Minimum Effective Dose
>training more than once a monthYour gainz are going down the toilet
>>77503251Did he only take the minimum effective dose of steroids?
>>77503251Amateur, bow before me.Can't wait to finish the cut so I can go back to 3.
>>77503251Works great for maintence but it's a razors edge between gaining and maintaining when it's that low
>>77503251Daily reminder that every exercise trial conducted on trained lifters that tested 1x a week training frequency per muscle group has shown that hypertrophy does not occur even with 3-5 sets
>>77503251>hundreds of different training methodologies>infinite combinations of variables: reps, sets, total volume, frequency, intensity, exercise selection, split type, pauses, tempo etc.>ALWAYS structured around 7-day intervalsWagecuck mentality
>>77503988That doesn't make sense or is being misquoted.If you mean that it doesn't generate enough hypertrophy to outpace atrophy to cause quantifiable increases I'd believe that.But saying the mechanism itself just doesn't work because of frequency being too low is wrong.
>>77503251Effective how exactly. Sounds like you'll both be undertrained in strength and stamina? Ready for your shitty thread to be derailed? Post body?
>>77504003>That doesn't make sense or is being misquoted.It makes perfect sense actually.>If you mean that it doesn't generate enough hypertrophy to outpace atrophy to cause quantifiable increases I'd believe that.That's exactly what is implied.
>>77503251This part of his life is the meth speaking. It's sad.
>>77503251Mike was right about going to failure, but I have NEVER seen anyone with an amazing body from doing only 2 days a week at the gym. He was either lying, or hiding the fact that roids played a critical role in growth.
>>77504288John Heart, Student of Mike Mentzer >Mr America overall winner 2013>2x Light Heavyweight Mr America 2012 & 2013>Natural Mr Universe (Tall) 2001
>>77503998Dogs gotta eat
>>77504300dogs also crap
>>77503251>the Mike Mentzer training MethO.D.>dies of heart ACK>>77504299>John Heart, Student of Mike Mentzer>still alive and fairly huge despite O.P. O.G. DYEL training...moral of the story here is don't skip cardiac rejuvenation day in ur compound stack? Picrel.
One rep per year.
>>77503988ummm sauce?
>>77503251>>77503428>>77504299Arnold won.
>>77504036>has shown that hypertrophy does not occurIs not the same as>Did not generate enough hypertrophy to outpace atrophy.You understand that right?>has shown that hypertrophy does not occurImplies there is a failure of the underlying biological processes to even initiate.
>>77503913Roids are the key.
looking in the general direction of the rack once per life time
>>77503251with steroids
>>77504299His apparent success is perfectly explained by the fact that he never trained the same way all year around and he also ignores the huge amount of muscle overlap throughout his training week in his various different training routines in the past, muscle activity he personally had outside of the gym, or the fact that multiple exercises were done for the same muscle group even if volume per exercise was very low.Like most anecdotes you have to take them with a grain of salt, people tend to have a very selective memory or completely miss on key details that make all the difference.This is why we have exercise trials in which subjects are forced to train a specific way, and every single study that actually tested this low frequency HIT type of training shows that gains in trained lifters are pretty much impossible.>>77504381The entirety of the muscle maintenance literature, Mpampoulis et al 2024 being the best example.>>77504404Yes I understand that is how you interpret what I meant even though it is completely irrational because pretty much everyone knows even just 1 set is enough for a training stimulus no matter one's training status.But just in case you're not the only one here who's confused I will make this as clear and as short as possible:Training a muscle only once a week even with 3-5 sets per session fails to achieve any growth in a training block.Any progress is completely inhibited if training frequency is low enough.
>>77505110>Yes I understand that is how you interpret what I meant even though it is completely irrational because pretty much everyone knows even just 1 set is enough for a training stimulus no matter one's training statusStop trying to pass off your jackassery as others mistakes. If you're going to be the "oh my science" guy you have to hold yourself to its conventions and intentionally inflexible language.
>>77503251No but really we've all set PR's after not doing an exercise for weeks or even months. So explain that atheists
>>77503251Almost like he was a failure who lost 4 Olympics before literally crying on stage then quitting the sport forever to become a meth addicted personal trainer who's heart exploded in his 40s.
>>77503428Is this the power of anabolics, meth, and being 5'3?
>>77503447He took quite a bit more than his contemporaries
>THINKING of hitting the gym once per year
Can anyone who lifts respond and tell me how long after a brutal leg session they need to rest before they can PRbecause for me its genuinely 9 days or so
>>77503251The fact that his style of training requires such long recovery is evidence to why it's suboptimal. Muscle growth stimulus lasts only 48 hours, so, the key should be not maximise stimulus but minimise recovery time, so that you can be stimulated as often as you can. That said, HIT is the most fun way to train and easiest to be consistent with, which is why so many people see such growth with it.
>>77505384It's relative to the output. The neurological aspects of strength recovery take longer than the physical processes which are done in the majority of humans after 3-5 days.I don't have all the graphs or put much stock in them but the general trend is more sets in a session at higher intensity longer recovery, with the additional criteria that muscle groups do not all recover at the same rate and are not equally impaired by training.
>>77505611i do one very light warm up and then do this>2x9-12 of smith lunges>2x10-20 of leg curlMy smith lunges are about 180, they are fucking brutal and my legs are gigantic, idk how anyone could do this and go back in after 3 daysmaybe 5 but not a pr for me for sure
Drop the dumbbells and slowly step away from the rack.
