentzer was for as long as he was you too can look huge eating carbs and working out once a week
>inb4 he wasn't on anything that everyone else wasn't also doing
he had a fatal heart attack at 49, he was blasting some soviet research grade shit
HOW MANY FRICKING MENTZER THREADS DO WE NEED A DAY?
fact is no metzBlack person has ever posted a body that looks aesthetic
He stated that the colorado experiment guy was at 2% body fat, so clearly he was a lying shameless grifter
>Why would people want to believe a guy who tells them they only need to train for like an hour a week?
Is the appeal really that mysterious?
Here is what I don't understand when it comes to this board's Mentzer obession
HIT very clearly does work. Dante Trudel and Jordan Peters have both written programs where you only hit a muscle for one or two sets per workout, and there are whole forums of guys and many IFBB pros who have found success with their methods, granted almost all of them are on steroids. BothJordan and Dante also follow their own training methodologies and are frick huge.
Why does IST have an obsession with Mentzer specifically, whose methods weren't used by him and haven't been proven to work? Why not do a HIT program that people are actually seeing good results with?
Please elaborate on this? Where do I find the other things?
I'd imagine the Mentzer obsession comes along with him being the posterchild for HIT alltogether with the Nautilus thing. He's very well spoken and mannered in his speech making him sound logical and trustworthy. The youtube algorithm has started shilling Mentzer short clips for better or worse as well which I believe is a causing a rise in the discussion? I haven't even heard of HIT outside of Heavy Duty
for dc training just google it and you should find several articles explaining it
jordan peters runs a paid site and forum for his program, but if you google "jordan peters trainedbyjp free pdf" you should find a couple of his programs. he also has a youtube channel
no offense but i think it's a bit telling about the average mentzer fan on this board if you've heard of mike but not the other two guys, because they're infinitely more relevant in modern bodybuilding than mm, jordan peters especially.
Yeah for sure, I'm literally just a guy whose gone to the gym and had good enough gains for a long time winging it with 4x10s. Looking to get more serious into building more musclemass and got curious seeing the Mentzer stuff from my youtube feed. The idea of working out once a week because the fitness industry is built upon lies, like many other things are, sounds very appealing. I would really want Mentzer to be right because I'd love to spend less time at the gym. I never cared about big names, bodybuilding or studies. I know next to nothing.
You guys always cherrypick one or two guys when 99% of the greatest bodybuilders of all time did train high volume and some of them (Jay Cutler for example) are on record saying they never even gone to failure as a training strategy.
The fact that there's a handful of successful bodybuilders that got huge just by doing basically jack shit and taking loads of gear just goes to show that sometimes genetics are all you need.
Let's discard the opinion on anyone on juice when discussing natty gains. Even if they're right I still find it a nuisance to maneuver it.
I'm much more of a volumegay myself, I just think it's funny how this board is so completely unaware of general bodybuilding training that the shill a guy from the 80s instead of programs people are actually using and treat it as if it's some revolutionary new idea, even though there has been a subset of bodybuilders doing HIT programs for the past two decades at least.
I saw a video where Jordan Peters and Mike Israetel were talking to each other, and what Mike basically said was that while both hit and high volume seem to work, high volume is the safer route for most people just because you can't trust the average person to actually train with high enough intensity over one or two sets to actually optimize growth. Ie Jordan Peters himself or the turboroiders on his forums might be so agressive in training that they completely destroy their quads doing a sweet 30 reps 500 gazzilion kg pr rest pause widowmaker set on leg press, but you can't trust the average guy to get anywhere near that. Higher volume is basically the more boring but more guaranteed route. I think that's a pretty fair assessment.
I think I saw that podcast and iirc what Peters said is that to train with 0RIR year round he has to devolve a tons of resources to his recovery, leaving him with basically no wiggle room, to which Mike Israetel replied that even if there's benefit (especially in training joints and fast twitch muscle fibers) in going to absolute failure, the increase in recovery time and decrease in volume really doesn't seem to be optimal. Which is what I've been trying to say since I've entered this thread: Even if HIT provided noticeable benefits in a vacuum, the downsides make it so that tailored periodization and volume manipulation proves to be more beneficial and sustainable in terms of hypertrophy.
What inflicts more damage to the body? 1x10 with your 10rm, or 3x7-8 with your 10rm?
Considering that Rep Max % wise, two reps amount to around 5%, you're unironically asking me what trains you more between 1x10 and 3x8 - 5%? 17 is bigger than 10, yes.
