@@vivalarazausarmyvet4453 because all the runner ups looked like total sht, right? What's your point? OP's point still stands: most of us won't achieve those runner up physiques either lol (even with gear - it will only take you so far contingent on your genetics)
You're downplaying just how much of a shitshow the 1980 olympia was. It was outright rigged by the promoters. It sucks that mentzer gave up after, but the 1980 olympia (and the 1981 olympia) were a disgrace.
Yes but Mentzer never had a chance. It was his first time, he came fifth and was noticeably worse than Arnold. For him it was just an excuse for outrage. There have been Olympias with much worse. Yates winning with a torn bicep, Columbo winning with gyno.
@@user-he4ef9br7z delusional arnoldcuck posting. Arnold wasn't even top 10 at that olympia. They've asked the other 1980 olympia people who they thought should have won and Mentzer was the most mentioned name, followed by boyer coe.
@@user-he4ef9br7zi dunno, if you look at the pictures and videos from the show (admittedly they aren’t much to go on), Mike genuinely beats Arnold in most areas besides height. Perhaps Mike shouldn’t have won, but Arnold should definitely shouldn’t have either. The crowd agreed, many of the judges agreed, and so on. I def think though that if Arnold placed fairly, there would have been no controversy and Mike wouldn’t have been so buthurt that he quit.
Tom Platz is proof that there's a little something more to training intensity + volume allowing adaptation far beyond what either intensity or volume alone can offer.
Not necessarily you could argue he built his legs with higher intensity since he did that at the start. And as you get more jacked the less volume you need, he also had great genetics so he could get away with less volume.
@@josemarialaguinge He built his legs with intensity and crippling amounts of volume. If you haven't seen the amount of volume in one of his leg workouts, take a look.
@@Felale your missing the point, im not disagreeing that intensity is important because i believe it is you just cant use a singular humans training style to prove a point
@@Felale You realize he only worked legs like 2 times per month at some points right? If you consider that then his volume suddenly becomes more reasonable
@@kane6529 You make a good point. Kirk karwoski had some of the strongest and biggest legs in powerlifting history. His leg workout? Ramp up to one heavy set of barbell squats in the 2-8 rep range, then go home. Thats it. And he was able to build up to an 800 for 5 reps raw squat by doing this. Had 36 inch thighs lean too.
Mentzer's WORST mistake was how he let the 1980 Olympia affect his life. He had a tantrum and became a bitter drug addict. And I'm not talking about anabolics. Instead of considering that Arnold's win in a beauty pageant was to make the "sport" more popular and promote it, and then just waiting another year and going in for his win, Mike let it get to him and never got over it.
Mentzer's worst mistake was coming out and admitting that he did steroids. Everyone else claimed to be natural and that the reason for their development were the bullshit supplements that Weider was paying them to say worked.
Yeah it’s a shame that he let a tantrum seemingly define the rest of his life. He was clearly Devestated by placing 5th but if he had just stuck it through he likely would have been a future mr O. It’s a shame really
Tried Mentzer-style training, the only change was that I added myoreps and dropsets to increase the intensity further. After 3 months it got stale, but I got very good results during those 3 months. As soon as it got stale I switched it up for something else. Maybe I return to it sometime in the future and do another 3 months. Try it and see for yourself. Think for yourself, do not just blindly trust youtubers, or Mike Mentzer. We can theorize all day and convince ourselves into anything. Practice > Theory.
I've been doing this stuff since 1978. Totally agree, you have to find out what works for you. I've actually combined periodization with HIT (I actually do 2 working sets, there's no rule stating HIT has to only be one set). Using three micro cycles of different repetitions within a 12 week macrocycle has worked better for me than anything else. It's also quite efficient. This is where keeping a training log comes in. People slamming other's approaches to training is getting old. Use what works for you and fits into your lifestyle.
Thanks for acknowledging that HIT can work-at least to an extent. When one looks at what Menzter’s contributions were apart from the whole Jones/Viator “experiment”, it was fairly innovating thinking. It would certainly be a mistake to assume it’s the end-all-be-all of training, but for us average joe’s who may have less time available for training, the philosophy/approach behind it opened up avenues to size and strength that didn’t seem accessible or possible before-dare I say more than “fives”?
HIT can work as a deload. Lol its work because people was coming out from a high volume training cycle. That is why you cant doing the same thing over and over . Even Dorian Yates doesnt train like that more than 4-6 weeks.
I've been training for 46 of my 60 years on this planet and I've come to learn one thing --- it all works. You just have to find the one that works for you, and be consistent. The shame about Mike Mentzer is that he is no longer alive to defend himself, not that he has to defend himself for anything.
I think Platz had the best training principle (I guess they all did in a sense), never leave that last 5% in the gym. Essentially, the more intensity you put into the training the better results you'll get as long as you're smart. IMO the best way to train is by committing to something you'll actually do with maximum exertion.
easy way to write off mentzner is the FACT he only followed his own training dogma AFTER he already built 95% of his physique. it’s the age old fallacy of the fitness community “GUYS DO THESE EXERCISES FOR BIG GAINS” “did you build your physique with them?” “oh no i only started them a few months ago” (they’ve been lifting a decade now)
Easy way to justify Mentzer is the hundreds if not thousands of successful clients he PT’d including pro bodybuilders and even influenced a 6 time Mr. O champion
@@nick191088he told Dorian that he did too much volume constantly lol. Dorian did intense sets past failure but he was clearly sneaking in volume with his pre-fatigue sets
Plus, it’s well known that Mentzer was so obsessed with not losing, that he often added sets into his routine. Thus, he was a liar. Not exactly dogmatic, if you ask me.
There is one thing that menztner haters don't realize . I like to hit every body part twice a week and I only like to train 4 days a week and I cam maintain my intensity only for about an hour .. Now with that , if did 1 or 2 warm up sets and 3 work sets with2_rir for each exercise for 3 exercises for each body part ,id be in the gym for 2 1/2 hours per session . Now doing one failure set or beyond failure set per exercise for 3 exercises each body part ,I can be out of the gym in an hour . Now even if the menztner haters are right and one set to failure or beyond only gets you 85% of the gains of 3 sets with 2 rir , then if I can get 85 % of the gains in an hour v training for 2 1/2 hours ,then unless you are a pro ,WHO WOUKDNT TAKE THAT ? and for the record ,if I take a set beyond failure , eg cable curls by going one set to failure, then 2 immediate drop sets to failure , total 20 reps ,hitting failure 3 times I believe ill get more hypertrophy than 3 sets with a 2 min rest in between with 2 rir on each set . but if I'm wrong ill take the the 85% of hypertrophy of doing 3 normal sets
The only constant across all strength training that I’ve observed is that the muscle should be trained to the point that it loses contractile ability and no longer recovers that lost strength during the workout. This point can be reached in 1 set or 100. Training strategies can be used to prolong or speed up the process so depending on someone’s goals they can prioritise time efficient workouts or more sets practicing a skill for competition eg powerlifting, strongman etc.
Exactly. That is what I have found in my observations and personal experience. I think a lot of this HIT v Volume debate really dances around the intensity/failure variable in training - which is the stimulating variable and therefore the variable of most consequences. The volume proponents never seem to address the fact that intensity/failure is necessary to stimulate growth no matter how many sets it takes to accomplish that stimulus. I think the reason they don't acknowledge the necessity of intensity is that they worry they'll give too much credit to HIT as a whole. This is the first video I have seen that actually zeros in on the "only one set" aspect of HIT so at least it is tailored enough to criticize just the "workload" of HIT. That's a fair argument to make since he's actually comparing apples to apples. I don't agree with the argument but it is at least more logical than most.
I mean if you've exhausted every last aspect of training, including building your base with high volume, then yes go ahead and enjoy what Mike figured out when it comes to getting just a little bit more past your potential, just don't sell it as a superlative to a bunch of newbies and intermediates, Mike.
@@EnigmaticAnamolydid volume training for 16 years, then had a kid and had to adjust. Found mentzer and Yates training styles, and for me at this stage they work awesome. Saves me time and can maintain/have even built some muscle in certain areas. Would recommend anyone to at least give it a try. Makes the workout more exciting as well.
@@christophermilan8908that works well for you having had built a base, and got experience. I do love 15min workouts and i love a 3-4hr leg day, and others in each week. If you know what you're doing you can cycle&grow through a lot of these high intensities, but it's not for everyone, it's not always sustainable, and without variation you'll still plateau. Mike shouldn't advertise to the GenPop
Why should have Mike wanted to continue these competitions, if it was clear to everyone that they were not fair hence the boycott. What is the message of this video? Winning at all costs? Even if you don't deserve it like 1980 Arnold? I don't get it. Participating in rigged games is fone as long as you win?
