Heavy Duty
- Thread starter Jonny
- Start date
How can you say his methods are irrational? If anything they are the most rational theories behind HST.
Surely the idea of attempting the minimum ammount of training to stimulate growth, whilst limiting the ammount as to not overtrain, is more rational than the 2 to 5 hours of weight training a day that was the norm back then....
Surely the idea of attempting the minimum ammount of training to stimulate growth, whilst limiting the ammount as to not overtrain, is more rational than the 2 to 5 hours of weight training a day that was the norm back then....
Lifting N Tx
New Member
Didn't Mentzer advocate training to failure once a week per bodypart?
It may have been better than what some others were doing, but that is sub-optimal, at least for natural lifters. Stopping a bit short of failure (at least most of the time) and training 2-3 times per week is more effective.
It may have been better than what some others were doing, but that is sub-optimal, at least for natural lifters. Stopping a bit short of failure (at least most of the time) and training 2-3 times per week is more effective.
I actualy found mikes system to be very misunderstud. It basicaly is 1 set of around 4 exercises a workout, 1 workout every 5-7 days. Each set going to ultimate failure, with 4 second positive and negative reps, with 2 second static holds.
The only problem with it is you need to have a perfect diet, have a spotter, have perfect workouts, and have perfect sleep and rest. I would probably place it as being the second best training program.
1) HST
2) Heavy Duty
3) 5x5
Its prity much the same as HST, in the sense that thers ultimate failure and then a week of rest. Much like the end of a cycle where there is the static deconditioning. Except with HST your body is gradualy eased into the heavy weights, rarther than being thrown at the deep end.
I found it worked a treat anyways. No matter what you think of him, he was on to something. And he was actualy trying to do some good for the bbing world. If mike had won the 1980 olympia I gurantee bbing would be a lot different today.
The only problem with it is you need to have a perfect diet, have a spotter, have perfect workouts, and have perfect sleep and rest. I would probably place it as being the second best training program.
1) HST
2) Heavy Duty
3) 5x5
Its prity much the same as HST, in the sense that thers ultimate failure and then a week of rest. Much like the end of a cycle where there is the static deconditioning. Except with HST your body is gradualy eased into the heavy weights, rarther than being thrown at the deep end.
I found it worked a treat anyways. No matter what you think of him, he was on to something. And he was actualy trying to do some good for the bbing world. If mike had won the 1980 olympia I gurantee bbing would be a lot different today.
scientific muscle
New Member
I jumped on the heavy duty bandwagon for years. After studying all the bodybuilding programs out there. Mike was one of the few to really explain WHY he developed the routine the way he did. I had some results with training heavy duty, but nothing special. I think doing one really intensive set is not so bad, it was the extremely infrequent workouts he recommended that was way off. Mentzer started out with arthur jones, doing threexweek, later dropped it to 2xweek. Then he wrote 'Heavy Duty' and advocated training a bodypart once/week, at first I thought he was onto something....but after training this way for quite awhile I realized that 7 days between bodyparts seemed too much, and I didn't I even need anywhere near that much time to recover. Then he wrote 'Heavy Duty 2: mind and body", at first I thought it was awesome, working out only about 6 sets for the whole body, working out a bodypart every two weeks, doing extremely intensive sets, like rest/pause, static holds going into negatives, etc. He seemed to be some eccentric bodybuilding genius. I honestly thought he was right. Other guys would laugh at me as I came to the gym and did my one set for each bodypart, and left in about 15 minutes. The truth is the training frequency was way off I think, as I hardly grew at all!!! I think if I did heavy duty type training, but worked out 2 or 3 times /week instead of 1xweek or less, I would have seen better results.
Now I work out three times/week whole body, doing clustering and Max-stim, and my results are SO EXTREMELY SUPERIOR TO HEAVY DUTY, that there is no way I would rank it second to HST. I think any program that doesn't have too much volume, or to little frequency, is FAR BETTER than heavy duty. Basically, low-volume, high frequency workouts like HST are the optimum for natural weight-lifters. Mentzer's workouts were EXTREMELY low volume, and EXTREMELY low frequency, and I think the extremely low frequency is the main problem.
