Thoughts On Mike Mentzer’s Philosophy??

[Son Goku]

This thread.

 

[xXMASHERXx]

This thread.

I feel like we went down a rabbit hole and I have no idea what we are even discussing now

 

[The ADD]

 

[Son Goku]

I don't train to muscular or technical failure 99.9% of the time and add in hella junk volume.

Points 3 and 4 are non-negotiable though.

 

[Neuromancer]

I think he's mostly right.

 

[Remote]

I think he's mostly right.

Dorian Yates had a basic explanation he shares often.

Basically he says:

If you take a piece of sandpaper and you rub it against your hands until it begins to bleed, if you leave it alone, it will heal back a little bit tougher. But if the next day you take another piece of sandpaper and rub it, you’re just gonna have bloody hands.

Now Mentzer had a more detailed argument but the idea is the same. In Mentzer’s words, what I remember anyway, is that 24 hours is simply not enough time for the body to recover. You don’t build muscle in the gym. You breakdown muscle in the gym. The growth and recovery happens when you’re NOT training. And 1 day or 2 days or maybe even 3 days isn’t enough time for the body to recover and grow. So, train with intensity to stimulate the growth. But we have to allow time for the recovery or else you’re just gonna have bloody hands…to come back to Yates’ analogy.

 

[Biscayne]

High volume training ain’t gonna make you look like Arnold neither. People get angry at Mentzer philosophy because they don’t think it’s realistic to get optimal results while spending little time in the gym and doing low volume. They’ll say he was on roids, as if volume bodybuilders weren’t on roids neither. Fact of the matter is, you don’t need high volume and hours in the gym to achieve a solid natty physique. If you want a physique like Mentzer, you’ll need roids. But same goes for a volume physique like Arnold’s too.

 

[nasty]

Mentzer was right about a lot of things. High volume training is outdated and will be laughed at 10 years from now

 

[Son Goku]

High volume training ain’t gonna make you look like Arnold neither. People get angry at Mentzer philosophy because they don’t think it’s realistic to get optimal results while spending little time in the gym and doing low volume. They’ll say he was on roids, as if volume bodybuilders weren’t on roids neither. Fact of the matter is, you don’t need high volume and hours in the gym to achieve a solid natty physique. If you want a physique like Mentzer, you’ll need roids. But same goes for a volume physique like Arnold’s too.

Comparing the effectiveness of routines ran by enhanced dudes for natties is pointless IMO.

We already know roids will literally let you build muscle sitting on the couch and doing nothing, so one pro's philosophy vs another's has no bearing on unenhanced individuals lacking elite genetics.


There are also many, many points in-between the Doggcrapp/Mentzer "low volume" splits and Arnold’s 2-a-day “high volume” split, as those are both on their respective sides of the spectrum.

If a routine doesn't elicit a growth response in *you*, its volume is too low, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it.


I'd prolly rock with the MM philosophy if I saw verifiable natties doing it with any type of success.


Most of the folks in the gym don't do too much volume, they do too little. Yes, volume is highly variable but the amount that becomes too much is only the point at which you can't recover from it.


It's also not intuitively effective for powerlifting or strength sports.


/rant

 

[Remote]

None of the above addresses Mentzer’s argument that intensity is what builds muscle. Not volume.

The 10th rep of a set does more to build muscle than the 1st rep. Not because it’s the tenth, and therefore volume, but because that rep has more intensity. So since you’re looking for intensity, get there at a lower rep number and don’t waste time and energy doing the rest.

Dude just posted a bunch of “different strokes” babble to justify spending hours at the gym. Then claims Mentzer’s program only works for steroid users like Mentzer, Yates and Arthur Jones didn’t train and work with tons of people who didn’t use steroids.

 

[Biscayne]

Comparing the effectiveness of routines ran by enhanced dudes for natties is pointless IMO.

We already know roids will literally let you build muscle sitting on the couch and doing nothing, so one pro's philosophy vs another's has no bearing on unenhanced individuals lacking elite genetics.


There are also many, many points in-between the Doggcrapp/Mentzer "low volume" splits and Arnold’s 2-a-day “high volume” split, as those are both on their respective sides of the spectrum.