Honestly, if he could've built a brand around ust being a high level competitor he probably could've done a lot better for himself, or he could've gone back to med school or something else. Man was pretty smart when he wanted to be. You make a great point though. If you give everything you have to bodybuilding and it's so obviously rigged then why continue? Especially back then when body building didn't have the respectability from society as a sport/competition it does now. It was really more, that thing the big famous muscle guy names Arnold did.
For me, from my own observation what I’ve noticed in my own life is that my friends who lift and who claim to stand for HIT training tend to be some of the most inconsistent and almost lazy gym goers, they end up making little to no progress. They’ll stand behind the inconsistency and lack of progress with “Well I just do HIT training, Mike Mentzer style stuff, I train to failure”, it’s for me the equivalent if you had a Math test and decided to cram 6-7 hours of math the day before, that’s not how skills and techniques are developed, they’re developed with Volume and Practice. I don’t think you need to make the gym your life, however I do think it’s equally stupid to think loads of progress can be made in 1 if not 2 sessions a week. In my own experience I’ve used HIT during times of stress where lifting had to go on the back burner and something was better than nothing, it did help me keep my gains.
QUESTION: TWO DIFFERENT MENTZERS IN REGARDS TO FREQUENCY? I think it's worth noting there seems to be a difference between the HIT training Mentzer proposed in the 1970s and early 1980s-when he was still competing and before his mental breakdown-and the training he advocated in the 1990s and early 2000s. A difference between the young and the old Mentzer, if you like. While the common theme of low volume and gruesome intensity techniques (like pre-exhaust supersets, forced reps, and rest-pause) remains core in both, there is a stark contrast on how he treated frequency in each period. The "young Mike", perhaps still informed by his own training, advocated training each muscle group TWICE per week (you can find his old videos on TH-cam prescribing just that). While the "old Mike", vocally resentful about the injustices in his past and completely out of shape, began to promote more controversial ideas about training each muscle group only once every two weeks (!) and the like. And most people seem to resort to the programs of this second version of Mentzer and treat them as if stemming from his glorious days, which is just not the case. I think Mentzer became his own enemy in the end, which is a shame. He started espousing more extreme, stereotyped thoughts based on his former tenets, but in an exaggerated way-fueled perhaps by his desire for being recognized as an authority and vindicating his past. This view makes sense if you correlate the changes in his ideas with his trajectory in life. But it's just my opinion, of course. I'm sure many would disagree.
Here's my issue with the HIT VS HIGH VOLUME debate... We live in an era where social media has a made bodybuilding a LAUGHINGSTOCK and Comical to where you have EVERYONE from NO NAME NOBODYS' to "FITNESS INFLUENCERS" that are ALL "experts" when it comes to training.... ALL IN THE NAME OF SUCKERY and NARCISSISM. There are SOOOOOOOO MANY people that would love to get into the gym or learn to lift but unfortunately with not only ALL the COPY AND PASTE content on social media(everyone trying to "reinvent the wheel"), but they have taken these two SOLID forms of bodybuilding training and pimped it out to where even Mik Mentzer HIMSELF would be flabbergasted how his HIT training methods have been bastardized. LOVE the video
I love your stuff in general, but I want to give a special shoutout because you're legit the only dude on youtube who pronounces Franco's last name correctly.
Agree with most of this. Before Encyclopedia, only a few bb books - 2 Weider books similar to Arnold's Encyclopedia but years earlier), a few Weider compilations of mag articles, Gold's Gym book, Arnold bio (1/2 training). Much was mailorder booklets by only a few people so Mentzer's 60 pages was long back then. Arnold and Mentzer sold mailorder courses, about 10 pages each. Arnold's mass training booklet was 10 basic movements, 3 workouts/week, 5 sets each (8,8,6,6,6), full body. Do until actually big and strong, then do a split. Nothing like it in the Encyclopedia. Never knew if he wrote the booklet or the book. My guess is none of the above. Mentzer wrote many articles for Weider, but many were republished every couple of years.
Although I agree that Mentzer should have kept his head high after 1980's loss, some of the 'arguments' here are just personal attacks that don't make sense. He seemed to be a perfectionist, but for example, what is the point of bashing his book for the number of pages? Do you know how many short books are literary masterpieces and how many long books are trash? Also, he was probably going against the tide of his own era, which is difficult for us to understand now that we have all this information. His book is responding to the high volume trend of his time, and don't we see now a decrease in volume compared to the Golden Era? He was responding to what was around him. Furthermore, it's easy to judge based on our current knowledge, but I tell you one thing: many 'science' channels here on YT are going to be seen as even worse than Mentzer in the future, which is normal due to science discoveries. Did he have it all figured out? Probably not, but who has? His shortcomings as a person have nothing to do with his methods of training.
Agreed 100% here. Mentzer was an interesting fellow, a great competitor (however briefly) and he had a killer physique but...he was basically batshit insane. I've read HD II and HIT the Mike Mentzer Way multiple times and got caught up in the "logic" of it all. As time went by I realized his supposed "One and only theory of bodybuilding training" is rife with holes, contradictions and pseudo-science (treating failure as an "objective requirement for growth", volume as a "negative with a capital N", ignoring the concept of work capacity, etc.etc.). Mike tried VERY hard to emulate his heroine philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand (whom he claimed achieved "intellectual and moral perfection") and was no doubt an Objectivist Zealot himself. He put forth some very logical arguments for his ideas but at the end of the day his claims were mostly a bunch of subjective nonsense. I can't stand listening to his lectures or watching films of him talking at seminars. he sounds smug, superior, and comes off as if he is smarter than everyone else in the room and in his chosen sport.
Mentzer was the original bro-scientist which is to say he mixed an ounce of fact with ten pounds of bullshit he just pulled out his ass. Worse than him though are his fan-boys who are more insufferable than crossfitters just like the objectivists are the most insufferable of the "philosophers."
That's true, but he was mostly correct bro. If you are natural, try training with weights 2 hours every day. I've tested it. You'll be full of overuse injuries and lack of progress. Maximum intensity of effort with brief infrequent sessions is the method in real life. How brief and how infrequent is up to the individual
Smug and a distinctly disingenuous liar. It’s very well known that he was so obsessed with not losing, that he added sets to his routine, regularly. Thus, nullifying the whole idea of HIT. It’s funny how that little fact gets ignored or glossed over, now that he’s had this sudden resurgence on TikTok and TH-cam. Just shows that people don’t do enough research and just wanna jump on the bandwagon of talking about him
You acting as if Arnold’s peaking style high volume training he did for only 3 weeks is “ all of the golden era “ is ridiculous,even Arnold did moderate to light volume during his mass gain phase a year before an Olympia contest.
At 16:00: You are so sadly accurate about Mentzer’s commitment to completing his mission. I purchased and read that thin volume 1 booklet. I purchased and stood in line for Swarzenegger to quickly autograph his book. (He was, by the way, a jerk to the last few young men in line behind my friend and I, as he capped his pen and walked away with his entourage while the three(?) guys were left standing with their books at the ready. Well, Arnold is human like the rest of us flawed folk…. I was once asked by an acquaintance to autograph a magazine cover I was featured on - not lifting related - and inquired if he was serious. He assured me that he was, so I wrote that I appreciated his friendship and signed my name; only to learn that he was in fact spoofing me…. Oh well.) One thing that I appreciate after, what, fifty-three years(?) of some form or another of concerted lifting: Giving up is giving over opportunities to make an effort; good, bad, mediocre…never though “indifferent.” Meth, cigarettes, alcohol and unsuccessfully treated mental illness has brought down many a human being with superior genetic material. Darwin didn’t exactly say that “the strongest survive,” but rather that “the most adaptable live on to pass their genes onward.” (Paraphrasing…) I’m happy not being Mike or Arnold; accountable only to my own conscience and the examples of people I gravitate to.
While the effectiveness of HIT for young bodybuilders is certainly up for debate, it is worth noting its usefulness for older lifters. When you are over 50, one set to failure and maximum recoverable volume tend to be much the same thing. After a HIT workout I am simply in no condition to jump back in for more sets. So I end up doing HIT by default. Recovery also takes a day or two. HIT may just be the perfect workout for over 50s.
Bromley, can you address the claim that with longer rest periods (3+ minutes), optimal training volume tops out at around 6 sets per muscle group? This has been used as an argument for why most volume studies are invalid (short rest periods are typically used).
Where did you hear that claim? Never heard of it, curious because that's the impression I have when I train to failure, anything above around 6-7 sets seem like junk volume, mind-muscle connection disappears and the burning sensation on the muscle simply goes numb, doesn't matter if I go to failure, it just seems like I'm going through the motions. Even so I started holding back a couple reps shy of failure and upped my volume in a phasic approach and got great progress after a plateau with failure training, probably due to it being a new stimulus, but still very interesting claim. I mean, it probably is individual, think someone like Geoffrey Verity Schofield for example, he does quite a bit of volume all to failure or even beyond, even though a claim like this may make sense to me it maybe doesn't to someone like Geoff, idk if it's genetics or increased work capacity over time though.
