>>74115078
Please take before and after photos and stick with it for at least 90 days then report back. I'm sick of hearing anons' theories of why it would or wouldn't work, let's just see for once.

I feel like this routine only works if you're at the advanced level of hitting big weights on every exercise and can therefore do it to the insane intensity his clients would

If you're experienced then more power to you, but if you're fairly new to the gym it might not work

>>74115094
Well I was just curious if someone else on this board has seen some gains following his method. It seems pretty logical in my mind.

Remember only 4 exercises, 2 per training day only one set.
1
Squat in smith machine
Close grip lat pulldown
2
Deadlift
Dips

>>74115078
If everyone who asked this question just read his books and tried the routine for 3 months we could have some answers. For what it's worth, Mentzner said himself that Dorian Yates perfected his style, so I'd do that instead.

File: Heavy Duty PPL.png (81 KB, 686x672)

81 KB PNG

>>74115078
Mike Mentzer was wrong about frequency and for many lifters, especially beginners, you can train more frequently. In some interviews, Mike has stated that trainees are everything once every 10 days. What does that mean? Referring to his ideal split, everyone is running through the split in 10 days while training. So that would be more like 1-2 rest days between sessions rather than the 4-7 days recommended later. So it would look something more like

1: Chest/Back
2: Rest
3: Legs
4: Rest
5: Arms/Shoulders
6: Rest
7: Legs
8: Rest
9: Rest
10: Chest/Back

However, prior to Heavy Duty II in 1996, he was recommending a once per week PPL program found in Heavy Duty.

Say MWF, with one rest day between workouts with the weekends off. Weight is chosen so that failure is reached within 6-10 reps.

When he trained for Mr. Olympia, he was doing an AB-split known as his "most productive routine." Within the two years before the 1980 Mr. Olympia, he reduced frequency from 4 days a week to 3 and reduced the number of sets to 1 per exercise.

Mike Mentzer's most productive routine

https://www.mike-mentzer.com/most-productive-routine/

>>74115078
Yes, it works very well and will for anyone, regardless of strength level. People don’t like the idea because who wants to do one set and be seen failing and then racking and going to the next? No one does this program for this reason first and foremost. They will retort that they don’t give a shit what people in the gym think while working safely well under their potential to avoid an scene that should take place at the end of each and every set in Heavy Duty training. Also so that they can partake in the continuous volume of that same exercise like everyone else is doing for their own personal “International Chest Day”. Set after set of junk volume. Further still, you have the individual who lifts to punish himself for being alive. It’s not about getting bigger or stronger for them, not really. Just catching a pump and the feeling of carrying some kind of load for an hour or two each day, fulfilling a daily ritual or more accurately an obsession. If either of these fits you, just do something else with your training and don’t waste your time.

>>74115078
I've been lifting for 16 years so I'm not a beginner, but this is basically what I do, but the opposite in a certain sense
>back to back upper/lower body days
>lower body Wed
>upper body Thurs, do lower body after because my fucked up shoulder will impede squats
>mostly focus on power, slow negative into strong positive because I'm old and don't want to fuck myself up bouncing around doing heavy shit
I got my deadlift up to 555 by eating a shitton and doing really heavy lowbar squats, then doing 4-5 heavy singles, adding 5lb every workout on the deadlift

>>74115241
>People don’t like the idea because who wants to do one set and be seen failing and then racking and going to the next?
people have been more impressed by my ability to roll of shame 315 than actually bench it

>>74115078
Not to pick nits, but time under tension doesn't matter. It's the magnitude of the tension that matters.

>>74115078
>Take an ungodly amount of steroids
>Doesn't matter at all how you train, just do something
>Muscles grow

Why are you so obsessed with training routines of roidheads?

File: Chris Beardsley.jpg (21 KB, 408x600)

21 KB JPG

>>74115078
unnecessary rest
too much focus on slow movement which is shit for growth unless you're lifting very heavy weights
focusing on the negatives does fuck all because the negative has like half of the muscle activation a concentric repetition does
1 working set is good but when are you doing that 1 set again later in the week?
1 working set once a week will only make you grow if you are a beginner

>>74115123
>smith machine
lol

>>74115462
Someone explained to me that it actually works better for natties, because steroids allow for more frequency by increasing recovery.

File: 1710558253962286.jpg (129 KB, 1080x1068)

129 KB JPG

>>74115593
We someone was wrong. You can't do as much volume as a roider sure. But doing this little as natty is a sure fire way to grow next to no muscle unless you're a newbie to training. Mike was a genetic freak that abused the fuck out of steroids even more so then his competitors and got more sides as a result. People say he almost won Mr. O or point to Dorian and say this works. Ignoring the obvious facts like Dorian is short as fuck and there are much more successful bodybuilders that don't do this embarrassment he called a routine.

Tldr: stop doing this shit routine

>>74115850
>But doing this little as natty is a sure fire way to grow next to no muscle unless you're a newbie to training.
She says that you actually need less volume as you get stronger, because being stronger means that the more powerful contractions that you can produce take more time to recover from.

>Ignoring the obvious facts like Dorian is short as fuck
I hate this cope. Being short isn't automatically going to turn you into a great bodybuilder. The same rules apply to everyone regardless of size.

>>74115875
>She says that you actually need less volume as you get stronger
The bigger you want to be the more work or drugs you need to take

>I hate this cope. Being short isn't automatically going to turn you into a great bodybuilder
Fair enough. I also remembered his height wrong, 5 10 is tall for a bodybuilder. ButYates still isn't a good argument for this form of trainings success because he did a 4 day split for most of his professional career including his wins

>>74115078
Yes it works for me l catch myself cheating often though pushing to true failure is really hard.

>>74116043
>The bigger you want to be the more work or drugs you need to take
Isn't Yates as a proof that this isn't necessarily true, though? For the work aspect.

>ButYates still isn't a good argument for this form of trainings success because he did a 4 day split for most of his professional career including his wins
But then he switched to HIT and got even more muscular and still praises it to this day. Isn't that evidence that, at the very least, it's equally as good as high volume?

>>74116151
Yates's version of HIT was high volume. A lot of people, himself included, miss that point because of the falsely touted claim the you can work out hard or you can work out long but you can't do both. Yates capped off his lifts with one to two sets taken to failure. However these were preceded by three to four so-called warm-up sets Each of which came within 1-2 reps of failure. Dude was doing a ton of volume compared to Mentzer's version. The fact that his final sets were all out don't negate all the work he did up to that point.

Also you need to remember that both Dorian and Mentzer built the bulk of their mass doing high frequency and high volume training. Neither switched to alternative methods until late in their careers. Dorian until after he'd won an Olympia.

>>74116233
>A lot of people, himself included, miss that point because of the falsely touted claim the you can work out hard or you can work out long but you can't do both. Yates capped off his lifts with one to two sets taken to failure. However these were preceded by three to four so-called warm-up sets Each of which came within 1-2 reps of failure. Dude was doing a ton of volume compared to Mentzer's version.
Fair enough, but that's still only 5 sets, which is a pretty small amount of volume compared to what is generally recommended. And it's still low frequency.

>Also you need to remember that both Dorian and Mentzer built the bulk of their mass doing high frequency and high volume training.
I've already addressed this point. He tried both methods, and he ended up liking HIT more. To me, the fact that he switched and favoured a method is evidence in favour of said method.

>>74116257
He liked HIT more. Doesn't mean it grew any more muscle.

He definitely didn't do just five sets. Check Blood and Guts. He was doing 15-20 sets per body part.

>>74116233
yate's version of HIT was not high volume, it was moderate volume at best
his training is on video, he did like 4 working sets on his chest day, and he would take almost an entire week to repeat the session
his warmup sets are not even close to actual working sets
he was not doing a ton of volume https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJASILOGhV8

>>74116233
>Also you need to remember that both Dorian and Mentzer built the bulk of their mass doing high frequency and high volume training. Neither switched to alternative methods until late in their careers. Dorian until after he'd won an Olympia.
This has been debunked, volumecel

why do metzniggers have the most cognitive dissonace when provided with evidence that the people they fawn over did higher volume? is it because they are brown trannies trying to get white men to not lift? thats what i'm thinking

>>74116280
> Doesn't mean it grew any more muscle.

he was on tons of roids so his training is not really relevant, but he found that if he did more volume he would stop getting stronger, that's his anecdote
it's not merely personal preference
>Check Blood and Guts. He was doing 15-20 sets per body part.
absolutely not true, why make shit up?
he did ~5 working sets per bodypart

>>74116282
If you look at his warmup progression at least 2-3 sets prior to his final set are within an effective rep range. So he's doing three to four working sets per exercise even though he only considered the final set the working set. So he was stimulating growth long before his last set.

And he basically followed a bro split like most bodybuilders of the modern era do and have done since right around that time.

If anything Dorian trains closer to Tom Platz where he maintains a high intensity throughout the entire workout but follows a more traditional split.

Dorian credits Mentzer for influencing his change in philosophy. But functionally his workouts don't resemble Mentzer's methodology at all

>>74115078
This faggot was a known gay who abused meth and steroids.
That's it. That's the secret to his physique.
Stfu you HIT-fags and go suck a truckers sweaty cock.

>>74116321
It hasn't.

File: Sergio Oliva and Arnold.jpg (99 KB, 1019x829)

99 KB JPG

>>74115850
Mike got pretty much everything he preached from Arthur Jones--someone with bad genetics for gainz yet liked lifting and exercise. Jones used it on Casey Viator (who Mike learned about HIT from), Sergio Oliva (got into the best shape he ever was for the 1972 Mr. Olympia--Arnold even commented about being worried even though he won due to Nepotism within the IFBB), and Boyar Coe to name some examples.
>more successful bodybuilders
Dorian was more successful than most of those that followed him. He pretty much defined bodybuilding after the 90's and even heavily influenced other's routines to the point where many of them during the era were all doing reduced volume and frequency compared to previous generations. The only person who won as much as him was Arnold and Phil Heath (equal success), and the only person who won more was Ronnie. Everyone else was nowhere near as successful or able to dominate their eras. If we count wins, only Ronnie was a little more successful. Only two were as successful and everyone else was less successful.
>Dorian is short as fuck
>>74115875
>Being short
He's 5'10." That's above average for the UK, even today. We're not talking about Lee Priest or someone who is objectively short. We're talking about someone who is above average or average height.
>>74116043
>The bigger you want to be the more work
By this reasoning, marathon runners would be winning every Mr. Olympia.

