Does anyone follow Mike Mentzers advice on dieting?

[cleverlandshark2001]

High carbs, medium protein, low fat?
it's funny how complicated everyone makes dieting.
I'm sorry, I just can't see myself losing body fat while eating 300g of protein per day! LOL!
Or eating over my maintenance levels for calories, which is around 2800.
LOL...

 

[Mr.X]

High carbs, medium protein, low fat?
it's funny how complicated everyone makes dieting.
I'm sorry, I just can't see myself losing body fat while eating 300g of protein per day! LOL!
Or eating over my maintenance levels for calories, which is around 2800.
LOL...

Yes, add 1 set per bodypart and you'll be a monster....

I can't help to think that maybe if he had done a proper diet and training, he would win the olympia. His genetics and abuse of AS is one of the most amazing things about him.

Mr.X

 

[nclifter6feet6]

who says you cant grow off of one set per bodypart????? there isnt any study that says 5 sets is better than1

 

[Mr.X]

who says you cant grow off of one set per bodypart????? there isnt any study that says 5 sets is better than1

There aren't any studies backing up the one set per bodypart theory either. Nobody is saying you can't grow from one set, but logically if you do more sets even w/ the same HIT style you will achieve a higher muscle fiber breakdown; thus, increasing growth. That's just common sense based on the knowledge of the human makeup.

Mr.X

 

[Kid Dynamite]

who says you cant grow off of one set per bodypart????? there isnt any study that says 5 sets is better than1

Actually, there are studies showing that trained individuals benefit more from multiple sets vs. one set workouts. Untrained people benefit about the same.

 

[cleverlandshark2001]

Wow!
Get over your bulging egos and READ Mentzer's theories. It makes total sense to at least start with only one set. If you go to failure on that one set, why do another set? You've already stressed the muscle sufficiently.
Now, my question to the "high volume" fanatics is this; How do you know how many sets IS the proper amount? Do I just pull a number out of the air? "Oh, Mr. X says do 4 sets...so that must be the magic number!", come on guys, gimme a break here.
If the point were to do more sets, than why not do 6 sets...wait...11 sets, or 100 sets...why stop? Because your body can only adapt to a SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF STRESS BEFORE IT WORKS NEGATIVELY AGAINST YOU!!!
Here's a good analogy; Let's say you want to get a sun tan (build muscles), you lie out in the sun (stress on the skin as a workout is on your muscles)until you begin to see some coloration (strength or size buildup from the stress). Now, receiving a tan doesn't take years or months, and if you feel like putting extra stress on your skin...by all means, lie out all day every day until the stress works NEGATIVELY AGAINST YOU AND YOUR BODY'S ABILITY TO RECOUPERATE.
You know your muscles are sufficiently taxed only after you've gone to failure...since anything else below 100% is very hard gauge. Hell, if the point were to put in MORE WORK and not HARDER WORK, marathon runners would be bigger and better built than you and I. Think about it, sprinters are more heavily muscled than middle distance runners.
Anyway, I'm sure you read this whole thing shaking your head "NO" so I'll end this here. I, along with many others, are living proof of the fact that RATIONAL THINKING plays a role in building muscles faster...that is of course unless you really like spending all your time at the gym.
Thanks for your attention.
-Bash

 

[nclifter6feet6]

There aren't any studies backing up the one set per bodypart theory either. Nobody is saying you can't grow from one set, but logically if you do more sets even w/ the same HIT style you will achieve a higher muscle fiber breakdown; thus, increasing growth. That's just common sense based on the knowledge of the human makeup.