@@ukilledmydog9628 The extra stimulus from training to failure for a set isn't greater than training another set or two close to failure. I feel the muscle pretty well, still going past 6-7 sets. If I had more time I would train more often in that range
I would've quit, at least competing, if I witnessed such bullshit as the 1980 Olympia. Most of these shows are popularity contests first. Such a shame though, for Mentzer to give up lifting.
Maybe people shouldn’t be concerned with what these guys say but actually TRY DOFFERENT THINGS and see for yourself what works for you instead of taking sides and being fanboys. Fact is many many more people have succeeded with more volume. Many more and that is enough proof. These guys in You Tube now simply grabbed a niche and a great renaissance topic to get views and cause a stir.
I think it's moreso just a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone who cares about getting results will gravitate towards more orthodox and therefore "proven" methods. It's more risky to pursue methods outside the mainstream, therefore people who do, don't necessarily have the same passion for results and therefore likely won't try as hard, no matter what system they do.
From personal experience and observation of HiT proponents it seems to me the one thing that separates HiT from everything else is increased risk of injury.
doing 1 set is safer than let's say 15 or 30 sets you only get Injuries from training if you either do the exercise incorrectly or use alot of weight that you cannot handle
The tragedy of Mentzer was not about the 1980 show. It was a building understanding of a false premise he held. Maybe the tragedy is people gossiping without understanding. To understand what happened to Mentzer, you have to understand gaming effects on human behavior. Comparing Mentzer to Arnold is ironic. Arnold was not a shining bescon. Mentzer was not a failure. For those who don't get it - Mentzer had a faulty premise of human ideals / integrity. He was crushed by a much much larger disappointment that that contest.
You yourself mention how the Soviets first started using periodization for their athletes and the reason was that they could train harder when training on steroids compared to when cycling off them. To the average non drug using gym enthusiast or even a natural proffessional body builder, these methods are hardly of any use except to say that you can train harder when eating more and should maybe slow down a little when trying to lean down.
HIT is like super sets, pre exhaustion etc Used sparingly to add intensity and variety they all work. But the only truth that can be gleaned from training is that programming must be augmented and changed from time to time, exercises especially the most effective basic barbell and dumbbell presses, pulls, hinges and squats are skills that need repeated effort at varying loads to deliver the best results. HIT should not be discussed as a different approach but as a periodic shock principal to put one on a general path to new growth. The reality is neither Yates nor Mentzer used one set of 1 exercise per body part with 1 warm up set to build their competitive physiques. They each did several exercises and did not include a y set other than the one to failure as an actual set. They actually had more in common with competitors than what Jones Nautilus disciples were doing that got them nowhere. If you àre not strong as hell and on peds, hit is not the answer. I set of 175 to failure on bench is not getting you to 405 if you think you will continue piling on more weight and going to failure to get strong, it has never worked like that.
Just keep doing it. Both approaches work. One will work better for one person and the other will work better for another person. Whatever works best for you keep doing
Maybe don't HIT on compounds or calisthenics. The stimulus magnitude can more than make up for the amount of reps you leave in the tank for them so that you don't end up doing ugly reps for the sake of intensity. Leaves less room for injury and doesn't leave you in an unnecessarily fatigued state.. and lets you progress easier on them - which matters more. And if you can recover from it - I suppose you can also crank up the frequency dial once you get stronger and stronger - more "1-2 sets of curls" just by adding variations to those curls to be done elsewhere in the week for example. If you notice: Mentzer's training is almost exclusively machines - as they are much easier to get away with training very deep or beyond failure thanks to having only path or motion and doesn't deviate from that path. Now, on top of the fact that machines are more often garbage than they are not, they can be pretty limiting and non-functional unless you've already paid your dues with many compound and free weight movements.
In my opinion, Mike's biggest downfall was his personality. If any thought or statement contrary to what you believe is correct starts an argument instead of a discussion, people around you are going to think you're an asshole and won't want anything to do with you. The people who live their life thinking "I don't care what anyone thinks of me, I'm RIGHT!" tend to have a harder time in life. They do lend themselves do developing cults of personality though...
The saddest thing is that (whether or not you think Arnold had the best physique that night), Mike blamed Arnold for him losing the ‘80 Olympia. Dude placed 5th, overall, NOT second. How could Arnold contribute to that? Literally makes no sense, but Mike could never take ownership and was just a mentally ill methamphetamine addict
Good video. Mentzer was a drug addict, I wouldn't quite describe that as 'unwilling to commit,' Id say 'due to suffering the disease of addiction, he was unable to reach his potential.'
Training style needs to be matched with correct feeding protocol. We all know it's great to switch up training style, and also feeding should be adjusted.
Intensity in exercise to stimulate muscle growth in ANY program preference is the key to benefit you goal. The same applies to strength training and speed training. Bias is just that, biased. Necessity is the rule.
Hit only made sense in the context of the insane volume bodybuilders were doing at the time, normies arent gonna make nearly the progress they can acting like their 125 pound bench work needs a week to recover
I bet the video get a lot of downvotes for criticising Mentzer directly. People threat him like something else in most spaces you read about him. His family had hearth issues already, and his decision to go for steroids and later hard drugs maybe wasn't the best decision he could pick.
Oh my god every time body builders do that thing where they pull in their entire stomach and their ribcage outline is seen freaks me out without fail every single time. That is some body horror type shit, goddamn.
I cannot believe you made a video that translated your long standing support or high volume training over high intensity into a metaphor for how we live out our lives purpose. Unexpected banger on many levels, great job!
To tell the truth, I can’t find the training protocol Menntzer actually advocated. Some takes day once a week, some three. One set to absolute failure. Failure is terrible for strength.
Thought I was going crazy or this was a stealth re-upload before reading the description. Sucks that Bromley has to break apart the bigger vid cause it didn’t take off.
levrone and many others didn't periodize anything tho, 90's training approach was way superior than golden era training approach, on top of more drugs and bigger bulks is what made bodybuilders bigger and better than before, all the golden era guys did way too much volume
During the Nineties one would often here Dorian's rivals say that they had better genetics than him- yet none were willing to try HIT and see whether it may have worked for them.
Think Arnold would train until he puked or passed out , and heavy Duty Mike even though he hated Arnold they both had more in common but different ideas and styles of training which helped get us to where we are today. And I think if Mike would've came back for MR.O 81 he I think would've won that year , but he let his anger rob him of a better future . Like could we be watching a show called the Metzer but we will have the what if and the one thing I didn't like about the Heavy Duty was it was the only way , when you have guys like Franco who felt like it wouldn't work for him. Could it have work of course but Franco had been doing his way that led him to winning , and you going to tell Arnold that his 7 MR.O are wrong on training , sorry but now Dorian did H.I.T Heavy Duty worked for him and Ronnie did Heavy Duty & Arnold style together and became the hulk , but with Mike & Arnold ( Reg Parks ) helped body building get better & better
goddamn, the amount of judgement towards mentzer. the guy wasn't right in the head, he was a psychologically tortured individual by many accounts of people close to him. maybe we should all stop painting him as just a weak-minded asshole that threw tantrums, eh?
It's not a well thought out video. I can tell you're someone who has never truly experimented with HIT just from the way you try to describe the philosophy. Your point throughout the video is that rigid training variables don't properly account for cut and bulk cycles. Fair enough. But HIT is not necessarily a philosophy with rigid training variables; in fact there is variable intensity, frequency, and even volumes in different individual HIT training protocols. Even Mike Mentzer didn't only do a single set on every single exercise for every bodypart, or advocate unchanging frequency, or that intensity should necessarily always be maximized. This is ridiculous. HIT is a philosophy of maximizing the efficiency of training, not some single set cult.
In Mike's writing "failure" is treated as a fixed and immovable absolute even going so far in one chapter of "HIT The Mike Mentzer Way" as calling it "an objective requirement for growth". Intensity as defined by his theory as "effort" is never to be less than 100%. I do not recall a single instance of Mike ever advocating more than one set to failure of a given exercise but perhaps in his earlier days he did. however in his final book volume is defined as a "Negative with a capital N" and one set per exercise is the standing recommendation. As one supposedly progresses intensity is regulated upward (using various techniques), volume and frequency, downward to the point where he had many trainees hitting the gym only once ever 7-10 days (or even less) using 1-2 working sets per session and claimed they were making phenomenal unbreeched progress. of course not a single case study was ever published showing this miraculous process.