>>74116151
No he took more drugs.

Yates did a lot of volume.

I was sympathetic to you getting incorrect information from your female friend. But I'm starting to think your stupid

>>74116336
This

>>74116321
mentzer did build his body with high frequency moderate-high volume when he was a teenager he was already near his peak

dorian however always did low-moderate volume from the very beginning so we know it worked for him at least
>>74116336
I've studied dorian's training since his first year of training, he never did more than 5 working set for chest and never trained any muscle more often than 2x a week
he never did high volume, ever
he never did high frequency, ever
his training is easy to find
>If you look at his warmup progression at least 2-3 sets prior to his final set are within an effective rep range
he warmed up with 2 sets on the incline bench press, first set was 2 plates(+10RIR), second set was 3 plates(+6RIR), then his work set with 4 plates for 6 reps(0RIR)
those warmups were not worksets, not unless you think warmups make you grow
>So he's doing three to four working sets per exercise
he's not
on some exercises he doesn't even use more than 1 set as warmup, and only goes near failure on the last set he does which is his only workset
>And he basically followed a bro split
just nowhere near as much volume as most people do bro splits yeah, but his training split changed several times in the past, and it was always low volume from the first year of training to even today
>If anything Dorian trains closer to Tom Platz
not true
dorian did low-moderate volume per session and did low-moderate frequency
tom platz did low frequency but a shit ton of volume we're talking like 15 sets minimum for a bodypart in a session

>>74116364
Casey Viator who built his body using volume.
Sergio Oliva who built his body using volume.
Mike and Dorian who built their bodies using volume.
Every single other Olympia Winner (Including Lee Haney, who you left out) and other pro competitors throughout the years use and used volume.

But, but Jordan Peters! Used volume to build his body.

The fact his HIT can work to maintain muscle just fine. And is probably a good option once you've built mass and are looking to balance your life outside of the gym. You want to put on muscle? More is more.

>>74116397
>You want to put on muscle? More is more.
What if I did 50 sets to failure every day?

>>74116233
>>>74116233
>Yates's version of HIT was high volume
It wasn't. 3 sets per muscle group at best.
>Yates capped off his lifts with one to two sets taken to failure
He did only one set to failure.
>preceded by three to four so-called warm-up sets
They had submaximal loading for their rep ranges hence were warmup/acclimatization sets taken nowhere close to failure.
>three to four
One or two depending on exercise to be accurate.
>Dude was doing a ton of volume compared to Mentzer's version
He really wasn't doing a ton of volume. Compared to the ideal routine which came out later, yes. Compared to Mike's PPL routine no. Compared to Mike's AB routine, Dorian did less.
>>74116257
Don't acquiesce to this retards nonsense.
>>74116336
>an effective rep range
Rep ranges don't matter independent of loading. You can do 8-12 reps of soup can curls and they won't do anything. When you pick up 8 soup cans and put them on a shelf, only a retard would count that as a set of bicep exercises. Even with 50% of the end set's weight, it doesn't mean jack shit if you're nowhere close to failure. A guy who does 315 for reps is not going to get anything but a light warmup from a set of 8 at 135 and the following set of 6 at 225. The only ones that matters are the ones at 315 when they're done to failure or close enough. This is why there's a distinction between warmup and working sets. Warm up sets don't do anything other than warm you up an acclimatize you to the weight for your working sets.

>>74116397
>Mike and Dorian who built their bodies using volume.
again with this?
dorian did not build his physique using "volume" like most bodybuilders, he always used low to moderate volumes at best, always
he never did what anyone would consider "volume training"
mike mentzer did use volume when he was younger and had great success, but dorian did not

>>74116429
Then you'd likely have a bad time. There's a limit. Of course there is. But it's much, much higher than Mentzer claimed. And your body needs repeated signaling to grow. Higher volumes and frequency of training yield better growth than low frequency training. That's been shown over an over again. The fact is if Mentzer style training worked, everyone would be doing it instead of what they are doing now. There's a reason no one trains like he advertised - not even him.

File: 1710558272837892.jpg (149 KB, 1072x982)

149 KB JPG

>>74116364
>Dorian was more successful than most of those that followed him. He pretty much defined bodybuilding
You're delusional as fuck
>Being short
Already addressed this. I was mistaken. I can admit when I'm wrong, you should try it.
>The bigger you want to be the more work
I wasn't talking about cardio you dumb motherfucker.

Didn't realize you wanted to suck ghis meth addict's dick so bad. Thought this thread was asking if it works. I doesn't. Everyone isn't lying to you. But go try it anyway asshole. How you seethe reading this

>>74116472
>There's a reason no one trains like he advertised - not even him.
That reason is because people have been brainwashed into believing that hard work pays off, and, because of this, have become addicted to hurting themselves with a ton of volume and frequency. I know, because I've been a victim of this. In fact, I'm still recovering.

>>74116397
>b-but they did volume first
They still got bigger on HIT even if they started with volume routines.
> Dorian who built their bodies using volume.
Dorian never did these volume routines. He was on low volume from the beginning.
>Every single other Olympia Winner (Including Lee Haney, who you left out)
So what?
>other pro competitors throughout the years use and used volume.
Who cares?
>Used volume to build his body.
They switched to a better routine and got more mass.
>HIT can work to maintain muscle just fine
Those who switched to it gained mass.
>You want to put on muscle? More is more.
Then stop lifting weights and go run a marathon for big quads.

>>74116337
This. Feels like a psyop seeing him everywhere

>>74116461
>>74116461
His training logs are publicly accessible. Full body three times a week with 3x10 per exercise is a volume based approach. The upper lower 4xweek with 3-4x10 per exercise is a volume based approach.

>>74116429
No one is suggesting that. They're just telling you not to train in the pussy ways you're talk about

>>74116482
>That reason is because people have been brainwashed into believing hard work pays off

It clearly does since every successful bodybuilder does it

File: 16614704644620042.png (278 KB, 1063x709)

278 KB PNG

after you perform an exercise to MMF any additional sets of the same exercise are only going to retrace the same motor unit recruitment sequence and will not provide any additional stimulus for growth, only increase the volume of exercise and the demands on your body's limited resources for recovery and adaptation.

>>74116498
This
In before OP makes some other shit up in the
>I figured out green text

>>74116509
>No one is suggesting that.
He suggested that "more is more", with the implication that overworking doesn't exist. I just provided an example showing why this is blatantly untrue. You can work out too much. We just disagree about how much is too much.
>>74116513
I'm not a successful bodybuilder, but my own personal experience showed me that if I work with a high frequency, I inevitably reach a plateau, then start becoming weaker until I take 1-2 weeks off. After that, I come back stronger than before. I just need to get rid of the brainwashing and start working out only once a week max.

>>74116482
Tell me you're a pussy without telling me

>>74116545
> I work with a high frequency, I inevitably reach a plateau, then start becoming weaker until I take 1-2 weeks off. After that, I come back stronger
Congratulations, you discovered the concept of deloading. An application used in all forms of athletic training, including volume based approaches to hypertrophy.

>>74116566
>You HAVE to deload
>NO THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WERE OVERTRAINING TO BEGIN WITH

>>74116480
>You're delusional as fuck
LMAO. I accept your concession. By all objective criteria, Yates defined body building in the 90's and after. He raised the standard. No one after him has done such.
>Already addressed this. I was mistaken. I can admit when I'm wrong, you should try it.
Imagine being proven wrong when someone provides reasoning for why someone is not short (reference to average heights relevant to the person's nationality) and then coping this hard with
>N-NO YOU
Retard.
>I wasn't talking about cardio you dumb motherfucker.
The high volume pump routines are just roider nonsense and for the average person it's just cardio. More sets does not mean more gainz. Volume retards such as yourself do not understand that volume doesn't matter independent of loading and proximity to muscular failure. You first need a sufficiently heavy loading to guarantee that you can start to recruit 2X fibers within a relatively short number of reps, then volume required is determined by proximity to failure. The closer you are to failure, the more stimulating the sets are and the fewer sets you need. The further you are from failure, the more volume you need to ensure you get stimulus. This is how it really works. Even with classical strength training programs with loading based on %1RM, volume is at best moderate with loading typically no less than 75% of 1RM. And no, I'm not retarded enough to count the 10 reps at 30% of 1RM, and 8 reps at 50% of 1RM done for a warmup as working sets because they're nowhere close to being heavy enough to provide any stimulus. But you can continue with this retarded cope if you want by counting warmup sets and pretending that since they're within some recommended rep range that they count even though the loading is absolutely wrong for that rep range.

>>74116587
>He raised the standard. No one after him has done such.
Who wants to tell him about Ronnie?

>>74116498
that was his his absolute beginner routine that he did for a few months
an absolute max of 9 working sets for each muscle group week, is that high volume?
look at the routines he used for years and years afterwards
he did upper/lower twice every 1.5 weeks or so and body part splits in which he trained with 4-8 sets once every 6 days on each bodypart with 8 working sets as an absolute MAX per session on a bodypart, some muscles like bis and tris he did 5 working sets per session only training them again around 6 days later
on calves he did like 3-5 sets every 6 days or so for most of his training history
I double checked just now to be sure of what I'm posting, that's the volume he did

>>74116545
There is limits to everything and you know that. But instead if facing that truth your stretching what everyone is saying so you can be right, despite being proven wrong about 20 times in a thread that's not even that long.

Are you autistic?

>>74116587
This nigga crazy as hell

>>74116599
Ronnie didn't raise the standard. Ronnie only did what Dorian did on higher doses.