Mr.X

well the more sets you do the more recovery it takes. i guess it just depends on an individuals recovery. why do you need a bigger breakdown(more sets) of your body for more growth???


kid D.

could u post these studies. from what i remember on another board is that guy named DOGGCRAP has a routine that alot of people praise an it is HIT also. he also says there are no studies proving that multiple sets is greater than 1. but im not just regurgitating what he says, because i have heard this before.but on the contrary i havent heard that 1 set is better than multiple sets either.....i havent heard one being favord over the other, all ive seen is that neither showed to be better than the other

 

[Mr.X]

well the more sets you do the more recovery it takes. i guess it just depends on an individuals recovery. why do you need a bigger breakdown(more sets) of your body for more growth???

That's because the basic breakdown of muscle fibers is what is needed for muscle growth. It's elementary physiology.....
That is why most people that are natural have a hard time growing from 1 set per bodypart a week. Gifted genetics come into play here for the rest. I've trained thousands of people, and what I've learned is most were not genetically gifted. As you point out, it depends on individual recovery also.

Mr.X

 

[My End Over Mad her]

Mr. X, how many sets woud you reccomend? and how many reps? This discussion has become about training now but I am glad as I would like to see what the "dieters" train like, if you know what I mean.

 

[nclifter6feet6]

That's because the basic breakdown of muscle fibers is what is needed for muscle growth. It's elementary physiology.....


Mr.X

who is to say "basic breakdown" is 5 sets and not 1. nothing proves that either way.

i mean you said the answer right there. all you need is basic breakdown. does 10 sets sound like basic breakdown. we all know that you dont have to totally obliterate your muscles for it to grow.

with one set you give it that stimulation without all of the breaking down

 

[Mr.X]

Don't get your panties in a bunch....
We are sorry we offended your deep love for Mike Mentzer....
Maybe you need to lay off the juice or take some anger management, that might relax you and let you think straight before you make your way the only way

Wow!
Get over your bulging egos and READ Mentzer's theories.
EXACTLY! THEORIESthat worked for HIM!...he was genetically gifted

It makes total sense to at least start with only one set.
how so??!
If you go to failure on that one set, why do another set? Now, my question to the "high volume" fanatics is this; How do you know how many sets IS the proper amount?
how do you know you went to failure...
GIVE me a bar, I'll do a SET of curls to failure and 1 MIN later I can do another set...and yes, I can even do MAX for 1 rep w/ negatives and in 1 min do another set...
SO DID I GO TO FAILURE? but, then, I can start again and again, so where is the logic of it being the 100% enough stress....
You see how your argument is flawed.........
HOW do you know that w/ MM theories 1 set is enough...?

Do I just pull a number out of the air? "Oh, Mr. X says do 4 sets...so that must be the magic number!", come on guys, gimme a break here.
wow! you love taking a personal pun...maybe you should cool off a little.....and relax bro..
where do you get your magic number? from a Guy that died out of heart problems and believed that CARDIO WAS EVIL??!!! maybe you should read more about MM's life

If the point were to do more sets, than why not do 6 sets...wait...11 sets, or 100 sets...why stop? Because your body can only adapt to a SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF STRESS BEFORE IT WORKS NEGATIVELY AGAINST YOU!!!
REALLY, BY YOUR LOGIC, why even workout? I MEAN SITTING THERE AND THINKING ABOUT doing 1 set is enough stress for me...OH NO! it might work negatively...bull hocky

Here's a good analogy; Let's say you want to get a sun tan (build muscles), you lie out in the sun (stress on the skin as a workout is on your muscles)until you begin to see some coloration (strength or size buildup from the stress). Now, receiving a tan doesn't take years or months, and if you feel like putting extra stress on your skin...by all means, lie out all day every day until the stress works NEGATIVELY AGAINST YOU AND YOUR BODY'S ABILITY TO RECOUPERATE.
HERE IS AN ANALOGY FOR YOU:
you do 1 set per bodypart and get nowhere or the results you get are minimal...then you realize that only if you put more volume into the workout you would have reached your maximum potential.....
Maybe you should stop using MM words....think of it this way, just because it works for a few, it doesn't mean that few couldn't get more results w/ higher volume workouts...
your views are too narrow


You know your muscles are sufficiently taxed only after you've gone to failure...since anything else below 100% is very hard gauge.
SO, how do you know you went to 100% failure, that's IMPOSSIBLE to gauge

Hell, if the point were to put in MORE WORK and not HARDER WORK, marathon runners would be bigger and better built than you and I.
you need to RE-read basic muscle physiology...breakdown of muscle fibers is needed for growth....NOT cardio..
your argument makes no sense, you're comparing APPLES and ORANGES.....