He had some great ideas for sure, great guy, but he was lost in his own philosophical garbage there for quite awhile. He though fatiguing the muscle to twitching, slobbering failure was the ultimate key to hypertrophy, and that it was the ultimate sin to do more than one set per exercise, or god forbid train a bodypart more than once/week. The worst part of it was, he claimed to have the ONE TRUE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF BODYBUILDING, meanwhile he said that all the scientific exercise research that exists is crap , and HE USED ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE AT ALL TO BACK UP HIS ClaiMS, HE ONLY USED WHAT HE TERMED 'REASON'. And HIS reasoning of course, however twisted or false it may have been was supposed to be absolutely true, all 'cause he read some book by Ayn Rand and thought he was enlightened or something.
I followed the guy pretty deeply, and honestly I think he lost his mind towards the end of his life.
Now I work out three times/week whole body, doing clustering and Max-stim, and my results are SO EXTREMELY SUPERIOR TO HEAVY DUTY, that there is no way I would rank it second to HST. I think any program that doesn't have too much volume, or to little frequency, is FAR BETTER than heavy duty. Basically, low-volume, high frequency workouts like HST are the optimum for natural weight-lifters. Mentzer's workouts were EXTREMELY low volume, and EXTREMELY low frequency, and I think the extremely low frequency is the main problem.
He had some great ideas for sure, great guy, but he was lost in his own philosophical garbage there for quite awhile. He though fatiguing the muscle to twitching, slobbering failure was the ultimate key to hypertrophy, and that it was the ultimate sin to do more than one set per exercise, or god forbid train a bodypart more than once/week. The worst part of it was, he claimed to have the ONE TRUE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF BODYBUILDING, meanwhile he said that all the scientific exercise research that exists is crap , and HE USED ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE AT ALL TO BACK UP HIS ClaiMS, HE ONLY USED WHAT HE TERMED 'REASON'. And HIS reasoning of course, however twisted or false it may have been was supposed to be absolutely true, all 'cause he read some book by Ayn Rand and thought he was enlightened or something.
I followed the guy pretty deeply, and honestly I think he lost his mind towards the end of his life.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div>
(Lol @ Aug. 29 2006,17:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Of course, pretty much any training regime works well if you take a shed load of gear. It would have been nice if Mike had enlightened us all about the kind of stacking he was doing that allowed him to get results from one w/o a week.</div>
Mentzer never really worked out using heavy duty in his life. He got in great shape for the 1980 Olympia, but this was using arthur jones style HIT 2 or 3x/week, and he himself used alot more volume than he actually recommended in magazines, since he was on the gear.
He only started using heavy duty 1X/week programs after he was fat and retired, but SUPPOSEDLY, his training clients had great results, and he had hundreds of clients. Of course if people didn't get the results like he claimed, he always blamed it on one of three things. 1)overtraining, (his favorite) 2)not going intense enough 3)bad genetics.
(Lol @ Aug. 29 2006,17:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Of course, pretty much any training regime works well if you take a shed load of gear. It would have been nice if Mike had enlightened us all about the kind of stacking he was doing that allowed him to get results from one w/o a week.</div>
Mentzer never really worked out using heavy duty in his life. He got in great shape for the 1980 Olympia, but this was using arthur jones style HIT 2 or 3x/week, and he himself used alot more volume than he actually recommended in magazines, since he was on the gear.
Moreover, I remember that in his bulletins Jones stated that, to avoid detraining, muscles have to be trained again not more than 72 hours after the previous workout. For this his HIT was nearest to HST then Mentzer's Heavy Duty.
But Jones' HIT was lightyears far from HST as far concern intensity. His athlete's workouts were all well beyond positive muscolar failure
Bye
MbMax
But Jones' HIT was lightyears far from HST as far concern intensity. His athlete's workouts were all well beyond positive muscolar failure
Bye
MbMax
The mistake I think he and many other HIT proponents do/have made is oversimplification; basically because they don't really understand hypertrophy at its most basic level.