@@ArtbyPaulPetro It's consistent with the philosophy of HIT that volume is a negative variable. This philosophy sees energy as the most important fundamental of training, so of course any investment of energy must be made with the intention of an adequate return. This being said, volume being a negative or subtracting variable does not mean the best approach is always to use as little volume as possible. The idea behind HIT is to maximize the usage of the body's energy, not use up as little of the body's energy as one can. In all cases, a quality first set will be the most valuable and stimulative set performed. A second set, even performed to the same level of quality, will have reduced return on investment. However, there will always be some return on investment, and for some muscle groups and for some exercises, the return on investment will be different than for others. It's true that Mike Mentzer's volume recommendations changed as he became older and more experienced. It's still difficult to find any Mike Mentzer program which didn't include an added set on at least one exercise, especially for leg training. But the whole point of the video and your comment seems to be trying to tear down HIT as an entire training system and philosophy, while only critiquing the ideas of an aged, possibly crazy Mike Mentzer. If you want to dismantle HIT, there's a lot more there than just crap that Mentzer said.
Mike was definitely resentful, but he did get robbed in that show. Idk why you're also omitting that he got 2nd in 1979. Arnold clearly had sway and also a problem with Mentzer. I generally love your content but you're clearly pretty upset about how the Viator experiment went down, and rightfully so - he was mostly just regaining old gains rapidly, which we all understand is much easier to do than it is to acquire new ones - and that you consider Mentzer to also be a crook. I think that's where you're wrong - Mentzer was an absurdly naive and optimistic idealist with a God complex, but his rhetorical skill is undeniable. And his intensity and physique was legendary.
Worked out for 13 years in every variation possible. Done hit for 2 years. By far the best results for muscle and cardiovascular. And I workout like 15 minutes a week
Everything works, but what works with the least amount time investment is what I'm looking for personally. But I get it, if volume is your brand then HIT is the enemy that is fair.
U keep forgetting that mike was the first bodybuilder to get a perfect score at the olympia. Also arnold personality by all other bodybuilders say hes a snake and slimy no one liked arnold he did rig the olympia also tom platz only worked out legs once EVERY 2 WEEKS. He followed mike protocol not more volume but he done it in a different technique
Only 67 pages on meth? What a noob! Ayn Rand would be dissapoint. The Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding is actually an awesome resource for a new lifter btw. Shame Arnold sold out to the powers that be
You're engaging in the same behavior that you rightfully accuse Arthur Jones of. Your version of events is heavily edited and lacks a lot of context because you have a specific distaste for Mentzer. I agree with your overall assessment, he was a resentful self-saboteur, but damn man. At least give him his due - he did much better than '5th in 1980'. Arnold is a legend but also a massive prick, as well.
Mentzers got a few things wrong but a lot of things right. While volume back in the day was nothing but bro science and doing more sets because you could get away with it while on gear. Even back then volume training advice was terrible, not as bad as it is now but HIT was superior to it then as it is now. I’d recommend learning from Drew Baye or Jay Vincent if you’ve been spinning your wheels and want actual gains. Modern HIT principles have evolved since the Mentzer days and they work better than any modern day volume training style method when it comes to getting gains.
I think there's a fundamental laziness about HIT that doesn't get mentioned much. People are looking for the least amount of work to get the most results. In other words: they're looking for a shortcut. As you hinted: as you progress, the few short cuts in this sport drop off and you will have to do more to get less. That's increasingly difficult to accept and do. HIT advocates try to pretend this can be avoided.
Also, and I love you, but you think that a bigger book is necessarily better? That is straight up r3tarded, lol. But whatever, you're still a legend and no one cares at all what I have to say. Keep it up, brother. Hope this helps the algo somehow.
Re golden era lifters all being high volume, yeah of course, because that's all they did. Hard to point out all the HIT people when it's new and untested. Also you said the hulk did 1 muscle group per week with 5 sets per exercise. That doesn't seem very high volume to me. Next HIT is for body building and has little to no relevance for strength training so I'm not sure why you keep talking about that in this video. Lastly your trying to define HIT in very narrow terms making it easier to criticize. Much of Mikes later advice was for regular people training, not body builders.
That's true, but the HIT crowd never stop going on about how amazing Mike was, and how he was cheated out of his due. To them Mike = Christ, Arnold = Satan.
Arnold won because of the eyes he brought to bb. Mike winning would have the majority of people who knew nothing about bb outraged. Mike was right, bb is bullshit. A sport should not be ruled by people who can not appreciate it or understand it. Calling Mike a quitter when now we understand what burnout and addiction are is crazy.
Mike came in 5th and threw a tantrum. He probably would have thrown the same tantrum if Arnold wasn't there and he still came in 5th or 4th. Arnold's 1980 win was shady but coming in 5th is hardly having it stolen from him like could be argued if he had come in 2nd.
Mike WAS a quitter though. Every bodybuilder at the 1980 was pissed that Arnold won, but Mike was the only one who called it quits. And he didn't just leave the IFBB, he left bodybuilding entirely. He lost once and ragequit.
Platz came third, lost to a man with literal gyno. Never quit, became known for his own thing and still trains people to this day. Life isn't one set to failure.
It’s incredibly well known that Mentzer lied about only doing 1 set. He was so obsessed with winning that he often did more than one set while training. That fact alone, is why we shouldn’t still be having this conversation. It just feels like anyone covering this is either not doing good research, or just being disingenuous. Which is it?
Mike was a looney and probably lazy yep. Drugs DEFINITELY contributed Heavily to his physique and it's success. He's probably wrong...and for most natural lifters/bodybuilders, the high volume approach is probably wrong too...
No It does not in the latest academic article they tested absolute failure to what Arnold was doing (his type of training) and it showed for naturals, beginners, intermediate trainers hit is far superior
@@kingpotent3950 one set to failure? Or 2-3? 2-3 sets to almost failure is probably the sweet spot. Trouble is...MOST trainees in the early stages don't have a damn clue what failure means. They dont even know what hard training is. It's a very difficult thing to test or quantify with an academic study because humans in general make for terrible test subjects when it comes to training. I'll give it a read. But yeah...my faith in quality human subjects for these studies is low.
They're all high level bodybuilders, they took different paths up the mountain that most people who are arguing will never see.
Great comment, impressive take and you’re 100% correct!
Different paths = Gear.
But only one of them won multiple oplympias.
@@vivalarazausarmyvet4453 because all the runner ups looked like total sht, right? What's your point? OP's point still stands: most of us won't achieve those runner up physiques either lol (even with gear - it will only take you so far contingent on your genetics)
Here before the thumbnail changes
Hahahaha. I saw a thumbnail change o. Another channel yesterday about Mentzer
You are talking about Dr. Mike aren’t you? I noticed that too.
thumbnail and title change 🧐
@@JustShootYourBowwhat changed on his video?
@@TetsuoIronMan he changed the title and the thumbnail of his Mentzer video.
You're downplaying just how much of a shitshow the 1980 olympia was. It was outright rigged by the promoters. It sucks that mentzer gave up after, but the 1980 olympia (and the 1981 olympia) were a disgrace.
Yes but Mentzer never had a chance. It was his first time, he came fifth and was noticeably worse than Arnold. For him it was just an excuse for outrage.
There have been Olympias with much worse. Yates winning with a torn bicep, Columbo winning with gyno.
@@user-he4ef9br7zI think he just lost faith in the whole thing.
@@user-he4ef9br7z delusional arnoldcuck posting. Arnold wasn't even top 10 at that olympia. They've asked the other 1980 olympia people who they thought should have won and Mentzer was the most mentioned name, followed by boyer coe.
Doesn't matter, he was still a quitter.
@@user-he4ef9br7zi dunno, if you look at the pictures and videos from the show (admittedly they aren’t much to go on), Mike genuinely beats Arnold in most areas besides height.
Perhaps Mike shouldn’t have won, but Arnold should definitely shouldn’t have either. The crowd agreed, many of the judges agreed, and so on.
I def think though that if Arnold placed fairly, there would have been no controversy and Mike wouldn’t have been so buthurt that he quit.
Tom Platz is proof that there's a little something more to training intensity + volume allowing adaptation far beyond what either intensity or volume alone can offer.
Not necessarily you could argue he built his legs with higher intensity since he did that at the start. And as you get more jacked the less volume you need, he also had great genetics so he could get away with less volume.
@@josemarialaguinge He built his legs with intensity and crippling amounts of volume. If you haven't seen the amount of volume in one of his leg workouts, take a look.
@@Felale your missing the point, im not disagreeing that intensity is important because i believe it is you just cant use a singular humans training style to prove a point
@@Felale
You realize he only worked legs like 2 times per month at some points right? If you consider that then his volume suddenly becomes more reasonable
@@kane6529
You make a good point. Kirk karwoski had some of the strongest and biggest legs in powerlifting history. His leg workout? Ramp up to one heavy set of barbell squats in the 2-8 rep range, then go home. Thats it. And he was able to build up to an 800 for 5 reps raw squat by doing this. Had 36 inch thighs lean too.