Think about it, sprinters are more heavily muscled than middle distance runners.
there is no proof to that.....that's just an observation

Anyway, I'm sure you read this whole thing shaking your head "NO" so I'll end this here. I, along with many others, are living proof of the fact that RATIONAL THINKING plays a role in building muscles faster...that is of course unless you really like spending all your time at the gym.
yes, MANY others that get GREAT results from high volume training, then high volume (by your argument) becomes RATIONAL THINKING...
Listen, no one is saying HIT training is bad, but be reasonable it's not sufficient for most. I bet you those people that did 1 set have great genetics, if they did a little more volume they'd get more results............not for all...but some at least...I've trained enough people that switched from HIT to high volume w/ almost triple the results...
1 set is the LAZY man's workout...you're a bodybuilder, put some sweat into it

The results and THIS-IS-THE-ONLY-WAY because Mike Mentzer did it comments (most of 1 set training overall) that everyone usually brings up should be attributed to the phenomenon that is frequently observed in the online-bodybuilding community: “parroting”. This is where one person w/ some self proclaimed authority decides to qualify a side of a story to be true no matter what, making this so called theory sound smart and sophisticated; as a result, all the people that want to sound smart just parrot the so called “smart-theory” making it an almost irrefutable fact for everyone to view. However, the real story w/ the real science is commonly left out and never sees the light of the argument. That is why high volume, or even 3-4 set volume (more failure then 1 set, doesn't that make sense) misconceptions are born, mostly due to misconceptions and anecdotal evidence. Is low volume effective for some? YES! Is higher volume effective for most? YES!

p.s. notice all the pros that use high volume,,,maybe you can prove to me that Dorian Yates could have done 1 set and won the olympia...or Ronnie Coleman for that manner...
I can't help to think if maybe Mike Mentzer did more than one set he could have won the olympia instead of throwing a girlish fit when he lost.....

Mr.X

 

[cleverlandshark2001]

Wouldn't "ONE SET" by the logical starting point then?
If you were'nt growing stronger, you must first be sure that you are working to "failure" on each set. Then if you feel you must add sets, do so. I do feel that in some cases more is necessary because of the fiber make-up of the muscle (smaller muscles are will generally have a higher percentage of slow twitch...harder to fatigue muscle fibers - as opposed to bigger muscles like the chest or quads).
But when someone refutes a highly-valid training theory without backing it up, and only going by their big ego, it opens up room for discussion.
I do feel that there is room for 1 set training as well as multiple set training...but let's back up our theories here.
-Bash

 

[Mr.X]

Mr. X, how many sets woud you reccomend? and how many reps? This discussion has become about training now but I am glad as I would like to see what the "dieters" train like, if you know what I mean.

I don't recommend anything, for it depends on the person. Usually I have people do something in the field of drop sets, super sets and some heavy training. But, I can tell you one thing, I would NEVER recommend someone does ONE set, that's a joke.

Mr>X

 

[iamcdn]

thought this could help:

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199604

 

[Mr.X]

Wouldn't "ONE SET" by the logical starting point then?
If you were'nt growing stronger, you must first be sure that you are working to "failure" on each set. Then if you feel you must add sets, do so. I do feel that in some cases more is necessary because of the fiber make-up of the muscle (smaller muscles are will generally have a higher percentage of slow twitch...harder to fatigue muscle fibers - as opposed to bigger muscles like the chest or quads).
But when someone refutes a highly-valid training theory without backing it up, and only going by their big ego, it opens up room for discussion.
I do feel that there is room for 1 set training as well as multiple set training...but let's back up our theories here.
-Bash

Again, it's only valid in the eyes of a few, notice only 2 people posting about it. Maybe a dozen or two dozen tops, but thousands, just on this board alone, do MORE then one set.

