I think people are afraid of Mike Mentzers routine.

data trains closest to mentzerstyle of anyone on here that i can currently think of.

I was personally trained by Mike during the time when he was using his last rendition (the one you posted) of Heavy-Duty. I did it verbatim because damned if he would allow anything outside of the guidelines. I went up in strength every damn workout and gained 5-6 lbs of muscle (I was doing gear then also). But for me, the size gains never came close to the strength gains. And please, don't think that is an altogether bad thing, because at the time, I did need more of a strength base. I trained quite a few people using that format not long after that, and many did extremely well (one guy gained 25 lbs over about 5-6 months) and many others didn't gain shit other than some initial strength that was primarily due to innervation gains. It is definitely worth trying if you can stick to it. Like anything else, it works for some people, and not everyone. Whatever you do, black-out the nutrition section of the book. MIKE WAS TOTALLY CLUELESS ABOUT EATING FOR GROWING WHEN APPLIED TO MOST PEOPLES METABOLISMS. Every serious lifter should read his stuff just to see the possibilities that are out there. If nothing else, they may walk away doing a little less, a little harder, and will probably benefit from it. I think he was closer with "Heavy-Duty II" his prior book. And people need to understand that many people do not experience linear size gains when doing single set training. Some people need to add a SHITLOAD of weight to the bar before size budges. And again, this is not necessarily a bad thing if you don't have a fair strength base under you yet. Iron Addict

I love That style of training ...only I following DOrians style more than Metzners.....! super Intense set per exercise....I add weight every time I hit the gym

Although I never met Mike Mentzer we did talk a lot over the phone and email (mostly about philosophy). I did train under his guidance, starting with his first routine in his second heavy duty book and slowly working my way down to his consolidated consolidation routine (squats, chins, dips, and deadlifts) over the course of a couple years. Anyone who has been around this forum for five or six years will remember how dedicated I was to his ideas. Results? I ended up really strong and really fat. The big picture that he was trying to get across was to think about your training. Think about the nature of anaerobic exercise. You can inductively predict appropriate training methods through already well established principles. Everyone knows that the more efficient way to thick legs is to squat … not to run a marathon. Unfortunately, within the scientific community, some people are empiricists and some are rationalists. Some people believe that the only way to knowledge is through reality and others believe that the truth can be known through logical thought. Mike Mentzer, in my opinion, leaned more towards a rationalist. Instead of conducting appropriate (reality based) experiments to test his ideas, he came up with odd analogies and used his background as a famous bodybuilder to prove his claims. Logic is the non contradictory identification of the facts of reality. Hence, his methodology reduced to a single set per muscle group. I mean if all it takes is one sperm from your daddy to activate your life, one bullet to kill a man, surely you can stimulate the growth mechanism with a single hard set. I think that his mistake was putting so much emphasis on the importance of momentary effort that he couldn’t see the value that volume, frequency, and other variables within a training program have on muscular mass as well. I find it interesting that he understood you can do too much … but never realized that you can do to little. That you can train with too much volume … but never realizing that you can train to hard. He was a black/white thinker … never realizing that a spectrum of intensities (of volume, effort, frequency) could exist in harmony … rather than a light switch (on/off). Its also interesting that he was so persistent about definitions yet never provided a clear definition of his heavy duty theory.

I should also add that some people do need more than a day of rest between workouts. A good friend of mine responds best to a moderate volume (6-8 sets per muscle group) once every two weeks. He trains with a typical three day split every (wk1) Mon (wk1) Fri (wk2) Wednesday ... about 3-4 days between workouts ... bodypart 1x/2weeks. On the other side of the spectrum ... Arnold built a nice body training six days a week.