>>74116587
Bro calm down. It's okay to be wrong. What's with all the paragraphs with all the mental gymnastic? Who hurt you?

>>74116557
I'm not a pussy. I've worked really hard for years and it never gave me the results that I wanted, and I've only recently started to realize that I was doing too much. Now, I do less, and my strength is going up again and my left knee feels like it's starting to heal.
>>74116566
I don't know what deloading is, but if I need to do it, could it be that I was just working out too often in the first place and that I wouldn't need to deload if I just did less? Why settle for an inefficient routine?
>>74116603
>There is limits to everything and you know that.
Yes, so why did you claim otherwise?

>But instead if facing that truth your stretching what everyone is saying so you can be right
I've never done that, I just provided an exaggerated example depicting why more isn't inherently better.

>Are you autistic?
Yes, I've been diagnosed as a kid, and with ADHD as well, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

>>74116545
>>74116545
>start working out only once a week max.
Try starting out with MaxOT training. One to two muscle groups per day with at least 6 days between the same muscle group. 6-8 sets max per muscle group, use only exercises you can go heavy with and use a weight heavy enough to reach failure within 4-6 reps.

>>74115116
>It seems pretty logical in my mind
>As a beginner
Since you are new you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of how quickly your body can recover in beginner phase and in intermediate phase.
To me, mentzers program sounds like its meant for intermediate/advanced lifters

take meth too

>>74115078
>be on shitloads of gear
>don't actually build your base doing the program you tout, it only actually helped you hold what you had at most
>sell idea of shitty infrequent workout training to lazy niggers who really want to spend as little time as possible doing anything because they can't stand to be remotely uncomfortable for more than 30 minutes a few times per week
>profit

File: 1708854386574637s.jpg (5 KB, 250x187)

5 KB JPG

It worked for me and i have been lifting on and off for a more than year keep in mind that i started training like him in the past 3 months . I have seen an immense increase in my mass and strength . Do give it a try and see if it works for you.

>>74116625
It has a lot to do with the conversation. Stretching the truth and exaggerating are the same in this context. And autistic people are much less likely to admit they are wrong.

File: 1710395402126670.webm (930 KB, 856x856)

930 KB WEBM

>>74116675
Post body.
>>74115503
>>74115462
you two post body as well.

>>74116625
You're cherry picking (parts) of responses to suit your argument. That's pretty fucking autistic

>>74116696
I haven't stretched or exaggerated anything. It was a purposely absurd scenario to serve as an example. I'm fully willing to admit that I'm wrong, but nobody is even really offering any argument. All you guys repeat is "these bodybuilders do this, therefore it's the best way to do things".
>>74116723
I reply to all the points that I see.

>>74116669
True. But that's a damn good business plan

File: Chris Beardsley based god.jpg (16 KB, 474x474)

16 KB JPG

I hate HITfags but the fatigue and myofibrillar protein synthesis data completely and irrefutably destroys high volume training beyond repair

>but muh meta analysis
don't care about 90kg bench press "well trained" subjects in their bullshit study inclusion
1 set provides around 50% of the gains you can get from one session with only a tiny fraction of the fatigue and muscle damage and gives 2-2.5x as much gains as the 2nd set the benefit from more and more volume is tiny and the cost is exponential
we also have fatigue studies showing clearly that motor unit recruitment crashes with as little as 3 sets to failure with a moderate rep range in one session
meaning that you cannot even fucking recruit your highest threshould motor units which govern the biggest amount of muscle fibers after just a few sets, no matter how hard you struggle your CNS will not be able to recruit them, in fact you will probably not be able to feel your muscles contract as much with every set you do because muscle fibers are dropping out completely, you can't stimulate muscle fibers to grow if they aren't even producing force

>>74115519
That was his prescribed way of squatting. You wouldn’t have Bowflex today if it wasn’t for Mentzer. The fact they just went bankrupt probably means something about his methods as well.

>>74116770
>The fact they just went bankrupt probably means something about his methods as well.
Maybe it's because bowflex makes a lot of poor quality trash like their adjustable dumbbells. Or perhaps people prefer barbells+racks or machines other than what bowflex makes
> about his methods as well.
Much of "his methods" are Arthur Jones' methods. Jones became rich from founding Nautilus and Medx and these two companies are still in business because they make great products. Does them being in business still necessitate Jones' methods to work? No. It has nothing to do with it. You can try Jones' methods with a barbell too and either they work or they don't and it has nothing to do with whether or not a company that might possibly be connected with him.

File: 171307675335477.jpg (117 KB, 1193x729)

117 KB JPG

doesn't work

>>74116729
>It was a purposely absurd scenario to serve as an example
That's exactly was stretching the truth and misrepresenting someone's argument is. If you have to do that to make your point then your point isn't worth making. I'm done arguing with you because you seem incapable of rational argument or refuting any of the points that have been made to you without resorting to these types of tactics. All further responses will be to post your autistic faggot body.

>>74116819
Nautilus became Bowflex idiot. They always were the same but then in an effort to revitalize their dying company they just rebranded to only Bowflex in like 2013. It was all meme shit that did nothing.

>>74115221
this actually looks good

>>74116852
Was just about to make the same comment. Guy really can't admit he's wrong. Pretty sad actually

>>74116849
Yeah a bunch if my buddys tried it when it first got popularity. Same lack of results

>>74116739
Sure, if duping gullible DYELs is the mission, no question, Mentzer accomplished it!

>>74115078
It’s garbage. At the end of the 99% of people who do it fall into one of two categories, or both:
>pretentious midwits who think they are smarter than everyone else
Most on this board preaching it fall into this category. Mentzer appeals to their inner wannabe iconoclast know it all
>lazy people
Dude the 80/20 rule! Akshually most people work out too much and are overtrained (imagine being this retarded)

>>74116861
Bowflex was actually started in 1986 and didn't acquire Nautilus until it was purchased in 1998. They were distinct companies at that point. Later. Bowflex renamed itself to Nautilus in 2005, Inc. They didn't go back to the Bowflex name until 2023. So it's more like Bowflex masquerading as Nautilus and then admitting they were actually Bowflex all along in 2023. They stopped producing commercial grade gym equipment in 2011 and started to produce their meme machines. After which they started to license the Nautilus names to other companies which is where the newer equipment with the Nautilus name comes from. Nautilus Nitro for example is one such line produced by a different company (IFR I think).

Bowflex's bankruptcy has nothing to do with Jones' methods as they departed from manufacturing anything related to his methods.

>>74116852
>>74116933
Samefag.

File: B8DAE159-B482-4861-832E-6(...).jpg (925 KB, 1630x2233)

925 KB JPG

Nah I fell off hard after trying it for a year and still haven’t recovered. This is me early 2023 before stating HIT

File: 14D6AD10-9834-4258-9B8A-1(...).jpg (1.14 MB, 2316x3088)

1.14 MB JPG

>>74117179
This is me now. I look terrible dyel. I wanna get back to volume but I don’t know how to approach it. Also my gym bro is doing hit but it worked for him because he has the genes

>>74117146
>The solo flex wasn’t the same thing
They were always a meme just like HIT. If it worked the way they claim, especially Mentzer, Brain Shaw would be the most aesthetic man to walk the earth instead of the fat lispy nazi we know today.

>>74117191
You got the size for sure. Did you at least get stronger? Mentzer promises like riptoe that focusing on strength first will make the rest follow. Obviously that’s a lie. I just hope you got something from his training.

>>74115078
You forgot to post how much gear he was blasting. That's the critical part of the recipe.

>>74117191
you didn't do it right

>>74117218
>got something from his training
I for sure learned that missing a workout is not the end of the world and taking a 7 day off won’t kill you either. Losing the initial pump from being a volume guy certainly has a toll on the mental but you get used it. At the end of the day the goal is building muscle.

>>74117229
Look maybe you are right. When I was doing high volume I believe I was hard worker because I had the window to put more work in. If you workout less then you have to push more at that time window. Now with my gym bro is different cause he monitors me. He also told me that my sets are very good and I just need to get in a deficit. We do ppl now tho 2 sets per muscle group 1st is 1-2 RIR then last set failure

File: Chest day.png (190 KB, 839x788)

190 KB PNG

>>74115078
Just do Max OT instead.
https://ast-ss.com/max-ot/toc/
>6-9 heavy sets per body part per week.
>only exercises where you can go heavy
>4-6 reps per exercise with each set to failure
>one to two body parts per session though personally, I find that you can run this with something like PPL or Leg > Back/Shoulders> Chest/Arms perfectly fine.
>concentrics are fast as they need to be while eccentrics are slow -- no super slow bullshit

File: Screenshot_20240423-18311(...).jpg (227 KB, 720x1280)

227 KB JPG

>>74117158
God you're an asshole

its just a mediocre routine, ofc it would work its just not very effective

>>74115078
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UhqqueGlGxw

>>74115078
be prepared to hit a wall and need to not work out for a couple/few days. It'll probably be hard to do that once you're all in the noobie gains phase like me.

I 100% believe the last rep and the muscular control + retraction things though.

>>74116601
based knowledge anon, you start slow and then when you don't progress anymore you do the HIT and more time resting/healing/recovering

>>74117978
I wonder what Joe Rogan would say about this?

File: 1677358342328147.jpg (45 KB, 500x400)

45 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fbCcWyYthQ

One of these is for looking good with giant fucking muscles, the other is for being stronger. Soviets wiped the floor with low intensity high volume training in strength and performance.

Body builders probably benefit more from the high intensity long recovery.

>>74116488
It's not a psyop, people are just inherently lazy so telling them they can get jacked as fuck with one set a week is incredibly appealing.

>>74116617
>High volume training doesn't work
>Ronnie just did the same thing that Dorian did but at higher volumes

lol

>>74116233
>Each of which came within 1-2 reps of failure.
Thats not correct. His routine for each movement was: One warmup set for 12 reps at 50% of working weight, then one warmup set for 12 reps at 75% of working weight, then one working set with maybe some drops or negatives.
Please do not lie on the internet.