Read what I wrote above, this has nothing to do with anyone's ego. If anything, your ego seems to be the playing role here, you hate to believe the fact that people can grow from higher or HIGH volume. You give NO SCIENTIFIC evidence either, so don't point fingers and try to high a pin sized bulls-eyes w/ a hydrogen bomb.

READ my longer post ABOVE...
Mr.X

 

[Mr.X]

This is my final word:

Look, I've done most of Mentzers "Heavy Duty" which basically means 1 set to failure (more or less) - and so have many of my trainees- . I think it is a good training method to mix it up but not the end all he claims. His "one way to train" is total BS. Mixed in once every few months it's OK but then get some new routine. He claims in his Heavy duty book that people can attain their peak in one year--that is total crap.

Or to put it plainly there is no fucking way.
Even with juice this is not the case. Even his so called boy Yates took longer than a year and you know he was using gear, great nutrition/supps and that was his job.
Mentzer has some good ideas and was a great BB in his day but his single-minded philosophy on training sucks. Too bad he didn't even train that way himself. And looking at him now (at least before his passing)--if he trains like that it ain't no ringing endorsement.

If I were to reccomend books for training it would be Charles Polquins books ("Polquin principles" or "Manly weight loss"--if thats your goal) that guy knows what he's talking about. He writes some stuff on testosterone's online mag--search their archives and you can probably get some good info by him.

That one year to your potential is no more true than "An Atlas Body in 7 days"

Mr.X

 

[nclifter6feet6]

i cant help it that mentzer was an ass. and thats not even the point of the discussion

1000's of people on this board do train with multiple sets. yet they dont make consistant gains, or either they go the steroid route because they are not satisfied

and im still going to keep saying that no studies prove one way or the other is better than the other

 

[nclifter6feet6]

let me add my experience i have with HIT

i only do one set of rack deadlifts for my back for about 10 slow reps with 405. i suggest EVERYBODY try it. my upper back lats and everything in my back stays sore for days......so why in the world would i need 5 sets if one set makes my back traps and lats so damn sore?????????and the same also goes for chest i can do one set of 10 on the bench press and be sore for days ......why would i need more????? but on curls i tend to do 2 sets because it is a different muscle fiber make up but it is still low volume

but i notice if i do lower reps like 4 for one set i dont get sore.

i think everyone should try one set of 10 reps to failure. you will get sore as hell.

 

[Mr.X]

let me add my experience i have with HIT

i only do one set of rack deadlifts for my back for about 10 slow reps with 405. i suggest EVERYBODY try it. my upper back lats and everything in my back stays sore for days......so why in the world would i need 5 sets if one set makes my back traps and lats so damn sore?????????and the same also goes for chest i can do one set of 10 on the bench press and be sore for days ......why would i need more????? but on curls i tend to do 2 sets because it is a different muscle fiber make up but it is still low volume

but i notice if i do lower reps like 4 for one set i dont get sore.

i think everyone should try one set of 10 reps to failure. you will get sore as hell.

Yup, I've done the heavy deadlifts, they work great. Everyone has different things that work for them. I don't think any one method is best for everyone. There are different styles, but basically, people put too much thought into workingout, IMO. This is how complex working out is: Pick up weight, do a set, put down weight. That's all.....

