An Introduction to Heavy Duty Training, Part 2

An Introduction to Heavy Duty Training, Part 2

Most bodybuilders make the mistake of approaching bodybuilding with the idea that all training theories have some merit, so they waste precious time trying one theory after the other in the hope that'someday'they'll find a system that works. And because most bodybuilders use such a rag-tag approach, more often than not they fail to achieve their goals. As Mike Mentzer once pointed out:

More bodybuilders fail to achieve their goals than succeed because of this irrational approach. They don't understand that there does exist specific appropriate knowledge in every field of endeavor to achieve a goal. Not understanding that, they accept blindly and uncritically all these different training theories, trying one after the other'again, hoping that someday they'll find one that works. It could not possibly be true that all, or many, or even two training theories have equal merit. There is and can be only one valid scientific theory of anything, like medicine, astronomy, physics, electronics, mathematics, etc. And likewise there is and can be only one valid theory of productive bodybuilding exercise, and I'm convinced that it's the theory of high-intensity training.

The Criteria for a Valid Training Theory

Before one can analyze the training theories that abound in the world of bodybuilding (i.e., Weider has one; AST has one; John Parrillo has one; this author alone has three), one first needs to know precisely what a theory is. 'A theory,' according to Mike Mentzer, 'is a set of principles that claim to be either a correct description of some aspect of reality or a guide for successful human action.' Mentzer once made the following analogy:

If, for example, you lived in Los Angeles and were going to set out for New York by automobile, you would typically consult a map. A map, interestingly enough, fulfills both definitions of a theory; it is not only 'a correct description of some aspect of reality' (i.e., geography/topography) but also 'a guide for successful human action' (i.e., for getting from one place to another). If you were to start out from Los Angeles going to New York without a map, the odds are that after a short period of travel you'd get lost. And as a result of getting lost, you would lose your motivation, become upset'and then try to find your way back home. A bodybuilding theory'if it's a valid or correct theory'will serve you successfully as a map on your journey toward the development or acquisition of a more muscular physique. But you want to know before you get started on your journey that your map is accurate; in other words, you wouldn't want to start out from Los Angeles only to end up in Alaska or in Atlanta. Like the traveler wishing to arrive in New York, you would want to arrive at your destination without any detours; in other words, you would want to achieve your goal in the most productive, efficient manner possible.

The theory of Heavy Duty training, like any other valid theory, has to have a beginning, a first principle, which is also referred to as a 'primary.' In formulating a first principle in bodybuilding, you have to be able to pose and answer the question: 'What am I seeking to achieve with this activity?' Of course the answer in this context is: 'Grow muscle.' The next question follows: 'What is it'what element, what factor, what feature pertaining to the workout itself'that is responsible for triggering the growth process in human beings?' Until you identify the stimulus, you can't determine how much of it you require or how often you would need to employ it.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, Mentzer was almost the only bodybuilder (this author and one or two others excepted) to actually advocate a proper theory. Nobody else has even formally identified a first principle. Now, remember, a theory is a set of principles'and if you don't have a first principle, you don't have a theory. The only theory that exists, qua theory, then, is the theory of high-intensity, or Heavy Duty, training. This theory actually forms the basis of all successful approaches to bodybuilding exercise. Heavy Duty training is based on a set of noncontradictory principles that, true to the definition of a theory, serve 'as a correct description of some aspect of reality.' Now let's examine some of the principles that went into forming Mentzer's theory of Heavy Duty training.

The First Principle: Intensity

'In order to stimulate an optimal increase in muscular strength or size, a set of an exercise must be carried to a point of momentary muscular failure; i.e., the exercise must be intense to stimulate growth.'

The first principle of the theory of high-intensity training identifies the specific stimulus responsible for flipping on the growth machinery inside human beings. It was discovered a long time ago that this stimulus is directly related to the intensity of the effort; i.e., the closer the intensity of the effort gets to 100 percent, the greater the likelihood that growth will be stimulated. Now, as Mike often pointed out, just as there can be only one valid theory of anything, it's also true that there can only be one correct definition of any concept'like 'intensity.' As Mentzer explained:

Something I learned a while back studying philosophy and logic is that a precondition of rational thinking is that you attach clear, specific meanings to words. When we think, we use concepts, words. If you don't know the precise meaning of the key concepts involved in your thought patterns, then you're not thinking clearly.