>>74116043
>The bigger you want to be the more work
Muscle isn't built when you workout. It's built when you rest. What makes you think you can take less rest and build more muscle?
If someone told you that they could bake more cakes if they used less flour and eggs, you'd think they were retarded.

>>74116391
>when he was a teenager he was already near his peak
This is a good point to talk about.
Each pound of muscle that you put on is harder than the last. Whichever routine was able to put the most recent pound of muscle on your frame is objectively the best (one that you've tried so far).

>>74116585
This lol
>>74116566
Hear me out. What if you took those deload days, and evenly disbursed them through the rest of the routine as scheduled rest days? Then you wouldn't have to go through cycles of overtraining-then-undertraining. You'd just have the appropriate frequency All the time.

>>74116487
>Move from overtraining to undertraining
>Blow up
Omg, you've just discovered an accumulation/realization phases periodization.
It doesn't work without the accumulation phase first tho.

>>74116723
No he didn't. You (or was it someone else) literally said "more is more", stating that more volume results in more muscle.>>74116852
>That's exactly was stretching the truth and misrepresenting someone's argument is
He didn't misrepresent your argument. He asked if 50 sets is reasonable, to which you did not respond.

>>74118972
8-12 hours is enough time for repairs.

>>74119167
More like 72h, depending on the relative intensity used and actual weight

>>74119013
This is Mentzer's legacy: retards.

>>74118972
Post body, faggot

>>74115078
started doing a variation of this a few months ago and have seen more progress in the last 3 months than i have in my previous 2 years of lifting.

intensity is the most important part of making gains

also it's just easier to go to the gym... i don't count reps or have numbers i need to hit... i just have a general idea of the weight i can do on each exercise and i walk in the gym, warm up, and hit a set that takes me to my absolute limit for 8 exercises and leave.

also to the anons in this thread worried about failure making a scene: you're embarrassed about training harder/smarter/better than everyone else in the gym?

>>74115850
>pic
>comparing open to classic
Why

>>74115078
it works but you need a month off the gym as you are very overtrained before you start you need to dig youself out of the hole

>>74116566
>deload
because, go on, why do you deload....?
Because, you were, over training, beyond what your body can recover from, thus needing to make up for the rest you skipped before.

>>74115078
>Anyone tried this and actually made some gains?
mike mentzer

>>74115111
trips

this doesn't work for anons with slow twitch dominant muscles

>>74120460
I wouldn't say slow twitch dominant muscles, I would say a CNS that is more primed for endurance.

You can do HIT with 20 reps just fine. Sprinting is similar, it's relatively low force but extremely intense compared to olympic weightlifting or something. Actually builds more 2B fibers cuz explosive activities recruit those more than slow gear activities like 1rm deadlifts.

Studies also show olympic weightlifters and powerlifters have mostly 2A muscle fibers, while sprinters have more 2B.

File: Scientific Pull Workout w(...).webm (3.53 MB, 1280x720)

3.53 MB WEBM

When he means train to failure, he literally means keep contracting like your life depends on it.
Not like this

>>74120574
This video perfectly encapsules why exercise science is complete dog shit. Regardless of wether you believe in high or low volume, you have to agree that intensity is an important factor.
The problem with trying to study intensity is that only two levels of intensity can be accurately measured: 0% and 100% (even for the person doing the lifting, you cannot accurately say that you put in 87% intensity into a set). Thats why you should always train to failure and strive for progressive overload. "Close to failure" means jack shit

>Mike "Meth" Mentzer's way of training
>2024

>>74115116
I've maintained a 4 plate deadlift for 2 years only working out twice a week. Used to do bigger numbers but I have a career now and freeing up even an hour a week is impossible some weeks.

>>74115078
You are correct OP but you don't know his definition of training to failure and you left out that he says to train with a partner to push you to true failure.

>>74120574
over two reps in tank

>>74120574
This is basically non-exertion failure. He didn't tense up and fire his nervous system to eek out 2-3 more reps.

Now he either compensates by doing a shitton of volume, or he has to increase the intensity.

Imo both have their merits, my issue with HIT is it's very very draining. How to overcome this aspect? Does this mean I'm genetically not built for HIT and I should do volume? Do talented people in HIT not get extremely fatigued from it?

>>74119930
Post body faggot

>>74119933
Mike Mentzer never trained this way

>>74120981
lower weekly volume or lower frequency when doing HIT

>>74115503
You have more muscle activation when walking up the stairs, than when doing heavy squats. Muscle activation is the most retarded meme in fitness industry. You can activate it just by flexing muscles without any movement... Go back to reading your retarded science papers that were written for the sake of writing them.

>>74120746
It depends on the exercise.
>BB Bench
I stop with zero reps left in the tank. I know there's a 0% chance I will make the next rep, and I rack.
>Overhead Cable Tricep Extensioins
Always 100% to failure. You never know whether you can get 14, 15, or 16 reps unless you try.

>>74115850
Dorian is 178cm tall. That's quite tall for a bodybuilder. Taller than 99% of bodybuilders. And arny was just a fag with no glutes/legs and overdeveliped pecs. He knew that old jewish fags pay him for and made a career out of it. As a bpdybuilder and a man he is zero. Only retards worship gay for pay narcissists.

Lee Haney: Stimulate, don't annihilate. Won 8 Mr. Olympias.

Mike Mentzer: Train muscle to failure once every two weeks. Won 0 Olympias, threw a tantrum and quit.

>>74115078
I made gains in my arms doing this but my body fat is currently too high to notice any core body gains. I also didn't rest for 4 days, more like 2.

>>74119167
Anecdotal, but I've tried full-body-every-day, and I only got weaker and lost bodyweight.

>>74115078

I did. Was great for getting out of plateaus but revered back to more conventional 6 day a week about 4 months later.
Still kept the intensity though and really going to failure and beyond in some exercises.

>>74119167
Can you hit a pr 8-12 hours after you hit your last pr?

mentzer's style is probably more conducive to longevity, as you are resting your tendons and joints, which take much longer to recover than muscles.

you can preserve, and even build, your joints and tendons with higher volume and subsequent lower intensity, but you are always tip toeing on that line and you have to be very in tune with your body and know when its starting to give out and give it extra rest when it needs to. It's just that mentzer's style has this built into it to be more idiot proof.

this doesn't really apply if you're under the age of 30, though.

>>74121713
The only issue with this is that it only works if you've built the muscle you want. His particular version of HIT just isn't enough to induce muscle growth, but would likely work just fine to maintain what you have.

>>74121887
muscle gains have been shown to happen in as little as one set taken to volitional failure a week. There is an incredible amount of wrong understanding of how muscle is built. Growing muscle and then minmaxing muscle growth are two different things.

moreover, as you increase the amount of muscle on your body, it becomes much harder to gain more and takes much longer to recover from, lending to mentzer's style. You'll find that as you look into bodybuilders with higher amounts of muscle and older in age, they tend to prioritize a large amount of recovery and lean more into a higher intensity style. Being able to consistently push yourself in the gym for volume takes a lot, especially if lifting isn't your job, and even if it is. Again, the younger and less muscled you are, the less this makes sense.

>>74121930
Yes but those muscle gains with the minimal training have also been shown to drop off very rapidly with that type of training often winding up in being detrained. The rest of what you said is pretty much in agreement with my point. His style of training works if you have built the base you want and are maintaining or are simply just old and trying not to lose any more and keep your body going. But if you want to build substantial amounts of muscle, which most people on this Chinese basket weaving board do, it is one of the least effective options.

>>74121952
not exactly

just a quick search on the subject.


The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6-12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70-85% 1RM 2-3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8-12 weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31797219/

Accumulating evidence suggests that minimal doses of RT, characterised by lower session volumes than in traditional RT guidelines, together with either (1) higher training intensities/loads performed at lower frequencies (i.e. low-volume, high-load RT) or (2) lower training intensities/loads performed at higher frequencies and with minimal-to-no equipment (i.e. resistance ‘exercise snacking’), can improve strength and functional ability in younger and older adults.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01605-8


It's not just maintaining, it's growing as well. At all ages. The worst thing you can do is spend more time working in the gym for little gains.

>>74121998
Yeah Im sure those lifters could do a proper max-effort 1 set.

>>74115094
This will never happen because nobody posting on /fit/ has any discipline. You niggas think lifting twice a week and eating fast food will give you a body like a 70s bodybuilder youre out of youre fucking mind

>>74122032
yes, in these circumstances, the lifters probably aren't going to actual failure, yet they are still making significant gains. What you said reinforces what I'm saying even more.

The notion of 'work harder' is the fitness influencer equivalent of hollywood actors saying their secret to getting shredded was chicken broccoli and rice, the ironic thing is that the population that consumes fitness content is just as clueless as the NPC population is with listening to the actors.

>>74121998
We're not really disagreeing on main points here. You can make progress with a minimum effective dose which is what these studies cover. However, if your goal is to pack on mass and size as efficiently as possible then these approaches should be disregarded and you should seek out your maximum training dose that you can recover from. Deloading intelligently along the way. If you just want to stay fit, get the blood flowing once in awhile, or keep the games you have made and progress very slowly, then sure, train this way.

>>74122094
>If you just want to stay fit, get the blood flowing once in awhile, or keep the games you have made and progress very slowly, then sure, train this way.

This statement you make at the end of your sentence expressly contradicts this statement

>You can make progress with a minimum effective dose which is what these studies cover.

Fitness is a marathon, not a sprint, stressing the body too much causes injury. For the average recreational lifter, it is far better to take things slower and build up slowly than pushing as hard as possible, hitting hard plateaus and either quitting or hopping on roids or injuring yourself, which is what 90% of lifters run into, that's why every big guy at your gym is roiding or young.

>>74121713
>>74121887
>t. Has never even tried

My main issue with HIT is that the one time I tried it for a couple of months my tendons were in shambles. They're always weak mind you but during bicep curls I could feel them ripping off my elbow.

>>74121952
>have also been shown to drop off very rapidly with that type of training often winding up in being detrained
Shown how, or by whom?

