PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR! Unassailable logic
PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR! Bodybuilding orthodoxy, exercise exercise science and, and, even, Arthur Jones
PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR! Compelling logic
2
PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR! By Mike Mentzer
In this irst " t#$%"rt series& Mike Mentzer 'e(ins t ")i(n his re"sns& *e)i+er the ,n"ss"i)"')e )(i-& res%nsi')e r his 'e)ie th"t ,)i))in( ne.s %tenti") sh,)* re/,ire +ery )itt)e ti0e& )ess th"n e+en Arth,r 1nes 'e)ie+es %ssi')e! A)th,(h -ntr+ersi")& ne 0,st "*0it th"t Mentzer sti0,)"tes th,(ht )ike n ther #riter in the ie)*2
Prior to the advent of most - no, all! - of this century's greatest scientific discoveries, e.g., the airplane, the radio, the television, interplanetary travel and personal computers, how many of the great American unwashed would have granted any plausibility to such. Damned few, aside from the literal tiny minority of scientists researching those areas. t wasn't that many decades ago that the philistine public had the attitude "#o to the moon$ mpossible!" And what about the television% which, to my mind, is the greatest invention in history$ &efore its invention, the overwhelming, predominant maority never even conceived that the television might some day e(ist. t's not that they )uestioned the possibility, or plausibility, it might happen, as was the case with the airplane% after all, men had been attempting to simulate the flight of birds since time immemorial. *he idea of an actual television never, ever occurred to them because there was no imitation of it in nature, nothing that e(isted provided the slightest clue that someday there might e(ist such a superlative, unrivalled device. *hin+ of what is actually involved in television the artificial generation of radio and * waves, inserting perfect color images and sound into the waves% then broadcasting them to every millimeter of space in a prescribed area - and so on. An interesting side note n the pring /000 issue of 1(ercise Protocol, Arthur ones stated in his article Strength Testing VII -- "1ventually, the 3right &rothers did build an airplane that would fly, but only after many years of trial and error tin+ering, with no slightest help from the scientific community. n fact, most scientists continued to believe that flying was impossible for several years after the 3rights were flying on a daily basis in front of thousands of witnesses. "*hen, when a few scientists finally did become aware that flight was possible, the first thing they tried to do was steal credit for the discoveries of
4
the 3right &rothers% both Ale(ander #raham &ell, the inventor of the telephone, and the then director of the mithsonian 5useum in 3ashington, entered into a criminal conspiracy to steal credit from the 3right &rothers. . ." *his conforms to the pattern, the mode of response, to 5r. ones' discovery of the 6autilus machines, e(hibited by members of the bodybuilding orthodo(y and, to some degree, by the so-called e(ercise "science" community. refer to the pattern using a mnemonic device - namely, 7A8% first they ignore the discovery, then ridicule it, attac+ it, copy it and, finally, they steal it. 3ith no presumption of stature intended, this is happening to me, with my further development and promotion of the theory of high-intensity training. *he most remar+able involves a widelyrecogni9ed, first ran+ physi)ue champion of 4: years ago% one who, not long ago, claimed to have discovered and is now selling; an "e(citing, startling new approach to training centered around intensity and wor+outs lasting <6=> nine minutes!" 5ost interesting is that this same individual had written a few articles over the years attac+ing my theory of training% then, recently, purchased a si9able number of my boo+s wholesale to sell through his own distribution company. ?e apparently had read my boo+s, as soon after his receipt of them, prior to his "e(citing new discovery," received a very laudatory letter from him indicating how great my ideas are, concluding with a sincere "than+s" for my having educated him on how to best proceed with training.; @@@ @@@ @@@ or most of this century, everyone - not merely a maority - uncritically accepted the notion that it would ta+e five to /: years to actuali9e one's muscularBstrength potential. 3hy has that belief prevailed for so long$ 3hy does it still predominate$ =argely because of the inability or unwillingness of most bodybuilders to engage in the mental effort re)uired to understand the re)uisite theoretical +nowledge. say "inability" because, while that +nowledge does e(ist, it is so lost amidst the reams of concrete-bound, unscientific hypotheses posing as scientific fact, that many never find their way to it.; *he only source of +nowledge for the small number of alleged misfits involved in the "esoteric" activity of weightliftingBbodybuilding early on was physical culture maga9ines% which published e(ercise information that revolved around the use of the wiss ball, the ndian club, calisthenics, some weights and the specious, sophistic "notions" of their eccentric publishers.