Data, I sense a strong hint of Ayn Rand in your last post-lol. Yes, there are definate boundries as to what constitutes too much and too little volume and frequency. That in itself would be easy to deal with if it weren't for the fact that it varies soooo god damn much from person to person, but yes, Mike made a very great contribution to the game and I, and so many owe him a great debt for making us look at things with a whole new perspective. But, as you no doubt know from your discussions with him, he was extremly dogmatic in his approach, and this is an absolute failing in the world of weight training. I know how volume training is absolute poison for MOST people, including myself, yet I will put together volume routines/diets for those I train if I KNOW that it will be the most result producing protocol. And for some people, it is. EVERYTHING works for some of the people, at least some of the time, and to dismiss things that are productive and will acount for big gains if properly applied is just plain foolish. People should be passionate about their methods and viewpoints, but must understand theirs is not the only perspective let alone the only right one. Back to the topic. I am a huge fan of single set training and abbreivated routines, yet don't write all that many for those I train because I MUST get results for my trainees (I offer a money back guarantee) so I go with the odds and put together something that will blend size and strength gains without the trainee having to add a ponderous amnount of weight to the bar before they get bigger. Anyone here that hasn't read DC's "cycles on pennies" thread: http://www.animalkits.be/ over on Animals board on the "realm of doggcrap and iron addict" section is really missing out. Dogg has TRULY perfected the art of low volume high intensity training and he is a trainer beyond words. And at 300 lean lbs, he is also a bodybuilder beyond words. Iron Addict

Its very interesting. Thanks iron addict. Im so glad you responded to my thread being that you trained with him. Some other books that talk about weight lifting say on thing that makes me think maybe more than one set is necessary. As Dorian said, many people will need 2 sets, since they will find it hard to hit a high intensity level the first set. This is a valid point. How many times have you heard someone say "My second set is always my best". I have found this to be truewith my own training. The sexond set gets more reps and the intensity is great, while the third set often feels harder because the muscle was taxed already. This could have bichemicle origens of course. After an initial set, your musles are more engorged, adrenilin is secreted, and endorhins may have been realeased. The second set is primed then for success. Bill phillips recomends 4 sets because he says that it takes a few sets to get the "neuromuscular systen fired up". While i partially believe this, i would say it probably takes one set to get the neuromuscular system fired up, and any more would tax it, hence overtraining. Now maybe since Bill Phillips is into using light weights and jumping higher each set, maybe the light weights arent as taxing to that system. However, I believe that 4 sets with three light sets is not as productive and may induce some mild overtraining. I think getting pissed of at something before you lift, or imagining the feeling of the burn and strain and lactic acid buildup it essential to geetin enough out of one set. You kinda have to get the adrenelin flowing somehow without taxing the muscles. I thing a five minute warm up on the bike with thoughts of things tha piss you off, and thoughts of forcing a last rep on a lift, is a good way to ensure there is enough adrenalin in the system to work hard and go to maximum intensity the first set, It will take a high degree of concentration and visualisation. Perhaps on the 1st excersize, do 2 sets, and one set for the rest of the excersises. This might ensure a good intesity level for the first excersise better than not having strained with weight before that. Straining with high intensity on one excersise can help you get in gear for another excersise even if it was a different bodypart. For instance, say you were going to do Deadlifts, flyes , incline bench, pulldowns, pullovers and dips for chest and back day. Well, one set of deadlifts might compramise the intensity of the deadlift excersise. Since there was no big adrenelin surge before that. If you did 2 sets of deads, then they second set would probably have much better intesity than the first. After that, one set should suffice for all excersises because the body has been taken to intensity, and is biochemicly in a better situation to be intese on the first set of other excersises without needing a second set. Am I making sense here?

mikes program always gives the person using it great strength gains.. mostly due to the neuro-connection..strength does not always translate into muscle..the program mike prescribed the years before his death are not great at all for muscle gains unless you are previoulsy very overtrained or a newbie who will grow from most any stimuli..i do not care what the effort is one set or two sets a muscle group can not exhaust all available fibers..ask any one who studies human phys and they will most likely tell you the same thing.. i believe in low volume..5-8 sets a body part.. i believe that dorians system worked for dorian too.. but, can you tell me anyone else that works out this way and is a national champ?? probably not..even mentzer at his best did not work out the way he prescribed later in his life..mentzer bases his training routines on rational thinking.. since when did rational thinking translate into muscle gains.. if we were truly rational we would not train at all...rational thinking and training due not go together just for the fact that one can not be a factor for the other.. they do not go together.. period. lets use science and human phys to gather training training data.. not sit in a room and try to transpose RAND into training.. one has nothing to do with the other..:nono:

