Blood volume or the Mike mentzer approach

[Flocci]

I find it so interesting (and hypocritical, more then than now) that when bodybuilding machines were first introduced (think Nautilus) everybody said machines were not for bodybuilding(ers) could not build appreciable muscle. There was a huge campaign against them (think Weider, Et al) doing everything and anything to discredit them in favor of barbells of course, afraid of hurting their sales at a minimum, driving them out of business worst case scenario.

Now gyms are, by and large, judged by the quality and quantity of their machines. [I say this because I saw this ‘revolution’ start back in the late 60’s into the 70’s . . . (yes I am that old) and have contributed to heavily to several nooks on the history of the subject.]

Most quality machines you see now incorporate many of the variable resistance and muscle isolation ‘principles’ that were introduced back then, were thought to be rubbish and worse than worthless and now you can barely see an exercise machine in some way shape or form or function incorporate those ‘principles’.

My my . . . how far we have come and looking back, how much time we have lost.

Could go on and on but don’t want to bore everybody to tears.

i'd love to hear more, especially about how things were back in the day compared to now and how we might have progessed in some things and regresse din others and what your and other OG's thoughts are on things.

 

[KingOfSushi]

i'd love to hear more, especially about how things were back in the day compared to now and how we might have progessed in some things and regresse din others and what your and other OG's thoughts are on things.

I think it’s pretty easy to see that physiques have definitely improved since implementation of machines more in my opinion.

As for this topic of “free weights being superior” as a blanket statement, forcing movements etc I recommend reading this thread and the way he approaches training.

There’s still a whole generation of older lifters that thing (for bodybuilding) you NEED to heavy deadlift, freeweight bench, barbell row, barbell row…

Big Dave Smith: AMA Thread/Journal

No, it doesn’t for anyone. The subQ water isn’t related to estrogen alone. If it were, people could run limitless testosterone as long as they squashed estrogen with enough AI’s. The water retention has something to do with aldosterone, ADH, fluid dynamics unrelated to estrogen. Some...

www.professionalmuscle.com

 

[Massive G]

Kai Greene working with moderate weights

I was thinking the same thing and was going to link those vids by Kai.

 

[BillMass]

You don't need be thinking about training methods to build muscle right now - you need to be thinking about how to get your body fat significantly down, particularly since you recently had a heart issue.

Yes that's what I'm currently in the process of my friend thank you

 

[mexbeast]

@BillMass I'm truly sorry you had to go through that! How are you doing now? Are you actually okay to lift some what heavy weights?

 

[Sectør]

Interesting video with chris aceto, 34:00 minute mark

he says he a fan of 2 on 1 off with high volume

 

[NEMSZ]

Interesting video with chris aceto, 34:00 minute mark

he says he a fan of 2 on 1 off with high volume

Yea but he also said he doesn’t like high repetitions, he likes volume in the sense of set volume but high intensity, all out sets, then went on to compare a Sprinter with a long distance runner..

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t do 20 all out sets with heavy weight for back in my training session.

 

[Sectør]

Yea but he also said he doesn’t like high repetitions, he likes volume in the sense of set volume but high intensity, all out sets, then went on to compare a Sprinter with a long distance runner..

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t do 20 all out sets with heavy weight for back in my training session.

I think his reasoning was that slightly heavier weights do more damage to the muscle fibers, where you're getting less tears that the body needs to repair with calories if you're doing higher rep.

I think thats why hes also a fan of 2 on 1 off, because you'd definitely crash your central nervous system with super high volume and intensity.

I'm still digging through other videos to get an overall piece of how he approaches training and diet

 

[bigzzz]

16 sets of leg press. Plus 5 sets of extensions, 3 sets of adduction, and 2 sets of abduction. And that's my regular weekly quads workout.

"three to five sets four sets per muscle" - which I'm guessing is your own unique way of saying 'four sets' - is not at all overkill. It's nothing unless you're just getting in the gym for the first time.

But are all of those sets (close) to failure? Or just in total?

 

[Mufasa123]

Just for the record on this thread.

Mentzer's theory of concentric failure being a biological adaptive hypertrophy "light switch" is fantasy land. NOTHING happens at concentric failure in the muscle. Synchronized fiber recruitment and rate coding simply aren't enough to move the weight against gravity anymore (inadequacy and/or fatigue driven inadequacy from pervious work/reps) Done. Proven. 100%. Great logical system but built on a foundation of totally false premise and biology. I liked Mike. Maybe my favorite physique and busted his ass to better himself not just as a BBer but as a thinker and complete being harkening back to 1950s and before holistic physical culture. He was simply totally wrong on this though. Not saying working out with his Heavy Duty system or ideas will result in zero gains but rather any gains are not directly derived from achieving concentric failure.

Similarly pumping blood in a muscle doesn't produce hypertrophy. Any gains from such a workout plan are not directly derived from pumping blood. If it was, we could hook up blood bags and use tourniquets and pressure - not worth imagination drain on how to do it as it's total waste and false.

We could discuss microtrauma, progressive loading via any number of combinations of volume/frequency or the often Mentzer 90s maligned 3rd fundamental variable intensity (which is load by % of 1RM - that's formal definition not Gym Rat Perceived Effort to channel categorically incorrect theory). I'll leave that to someone else.

