mentzer's HIT

[mightymouse_eiu]

has anyone out there tried mike mentzer's high intensity lifting program(s)? i just read high intesity training the mike mentzer way and i started his program on thursday with chest and back, got legs tomorrow. i am just curious if any of you have tried this plan and whether or not it is effective in building size. it seems to make a lot of sense but it just feels weird leaving the gym after 15-20 minutes, especially when i'm only lifting every 4 days.

[silles]

it seems to make a lot of sense but it just feels weird leaving the gym after 15-20 minutes, especially when i'm only lifting every 4 days.

Yeah, it seems to make a lot of sense....just like all bad science. Look, I won't bog you down with all the anti-HIT arguments, I will say one thing though--there exists an absolute truth in strength training, that is, there must be variation in the prescription. There must be changes in tempo, exercises, volume, emphasis, etc. Now, how often to mix it up is still debated, Westside Barbell Club and Charles Poliquin both advocate changing exercises every three weeks. Pavel Tsatsouline, however, doesn't believe exercises need be changed if drastic instensity fluctuations are made. Charlie Francis, on the other hand, never changed certain core exercises, while rotating supplementary work. Despite all these disagreements, the answer to take him is this:

HIT is not the only valid theory of weight training. Mike Mentzer, despite his best intentions, was dogmatic, stubborn, and wrong. His training methodologies are becoming more and more discounted, and for good reason. Now, HIT does have its place in training....it is VERY effective for most people for short periods, those of perhaps 3-6 weeks. The reason most people make incredible gains on HIT when first embarking on the program is largely due to overtrained individuals finally undergoing supercompensation from marathon training sessions.

To sum it up, periodize, don't be too afraid of overtraining (over-reaching is much easier to do), keep your volume for the most part moderate, if you embark on volume training--follow it up with HIT training. Just mix it up, and get stronger. Oh yeah, one last thing, the only definition of intensity ought to be % of 1RM, period.

I look forward to hearing from Chris Mason, Neil, Powerman, and Maki.

[Neil]

I am a big time HIT and low volume advocate, and although I don't think Menzter's version is perfect, I think it's something worth trying. I personally don't like it because the pre exhaust makes it too hard to track progression. Now, as to your supercompensation comment, I don't think that's the case. I have been doing low volume for a while now, and it seems like the lower it gets, the stronger I get. This has also been the case with my brother, and everyone else I have ever trained with. IMO Mentzer's HIT is a much better place to start than many other fad routines, or volume based protocols. I think for the most part people like Poliquin and the like are self promoters, and they all find ways to overcomplicate a very simple concept to try to sell their ideas. I think that the average natural trainee who focuses on low volume and progression will have much more success than the average natural trainee who focuses on cycling intensity and volume(to a great degree.)

[bigmean38]

I've followed it before. It is a good change of pace.

You can get results with almost any program if you bust your ass and use heavy weights!

[Beast]

Originally posted by Neil
I have been doing low volume for a while now, and it seems like the lower it gets, the stronger I get.

What's your routine like, Neil? I'd be interested.

[Neil]

Originally posted by NDBeast

What's your routine like, Neil? I'd be interested.

mon-
flat db press, 2 sets 4-8
pec dec, 1 set to failure
close grip pulldowns to front, 2 sets 4-8
pullover machine, one set to failure

thurs-
OH press 2 sets, 4-8
squats 1 set of 20

That's it. I am going to drop the pec dec next week.

[ask]

Rather than sticking to the program I'd check his principles out and do my own thing. I, too, have experienced that regardless of how I train the volume must be relatively low to progress. That's just me. I never did more than 8-9 sets for chest, for example - and that was too much for me, although I didn't train the HIT way back then. When I train intensely, 4 sets is sometimes too much. Tracking your progress and getting to know yourself is the key.

[silles]

I'll first address the issue of low volume.