One statement that I've seen in both Mentzer's writings and nearly every other HIT proponent's is that "a muscles strength is directly proportional to its cross sectional area". And based on this, they conclude that if you get stronger, you must be getting bigger.
This statement may be true for steel cables and rope, but there are a great many other things involved in what makes a muscle strong or stronger. This doesn't take into account the thousands of neurological and other more complex issues.
This oversimplification has caused them to miss what actually produces hypertrophy, since they are focused on increasing strength.
Anthony
One statement that I've seen in both Mentzer's writings and nearly every other HIT proponent's is that "a muscles strength is directly proportional to its cross sectional area". And based on this, they conclude that if you get stronger, you must be getting bigger.
This statement may be true for steel cables and rope, but there are a great many other things involved in what makes a muscle strong or stronger. This doesn't take into account the thousands of neurological and other more complex issues.
This oversimplification has caused them to miss what actually produces hypertrophy, since they are focused on increasing strength.
Anthony
I don't know why this old thread popped up on my browser, but I'll reopen it and renig on what I posted back then.
I've been on a similar routine of sorts with success. First, assume you have 3 muscles:
Chest, Back, and Legs.
Blitz of sorts, doing one "part" per day, rotating the workouts. Primary failure ends the sets, not full-blown secondary burnout. Cycles go progressively, from 15-20 rep sets down to 4-5 reps later on. This could be similar to HST, except that when doing one "bodypart", you really tend to focus more, not having to save yourself for the rest of a routine.
How it doesn't work: Similar to anything else out there, the body adapts and quits progressing. You can't stay on this forever, but a few cycles should work well. I had lost results with HST around the 6th or 7th cycle myself, went to 5x5's, and other stuff for a while. But this thing I'm doing here has gotten real addictive.
And I'm back to 215 again, arms are back (17) and strengths are fair. I'd be bigger and stronger if I hadn't stayed heavy on this for way too long though.
I've been on a similar routine of sorts with success. First, assume you have 3 muscles:
Chest, Back, and Legs.
Blitz of sorts, doing one "part" per day, rotating the workouts. Primary failure ends the sets, not full-blown secondary burnout. Cycles go progressively, from 15-20 rep sets down to 4-5 reps later on. This could be similar to HST, except that when doing one "bodypart", you really tend to focus more, not having to save yourself for the rest of a routine.
How it doesn't work: Similar to anything else out there, the body adapts and quits progressing. You can't stay on this forever, but a few cycles should work well. I had lost results with HST around the 6th or 7th cycle myself, went to 5x5's, and other stuff for a while. But this thing I'm doing here has gotten real addictive.
And I'm back to 215 again, arms are back (17) and strengths are fair. I'd be bigger and stronger if I hadn't stayed heavy on this for way too long though.
RUSS
Member
I think leaving the self admitted methamphetamine use out of the Mike Mentzer story leaves a warped and easily mocked image of the man and his theories.
I still find his A/B every other day frequency (earlier "pre-meth" work) to be one of the most organic and effective programmings for lower volume/abbreviated routines. The fact that he disregarded the constructs of having to fit a routine into a "week" is elegant in it's simplicity. The typical Mon,Tues,Thurs,Fri or Mon, Weds, Fri both have their shortcomings - the first can result in Tues and Fri's "oomph" level (for lack of a better word) being dulled from the previous days workout - in other words some will find this to be just enough over the fine line of recovery to be problematic , and the second (although it has my respect and works very well) results in 3 workouts a week or 6 every 2 weeks as opposed to the 7 every 2 weeks enabled by an EOD programming. Some need those two weekend days off to thrive , some don't...
Would Yates , Dante , and Trevor Smith been able to make their contributions to training theory without the bridge Mike provided from Arthur's original bedrock? There is no way of knowing but the progression does exist and Mike's is an important and necessary link in the chain.
If Mike had never offered his consolidation routine to the public and just faded into obscurity after the earlier work - we'd probably be "re-discovering" his "old school"genius compliments of T-nation articles thinly disguised as Waterbury "originals"...
