HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic

There seems to be a lot of talk and some almost dangerously persuasive arguments being thrown around on the forum lately suggesting that HD is a lie, that size & strength may not be related and Mike Mentzer was some kind of trickster or sham artist for "lying" to trainees about the corellation between size and strength. (The vampire nonsense etc). Why, there was even a cleverly written article posted (Semper Servus) from the IART website that convincingly supports this idea. (Yes I read it). A few people here seem to be weakening in their resolve to stick with what they know (or thought they knew) to be true. Argue passionately against something long enough and even its staunchest advocates will begin to question themselves and their belief in spite of the facts, science and logic that support what they KNOW to be true.

I know what I am about to say is not my own words and is almost childlike in its simplicity but it needs to be reiterated to shed some light on these matters: If strength does not lead to size eventually then what do you do to get bigger? Get weaker? If size and strength are not related then as stated in Mikes newest book (The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer), it would be conceivable that someone the size of Dorian Yates may be able to curl only 25 lbs or so. Why not?

I′d like to ask anyone on this forum who is in doubt about the link between size & strength; Do you honestly think you could bench press 350+ and have a small chest and triceps? Do you honestly believe think you could deadlift 550-600+ and have a thin, frail back? Do you believe you could squat 400+ and have toothpick legs? We all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you build substantial strength, you will build muscle along with it yet this is exactly what some people on this forum are trying to refute! Next I′ll have people lecturing me that the earth really is flat- given enough time and effort on their I may actually start to beleve them!

Why don′t I look like an awsome natural bodybuilder at the moment? Because I′m not bloody well strong enough thats why! If I am to get bigger than what I am now then I have to get a great deal stronger. Of course not everyone has the capacity to build to a 400 lb bench press or a 500lb squat or whatever. THAT is where the limiting factor of genetics come into play. Of course there are limits as to how strong one actually can become and that is what will ultimately govern how much size they are able to produce. If there weren′t built in limits then everyone who weight trained efficiently would end up benching 400+ etc but we all know that people who can do that are the exeption, not the rule. OH!- I"M SORRY! Genetics don′t matter do they? That is just HD nonsense and pathetic excuses for not being huge!

OK, HD is false- it does not work so what do we do? Switch to Dual Factor training- thats the training method used by most of the worlds top athletes. Whats DFT you ask? Well it can′t really be explained or defined. Do your own research- type different key words into Google and you may come up with something. I′d tell you myself but the program I bought off some shonky website can′t be shared because I don′t want to betray the guy that sold it to me. Sorry.

Hi,

No-one is trying to suggest that strength and size are not related. Of course they are. What is being said is that there is more than one factor involved in inducing hypertropy, whether it be volume, intensity, etc…

As for DFT not having any defining principles, it may apear that way but look at almost any science. For example, in engineering there are guiding principles that allow calculations to be performed, but they are not precise, all they allow for is ball park figures and a rough guide. There is no substitute for practical experience and trial an error. The same exists in exercise. A theory can allow you to try a certain avenue, but until it has been shown to work, it is nothing more that an idea. And DFT is simply another set of guidlines to build a programme around. It addresses the problem from a different angle to HIT. It′s like Jeff said, this stuff isn′t black andwhite.

I gotta go now, but I′ll type more later.

Take it easy,

Mdm

Adman,

And let′s not forget how the rampant abuse of steroids,HGH, etc. in bodybuilding have skewed our mindset in regards to training. You can′t compare apples to oranges.

Andy

Adman,

Great post. I tend to agree with you about strength and size. I′m 100% positive that larger muscles are stronger, but the more research I do, the more doubts I have that TRYING to get stronger will lead to BIG muscular gains. I also agree with you 100% that genetics is a real issue that many ignore. They don′t want to come to grips with limitations that they CANNOT alter besides steroids/drugs.

Whether we′re talking about HIT, HD, or DFT, I STILL believe 100% that INTENSITY is where growth stimulation occurs. I guess it′s just a matter of what is REAL intensity. DFT offers the argument that increasing frequency and/or volume is a way to increase intensity. When I TRUELY look at that argument (from an internal muscular exhaustion standpoint), I would have to tend to agree with it. The problem I have is this: How much more growth do you get from increasing intensity at certain points vs recovery ability? Also, I′m wondering about how much we CAN improve our recovery abilities. I know Arthur Jones used to say we only have the ability to increase our recovery abilities roughly 50%, but we can increase our strength by 200-300%. Now I really have no idea if that′s true. That′s why I must question it. Mike would/should have done the same thing, just like he questioned 4 days before atrophy. Let′s assume Arthur was right, and 50% is the only possible improvement, what about damage efficiency? What if you can recover 50% more, but the muscles actual get damaged LESS because of stronger connective tissue? The point is, I don′t know, and I must question it.