Look, it all comes down to you, your body type, your recovery ability, your work capacity, and you general fitness. I have a feeling a lot of this so called "overtraining" results from just not being in good enough shape. That's exactly why Westside Barbell started the whole GPP thing, and now their concept has been taken to a whole new level, with Westside once again leading the way. When you're in better shape, you can just do more--but don't take shape to mean just your aerobic capacity--there is much more at work here, but it goes beyond the scope of this forum post. My point still remains, everyone's body is different, everyone is made up of different muscle fibers, has different glycogen levels, people have different hormonal responses, it would be wrong to make a blanket statement, "Everyone needs low volume," or to say "Everyone needs high volume." I do, however, think it is reasonable to say that everyone needs variation in loading parameters.

Next, this statement, and general loading parameters.

When I train intensely, 4 sets is sometimes too much. Tracking your progress and getting to know yourself is the key.

When you train "intensely," what does that mean? It got you breathing heavily? You really felt the burn? I have a feeling you're using the word intensely as representative of your momentary ability, which is complete Arthur Jones BS. Training Intensity is a function of 1RM, period, with 1RM being the most intense full rep you can do. Once you're beyond your 5RM, I think it's safe to say the training is no longer very intense. The point is, any other definition other than % of 1RM for intensity is meaningless, it's ephemeral, in other words, inconsistent. Science does not begin until you start measuring, therefore, we will start the training prescription by measure of intensity. If hypertrophy is your game, then you will probably train between 85-65% of your 1RM for reps between 6-12. If strength is the goal, the training prescription must be, at least some of the time, between 1-5RM representing 100-85% of 1RM for most people. Now, if you're training "intensely" for four sets, that means you are training above 85% for those four sets, but I'm sorry, if your reps are falling between 1-5RM for four sets, your volume is probably too low to ellicit response.

Remember, there is an inverse relationship between sets and reps. The more reps you do, the less sets, and of course the less reps, the more sets. See the repetition continuem for more detail, but generally speaking, if you're training between 1-5RM, you'll need between 6-12 sets to effectively work yourself. Why, you might ask? Several reasons. The nervous system is like that for one, just like a foreign language, as it is repeatedly exposed to the load, it learns a little bit at a time, and soon enough, the weight isn't so heavy--the more often you are exposed to a given training load--without overtraining--the strong you shall get in the long run, the law of repeated efforts. Secondly, even though this is much disputed, time under tension applies. If you are training between 1-5RM, chances are, your total time under tension will be between 5-20 seconds. Olympic lifters, despite the fact that they train largely ballistic movements, still get huge....why? Because they are repeating those movements frequently. In fact, take a look at how the strongest men in the world train, you will see them lifting big iron, for many, many sets, for low reps, barely touching failure. So to conclude, where are your elite athletes Mike Mentzer? Where are the many powerlifters and olympic lifters using HIT principles? Where are they? I don't see them. Take a look at any elite athlete, be they natural, or assisted, female, or male, you will see they all periodize, and they all take part in variety. Low volume for low volume's sake is just plain stupid, although everyone's body is different, if low volume on the whole does it for you, fine, but restricting your training is probably only going to restrict your progress.

[Neil]

Silles, what's with all the animosity towards Mentzer? He get your sister pregnant or something?

I took a trip over to dictionary. com for you.

in·ten·si·ty
n. pl. in·ten·si·ties
Exceptionally great concentration, power, or force.

Looks like the dictionary is full of "complete Arthur Jones BS."

Now that we have that cleared up, we can get back on topic.

Give me a list of people who have made superior gains on a volume based protocol, and I will give you a list of genetic anomalies on drugs. Please. Showing me a top powerlifter or elite athlete is a waste of time. Show me regular people, who are not drug enhanced. You seem to think that people who make gains on low volume are the exception, but they are in fact, the rule. Pick up a heavy weight, lift it until you can't lift it anymore (or stop a rep or 2 short), and go home and eat and get some rest. Come back and do it again when you are recovered. It's not rocket science. A lot of people got big and strong before the age of drugs and all these training gurus, and that's how they did it. Get off the bandwagon my friend.

[PowerManDL]

He's right.

In exercise science, "intensity" means percentage of 1RM; the subjective feeling of effort is generally referred to as "intensiveness" to differentiate the two.