Someone had to say it.

 

[luki7788]

Just for the record on this thread.

Mentzer's theory of concentric failure being a biological adaptive hypertrophy "light switch" is fantasy land. NOTHING happens at concentric failure in the muscle. Synchronized fiber recruitment and rate coding simply aren't enough to move the weight against gravity anymore (inadequacy and/or fatigue driven inadequacy from pervious work/reps) Done. Proven. 100%. Great logical system but built on a foundation of totally false premise and biology. I liked Mike. Maybe my favorite physique and busted his ass to better himself not just as a BBer but as a thinker and complete being harkening back to 1950s and before holistic physical culture. He was simply totally wrong on this though. Not saying working out with his Heavy Duty system or ideas will result in zero gains but rather any gains are not directly derived from achieving concentric failure.

Similarly pumping blood in a muscle doesn't produce hypertrophy. Any gains from such a workout plan are not directly derived from pumping blood. If it was, we could hook up blood bags and use tourniquets and pressure - not worth imagination drain on how to do it as it's total waste and false.

We could discuss microtrauma, progressive loading via any number of combinations of volume/frequency or the often Mentzer 90s maligned 3rd fundamental variable intensity (which is load by % of 1RM - that's formal definition not Gym Rat Perceived Effort to channel categorically incorrect theory). I'll leave that to someone else.

Someone had to say it.

man either I misunderstood your post or it follows from it that nothing really causes hypertrophy

I would say completely the opposite - that every form of resistance training causes some degree of hypertrophy/adaptation

 

[Mufasa123]

man either I misunderstood your post or it follows from it that nothing really causes hypertrophy

I would say completely the opposite - that every form of resistance training causes some degree of hypertrophy/adaptation

Very last paragraph I allude to the factors that actually drive it. Basically failure, pump etc are incidental. They do not drive it. Hypertrophy can and does occur in the presence or absense of those so they are not causal.

What I didn't do was provide a full in depth explanation on all we know about hypertrophy or template examples on how to drive it (changes by person, level, recent history etc...) BTW, as with most medical...we don't know everything. And I still love what I think was Dan Duchaine saying something like, "All this science and yet not one of them has produced a body with more muscle than a dumb bodybuilder." Not saying BBers are dumb (ie tons of sharp people here including yourself) but that hard work, diet, basic guideline parameters and discipline to do it over a long period sure seems to best all the minutia. What we do know is concentric failure and pump are absolutely not driving myofibrillar hypertrophy directly. They are incidental.

I copied it below:
We could discuss microtrauma, progressive loading via any number of combinations of volume/frequency or the often Mentzer 90s maligned 3rd fundamental variable intensity (which is load by % of 1RM - that's formal definition not Gym Rat Perceived Effort to channel categorically incorrect theory). I'll leave that to someone else.

 

[KingOfSushi]

Basically failure, pump etc are incidental.

I feel like it’s disingenuous though to think they aren’t valuable. Failure indicates intensity, and pump indicates proper targeting and stimulation.

Can hypertrophy occur without them? Sure, but in the real world they are gonna be there if training is productive

 

[Mufasa123]

I feel like it’s disingenuous though to think they aren’t valuable. Failure indicates intensity, and pump indicates proper targeting and stimulation.

Can hypertrophy occur without them? Sure, but in the real world they are gonna be there if training is productive

I think I said exactly that but specified that neither is driver or primary mechanism. Hypertrophy can and does occur reliably in the a sense of both. Not saying avoid them.

However... something like mechanical work and load... those are absolutely essential and key drivers.

 

[KingOfSushi]

I think I said exactly that but specified that neither is driver or primary mechanism. Hypertrophy can and does occur reliably in the a sense of both. Not saying avoid them

I’m aware, just making a point as many hear this and view them as “useless” when they are very valuable imo

 

[Mufasa123]

I’m aware, just making a point as many hear this and view them as “useless” when they are very valuable imo

LOL you are right. Some dudes will read this and all of a sudden it's getting repeated like gospel on reddit to AVOID failure/pump as it is counter productive and limits growth.

Good call!

 

[luki7788]

I think I said exactly that but specified that neither is driver or primary mechanism. Hypertrophy can and does occur reliably in the a sense of both. Not saying avoid them.

However... something like mechanical work and load... those are absolutely essential and key drivers.

Man that’s sounds like something black magic lol

 

[massephase]

LOL you are right. Some dudes will read this and all of a sudden it's getting repeated like gospel on reddit to AVOID failure/pump as it is counter productive and limits growth.

Good call!

That's why you only go on reddit to amuse yourself about the people there from time to time, what's written there is not to be taken seriously

 

[cage99]

That's why you only go on reddit to amuse yourself about the people there from time to time, what's written there is not to be taken seriously

I keep getting banned from Reddit’s weightlifting subs. It’s almost immediately since I question some of the asinine comments.

That and glorifying violence. What can I say, violence is needed at times to solve some issues.

Reddit does have some interesting participants…

Cage

 

[Mufasa123]

That and glorifying violence. What can I say, violence is needed at times to solve some issues.

I have an old Craft Intl hat. Craft was Chris Kyle's company (American Sniper film etc).

On the back in script it says "Violence Does Solve Problems". Probably a collectible now and kind of high profile so I don't wear it but I love that!