Also, 1 x AMRAP + 3 x 6-8 at RPE7 is how many people program week 4 in a powerbuilding program, so I don't get why it has to be one or the other.
"Damage to the body" lmao, why don't you go ahead and stab your leg to stimulate muscle fiber growth
>17
23*
I did 3x6 instead of 3x8 oops
>trains you more
Again, this is too vague. You're conflating volume and stimulus. They're two different concepts. It's possible to get a high degree of stimulus without very much volume. Conversely, it's possible to accumulate a lot of volume without gaining much stimulus. High volume training comes with a higher "cost" in terms of recovery requirements, to reach the same goal.
>You're conflating volume and stimulus.
I'm not, but research does suggest that doing more quality reps for multiple sets provides more stimulus than just going all out and then calling it quits. AKA: more sets build more muscles.
>High volume training comes with a higher "cost" in terms of recovery requirements.
It's really the other way around, the whole point of HIT is training "so harder!!!" that you need a whole week on the counch without training again and now you're claiming "no it's actually junk volume!"
No, the week long rest is to "not interrupt growth with forcing recovery of other muscles".
yeah, and if you don't train like a moron you'll be fully recovered in two to three days, on top of having accumulated more stimulus; instead of doing only 1-2 sets with no significant stimulus increase and waiting for a whole week before stimulating the muscle again.
What if do volume but take 6 days rest?
I honestly doubt you'll be able to reach so much stimulus in whatever way that your optimal rest window is a whole week, but I understand you're hung on the "muh volume vs muh intensity" dichotomy so much you are unable to understand what I'm saying.
>research does suggest that doing more quality reps for multiple sets provides more stimulus than just going all out and then calling it quits.
I'd sure like to see this research. Even if it were true, is the marginal increase in stimulus worth the price of the 2x, 3x, 4x, or more volume? Those sets aren't free. They have a cost.
>AKA more sets build more muscle
That's a leap you're making.
>It's really the other way around
No it isn't.
>the whole point of HIT is training "so harder!!!" that you need a whole week on the counch without training again
No it isn't. The point is to do the exact amount of work required to stimulate growth, then allow that growth to take place. You don't understand what you're criticizing.
>I'd sure like to see this research.
Sounds like you don't have Google, because pretty much every exercise scientist and every research paper states so. If you're more on the "evidence based"
side of things, look at how every Mr.Olympia ever except (partially) Dorian Yates actually trained
>Even if it were true, is the marginal increase in stimulus worth the price of the 2x, 3x, 4x, or more volume?
That's a disingenous way of phrasing your argument. 2x of what? Of half the optimal volume? That would be...optimal volume. Regardless, that increase isn't marginal, it's actually a linear increase up to a certain threshold, the sweet spot being between 12-20 sets per muscle group a week.
>That's a leap you're making.
Nope, taking into consideration the optimal exertion rate needed to squeeze more quality set without creating too much systemic and metabolic stress, this is a logical consequence of the previous statement.
>The point is to do the exact amount of work required to stimulate growth
Yeah, and if you manipulate intensity stopping just shy of reaching excessive metabolic stress, you could do "the exact amount of work needed to stimulate growth" a couple times more and recover quickly enough to be able to do "the exact amount of work needed to stimulate growth" again!
>That's a disingenous way of phrasing your argument. 2x of what? Of half the optimal volume? That would be...optimal volume. Regardless, that increase isn't marginal, it's actually a linear increase up to a certain threshold, the sweet spot being between 12-20 sets per muscle group a week.
>>That's a leap you're making.
>Nope, taking into consideration the optimal exertion rate needed to squeeze more quality set without creating too much systemic and metabolic stress, this is a logical consequence of the previous statement.
>>The point is to do the exact amount of work required to stimulate growth
>Yeah, and if you manipulate intensity stopping just shy of reaching excessive metabolic stress, you could do "the exact amount of work needed to stimulate growth" a couple times more and recover quickly enough to be able to do "the exact amount of work needed to stimulate growth" again!
This sounds like the type of trash that Mike Israetel would spew. good luck with that.
>trust my gay meth head israelite instead of they Black person dick loving israelite
they both are gays
>the guy who talks about stimulus as "INFLICTING DAMAGE" being pedantic about the other guy being reasonable and dumbing the concept of stimulus as "training more" §
maximum kek
>stimulus as "INFLICTING DAMAGE
No I didn't. I conflated volume with inflicting damage. You are too moronic to post on this site.