>>77505394>That said, HIT is the most fun way to train and easiest to be consistent withbro what mentzer style heavy duty training is fucking soul grindingly grueling
>>77505304>Stop trying to pass off your jackassery as others mistakesRight back at you.Your misinterpretation of something very basic and intuitive is not any one else's fault, certainly not mine as I was more than clear and concise enough, and it is also completely and utterly irrelevant.Furthermore, you got your clarification just now and your petty response added nothing to the conversation.>>77505644No one should do heavy duty, but it isn't hard or tough in any way whatsoever.
>>77505654It is completely your fault for making misleading and wrong summary of information and introducing that as a counterpoint to this thread. Having me correct you and then "yeah that's what i meant". If the point of sharing information is to elucidate a topic it needs to be shared with as little interpretive space as possible. This is why people ask for sources because you chuds cannot be trusted to communicate information without putting a spin on it or reinterpreting incorrectly.
>>77505311>I'm completely rested, CNS chilling and full of glycogenOMG A NEW PR! IT'S THE MEME TRAINING WORKING
>>77505315As a Mentzer (the person, not the training) fan, who reads a lot about him, this is perfectly accurate lmao.He's an interesting guy though
>>77505621>gigantic legsPost it
>>77505315olympics? fucking retardedhe was the only competitor to have ever scored a 300/300 up to that point>>77506373not really, retard
>>77506386>not really, retardWhy
>>77506156I wasn't misleading or wrong in any way though, you're just now being petty for some reason which I can only assume comes from a place of pure emotion.
>>77505621>idk how anyone could do this and go back in after 3 dayssomeone who did legs every 48h from the start will be able to eventually do those numbers every 48hmentzer is a hack
>>77505644Doing 10-20 sets a week per muscle is much worse. Training one or two sets to failure with drop sets or myo reps is much more fun.
>>77506640You think I'm being petty when you're perfectly content to spread misinformation and can't admit you made a mistake?
>>77503251I get really weak if i take a week off
>>77506759>drop setsLmao
>>77505319He was 5'9, same as Frank Zane. Here they are next to 6'2 Arnold. It lines up
>>77506875Take a weak off to see if you get really week
>>77504386Everyone in the 80's stopped doing the pump gimmick and started to do less volume for more results. Most of them didn't go all the way to the extremes Mike pushed later, but they certainly took his advice and reduced volume. They all ended up bigger and leaner than everyone before. Even most of the pro's today who don't do HIT are doing 20 sets at most per week on their bro splits for any muscle. That's nothing close to the 56 sets per week Arnold did for biceps alone. Arnold might have won the contest and turned himself as the ambassador to bodybuilding. But Mike fundamentally changed how everyone trained from the ultra high volume to more moderate volumes and in some cases low volume such as with Dorian Yates.
>>77503251Mentzer has been made obsolete by the Doggcrapp™
>>77503251Cardio 3 times a weekUpper 2-3 times a weekperfect for leanmaxxing and maintaining an athletic body
>>77506822I didn't spread misinformation in any way whatsoever though, you seem to be confused.And again, you added absolutely nothing to the conversation.Here, I will even copy paste what I shared in my very first post just so you can read it again, carefully this time hopefully.>Daily reminder that every exercise trial conducted on trained lifters that tested 1x a week training frequency per muscle group has shown that hypertrophy does not occur even with 3-5 sets"exercise trial"as in not a single training session"1x a week training frequency per muscle group"not just one exercise bout but training a muscle group once every 7 days"hypertrophy does not occur even with 3-5 sets"according to CSA and MT measurements post training, as in not after a single exercise boutSimple, correct, concise.If you still don't get it that's a "you" problem and something you should work on.
>>77510827this + clean diet = perfect training regimenand "clean diet" can be as simple as just not eating high sugar junk food
>>77503251This is correct
>>77505110>Mpampoulis et al 2024Okay let us look at the results>aerobic fitness decreased significantlyThis is to be expected because aerobic fitness is basically defined by volume accumulation. You run longer, you've done more volume of running. You reduce your running volume, your adaptations will suffer. >resistance-induced adaptations were preserved in all groups:^)>muscle size only decreased in the biweekly groupRelevant to Mentzer's bullshit but you're making the argument that once-a-week frequency isn't enough which is wrong.>untrained individualsYou're trying to extrapolate this to highly-advanced trainees who were the target of that lower frequency method Mentzer suggested. People not in that camp had a 1x a week PPL in his last works. Basically a brosplit. You're also going to try and bullshit us that these untrained people were training to failure, when you can go to any gym in the world and find 99% of people training at an aerobic pace. Usually they don't even sweat.The resistance training program worked off of a % of 1RM. Man these untrained novices definitely know their 1RM and definitely aren't working with incorrect, self-reported estimates. Also it didn't test high-intensity sets nor was the objective of the study to find what frequency gets more gains. You once again extrapolated there.You're not even reading the shit you're bringing up because you're emotional about your 2018 dogma about high frequency training. It's more nuanced than just "more workouts = more gooder :)" Are we going to test daily frequency with soup can curls vs once week intensive brosplit arm sessions? Or are you going to extrapolate to protect your emotional dogma? You chose the latter.
>>77511175Not him but FWIW, Doug McGuff has been studying low volume 1xweek full body for about 2 decades now. To your point about random movement outside the gym, he calls that NEAT (Non-Exercise AcTvity) and says it's enough to keep you going when you drop extraneous cardio (all of it) and lift with intensity.
> be me> HyperMentzer> look at picture of a barbell> “great workout”> rest two months> look again > accidentally rest three months> gains go parabolic> strength increases by 500 kg> every lift, every hour> grow taller> larger than buildings> gains still coming> block out the sun> consume this planet> still gaining> mfw
>>77510757Doggcrapp is for rounders blasting and cruising non stop
>>77503988>>77505110Cool story name the biggest bodybuilder you can think of who does legs more than once a week.