As an example, I use quite a bit of volume during certain phases of training, be it to condition or to improve muscle mass. Low-volume comes into play during a good bit of the time, such as now, but even those weeks have a higher frequency.

His point about cycling of variables is quite valid.

[silles]

You see, that's the problem with HIT Jedis. They cannot admit that success beyond themselves or their immediate family/friends exists. It is this generalization that the exceptions prove the rule. For every individual that periodizes his training, you will simply state the person in question is either:

A) On Steroids
B) Genetically Gifted
C) An Invented Internet Personality and/or Ghost Athlete

Look, that's not fair. The legitimacy of training must be determined by science, and by example. As far as I'm concerned, your argument is flawed. You state those who gain on non-low volume routines are exceptions, but I must assert that the exception is you. The majority of people can gain on various levels of volume, and intensity. Strength is not only gained in the 1-5RM zone, and muscle is not only gained in the 6-12RM zone. There exists variation. Some have gained doing two sets per body part, once a week for periods, while Jay Shcroeder has his clients train the bench 12-15 times per week! To say that there is only one way of doing things based on your experience, or those immediately around you, is unfair, unscientific, and misleading.

[silles]

By the way, I think it is fair to mention an increase in the density of training. I believe it is incredibly difficult to overtrain if you specify a set number of sessions, and time per session that you will work out. For instance, if you have fair recovery ability, training four times per week, 50 minutes per session is reasonable, and perhaps even optimal for the majority of the training time. Now, for hypertrophy, and even strength to some degree, when one attempts to do more and more work in that specific time frame, it almost always contributes to great gains. This is the underlying principle of Charles Staley's EDT (Escalating Density Training). Do more work, in less time, and benefit from a positive neurological and hormonal response, while avoiding over-reaching. How cool is that?

[ask]

Listen scientist, it's not me on that generalised bull****. Dorian is a well-known disciple of Mentzer's (and no, he was NOT a powerlifter, strongman), if that's what you're asking for. And don't even pull that comparison stuff in question, because you asked for an example yourself.

All I'm saying is that - as you, too, explained - that different things work for different persons. I could not handle your 12 sets with 1-5RM the way I train. And my perception of what works for me is intuitive. Like I've told cats in previous discussions, I do not know why it works so effectively, but it does, and the rest I don't care about. Continuous tension, for me, has proven to work (I know Powerman and almost everyone else will tell you it's meaningless bs), low volume, proper recuperation (perhaps my recovery ability is sluggish, then).

And we don't talk that excercise science; I meant intensity in general, what it means to me. And how come the volume, according to your super-scientific tables, is too low when I'm constantly progressing without reading that stuff? Perhaps you'd have better luck at that, too, if you spent half that time eating and sleeping, dunny.

Who, in the first place, other than Mentzer, in this thread, has suggested there's only one way to progress? I'm not dogmatic about training, at all.

[Paul Stagg]

Dorian Yates did not train the way Mentzer suggested AT ALL.

Mentzer's dogmatism made it difficult to take the few good things he was saying and pull them out of the crap.

[ask]

Paul, in a HIT manner, using certain HIT principles. It was the basis for him, even though he kinda overdid it. Dorian's one main set training is the key to this. That's something ya'll can't shake off.

[ask]

And although I agree on Mentzer's dogmatism, it's the reader who should be able to pull out the stuff that seems relevant.

[Paul Stagg]

It was not at all the basis of Yates' training.

The only similarity was that Yates' trained to failure. He also used multiple sets, used multiple lifts for various bodyparts, and trained them more frequently.

As I recall, a typical Yates' workout was 15 to 20 sets.

Mentzer used his relationship with Yates (they talked once) as a rediculous marketing ploy.

[silles]

I'll let Ron Harris handle this one....

Mentzer keeps bringing up Dorian Yates and Aaron Baker as examples of proof that Heavy Duty works. I've watched Dorian train, and he definitely performs more than one set per exercise. It actually looked like the standard three or four to me, though all but the final one may have been termed "warmups." As for Aaron, the guy's been training for over twenty years and is a genetic freak. For Mentzer to take credit for his incredible physique after training the guy Heavy-Duty style for a few months during the days of the WBF is ludicrous!