For me it doesn't matter anymore what kind of progam I'm doing as long as my muscles are fully taxed when I'm done training, and totally healed by the time I train them again. I've been cycling high volume with low volume with pretty nice success. Ejemplo Gratius: For 3 weeks I'll do 5 sets per excercise, and for 3 weeks I'll do 1 warm up set for each excercise, and then 2 all out sets. I make sure that I'm warm with the low volume by doing 15minutes on a cardio piece, and when I do high volume I just hop into warm up sets. Here's what I"ve noticed. If your not doing excercises that you like, and that make you feel powerful, you don't become such. I have a friend on this board who posted his staples a while back; behind the neck press, benchs, rows, squats, deadlifts, dips. Now I think the last time I did dips up until this year was maybe in high school. I do them religiously now, and have found them to be a great excercise. I"ve trained with the most elite powerlifters in the world overall, and it's interesting to see how their muscles are big, but not huge, and beyond dense. While bodybuilers are huge, and 'generaly' not that dense until contest time. I can't give a name, but I trained with this gentleman who has placed several times nationally in powerlifting, and at first sight you might guess between 230-240lean pounds. I asked him and he told me 275 and I was totally dumbfounded.

I just wanna pipe up here: I went from 145 - 195 lbs naturally using a 2x/week full body routine. This is how it worked: I cycled my weights every couple months: work up to a max set that I could not surpass...then back off rest, and work my way back up again starting at 85%-90% with a 5% gain at the max or more...then repeated again and again and again. I was FULLY rested and pumped each time I blasted my muscle into adapting. Classic hardgainer shit. Nothing else worked. NOTHING. Not 4x/week, not high rep, not switching exercises around. I've tried it all. Your muscles need rest and to feel full and pumped to grow. Period. If they are still sore, you can't blast weight. Secondly, I stopped working out, and dropped back to a thin 169lbs. So I hopped on a cycle of fina and same 2x/week shit...and I was back up to 195 in a matter of 1 month after a 3 year lay off. No one can tell me abbreviated workouts don't work. They do...anyone who says anything different is full of shit. Now again, I was on a sust250'>sustanon cycle, and doing that high rep 4x/week crap...ALL BLOAT to 204..very little real strength gain! YES EVEN WITH JUICE AND A GOOD DIET YOU CAN OVERTRAIN. Im going back onto a hardgainer style routine on 3 more cycles of juice. I am 99% positive I can get to 210 this way.

I like to think of myself as more objective, than an Objectivist. For example, Mike Mentzer said that you should not take Rand’s philosophy as gospel (without question) … but he left me with the impression that if you disagreed with anything you were not an Objectivist. You brought up another interesting contradiction within Heavy Duty. Mike Mentzer had the intelligence to mentally connect resistance training to other sciences, such as genetics, but produced “one size fits all programs” never taking into consideration the principle of individuality. Like you, I believe that the most productive routines are hard, brief, and infrequent in their methodology. I gave single set training an honest try for a couple years before settling in the middle ground. See I believe that muscle mass is analogous to a callous on your palm from hard work. Your palms thicken according to the levels of demands encountered. Similarly, your muscle mass thickens (adapts) to the level of demands presented by weighted workouts (challenging your functional abilities through resistance-training). A thicker muscle is a more resistant muscle to change. As the intermediate bodybuilder evolves to become an advanced bodybuilder, their muscles adapt to routine routines. As you near your inherited muscular capacity, you have to surpass previous levels of demands to grow. An advanced trainer is advanced because usual changes no longer give your body reason to grow. Unfortunately, consistently exceeding previous levels of demands will eventually lead to over training in the long run. So the solution is to cycle demands from periods of low stress to high stress (over – reach previous levels of demands). Getting back to single set training. I always argue with sub failure training advocates that at some point, you will have to train to failure to maximize your muscle mass. Just as a sprinter has to exert more effort in order to run faster and adapt, the resistance trainer will need to train to failure. However, the similar argument applies to single set advocates. At some point, a single all out balls to the wall set will not be enough to stimulate growth. Sure its stressful, but not stressful enough. A second, third, fourth set will be necessary (hence the value of cycling demands because you could go on forever) to “overload”.