>>74122131
>t. Has never even tried
Menser gets rediscovered once every 5 to 10 years. Of course I've tried. I know first hand his shit doesn't work. Here, let me outline the Mentzer training life cycle:
>Discover Mentzer, see amazing genetically gifted body and think that HIT built it.
>look into it, makes sense on the surface. Decide to try.
>" wow, I'm making strength and size gains like never before" - first two weeks of training
> hit plateau, rapid drop off. Gaines refused to continue or come back.
> lose whatever minimal strength and size you gained
> do a deeper dive now that the wool has been lifted from your eyes. Realize he never trained that way to build his body and only started Shilling it after he retired and had to make money to support his drug habit. For the realize that there is a reason industry professionals and anyone with any amount of size trained a different way to build themselves to that point.

>>74115078
I'm glad this thread has gained some traction. For those who are unfamiliar, I will now summarize the entirety of HIT into two points:

1) in order for any stressor to elicit an adaptation in the body, the intensity of said stressor must exceed some threshold.
(practically speaking, it's best to drive up the intensity as high as possible to guarantee growth)

2) As you get bigger and stronger, the stress of your working sets increases.
(e.g. benching 225 for 10 reps is more stressful than benching 225 for 9 reps. In order to compensate for this additional stress, you have no choice but to add rest days or reduce working sets)

That's it. All the decades of work by Jones and Mentzer are in those two points.

>>74122202
When you were making progress, it was because of two things: the stimulus created by the workout was sufficient, and the amount of stress from which you could recover was greater than the stress inflicted by the workouts.
Then your progress stopped. What changed? I'm sure you were still working very hard. The stimulus wasn't any different, so no need to make changes on that front. What changed was that the amount of stress inflicted increased as you got stronger. When the amount of stress inflicted is greater than the stress that's cleared away by your rest, progress comes to a halt, and you are overtrained.

>>74122260
i think this is the biggest thing that isn't talked enough about in fitness, partly because the majority of fitness is dominated by roid monsters that just increase their doses when they hit plateaus and recovery issues.

People don't seem to understand, that even with the current recommendations, 48-72 hours for a muscle to recover doesn't mean STRICTLY 48, it means that some people may be able to recover much quicker but also much slower.

People already work hard enough in the gym, the problem is that recovery periods are so fucked because people are relying on tried and true methods that steroid users taking grams of test a week to improve recovery.

>>74122202
>>74122260
If you would, please go into more detail on your training. What did your weekly schedule look like, with exercises, sets, and rest days?

>>74122260
And here is the inherent bullshits in Mentzer apologists. You can always move the goal posts to say you one, either didn't go to True failure or two, we're overtrained. The reason it didn't work is always one of the two. It couldn't possibly be that the training methodology is ineffective. By their logic you will eventually progress to only once a month training. Then once every 6 months. Once a year. You're becoming so overtrained! There is a reason why no one who Advocates this style of training will ever post a picture of their body and a reason why no Pros use it.

File: 1713970302721699.png (148 KB, 550x526)

148 KB PNG

low frequency + full recovery definitely works

I do 5x5 still, ramped up to one top set

but bench row squat Tuesday and OHP deads pullup Friday clearly works great

don't lift again unless you're recovered! you should feel "ripe"

>>74122289
What a completely retarded response. It doesn't matter what anyone else does, what matters is what you do and what you need to properly stimulate muscle and recover from that exercise bout. No one can tell you the best way to do it, you have to find it out for yourself. Having someone tell you their lifting regimen will do nothing but confuse you more.

Lift, record results, reflect on results, change your lifts accordingly. This is how you build muscle.

>>74122285
Post body

>>74122299
it takes 3 weeks for a muscle to start to atrophy, so when it takes 3 weeks for you to recover a muscle, you are at your genetic maximum.

The thing is, the theory is sound. Why don't you try it? Once you hit a plateau, change nothing but recovery, see what happens. Give yourself an extra day of rest, or even an entire week.

>>74122321
I have tried. That's how I know it doesn't work.

>>74122308
The reason I asked was because I wanted to know if the regimen was changing over time.
Each person may be different with regard to their current state of being, but all human beings (even all mammals, maybe even all animal life) must follow the two points above if they want to build muscle. The general trend is the same for all trainees. You have two options to make progress when you hit a plateau: drive up intensity or decrease volume/increase recovery.

>>74122344
Post routine and we can talk about it.

>>74122321
Post body

File: 170127947408736.png (874 KB, 1113x1119)

874 KB PNG

science has proven him wrong and wrong again

>>74122072
I actually agree with your second take. Just do what feels right. For most HIT is not feasible because it is just too demanding for little (if at all) benefit over doing 2-3 sets.

>>74122350
Why would I want you to evaluate a routine that I discarded years ago? Especially when you haven't really inspired me to think you know what you're talking about

File: image-9.png (37 KB, 697x537)

37 KB PNG

>>74122373
which means the fundamental problem is recovery, it always has been. Some people can recover faster than others, finding the right amount of recovery for you is the key to gains.

It's not how you lift, its your lifestyle that dictates how you lift. You could be someone with more anxiety / stress in which case a higher frequency but lower intensity is required.

>>74122202
>>74122299
>>74122308
>>74122320
>>74122344
>>74122351
It sounds to me that you have no interest in diagnosing the problem with your training or finding out the reasons why something works or doesn't work. If you did you would give some details on your routine.
Either that or you're outright lying about even trying.
Either way, best of luck with everything.

>>74122383
sounds like you're just lying about not trying it out and you ran into a roadblock and gave up. It's not that the lifting regimen didn't work, it's that it didn't fit you and that's fine, doesn't mean it's wrong.

>>74122350
Post body

>>74122393
Post body

>>74122393
I don't need anything diagnosed because there's nothing wrong. I'm happy with my training and it's going well. I diagnosed the problem with Mentzer style hit training in that it didn't work. Case closed.

File: Screenshot_20240424_121239.jpg (690 KB, 1079x1238)

690 KB JPG

>>74122415
Not that it has anything to do with my points, but fine.

>>74122457
Typical well-poisoner

>>74122344
Not him. Why didn't it work?

>>74122599
Not enough stimulus. Needed way more volume. And found thst Mentzer way underestimated the body's ability to recover. Switched to more traditional training and haven't looked back

File: 1713888475903181.png (230 KB, 636x980)

230 KB PNG

>>74122354
>analyze effects of single leg extensions done by a dozen untrained participants
>extrapolate
you mean this science? go cuck yourself

>>74122299
My best friend is doing hit for the last 1.5 year (with 10 years of lifting in his frame) and he hasn't lost an ounce of muscle. He doesn't even train back and shoulders anymore. Today we went in the gym and he did a set of pull downs then a preacher curl machine then cross cable tris then calves and called it a day, did the same but just added an incline bench,lateral raise and row machine. All of that for 2 sets max (some only 1 set). Research paul carter if you want to learn more

>>74123298
Also to add it's way more freedom of life. we just go to the gym whenever without needing to pressure and make it a chore going to the gym, before today we went on friday for legs. Just stay lean and the rest will follow, also make your sets count

>>74122646
>Needed way more volume.
there's a possibilty you didn't go hard enough on the one set

ITT: dyels being terrified by the thought most of the time they spent in the gym might've been completely unjustified and not productive at all
ITT2: dyels who have not realized the way you train isn't really that important and the primary factor limiting your growth are your hormones and maybe diet if you refuse to eat enough - bodybuilding natty is hardly more than a showcase of your genetics

>>74123298
Yeah, so he's using it to maintain which is all it's good for.

>>74123317
>>74122646
Unlikely.

>>74123503
not really, his legs is his weak part and he is doing hit for legs aswell. You can't imagine the leg training we did in 2021 against now. Literally 1/4 of the volume but they are still taxing af

>>74123585
Post body

>>74123611
nah will post in a month when i get leaner

>>74121930
>muscle gains have been shown to happen in as little as one set taken to volitional failure a week
in beginners

>>74122260
>Then your progress stopped. What changed?

obviously the stimulus he got from training a muscle was already lost by the time he trained it again
the reason why beginners can grow with retarded HIT protocols is simply because the stimulus is bigger the newer you are to training so you can hold on to more of it before you train the same muscle again

HIT with low frequency is shit and in fact low frequency is the reason why HIT is shit
>>74122285
wrong
recovery is a different process from growth stimulus
>>74122321
not true
muscle fibers already start shrinking around 48h after
this 3 week figure is based on very rough proxies for lean mass which can't detect small drops in size
do muscles implode after 2 days of no training? no, but the atrophy process starts around that mark
why the fuck would muscle fibers maintain size for weeks if they're not ever used
>>74122354
>group that trained to failure benefited more from the first exercise and less from the second one due to accumulated fatigue
this doesn't prove anything except what we already knew was true
>>74122390
recovery=/=stimulus

>>74123903
>The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6-12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70-85% 1RM 2-3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8-12 weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31797219/

RESISTANCE TRAINED MEN
retard

>>74124013
stimulus -> recovery -> muscle growth

stimulus -> no recovery -> no muscle growth

another retard

>>74124026
>1 set
>2-3x a week
read my post again lol this is embarrassing

>stimulus -> recovery -> muscle growth
stimulus is the myofibril addition which occurs mere hours after a muscle fiber produced force during exercise
recovery is the time course necessary for biochemical reaction induced damage to dissipate which peaks well after the stimulus has run its course
muscles aren't growing and growing while they are still recovering from damage in fact just after a few days they're already in an atrophy phase
muscle growth is the NET GAIN you get, if you get any

therefore the goal of training for hypertrophy should aim for a decent enough stimulus and also to stop that stimulus from being obliterated post workout due due to inevitable myofibrillar loss with inactivity which is muscle fibril specific
that's the point of my post, if you want 1 set to be enough to progress after noob status you will have to do it frequently enough

>>74121558
Every newbie who actually tries does. Once you hit the plateau, the pr may not be weight increases but volume increases. If you real, then you use those baby 2.5 weights and gain butterfly break throughs that open the gateway to heaven.