Mentzer's WORST mistake was how he let the 1980 Olympia affect his life. He had a tantrum and became a bitter drug addict. And I'm not talking about anabolics. Instead of considering that Arnold's win in a beauty pageant was to make the "sport" more popular and promote it, and then just waiting another year and going in for his win, Mike let it get to him and never got over it.
Mentzer's worst mistake was coming out and admitting that he did steroids. Everyone else claimed to be natural and that the reason for their development were the bullshit supplements that Weider was paying them to say worked.
IMO it wasn't just quitting the sport, it was not doing much afterwards.
Yeah it’s a shame that he let a tantrum seemingly define the rest of his life. He was clearly Devestated by placing 5th but if he had just stuck it through he likely would have been a future mr O. It’s a shame really
"We can only speculate."
Tried Mentzer-style training, the only change was that I added myoreps and dropsets to increase the intensity further. After 3 months it got stale, but I got very good results during those 3 months. As soon as it got stale I switched it up for something else. Maybe I return to it sometime in the future and do another 3 months. Try it and see for yourself. Think for yourself, do not just blindly trust youtubers, or Mike Mentzer. We can theorize all day and convince ourselves into anything. Practice > Theory.
Eventually youtubers run out of having much of use to say.
I've been doing this stuff since 1978. Totally agree, you have to find out what works for you. I've actually combined periodization with HIT (I actually do 2 working sets, there's no rule stating HIT has to only be one set). Using three micro cycles of different repetitions within a 12 week macrocycle has worked better for me than anything else. It's also quite efficient. This is where keeping a training log comes in. People slamming other's approaches to training is getting old. Use what works for you and fits into your lifestyle.
what i did was a bit of a balance i did drop sets 3 sets every set was failure
Thanks for acknowledging that HIT can work-at least to an extent. When one looks at what Menzter’s contributions were apart from the whole Jones/Viator “experiment”, it was fairly innovating thinking. It would certainly be a mistake to assume it’s the end-all-be-all of training, but for us average joe’s who may have less time available for training, the philosophy/approach behind it opened up avenues to size and strength that didn’t seem accessible or possible before-dare I say more than “fives”?
HIT can work as a deload. Lol its work because people was coming out from a high volume training cycle. That is why you cant doing the same thing over and over . Even Dorian Yates doesnt train like that more than 4-6 weeks.
Yeah, we just watched a video about that didn’t we?
I've been training for 46 of my 60 years on this planet and I've come to learn one thing --- it all works. You just have to find the one that works for you, and be consistent. The shame about Mike Mentzer is that he is no longer alive to defend himself, not that he has to defend himself for anything.
I think Platz had the best training principle (I guess they all did in a sense), never leave that last 5% in the gym. Essentially, the more intensity you put into the training the better results you'll get as long as you're smart. IMO the best way to train is by committing to something you'll actually do with maximum exertion.
easy way to write off mentzner is the FACT he only followed his own training dogma AFTER he already built 95% of his physique. it’s the age old fallacy of the fitness community “GUYS DO THESE EXERCISES FOR BIG GAINS” “did you build your physique with them?” “oh no i only started them a few months ago” (they’ve been lifting a decade now)
Easy way to justify Mentzer is the hundreds if not thousands of successful clients he PT’d including pro bodybuilders and even influenced a 6 time Mr. O champion
@@nick191088he told Dorian that he did too much volume constantly lol. Dorian did intense sets past failure but he was clearly sneaking in volume with his pre-fatigue sets
Plus, it’s well known that Mentzer was so obsessed with not losing, that he often added sets into his routine. Thus, he was a liar. Not exactly dogmatic, if you ask me.
But but but... Dorian 😢
There is one thing that menztner haters don't realize .
I like to hit every body part twice a week and I only like to train 4 days a week and I cam maintain my intensity only for about an hour .. Now with that , if did 1 or 2 warm up sets and 3 work sets with2_rir for each exercise for 3 exercises for each body part ,id be in the gym for 2 1/2 hours per session .
Now doing one failure set or beyond failure set per exercise for 3 exercises each body part ,I can be out of the gym in an hour .
Now even if the menztner haters are right and one set to failure or beyond only gets you 85% of the gains of 3 sets with 2 rir , then if I can get 85 % of the gains in an hour v training for 2 1/2 hours ,then unless you are a pro ,WHO WOUKDNT TAKE THAT ?
and for the record ,if I take a set beyond failure , eg cable curls by going one set to failure, then 2 immediate drop sets to failure , total 20 reps ,hitting failure 3 times I believe ill get more hypertrophy than 3 sets with a 2 min rest in between with 2 rir on each set . but if I'm wrong ill take the the 85% of hypertrophy of doing 3 normal sets
The only constant across all strength training that I’ve observed is that the muscle should be trained to the point that it loses contractile ability and no longer recovers that lost strength during the workout. This point can be reached in 1 set or 100. Training strategies can be used to prolong or speed up the process so depending on someone’s goals they can prioritise time efficient workouts or more sets practicing a skill for competition eg powerlifting, strongman etc.
Exactly. That is what I have found in my observations and personal experience. I think a lot of this HIT v Volume debate really dances around the intensity/failure variable in training - which is the stimulating variable and therefore the variable of most consequences. The volume proponents never seem to address the fact that intensity/failure is necessary to stimulate growth no matter how many sets it takes to accomplish that stimulus. I think the reason they don't acknowledge the necessity of intensity is that they worry they'll give too much credit to HIT as a whole.
This is the first video I have seen that actually zeros in on the "only one set" aspect of HIT so at least it is tailored enough to criticize just the "workload" of HIT. That's a fair argument to make since he's actually comparing apples to apples. I don't agree with the argument but it is at least more logical than most.
I mean if you've exhausted every last aspect of training, including building your base with high volume, then yes go ahead and enjoy what Mike figured out when it comes to getting just a little bit more past your potential, just don't sell it as a superlative to a bunch of newbies and intermediates, Mike.
4:07 exactly
exactly, for newbies the HIT training is just too extreme.
Incoming cliche "HIT was the best thing I ever did" comments...
@@EnigmaticAnamolydid volume training for 16 years, then had a kid and had to adjust. Found mentzer and Yates training styles, and for me at this stage they work awesome. Saves me time and can maintain/have even built some muscle in certain areas. Would recommend anyone to at least give it a try. Makes the workout more exciting as well.
@@christophermilan8908that works well for you having had built a base, and got experience. I do love 15min workouts and i love a 3-4hr leg day, and others in each week. If you know what you're doing you can cycle&grow through a lot of these high intensities, but it's not for everyone, it's not always sustainable, and without variation you'll still plateau. Mike shouldn't advertise to the GenPop
Just arriving from the gym ... Now I wanna workout again
Why should have Mike wanted to continue these competitions, if it was clear to everyone that they were not fair hence the boycott. What is the message of this video? Winning at all costs? Even if you don't deserve it like 1980 Arnold? I don't get it.
Participating in rigged games is fone as long as you win?
Honestly, if he could've built a brand around ust being a high level competitor he probably could've done a lot better for himself, or he could've gone back to med school or something else. Man was pretty smart when he wanted to be. You make a great point though. If you give everything you have to bodybuilding and it's so obviously rigged then why continue? Especially back then when body building didn't have the respectability from society as a sport/competition it does now. It was really more, that thing the big famous muscle guy names Arnold did.
I find sometimes doing HIT and sometimes volume works best.
For me, from my own observation what I’ve noticed in my own life is that my friends who lift and who claim to stand for HIT training tend to be some of the most inconsistent and almost lazy gym goers, they end up making little to no progress. They’ll stand behind the inconsistency and lack of progress with “Well I just do HIT training, Mike Mentzer style stuff, I train to failure”, it’s for me the equivalent if you had a Math test and decided to cram 6-7 hours of math the day before, that’s not how skills and techniques are developed, they’re developed with Volume and Practice. I don’t think you need to make the gym your life, however I do think it’s equally stupid to think loads of progress can be made in 1 if not 2 sessions a week. In my own experience I’ve used HIT during times of stress where lifting had to go on the back burner and something was better than nothing, it did help me keep my gains.
QUESTION: TWO DIFFERENT MENTZERS IN REGARDS TO FREQUENCY?
I think it's worth noting there seems to be a difference between the HIT training Mentzer proposed in the 1970s and early 1980s-when he was still competing and before his mental breakdown-and the training he advocated in the 1990s and early 2000s. A difference between the young and the old Mentzer, if you like.
While the common theme of low volume and gruesome intensity techniques (like pre-exhaust supersets, forced reps, and rest-pause) remains core in both, there is a stark contrast on how he treated frequency in each period.