C
t was at the conclusion of 3orld 3ar that weight training gained a wider recognition. Doctors at that time reali9ed the need for rehabilitation procedures to restore strength to various inured bodily areas was acute. *he need for truly effective rehabilitation of war veterans prompted a scientific evaluation of weight training protocols% and it was the pioneering - albeit, rudimentary - investigations by De =orme and 3at+ins that were primarily responsible for the increased acceptance of weight training by the scientific community% which, then, tric+led down to the muscle maga9ines. *he continued research conducted in this area are not in close agreement, although a general overview emerged. *he original wor+ of De =orme and 3at+ins recommended the following program / set of /: repetitions, with one half of /: 75 / set of /: repetitions, with three-)uarters of /: 75 / set of /: repetitions, with /:: percent of /: 75 n essence, De =orme and 3at+ins were recommending three sets for each e(ercise, usually /:, all to be performed three days a wee+. As 've e(plained before, the number "4" has a certain traditional magic in our culture there's the three bears, the three stooges, the ?oly *rinity, three s)uare meals a day and the mystic belief that catastrophes occur in lots of three. found it interesting recently, while reading Aristotle, that he noted the ancient #ree+s' propensity for the number "4," also.; And why would De =orme advocate the performance of three sets% where the first set is done using one half of /: 75% the second set with three-)uarters of /: 75% and, finally, the last set was with /:: percent of 75 - all for /: reps$ *he use of one-half, three-)uarters and, then, /:: percent of 75, always for /: reps, represent a misguided, but scientific groping. De =orme's approach was )uic+ly pic+ed up by &ob ?offman, the publisher of Strength and Health magazine, the premier muscle publication of the :'s and E:'s, one that purportedly e(isted to advance "the science of modern e(ercise." ?offman's publication advocated three sets of /: reps for each e(ercise, with a total of /2 e(ercises the "&a+er's Do9en," as he referred to it; to be conducted three days a wee+. 'm always suspect when so-called scientific discoveries rely on convenient numbers, ones that are traditional favorites, li+e three, ten and twelve. As 've, also, stated before, there is no room in science for the arbitrary or the traditional. A truly productive, scientific approach to e(ercise involves the application of factual, theoretical principles discovered through a "genuine empiricism," or logic applied to the material provided by sensory e(perience.
n the /0E:'s, oe 3eider made his way onto the scene, intent on wresting the lion's share of the bodybuildingBweightlifting mar+et away from his nemesis, &ob ?offman. n order to do so, he had to present the reading public with something new. ?e accomplished his goal by using more modern - "hip" - terminology in his articles and ads% ma+ing celebrities out of bodybuilders to use on his garish maga9ine covers and to sell his supplements% last but not least, he had to establish a new, superior, "scientific" approach to bodybuilding e(ercise. *o this end, he started the "3eider 7esearch 8linic," a )uasi-scientific forum, really, made up of his bodybuilding champions and writers, a few of which were e(ercise scientists. And oe, li+e others in this field, sincerely believed that if an individual was an e(ercise scientist, with a Ph.D. affi(ed to his name, this somehow made that individual's proclamations on the subect of e(ercise un)uestionable and absolute% and that their contributions made his publications "scientific." @@@ @@@ @@@ *o the young, sincere and uninformed 6o, not all scientists are hallowed see+ers or guardians of the obective truth. 7emember the 3right brothers and Ale(ander #raham &ell. And don't ma+e the mista+e of thin+ing that a Ph.D. is a perfect reflection of a Platonic archetype in this, the real world. n fact, as Ayn 7and identified, because of the collapse of philosophy in the /0th century, science is following a similar, though slower, course in this century. *his is as it must be, by the grace of reality, as philosophy is the fundamental, integrating science.