It's too bad that the internet has fostered an attitude of such mockery in regards to Mike - it's well worth mining for gold in his earlier works , same holds true for Jones and Yates - you may not agree with Bryan Haycocks notions of "SD"(example only- RELAX) yet you are here benefiting from other nuggets of gold you have managed to mine from the theories he holds forth for public consumption ; just something to think about...
I still find his A/B every other day frequency (earlier "pre-meth" work) to be one of the most organic and effective programmings for lower volume/abbreviated routines. The fact that he disregarded the constructs of having to fit a routine into a "week" is elegant in it's simplicity. The typical Mon,Tues,Thurs,Fri or Mon, Weds, Fri both have their shortcomings - the first can result in Tues and Fri's "oomph" level (for lack of a better word) being dulled from the previous days workout - in other words some will find this to be just enough over the fine line of recovery to be problematic , and the second (although it has my respect and works very well) results in 3 workouts a week or 6 every 2 weeks as opposed to the 7 every 2 weeks enabled by an EOD programming. Some need those two weekend days off to thrive , some don't...
Would Yates , Dante , and Trevor Smith been able to make their contributions to training theory without the bridge Mike provided from Arthur's original bedrock? There is no way of knowing but the progression does exist and Mike's is an important and necessary link in the chain.
If Mike had never offered his consolidation routine to the public and just faded into obscurity after the earlier work - we'd probably be "re-discovering" his "old school"genius compliments of T-nation articles thinly disguised as Waterbury "originals"...
It's too bad that the internet has fostered an attitude of such mockery in regards to Mike - it's well worth mining for gold in his earlier works , same holds true for Jones and Yates - you may not agree with Bryan Haycocks notions of "SD"(example only- RELAX) yet you are here benefiting from other nuggets of gold you have managed to mine from the theories he holds forth for public consumption ; just something to think about...
I still have an old video of Mike and Ray Mentzer where Mike talks the viewer through a high-intensity workout performed by Ray, filmed (I think) at the Nautilus HQ. It's not a particularly enlightening or useful video unless you know absolutely nothing about training. Some of the sets Ray performs are rest-pause style but there's no good explanation of why this might be a good thing to do. Dan Moore's much more recent explanation of the rationale behind Max-Stim finally helped me to understand how and why rest-pause could work well for hypertrophy.
Was going to ask if anyone knows what happened to John Little but then I found this: http://www.maxcontraction.com/little.htm
I remember reading lot of his articles in various bb mags (including a lengthy interview with M. Mentzer). He was a big believer in Mike's training methodology and philosophy. Now it would seem he is championing Max Contraction Training. Want to see what the site says about it?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is the ultimate high-intensity training system that is revolutionizing bodybuilding. John Little reveals how you can reach your full bodybuilding potential in the shortest time possible. Imagine a 10-second workout (you read that right!) performed but once a week that can stimulate up to 30 pounds of muscle growth! The Max Contraction System reveals why you do not need to spend hours a day and multiple days per week in the gym to build a muscular body.</div>
Oh dear! It would seem that a self-professed 'man of science' still doesn't get it. And he's selling books too. After reading that brief description of MCT I really can't be bothered to read anymore about it. If I have done it (and Mr. Little) an injustice I hope someone will put me straight.
Was going to ask if anyone knows what happened to John Little but then I found this: http://www.maxcontraction.com/little.htm
I remember reading lot of his articles in various bb mags (including a lengthy interview with M. Mentzer). He was a big believer in Mike's training methodology and philosophy. Now it would seem he is championing Max Contraction Training. Want to see what the site says about it?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is the ultimate high-intensity training system that is revolutionizing bodybuilding. John Little reveals how you can reach your full bodybuilding potential in the shortest time possible. Imagine a 10-second workout (you read that right!) performed but once a week that can stimulate up to 30 pounds of muscle growth! The Max Contraction System reveals why you do not need to spend hours a day and multiple days per week in the gym to build a muscular body.</div>
Oh dear! It would seem that a self-professed 'man of science' still doesn't get it. And he's selling books too. After reading that brief description of MCT I really can't be bothered to read anymore about it. If I have done it (and Mr. Little) an injustice I hope someone will put me straight.