The "young Mike", perhaps still informed by his own training, advocated training each muscle group TWICE per week (you can find his old videos on TH-cam prescribing just that).
While the "old Mike", vocally resentful about the injustices in his past and completely out of shape, began to promote more controversial ideas about training each muscle group only once every two weeks (!) and the like. And most people seem to resort to the programs of this second version of Mentzer and treat them as if stemming from his glorious days, which is just not the case.
I think Mentzer became his own enemy in the end, which is a shame. He started espousing more extreme, stereotyped thoughts based on his former tenets, but in an exaggerated way-fueled perhaps by his desire for being recognized as an authority and vindicating his past.
This view makes sense if you correlate the changes in his ideas with his trajectory in life. But it's just my opinion, of course. I'm sure many would disagree.
Here's my issue with the HIT VS HIGH VOLUME debate...
We live in an era where social media has a made bodybuilding a LAUGHINGSTOCK and Comical to where you have EVERYONE from NO NAME NOBODYS' to "FITNESS INFLUENCERS" that are ALL "experts" when it comes to training.... ALL IN THE NAME OF SUCKERY and NARCISSISM.
There are SOOOOOOOO MANY people that would love to get into the gym or learn to lift but unfortunately with not only ALL the COPY AND PASTE content on social media(everyone trying to "reinvent the wheel"), but they have taken these two SOLID forms of bodybuilding training and pimped it out to where even Mik Mentzer HIMSELF would be flabbergasted how his HIT training methods have been bastardized.
LOVE the video
True, they are rules, not principles 😂😂
after you build a reasonable base high intensive training definitely has a place..Dante Trudel followed that philosophy as well
I love your stuff in general, but I want to give a special shoutout because you're legit the only dude on youtube who pronounces Franco's last name correctly.
Agree with most of this. Before Encyclopedia, only a few bb books - 2 Weider books similar to Arnold's Encyclopedia but years earlier), a few Weider compilations of mag articles, Gold's Gym book, Arnold bio (1/2 training). Much was mailorder booklets by only a few people so Mentzer's 60 pages was long back then. Arnold and Mentzer sold mailorder courses, about 10 pages each. Arnold's mass training booklet was 10 basic movements, 3 workouts/week, 5 sets each (8,8,6,6,6), full body. Do until actually big and strong, then do a split. Nothing like it in the Encyclopedia. Never knew if he wrote the booklet or the book. My guess is none of the above. Mentzer wrote many articles for Weider, but many were republished every couple of years.
Tom Platz is on record saying he'd only squat twice per month
Squats, yes. But all together, he worked his legs weekly.
so what did he do?
He said he only squatted HEAVY twice per month , trained his legs weekly .. worked for me too back a zillion years ago ^^
Hit works. Just very few people understand going past failure. They think soon as they feel it that's failure
Although I agree that Mentzer should have kept his head high after 1980's loss, some of the 'arguments' here are just personal attacks that don't make sense. He seemed to be a perfectionist, but for example, what is the point of bashing his book for the number of pages? Do you know how many short books are literary masterpieces and how many long books are trash? Also, he was probably going against the tide of his own era, which is difficult for us to understand now that we have all this information. His book is responding to the high volume trend of his time, and don't we see now a decrease in volume compared to the Golden Era? He was responding to what was around him. Furthermore, it's easy to judge based on our current knowledge, but I tell you one thing: many 'science' channels here on YT are going to be seen as even worse than Mentzer in the future, which is normal due to science discoveries. Did he have it all figured out? Probably not, but who has? His shortcomings as a person have nothing to do with his methods of training.
He thinks he knows and does better than Mike
Why don't you speak about successful natural bodybuilders who use HIT? Like John Heart.
@@cussblackstone3304u no nuttin bout bodybuilding
@@kingpotent3950 what did he say?
Agreed 100% here. Mentzer was an interesting fellow, a great competitor (however briefly) and he had a killer physique but...he was basically batshit insane. I've read HD II and HIT the Mike Mentzer Way multiple times and got caught up in the "logic" of it all. As time went by I realized his supposed "One and only theory of bodybuilding training" is rife with holes, contradictions and pseudo-science (treating failure as an "objective requirement for growth", volume as a "negative with a capital N", ignoring the concept of work capacity, etc.etc.). Mike tried VERY hard to emulate his heroine philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand (whom he claimed achieved "intellectual and moral perfection") and was no doubt an Objectivist Zealot himself. He put forth some very logical arguments for his ideas but at the end of the day his claims were mostly a bunch of subjective nonsense. I can't stand listening to his lectures or watching films of him talking at seminars. he sounds smug, superior, and comes off as if he is smarter than everyone else in the room and in his chosen sport.
His demeanor make more sense in that light, he’s channeling Rand’s prose style
Mentzer was the original bro-scientist which is to say he mixed an ounce of fact with ten pounds of bullshit he just pulled out his ass. Worse than him though are his fan-boys who are more insufferable than crossfitters just like the objectivists are the most insufferable of the "philosophers."
That's true, but he was mostly correct bro.
If you are natural, try training with weights 2 hours every day.
I've tested it. You'll be full of overuse injuries and lack of progress.
Maximum intensity of effort with brief infrequent sessions is the method in real life.
How brief and how infrequent is up to the individual
you know he was extreme when even Yates told him to piss off when Mentzer told him to cut back on volume EVEN MORE
Smug and a distinctly disingenuous liar. It’s very well known that he was so obsessed with not losing, that he added sets to his routine, regularly. Thus, nullifying the whole idea of HIT. It’s funny how that little fact gets ignored or glossed over, now that he’s had this sudden resurgence on TikTok and TH-cam. Just shows that people don’t do enough research and just wanna jump on the bandwagon of talking about him
You acting as if Arnold’s peaking style high volume training he did for only 3 weeks is “ all of the golden era “ is ridiculous,even Arnold did moderate to light volume during his mass gain phase a year before an Olympia contest.
Dorian Yates also peaks HIT training for 5 weeks ?!!!
Watch the video.
At 16:00: You are so sadly accurate about Mentzer’s commitment to completing his mission. I purchased and read that thin volume 1 booklet.
I purchased and stood in line for Swarzenegger to quickly autograph his book. (He was, by the way, a jerk to the last few young men in line behind my friend and I, as he capped his pen and walked away with his entourage while the three(?) guys were left standing with their books at the ready. Well, Arnold is human like the rest of us flawed folk…. I was once asked by an acquaintance to autograph a magazine cover I was featured on - not lifting related - and inquired if he was serious. He assured me that he was, so I wrote that I appreciated his friendship and signed my name; only to learn that he was in fact spoofing me…. Oh well.)
One thing that I appreciate after, what, fifty-three years(?) of some form or another of concerted lifting: Giving up is giving over opportunities to make an effort; good, bad, mediocre…never though “indifferent.”
Meth, cigarettes, alcohol and unsuccessfully treated mental illness has brought down many a human being with superior genetic material. Darwin didn’t exactly say that “the strongest survive,” but rather that “the most adaptable live on to pass their genes onward.” (Paraphrasing…)
I’m happy not being Mike or Arnold; accountable only to my own conscience and the examples of people I gravitate to.
While the effectiveness of HIT for young bodybuilders is certainly up for debate, it is worth noting its usefulness for older lifters. When you are over 50, one set to failure and maximum recoverable volume tend to be much the same thing. After a HIT workout I am simply in no condition to jump back in for more sets. So I end up doing HIT by default. Recovery also takes a day or two. HIT may just be the perfect workout for over 50s.
Haven't watched this yet but I'm guessing at the end of it everyone will be mad and no one will have changed their minds.
Algorithm will be happy tho
Bromley, can you address the claim that with longer rest periods (3+ minutes), optimal training volume tops out at around 6 sets per muscle group? This has been used as an argument for why most volume studies are invalid (short rest periods are typically used).
If progress improves all the way until 30+ sets per week, then what is optimal?
Where did you hear that claim? Never heard of it, curious because that's the impression I have when I train to failure, anything above around 6-7 sets seem like junk volume, mind-muscle connection disappears and the burning sensation on the muscle simply goes numb, doesn't matter if I go to failure, it just seems like I'm going through the motions. Even so I started holding back a couple reps shy of failure and upped my volume in a phasic approach and got great progress after a plateau with failure training, probably due to it being a new stimulus, but still very interesting claim.
I mean, it probably is individual, think someone like Geoffrey Verity Schofield for example, he does quite a bit of volume all to failure or even beyond, even though a claim like this may make sense to me it maybe doesn't to someone like Geoff, idk if it's genetics or increased work capacity over time though.
@@ukilledmydog9628 Paul Carter talks about it a lot.