E
f nothing is of fundamental importance what does one thin+ about$ Anything or nothing, since no-thing is more important than anything else. t is people's unwillingness or inability to thin+ in terms of fundamentals, essentials and principles that leads to confusion% and is what prompted someone to designate ours the Age of 8omple(ity. nundated by a ceaseless profusion of data, facts, notions, information and dis; information, the philosophically bereft, unable to identify what is of fundamental importance, cannot structure his thin+ing% and is overwhelmed by an unnecessary "comple(ity." uch is why bodybuilders are agoni9ingly confused, never certain as how to best proceed with their training or nutrition, almost hysteric in their perpetual search for the "answer." =et me remind you that Ph.D. literally means Doctor of Philosophy. 8onsidering that today's philosophy departments are dominated by Gantians% and that philosophy's role in the intellectual division-of-labor is to establish the epistemological intellectual; criteria to guide human +nowledge in general and the special sciences, it is little wonder that we are witnessing the continuing destruction, or dis-integration, of science, including e(ercise science. As 've e(plained in the past, many e(ercise scientists don't even understand the simple fundamentals of their own field. f you are thin+ing that this is too professorial or intellectual, let me remind you t was 24 centuries ago, in the #olden Age of #reece, that men simultaneously e(alted the power of the mind and admired the beauty of the human form. *hey clearly understood that to achieve one's full human stature re)uires more than a healthy, muscular body% it re)uires "a healthy mind in a healthy body." *he ultimate purpose of my articles is not merely to provide the readers with another training programs;, and e(pect him to blindly follow it. *hat would not be worth much long range. nstead, my purpose is to help you gain a firm intellectualBconceptual grasp and understanding of the basic principles of bodybuildingBe(ercise science% which is a prere)uisite for learning how to thin+ logically about it. ?aving procured a logical, rational perspective, ma+es it possible for one to become more or less intellectually independent on the subect% never again having to rely on the vascillating, suspect opinion of others. n the process of learning to thin+ logically about bodybuilding, you'll discover that you've learned something about the nature of thought itself% which can then be e(tended to other areas of human life. And with continued study and effort, you will progressively e(pand your intellectual range% and, thereby, mature as a human being should.;
H
@@@ @@@ @@@ *he core principle that guided the *rainer of 8hamps and his minions was the bootleg logic "more is better." *o them it seemed self-evident more +nowledge, more money, i.e., more values, are better than less% therefore, more e(ercise is better than less. n fact, nothing is self-evident e(cept the material provided by the senses, e.g., the "redness" of an apple is selfevident, it doesn't have to be proven.; *he development of a practical, scientific approach to productive bodybuilding e(ercise re)uires +nowledge that goes beyond the self-evident to the highly abstract, i.e., that which is not directly perceivable, e.g., the concepts "theoretical" "logic" "growth stimulation" "growth production "recovery ability" "fundamentals" " derivatives" "principle," and, yes, "ethics." &ear in mind, also, that since man's +nowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of his +nowledge depends on the validity of his concepts, i.e., their definitions. Along with the fact that the bodybuilding orthodo(y's conceptual range is profoundly limited, they never define their maor concepts - ma+ing the use of logic impossible.; Dealing with higher, abstract +nowledge is e(actly what today's most celebrated "post-5odern" Gantian; philosophers don't want you to do. 7evelatory of the post-5odern's approach to the realm of the intellect is this )uote from its most celebrated proponent, 5ichael oucault, "5y wor+ irritates people because my obective isn't to propose a global principle or analy9e anything. . . .*he conception of philosophy is no longer that of a tribunal of pure reason which defends or debun+s claims to +nowledge made by science, morality, art or religion. 7ather the voice of the philosopher is that of informed dilettante." And if you thin+ that un+ is relegated merely to ivory tower intellectuals, you are wrong. t has already penetrated bodybuilding and every other area of human life;, as two of my most virulent detractors have made statements reflective of Gant's and oucault's influence. eff 1verson, for instance, stated a few years ago in M&F, that ". . . in bodybuilding, there are no fundamental principles" - while more recently, red ?atfield e(claimed "All training theories are good!" *hese two statements e(press essentially the same thing because, if all training theories are good, then neither fundamental principles nor derivative principles e(ist. f fundamental or derivative principles don't e(ist, then +nowledge doesn't e(ist% and for some, it doesn't% at least it has little value to them. undamental principles of bodybuilding science do e(ist, dear reader% and by the time you finish this two-part article series, you'll be able to grasp them and their important inter-relationships.
I
*he #ree+s, as stated earlier, lived in a #olden Age - precisely because they believed in the e(istence - the importance - of principles. *oday we are no longer living in a #olden Age nor even a Dar+ Age -- but, instead, a &lac+ ?ole% and it's because of the abandonment of philosophy, i.e., fundamental principles. And when fundamental principles are denied, then ethical principles, too, are ine(orably reected since they are derivatives, i.e., based on and derived from philosophical fundamentals. Anyone with a child going to a public school need not be convinced that we are living in a &lac+ ?ole. Death and murder was the goal of Gant and it was the goal of oucault. And it's no co-incidence that ?itler and 1ichmann were Gantians$ After all, if reality is not real, then man is not real% so, why not butcher him$ t won't matter. 6o one will +now because, as Gant posited, the mind is impotent. *o those still reading this +eep in mind that the first re)uisite for building a healthier, more muscular body is that you have a live body, something that too many in today's world, including the students at 8olumbine ?igh, are losing prematurely.; t wasn't long before oe 3eider had ta+en over the mar+et via s+illed "manipulation of the masses," as he was once )uoted. 6ow, rather than training in a reasonably sane fashion as advocated by De =orme and ?offman, 3eider had an entire generation of new bodybuilders training for two, or more, hours per session using the 3eider Double plit ystem involving two such long wor+outs a day - and later, three times a day - with the 3eider *riple plit.