Let's see, he won the NPC USA before then on "his own," and came damn close to beating Flex Wheeler at the Pro Ironman several years later, while in both cases, by Mike's standards, "grossly overtraining."

Things get even more outrageous in the June issue when Mike tries to make the claim that the teams in the NFL, college football, college basketball, ice hockey, and volleyball whose players were trained in HIT style won more games than teams who trained on a more traditional volume approach. Of course, he carefully words this diatribe so that he only says that each of these winning teams "trained to failure," which as we know, says nothing in regard to the actual volume of exercise performed.

But hey, whatever works for YOU. That's why I really don't care for the "upper chest" debate, or the "perfect volume" debate. If hitting inclines made you grow--GREAT! If hanging upside down in a dark closet while doing biceps curls is packing size and/or strength, by all means, keep doing it until it no longer works. What I am saying, however, is that the scientific literature available seems to point away from HIT as a valid LONG TERM system, as well, I am always highly distrought when someone claims HIT to be the one and only way to train. Mike Mentzer did nothing but berate those (he even criticized Arthur Jones and Ellington Darden, quite harshly, I might add) who didn't buy into his voodoo--he also died a pathetic man.

Now, as far as this statement goes....

And we don't talk that excercise science; I meant intensity in general, what it means to me.

This is precisely the problem. To be honest, I don't care what intensity means to you. In fact, I don't care what intensity means to me, that is, of course, unless it is determined by % of 1RM. You see, when you label intensity as intensiveness, you make it completely subjective, ephemeral, meaningless. As Dr. Hatfield says, "You like the burn? Light a match." If I'm coughing up a lung, and I'm strugging like a maniac to complete my 500th Hindu Squat, well, that is quite "intense" by the definition of momentary ability (by the way, 500 Hindu Squats was a requirement that Ken Shamrock had to meet before being allowed in the no holds barred fighting circuit). Have you ever done a Hindu Squat? Get up on your toes, drop down to a full squat, raise yourself, co-ordinate the movement with your arms--You have a Hindu Squat. My grandmother can do one. The exercise is just about as intense as doing LaBatt's curls on Superbowl day. What does it matter? Well, % of 1RM is a great factor in determining total tension (however, as Westside Barbell gleefully points out in one of their KILLER dynamic days, it certainly isn't the only). If I can do 500 reps (or 10 reps to failure), of any exercise, it becomes obvious--hey, there's not enough tension. Now, if you lift like a Powerlifter, for optimal hypertrophy, with heavy triples, with long, five minute breaks between, well, hey, you have the tension, but you're missing the fatigue. The energetic theory of muscular hyertrophy, summed up, is "Get a good pump using heavy weights. Keep the reps low, keep the rest intervals reasonably short, do as many sets as you can until your reps degrade below a target reps zone." Voila, intensity explained, and a great routine to induce hypertrophy without training to failure, or low volume, the anti-HIT routine, so to speak.

[Neil]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
It was not at all the basis of Yates' training.

The only similarity was that Yates' trained to failure. He also used multiple sets, used multiple lifts for various bodyparts, and trained them more frequently.

As I recall, a typical Yates' workout was 15 to 20 sets.

Mentzer used his relationship with Yates (they talked once) as a rediculous marketing ploy.

As far as I can tell from watching Dorian's video and reading articles about hime he did use one set to failure. The other sets were warm ups, and nowhere near his working set poundages.

[ask]

Paul, have you read Dorian's books, interviews, or ever seen him train? I have, and he lifts heavy (although perhaps not relatively heavy, because he moves the weight so slowly), so he warms up. Perhaps you're pointing out that he uses warm-up sets - which you count - but how many guys put 400 on the bar and start lifting cold? Come on, man? No matter how you try to put it, the volume he used throughout his career, especially later - is low. It's lower than most guys here use and of course low compared to Lee Priest's 20 sets per excersise. It's also mighty low when you consider that the dude was heavy on drugs.

