Your thought on Heavy Duty

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by Jonny, Nov 17, 2005.

  1. Jonny

    Jonny New Member

    I know this is probably in wrong forum but most people come here. What do you think about Mike mentzers Heavy Duty. Ive done it for years and love training that way. Im planning on doing 1 cycle of HST, 1 cycle of Heavy Duty etc.

    Anyone else thought bout this, seeing as HST is mainly for size wheras heavy dutys for stength.
  2. I trained Heavy-Duty style for several years. It worked well at first, but eventually my gains tapered off to nothing, and they didn't come back until I started applying HST principles.

    Even though the primary goal of HST is hypertrophy, I've also gained significant strength. In fact, after four cycles, I'm stronger than I've ever been in my life.

    Give it a shot! Not training to failure is a difficult change to make, but once you adjust you'll wonder why you ever wasted so much time frying your central nervous system.
  3. Joe G

    Joe G New Member

    Frying your central nervous system is right. While doing Heavy Duty I always felt either tired and drained or annoyed that I had to wait another 4 days to go to the gym again. I made some strength gains from Heavy Duty but nothing very significant and I never put on any weight or any size.

    I also think that it was hard for me to stay focuses on my diet on Heavy Duty because it felt like I was never in the gym. I also know a few buddies of mine that said they got kinda fat because they were eating well above maintenance but Heavy Duty calls for extremely infrequent training so the calories just went to fat.

    Definitely give HST a shot if your looking to put size on.

    Joe G
  4. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert


    Heavy duty training is completely different from HST, going all out may be OK for the ego but for what else? [​IMG]

    Remember Mike was a avid steroid user and could afford to train that way, and then again that is what he wrote no-one can say for sure that he followed it so strictly, unless you were part of an inner group!

    Now lets analyze one little thing, I seriously think that training like that cannot be good for your health, in fact I think that could have been the indirect cause of death of Guerrrero, certainly he head abused his body before and his vessels were less than ideal for so much blood pumping around, but had he trained HST style, I'd bet he'd still be around to tell us how he felt [​IMG]

    Juts a thought [​IMG]

    Then again you are going to try HST so...go aehd I am hoping that you'll find it superior to HIT and therfore will eventually formulate your own opinion and become one of the people helping others around here! [​IMG] [​IMG]

  5. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    Why do want to do Heavy Duty?

    Mentzer and Yates were roid'ed up....Mentzer also polished off amphetamines like cookies . . . so take his "Results" with a grain of salt.
  6. Jonny

    Jonny New Member

    Mentzer openly admited tht he didnt train heavy duty whilst he was competing. and Yates didnt even train heavy duty he trained HIt so i dont no wat ur on bout ther. heavy duty was formed from his experience as a personal trainer upon NORMAL people who dont take roids... I think you probably havent read any of mikes books.

    I no HST is the way to go. and asked the question... which hasnt been answerd.... maybe by the first reply.. if any1 thinks tht by doing heavy duty after a cycle of HST, as it is likely to make you stronger, it will produce more hypertophy within the nxt HSt cycle.
  7. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    HD is based on/IS HIT:

    "1 Mike Mentzer Set
    1st Max Rep
    10 Second Rest
    2nd Max Rep
    10 Second Rest
    1 More All Out Rep
    Reduce Weight By 20% And Do The Rep
    15 Second Rest
    Final Rep"

    "Mike Mentzer is a former world-class bodybuilder - he won the 1975 Mr. Universe with the first perfect score in history. But despite the success in competitive bodybuilding, Mentzer's greatest achievements were to be intellectual ones. After many years of writing articles for the top bodybuilding magazines, Mike codified his revolutionary theory of High-Intensity Training. His system became popular among thousands of bodybuilders and fitness contestants around the world. He was an inspiration to many bodybuilders, including Dorian Yates.

    After many years of logical research Mike perfected the system and was convinced that his work would change the bodybuilding world forever. He applied the laws of logic to bodybuilding and the results were incredible. His amazing articles appeared in popular bodybuilding magazines such as Ironman, Muscular Development, Flex, etc."


    Increased strength means more weight on the bar. More weight on the bar will continue to build more muscle (this is the short and simple).

    If you feel HD is the best way to make you stronger then do it. If you want something that's had better results and more of them, then go with 5x5/DFHT or something Westside based.

    There's a reason that strength athletes/competitors don't train HD/HIT.
  8. thehamma

    thehamma New Member

    I have tried HD all of the versions of it, and i own every single one of Mikes books.  I love to read them all, they are extremely interesting and I have learned a lot from reading them.  Mike definitely made me think differently and more critically about all aspects of my life.  Unfortunatlely, or fortunatley I learned so much from Mike that I learned that HD was not the most effecient way to train for hypertrophy.  I can write an entire thesis why but I would say that the main reason, I dont train HD is because of the lack of frequency.  The frequency prescribed in HD is way to infrequent for me for significant size gains and also caused me to gain some fat.
     There are other points that I could expand on why HD isnt optimal for hypertrophy, but I can tell you, and dont take my word for it, that the principles behind HST are sound and if you apply them to your training you will see results, better than any other training program out there.  All of that other bullshit attacking mikes character is nonsense, he was a pioneer and a very intelligent man.  I think if he were alive today he would probably come to different conclusions regarding hypertrophy, especially that strength doesnt always equal size.
  9. Jonny

    Jonny New Member

    Jester. heavy Duty is not HIT is just has the principles of it. HIT came from Authur Jones and he stated tht u should train 3x week with 2 sets of fullbody workout to failure. Mike trained kinda like this when he was competitng. but heavy duty was formed after he finished competing. He stated tht u should train with 3 or 4 exericeises once a week to failure.