0
operated semiconsciously on the unchec+ed, unchallenged premise "more is better," ones reacted violently having developed a +een disdain for 3eider's intellectually sloppy, pseudo-scientific approach;, and bra9enly proclaimed that "less is better." 3ith that, ones recommended, not /2-2: sets per bodypart involving si( day a wee+ wor+outs% but, instead, his notion of 'less is better' led him to advocate /2-2: sets, not per muscle group, but, for the entire body% and to be conducted three times again, the magic number " 4"; a wee+. *he more intelligent bodybuilders of the time immediately recogni9ed that ones was on to something, as we sure as hell weren't ma+ing any progress with the 3eider approach% and because ones was offering what this field sorely needed - a truly theoretical approach to training. 3ithin a short time after ones' proffered his theory through the very pages of Ironman, myself and numerous others reali9ed we weren't e(periencing the progress that the theory suggested was possible. ones, in fact, stated repeatedly that the actuali9ation of one's muscularBstrength potential should not re)uire the -/: years as everyone had thought% instead the actuali9ation of potential should re)uire but two years! As much as this small minority believed in ones and his revolutionary, theoretical approach, it was soon apparent that there was a flaw in it. As much as we hated to admit it, we weren't reali9ing anywhere near the results we had e(pected% the progress being only slightly better than that delivered by the blind, nontheoretical, volume approach. &etter, but not good enough. t wasn't until well after the end of my competitive career, in /0I:, that developed an impassioned, unswerving devotion to discovering the flaw in ones' theory of high-intensity training. . .
/:
PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR! By Mike Mentzer
Whi)e %"rt$ne this "rti-)e -ert"in)y %i/,e* the interest ,r re"*ers& the ))#in( is -ert"in t * the s"0e& "s Mike Mentzer )e+e)s *"0nin( in*i-t0ents "("inst the '*y',i)*in( rth*3y& e3er-ise s-ien-e "n*& e+en& Arth,r 1nes2 Here he e3%)"ins 0re the th,(ht %r-esses& "n* i*entiies the '"si%rin-i%)e& th"t )e* t his -n+i-tin th"t '*y',i)*ers -"n "-t,")ize their %tenti") in " +ery shrt ti0e2
n Part
//
that of numbers in the field of mathematics, the function of a proposition is similar to that of an e)uation it applies conceptual abstractions to a specific problem. "A proposition, however, can perform this function only if the concepts of which it is composed have precisely defined meanings. f, in the field of mathematics, numbers had no fi(ed, firm values, if they were appro(imations determined by the mood of their users - so that "," for instance, could mean five in some calculations, but si(-and-one-half or fourand-three-)uarters in others, according to the user's 'convenience' - there could be no such thing as mathematics." A theory, properly defined, is a set of principles, or propositions statements of fact;, which claims to be either a correct description of some aspect of reality andBor a guide for successful human action. A theory can fulfill its proper intellectual function only if the maor concepts that ma+e it up have precisely defined meanings. *his is true of any theory, whether it be the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution or the theory of high-intensity training. *he process of establishing precise definitions is rigorously demanding% which is why the mystics and s+eptics most people, today; turn away from the realm of the intellect. 8oncepts are the tools of thought% the better your tools, the better, i.e., more precise, the closer to the actual facts of reality, will your thin+ing be. rom 8hapter *hree, Another Gind of Definition, of my boo+ "?eavy Duty 5ind and &ody."; B")"n-in( the Thereti-") A--,nt ince starting my personal training business in the late /0I:'s, 've had considerable success with my clients. *heir progress, early on, was primarily satisfactory better than most;% at times dramatic% and, in a few cases, phenomenal. n the very rare cases where progress was poor, such was the result of either very poor genetics andBor mista+es on my part, mista+es which won't ma+e again. During the first couple of years, all of my clients trained three times a wee+ - 5onday, 3ednesday and riday - averaging seven to nine sets a wor+out, on a split routine. had learned much earlier that ones' prescription of /22: sets per wor+out for the full body, conducted three times a wee+ was too much for almost everyone.; 3hile most trainers and trainees settled - and still do - for progress unpredictably in tiny dribbles every now and then, , on the other hand, e(pected my clients to ma+e progress, i.e., grow stronger, every wor+out.
