PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR

POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!

Unassailable logic
PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
Bodybuilding orthodoxy, exercise science and, even,
Arthur Jones
PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
Compelling logic
2
PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
By Mike Mentzer
In this irst ! " t#!$%"rt series& Mike Mentzer 'e(ins t! ")i(n his re"s!ns& *e)i+er
the ,n"ss"i)"')e )!(i-& res%!nsi')e !r his 'e)ie th"t ,)i))in( !ne.s %!tenti")
sh!,)* re/,ire +ery )itt)e ti0e& )ess th"n e+en Arth,r 1!nes 'e)ie+es %!ssi')e!
A)th!,(h -!ntr!+ersi")& !ne 0,st "*0it th"t Mentzer sti0,)"tes th!,(ht )ike n!
!ther #riter in the ie)*2
Prior to the advent of most - no, all! - of this century's greatest scientific
discoveries, e.g., the airplane, the radio, the television, interplanetary travel
and personal computers, how many of the great American unwashed would
have granted any plausibility to such. Damned few, aside from the literal
tiny minority of scientists researching those areas. t wasn't that many
decades ago that the philistine public had the attitude! "#o to the moon$
mpossible!" And what about the television% which, to my mind, is the
greatest invention in history$ &efore its invention, the overwhelming,
predominant ma'ority never even conceived that the television might some
day e(ist. t's not that they )uestioned the possibility, or plausibility, it might
happen, as was the case with the airplane% after all, men had been attempting
to simulate the flight of birds since time immemorial. *he idea of an actual
television never, ever occurred to them because there was no imitation of it
in nature, nothing that e(isted provided the slightest clue that someday there
might e(ist such a superlative, unrivalled device. *hin+ of what is actually
involved in television! the artificial generation of radio and *, waves,
inserting perfect color images and sound into the waves% then broadcasting
them to every millimeter of space in a prescribed area - and so on.
-An interesting side note! n the .pring /000 issue of 1(ercise Protocol,
Arthur 2ones stated in his article Strength Testing VII -- "1ventually, the
3right &rothers did build an airplane that would fly, but only after many
years of trial and error tin+ering, with no slightest help from the scientific
community. n fact, most scientists continued to believe that flying was
impossible for several years after the 3rights were flying on a daily basis in
front of thousands of witnesses.
"*hen, when a few scientists finally did become aware that flight was
possible, the first thing they tried to do was steal credit for the discoveries of
4
the 3right &rothers% both Ale(ander #raham &ell, the inventor of the
telephone, and the then director of the .mithsonian 5useum in 3ashington,
entered into a criminal conspiracy to steal credit from the 3right
&rothers. . ."
*his conforms to the pattern, the mode of response, to 5r. 2ones' discovery
of the 6autilus machines, e(hibited by members of the bodybuilding
orthodo(y and, to some degree, by the so-called e(ercise "science"
community. refer to the pattern using a mnemonic device - namely,
7A8.% first they ignore the discovery, then ridicule it, attac+ it, copy it and,
finally, they steal it. 3ith no presumption of stature intended, this is
happening to me, with my further development and promotion of the theory
of high-intensity training. *he most remar+able involves a widely-
recogni9ed, first ran+ physi)ue champion of 4: years ago% one who, not long
ago, claimed to have discovered -and is now selling; an "e(citing, startling
new approach to training centered around intensity and wor+outs lasting
<6=> nine minutes!" 5ost interesting is that this same individual had
written a few articles over the years attac+ing my theory of training% then,
recently, purchased a si9able number of my boo+s wholesale to sell through
his own distribution company. ?e apparently had read my boo+s, as soon
after his receipt of them, prior to his "e(citing new discovery," received a
very laudatory letter from him indicating how great my ideas are,
concluding with a sincere "than+s" for my having educated him on how to
best proceed with training.;
@@@ @@@ @@@
Aor most of this century, everyone - not merely a ma'ority - uncritically
accepted the notion that it would ta+e five to /: years to actuali9e one's
muscularBstrength potential. 3hy has that belief prevailed for so long$ 3hy
does it still predominate$ =argely because of the inability or unwillingness
of most bodybuilders to engage in the mental effort re)uired to understand
the re)uisite theoretical +nowledge. - say "inability" because, while that
+nowledge does e(ist, it is so lost amidst the reams of concrete-bound,
unscientific hypotheses posing as scientific fact, that many never find their
way to it.; *he only source of +nowledge for the small number of alleged
misfits involved in the "esoteric" activity of weightliftingBbodybuilding early
on was physical culture maga9ines% which published e(ercise information
that revolved around the use of the .wiss ball, the ndian club, calisthenics,
some weights and the specious, sophistic "notions" of their eccentric
publishers.
C
t was at the conclusion of 3orld 3ar that weight training gained a wider
recognition. Doctors at that time reali9ed the need for rehabilitation
procedures to restore strength to various in'ured bodily areas was acute. *he
need for truly effective rehabilitation of war veterans prompted a scientific
evaluation of weight training protocols% and it was the pioneering - albeit,
rudimentary - investigations by De =orme and 3at+ins that were primarily
responsible for the increased acceptance of weight training by the scientific
community% which, then, tric+led down to the muscle maga9ines.
*he continued research conducted in this area are not in close agreement,
although a general overview emerged. *he original wor+ of De =orme and
3at+ins recommended the following program!
/ set of /: repetitions, with one half of /: 75
/ set of /: repetitions, with three-)uarters of /: 75
/ set of /: repetitions, with /:: percent of /: 75
n essence, De =orme and 3at+ins were recommending three sets for each
e(ercise, usually /:, all to be performed three days a wee+. As 've
e(plained before, the number "4" has a certain traditional magic in our
culture! there's the three bears, the three stooges, the ?oly *rinity, three
s)uare meals a day and the mystic belief that catastrophes occur in lots of
three. - found it interesting recently, while reading Aristotle, that he noted
the ancient #ree+s' propensity for the number "4," also.; And why would De
=orme advocate the performance of three sets% where the first set is done
using one half of /: 75% the second set with three-)uarters of /: 75% and,
finally, the last set was with /:: percent of 75 - all for /: reps$ *he use of
one-half, three-)uarters and, then, /:: percent of 75, always for /: reps,
represent a misguided, but scientific groping.
