Conventional High Volume vs High Intensity

[Guest guest]

" Muscle Science was in its infancy " Today we now have the advantage of

science, right? No, I am afraid not. New myths replacing old ones maybe.

History

repeats itself over and over again, and I have the Exercise Archives to prove

it. Science? This forum would not have questions about how to exercise on a

Ball, which was very popular 60 years removed even in fashion magazines in the

1940's. Ironically Muscle Science was plenty evident nearly 150 years ago,

there were brilliant men way ahead of their time, without the " advantage " of

modern day commercialism. They did not have companies with large bank rolls to

finance them. As the FBI says, " if you want to understand the motivation,

follow the money. " Lots of luck in finding legitimate Science.

As for Arthur with Nautilus and High Intensity Training, he

had no board of directors back in the 1970's where he performed his own

research. Invested all of his money back into his own research. The reason was

pure

self interest. History is a great study! Investigate this and other Exercise

History and you will find that he paved the way for some sanity in a rather

insane industry.

Landau

Aventura, Florida

[Guest guest]

I just don't think one can train in a high intensity fashion for a

long time, for example, one can't sprint for a long time. Mentzer

" Intensity and duration, in other words exist in an inverse ratio to one

another "

As Arthur said " Hitting a stick of dynamite lightly with a hammer will not

produce an explosion no matter how many times you hit it. If, however, you hit

it very hard, only one blow is required to stimulate or produce an explosion " .

Yes I suppose I am working on a assumption that growth is switched on to a

degree throughout the body but its an assumption im fairly happy with. I don't

however think it's stimulated in all fibres to the same degree but I certainly

think there is a knock on effect. I'm sure there is evidence this is true like

there seems to be evidence that

practically anything is true.

I have read the answer to your question about the one rep thing, as

I had the very same question come to mind, I think its answerd in one

of Mentzers last books, if I remember I'll let you know.

I am no expert on protein synthesis but just because its being used

does this mean growth? I'm not sure it does as I've always read from

volume guys as well that after a work out the body crys out for

calories.

Basically I think all these questions are answered in Mikes books and

on his web site.

All the best from

Greenland

East Sussex UK

" Hypertrophy results from an increase in the intensity of work done,

where as the the total amount of work done is without significance "

> > Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> > should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

> > surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary,

to

> > stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

> > less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

>

> ***

> The problem with this logic is that it is based on the assumption

that

> growth is a " all or nothing " response...that, once you've stimulated

> growth, you've stimulated it in ALL fibers, to the same degree.

There

> is absolutely no evidence that this is true, and is a very shaky

> assumption.

>

> Also, the " train hard train long " idea is essentially a false

> dichotomy. There are all sorts of combinations in between that are

> being ignored.

>

> > I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that

stimulate

> > growth not the duration of them.

>

> ***

> If duration of the stimulus did not play a role, then all you would

> need to do is a 1-RM and you'd stimulate maximum growth. We all

know

> that this doesn't happen.

>

>

> >Also I would say doing more than

> > what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

> > then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

> > hampers your progress.

>

> ***

> This logic is based on another faulty assumption...that the body

needs

> to recover first before any growth occurs. However, there is no

> evidence that this is true. In fact, the evidence shows the

opposite.

> Research shows quite clearly that protein synthesis dramatically

> exceeds protein degradation within hours after a workout. Thus,

your

> muscles are growing within hours after a workout, before they have

> recovered.

>

>

> > a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your

ability

> > to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little

hence,

>

> ***

> Yet Mentzer has NO scientific support for where he got those

numbers.

>

> Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI

> 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate

> PRO Sports Club

> http://www.proclub.com

> Editor, Journal of Pure Power

> http://www.jopp.us

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Well I guess Mentzer should clearly specify what type of muscle

> growth he wants. Is it sarcoplasmic or sarcomere hypertrophy. Both

> are 2 totally separate types of muscle growth, and he may not know

> the difference or how to acheive either one.

>

This was discussed quite a while back on Supertraining, but there is a

dearth of evidence that " sarcoplasmic " hypertrophy exists at all.

Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI

20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate

PRO Sports Club

http://www.proclub.com

Editor, Journal of Pure Power

http://www.jopp.us

[Guest guest]

> As Arthur said " Hitting a stick of dynamite lightly with a

>hammer will not produce an explosion no matter how many times you hit

>it. If, however, you hit it very hard, only one blow is required to

>stimulate or produce an explosion " .

**Skeletal muscle and dynamite are completely different things.

> Yes I suppose I am working on a assumption that growth is switched

>on to a degree throughout the body but its an assumption im fairly

>happy with.

**But Mentzer's entire theory is based on that assumption. If that

assumption is false (which it is, as studies have shown that

hypertrophy can occur in only certain fiber types depending upon the

type of training stimulus), his whole theory crumbles.

I wouldn't even call his theory a " theory " , in the true scientific

sense. Theories require strong scientific support, and must

adequately explain real world observations. Mentzer's ideas do

neither. His ideas are, at best, a weak hypothesis.

>I don't however think it's stimulated in all fibres to the same

>degree but I certainly think there is a knock on effect. I'm sure

>there is evidence this is true like there seems to be evidence that

> practically anything is true.

>

**So is there evidence that invisible elves are why I have some socks

missing from my drawer?

That comment is not meant to be a slam at all...it's used, rather, to

make a point. If there truly was evidence that practically anything

is true, then people could make up all sorts of wild statements and we

would never be able to discern truth from falsehood.

> I am no expert on protein synthesis but just because its being used

> does this mean growth?

**Yes, it does mean growth, as the ONLY way that muscles grow is for

protein synthesis to exceed protein degradation. Otherwise, the

muscle will NOT accrete any protein and get bigger. This process has

been measured in multiple studies, and every study has shown it to

peak between 4-24 hours and be done by 48 hours.

Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI

20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate

PRO Sports Club

http://www.proclub.com

Editor, Journal of Pure Power

http://www.jopp.us

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Will you please clarify the meaning of " Functional hypertrophy gained in the

1-5/6RM range of

training offers utterly no guarantee of much size increase. " ?

It seems almost contradictory, since " hypertrophy " and " size increase " have

similar meanings. And if you have gained something, how can it be that there is

no guarantee that you have it...that to me seems like the best kind of guarantee

there is.

Perhaps I do not know what you mean by " functional hypertrophy " .

I notice the word " much " ...so are you saying that in relative terms, hypertrophy

from the 1-6RM range will not be as much as from the 8-12RM range (especially

with drop sets), or are you saying something different, ie, there will be no

hypertrophy from the 1-6RM range?

Thanks,

Brett

Draper, UT

________________________________

From: Supertraining on behalf of kendaiganoneill

Sent: Sun 6/11/2006 7:26 AM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: Conventional High Volume vs High Intensity

Good points, . In general, there's no discernible science in

Mentzer anywhere but instead an authoritarian attitude expressed in a

series of ad homiens intended for those knowing even astonishingly

less than he. Perhaps someone will finally do a definitive biography

of the man, one in which his training authoritarianism is placed

within context of a very troubled life, thereby providing both the

bigger picture of Mentzer while exposing the pseudo-intellectualism

and pseudo-science so many seem to remain prey for.

Increased muscle size cannot be solely a function of strength

increase. Functional hypertrophy gained in the 1-5/6RM range of

training offers utterly no guarantee of much size increase. I've

personally found that staying in the 8-12 rep range for a first set,

then immediately doing a double drop set with as many reps as possible

per drop enhances both strength and endurance components, along with

optimizing growth.

If we go back to the pre-drug days of bodybuilding, before the mid

60s, or among today's genuinely drug-free, natural competitors, those

guys and gals combine strength and endurance. 15-30 second rests

between sets is simply not strength training. And drop sets, x-reps,

supersets and tri-sets enhance time under tension considerably.

Mentzer didn't have a trained mind, merely an authoritarian one; no

science is found in his work. While claiming more than 2,000 clients,

it is indeed odd with his background that a photographic record of

'before' and 'after' shots doesn't seem to exist. Nor records

permitting analysis of quantifiable data. Just Mike's word, whatever

that's worth.

best

Ken O'Neill

Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > Mentzer always stated it is the precise amount of exercise one

> > should use to trigger growth not the minimum. As for logic it is

> > surely logical to do precisely the amount of exercise necessary, to

> > stimulate growth which in his words, " just so happens to be a lot

> > less than most think, you can train hard or you can train long " .