There are also MAJOR problems with DFT that I still see however. Like you said, nothing can REALLY be pinned down. Until someone can come up with a UNIVERSAL WORKOUT ROUTINE like Mike did with Heavy Duty 2, which works for the MAJORITY of the population, I see DFT as a bogus solution for the masses (EVEN IF IT WAS CORRECT).

Ok, so the reason I say intensity is #1 is because what if one uses light weights, but does super slow techniques or such to exhaust the muscles very deeply? They′re not moving nearly as much weight as they COULD, yet they WILL grow potentially. Mike himself even said to slow down to 4/4, your job is to put the tension on the muscles. So, that seems to make weight not as important as muscle exhaustion. That′s where I can see strength being a SIDE EFFECT of the muscle growing, not the STRENGTH ITSELF directly responsible for the growth. We must use a CERTAIN amount of weight just to guarentee we output more energy than input into the muscle. If that threshold is crossed, EVENTUALLY growth stimulation should occur. That′s my current perspective at the moment. Volume, frequency, advanced techniques, etc., are all ways to exhaust more of this energy and do so more deeply.

So while I truely believe strength IS related to size, I′m not 100% convinced that it is the CAUSE of size. Never-the-less, INTENSITY is STILL the #1 key. It′s just a matter of realizing intensity can mean many different things, and I don′t think we STILL know for sure EXACTLY what intensity is.

Darrell

I think I′m justified in assuming that this…

"I��d tell you myself but the program I bought off some shonky website can��t be shared because I don��t want to betray the guy that sold it to me. Sorry." – Adman

is a personal insult directed at me. Doesn′t surprise me, as you introduced yourself to this form by insulting 95% of its members with your first post.

Don′t be jealous mate. You can buy his book and get his personal training services as well. It was the best 100 bucks I ever spent on bodybuilding stuff. It gave me a complete training plan, a complete diet plan, all the principles I needed, and lifetime personal training advice from the author, which I′ve used on several occasions. It also opened me up to the world of Dual Factor Theory, and introduced me to what sucessful people are doing the world over. I′ve spent far more money on HIT/HD stuff in the past that didn′t give me half that, but certainly gave me enough logic and analogies to use as ammo against non-believers.

If you buy his stuff to learn about the specifics of Dual Factor Theory, however, you′ll be very dissapointed. He doesn′t even mention it once. Why not? DFT is a theory, not an application. His program, MuscleNow, is an application of that theory. It is a very good and unique application of DFT, but it is still simply an application. His application has principles, the theory it is based on has guidlines. Where did I learn about DFT you ask? The same places you did.

HD is also based on a theory, that being Single-Factor Theory. Why don′t you hear Mike talk about Single Factor? It′s taken for granted, that′s why. It′s the same reason why DFT guys never say "Dual Factor Theory." It′s taken for granted and doesn′t need to be mentioned or explained over and over again. Do a seach for "Single Factor Theory" on line, and you′ll probably find less info on it than you will on Dual Factor. They are underlying theories, and are thus taken for granted.

As mdm said, these theories are based on guiding principles, not absolutes. People make absolutes when they try to apply them and make a program. HIT has plenty of absolute principles in its application of SFT, and MuscleNow has plenty in its application of DFT. They are both applications though, and nothing more. The theories, SFT and DFT, however, have only guidlines.

So, if you′re pissed off with me because I haven′t told you exactly what Dual Factor is, what it′s absolute principles are, and how to define it, you should now be able to understand why. All the info is out there, free for you to read as well. We can talk about the theories if you want after you′re read the stuff, but I will not discuss all the principles of the application I bought.

Your first paragraph sounds like someone trying to keep the faithful loyal as well. Pretty sad. …"cleverly written articles," "weakening in their resolve," "science and logic that support what they KNOW to be true." hahaha.

Nobody is saying that strength and size aren′t related. What is being said, however, is that certain programs may lead to a better ratio for size gains. Moreover, there are other things involved in gaining strength, not just hypertrophy. Just putting a little more iron on the bar for one set very infrequently forever is not a guarantee that you′ve achieved maximum hypertrophy.

You can choose to ignore any new information if you want, and stay the course that you′re on, but more of the same will bring you more of the same results. Genetics do count, but how can you know if your genetics are so bad if you don′t give them a chance? My genetics greatly "improved" once I started training and eating more productively.

Good ideas Darrell. I particularly agree with your last paragraph.

Jeff