De =orme's approach was )uic+ly pic+ed up by &ob ?offman, the publisher
of Strength and Health magazine, the premier muscle publication of the D:'s
and E:'s, one that purportedly e(isted to advance "the science of modern
e(ercise." ?offman's publication advocated three sets of /: reps for each
e(ercise, with a total of /2 e(ercises -the "&a+er's Do9en," as he referred to
it; to be conducted three days a wee+. 'm always suspect when so-called
scientific discoveries rely on convenient numbers, ones that are traditional
favorites, li+e three, ten and twelve. As 've, also, stated before, there is no
room in science for the arbitrary or the traditional. A truly productive,
scientific approach to e(ercise involves the application of factual, theoretical
principles discovered through a "genuine empiricism," or logic applied to
the material provided by sensory e(perience.
D
n the /0E:'s, 2oe 3eider made his way onto the scene, intent on wresting
the lion's share of the bodybuildingBweightlifting mar+et away from his
nemesis, &ob ?offman. n order to do so, he had to present the reading
public with something new. ?e accomplished his goal by using more
modern - "hip" - terminology in his articles and ads% ma+ing celebrities out
of bodybuilders to use on his garish maga9ine covers and to sell his
supplements% last but not least, he had to establish a new, superior,
"scientific" approach to bodybuilding e(ercise. *o this end, he started the
"3eider 7esearch 8linic," a )uasi-scientific forum, really, made up of his
bodybuilding champions and writers, a few of which were e(ercise
scientists. And 2oe, li+e others in this field, sincerely believed that if an
individual was an e(ercise scientist, with a Ph.D. affi(ed to his name, this
somehow made that individual's proclamations on the sub'ect of e(ercise
un)uestionable and absolute% and that their contributions made his
publications "scientific."
@@@ @@@ @@@
-*o the young, sincere and uninformed! 6o, not all scientists are hallowed
see+ers or guardians of the ob'ective truth. 7emember the 3right brothers
and Ale(ander #raham &ell. And don't ma+e the mista+e of thin+ing that a
Ph.D. is a perfect reflection of a Platonic archetype in this, the real world. n
fact, as Ayn 7and identified, because of the collapse of philosophy in the
/0th century, science is following a similar, though slower, course in this
century. *his is as it must be, by the grace of reality, as philosophy is the
fundamental, integrating science. <r, as Aristotle, the man responsible for
the discovery of logic and, thus, of science, put it! Philosophy is the base of
science. *he purpose of philosophy, ideally, is to identify the fundamental
nature of reality so that the special sciences can then study isolated aspects
of the universe.
Fnforutnately, there is little today that promises a .econd 7enaissance, or
the return of philosophy to its proper role. *his is because our universities
are teaching the evil views of mmanuel Gant, who was a sub'ectivist - he
held that reality is not real and that man's mind is impotent - the man
ultimately responsible for the collapse of philosophy mentioned earlier. t is
our universities that are the ma'or villains in today's intellectually-morally
ban+rupt culture, as there e(ists an overwhelming preponderance of
professors teaching Gant's ideas, including the notion that absolutes don't
e(ist% therefore, fundamental principles don't e(ist.
E
f nothing is of fundamental importance what does one thin+ about$
Anything or nothing, since no-thing is more important than anything else. t
is people's unwillingness or inability to thin+ in terms of fundamentals,
essentials and principles that leads to confusion% and is what prompted
someone to designate ours the Age of 8omple(ity. nundated by a ceaseless
profusion of data, facts, notions, information and -dis; information, the
philosophically bereft, unable to identify what is of fundamental importance,
cannot structure his thin+ing% and is overwhelmed by an unnecessary
"comple(ity." .uch is why bodybuilders are agoni9ingly confused, never
certain as how to best proceed with their training or nutrition, almost
hysteric in their perpetual search for the "answer."
=et me remind you that Ph.D. literally means Doctor of Philosophy.
8onsidering that today's philosophy departments are dominated by
Gantians% and that philosophy's role in the intellectual division-of-labor is to
establish the epistemological -intellectual; criteria to guide human
+nowledge in general and the special sciences, it is little wonder that we are
witnessing the continuing destruction, or dis-integration, of science,
including e(ercise science. As 've e(plained in the past, many e(ercise
scientists don't even understand the simple fundamentals of their own field.
f you are thin+ing that this is too professorial or intellectual, let me remind
you! t was 24 centuries ago, in the #olden Age of #reece, that men
simultaneously e(alted the power of the mind and admired the beauty of the
human form. *hey clearly understood that to achieve one's full human
stature re)uires more than a healthy, muscular body% it re)uires "a healthy
mind in a healthy body."
*he ultimate purpose of my articles is not merely to provide the readers with
another training program-s;, and e(pect him to blindly follow it. *hat would
not be worth much long range. nstead, my purpose is to help you gain a
firm intellectualBconceptual grasp and understanding of the basic principles
of bodybuildingBe(ercise science% which is a prere)uisite for learning how to
thin+ logically about it. ?aving procured a logical, rational perspective,
ma+es it possible for one to become more or less intellectually independent
on the sub'ect% never again having to rely on the vascillating, suspect
opinion of others. n the process of learning to thin+ logically about
bodybuilding, you'll discover that you've learned something about the nature
of thought itself% which can then be e(tended to other areas of human life.
And with continued study and effort, you will progressively e(pand your
intellectual range% and, thereby, mature as a human being should.;
H
@@@ @@@ @@@
*he core principle that guided the *rainer of 8hamps and his minions was
the bootleg logic "more is better." *o them it seemed self-evident! more
+nowledge, more money, i.e., more values, are better than less% therefore,
more e(ercise is better than less. -n fact, nothing is self-evident e(cept the
material provided by the senses, e.g., the "redness" of an apple is self-
evident, it doesn't have to be proven.; *he development of a practical,
scientific approach to productive bodybuilding e(ercise re)uires +nowledge
that goes beyond the self-evident to the highly abstract, i.e., that which is not
directly perceivable, e.g., the concepts "theoretical" "logic" "growth
stimulation" "growth production "recovery ability" "fundamentals" "
derivatives" "principle," and, yes, "ethics." -&ear in mind, also, that since
man's +nowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of his
+nowledge depends on the validity of his concepts, i.e., their definitions.