>

> ***

> The problem with this logic is that it is based on the assumption that

> growth is a " all or nothing " response...that, once you've stimulated

> growth, you've stimulated it in ALL fibers, to the same degree. There

> is absolutely no evidence that this is true, and is a very shaky

> assumption.

>

> Also, the " train hard train long " idea is essentially a false

> dichotomy. There are all sorts of combinations in between that are

> being ignored.

>

> > I believe it is the intensity of muscle contractions that stimulate

> > growth not the duration of them.

>

> ***

> If duration of the stimulus did not play a role, then all you would

> need to do is a 1-RM and you'd stimulate maximum growth. We all know

> that this doesn't happen.

>

>

> >Also I would say doing more than

> > what the body needs to stimulate growth is illogical since you are

> > then eating into your energy reserves and recovery which in turn

> > hampers your progress.

>

> ***

> This logic is based on another faulty assumption...that the body needs

> to recover first before any growth occurs. However, there is no

> evidence that this is true. In fact, the evidence shows the opposite.

> Research shows quite clearly that protein synthesis dramatically

> exceeds protein degradation within hours after a workout. Thus, your

> muscles are growing within hours after a workout, before they have

> recovered.

>

>

> > a point, he said that if you get 300 percent stronger, your ability

> > to tolerate exercise goes up 50 percent which is very little hence,

>

> ***

> Yet Mentzer has NO scientific support for where he got those numbers.

>

> Krieger, M.S., M.S., ACSM-HFI

> 20/20 Lifestyles Research Associate

> PRO Sports Club

> http://www.proclub.com

> Editor, Journal of Pure Power

> http://www.jopp.us

[Guest guest]

, in regards to another post, I was simply stating that the

higher intensity ( " density " ) exercises will generate greater

strength gains than less intensity longer duration exercises (ie,

triples on bench vs. 8's). It is obvious to me that no exercise can

be done without duration, anyone with the slightest intelligence

knows that. I also know that duration can be a part of intensity.

It was just a basic response to another post for someone who

claimed that you get more strength gains from high reps vs. low

reps.

Best,

Neal

Hattiesburg, MS US

>

> If your intent is to become stronger, lift at a higher intensity.

Do people

> understand this concept, or am I wrong?

>

> Casler writes:

>

> Generally you are correct that " higher intensity (density) "

efforts will

> create a stimulus that will contribute to strength, rather than

endurance.

> You are wrong in thinking that " intensity " levels are not governed

by

> duration.

>

> Regards,

>

> Casler

> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

> Century City, CA

>

[Guest guest]

Neal wrote:

, in regards to another post, I was simply stating that the higher

intensity ( " density " ) exercises will generate greater

strength gains than less intensity longer duration exercises (ie, triples on

bench vs. 8's). It is obvious to me that no exercise can be done without

duration, anyone with the slightest intelligence knows that. I also know

that duration can be a part of intensity. It was just a basic response to

another post for someone who claimed that you get more strength gains from

high reps vs. low reps.

Casler writes:

, sorry if you mis-wrote your answer, but what you stated was

incorrect.

You said:

I am sorry if this post is irrelevent to your response but I have always

said if you want to get stronger you must lift heavy weight (intelligently

of course). Weight being the intensity of the exercise, not the duration.

Is this simple

aforementioned statement incorrect? I don't believe it is.

Casler writes:

" Weight " , is not the intensity of the exercise. It is always the

combination of LOAD (weight), DISTANCE, and DURATION relative to ability.

Intensity, will always be relative to the " density " of power output or work,

using those parameters.

I will admit that there is some confusion in our field due to the fact that

some measure intensity with the 1RM (rep maximum) as the " only " 100%

measure, which is a skewed system and not accurate to the term intensity.

A 1 RM is 100% intensity " only " to that distance, load and duration. While

this can be used as a " value " from which to design a program, it is not

accurate to call multiple reps with 80% of that load: @ 80% intensity,

because it is not.