@@ukilledmydog9628 The extra stimulus from training to failure for a set isn't greater than training another set or two close to failure. I feel the muscle pretty well, still going past 6-7 sets. If I had more time I would train more often in that range
I would've quit, at least competing, if I witnessed such bullshit as the 1980 Olympia. Most of these shows are popularity contests first. Such a shame though, for Mentzer to give up lifting.
Geez this is a fabulous analysis of this subject.
Very well done
Maybe people shouldn’t be concerned with what these guys say but actually TRY DOFFERENT THINGS and see for yourself what works for you instead of taking sides and being fanboys. Fact is many many more people have succeeded with more volume. Many more and that is enough proof. These guys in You Tube now simply grabbed a niche and a great renaissance topic to get views and cause a stir.
I think it's moreso just a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone who cares about getting results will gravitate towards more orthodox and therefore "proven" methods. It's more risky to pursue methods outside the mainstream, therefore people who do, don't necessarily have the same passion for results and therefore likely won't try as hard, no matter what system they do.
From personal experience and observation of HiT proponents it seems to me the one thing that separates HiT from everything else is increased risk of injury.
doing 1 set is safer than let's say 15 or 30 sets you only get Injuries from training if you either do the exercise incorrectly or use alot of weight that you cannot handle
If you're cutting and inexperienced yes but once you get used to it hit works and I enjoy it more than volume
This comment section is going to require some popcorn.
The tragedy of Mentzer was not about the 1980 show. It was a building understanding of a false premise he held.
Maybe the tragedy is people gossiping without understanding. To understand what happened to Mentzer, you have to understand gaming effects on human behavior. Comparing Mentzer to Arnold is ironic. Arnold was not a shining bescon. Mentzer was not a failure. For those who don't get it - Mentzer had a faulty premise of human ideals / integrity. He was crushed by a much much larger disappointment that that contest.
Sergio also won the Olympia in 1969.
You yourself mention how the Soviets first started using periodization for their athletes and the reason was that they could train harder when training on steroids compared to when cycling off them. To the average non drug using gym enthusiast or even a natural proffessional body builder, these methods are hardly of any use except to say that you can train harder when eating more and should maybe slow down a little when trying to lean down.
HIT is like super sets, pre exhaustion etc
Used sparingly to add intensity and variety they all work. But the only truth that can be gleaned from training is that programming must be augmented and changed from time to time, exercises especially the most effective basic barbell and dumbbell presses, pulls, hinges and squats are skills that need repeated effort at varying loads to deliver the best results. HIT should not be discussed as a different approach but as a periodic shock principal to put one on a general path to new growth. The reality is neither Yates nor Mentzer used one set of 1 exercise per body part with 1 warm up set to build their competitive physiques. They each did several exercises and did not include a y set other than the one to failure as an actual set. They actually had more in common with competitors than what Jones Nautilus disciples were doing that got them nowhere.
If you àre not strong as hell and on peds, hit is not the answer. I set of 175 to failure on bench is not getting you to 405 if you think you will continue piling on more weight and going to failure to get strong, it has never worked like that.
Congrats, Alex; really well-structured, enjoyable and informative video. Thank you.
Mentzer's recommendations have been working great for me - help, what do I do!?
I’m in that camp. I JUST started on Mentzers program
What's your numbers?
Just keep doing it. Both approaches work. One will work better for one person and the other will work better for another person. Whatever works best for you keep doing
Maybe don't HIT on compounds or calisthenics. The stimulus magnitude can more than make up for the amount of reps you leave in the tank for them so that you don't end up doing ugly reps for the sake of intensity. Leaves less room for injury and doesn't leave you in an unnecessarily fatigued state.. and lets you progress easier on them - which matters more. And if you can recover from it - I suppose you can also crank up the frequency dial once you get stronger and stronger - more "1-2 sets of curls" just by adding variations to those curls to be done elsewhere in the week for example.
If you notice: Mentzer's training is almost exclusively machines - as they are much easier to get away with training very deep or beyond failure thanks to having only path or motion and doesn't deviate from that path. Now, on top of the fact that machines are more often garbage than they are not, they can be pretty limiting and non-functional unless you've already paid your dues with many compound and free weight movements.
In my opinion, Mike's biggest downfall was his personality. If any thought or statement contrary to what you believe is correct starts an argument instead of a discussion, people around you are going to think you're an asshole and won't want anything to do with you. The people who live their life thinking "I don't care what anyone thinks of me, I'm RIGHT!" tend to have a harder time in life. They do lend themselves do developing cults of personality though...
Mentzer was his own biggest enemy, and committed the mistake to think his enemy was that other successful guy.
The saddest thing is that (whether or not you think Arnold had the best physique that night), Mike blamed Arnold for him losing the ‘80 Olympia. Dude placed 5th, overall, NOT second. How could Arnold contribute to that? Literally makes no sense, but Mike could never take ownership and was just a mentally ill methamphetamine addict
Great stuff
important is during the training thinking to your muscles , not to mobile phone
Is this a repost? Sure looks like one.
Good video. Mentzer was a drug addict, I wouldn't quite describe that as 'unwilling to commit,' Id say 'due to suffering the disease of addiction, he was unable to reach his potential.'
Training style needs to be matched with correct feeding protocol. We all know it's great to switch up training style, and also feeding should be adjusted.
Intensity in exercise to stimulate muscle growth in ANY program preference is the key to benefit you goal. The same applies to strength training and speed training. Bias is just that, biased. Necessity is the rule.
Yeah 1980 was more than just a “tough loss” you do him a massive disservice and this made me unsubscribe
Imagine being this much of a fanboy.
😂😂😂😂😂 the “this made me unsubscribe” announcement cracks me up every time. Lolol good ol social media
Platz was right, if Mike said to Arnold “ I don’t know how you won but good job”, he would’ve won by the next few years
Yeah Mike was likely on track to becoming a mr Olympia for sure
Hit only made sense in the context of the insane volume bodybuilders were doing at the time, normies arent gonna make nearly the progress they can acting like their 125 pound bench work needs a week to recover
Lower volume for 4 weeks high volume for 4 weeks and keep changing your workouts but not the exercises so bolth are right
I bet the video get a lot of downvotes for criticising Mentzer directly. People threat him like something else in most spaces you read about him. His family had hearth issues already, and his decision to go for steroids and later hard drugs maybe wasn't the best decision he could pick.
Oh my god every time body builders do that thing where they pull in their entire stomach and their ribcage outline is seen freaks me out without fail every single time. That is some body horror type shit, goddamn.
Alex you really are doing some great work with your channel
45 year old adult film star? That's a bullsh*t biased line.
I cannot believe you made a video that translated your long standing support or high volume training over high intensity into a metaphor for how we live out our lives purpose. Unexpected banger on many levels, great job!
To tell the truth, I can’t find the training protocol Menntzer actually advocated. Some takes day once a week, some three. One set to absolute failure. Failure is terrible for strength.
Dorian yates enters the chat
I train a 5 day split. 48-72 h rest between workouts. So I rest 10-15 days before working out the same muscle again.
Not sure how people take Metzer seriously
Thought I was going crazy or this was a stealth re-upload before reading the description. Sucks that Bromley has to break apart the bigger vid cause it didn’t take off.
It's one of his all time masterpieces too
levrone and many others didn't periodize anything tho, 90's training approach was way superior than golden era training approach, on top of more drugs and bigger bulks is what made bodybuilders bigger and better than before, all the golden era guys did way too much volume
Thumbnail change one has occurred
During the Nineties one would often here Dorian's rivals say that they had better genetics than him- yet none were willing to try HIT and see whether it may have worked for them.
wow thanks for the tons of research you did & thanks for teaching it to us 👏👏👏
hello alexander
Think Arnold would train until he puked or passed out , and heavy Duty Mike even though he hated Arnold they both had more in common but different ideas and styles of training which helped get us to where we are today. And I think if Mike would've came back for MR.O 81 he I think would've won that year , but he let his anger rob him of a better future . Like could we be watching a show called the Metzer but we will have the what if and the one thing I didn't like about the Heavy Duty was it was the only way , when you have guys like Franco who felt like it wouldn't work for him. Could it have work of course but Franco had been doing his way that led him to winning , and you going to tell Arnold that his 7 MR.O are wrong on training , sorry but now Dorian did H.I.T Heavy Duty worked for him and Ronnie did Heavy Duty & Arnold style together and became the hulk , but with Mike & Arnold ( Reg Parks ) helped body building get better & better
Jorge Tabet en el 02:05
Jealousy is a Mofo!
i do both! slow twitch i guess
Dear viewers believe in Mike. Not Arnold
Holy fuck this was a good video
goddamn, the amount of judgement towards mentzer. the guy wasn't right in the head, he was a psychologically tortured individual by many accounts of people close to him. maybe we should all stop painting him as just a weak-minded asshole that threw tantrums, eh?