To that end Mentzer advanced the correct definition of intensity. Understanding the meaning of that one word will go a long way in helping you to think more clearly about the subject of bodybuilding. Mentzer's definition: 'Intensity refers to the percentage of possible momentary muscular effort being exerted.'

In order to tie that idea more directly to reality, Mentzer offered the following example:

Let's say you can curl 100 pounds for 10 reps. And no matter how hard you try, you can't curl 100 pounds for 11'that 10th rep is your last possible rep. Now, the first rep of that set, of course, is very easy; it's the easiest, in fact, of all the reps of the set. In other words, the first rep requires the least percentage of your possible momentary muscular effort'the least 'intensity' of effort. The first repetition fatigues you, of course, and therefore the second rep requires a greater effort. Whereas the first rep may require eight to 12 percent of your possible momentary muscular effort, the second rep may require on the order of 20 percent. The second rep fatigues you even more, and the third rep is harder still. And so it goes with each successive rep of the set; each one is harder than the last'each one requires a higher percentage of your possible momentary muscular effort than did the preceding rep, until finally you get to that last rep'the 10th one'where you're trying as hard as you can. That last rep is very special in that it's the only rep of the set that requires 100 percent intensity of effort'100 percent of your possible momentary muscular ability. Now let me ask you a question: Which rep do you think would be more productive in terms of stimulating growth: the last rep, which is the hardest, or the first rep, which is the easiest?

The answer, of course, is the last rep. If it were the first rep, then why would you even bother to do the last nine? It therefore stands to reason that the last rep would also be better than the second and the third and so on. In fact, that last rep, as Mentzer pointed out, is, indeed, something 'very special.' It is the one that flips on the growth machinery inside the body. According to Mentzer:

That last rep is in fact the stimulus'the trigger'that sets the growth process into motion. It's not the first rep that does this'it's too easy. Bodybuilding is about effort. That's why we have adjustable barbells'so that we can adjust the effort required on a progressive basis and continue to build strength and size. Again, that last rep is the only rep requiring 100 percent intensity of effort. Obviously, the last rep would be better than the first rep and also every other rep. So, if you don't do that last rep, do you see where you're short-changing yourself? That repetition, again, is the only one that requires 100 percent intensity of effort. Now you see where the theory of high-intensity training gets its name.

Something goes on physiologically during that last rep that is responsible for flipping on the growth machinery inside the muscle cell. If you don't do that last rep, you won't achieve maximum growth stimulation. And by the way, you can't make up for not doing it by doing several more haphazard sets; either you trigger that growth process or you don't. You can't make up for it by doing three, four or 20 more sets like that.

The Second Principle: Duration

'In order to be productive, intense exercise must be brief.'

Exactly how many of those intense sets should you do for best results? A proper science of bodybuilding should tell you exactly how many sets to do. Many bodybuilding authorities, of course, advocate 12 to 20 sets. But, as Mentzer repeatedly pointed out, 'That's not very exact'is it 12 or is it 20? And if it's 12, who wants to do eight more useless sets?' Mentzer once made the following statement:

If more is really better'as the so-called experts imply'then why not do 200 sets? Why stop at 20? Where did they ever get the number 20 anyway? It's literally arbitrary. Remember, science is an exact and exacting discipline; there's no room for the arbitrary in science. Let me give you an example here; let's go back to my favorite people'NASA headquarters control'right before a moon launch. Can you imagine the director yelling down to the end of the control module, 'Hey, Fred! Why don't you try throwing a blue switch this time instead of a red one? Let's see what happens.' Not very likely they would succeed with their moon missions with such an arbitrary approach.

Indeed. Mentzer also suggested that perhaps a more apt analogy would be with medical science. If you were going to go into surgery tomorrow, you would very much want your anesthesiologist to give you the 'precise' amount of anesthesia required'any more than that and you might die. Now, take that same principle and apply it to exercise science. In both cases we are dealing with a science, and in both cases we are dealing with the human body. In the first case the scientist, the anesthesiologist, is looking to infuse the human body with the precise amount of anesthesia required. In the second case, exercise science, we're looking to impose upon the body the requisite training stimulus to stimulate growth. If you apply too little, you get no effect; if you apply too much, you will 'overdose'; i.e., become overtrained. If you expose your muscles to one instant more or one set more of intense exercise than is required to stimulate a size and strength increase, you will overtrain. That's all it takes'one extra minute.

