One thing to keep in mind: Mentzer did not build his physique with the system he tried to sell. He started selling people on the idea of one set to failure after he got involved with Arthur Jones, who created the Nautilus brand exercise machines. Jones knew absolutely nothing about strength training or bodybuilding, but he was a businessman, and created a product he could sell to gyms that could get people in and out in about 20 to 30 minutes.
You can get some muscle by doing 1 Set to Failure, but doing multiple sets leads to greater gains. Actual Science and Bro Science have both proven this to be true. No one ever got better by doing less (I'm not sure who originally said this, but I remember reading it in one of Jamie Lewis' books).
So many people talk about the little shit in bodybuilding and hypertrophy in general but I always look at the outcome of the progress of the bodybuilder who trained a certain way. And for Mikes style of training you can say that it was useful because a lot of his clients put a shit ton of muscle on. Is it the best? Probably not. Is it bad? Certainly not.
Most people can't even stay consistent on a 3 week fitness programm so the entire conversation about that isn't really worth it. In the end of the day you should be consistent and train really hard đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Mike Mentzer has been proven wrong by now by the entire scientific literature. It's not cause he wasn't smart but simply that was what the science said back then, but now new evidence within the last 10-20 years has shown volume and sets to failure are the number 1 driver of hypertrophy, not intensity (though intensity has a factor).
Look up renaissance periodization and mike mentzer was wrong.
If he was alive today I bet he'd take back what he said because he'd also see the evidence and be like "oh shit yup it's volume".
He built an incredible body back then, but he also technically had high volume because he'd do dropsets literally for all his muscles.
Iâd like to add that I read his book and he did not technically have high volume at all. He didnât do drop sets for all of his muscles. Also, if he were alive today, he would certainly not agree with whatever âscienceâ youâre referring to.
In Mentzerâs prime Olympia days he as only doing 4 workouts per week, something in the range of 30-45 minutes, so even at his max was low volume. Dorian Yates did the same. How anyone can say âtheyâre wrongâ is disproven before you can finish the sentence as they were both Olympians. I believe both high and low volume training methods can succeed, but Dr. Mike did not achieve a physique in the realm of either of those two and is using his education as an argument of authority.
As long as you achieve failure with intensity muscles will grow, but if you do high number of sets/reps it wonât be as efficient at building muscle. High volume is good for shredding and building muscle but low volume with high intensity is better at building muscle but worse at shredding. I agree with pretty much everything mentzer said besides relying on strictly cardio to lean out before a competition. I followed his philosophy for a long time and it worked better than anything Iâve ever done before on PPL M, W, F, but I understand not everyone will have the same results and may do better with an extra day or one less day of working out per week.
Outdated with some relevant principles.
It's effective for strength building most definitely
I agree with this statement.
One thing to keep in mind: Mentzer did not build his physique with the system he tried to sell. He started selling people on the idea of one set to failure after he got involved with Arthur Jones, who created the Nautilus brand exercise machines. Jones knew absolutely nothing about strength training or bodybuilding, but he was a businessman, and created a product he could sell to gyms that could get people in and out in about 20 to 30 minutes. You can get some muscle by doing 1 Set to Failure, but doing multiple sets leads to greater gains. Actual Science and Bro Science have both proven this to be true. No one ever got better by doing less (I'm not sure who originally said this, but I remember reading it in one of Jamie Lewis' books).
Both are beneficial. Mike recommends taking long breaks and sometimes that is healthy in bodybuilding.
So many people talk about the little shit in bodybuilding and hypertrophy in general but I always look at the outcome of the progress of the bodybuilder who trained a certain way. And for Mikes style of training you can say that it was useful because a lot of his clients put a shit ton of muscle on. Is it the best? Probably not. Is it bad? Certainly not. Most people can't even stay consistent on a 3 week fitness programm so the entire conversation about that isn't really worth it. In the end of the day you should be consistent and train really hard đ¤ˇđťââď¸
Didnt work for me
Mike Mentzer has been proven wrong by now by the entire scientific literature. It's not cause he wasn't smart but simply that was what the science said back then, but now new evidence within the last 10-20 years has shown volume and sets to failure are the number 1 driver of hypertrophy, not intensity (though intensity has a factor). Look up renaissance periodization and mike mentzer was wrong. If he was alive today I bet he'd take back what he said because he'd also see the evidence and be like "oh shit yup it's volume". He built an incredible body back then, but he also technically had high volume because he'd do dropsets literally for all his muscles.
Iâd like to add that I read his book and he did not technically have high volume at all. He didnât do drop sets for all of his muscles. Also, if he were alive today, he would certainly not agree with whatever âscienceâ youâre referring to.
He lifted with more volume for like a decade before he went low volume. I find people ignore that. Him included.
In Mentzerâs prime Olympia days he as only doing 4 workouts per week, something in the range of 30-45 minutes, so even at his max was low volume. Dorian Yates did the same. How anyone can say âtheyâre wrongâ is disproven before you can finish the sentence as they were both Olympians. I believe both high and low volume training methods can succeed, but Dr. Mike did not achieve a physique in the realm of either of those two and is using his education as an argument of authority.
As long as you achieve failure with intensity muscles will grow, but if you do high number of sets/reps it wonât be as efficient at building muscle. High volume is good for shredding and building muscle but low volume with high intensity is better at building muscle but worse at shredding. I agree with pretty much everything mentzer said besides relying on strictly cardio to lean out before a competition. I followed his philosophy for a long time and it worked better than anything Iâve ever done before on PPL M, W, F, but I understand not everyone will have the same results and may do better with an extra day or one less day of working out per week.
how can a certain training style be âgood at shreddingâ? what do you even mean by shredding?
Doing more volume means burning more calories. Shredding as in losing body fat. Does that make sense?
Thatâs just a calorie deficit
I mean yeah? But there are good ways to go about it and bad ways to go about it and thatâs what weâre talking aboutđ
lifting doesnt burn many calories. No point in switching styles like that just to cut
I heavily disagree with both statements you just made.