>>74124108
>muscles aren't growing and growing while they are still recovering from damage in fact just after a few days they're already in an atrophy phase

source of this information please. In fact, source for all your information, because it sounds like bullshit

"Numerous studies have reported myofibrillar protein synthetic rates increase hours following a training bout in untrained (reviewed in Walker et al., 2011; Haun et al., 2019c) and trained persons (reviewed in Damas et al., 2015). These observations have been consistent and certainly lend credence to the conventional hypertrophy model discussed above. While informative, tracer studies have not resolved the degree to which long-term myofibril protein accretion contributes to muscle fiber hypertrophy."

"Moreover, no human investigation has determined whether training-induced myofibril protein accretion occurs via the enlargement of pre-existing myofibrils, the creation of new myofibrils (i.e., de novo myofibrillogenesis), or the enlargement of myofibrils followed by myofibril splitting to maintain a conserved myofibril size. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372125/


>muscles aren't growing and growing while they are still recovering from damage in fact just after a few days they're already in an atrophy phase

Twenty-four healthy, young (23 ± 1 year) males were subjected to either 5 (n = 12) or 14 (n = 12) days of one-legged knee immobilization using a full leg cast. Before and immediately after the immobilization period, quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), leg lean mass and muscle strength were assessed, and biopsies were collected from the vastus lateralis.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24168489/


you don't seem to know what you're talking about, and you're misrepresenting information

>>74124176
the quotes you provided illustrate how little scientists know about this topic you fucking idiot. think about the topic using your own brain and you might learn something

File: 1562419826831.jpg (10 KB, 200x313)

10 KB JPG

>>74124291
>no proof
>just trust me bro

File: muscle atrophy.jpg (101 KB, 644x646)

101 KB JPG

>>74124176
>source of this information please
just the whole of animal physiology and evolutionary biology
if you want specifics read up on mechanical tension(what actually makes exercise grow muscle), myofibrillar protein synthesis data and muscle atrophy data

according to the myofibrillar protein synthesis data we have muscle starts to grow just a few hours after training, it actually precedes "recovery" and it doesn't last very long
as soon as that stimulus is gone(which in trained lifters seems to be completely gone in 48h or less) they will start shrinking
I'm not saying they will shrink after just 48h, I'm saying they will start shrinking after 48h
we know this because we have myofibrillar protein synthesis rates of muscles with inactivity
pic related, according to the muscle atrophy data we have muscle fibers start to shrink no matter what you do around 48h after last being stimulated

I don't even need to "source" anything btw, YOU have to prove to me that muscle fibers don't shrink with inactivity which is absolutely fucking absurd but it's the point you are making, there is literally no good argument you can use that doesn't break everything we know about animal physiology

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7372125/
bet you don't even know what any of that shit means
acute myoPS post workout is muscle growth, myofibrillar protein synthesis as in... the assimilation of amino acids in the addition of contractile proteins which are within myofibrils whether or not it's from new myofibrils or old ones, all of those would involve an increase in myofibrillar protein synthesis

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24168489/
again, you don't even know what any of that means or you didn't even read the study
it literally confirms what I say
they only looked at changes 5 days and 14 days post immobilization, and after ONLY 5 days significant atrophy already took place
not 3 weeks, not 2 weeks
5 fucking days

>>74124361
>according to the myofibrillar protein synthesis data we have muscle starts to grow just a few hours after training, it actually precedes "recovery" and it doesn't last very long

false, we don't know, Moreover, no human investigation has determined whether training-induced myofibril protein accretion occurs via the enlargement of pre-existing myofibrils, the creation of new myofibrils (i.e., de novo myofibrillogenesis), or the enlargement of myofibrils followed by myofibril splitting to maintain a conserved myofibril size

>bet you don't even know what any of that shit means
it expressly and concisely tells you that you are full of shit and talking out your ass.

>again, you don't even know what any of that means or you didn't even read the study
no, you are absolutely fucking retarded because we aren't fucking immobilizing our limbs after an exercise bout you retarded fuck, holy shit, I thought that maybe just bringing that up that you would have some semblance of critical thinking to understand that fully immobilizing a limb and using it for general purposes such as walking or sitting down or getting up to go take a shit or piss are two VERY different things you absolute cro magnon fuck.

Holy shit you have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.


post your fucking sources or shut the fuck up, good god you are retarded.

>>74115078
I have been lifting for 7 years. I have been doing his style of lifting for over a year now. Before I started, I was doing high-volume training, and eventually, I started to plateau after only a few weeks of every training block. I gradually reduced the volume, first to three sets per exercise, then to two, and finally to one, with frequency between two and three times a week. I have found that one set until failure on each exercise, with three training days a week, gives me the most stimulus. Not only this, but in my entire year of doing HIT-style training (Most of which I have spent in a deficit of between 500-1000 calories) I have never regressed, every single week for over a year, my lifts have gone up and they never stall. And I haven't changed anything for over a year either, except for switching a few exercises around because I completely maxed the machines out.

>>74124408
>false, we don't know
what do you think myofibrillar protein synthesis even is?
you just reposted the same text you posted earlier that you can't even comprehend
that's the researcher(s) involved in that study coming clean with their lack of full understanding on how new muscle proteins are being added by merely looking at myoPS rates using current amino acid tracing techniques
it's still tracing amino acids being incorporated into muscle proteins in myofibrils, they just don't know if it's being added to already existing myofibrils or new ones
>>74124408
>it expressly and concisely tells you that you are full of shit and talking out your ass.
no it doesn't
>>74124408
>no, you are absolutely fucking retarded because we aren't fucking immobilizing our limbs
tell me why it would be any different from simply not training a muscle for 6 days of the week, oh wait you can't even make an argument without flipping out because you are dumb as bricks
immobilization simply deloads all muscle fibers as opposed to just the fast twitch muscle fibers which happens when you don't train a muscle
ALL muscle fibers experience the same atrophy with disuse,regardless of their size or fiber type there is no mechanism that stops muscle fibers from atrophying besides mechanical tension
your fast twitch muscle fibers in your legs aren't experiencing any tension by walking or even running, only by lifting heavy loads or light loads close to muscular failure

notice how now you are having a meltdown after I backed up what I claimed,
don't like what you see? then stop spreading bullshit
3 weeks my ass, 2 days is already enough after a muscle fiber stops experiencing tension to start shrinking you fucking retard and 5 days is enough to see significant atrophy
you either make up for the atrophy later in that week by doing a lot of volume(more myoPS) or you have to train it again later that week to prevent a net balance or worse a net loss in muscle size

>>74124579
>what do you think myofibrillar protein synthesis even is?

increased rate of myofibrillar protein synthesis does not mean a single fucking thing. You keep saying addition of myofibrils, that is demonstrably wrong, we don't know that MPS increases myofibrils, are you really this fucking dumb.

>tell me why it would be any different from simply not training a muscle for 6 days of the week,

oh god you are so stupid man. You really are fucking dumb.

again, post sources that myofibrillar protein synthesis leads to accretion of myofibrils. You lack so much knowledge that you don't even know why I'm calling you retarded. There's a very specific reason why I keep posting the same quote, because you are wrong in your statement that MPS leads to accretion to myofibrils. You can't even grasp very basic concepts of how muscle is grown and the limitations of what we currently know.

>>74124519
>frequency between two and three times a week
>HIT-style training
>every single week for over a year, my lifts have gone up and they never stall
HITfags would tell you that you're doing it wrong btw
>>74124619
>increased rate of myofibrillar protein synthesis does not mean a single fucking thing
it actually means one thing
it means you are adding amino acids to your myofibrils in the form of contractile proteins
that's how muscles grow
>You keep saying addition of myofibrils
>we don't know that MPS increases myofibrils
why the hell are you going on and on about this shit repeatedly? are you a bot or an actual retard?
myofibrillar protein synthesis is the addition of contractile proteins in myofibrils which your muscle fibers are made of, it is literally the creation of the building blocks of muscle so increasing their rate of synthesis would provide growth
how is this so hard for you to grasp?
you are actually having an emotional meltdown
if you don't like being told you're wrong then stop spreading bullshit
muscles don't take weeks to shrink, they take days
and the anabolic response to training is short lived, period
there is no argument to be made here everything I claimed is backed by study after study
you're just going LALALA
you and I know that you cannot refute either of these premises, so you can keep bitching and moaning about it or you could just shut up
if you don't like being told you're wrong then stop spreading misinformation
>>74124619
> post sources that myofibrillar protein synthesis leads to accretion of myofibrils
still not sure if I'm talking to a bot or an actual retard
you do't know what myofibrillar protein synthesis is
you don't know what a myofibril is
so why even post? do you enjoy embarrassing yourself

>>74115078
Im thinking of doing this but not because of a bodybuilding method, but because i dont want to do more than one kind of training in the day. I will do fullbody high volume every 4 days. So my routine would go like this

Lift > rest > cardio > sport >repeat
And sometimes
Lift > cardio > sport > sport > repeat

>>74124361
>immobilization
>the same thing that happens when you take rest days
idiot

>>74115078
99% of gym goers don't have what it takes to reach intensity that would justify doing only 1 set with couple weeks of rest in between so in general it's really poor advice. If the frequency was higher like training each muscle once a week this might work. Like if you do 1x20 squats widowmakerstyle once a week I can understand that you need a weeks rest and you can progress. But with his regiment you end up training each muscle like once every 2 weeks which is simply not enough.

i hit the wall hard today bros, couldn’t make it through. i had been going 3 days/week for a couple months. going with some cardio the next few days and gonna hit it again on monday. i can kinda see how mr. mentzer makes sense

>>74124361
My issue with studies like this is the metric they use. In studies that examine the size of the muscle as their basis for atrophy, the researchers fail to admit that the majority of a muscle’s size is due to fluid. Much of that decrease in size is due to a) the pump fading and b) the loss in glycogen also causing some loss in water, due to the fact that sugar is hydrophilic.
In studies like the one linked below, which use 1RM strength as their criteria for judgement, they typically find that atrophy begins somewhere between three to five weeks. I think that 1RM strength is a much better criteria to use if our concern is the status of the contractile tissue.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23529287/