Along with the fact that the bodybuilding orthodo(y's conceptual range is
profoundly limited, they never define their ma'or concepts - ma+ing the use
of logic impossible.;
Dealing with higher, abstract +nowledge is e(actly what today's most
celebrated "post-5odern" -Gantian; philosophers don't want you to do.
7evelatory of the post-5odern's approach to the realm of the intellect is this
)uote from its most celebrated proponent, 5ichael Aoucault, "5y wor+
irritates people because my ob'ective isn't to propose a global principle or
analy9e anything. . . .*he conception of philosophy is no longer that of a
tribunal of pure reason which defends or debun+s claims to +nowledge made
by science, morality, art or religion. 7ather the voice of the philosopher is
that of informed dilettante." And if you thin+ that 'un+ is relegated merely to
ivory tower intellectuals, you are wrong. t has already penetrated
bodybuilding -and every other area of human life;, as two of my most
virulent detractors have made statements reflective of Gant's and Aoucault's
influence. 2eff 1verson, for instance, stated a few years ago in M&F, that ". .
. in bodybuilding, there are no fundamental principles" - while more
recently, Ared ?atfield e(claimed "All training theories are good!" *hese
two statements e(press essentially the same thing because, if all training
theories are good, then neither fundamental principles nor derivative
principles e(ist. f fundamental or derivative principles don't e(ist, then
+nowledge doesn't e(ist% and for some, it doesn't% at least it has little value to
them. Aundamental principles of bodybuilding science do e(ist, dear reader%
and by the time you finish this two-part article series, you'll be able to grasp
them and their important inter-relationships.
I
-*he #ree+s, as stated earlier, lived in a #olden Age - precisely because
they believed in the e(istence - the importance - of principles. *oday we are
no longer living in a #olden Age nor even a Dar+ Age -- but, instead, a
&lac+ ?ole% and it's because of the abandonment of philosophy, i.e.,
fundamental principles. And when fundamental principles are denied, then
ethical principles, too, are ine(orably re'ected since they are derivatives, i.e.,
based on and derived from philosophical fundamentals. Anyone with a child
going to a public school need not be convinced that we are living in a &lac+
?ole. Death and murder was the goal of Gant and it was the goal of
Aoucault. And it's no co-incidence that ?itler and 1ichmann were Gantians$
After all, if reality is not real, then man is not real% so, why not butcher him$
t won't matter. 6o one will +now because, as Gant posited, the mind is
impotent. *o those still reading this! +eep in mind that the first re)uisite for
building a healthier, more muscular body is that you have a live body,
something that too many in today's world, including the students at
8olumbine ?igh, are losing prematurely.;
t wasn't long before 2oe 3eider had ta+en over the mar+et via s+illed
"manipulation of the masses," as he was once )uoted. 6ow, rather than
training in a reasonably sane fashion as advocated by De =orme and
?offman, 3eider had an entire generation of new bodybuilders training for
two, or more, hours per session using the 3eider Double .plit .ystem -
involving two such long wor+outs a day - and later, three times a day - with
the 3eider *riple .plit. <f course, this mad, marathon training conducted
si( days a wee+ - -an arbitrary, blind, doubling of De =orme and ?offman's
three day a wee+ protocol; - wor+ed for none of his natural, non-steroid
readers% despite their wasting of hundreds of dollars a month, in many cases,
on his ever-enlarging inventory of "miraculous" nutritional supplements.
5any of his readers failed to reali9e that the heavily-muscled champs
purportedly using this volume -over;training approach were ta+ing ever-
increasing )uantities of steroids and other drugs to enhance their recovery
abilities% and, thereby, compensate for what otherwise would have amounted
to chronic, gross, mindless overtraining. -3ho, in their right minds, would
want to train for four to si( hours a day, si( days a wee+$ And why si( days
a wee+$ 3ell, there's an easy "scientific" answer to that! the seventh day
was off for .abbath, or religious observance!;
t wasn't until the early H:'s, that there arrived on the scene an unusual
individual, one smart enough to boldly and successfully challenge the
insanity, and to provide a more rational alternative to what 3eider and
.chwar9enegger was advocating - namely, Arthur 2ones. 3hile 3eider
0
operated semiconsciously on the unchec+ed, unchallenged premise "more is
better," 2ones reacted violently -having developed a +een disdain for
3eider's intellectually sloppy, pseudo-scientific approach;, and bra9enly
proclaimed that "less is better." 3ith that, 2ones recommended, not /2-2:
sets per bodypart involving si( day a wee+ wor+outs% but, instead, his notion
of 'less is better' led him to advocate /2-2: sets, not per muscle group, but,
for the entire body% and to be conducted three times -again, the magic
number " 4"; a wee+.
*he more intelligent bodybuilders of the time immediately recogni9ed that
2ones was on to something, as we sure as hell weren't ma+ing any progress
with the 3eider approach% and because 2ones was offering what this field
sorely needed - a truly theoretical approach to training.
3ithin a short time after 2ones' proffered his theory through the very pages
of Ironman, myself and numerous others reali9ed we weren't e(periencing
the progress that the theory suggested was possible. 2ones, in fact, stated
repeatedly that the actuali9ation of one's muscularBstrength potential should
not re)uire the D-/: years as everyone had thought% instead the actuali9ation
of potential should re)uire but two years! As much as this small minority
believed in 2ones and his revolutionary, theoretical approach, it was soon
apparent that there was a flaw in it. As much as we hated to admit it, we
weren't reali9ing anywhere near the results we had e(pected% the progress
being only slightly better than that delivered by the blind, nontheoretical,
volume approach. &etter, but not good enough.
t wasn't until well after the end of my competitive career, in /0I:, that
developed an impassioned, unswerving devotion to discovering the flaw in
2ones' theory of high-intensity training. . .