RUSS
Member
I've seen that training footage with Ray on YOUTUBE along with a couple seminars and agree it makes good sleeping material...
I also agree that the Little fellow with his max contraction is as they say "whacked".
I'm no Mentzer nut hugger that's for sure - but I do think people throw the baby out with the bath water to some extent when the subject comes up.
I also agree that the Little fellow with his max contraction is as they say "whacked".
I'm no Mentzer nut hugger that's for sure - but I do think people throw the baby out with the bath water to some extent when the subject comes up.
Oh Mike Mentzer is a very great guy, much respect for him and his philosophies. But for me I see that his program might work better to a genetically-superior, drug enhanced bodybuilder rather than a regular trainee like us. Like each and everyone of us here we have to make things simple yet understand the principles of the program as well so we can make a real strategic plan like in training or working out. This may sound contradictory coz i said simple then understanding principles. But look at HST or SS Mark Rippetoe's BBT program, these are both very simple, effective yet precise to detail programs, everything is well explained and the confusion is eliminated. In short in these programs you will not spend millions of years researching and understanding what it is all about. So if you picture things this way you will understand what I'm trying to say. OK, going back to Mike Mentzers HIT Heavy Duty Program, it has some sound principles in it like progressive overload and rest but where's the complete plan? How do you progress in the program is it a cycle or a linear program? How about things like injury and fatigue management? So frankly all I can say is that the program like HD is incomplete in principles. Without a good plan, your progress will be short lived. Yes keep it simple but at least use your coconut to understand things that you do. This is why programs like HST and SS works well because its principles are based on a sound strategic plan which is precisely explained to the last detail. According to Sir William Wallace on the movie Brave Heart first learn how to use your brain before your sword. HST and SS are more of the "brain programs" for strength and size gains with an element of simplicity. Its not just go heavy and intense to failure like Mike Mentzer said, we should plan especially for us natural lifters. Use and take advantage of what we have know and use our common sense based on that as well. This is not against with the thousands and millions of Mentzer students out there. With all due respect to Mike and his students, I'm just stating how I picture bodybuilding and training for strength for us average joes. Train hard, do the best that we can and train really smart as well. Thanks
QuantumPositron
New Member
Try to view Mentzer and HIT in the context of the history of bodybuilding thought. Arthur Jones was ahead of his contemporaries because he applied rational thought to exercise. He wasn't a scientist by training but he was a philosopher - making a friend, "philos" of reason, "sophy." This set Jones apart from the bodybuilding thinking at the time that more was always better. Look at the routines of bodybuilders in the 70's and you'll see them doing at least 5 sets. Franco Columbo did 40 for his arms alone. There was no research behind these kind of practices. Nor was there any guiding thought derived from casual observation. Jones was the next step forward. He was perhaps the first weightlifter to use scientific research by applying Seyles' stress model to exercise. Mentzer carried on Jones' thinking into the 80's and 90's. As the 90's came to a close more hypertrophy research was being produced. We have better information now than Mentzer did, and much more than Jones. To their credit some of their ideas can still be seen in today's bodybuilding paradigms including training to failure and the need for recuperation. If we look at HIT in this historic way we no longer get trapped into the question of how it compares to training practices of today. Instead we see it as part of a constantly evolving effort by bodybuilders across time to improve the effectiveness of their workouts.
I will finish by saying that the last of the Arthur Jones line, Dr. Ellington Darden, still promotes HIT as an effective weightlifting routine. He does not, however, claim it to be the best as Mentzer did. As he said in a T-nation interview some people find it useful to their lifestyle but that "Its not for everyone."
I will finish by saying that the last of the Arthur Jones line, Dr. Ellington Darden, still promotes HIT as an effective weightlifting routine. He does not, however, claim it to be the best as Mentzer did. As he said in a T-nation interview some people find it useful to their lifestyle but that "Its not for everyone."