CoolColJ said:
The problems with all these guys is that they use judgement and theory to formulate their training "systems". There is no science or research involved
In fairness,
all of science is theories. (I know what you mean, though...you're speaking of theory as its commonly understood connotation.)
Unfortunately, Mike's "theory" was full of problems:
1--He used a priori reasoning. That is, Mike decided less frequent training, training to failure, etc. was all "best"
before he had observed that this was irrefutably so.
Put another way, Mike used circular reasoning; i.e., "Less frequent training works best because it works best."
That's obviously a big no-no.
2--Mike was selective in how he interpreted his data, basically only looking for information which supported his circular logic. For instance, he used to ask me how my strength gains and bodyweight were coming along.
I'd get better at certain exercises, even when practiced very infrequently...my best ass-to-ankles squatting was done on such a routine in fact (a so-so 380x2 w/out a belt). And yes, I definitely gained bodyweight.
The trouble was, more bodyweight =/ (does not equal) bodybuilding progress. I was adding FAT, too, which is not testament to the efficacy of a training program. Such a distinction is vital when collecting observations to form a theory.
Same said for strength gains. They were largely exercise-specific, purely the result of neural adaptations (with a few exceptions but we won't get bogged down with that).
That brings me to
3--Flawed premises. For instance, Mike reasoned that a stronger muscle =/ a bigger one. However, the two are somewhat related but not directly correlated.
God Bless him, but Mike fell on lots of non sequiturs to try and piece the puzzle together.
Finally, we have
4--Imprecise definitions. You can't get anywhere in science or logic without
very explicit definitions of the relevant terms.
Mike's notion of "intensity," for instance, depended entirely upon momentary effort, seemingly a safe bet but actually far from it. Anyone who's gone to the gym royally pissed and ready to tear shit up, is jacked up on ECA, or has someone spotting them when attempting a scary-ass, big weight knows their output could vary by as much as several reps...those reps are the difference between overload and not!
Anyway...
There could be more, but those are the main problems off the top of my head; the point is, even with one of the above problems, a theory is in fact
nothing of the sort.
All that said, I was friends with Mike, and I miss the guy. He'd had some troubles but when he was "himself," he was in fact quite intelligent, and always charming. Some circles, certainly none here, give him undue flak over his eccentricities (classic ad hominem: bash the man, not his ideas). That's especially foul, now that the man's dead. Among others, TC Luoma cemented himself as a real asshole in my mind for the way he talked about Mike after his death. (We'll overlook the fact that his "Atomic Dog" columns are wholly pointless, and
certainly overlook the fact that he's got the body of a ten year-old girl. We wouldn't want to make personal attacks against someone we think deserving, after all...right? Not while they're
alive, anyway.)
I should also say Mike's 3 days-per week routines worked well for me. I gained like gangbusters when I trained each bodypart once a week, and I certainly think it's a much better bodybuilding routine than the type most schmoes use. But is it ideal?
No. It'll work, but for low-volume stuff DC training takes it to the next level.
Mr. Muscle, I advise that you avoid Mike's consolidated workouts. 4-10 days rest between sessions is simply unnecessary, and definitely detrimental in the long run. I could go into some specifics to that end, things I've experienced first-hand, but I'm too long for this stage tonight
, and I think there are arguments in the training stickies that already cover what I might say.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
