Re: Bodybuilding: Conventional High Volume vs High Intensity

May 3, 2006

It does indeed sound to me like you're over trained. I would suggest

purchasing some of Mentzer's, books I would start with " High intensity training

the Mike Mentzer way " its a brilliant book and I'm sure. It will help you get

back on track. All the body requires to grow is one set to failure, this

triggers growth and by doing all those sets you are eating into your body's

ability to over compensate

{grow}, by training so often you aren't letting your body replenish

the energy you have used and this is the primary concern as far as

your body is concerned. Only once your energy is restored will you

start to grow. I would say stop what your doing and go onto a twice a

week routine, you should try and split it so you do half the body one

work out and half the next. After a while you will find you need to

reduce your volume and frequency even more.

Greenland

East Sussex UK

> I've been researching Mike Mentzer's HIT training the past few days,

> and am curious to people's opinions.

>

> He advocates training to absolute failure, with PERFECT form, and

> very few sets. He then follows this by suggesting that this only be

> done acouple times a week, because the body takes longer to recover

> than most people think.

>

> So, being that I'm more into the bodybuilding scene, I'm used to

> training with high volume (as much as 25 sets per bodypart, up to 2

> bodyparts per day), each workout lasting 1:45 - 2:30. I typically

> train one large muscle group and one smaller group each day, 5 days

> a week.

>

> Could my slow gains in both size and strength be attributed to the

> fact that i dont allow my body enough time to recover? I'm starting

> to believe that " conventional " bodybuilding training is less than

> aqeduate for reaching my optimum potential.

>

> Any feedback would be appreciated.

>

> Thanks

>

> -Cameron

> clarkcameronm@...

> , CA

>

May 3, 2006

> I've been researching Mike Mentzer's HIT training the past few days,

> and am curious to people's opinions.

>

***, there's a lot of discussion, sometime very heated, on whether

High Intensity Training, Super-slow, etc. is more effective than high

volume, frequent training. My personal opinion is that it depends.

Like a lot of other things it depends on your genetics. At the recent

HIT seminar in Indianapolis the first presenter described several

studies that indicate that some people with specific genes respond

better to high volume, low intensity and vice-versa. Generally it

seems that people with long lean muscles/bodies respond better to

high volume low intesity and thick muscled/bodied folk respond more

to hi-intensity.

The whole magheela is dependent on individual genetics. The problem

in trying to determine the _one_ best training system is the

tremendous individual variation of organisms within a species. The

above is a generalization. Some people who are stocky have lots of

the slow muscle type, some lean folk have losts of fast twitch, but

statistically more stocky folk seem to be fast twitch folks and

likewise lean folks seem to be more slow twitch. Like any

generalization there are exceptions.

As a general rule of thumb tho', if a person has not been training

and is stocky of build I'd try HIT first. If lean/slim I'd try hi-

volume first. If at first you don't succeed try something different.

Just don't believe that anyone who tells you one system will work for

everyone knows what they are talking about. It isn't true.

Big problem here is that people look at folk who are extremely

successful at bodybuilding or a sport and think that what that person

does in their training is the reason for their success. This may be

true, but not necessarily. In body building genetics is very

important. It's quite possible that People like Mike and Arnold and

others would have been huge no matter how they trained. It might have

taken longer with some methods than with others. The average person

can't get that big no matter what method they use, just because their

genetic makeup is average. Most all of us can get lots stronger than

we are, but not everyone is squeezed into the end of the bell curve

of statistical distribution. At one end are the powerful and huge, at

the other the weak and small, the rest are scattered in between. The

max. possible success in the shortest possible time will come with

pragmatic determination of what works for you, not blind acceptance

of anyone else's recommendation as gospel.

Fair winds and happy bytes,

Dave Flory, San , CA., and Flower

Mound, TX.

--

Speak softly, study Aikido, & you won't need to carry a big stick!

See my photos @ <http://homepage.mac.com/dflory>

May 9, 2006

>

> I've been researching Mike Mentzer's HIT training the past few days,

> and am curious to people's opinions.

>

> He advocates training to absolute failure, with PERFECT form, and

> very few sets. He then follows this by suggesting that this only be

> done acouple times a week, because the body takes longer to recover

> than most people think.

>

> So, being that I'm more into the bodybuilding scene, I'm used to

> training with high volume (as much as 25 sets per bodypart, up to 2

> bodyparts per day), each workout lasting 1:45 - 2:30. I typically

> train one large muscle group and one smaller group each day, 5 days

> a week.

>

> Could my slow gains in both size and strength be attributed to the

> fact that i dont allow my body enough time to recover? I'm starting

> to believe that " conventional " bodybuilding training is less than

> aqeduate for reaching my optimum potential.

>

> Any feedback would be appreciated.

****Cameron, it seems to me like you are definitively overtraining.

Five days a week 2:30 hours each workout is really too much. You need

to give to your body enough time to recover, otherwise you are not

going to reach your goals of muscle grow. The important thing

regarding muscle hypertrophy is to give a sufficient stimulus to your

body and then give time for rest and restoration, so your body can

asimilate the intensity of training. Another important thing is being

open mind and not think that there is only one method for muscle grow

or that one specific method is far better than others. Individuality

is allways a very important factor in fitness and sport training, so

don´t advocate to just one metodology of training and don´t think

than one trainer or another has the absolutely truht about

everything.

As I said before, individuality is a very important factor in sport

training and fitness, so what works well for you may not work for

others. Remember that giving the muscle a good stimulus is just part

of the ecuations for muscle grow. It will be a better idea to

training for about 45 or 60 minutes each workout, with an intensity

between 70 and 85%, so you can rest enough time and recover

efectively after every workout.

Good luck Cameron!