Typical chest workout might have consisted of 2 compound movements and flyes, later cables, too - but that's still low considering one main set. Of course this is down to interpretation - what is low? What is a warm-up set? Perhaps I've been confused all this time, while reading about ya'll guys doing 15 sets per excersise, if 10 were warm-up sets after all.

Another thing, he lifted pretty damn slowly most of the time, in a controlled fashion. And it's not Mentzer talking about Dorian (although obviously that happened a LOT) but Dorian talking about Mentzer.

And Silles, of course I'll continue to do what works for me. No amount of reading and pseudo-scientific excursions is gonna change that, or bitching. And I do not train how Mentzer suggested. If you read my first post in this thread, you might have noticed that I suggested each one pick up things that make sense to them and use things that work in practise, individually, without buying any of that pre-written garbage, be it Mentzer of Westside, anything. And no hard feelings

[ask]

The reason I choose to use Dorian as an example so often are his unorthodox views on bodybuilding; they obviously worked for him. He built such an awesome physique back when everyone was dogmatic about free weights, for example (hell, still are, always been) - using a lot of machine work and cables. I respect him a lot for going his own route and succeeding without giving a eff about all that close-minded rambling.

[Paul Stagg]

He did indeed use lower volume, and he gave a little credit to mentzer (as I do) that some of what he said was valid.

He also used multiple lifts (sets) to train bodyparts.

Bottom line - HIT folks, and Mentzer particularly, pointed to yates as an example of the success of Mentzer's training, which is not true. Yates did not train like Mentzer suggests. Neither did Mentzer when he was competing.

My issue with Mentzer has always been his contention that there is ONE right way, and his was it. (That, and his remarkable lack of understanding of logic while trying to present his arguments as logical, which they are not)

From a training standpoint, I'm all for training to failure using a limited number of sets. I'm not for using one set of leg extensions to failure every two weeks and one set of leg curls to failure every two weeks as one's leg workout.

[Neil]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg

From a training standpoint, I'm all for training to failure using a limited number of sets. I'm not for using one set of leg extensions to failure every two weeks and one set of leg curls to failure every two weeks as one's leg workout.

Who advocates that?

[silles]

By the way, I feel it noteworthy to add that at this point in time, Dorian Yates has sought out the help of Charles Poliquin in recovering from his sustained training injuries. HIT or not, this is quite ironic, as Mike Mentzer and Charles Poliquin had a shared dislike for one another, as Mentzer constantly slandered Poliquin and his "volume methods," in Ironman, while Poliquin took a shot at Mentzer, some of them cheap, in just about, well, every page of his book Poliquin Principles, in just about every T-Mag article he ever wrote, and in generally every interview he gave. So, why would Dorian Yates be going to Charles Poliquin, the "enemy" so to speak, to get his body straightened out? This is from an interview with bodybuilding.com.

Zach Marcy: In recent days I've been involved in numerous debates on a lot of your methods vs. the methods of HIT promoted by the late Mike Mentzer. What arguments can you make for your basic methods versus some of the other philosophies in HIT?

Charles Poliquin: Dorian Yates has been and is still under the care of my clinic as often as we can meet. We have had the chance to exchange concepts in training. One cannot argue with his results, but he realizes that varying the exercises more would have given him a healthier longer career. But exercise tolerance is a very unique thing as discussed in the book I co-authored with Will Brink Muscle Building Nutrition (it is available on Charles's web site) HIT does work, but I don't think it is for every body. For example, Brian Haycock system also works. I trained that way in University and made zero progress. I am blessed with a high percentage of fast-twitch fibers, therefore I need more sets of low reps to progress.

Now, everyone is blessed with fast-twitch fibers. How many is an individual issue, but remember, these fibers have the most potential for growth, and are generally stimulated in the 1-5RM range, and by ballistic movements. Ask PowerManDL about doing a set of Power Snatches or Hang Cleans to "Total muscle failure." That is of course, assuming he doesn't run you over in his Haet Mobile first....

[Neil]

It should be fairly obvious that the word 'intensity' in HIT does not refer to percentage of 1RM. It refers to the definition of 'intensity'.