/:
PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
By Mike Mentzer
Whi)e %"rt$!ne ! this "rti-)e -ert"in)y %i/,e* the interest ! !,r re"*ers& the
!))!#in( is -ert"in t! *! the s"0e& "s Mike Mentzer )e+e)s *"0nin( in*i-t0ents
"("inst the '!*y',i)*in( !rth!*!3y& e3er-ise s-ien-e "n*& e+en& Arth,r 1!nes2
Here he e3%)"ins 0!re ! the th!,(ht %r!-esses& "n* i*entiies the '"si-
%rin-i%)e& th"t )e* t! his -!n+i-ti!n th"t '!*y',i)*ers -"n "-t,")ize their
%!tenti") in " +ery sh!rt ti0e2
n Part <ne, of this three-part series, made the point that for most of this
century the predominant ma'ority of bodybuilders and strength athletes
sincerely believed that it should ta+e D-/: years to actuali9e one's
strengthBmuscular potential. *his was because both the bodybuilding
orthodo(y and the e(ercise science establishment were - are - unaware of the
logical re)uirements of developing a truly scientific, theoretical approach to
e(ercise% and that such was the direct result of living in a period of
philosophical default. *oday, many academicians are devoid of even a
nominal grasp of the rudiments of rationality% which is why confusion is the
intellectual hallmar+ of our time% and e(plains why bodybuilders are
impotent against the ceaseless tide of false ideas, fraudulent claims and
outright lies promulgated by many in the bodybuildingBfitness media. As a
result, many are wasting hundreds of hours a year, year in and year out, in
the attempt to develop a physi)ue that they could have developed in one
year!
@@@ @@@ @@@
*he sub'ect of logic is vast% a complete e(amination of which is certainly
outside the scope of this wor+. will address, however, one of the most
crucially important aspects of logic - -completely overloo+ed by all of the
bodybuilding orthodo(y and, to a large degree, by e(ercise science; - which
relates to the role played by une)uivocal definitions. &ecause man gains and
holds his +nowledge in conceptual form, it is the validity of his concepts,
i.e., the precision of their definitions, which determines the validity of his
+nowledge.
*o )uote Ayn 7and, from Introduction to Objectivist Eistemolog!, on this
issue, ".ince concepts in the field of cognition, perform a function similar to
//
that of numbers in the field of mathematics, the function of a proposition is
similar to that of an e)uation! it applies conceptual abstractions to a specific
problem.
"A proposition, however, can perform this function only if the concepts of
which it is composed have precisely defined meanings. f, in the field of
mathematics, numbers had no fi(ed, firm values, if they were
appro(imations determined by the mood of their users - so that "D," for
instance, could mean five in some calculations, but si(-and-one-half or four-
and-three-)uarters in others, according to the user's 'convenience' - there
could be no such thing as mathematics."
A theory, properly defined, is a set of principles, or propositions -statements
of fact;, which claims to be either a correct description of some aspect of
reality andBor a guide for successful human action. A theory can fulfill its
proper intellectual function only if the ma'or concepts that ma+e it up have
precisely defined meanings. *his is true of any theory, whether it be the
theory of relativity, the theory of evolution or the theory of high-intensity
training. *he process of establishing precise definitions is rigorously
demanding% which is why the mystics and s+eptics -most people, today; turn
away from the realm of the intellect. 8oncepts are the tools of thought% the
better your tools, the better, i.e., more precise, the closer to the actual facts
of reality, will your thin+ing be. -Arom 8hapter *hree, Another Gind of
Definition, of my boo+ "?eavy Duty ! 5ind and &ody.";
B")"n-in( the The!reti-") A--!,nt
.ince starting my personal training business in the late /0I:'s, 've had
considerable success with my clients. *heir progress, early on, was
primarily satisfactory -better than most;% at times dramatic% and, in a few
cases, phenomenal. n the very rare cases where progress was poor, such
was the result of either very poor genetics andBor mista+es on my part,
mista+es which won't ma+e again.
During the first couple of years, all of my clients trained three times a wee+
- 5onday, 3ednesday and Ariday - averaging seven to nine sets a wor+out,
on a split routine. - had learned much earlier that 2ones' prescription of /2-
2: sets per wor+out for the full body, conducted three times a wee+ was too
much for almost everyone.; 3hile most trainers and trainees settled - and
still do - for progress unpredictably in tiny dribbles every now and then, ,
on the other hand, e(pected my clients to ma+e progress, i.e., grow stronger,
every wor+out.
/2
*he reader may be wondering how had ever come to thin+ that
bodybuilding progress should be e(perienced every wor+out. Allow me to
e(plain. was in the midst of a period of very intensive study of philosophy,
logic and the nature of the theoretical +nowledge. had arrived at a 'uncture
in my studies where clearly recogni9ed that, if in possession of a truly
valid theory, and the proper, practical application of the theoretical
principles is made, then progress - no matter what the field of endeavor -
should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile, until the goal has been
reached.
5y belief gained currency when loo+ed at other conte(ts of +nowledge. n
medicine, for instance, once the "germ theory" of disease had been
discovered by =ouis Pasteur in the /II:'s, researchers couldn't wor+ fast
enough% and it was less than a century before they had discovered cures for
practically every infectious disease that had plagued man from the
beginning. n aviation, the 3right &rothers' first successful flight of /0:4
led to the 7ussian's .putni+ orbiting the earth in /0DH and the Fnited .tates
putting a man on the moon in /0E0. n physics, it was 1instein's theory of
relativity, developed in /0:D, that rapidly resulted in the theory of fission
and the discovery of the cyclotron in the /04:'s.
#iven the +nowledge and depth of understanding described above,
developed an intransigent conviction that the bodybuilding orthodo(y, the
e(ercise science establishment and even the leading high-intensity theorists
were off the mar+. >et, couldn't ignore the evidence regarding my own
clients' progress. 3hile their progress was practically always immediate
from the outset of their training, it wasn't always continuous and
worthwhile. 3hy not, if, in fact, was in possession of a valid theory and
was ma+ing the proper, practical application$
was left to conclude that there had to be a flaw-s; in the theory of high-
intensity as proffered by Arthur 2ones% and uncritically accepted by 'ust
about everyone within his sphere of influence. 1ncapsulated, 2ones' theory
held that, to be productive, e(ercise must be intense, brief and infre)uent.