/2
*he reader may be wondering how had ever come to thin+ that bodybuilding progress should be e(perienced every wor+out. Allow me to e(plain. was in the midst of a period of very intensive study of philosophy, logic and the nature of the theoretical +nowledge. had arrived at a uncture in my studies where clearly recogni9ed that, if in possession of a truly valid theory, and the proper, practical application of the theoretical principles is made, then progress - no matter what the field of endeavor should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile, until the goal has been reached. 5y belief gained currency when loo+ed at other conte(ts of +nowledge. n medicine, for instance, once the "germ theory" of disease had been discovered by =ouis Pasteur in the /II:'s, researchers couldn't wor+ fast enough% and it was less than a century before they had discovered cures for practically every infectious disease that had plagued man from the beginning. n aviation, the 3right &rothers' first successful flight of /0:4 led to the 7ussian's putni+ orbiting the earth in /0H and the Fnited tates putting a man on the moon in /0E0. n physics, it was 1instein's theory of relativity, developed in /0:, that rapidly resulted in the theory of fission and the discovery of the cyclotron in the /04:'s. #iven the +nowledge and depth of understanding described above, developed an intransigent conviction that the bodybuilding orthodo(y, the e(ercise science establishment and even the leading high-intensity theorists were off the mar+. >et, couldn't ignore the evidence regarding my own clients' progress. 3hile their progress was practically always immediate from the outset of their training, it wasn't always continuous and worthwhile. 3hy not, if, in fact, was in possession of a valid theory and was ma+ing the proper, practical application$ was left to conclude that there had to be a flaws; in the theory of highintensity as proffered by Arthur ones% and uncritically accepted by ust about everyone within his sphere of influence. 1ncapsulated, ones' theory held that, to be productive, e(ercise must be intense, brief and infre)uent. 7ecall from above that, in the field of cognition, concepts play a role similar to that of numbers in e)uations% but that they may do so only if the concepts are precisely defined. f any of the maor concepts of the theory of high-intensity training were improperly defined, practice would be s+ewed to that e(tent% and progress would be compromised. n chec+ing ones' theory, the first thing did was go to the cardinal fundamental, the principle of intensity% and found it
/4
properly defined. ?e defined intensity as "the percentage of possible momentary muscular effort being e(erted." *he theory of high-intensity training further maintains that to stimulate optimal increases in strength and si9e one must train to failure, i.e., where he's e(erting himself with /:: percent intensity of effort. f one doesn't train to failure, where does he cease the set$ topping anywhere short of failure is ine(act and arbitrary.; ones was correct, as he had defined intensity in terms of its essential characteristics. Fsing ones' definition, in other words, one could conceivably identify the intensity of any activity from low-intensity aerobics to training to failure with weights, where /:: percent intensity of effort is re)uired. *his stood in sharp contrast to the bodybuilding orthodo(y, who was using the term 'intensty' with greater fre)uency, but never defined it, often using it interchangeably with volume. *hen there was the e(ercise science establishment, who had denied the validity of ones' definition-byessentials% and defined it loosely, by non-essentials. *wo of today's more celebrated e(ercise scientists, 3illiam Graemer, Ph.D., and teven lec+, Ph.D., defined intensity in their boo+ "eriodization #rea$through, as "a measure of how difficult training is" and even more loosely, less philosophically acceptable - "a percent of the ma(imal weight that can be lifted for a specific number of reps." *o what is one referring when pointing to the "difficulty" of training$ And, once difficulty is defined, is it the difficulty of a set, a wor+out or what$ And by identifying the percent of a ma(imal weight that can be handled for a specific number of reps, how was the weight and the number of reps to be performed arrived at$
/C