Mr.X

 

[Kid Dynamite]

kid D.

could u post these studies. from what i remember on another board is that guy named DOGGCRAP has a routine that alot of people praise an it is HIT also. he also says there are no studies proving that multiple sets is greater than 1. but im not just regurgitating what he says, because i have heard this before.but on the contrary i havent heard that 1 set is better than multiple sets either.....i havent heard one being favord over the other, all ive seen is that neither showed to be better than the other

I'll have to find it, it was either an ACSM or NSCA study, we were discussing it in an exercise prescription class. I'll see if I can find it, but basically it just stated that one set was sufficient for untrained individuals, pretty basic stuff. It said nothing of training to failure, intensity, reps range, etc. It was just a basic study that probably wouldn't relate to HIT style training.
I've never tried HIT, so I don't want to say anything for or against it.

 

[nclifter6feet6]

IMO. This is how complex working out is: Pick up weight, do a set, put down weight. That's all.....

Mr.X

well if it was that easy, and all u had to do was lift weights, we wouldnt need a TRAINING BOARD.

if all people had to do was lift weights and just eat a ton of food to gain year after year we would have some monserous people. hell ive been training for 8 years and thought like you thought.......i was thinking hell i can slam down 8000 calories and lift weights and be huge, but you stop growing after a while. because there is science to training.

anyone can get to a 250 pound or 300 pound bench or whatever natrualy by just training balls to the wall and not needing a smart routine. but to get to that point where your wanting a 400 pound or 500 pound bench. your routine will need more thought unless your a genetic FREAK.........hey just ask B-Fold.....the man didnt get where he's at by training like a dumbass and just eating. he trains smart, and eats

 

[Mr.X]

well if it was that easy, and all u had to do was lift weights, we wouldnt need a TRAINING BOARD.

if all people had to do was lift weights and just eat a ton of food to gain year after year we would have some monserous people. hell ive been training for 8 years and thought like you thought.......i was thinking hell i can slam down 8000 calories and lift weights and be huge, but you stop growing after a while. because there is science to training.

anyone can get to a 250 pound or 300 pound bench or whatever natrualy by just training balls to the wall and not needing a smart routine. but to get to that point where your wanting a 400 pound or 500 pound bench. your routine will need more thought unless your a genetic FREAK.........hey just ask B-Fold.....the man didnt get where he's at by training like a dumbass and just eating. he trains smart, and eats

Yes, all people have to do is lift weights, it's as simple as that. I am not here to win futile internet arguments, but you'll learn in 20 years that most people can just get great results from lifting.

Mr.X

 

[nclifter6feet6]

Yes, all people have to do is lift weights, it's as simple as that. I am not here to win futile internet arguments, but you'll learn in 20 years that most people can just get great results from lifting.

well you have been juicing for a while so i see where you are coming from but natural trainees cant just bang the weights and eat big and expect to keep growing year after year.

 

[Mr.X]

well you have been juicing for a while so i see where you are coming from but natural trainees cant just bang the weights and eat big and expect to keep growing year after year.

I was natural for a long time, I did gain some good weight back years ago when I training 1 week HIT, 4 weeks high volume, 2 weeks medium volume HIT. Works wonders on natural lifters when they just lift, at least that was the case for me and quiet a few of my trainees.

Mr.X

 

[cleverlandshark2001]

I was only upset that you dismissed my question as a big joke, when in fact, I was serious.
I, however, harbor no ill feelings toward you for talking trash and consider this conversation over with. Carry on if you must.
For the advice that you did provide on another question, I thank you.
-Bash

 

[Mr.X]

I was only upset that you dismissed my question as a big joke, when in fact, I was serious.
I, however, harbor no ill feelings toward you for talking trash and consider this conversation over with. Carry on if you must.
For the advice that you did provide on another question, I thank you.
-Bash

I think you misread my responses, I was not talking trash. Expressing opinions based on long time experience and expertise is a quiet effetive way to disscuss matters. No one said your question was a big joke, but I stand by my comments that Mike Mentzers ideas are not feasible if taken word by word. Anyhow, everyone believes in their own theories and FACTS, I'm not here to win internet arguments, so I shall move on.

Mr.X