I only clarify this, since I am a very strong believer in " intensity " as a

training component, and feel the more it is used, the more it need be

accurate and clearly understood.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA

[Guest guest]

I understand. I was not trying to get that deep into it with who I

was responding to but you actually explained intensity to me

differently than I had been taught before. What you said in your

last post took my professors in undergrad 4 years to explain.

Looking forward to more discussions

Neal

Hattiesburg, MS USA

>

> , in regards to another post, I was simply stating that the

higher

> intensity ( " density " ) exercises will generate greater

> strength gains than less intensity longer duration exercises (ie,

triples on

> bench vs. 8's). It is obvious to me that no exercise can be done

without

> duration, anyone with the slightest intelligence knows that. I

also know

> that duration can be a part of intensity. It was just a basic

response to

> another post for someone who claimed that you get more strength

gains from

> high reps vs. low reps.

>

> Casler writes:

>

> , sorry if you mis-wrote your answer, but what you stated was

> incorrect.

>

> You said:

>

> I am sorry if this post is irrelevent to your response but I have

always

> said if you want to get stronger you must lift heavy weight

(intelligently

> of course). Weight being the intensity of the exercise, not the

duration.

> Is this simple

> aforementioned statement incorrect? I don't believe it is.

>

> Casler writes:

>

> " Weight " , is not the intensity of the exercise. It is always the

> combination of LOAD (weight), DISTANCE, and DURATION relative to

ability.

>

> Intensity, will always be relative to the " density " of power

output or work,

> using those parameters.

>

> I will admit that there is some confusion in our field due to the

fact that

> some measure intensity with the 1RM (rep maximum) as the " only "

100%

> measure, which is a skewed system and not accurate to the term

intensity.

>

> A 1 RM is 100% intensity " only " to that distance, load and

duration. While

> this can be used as a " value " from which to design a program, it

is not

> accurate to call multiple reps with 80% of that load: @ 80%

intensity,

> because it is not.

>

> I only clarify this, since I am a very strong believer

in " intensity " as a

> training component, and feel the more it is used, the more it need

be

> accurate and clearly understood.

>

> Regards,

>

> Casler

> TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

> Century City, CA

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I believe we had this discussion before. I, after our lengthy discussion,

would agree that your defining of " intensity " may be more accurate however for

discussion sake the current use of " intensity " as a % of 1rm's is a common means

of measure that strength coaches from around the world can use in communication

and be clearly understood.

Train hard and smart!

Damien Chiappini

SPFP

Pittsburgh, PA.

--------------

Casler wrote:

Neal wrote:

, in regards to another post, I was simply stating that the higher

intensity ( " density " ) exercises will generate greater

strength gains than less intensity longer duration exercises (ie, triples on

bench vs. 8's). It is obvious to me that no exercise can be done without

duration, anyone with the slightest intelligence knows that. I also know

that duration can be a part of intensity. It was just a basic response to

another post for someone who claimed that you get more strength gains from

high reps vs. low reps.

Casler writes:

, sorry if you mis-wrote your answer, but what you stated was

incorrect.

You said:

I am sorry if this post is irrelevent to your response but I have always

said if you want to get stronger you must lift heavy weight (intelligently

of course). Weight being the intensity of the exercise, not the duration.

Is this simple

aforementioned statement incorrect? I don't believe it is.

Casler writes:

" Weight " , is not the intensity of the exercise. It is always the

combination of LOAD (weight), DISTANCE, and DURATION relative to ability.

Intensity, will always be relative to the " density " of power output or work,

using those parameters.

I will admit that there is some confusion in our field due to the fact that

some measure intensity with the 1RM (rep maximum) as the " only " 100%

measure, which is a skewed system and not accurate to the term intensity.

A 1 RM is 100% intensity " only " to that distance, load and duration. While

this can be used as a " value " from which to design a program, it is not

accurate to call multiple reps with 80% of that load: @ 80% intensity,

because it is not.

I only clarify this, since I am a very strong believer in " intensity " as a

training component, and feel the more it is used, the more it need be

accurate and clearly understood.

Regards,

Casler

TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems

Century City, CA