It's not a well thought out video. I can tell you're someone who has never truly experimented with HIT just from the way you try to describe the philosophy.
Your point throughout the video is that rigid training variables don't properly account for cut and bulk cycles. Fair enough. But HIT is not necessarily a philosophy with rigid training variables; in fact there is variable intensity, frequency, and even volumes in different individual HIT training protocols. Even Mike Mentzer didn't only do a single set on every single exercise for every bodypart, or advocate unchanging frequency, or that intensity should necessarily always be maximized. This is ridiculous. HIT is a philosophy of maximizing the efficiency of training, not some single set cult.
In Mike's writing "failure" is treated as a fixed and immovable absolute even going so far in one chapter of "HIT The Mike Mentzer Way" as calling it "an objective requirement for growth". Intensity as defined by his theory as "effort" is never to be less than 100%. I do not recall a single instance of Mike ever advocating more than one set to failure of a given exercise but perhaps in his earlier days he did. however in his final book volume is defined as a "Negative with a capital N" and one set per exercise is the standing recommendation. As one supposedly progresses intensity is regulated upward (using various techniques), volume and frequency, downward to the point where he had many trainees hitting the gym only once ever 7-10 days (or even less) using 1-2 working sets per session and claimed they were making phenomenal unbreeched progress. of course not a single case study was ever published showing this miraculous process.
@@ArtbyPaulPetro It's consistent with the philosophy of HIT that volume is a negative variable. This philosophy sees energy as the most important fundamental of training, so of course any investment of energy must be made with the intention of an adequate return. This being said, volume being a negative or subtracting variable does not mean the best approach is always to use as little volume as possible. The idea behind HIT is to maximize the usage of the body's energy, not use up as little of the body's energy as one can. In all cases, a quality first set will be the most valuable and stimulative set performed. A second set, even performed to the same level of quality, will have reduced return on investment. However, there will always be some return on investment, and for some muscle groups and for some exercises, the return on investment will be different than for others.
It's true that Mike Mentzer's volume recommendations changed as he became older and more experienced. It's still difficult to find any Mike Mentzer program which didn't include an added set on at least one exercise, especially for leg training. But the whole point of the video and your comment seems to be trying to tear down HIT as an entire training system and philosophy, while only critiquing the ideas of an aged, possibly crazy Mike Mentzer. If you want to dismantle HIT, there's a lot more there than just crap that Mentzer said.
Mike was definitely resentful, but he did get robbed in that show. Idk why you're also omitting that he got 2nd in 1979. Arnold clearly had sway and also a problem with Mentzer. I generally love your content but you're clearly pretty upset about how the Viator experiment went down, and rightfully so - he was mostly just regaining old gains rapidly, which we all understand is much easier to do than it is to acquire new ones - and that you consider Mentzer to also be a crook. I think that's where you're wrong - Mentzer was an absurdly naive and optimistic idealist with a God complex, but his rhetorical skill is undeniable. And his intensity and physique was legendary.
All wrong of course. methzer was a fraud.
💯🌞🔥
Arnold was also a big advocate of cheating other bodybuilders out of winning titles, when it comes to arseholes, Arnold actually deserves the trophy!
Good analysis on a tricky topic. Thanks Alex. Are you a dad now? If yes, congrats
Worked out for 13 years in every variation possible. Done hit for 2 years. By far the best results for muscle and cardiovascular. And I workout like 15 minutes a week
Everything works, but what works with the least amount time investment is what I'm looking for personally. But I get it, if volume is your brand then HIT is the enemy that is fair.
U keep forgetting that mike was the first bodybuilder to get a perfect score at the olympia. Also arnold personality by all other bodybuilders say hes a snake and slimy no one liked arnold he did rig the olympia also tom platz only worked out legs once EVERY 2 WEEKS. He followed mike protocol not more volume but he done it in a different technique
facts
HIT Training = Mike Mentzer, Casey Viator, Dorian Yates nuff said!
Only 67 pages on meth? What a noob! Ayn Rand would be dissapoint. The Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding is actually an awesome resource for a new lifter btw. Shame Arnold sold out to the powers that be
You're engaging in the same behavior that you rightfully accuse Arthur Jones of. Your version of events is heavily edited and lacks a lot of context because you have a specific distaste for Mentzer. I agree with your overall assessment, he was a resentful self-saboteur, but damn man. At least give him his due - he did much better than '5th in 1980'. Arnold is a legend but also a massive prick, as well.
🙄
Mentzers got a few things wrong but a lot of things right. While volume back in the day was nothing but bro science and doing more sets because you could get away with it while on gear. Even back then volume training advice was terrible, not as bad as it is now but HIT was superior to it then as it is now. I’d recommend learning from Drew Baye or Jay Vincent if you’ve been spinning your wheels and want actual gains. Modern HIT principles have evolved since the Mentzer days and they work better than any modern day volume training style method when it comes to getting gains.
Jay Vincent is quite literally just a charlatan. Everything he does that works he got from other people.
I think there's a fundamental laziness about HIT that doesn't get mentioned much.
People are looking for the least amount of work to get the most results. In other words: they're looking for a shortcut.
As you hinted: as you progress, the few short cuts in this sport drop off and you will have to do more to get less.
That's increasingly difficult to accept and do. HIT advocates try to pretend this can be avoided.
Also, and I love you, but you think that a bigger book is necessarily better? That is straight up r3tarded, lol. But whatever, you're still a legend and no one cares at all what I have to say. Keep it up, brother. Hope this helps the algo somehow.
Algo
Re golden era lifters all being high volume, yeah of course, because that's all they did. Hard to point out all the HIT people when it's new and untested.
Also you said the hulk did 1 muscle group per week with 5 sets per exercise. That doesn't seem very high volume to me.
Next HIT is for body building and has little to no relevance for strength training so I'm not sure why you keep talking about that in this video.
Lastly your trying to define HIT in very narrow terms making it easier to criticize. Much of Mikes later advice was for regular people training, not body builders.
A person's character isn't a measure of the truth (or otherwise) of their theories. This is a low blow and invalid.
That's true, but the HIT crowd never stop going on about how amazing Mike was, and how he was cheated out of his due. To them Mike = Christ, Arnold = Satan.
For that watch Bromley's previous video on HIT. This one is explicitly about Mentzer.
@@user-he4ef9br7z Seen it already.
Arnold won because of the eyes he brought to bb. Mike winning would have the majority of people who knew nothing about bb outraged.
Mike was right, bb is bullshit.
A sport should not be ruled by people who can not appreciate it or understand it. Calling Mike a quitter when now we understand what burnout and addiction are is crazy.
Mike came in 5th and threw a tantrum. He probably would have thrown the same tantrum if Arnold wasn't there and he still came in 5th or 4th. Arnold's 1980 win was shady but coming in 5th is hardly having it stolen from him like could be argued if he had come in 2nd.
Mike WAS a quitter though. Every bodybuilder at the 1980 was pissed that Arnold won, but Mike was the only one who called it quits. And he didn't just leave the IFBB, he left bodybuilding entirely. He lost once and ragequit.
@@zerrodefex wow, massive cope.
I don't think you know what "cope" means@@Morgainz88
Platz came third, lost to a man with literal gyno. Never quit, became known for his own thing and still trains people to this day. Life isn't one set to failure.
if you shave your beard on the side, your face will look thinner
Gay.
@@jacobsvetich8735 I do not care about your preference.
@@CA-jz9bm you obviously care about other married mens appearances. The dictionary definition of GAY.
@@jacobsvetich8735 obviously you care about other men appearance. I mean you are commenting under bodybuilding video.
It’s incredibly well known that Mentzer lied about only doing 1 set. He was so obsessed with winning that he often did more than one set while training. That fact alone, is why we shouldn’t still be having this conversation. It just feels like anyone covering this is either not doing good research, or just being disingenuous. Which is it?
Good video arguing against HIT efficacy but leans towards ad hominem.
“Screw your freedom.”
Advantage: Mentzer
Mike was a looney and probably lazy yep. Drugs DEFINITELY contributed Heavily to his physique and it's success.
He's probably wrong...and for most natural lifters/bodybuilders, the high volume approach is probably wrong too...
No It does not in the latest academic article they tested absolute failure to what Arnold was doing (his type of training) and it showed for naturals, beginners, intermediate trainers hit is far superior
@@kingpotent3950 one set to failure? Or 2-3?
2-3 sets to almost failure is probably the sweet spot.
Trouble is...MOST trainees in the early stages don't have a damn clue what failure means. They dont even know what hard training is.
It's a very difficult thing to test or quantify with an academic study because humans in general make for terrible test subjects when it comes to training.
I'll give it a read. But yeah...my faith in quality human subjects for these studies is low.
My man you absolutely hate mentzer do you not only do you hate him you seem to have a gayish love for arnold almost fanatical honestly it's pathetic