7ecall from above that, in the field of cognition, concepts play a role similar
to that of numbers in e)uations% but that they may do so only if the concepts
are precisely defined.
f any of the ma'or concepts of the theory of high-intensity training were
improperly defined, practice would be s+ewed to that e(tent% and progress
would be compromised. n chec+ing 2ones' theory, the first thing did was
go to the cardinal fundamental, the principle of intensity% and found it
/4
properly defined. ?e defined intensity as "the percentage of possible
momentary muscular effort being e(erted." -*he theory of high-intensity
training further maintains that to stimulate optimal increases in strength and
si9e one must train to failure, i.e., where he's e(erting himself with /::
percent intensity of effort. f one doesn't train to failure, where does he cease
the set$ .topping anywhere short of failure is ine(act and arbitrary.; 2ones
was correct, as he had defined intensity in terms of its essential
characteristics. Fsing 2ones' definition, in other words, one could
conceivably identify the intensity of any activity from low-intensity aerobics
to training to failure with weights, where /:: percent intensity of effort is
re)uired. *his stood in sharp contrast to the bodybuilding orthodo(y, who
was using the term 'intensty' with greater fre)uency, but never defined it,
often using it interchangeably with volume. *hen there was the e(ercise
science establishment, who had denied the validity of 2ones' definition-by-
essentials% and defined it loosely, by non-essentials. *wo of today's more
celebrated e(ercise scientists, 3illiam Graemer, Ph.D., and .teven Alec+,
Ph.D., defined intensity in their boo+ "eriodization #rea$through, as "a
measure of how difficult training is" and even more loosely, less
philosophically acceptable - "a percent of the ma(imal weight that can be
lifted for a specific number of reps." -*o what is one referring when
pointing to the "difficulty" of training$ And, once difficulty is defined, is it
the difficulty of a set, a wor+out or what$ And by identifying the percent of
a ma(imal weight that can be handled for a specific number of reps, how
was the weight and the number of reps to be performed arrived at$ <ne may
be instructed to perform si( reps with I: percent of his one rep ma(imum
when, in fact, he's capable of performing /: reps to failure% therefore, his
intensity of effort would be low% and little in the way of growth stimulation
would be induced. As 2ones has indicated, the number of reps performed by
individuals with I: percent of their one rep ma(imum will vary greatly,
depending on the individual's fiber type and neuro-muscular efficiency. n
his own research, 2ones found one individual who could perform only three
reps to failure with I: percent of his one rep ma( on the 8url, and another
who could perform 2H reps with I: percent of his one rep ma( on the same
e(ercise!;
After having precisely defined intensity, Arthur 2ones made a grievous
mista+e, one that seriously compromised the efficacy of a superior approach
to training, such that and thousands of others who thought we had
happened upon the 7osetta .tone of bodybuilding )uic+ly grew frustrated. t
was here that 2ones left the realm of science and cognitive precision, and
slipped into the arbitrary. 3hereas the dominant training ideology of the
time, as espoused by 3eider and .chwar9enegger et al, advocated that
/C
everyone train each muscle with /2-2: sets two to three times a wee+, for a
total of si( days a wee+, 2ones properly countered, stating that such a
regimen amounted to gross overtraining. ?is prescription for the problem,
however, wasn't much better! ?e suggested that everyone train the entire
body three times a wee+, with a total of /2-2: sets per wor+out. *his, too,
given the higher intensity levels than advocated by the 3eider approach,
soon resulted in gross overtraining.
2ones' theory, recall from above, stated that - to be productive, e(ercise must
be intense, brief and infre)uent. ?owever, what does brief and infre)uent
mean e(actly$ 2ones e)uivocated, and left his legion of devoted followers -
many of whom seemed to regard him as omniscient and infallible - bereft of
rational training guidance.
n a very real sense, 2ones was merely reacting to 3eider in +nee-'er+
fashion. *his was due to a critical blind spot on his part. 2ones wasn't
intellectually ensconced in theoretical fundamentals as much as he was
literally obsessed with discovering methods for ma+ing e(tremely accurate
measurements of certain derivative aspects of e(ercise science% with things
li+e tor)ue, muscular friction, range of motion and stored energy, to name a
few. As noble an endeavor as this may be, the appropriate integration and
application of such +nowledge is possible only within the conte(t of having
first fully grasped the fundamentals.
.cience is an e(acting discipline whose purpose is to discover the specific,
precise facts of reality. 3eider's notion that one should perform /2-2: sets
for each muscle is not e(act, far from it. 3hat is it e(actly! /2 sets or /C or
/H or 2: sets$ And if /2 sets is sufficient, why do 2: sets$ .ince 3eider
never provided any e(planatory conte(t to support his notion, it amounts to
nothing more than a groundless assertion. 2ones' response wasn't based on a
scrupulous process of thought either. *o advise people to train with /2-2:
sets for the whole body, instead of each muscle, is 'ust as arbitrary as
3eider's prescription.