Sebastian Scoles

Buenos Aires, Argentina

May 12, 2006

> , there's a lot of discussion, sometime very heated, on

whether

> High Intensity Training, Super-slow, etc. is more effective than

high

> volume, frequent training. My personal opinion is that it

depends.

> Like a lot of other things it depends on your genetics. At the

recent

> HIT seminar in Indianapolis the first presenter described

several

> studies that indicate that some people with specific genes

respond

> better to high volume, low intensity and vice-versa. Generally it

> seems that people with long lean muscles/bodies respond better to

> high volume low intesity and thick muscled/bodied folk respond

more

> to hi-intensity.

Hi ,

Your empirical observation makes far more sense than these supposed

studies. I think moderate low volume infrequent training can be a

great way to bodybuilding for a given amount of time, which I don't

know for sure how much it is.

The reason for so much heated debate is simple: The amount of

variables involved in comparing training methodologies is bigger

than todays pro bodybuilders, so that the perfect combination for

which we are all looking for is a sort of " utopia " .

I'm amazed about the existence of studies where specific genes can

dictate optimal training methods. Did they mention which studies are

theses ? Authors ? It seems they are just extrapolating data.

Interesting post.

Good luck

Denilson Costa

Rio de Janeiro - Brasil

physical education - UNESA

May 12, 2006

> " The Position Stand claims that the planned manipulation of

program variables in advanced trainees

> can eliminate natural training plateaus and enable higher levels

of muscular strength, hypertrophy,

> power, and local muscular endurance. That claim, which is central

to the overall framework of the

> Position Stand, has very little supporting evidence (Table 8). "

>

> Drew Baye

Hi Drew,

I like when people cite references for their beliefs, but did you

try to look for yourself to the many references stating otherwise ?

Do a medline search for periodization and see for yourself.

Some people train too much, some people train too little, and some

people like Mentzer thinks they've got the final answer for all.

Mentzer had a great body and he is the man to show that volume and

frequency must ondulate down for awhile... ok, I agree with him !!

But telling that people will progress continuously and reach their

maximum genetic potential in 1 to 3 years (something like that is

written in his book) by following an ever reducing training

frequency/volume routine is just his personal opinion, and for THIS

there is NO supporting evidence. Aside from studies, empirical

evidence easily shows otherwise. Advanced athletes make small

increments in performance even after so many years.

Some people are going too far with the minimalist philosophy. I'm a

powerlifter and while lifters using 25 sets per body part may me an

exception in my sport, those trying to do just the squat, bench and

deadlift are too an exception.

Sports training evolved after decades, from a time when boxers were

just boxing, runners were just running to an era of general body

conditioning for being fit, to better handle the competition stress,

and to improve physical aspects such as speed, power, muscle mass,

endurance. Mentzer philosophy as it taken to the extreme is a

retrocess in time!

Denilson Costa

Rio de Janeiro - Brasil

Physical Education - UNESA

May 13, 2006

I think it's important to consider that Mike's recommendations were very limited

in scope. He was

primarily interested in bodybuilding, and not athletic performance. Athletic

performance involves

far more factors, many of which may be improved upon long past a person has

reached the uppermost

limits of their potential for muscular size.

You claim there are many references supporting periodization? As directly

compared to a linear

progression method (which doesn't mean progress will occur in a linear fashion,

only that the method

of progressing overload is linear - of course progress isn't linear and nobody I

know of, including

Mike who I knew personally, claimed such)?

Drew Baye

Altamonte Springs, FL

www.baye.com

high intensity strength training

Re: Bodybuilding: Conventional High Volume vs High

Intensity

>

> > " The Position Stand claims that the planned manipulation of

> program variables in advanced trainees

> > can eliminate natural training plateaus and enable higher levels

> of muscular strength, hypertrophy,

> > power, and local muscular endurance. That claim, which is central

> to the overall framework of the

> > Position Stand, has very little supporting evidence (Table 8). "

> >

> > Drew Baye

>

> Hi Drew,

>

> I like when people cite references for their beliefs, but did you

> try to look for yourself to the many references stating otherwise ?

> Do a medline search for periodization and see for yourself.

>

> Some people train too much, some people train too little, and some

> people like Mentzer thinks they've got the final answer for all.

> Mentzer had a great body and he is the man to show that volume and

> frequency must ondulate down for awhile... ok, I agree with him !!

> But telling that people will progress continuously and reach their

> maximum genetic potential in 1 to 3 years (something like that is

> written in his book) by following an ever reducing training

> frequency/volume routine is just his personal opinion, and for THIS

> there is NO supporting evidence. Aside from studies, empirical

> evidence easily shows otherwise. Advanced athletes make small

> increments in performance even after so many years.

>

> Some people are going too far with the minimalist philosophy. I'm a

> powerlifter and while lifters using 25 sets per body part may me an

> exception in my sport, those trying to do just the squat, bench and

> deadlift are too an exception.

>

> Sports training evolved after decades, from a time when boxers were

> just boxing, runners were just running to an era of general body

> conditioning for being fit, to better handle the competition stress,

> and to improve physical aspects such as speed, power, muscle mass,

> endurance. Mentzer philosophy as it taken to the extreme is a

> retrocess in time!

>

> Denilson Costa

> Rio de Janeiro - Brasil

> Physical Education - UNESA

May 15, 2006

What Mentzer illustrates is a very important point in training- you

can train hard or you can train long but you cannot do both. Results

are about intensity and density of training. No question that

undulating cycles are the best way to ensure health and progress and

within those microcycles are lighter less intense days promoting

recovery from past workouts and in preparation of future ones.

Minimalist? Not applicable here but to be sure you would always want

to do the least amount of work with the most results which should

culminate in the best possible program.

Bob Alejo

Santa Barbara, Ca

> <<<I like when people cite references for their beliefs, but did

you