    I never said that HD would increase more hypertophy. ive gone over this like 5 times and u still dont understand.

    the more weight used - the more hypertophy. So wouldnt it make logical sense to use HD, thus increase strength levels, before a HST cycle?
  10. Lol

    Lol Super Moderator Staff Member


    If you've done HD for years then why not just do a cycle of HST and see how you get on? Do a complete cycle including negatives for two weeks after the fives (where possible). You may just find that you gain a load of strength along the way!

    Take a week to work out your maximums then don't forget to SD before starting on HST.

    All the best!
  11. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    HD is not HIT training to the exact set and rep. Shares some flawed principles.

    I never said HD = hypertrophy either. I said inc. strength and keeping inc.'d load = hypertrophy in the long run (along loading properly etc).



    Being the first two that come to mind.

    thehamma - I'm not attacking MM's character. I'm saying that the drug use is going to effect the gains and training. I could care less one way or the other if he's a sinner or a saint. But steroids and amphetamines have physiological not just psychological impacts.
  12. To answer your first question:

    HD and HIT were good attempts to figure out the best way to train your muscles back when the muscle was still a "black box." The muscle was a mysterious thing and people couldn't explain exactly what happened inside, nor why.

    If you read Mentzer and Jones, you will see statements like "nobody knows for sure why. . . " and "even the scientist can't tell you why. . ." Well, today we DO know the answers to all or most of those questions. But the answers are not usually in body-buidling books, are almost never in body-building mags. They are usually in scientific journals for people who study protein cycles, or muscle atrophy and regrowth in injured people, etc.

    Then you have someone like Bryan go through all the modern research and read all the scientific journals and apply the science to develop a set of principles to guide trainees in designing programs to help them grow muscle. The result, HST, is far more effective at producing growth than HIT or HD were, and it's neither a surprise nor an insult to Jones or Mentzer!

    There's no need to train HD cycles between HST cycles. You'll find, after trying an HST cycle, that you build up tremendous strength over the course of the cycle. . . and your strength will peak at the end of the cycle, when you need it most. Strength gains from training HD would be many, many weeks old before you use them in your HST cycle, so there will be little carryover.

    There's one reason to train HD, though, and you mention it in your initial post: you love training HD. There's a lot to be said for that, and if you don't do it any more, you'll miss it.

    I would suggest doing a couple of weeks of HD as the end of your HST cycle. The weight progression of HST kind of leaves you in HD land at the end of it, anyway. Every HD lover who does HST craves the final weeks of the HST cycle and wishes it would never end.

    And, in a sense, HIT and HD are both efforts to apply what Jones and Mentzer learned through intuition and observation; that you must lift heavier and heavier to grow. Logically, to lift heavier, you try harder and make it more intense. It didn't occur to them that part of the recipe would be to DECREASE the muscles resistance to growth (by forcing it to decondition) rather than simply working it harder.

    Mentzer stumbled into an inefficient sort of deconditioning, actually; for advanced subjects who were unresponsive to the very heavy workouts, he advocated longer and longer rest periods -- up to seven days. This helped, but he didn't understand why. He thought the muscles needed all that time to fully recover. The truth was that the muscles would finally decondition somewhat, so the next workout could have an effect. But when you're working out as infrequently as once a week, you don't spend much time growing, and you lose the benefits of chronic loading (the compounding effect caused by having the muscle in Grow Mode all the time from working it many times per week.)

    I guess what I'm saying is that HIT and HD were developed as best efforts by people stumbling around a muscular system they didn't fully understand. Today, things are different. You can do the old things because you enjoy them, and there's nothing wrong with that; just don't expect doing things the old way to improve the newer methods. But you don't need an excuse to do some HD; just enjoy doing what you love to do! Turn the end of your HST cycle into a bunch of HD workouts, and you'll have a blast while having the best growth you've seen in years.
  13. Fausto

    Fausto HST Expert

    Heya Ed [​IMG]

    Where have you been hiding, mate? [​IMG]

    Long time no hear [​IMG] .

    Jonny, I don't think you could get better advice than this, do you HD don't get carried away, but don't.....and I mean don't attempt to modify HST by adding other components.

    You really are getting your bread buttered on both sides, and no one's complaining...hey what yah waiting for [​IMG]
  14. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    Thinking about it, that's probably the most unfortunate mistake BBers have made over the last 50 years or so.

    What you 'feel' does not necessarily reflect the state of the muscle. Think of Arnold's 20-30 sets per body part, or the soreness created by the popular bi/tri-chest-back-shoulders-legs routines etc... neural and muscular being intertwined but still distinct. Being able to know the difference, how to read 'what you feel'.

Share This Page