You are a moron if you thought he said that damage to the muscle and stimulus were the same. The issue with high volume is that for a similar stimulus, they give more damage to the body, which means your body will spend more resources for recovery than for growth. Fricking moron
NTA
>You are a moron if you thought he said that damage to the muscle and stimulus were the same.
Aren't they?
damage to muscle fibers, time under tension (there are thingies inside the fibers that sense for this) and metabolic stress (anaerobic work builds up metabolites that need to be cleared). stimulus to growth is some combination of these the geeks haven't figured out yet what combination exactly
>between 1x10 and 3x8 - 5%? 17 is bigger than 10, yes.
Okay, so you DO see volume as the driver of growth, then. Why not just spend every hour of the day eating, sleeping, and training, and become Mr. Olympia in a year? I don't think it'll work, but go ahead and try it yourself.
Nobody said you shouldn't recover.
if you look at hit that actually works, the jordan peters style being talked about here, the one set is not just "stop when you can't do another rep". it's reach failure, take deep breaths for 5 to 10 seconds, and then pump out four more reps, reach failure again, and then do that two more times. or it's reach failure initially, drop the weight by 50%, go until you can't do any reps again.
the injury risk is higher because not only are you fresh when you start and using the heaviest weight you possibly can, your form tends to get sloppier as you fatigue throughout a set and reach the grinder reps, and real hit training is about extending sets for much longer than normal and doing a lot more grindy reps than you would training normally.
>hit that actually works
I'm not familiar with Jordan Peters, but the standard "take one set to technical failure with some negatives if you have a spotter" works perfectly well.
>real hit training
I don't think you've tried either style. I don't think you've tried Yates' or Jones' styles either. Who are you to say what constitutes "real" HIT training or not?
>injury risk is higher
You're only considering acute injuries, excluding chronic injuries, which are much more common. The risk of acute injuries also goes up with volume. Do you think your form doesn't get sloppy at the end of a 3x8? You must not be trying very hard.
chronic injuries are a lot more managable because you can just change exercises if you feel something is getting fricked up, an acute injury like a torn rotator cuff or pec tear will literally frick you up for the rest of your life. avoiding accute injuries is a lot more important in a day to day lifting context.
i don't do 3x8s because i'm not a moronic homosexual doing set rep counts, but if you're asking if my form doesn't routinely go to shit at the end of every set where i try hard, no it doesn't, and if yours does that's a huge problem imo.
if you're not familiar with jordan peters and are doing hit training than i severely doubt you have achieved any meaningful results from your training and are most likely just some pussy dyel who can only muster up the balls to try hard in the gym literally once per week
>if you're not familiar with jordan peters and are doing hit training than i severely doubt you have achieved any meaningful results from your training and are most likely just some pussy dyel who can only muster up the balls to try hard in the gym literally once per week
That confirms it in my mind. You haven't tried any of them. Thanks for the input, though.
It's different for every muscle group though. Some muscles respond really well to high weight/low reps, others will benefit from the opposite.
how come he is dead if he is so smart huh?
Mentzer really liked the words anaerobic and aerobic because it made him sound smart.
HIT is just an excuse to be lazy and most people do one hard set of squats and are like "dude that was soooo heavy omg I went to failuuure"
No you didn't. HIT was pushed by a roiding meth-user who spammed partials on a machine. You do not have the roid+meth intensity required to actually do this method.
unironically because HIT is a great program if you have great general strength and poor work capacity
nope only works for dyels ie noobies which anything works and roiders which anything works so you're wrong and gay post body to prove me wrong i know you won't tho cause your dyel
so why exactly should a newb work out 2h a day 5 days a week if 2x45mins gives the same results?
when did i say they should moron?
Just a heads up guys, fit has been hijacked by a bunch of redditors. Just saying. Beware.
How about I'll just train how I want too and can still progressively overload over time.
You fricking homosexuals.