If a routine doesn't elicit a growth response in *you*, its volume is too low, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it.


I'd prolly rock with the MM philosophy if I saw verifiable natties doing it with any type of success.


Most of the folks in the gym don't do too much volume, they do too little. Yes, volume is highly variable but the amount that becomes too much is only the point at which you can't recover from it.


It's also not intuitively effective for powerlifting or strength sports.


/rant

You made a good point than contradict it. You said whichever results stimulate the most growth in you* should be the go to. But then you say most of the flabby folks at the gym do low volume “therefore…” as positive proof of the non-efficacy of MMs philosophy. But are these flabby folks low volume folks, ppl you know personally or see at the gym routinely(IE every 2-3-4 days?). Are you clocking their weekly workout duration? The Mentzer detractors are the ones who don’t provide nuance and balance. They just deduce that his volume is too low, and that’s that! Again, stimulating muscle growth can be done multiple ways! We’re all a sum of our genetic makeup. Some people need intense but lower volume, while others may need volume and intensity.

Furthermore, how do you know someone is a verifiable natty?

 

[Son Goku]

You made a good point than contradict it. You said whichever results stimulate the most growth in you* should be the go to. But then you say most of the flabby folks at the gym do low volume “therefore…” as positive proof of the non-efficacy of MMs philosophy. But are these flabby folks low volume folks, ppl you know personally or see at the gym routinely(IE every 2-3-4 days?). Are you clocking their weekly workout duration? The Mentzer detractors are the ones who don’t provide nuance and balance. They just deduce that his volume is too low, and that’s that! Again, stimulating muscle growth can be done multiple ways! We’re all a sum of our genetic makeup. Some people need intense but lower volume, while others may need volume and intensity.

Furthermore, how do you know someone is a verifiable natty?

'Kay.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

It is interesting his training philosophy isn't talked about much. I wonder if there was ever a case study to prove if it worked or not.

 

[Remote]

It is interesting his training philosophy isn't talked about much. I wonder if there was ever a case study to prove if it worked or not.

Here’s the thing.

Every time Mentzer or Yates is brought up, people say:

“Well, it worked for them because they took steroids”

Well hold on a second.
Arnold took steroids too. So did a lot of other guys.

So let’s put this on balance.

Arnold and Yates both took steroids. That effectively cancels each other out. Right?

Now Arnold was out here doing 30 sets per body part, training hours per day, 5-6 days per week. And he had a good physique.

Yates was out here doing half that that volume, probably less. And he had a good physique. Better than Arnold’s, although maybe that’s a matter of taste.

I find it silly to pretend it’s better to choose Arnold’s approach over Dorian’s/Mentzer’s.

The whole steroids argument is a deflection.
What argument is there for volume over intensity?

People read the word “intensity” and think it means all out balls to the wall. Intensity is a relative term. But people understand what it means in general. A pro bodybuilder’s intensity may look different than a beginner’s. But the relative effort is probably similar.

 

[xXMASHERXx]

Here’s the thing.

Every time Mentzer or Yates is brought up, people say:

“Well, it worked for them because they took steroids”

Well hold on a second.
Arnold took steroids too. So did a lot of other guys.

So let’s put this on balance.

Arnold and Yates both took steroids. That effectively cancels each other out. Right?

Now Arnold was out here doing 30 sets per body part, training hours per day, 5-6 days per week. And he had a good physique.

Yates was out here doing half that that volume, probably less. And he had a good physique. Better than Arnold’s, although maybe that’s a matter of taste.

I find it silly to pretend it’s better to choose Arnold’s approach over Dorian’s/Mentzer’s.

The whole steroids argument is a deflection.
What argument is there for volume over intensity?

People read the word “intensity” and think it means all out balls to the wall. Intensity is a relative term. But people understand what it means in general. A pro bodybuilder’s intensity may look different than a beginner’s. But the relative effort is probably similar.

But this isn't true at all. A beginner is still learning how to lift properly so they effort isn't going to be anywhere similar. This is precisely why I originally said I agree with his philosophy in theory but it doesn't apply for every case/person.