S-ientii- Pre-isi!n
"A number of the bodybuilding orthodo(y's self-styled "e(perts" have even
alleged that there are no universal, ob'ective principles of productive
e(ercise. *hey claim that since each bodybuilder is uni)ue, every individual
bodybuilder re)uires a different training program. And then they contradict
themselves by advocating that all bodybuilders train in the same fashion,
i.e., two hours a day, si( days a wee+." -Arom 8hapter <ne, &odybuilders
Are 8onfused, of my boo+ "?eavy Duty .";
/D
*hat allegation was leveled primarily against 2oe 3eider and his
bodybuilding orthodo(y, at the time wrote my boo+ in /004. have since
come to learn that the e(ercise science establishment holds the e(act same
belief% and that they lifted it from 3eider. >ou don't believe me$ >ou don't
believe that e(ercise scientists, the supposed guardians of rationality and
logic in this field, could be so wanting that they would steal false,
contradictory ideas from that catch-all of irrationalists$
As evidence, )uote from the boo+ ".cience and Practice of .trength
*raining," authored by ,ladimir 5. Jatsiors+y, professor of e(ercise
science at Penn .tate! "1ach of you is a uni)ue individual in every way% and
your resistance training program must meet your uni)ue needs - for there is
no one all-encompassing 'secret' program." Dr. Jatsiors+i - remember, he is
an e(ercise scientist - ine(cusably contradicts himself later in the same boo+
when he recommends that bodybuilders perform /D-2: sets per bodypart
virtually every day, with up to E: sets per wor+out. And later, Professor
Jatsiors+y spills the beans, confessing that he gained such +nowledge from
"observations of professional bodybuilders," and from "studies which show
greater hypertrophy from such high-volume training." -.ome readers may
recall past writings of 2ones and myself indicating that, all too often, alleged
'studies' in the field of e(ercise science were never conducted at all.;
f, according to 3eider and e(ercise science, there are no universal,
ob'ective principles how could bodybuilding e(ist as a science since the
purpose of science is to discover universal principles$ And since this
Jatsiors+y eschews the universality of principles, claiming we are all
"uni)ue in every way," why, then, go ahead and advocate a universal
training prescription$
444 444 444
.o far, 've indicted 3eider -and the orthodo(y;, e(ercise science and, to a
lesser e(tent, Arthur 2ones% everyone there is to indict, in fact, as all training
approaches - e(cept mine - are based on the same basic principles, differing
only in degree. *he primary problem with the 3eider and the e(ercise
science approach is that it's based on the premise "more is better." *he idea
that "more is better" means precisely that - more is better means more is
better. >ou see, there's a -false; built-in guarantee, you can't fail. f 2: sets is
good, i.e., yields satisfactory results, then C: sets would be even better, and
I: sets better still. *he advocates of the "more is better" approach won't go
that far because they "sense" that there's a factor involved that precludes the
possibility of performing such a high number of sets. Aactor K was first
/E
identified by Arthur 2ones - namely, the fact of a limited recovery ability.
2ones' awareness that the human reserve of biochemical resources needed to
recover from a wor+out is not infinite% and is what led him to state! "t is
only rational to use that which e(ists in limited supply as economically as
possible." ?owever, 2ones didn't carry that fact to its logical conclusion, and
merely advocated "less is better," i.e., less than 3eider. *he principle that
am advocating, the one that ma+es it possible for the bodybuilder to
actuali9e his potential in a very short time, is that neither "more is better"
nor "less is better," but "precise is best."
/H
PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
By Mike Mentzer
In %"rt$t#! ! this series& Mike Mentzer i*entiie* the err!ne!,s %rin-i%)es th"t
(,i*e the tr"inin( ! 0!st '!*y',i)*ers5 there'y& e3%)"inin( #hy they "re
"(!nizin()y -!n,se* #ith re("r* t! h!# t! 'est (,i*e their tr"inin(5 "n*& th,s&
"i) t! e+er "-t,")ize their %hysi/,e %!tenti")2 In this )"st "rti-)e ! the series&
Mentzer -ites 0!re -!0%e))in( )!(i-& ',t& ")s!& the e+i*en-e re/,ire* t! %r!+e
th"t '!*y',i)*in( %r!(ress sh!,)* 'e n!thin( sh!rt ! s%e-t"-,)"r& ,nti) !ne
"-t,")izes his %!tenti") $ in !ne ye"r& !r )ess!
@@@ @@@ @@@
=ast month, in part-two of this three-part series, denounced the e(ercise
science establishment for failing to properly define, or identify, the nature of
the training stress responsible for inducing growth stimulation. =ac+ing
+nowledge of the nature of the e(ercise stimulus, one cannot +now anything
else of value about e(ercise. -7emember, too, that e(act definitions are an
absolute, ob'ective prere)uisite for using logic.; =ater in that article,
e(plained that many e(ercise scientists today deny the e(istence of the one
fundamental that ma+es all science possible - namely, the universality of
principles.
7ecall the )uote from ,ladimir 5. Jatsiors+y, professor of e(ercise science
at Penn .tate, denying universal principles! "1ach of you is uni)ue in every
way"% who then unconscionably contradicts himself later by advocating all
bodybuilders perform /D-2: sets per bodypart, virtually every day, with up
to E: sets a wor+out. And how might he have arrived at such numbers$ ?e
claims in his boo+ ".cience and Practice of .trength," that such were arrived
at "from studies which show greater hypertrophy from high volume
training," and - here's the clincher - "from observations of professional
bodybuilders."
A number of years ago, a boo+ was published which maintained that many
famous scientific studies at the highest levels of academia - even #alileo
and 2ohn ?op+ins Fniversity were accused - are bogus% all in the name of
"publish or perish." Do you thin+ e(ercise science would be the one
academic arena e(empt from the publishing of fraudulent studies$
seriously doubt it.
/I
6ot only did contend that studies "proving the superiority of high volume
training" were never done - but, later, that the contention of Jat9iors+y's
regarding volume training coming "from observations of professional
bodybuilders" meant that he mindlessly lifted, or stole, the notion from
3eider and some of his top A&& professionals. <f course, neither 5r.
3eider nor the e(ercise science establishment informs us that any results
obtained from E: sets per wor+out training is possible only with the
attendant use of nightmarish )uantities of steroids, growth hormone and a
panoply of other drugs, many of which have neither the time nor interest to
learn how to spell or pronounce. 5a+e no mista+e, dear reader, these drugs
are e(tremely potent recovery ability enhancers that allow a few to get away
with what otherwise would constitute chronic, gross overtraining.
n part-one of this series, made the point that 3eider -and the e(ercise
scientists; regard their operative principle 'more is better' as self-evident%
which is not true. 6othing is self-evident e(cept the material provided by
sensory e(perience, e.g., the "redness" of tomato, as it is immediately
evident to man's sensory-perceptual apparatus, re)uiring no proof. t is this
type of epistemological - intellectual ; savagery - failing to precisely define
your concepts and mista+ing the self-evident for abstract +nowledge - that
has left e(ercise science stalled indeterminately at an intellectual dead end,
until recently.
concluded part-two, contending that the two dominant training ideologies
are both fallacious! 3eider's and the scientists', with their "more is better"
premise% and 2ones' -despite his cogni9ance of the fact of a limited recovery
ability - with his notion "less is better." 3ith a truly scientific approach the
guiding, operative principle should be "precise is best."