File: Recovery.png (136 KB, 745x714)

136 KB PNG

>>74124361
>myofibrillar protein synthesis as in... the assimilation of amino acids in the addition of contractile proteins
First, myofibrils are made from myocites. Myocytes are cells. Muscles grow from mitosis like any other tissue would. They are limited by the cell cycle like every other cell. In some cases the cell cycle lasts 9-10 hours. However, it's commonly as long as 24 hours for most cells in general. Second, there is no such thing as a "contractile protein." There are contractile cells. Third, mps being no longer elevated after 36-48 hours does not mean you are not growing after that 48 hours. You might still be growing a little bit after that as some cells start to divide and enter into the later stages of the cell cycle after that in spite of mps no longer being elevated.
>recovery
You lose strength for the 48 hours after the workout and don't get back to baseline until at least 48 hours after a workout.
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10764204_A_Series_of_Studies-A_Practical_Protocol_for_Testing_Muscular_Endurance_Recovery
Fortunately, they graph the results of their participants and some of them did overcompensate (grow) after 48 hours while some needed 72 hours or more to really overcompensate implying there is a case to be made that recovery and overcompensation is individualized and can take longer than 48 hours in some individuals. There were even a couple of no-gainers.
>inactivity
The study you posted put the legs put into a cast so they couldn't use it at all. That's quite an extreme circumstance. It may not even apply to a guy who decides to take it easy and played video games for most of the weekend. It really only applies to people who are similarly immobilized such as those forced into bed rest in a hospital or someone in a cast.

>>74124728
> HITfags would tell you that you're doing it wrong btw
I think you would benefit from taking a walk.

>>74115078
>Mike Mentzer's way of training
What you see in "High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer way" is just some stuff Mike was writing in the last few months of his life. Most of his personal training career was teaching an AB split, a PPL split, or some kind of similar once per week per body part type of splits with people training once every 72 hours or so. 4/4 cadence? No. Maybe 1-2/3-4 cadence at best. 4/4 just made it into his last video as he was experimenting with it during the last few months of his life and ended up in the John Little book. Most of his training career he taught relative fast forceful positives with slow negatives. He had people training once every 48 or 72 hours depending on the person with only the extreme cases going longer.

>>74123317
>there's a possibilty you didn't go hard enough on the one set
Mentzerfags never hear how retarded they sound

>>74115123
I have made gains with this routine. The simplicity and ability to focus all my effort into these few exercises grew my biceps very well.

>>74115078
>only work out 1-2 days a week, with 4 days rest in between, if not more.
If you're a dyel in the 20th century looking for advice from seminars and self help books.
>slow controlled reps, focusing on the negative
Only on the last reps where you can't get an unassisted positive. Doing this on the first reps is just wrong. It does less work for no reason. It just tires yourself for the sake of it. It doesn't produce more tension. Lift it controlled, not slow.
>1 working set for the muscle(s) you're targeting, to failure
If you're not using a spotter to force negatives then one set isn't even close to enough.
>time under tension is king
Tension is king.
[Reddit space for clarity]
Look into how Arthur Jones actually said to train. Strength and cardio simultaneously. It sounds crazy but even though he advocated doing one set per lift, it still added up to a lot of sets at the end of the workout, three workouts per week, and (here's where it gets strange) he progressed it by volume, by the literal amount of work a trainee accomplishes in an hour.

>>74126574
>it still added up to a lot of sets at the end of the workout, three workouts per week
That's his 1970 magazine article routine called the "ideal workout." He did change things over time.
>he progressed it by volume, by the literal amount of work a trainee accomplishes in an hour.
I've never seen any such thing written by Jones.
>progressed it by volume
However, technically Volume = sets x reps = total reps. A common basic progression of course is trying to do one more rep, then adding weight if you can exceed the target rep range. Technically anyone on such a progression system is first increasing volume by trying to do one more rep. Then volume is decreases as you add weight that you do fewer reps to get back into the target rep range. However, in the colloquial sense, you are not increasing volume if you keep the number of sets the same.
>in an hour.
The workouts for Casey Viator in the Colorado experiment in 1973 were less than a half an hour. The cardio aspect however, was just the same thing Ken Leistner did (you can find a couple of his trainees completing a routine in an even shorter 15 minutes one set per exercise to failure). It's not with the goal of doing as much work as possible within an hour. The cardio aspect is just running through the routine while trying to eliminate as much rest time between exercises as possible. It has nothing to do with choosing a fixed time period and trying to do as much as possible.

>>74126827
Okay I agree with everything you said and I want to do a Jonesmaxxed strength & cardio routine. With my gym I can do the following without too much rest time via equipment setup:
Ohp
Flys
Squats
Deadlift
Curls
LTE's
Situps
Calf raises
Rows
Chinups
That's the best I can think of to hit every muscle and get cardio from doing a lot of work with no rest. I was thinking to run them all 5 times for 50 sets and work up to getting it all done in less than 50 minutes. I just don't see how one set is gonna do anything. When I watched him talk about his best cardio program he was talking about progressing athletes from a 40 minute workout to the same workout with more weight in 30 minutes. How did he work them that long with 1 set per lift?

>>74116480
Chris is just lower in bf cause of the peds I’m sure Arnold would take the same thing today

>>74120995
where did you post yours?

>>74122390
>>74124026
>stimulus -> recovery -> muscle growth
>stimulus -> no recovery -> no muscle growth
it baffle me that people STILL don't understand this basic of the human body. They actually think they are fucking goku who can train endlessly and get gains out of thin air.

File: neuromuscular detraining.jpg (98 KB, 649x642)

98 KB JPG

>>74124851
>fails to provide an argument

>>74125279
good post
doesn't matter if a majorirty of the muscle size being composed of "fluid" because we now have the myofibrillar protein synthesis data proving conclusively that individual muscle fibers shrink with just a few days of inactivity
it is not up to dabate anymore, integrated contractile proteins aren't fluid
the studies showing atrophy only after 2-3 weeks of detraining are flawed because they use very rough imprecise measuring techniques
>In studies like the one linked below, which use 1RM strength as their criteria for judgement
pic related, muscle loss is not the same thing as strength loss during detraining, strength is reliant on neural efficiency/readiness and motor unit recruitment adaptations
>they typically find that atrophy begins somewhere between three to five weeks.
according to that paper after 3 weeks significant strength loss occurred
if you were right that it takes 3 weeks for muscle to just start shrinking then why do bodybuilders never train muscles with that degree of frequency?
better yet, why does no one progress training a muscle every 14 days or so?
following your own logic it should mean that low frequency of training should be absolutely fine yet it simply does not work and we know why it doesn't work, because muscle fibers don't grow for several days after being last stimulated
muscle fibers are either growing or shrinking they are never maintained without enough tension
the myoPS data completely refutes any idea that significant muscle fiber size loss doesn't occur several days after last being stimulated with mechanical tension
>>74125327
strength =\= net protein balance
strength is multifaceted
>immobilization is not the same as detraining
your muscle fibers can't tell the difference, it's just that immobilization renders all muscle fibers in a muscle inactive as opposed to just the fast twitch ones during regular detraining
>>74125486
take your own advice

File: post-workout myoPS time course.jpg (104 KB, 579x657)

104 KB JPG

>>74125327
just finished reading that study paper
it is well made
I never insinuated that everyone should train muscles every day or every other day no matter how much damage they suffer from their workouts, just that training infrequently even if necessary for full muscle damage recovery due to excess volume is not ideal and will lead to at least some atrophy between sessions even if the net stimulus over a week is still positive
there are limits to it though, training a muscle directly or indirectly only every 7 days or less would make progress very difficult if not impossible

acute strength loss post workout is mostly post workout supra spinal CNS fatigue or calcium ion induced muscle damage which according to the data could peak around 24-96h after a workout depending on the volume and exercises used and it seems to mirror the strength recovery data too on trained lifters (3 sets close to failure for a muscle taking around 72h for complete strength recovery)
however the acute myoPS changes are representative of the totality of the stimulus that a workout provides, and it is very short lived much shorter than the amount of time muscle damage takes to even peak

>>74127937
>if you were right that it takes 3 weeks for muscle to just start shrinking then why do bodybuilders never train muscles with that degree of frequency
Fear and misunderstanding. They still believe that more sets always equals more growth, and then they take drugs to compensate for the added stress. Like most people of /fit/, they're so afraid of losing their progress that they aren't willing to test it themselves.
>better yet, why does no one progress training a muscle every 14 days or so
I have. Any time that I've tried it (currently in the middle of giving it a proper n=1 experiment), I have only ever gotten stronger after taking two weeks off from lifting.
>should mean that low frequency of training should be absolutely fine yet it simply does not work and we know why it doesn't work
I can attest that hitting a muscle group once per week is appropriate. Would you consider that "low"? Atrophy definitely does not occur within one week. There's also the fact to consider that the bro split is extremely popular among bodybuilders. That's a time-tested routine. We know for sure that once per week works great, so now it's a question of "How far can we push it?"
>neural efficiency
Gains in strength due to better neural efficiency are not infinite. There's only so much adaptation your cns can make. Past a certain point, gains in strength can only be attributed to increases in contractile tissue. I believe that point is the end of the noob gains phase, and cns enhancements are the reason why beginners gain so much strength so quickly, but I don't know for sure.
>strength does not equal net protein balance.
But how are you measuring net protein balance? Have you considered that our means of measuring such things are flawed? You would need to dissect a person every day after a workout to truly know. Measuring progress by strength is reliable. If you got stronger, some of that may be due to cns adaptation, but you definitely built muscle.