Originally posted by anabolicboy Its very interesting. Thanks iron addict. Im so glad you responded to my thread being that you trained with him. Some other books that talk about weight lifting say on thing that makes me think maybe more than one set is necessary. As Dorian said, many people will need 2 sets, since they will find it hard to hit a high intensity level the first set. This is a valid point. How many times have you heard someone say "My second set is always my best". I have found this to be truewith my own training. The sexond set gets more reps and the intensity is great, while the third set often feels harder because the muscle was taxed already. This could have bichemicle origens of course. After an initial set, your musles are more engorged, adrenilin is secreted, and endorhins may have been realeased. The second set is primed then for success. Bill phillips recomends 4 sets because he says that it takes a few sets to get the "neuromuscular systen fired up". While i partially believe this, i would say it probably takes one set to get the neuromuscular system fired up, and any more would tax it, hence overtraining. Now maybe since Bill Phillips is into using light weights and jumping higher each set, maybe the light weights arent as taxing to that system. However, I believe that 4 sets with three light sets is not as productive and may induce some mild overtraining. I think getting pissed of at something before you lift, or imagining the feeling of the burn and strain and lactic acid buildup it essential to geetin enough out of one set. You kinda have to get the adrenelin flowing somehow without taxing the muscles. I thing a five minute warm up on the bike with thoughts of things tha piss you off, and thoughts of forcing a last rep on a lift, is a good way to ensure there is enough adrenalin in the system to work hard and go to maximum intensity the first set, It will take a high degree of concentration and visualisation. Perhaps on the 1st excersize, do 2 sets, and one set for the rest of the excersises. This might ensure a good intesity level for the first excersise better than not having strained with weight before that. Straining with high intensity on one excersise can help you get in gear for another excersise even if it was a different bodypart. For instance, say you were going to do Deadlifts, flyes , incline bench, pulldowns, pullovers and dips for chest and back day. Well, one set of deadlifts might compramise the intensity of the deadlift excersise. Since there was no big adrenelin surge before that. If you did 2 sets of deads, then they second set would probably have much better intesity than the first. After that, one set should suffice for all excersises because the body has been taken to intensity, and is biochemicly in a better situation to be intese on the first set of other excersises without needing a second set. Am I making sense here? As a general rule I think that its best to start off with a lower volume. A single hard set of two or three exercises and work your way up evaluating a program through your body composition and your appearance in the mirror. So ... two or three hard sets for a month ... three or four hard sets next month ... four or five hard sets the following month ... see what happens ... if you find better results training less ... go back down ... you'll never find an 'optimal program' but a range of reps / sets / duration / frequency / etc that works well for you.

Im glad some of you guys had had sucess with HI... I personally think it sucks...whats the point of working out for only 20 minutes a week? You MIGHT be able to build some muscle, BUT as far as taxing your CV system like a regular workout, the one hour type workouts 5-6/week are better...right? MOST people will grow at least a bit off of any system...2 sets, 32 sets whatever. The thing is to change it up. MM failed to realize this... And my God..his diet tips?? Hilarious. He wrote something insane like since a pound of weight equals 3,600 cals, you have to increase your cals like 112 a day every day for a year and you will gain 85 odd pounds a year of muscle...just absurd logic. And by the way, what was the biggest he ever competed at? 205, maybe?? Nowadays, that could not even win a state championship. Not even close...

I have tried it, to the letter, many times in the past. Like most had strength gains, but no size. I belive he followed things too "logically" and made comparisions to totally unrelated things (one sperm to create a human, so why not one set to build muscle). His methods were not based on scientifc fact as he stated, but logical conclusions he drew. Where were these "clients" that were gaining 30-40pounds in a month or two, or those reaching their genetic potential in 6months??