Me*i-") "n* E3er-ise S-ien-e
<ne of the ma'or philosophic themes of my articles over the past few years
has been, in effect, because there is only one reality - which is an ob'ective
absolute guided by one set of never-changing principles - there can be only
valid theory of anything. *he following is a discussion of one aspect of this
issue from my most recent boo+, Heav! %ut! II& Mind and #od!'
"7ecently, was discussing the 'one valid theory of bodybuilding e(ercise'
controversy with one of my favorite clients. 5y client is the esteemed
#regory Gay, 5D, a highly trained 3estern, theoretical medical scientist.
An e(perienced cardiac surgeon, who performs close to 4:: open-heart
surgeries a year, the good doctor has close to a /:: percent success rate in
the surgical suite. Dr. Gay made the point, in effect, that his success, not to
/0
mention the overall success rate of modern medical science is proof positive
that 'there is - and can be - only one valid theory of medicine.' And happily
re'oined, ". . .indirectly it proves the same for e(ercise theory.
"*o stress the point one more step! f you were to find yourself in the 'ungle
tomorrow, and you happened upon a voodoo witch doctor, he would have
close to a 9ero percent success rate with his patients. *hen, suppose you
were to introduce him to this miracle! 3estern, theoretical, medical science,
i.e., logical diagnostic procedure, antibiotics, analgesics, sterile techni)ue
and surgery, etc. All of a sudden the witch doctor's success rate s+yroc+ets
off the charts. ?e can't figure it out% he thin+s you're in league with #od and
the Devil.
"*o say that there cannot be one valid theory, or, that all theories have merit,
is tantamount to stating that the intellectual method of the voodoo witch
doctor is as li+ely to correct a brain aneurysm as would that of a highly-
s+illed neuro-surgeon. -*he phenomenon 'ust described is close to the
intellectual state of bodybuilding today.;
"<bviously, there is a life-and-death difference between the application of
false ideas and the application of true ideas. Gnowledge -truly valid ideas;,
remember, is man's means of achieving all of his goals, including that final
goal, or end, which ma+es all the others possible - the maintenance of his
life."
@@@ @@@ @@@
f you were to undergo surgery, you would obviously very much want the
anesthesiologist to apply the precise amount of chemical compound re)uired
to induce a state of anesthesia. f, instead, as you were being wheeled into
the surgical suite, you overheard the anesthesiologist say, "Pump him up,"
something li+e is said in bodybuilding, "pump the patient up! #ive him
more, more anesthesia is better than less," you wouldn't feel very confident
about the situation. n fact, even a semi-rational individual would 'ump up
and run out the door. <r, if you heard the doctor say something slightly
different, "=et's give this patient less anesthesia than we gave that one
yesterday% we +illed the poor man" you wouldn't feel much better. n this
particular case, where life-and-death clearly is the issue, it's )uite easy to
grasp why scientific precision is so very important. ?owever, that same
principle from medical theory carries over and has direct practical
application to bodybuildingBe(ercise science theory. -Geep in mind that
e(ercise science derives from medical science% and that the ideal in both
2:
situations is to correct, or improve, human physiology with as high a degree
of precision as is re)uired.;
n bodybuilding, the idea is to impose a training stress onto the body that
will serve to induce the biochemical changes which result in muscular
hypertrophy. Applying any more of the training stress -high-intensity; than
is re)uired by nature will result in the e)uivalent of over-dosing on a
medicine% or, as we say typically in bodybuilding - overtraining.
A person e(posed to the sun's ultraviolet rays at the e)uator in summer
would not have the slightest concern whether the intensity of the sunlight
stress is high enough to disturb the physiology sufficiently to induce an
adaptive response, i.e., the buildup of a suntan. ?is only concern, his
overriding consideration, would be to properly regulate the volume -or
duration; and fre)uency of e(posure time so as not to overdose on the
stressBstimulus% and, thereby, incur a sunburn or, in e(treme cases, death. A
person see+ing to develop a suntan at the e)uator, or wherever the intensity
of the sunlight is high has no concern that he will develop a suntan% but only
if he doesn't overe(pose. -6ote that bodybuilding science is largely based on
the medical discipline of stress physiology. Also, that the end result of the
healing of a sunburn is not a suntan, 'ust as the end result of the healing of
overtraining is not greater strength or added muscle.;
&odybuilders utili9ing the blind, nontheoretical volume approach to training
do fret continuously over the prospect of ever developing their muscles
because they +now ne(t to nothing about the nature of the specific
stressBstimulus re)uired to induce a buildup of muscle tissue beyond normal
levels. *heir obsession is with the volume, or amount, of training. Fnli+e
the suntanner, however, who is rationally concerned with the proper
regulation of the imposition of the sunlight stress, the bodybuilder has an
irrational obsession with -over;imposing the training stress% and,
unwittingly, allows his wor+outs to degenerate into an endurance contest.
An Air B,'')e in the Se" ! C",s")ity6
.ince had my earlier clients performing considerably less than what 2ones
advocated - H to 0 sets three days a wee+ versus /2-2: sets three days a
wee+ - initially found it near impossible to believe that their less-than-
satisfactory, long-range progress was due to overtraining. , also, reali9ed
that it couldn't be the effect of undertraining. .o, what was the cause$
At about the time was considering this )uestion, signed up a wildly
enthusiastic training client, one who had studied ?eavy Duty, high-intensity
2/
training theory rather seriously% and thought he had found the "answer,"
after years of practically no progress with volume training. nterestingly,
after two months on the seven to nine sets of three days a wee+ training, it
became star+ly evident that the program was not wor+ing. ?is strength had
only increased negligibly at best% and he had even started decompensating -
losing strength - slightly by the end of eight wee+s. And, of course, there
was no visible increase in muscle mass.
.ince had informed this young man of some of the results my other clients
were obtaining with the same routine, and we were both conversant with the
theory, it was decided to reduce his program to only five sets once every H2
hours, or third day. And after a few wee+s, it was once again apparent that
something was wrong, as he made absolutely no progress.