>>74118165
When you say high volume, do you mean high frequency? Like training submaximally every day
A lot of fighters, wrestlers etc. from former soviet territories do tons of band work, kipping pullups, and high rep work in general. Hang power cleans with one plate for lots and lots of reps, half-rom pushups, rope climbing, alternating kettlebell presses and so on
I imagine this is more how they would train in ancient greek gymnasiums where they didn't have bars and plates to lift heavy weights

>>74128112
>training a muscle directly or indirectly only every 7 days or less would make progress very difficult if not impossible
I've done full body once per week and saw great results, for the ~6 months that I did it. Strength, bodyweight, and muscular size all went up. I would highly recommend you try it just for one month. Make sure you go to absolute failure for every set.

>>74128698
Post body

>>74128938
>t. Too afraid to risk one month of progress for a greater understanding of the human body
Very sad. Many such cases.

>>74128987
Post body

>>74128938
There's a reason why those who keep sucking Mentzer's dick will never show their results and it's because they don't have any. There is over A Century of proven results from traditional methods. But you have literally zero examples of anyone who is built their body up using a high intensity approach similar to what Mike Mentzer advocated. The only people who have ever used it have only ever done so after they have substantial mass and are maintaining what they've got

>>74128669
>They still believe that more sets always equals more growth
I am not advocating for high volume only that there is a limit to how infrequent we can train a muscle and still make progress
>Any time that I've tried it (currently in the middle of giving it a proper n=1 experiment), I have only ever gotten stronger after taking two weeks off from lifting.
you probably recovered from muscle damage for the firs time in a very long time and are fully able to exert yourself, but I don't think you can build muscle that way
>I can attest that hitting a muscle group once per week is appropriate.
I tried that myself with 0 muscle overlap between different training sessions and exercises and I stagnated and regressed in strength and in muscle size as measured with MRI and skinfolds
>Would you consider that "low"?
I would
>There's also the fact to consider that the bro split is extremely popular among bodybuilders
That's true, and I think those same bodybuilders greatly underestimate the overlap between different exercises in different training sessions
I can get a sick chest pump, chest doms and chest strength loss from a "back" workout even my triceps long head get doms things like this can explain why some people show results with low training frequency, it's because even though they don't realise it they are providing significant tension to other muscles they don't intend in training.
>That's a time-tested routine
it became the norm in the 90s but before then pretty much everyone trained with higher frequency
hard to argue against the results of what could be simply genetic high responders + roids
>>74128698
I already tried it and got weaker and slightly smaller, it was demotivating not to mention boring, even tried taking 8-12 days between training the same muscle again and got weaker still

>>74115462
>this is what nattys actually believe

>>74129913
Online nattys favorite excuse not to train hard: MUH STEROIDS

I hit a plateau and get burnt out when training more than 2 times a week or keeping a lot of volume
>THIS IS WHAT DELOADS AND PROGRAMMING ARE FOR
Wouldn't it be easier to just train less without incorporating deload days?
>NO
Why?
>[autistic screeching]

>>74130378
Because fitness decreases more slowly than fatigue.
Meaning, you could do 4 weeks of heavy training, rest/deload/taper for 2, and test, and it would give you better results than training at 2/3 of the frequency for the whole 6 weeks.

>>74128112
>infrequently even if necessary for full muscle damage recovery due to excess volume is not ideal and will lead to at least some atrophy between sessions even if the net stimulus over a week is still positive
>there are limits to it though, training a muscle directly or indirectly only every 7 days or less would make progress very difficult if not impossible
Doesn't work that way. You will not atrophy unless you're lying in a bed the entire time between workouts even if each muscle group is trained only once a week. The majority of the research supports this. Even if one workout was the only one done during that 7 days, basic housework and just moving around is enough to prevent all atrophy in that relatively short time period. Atrophy does not happen after that in any significant quantity until after about 2-3 weeks.

When it comes to the papers on frequency, 3/4 papers satisfying the criteria for level 2 evidence or higher show little to no difference between low frequency and high frequency when volume is equated. The only paper that does have high frequency as a recommendation is the Schoenfeld paper.
>https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsr/29/7/article-p1024.xml

>>74127937
>strength =\= net protein balance
When neurological factors are removed, strength = myofibril size. The only way to increase strength regardless of definition or method of measurement in the long term is myofibrilar hypertrophy.
>Protein balance
At best a predictor of whether or not growth can occur. Not a measurement of whether it is or has occurred in general.
>strength is multifaceted
Yes. However, for the upper body, strength correlates significantly to muscle size. Increases in strength cannot occur in the upper body without increases in muscle mass in the upper body. Leg muscles still correlate quite closely. But there is a greater motor learning effect.
>your muscle fibers can't tell the difference
They can.
>it's just that immobilization renders all muscle fibers in a muscle inactive as opposed to just the fast twitch ones during regular detraining
The type 2 fibers will not start to atrophy because you're not artificially timing your workouts to some misinterpretation of results on your part or if you put off a training session a day or two.
>if you were right that it takes 3 weeks for muscle to just start shrinking then why do bodybuilders never train muscles with that degree of frequency?
Myofibrils are maintained by the body for a relatively long time. Sarcoplasm (essentially a relatively long term version of the pump) is removed quickly. A bodybuilder who doesn't care about what's in their muscles and wants to be as big as possible will take as much pump as possible. It's been noted that east coast bodybuilders who often lifted heavy and to failure had denser muscles that could mostly remain for some time after not training while west coast who mostly did the fluff and pump often had fluffy looking muscles that disappeared quickly after a couple weeks of no training. This is also why many look flat on a cut.

>>74127937
>better yet, why does no one progress training a muscle every 14 days or so?
Simple. Because the 14 days idea was just a reaction of Mike Mentzer to an extremely small portion of trainees who didn't recover very well. Most people don't need nearly that much recovery time. With the assistance of steroids (the main purpose of which is to accelerate recovery), someone can train even more frequently. Why take two weeks off from training a muscle group if you get stronger with only one week? Or maybe with only 3-6 days between dedicated workouts? Training frequency is determined by the individual's recovery time. Not by the most extreme cases.

>>74131632
I think these intervals between trainings from the end-Mentzer content border on schizo shit, but ~2 trainings a week should be easily palatable for most, even 1,5 would be fairly optimal imo

>>74131632
This reminds me: If I remember correctly, in Arthur Jones 1997 publication (I want to say chapter 14), he mentions one of his test subjects, a woman, who would only get weaker if trained at a frequency greater than once every three weeks. She was an extreme outlier and the vast majority of his subjects were trained at a higher frequency.

>>74115111
This is true. It's really for advanced lifters. Newbies have to build up strength in their tendons and their mindset. As someone who doesn't care about my legs, I just do his legs portion and it works. Especially the one static rep Leg Extensions technique.

>>74119761
because in 1975, open was the classic, you retard. Did you think the Arnold Classic existed when Arnold was competing you stupid fuck?

>>74120981
>and fire his nervous system to eek out 2-3 more reps.
Good. Now ask yourself, if you/he/someone did that, you really think they need to do another set or have something left in the tank to work another body part and get the same results? If you say YES, obviously you've never done it. Please don't reply. I'm so mentally exerted I have to wait 6 days to respond.

>>74115078
Did that now i no longer go the gym, i figure if it's all about time under tension thqn why waste time and money on weights ? I just do calisthenics to failure and get better pumps specially with the nice weather and b3ing able to workout shirtless

>>74115078
Bros litally just do a 3-4 day split, up the weight/reps every week, don't go over 12 sets per bodypart,do it to failure/close to failure, eat, sleep

Stop posting studies, graphs,pyramids,methheads and 'trained' men who can't bench 2 plates

>>74120746
I find it easy to believe someone who believes
>exercise science is complete dog shit
Is an idiot who knows nothing

I find it hard to believe somene who lifts thinks
>only two levels of intensity can be accurately measured: 0% and 100%
Everyone knows a night of bad sleep changes the intensity you bring to a lift which limits the weight you can lift to exhaustion while maintaining a perfect form. Its pretty much common sense you can only perform at 100% performance range with 100% intensity.

If you are only capable of 80% intensity in a set only put 80% on the bar. Its adapting to the situation. It is not about idealism. Obviously you should examine why you can't bring 100%. And absolutely 99% of the people in the gym do not bring 100% intensity. But you can track it easily with an HR monitor.

Besides which, power output proxies, heart rate variability, all kinds of metrics track this stuff. Ex. science isn't about subjective bullshit

>>74133117
>this idiot thinks that heart rate is a proxy for mechanical tension
Holy shit guys lmao, get a load of this

>>74115078
Interesting how one of the things that makes Metzner and his peers look "Golden Age"
>no super overdeveloped traps
>no super overdeveloped cannonball delts

There's clearly a level of T or tren or whatever that supercharges the yoke gains. There's no other explanation for how every serious gym now has a guy with "better" delts than the pre-90's Olympians.

>>74133145
Your basic misunderstanding is the body isn't an experiemental apparatus. The failure point is well before mechanical tension maxima is reached in the muscles involved.

>>74133195
>the body isn’t an experimental apparatus
>stare at a heart rate monitor during your set
Serious question: Even if your heart rate serves as a proxy for mechanical tension or intensity, why should anyone use a monitor for their training? If you go to failure, you’re GUARANTEED to pass through whatever tension/intensity threshold is required to stimulate growth. Do you really think staring at a monitor during a set is going to help you lift weights?

>>74133117
>thinks 100% intensity is static

Why do people conveniently ignore that he was blasting gear? Any kind of training works when you blast and cruise, lol.

I'm a noob and I've been taking some bits from his routines purely because of a lack of time, i just can't get to the gym more than twice a week.
I haven't been strictly following his routines or anything, so take it with a grain of salt, but what I've experienced is that his high intensity ideas are really great for muscle groups that are already strong, but I'm not really making gains in the muscle groups that are smaller and weaker. I just can't push hard enough into the weaker muscle groups to actually fully benefit from the type of training he recommended and i feel like i need to be doing more volume.
This is all exacerbated by me being a twig at the moment, as I'm in recovery from a shoulder surgery after an injury put me on my ass for nearly a year.

In short, great when you've already got the foundation laid, but not a place to start.