everyone train each muscle with /2-2: sets two to three times a wee+, for a total of si( days a wee+, ones properly countered, stating that such a regimen amounted to gross overtraining. ?is prescription for the problem, however, wasn't much better ?e suggested that everyone train the entire body three times a wee+, with a total of /2-2: sets per wor+out. *his, too, given the higher intensity levels than advocated by the 3eider approach, soon resulted in gross overtraining. ones' theory, recall from above, stated that - to be productive, e(ercise must be intense, brief and infre)uent. ?owever, what does brief and infre)uent mean e(actly$ ones e)uivocated, and left his legion of devoted followers many of whom seemed to regard him as omniscient and infallible - bereft of rational training guidance. n a very real sense, ones was merely reacting to 3eider in +nee-er+ fashion. *his was due to a critical blind spot on his part. ones wasn't intellectually ensconced in theoretical fundamentals as much as he was literally obsessed with discovering methods for ma+ing e(tremely accurate measurements of certain derivative aspects of e(ercise science% with things li+e tor)ue, muscular friction, range of motion and stored energy, to name a few. As noble an endeavor as this may be, the appropriate integration and application of such +nowledge is possible only within the conte(t of having first fully grasped the fundamentals. cience is an e(acting discipline whose purpose is to discover the specific, precise facts of reality. 3eider's notion that one should perform /2-2: sets for each muscle is not e(act, far from it. 3hat is it e(actly /2 sets or /C or /H or 2: sets$ And if /2 sets is sufficient, why do 2: sets$ ince 3eider never provided any e(planatory conte(t to support his notion, it amounts to nothing more than a groundless assertion. ones' response wasn't based on a scrupulous process of thought either. *o advise people to train with /2-2: sets for the whole body, instead of each muscle, is ust as arbitrary as 3eider's prescription. S-ientii- Pre-isin "A number of the bodybuilding orthodo(y's self-styled "e(perts" have even alleged that there are no universal, obective principles of productive e(ercise. *hey claim that since each bodybuilder is uni)ue, every individual bodybuilder re)uires a different training program. And then they contradict themselves by advocating that all bodybuilders train in the same fashion, i.e., two hours a day, si( days a wee+." rom 8hapter
/
*hat allegation was leveled primarily against oe 3eider and his bodybuilding orthodo(y, at the time wrote my boo+ in /004. have since come to learn that the e(ercise science establishment holds the e(act same belief% and that they lifted it from 3eider. >ou don't believe me$ >ou don't believe that e(ercise scientists, the supposed guardians of rationality and logic in this field, could be so wanting that they would steal false, contradictory ideas from that catch-all of irrationalists$ As evidence, )uote from the boo+ "cience and Practice of trength *raining," authored by ladimir 5. Jatsiors+y, professor of e(ercise science at Penn tate "1ach of you is a uni)ue individual in every way% and your resistance training program must meet your uni)ue needs - for there is no one all-encompassing 'secret' program." Dr. Jatsiors+i - remember, he is an e(ercise scientist - ine(cusably contradicts himself later in the same boo+ when he recommends that bodybuilders perform /-2: sets per bodypart virtually every day, with up to E: sets per wor+out. And later, Professor Jatsiors+y spills the beans, confessing that he gained such +nowledge from "observations of professional bodybuilders," and from "studies which show greater hypertrophy from such high-volume training." ome readers may recall past writings of ones and myself indicating that, all too often, alleged 'studies' in the field of e(ercise science were never conducted at all.; f, according to 3eider and e(ercise science, there are no universal, obective principles how could bodybuilding e(ist as a science since the purpose of science is to discover universal principles$ And since this Jatsiors+y eschews the universality of principles, claiming we are all "uni)ue in every way," why, then, go ahead and advocate a universal training prescription$ 444 444 444 o far, 've indicted 3eider and the orthodo(y;, e(ercise science and, to a lesser e(tent, Arthur ones% everyone there is to indict, in fact, as all training approaches - e(cept mine - are based on the same basic principles, differing only in degree. *he primary problem with the 3eider and the e(ercise science approach is that it's based on the premise "more is better." *he idea that "more is better" means precisely that - more is better means more is better. >ou see, there's a false; built-in guarantee, you can't fail. f 2: sets is good, i.e., yields satisfactory results, then C: sets would be even better, and I: sets better still. *he advocates of the "more is better" approach won't go that far because they "sense" that there's a factor involved that precludes the possibility of performing such a high number of sets. actor K was first
/E
identified by Arthur ones - namely, the fact of a limited recovery ability. ones' awareness that the human reserve of biochemical resources needed to recover from a wor+out is not infinite% and is what led him to state "t is only rational to use that which e(ists in limited supply as economically as possible." ?owever, ones didn't carry that fact to its logical conclusion, and merely advocated "less is better," i.e., less than 3eider. *he principle that am advocating, the one that ma+es it possible for the bodybuilder to actuali9e his potential in a very short time, is that neither "more is better" nor "less is better," but "precise is best."