*his threw me into a bit of a )uandary. *his was the first time that had
ever trained someone who was so thoroughly nonresponsive to high-
intensity% at least as was practically applying it% and, to the best of my
+nowledge, was the only trainer in the world who had any of his clients
performing so little e(ercise. 8ould it be that was wrong about the
universal validity of these training principles$ <r, was this a species of
metaphysical churlishness, an air bubble in the sea of causality$ +new
better, of course, because the laws of nature are universal and immutable.
2ust because had a firm grasp of the theory, however, didn't mean
possessed certain ancillary +nowledge that might be crucial. *here had to be
something about this individual's physiology which could be cited for his
lac+ of progress with the given routine. *here had to be something that
would e(plain why on so brief and infre)uent a program, this individual was
still overtraining.
*his led me to review some of what +new about the role of genetics.
reasoned that, since genetically mediated traits such as height, sunlight
stress tolerance and intelligence were e(pressed across a broad continuum,
such would most li+ely be true of individual e(ercise stress tolerance. 3ith
regard to height, there are midgets at the left end of the continuum and
giants at the other. n the area of individual sunlight stress tolerance, there
are light-s+inned people, such as .candinavians at one end, who tolerate
very little in the way of sunlight stress, and dar+-s+inned people who
obviously tolerate more. And with intelligence, you have literal medical
morons at one e(treme and super geniuses at the other. was very e(cited
upon recogni9ing that a similar situation had to be true for individual
e(ercise stress tolerance, with those at one e(treme who tolerated a lot less
e(ercise than those at the other.
22
As my client li+ed to tease and cut up a lot, met him at the gym - armed
with my new understanding - and referred to him as a midget, or moron, of
recovery ability. Although even hard for me to accept at first, my conclusion
about genetics led me to reduce this fellow's wor+outs again - this time to
only three sets once every four to seven days. And it wor+ed% he finally
began growing stronger and larger on a regular basis, although his progress
was never dramatic. ?e properly concluded that he didn't have the genetic
predisposition to gain in strength and si9e at the greater rate e(hibited by
some of my other clients.
3here had been very apprehensive earlier at the prospect of reducing
training volume and fre)uency to so low a level with other clients, my
success with our "recovery moron" emboldened me. t was at this time,
about five years ago, that finally reduced all my clients' training to three to
five sets once every four to seven days, or less, depending upon their innate
recovery ability, or individual e(ercise stress tolerance. -nterestingly, while
thousands of people around are the world are individually establishing their
own e(ercise prescriptions based on their own e(ercise stress tolerance, the
orthodo(y and the e(ercise science community are still advocating everyone
train everyday with up to E: sets!;
Wh"t.s P!ssi')e
3ith a properly conducted high-intensity training program, the individual
will grow stronger every wor+out, without any serious breach in progress,
until he has actuali9ed his strengthBmuscular potential. had a client several
years ago who improved the functional ability of his )uadriceps such that he
was able to perform /: reps with the whole stac+, or 2D: pounds, on the
6autilus =eg 1(tension after only being able to do seven reps with /H:
pounds two months prior, a tremendous increase. -*his type of response is
not e(perienced by every one of my trainees% but it is far from atypical.;
*he strongest client ever had was able to perform 44 reps on the 6autilus
=eg-1(tension with the whole stac+. And that was an incredibly well-
developed, strong "genetic frea+," the famed David Paul of the &arbarian
&rothers. 3hen David first started having me supervise his wor+outs, he
performed /D reps on the =eg-1(tension and then went immediately, in
superset fashion, to the 6autilus =eg Press where he performed /I reps to
complete failure with the full stac+, D/: pounds. <ne wee+ later David
performed 2D reps on the =eg-1(tension and immediately ran to the =eg
Press where he did 4I reps. mpressive$ >ou better believe it. &ut, +eep
reading.
24
<ne wee+ after that, he did 44 reps on the =eg-1(tension followed by a
hard-to-believe H/ reps on the =eg Press! n both e(ercises, he again,
employed the entire weight stac+s. 6o, the above is not a misprint. David
improved his =eg-1(tension from /D to 44 reps and his =eg Press from /I
to H/ reps as a result of only two leg wor+outs that lasted less than /D
minutes each. *hat represents an improvement of 4II percent in the
functional ability of the )uadriceps of an already highly advanced
bodybuilder. n the one month trained David, he gained seven pounds of
muscle. *hese are phenomenal increases, especially when considered
against the fact that for the previous five years, David's volume training,
involving training sessions that lasted for at least two hours -sometimes
twice a day ; si( days a wee+, yielded 9ero strength and si9e increases.
.ince David was capable of such a rate of improvement, imagine what a
ran+ beginner - -with similar genetics; - might achieve on such a program.
've already provided you an indication, with the description of the first
individual. f a beginner can improve as described above, going from /H:
for seven reps to 2D: for /: reps on the =eg-1(tension in two months, he
has only 24 reps to go with the same weight before achieving the functional
capacity of a super genetic frea+. ?ow long would that ta+e him$ ?e'd
probably never achieve it, as he, by all appearances, was only average - or
slightly above - in genetics. 5y point is! #iven the enormous improvement
he made in only two months, it wouldn't even ta+e year before he actuali9ed
his strengthBmuscle potential. -3e'll never +now e(actly% because of
enormous career pressures he had to cease training after two months.;
&ear in mind that a prere)uisite for growing larger muscles is that one grow
stronger. .ince the individual described would cease growing in strength in
less than one year, his muscle growth would cease soon thereafter.
C!n-),si!n
am not suggesting that everyone who buys my boo+s andBor tries a ?eavy
Duty, high-intensity training program will actuali9e his potential in so short
a time. *his is because, as 've learned through conversations with those
who have read my boo+s, that they don't always fully understand the
theory's proper, practical application.
5y main point is that with a sound, valid theoretical approach to training,
progress should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile all the way to the
full actuali9ation of one's potential. Also, that the actuali9ation of one's
potential, too, is a genetically determined trait% therefore, there will be those
2C
who reach their upper limits in a matter of a few months, some a year and
others slightly longer.
2D