I’m seeing newbie gains after 6 years with pic rel. I don’t deadlift tho
post body then i know you won't tho
I did my first HIT workout today. I did OHP and shrugs as my main lifts. I did an initial set to failure then rest-pause until I couldn't do a single rep. It worked for OHP but after about 80 total shrugs I could still do 4-5 reps after a 20 second rest, so I stopped. Obviously the weight was too low. I then did reverse grip curls and barbell curls where I failed after a few rest-pause sets.
bump
>died at age 49 due to "health issues"
Why the frick would I listen to anything he says
Bodybuilding is such a fricking joke man
Any heavy duty guys here. I have leg day today after 4 days of rest but I slept like shit yesterday cause broke up with gf and I also fapped after a long time. If I go tommorow I will not be able to go Sunday for chest and back cause of work. What do I do? Should I go and grind it out and lose performance? If I go Monday or Tuesday back it’s 9 days without upper chest work. I can coffee and go grind
add extra rest days when needed, skip rest day if you feel ready to go day earlier. it's not strict
>skip rest day if you feel ready to go day earlier. it's not strict
Stop giving misinfo to redpilled individuals who are now getting into the world of Heavy Duty Training. Systemic fatigue is a real thing and overtraining is very dangerous.
He gives off Christopher Langan energy; which is to say that he's full of shit. There's merit in some of his ideas but it's bro science.
nah bro science actually works metzner is just a dead gay who dyel zoomers idolize for some weird reason
>for some weird reason
the reason is that making mad gains fr fr
yet they never post body sure gains of shitposting
>work out approximately 2 times a week
>do one set to failure and myoreps on each exercise
>each workout lasts a little shy of 1 hour, often less
>get better gains than on volume routines if you're natty because you have more time to rest (which is arguably the most important factor for hypertrophy)
>no tendonitis or overuse injuries because you give your connective tissue enough time to recover between workouts
>more time to do everything else, let's say light impact cardio for your health if we want to keep it fitness related
why does this concept make so many people on IST furious?
"better gains" yet no evidence of these better gains also a fatty fetishist so frick off
What if what I'm doing is too intense, how to tell?
Did you get injured?
No, but sometimes it feels like maybe a bit less intense would have been enough
the mentzer meme needs to die already its very telling how fricking dumb so many people on IST are to lap up this trend being memed all over tiktok
I was reading about some guy who tried HIT for a few months, and when he returned to volume training, he got completely gassed out very quickly
Which leads to my question…
What value does HIT have, despite it being (possibly) optimum and effective… if it’s going to turn you into a big weak pussy?
I train infrequently. 1-2 times per week but I train with intensity in the way that I throw the kitchen sink at my workouts. Warm ups, working sets, top sets, drop sets, myo reps, super sets.
I beat the shit out of myself for 2-4 hours a week total and take long rest periods throughout the week 6-7 days usually. I run during the week.
IF I go even more intense than this, as in put all that intensity and effort into only 1 working set for the supposed optimum muscle stimulus trigger, I am surely losing out on the muscular endurance aspect of it
I don’t know man. I think with bodybuilding and fitness that everything has its place on the table. Mentzer opened my eyes about stimulus, recovery, training frequency etc but he’s just so fricking dogmatic.
I’m at the stage now where I think HIT would be beneficial during an “off season”, allow your CNS to recover and just coast while gaining at a moderate level,
I wonder if something like
2 months HIT, 2 months volume would have any benefit since you’re tuning into two different systems
And to begrudgingly quote Arnold - shock the muscles
we are really interested in your stream of halfbaked ideas please blogpost more regularly
>do cardio
>stop cardio
>struggle to do cardio again
wowee mister
didn't read the rest of your redditspacing post
kys
>you can look like me by training 20 minutes 3 times a week
>the Colorado experiment is totally real, you can totally gain 60lbs of pure muscle in a couple of weeks
It's too stupid to be real so he was just a grifter
but the non body posting guys itt said they gained 20# of muscle by doing hit and using certain machines
Yet again, a thread goes by in which a whole bunch of people who have never tried High Intensity Training, and have a surface-level understanding of it, attempt to criticize it. The least they could do is try it beforehand. It would only take a month or two. Would you write a review for a movie you've never seen or a game you've never played? It's nonsensical.
post body
Mentzer was genuine in his philosophy on training but the issue was that he became completely myopic about it and failed to realize how universal training really is. Mentzer was already huge and on gear before doing HIT which comes to my point. HIT works best if you're already experienced and in shape. Is it effective? Of course it is and I don't think he was a grifter. My problem is that HIT should not be the ONLY exercise routine that everyone should as how Mike believed. Realistically you need to experiment on your road in becoming IST
hit only works for roiders but anything works for roiders
I mean if I was roiding I'd care less about recovery and would be cautious about getting injured lifting to failure
are you being obtuse intentionally? or are you just moronic? i mean you do hit so you clearly aren't smart but moronic maybe
emotionally unstable roidtroony detected
The only thing he is wrong about was dips.
And roid abuse
Black person