/H
PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR! By Mike Mentzer
In %"rt$t# this series& Mike Mentzer i*entiie* the errne,s %rin-i%)es th"t (,i*e the tr"inin( 0st '*y',i)*ers5 there'y& e3%)"inin( #hy they "re "(nizin()y -n,se* #ith re("r* t h# t 'est (,i*e their tr"inin(5 "n*& th,s& "i) t e+er "-t,")ize their %hysi/,e %tenti")2 In this )"st "rti-)e the series& Mentzer -ites 0re -0%e))in( )(i-& ',t& ")s& the e+i*en-e re/,ire* t %r+e th"t '*y',i)*in( %r(ress sh,)* 'e nthin( shrt s%e-t"-,)"r& ,nti) ne "-t,")izes his %tenti") $ in ne ye"r& r )ess!
@@@ @@@ @@@ =ast month, in part-two of this three-part series, denounced the e(ercise science establishment for failing to properly define, or identify, the nature of the training stress responsible for inducing growth stimulation. =ac+ing +nowledge of the nature of the e(ercise stimulus, one cannot +now anything else of value about e(ercise. 7emember, too, that e(act definitions are an absolute, obective prere)uisite for using logic.; =ater in that article, e(plained that many e(ercise scientists today deny the e(istence of the one fundamental that ma+es all science possible - namely, the universality of principles. 7ecall the )uote from ladimir 5. Jatsiors+y, professor of e(ercise science at Penn tate, denying universal principles "1ach of you is uni)ue in every way"% who then unconscionably contradicts himself later by advocating all bodybuilders perform /-2: sets per bodypart, virtually every day, with up to E: sets a wor+out. And how might he have arrived at such numbers$ ?e claims in his boo+ "cience and Practice of trength," that such were arrived at "from studies which show greater hypertrophy from high volume training," and - here's the clincher - "from observations of professional bodybuilders." A number of years ago, a boo+ was published which maintained that many famous scientific studies at the highest levels of academia - even #alileo and ohn ?op+ins Fniversity were accused - are bogus% all in the name of "publish or perish." Do you thin+ e(ercise science would be the one academic arena e(empt from the publishing of fraudulent studies$ seriously doubt it.
/I
6ot only did contend that studies "proving the superiority of high volume training" were never done - but, later, that the contention of Jat9iors+y's regarding volume training coming "from observations of professional bodybuilders" meant that he mindlessly lifted, or stole, the notion from 3eider and some of his top && professionals.
/0
mention the overall success rate of modern medical science is proof positive that 'there is - and can be - only one valid theory of medicine.' And happily reoined, ". . .indirectly it proves the same for e(ercise theory. "*o stress the point one more step f you were to find yourself in the ungle tomorrow, and you happened upon a voodoo witch doctor, he would have close to a 9ero percent success rate with his patients. *hen, suppose you were to introduce him to this miracle 3estern, theoretical, medical science, i.e., logical diagnostic procedure, antibiotics, analgesics, sterile techni)ue and surgery, etc. All of a sudden the witch doctor's success rate s+yroc+ets off the charts. ?e can't figure it out% he thin+s you're in league with #od and the Devil. "*o say that there cannot be one valid theory, or, that all theories have merit, is tantamount to stating that the intellectual method of the voodoo witch doctor is as li+ely to correct a brain aneurysm as would that of a highlys+illed neuro-surgeon. *he phenomenon ust described is close to the intellectual state of bodybuilding today.; "
2:
situations is to correct, or improve, human physiology with as high a degree of precision as is re)uired.; n bodybuilding, the idea is to impose a training stress onto the body that will serve to induce the biochemical changes which result in muscular hypertrophy. Applying any more of the training stress high-intensity; than is re)uired by nature will result in the e)uivalent of over-dosing on a medicine% or, as we say typically in bodybuilding - overtraining. A person e(posed to the sun's ultraviolet rays at the e)uator in summer would not have the slightest concern whether the intensity of the sunlight stress is high enough to disturb the physiology sufficiently to induce an adaptive response, i.e., the buildup of a suntan. ?is only concern, his overriding consideration, would be to properly regulate the volume or duration; and fre)uency of e(posure time so as not to overdose on the stressBstimulus% and, thereby, incur a sunburn or, in e(treme cases, death. A person see+ing to develop a suntan at the e)uator, or wherever the intensity of the sunlight is high has no concern that he will develop a suntan% but only if he doesn't overe(pose. 6ote that bodybuilding science is largely based on the medical discipline of stress physiology. Also, that the end result of the healing of a sunburn is not a suntan, ust as the end result of the healing of overtraining is not greater strength or added muscle.; &odybuilders utili9ing the blind, nontheoretical volume approach to training do fret continuously over the prospect of ever developing their muscles because they +now ne(t to nothing about the nature of the specific stressBstimulus re)uired to induce a buildup of muscle tissue beyond normal levels. *heir obsession is with the volume, or amount, of training. Fnli+e the suntanner, however, who is rationally concerned with the proper regulation of the imposition of the sunlight stress, the bodybuilder has an irrational obsession with over;imposing the training stress% and, unwittingly, allows his wor+outs to degenerate into an endurance contest. An Air B,'')e in the Se" C",s")ity6 ince had my earlier clients performing considerably less than what ones advocated - H to 0 sets three days a wee+ versus /2-2: sets three days a wee+ - initially found it near impossible to believe that their less-thansatisfactory, long-range progress was due to overtraining. , also, reali9ed that it couldn't be the effect of undertraining. o, what was the cause$ At about the time was considering this )uestion, signed up a wildly enthusiastic training client, one who had studied ?eavy Duty, high-intensity
2/
training theory rather seriously% and thought he had found the "answer," after years of practically no progress with volume training. nterestingly, after two months on the seven to nine sets of three days a wee+ training, it became star+ly evident that the program was not wor+ing. ?is strength had only increased negligibly at best% and he had even started decompensating losing strength - slightly by the end of eight wee+s. And, of course, there was no visible increase in muscle mass. ince had informed this young man of some of the results my other clients were obtaining with the same routine, and we were both conversant with the theory, it was decided to reduce his program to only five sets once every H2 hours, or third day. And after a few wee+s, it was once again apparent that something was wrong, as he made absolutely no progress. *his threw me into a bit of a )uandary. *his was the first time that had ever trained someone who was so thoroughly nonresponsive to highintensity% at least as was practically applying it% and, to the best of my +nowledge, was the only trainer in the world who had any of his clients performing so little e(ercise. 8ould it be that was wrong about the universal validity of these training principles$
22
As my client li+ed to tease and cut up a lot, met him at the gym - armed with my new understanding - and referred to him as a midget, or moron, of recovery ability. Although even hard for me to accept at first, my conclusion about genetics led me to reduce this fellow's wor+outs again - this time to only three sets once every four to seven days. And it wor+ed% he finally began growing stronger and larger on a regular basis, although his progress was never dramatic. ?e properly concluded that he didn't have the genetic predisposition to gain in strength and si9e at the greater rate e(hibited by some of my other clients. 3here had been very apprehensive earlier at the prospect of reducing training volume and fre)uency to so low a level with other clients, my success with our "recovery moron" emboldened me. t was at this time, about five years ago, that finally reduced all my clients' training to three to five sets once every four to seven days, or less, depending upon their innate recovery ability, or individual e(ercise stress tolerance. nterestingly, while thousands of people around are the world are individually establishing their own e(ercise prescriptions based on their own e(ercise stress tolerance, the orthodo(y and the e(ercise science community are still advocating everyone train everyday with up to E: sets!; Wh"t.s Pssi')e 3ith a properly conducted high-intensity training program, the individual will grow stronger every wor+out, without any serious breach in progress, until he has actuali9ed his strengthBmuscular potential. had a client several years ago who improved the functional ability of his )uadriceps such that he was able to perform /: reps with the whole stac+, or 2: pounds, on the 6autilus =eg 1(tension after only being able to do seven reps with /H: pounds two months prior, a tremendous increase. *his type of response is not e(perienced by every one of my trainees% but it is far from atypical.; *he strongest client ever had was able to perform 44 reps on the 6autilus =eg-1(tension with the whole stac+. And that was an incredibly welldeveloped, strong "genetic frea+," the famed David Paul of the &arbarian &rothers. 3hen David first started having me supervise his wor+outs, he performed / reps on the =eg-1(tension and then went immediately, in superset fashion, to the 6autilus =eg Press where he performed /I reps to complete failure with the full stac+, /: pounds. ou better believe it. &ut, +eep reading.
24
2C
who reach their upper limits in a matter of a few months, some a year and others slightly longer.
2