As Mentzer said:

Overtraining is not just something 'kinda' negative; it's the single worst training mistake you can make. It is that precisely which militates against your achieving the desired result. And, of course, the greater the overtraining, the more dire the consequences. It's possible to drive yourself into an overtraining situation that takes months to overcome. If you were to get a sunburn, you wouldn't keep going out into the sun, because the sunburn would keep getting worse, would it not? Now, we don't have quite as clear an alarm signal when we're overtraining in bodybuilding. I know of people who overtrain every day for months'because they know nothing about the fundamental principle of duration in training. What they do amounts, in essence, to running to the newsstands each month, grabbing up a bundle of muscle magazines, running home, whiffling through the pages, at random grabbing a program'let's say it's the current Mr. Olympia's'then going into the gym and slavishly adhering to it for months and even years, during which time they make no progress or very, very, very little progress. They end up concluding'erroneously in many cases'that they have terrible genetics; that they're 'hardgainers' or 'nongainers,' and then they give up training entirely or continue going to the gym merely as a social ritual. And, ironically, in many of the cases those individuals have great genetics, but they just don't allow their genetic potential full expression.

The conclusion to be drawn is that without the proper methodology, you could have Mr. Olympia genetics and not even know it! Once again, what is required is the 'specific appropriate knowledge to achieve our goals.'

In many of Mentzer's articles, books and audiotapes he touched on this crucial point. Mentzer pointed out, as Aristotle did, that man needs a method of cognition and that just as there are principles that help to guide us in our training, there are also principles that guide us in our thinking. Mentzer made the point repeatedly that bodybuilding is a science, but to qualify as a science, it requires a scientific approach and an exacting scientific method of thinking about it.

If you think I'm sounding too professorial or too intellectual, then you've got my best wishes, because this is what human life is about'acquiring knowledge and learning how to think and use that knowledge effectively. What we're looking for here is the precise amount of exercise required. And the logical place to start'even if you're skeptical'is with the least amount possible, not with an arbitrary number, like 20.

In other words, if one set doesn't work, you can't go any lower to find the 'least amount necessary'you can't do zero sets and have a workout. If one set doesn't work, you can always go up to two; however, Mentzer's experience will save you the time:

I've already worked it out. I've trained over 400 people'closer to 500 people now'over the last 4 1/2 years and have concluded from this that one set per exercise and never more than two sets per muscle is all that's needed. That's just the way it is. And if you're incredulous, if you're skeptical, the reason is that you still have operative in your subconscious the childlike logic that 'more is better.' In some cases of course that's true'more money is better than less'but you can't take that principle and blindly apply it to exercise and expect to get anything out of it. One set per exercise'never more than two sets per muscle'is all that's required.

The Third Principle: Frequency

'In order to be productive, intense exercise must be not only brief but also infrequent.'

How many of these brief workouts should you do for best results? And before I give you the answer, let me explain two items quickly. Number one, you don't actually grow during the workout'the workout merely serves as a stimulus to engage the growth mechanism of the body. The body grows during the rest period in between workouts.

Mentzer always emphasized the distinction between growth stimulation and growth production. The only immediate change that can take place in the body as a result of exercise is injury.

The first thing your body does after the workout is not grow but recover. When you're finished working out, for example, you don't feel the same as you did before the workout, do you? No, you're exhausted; something was used up. The first thing the body does after the workout is put back what was used up; restore, replenish, refurbish, recover, or, as I like to say, 'compensate' for the effects of the workout. That takes time. It doesn't happen in five minutes; it can take several days for some people. Again, just as there are those individuals who don't tolerate high-intensity sunlight stress as well as others, it stands to reason that there are those who don't tolerate high-intensity exercise stress as well as others. It takes some people a couple days, some people three days, some people four days or longer to recover from the effects. It is only once the body has completed the compensation process that it will then devote its energy and resources to overcompensation, which is growth. Were you to train again before full recovery takes place you would only be short-circuiting the growth process.

Most high-intensity trainees have learned through observation and experience that it's always a mistake to train two days in a row, as two days is not enough time between workouts to allow for full compensation and overcompensation to take place. Most of Mentzer's clients made great progress training only once every 72 hours'some making spectacular progress training but once every seven to 10 days. As Mentzer reported:

I've got some people in different parts of the country'I've got a few guys back in Maryland'who are training once every seven days and reporting the greatest progress of their lives. They're doing a split routine'not a whole-body routine'wherein the entire body is trained only twice a month. Now you see a lot of people are incredulous because their thinking has become perverted by reading the muscle magazines. As I've said before, discard everything you thought you knew; muscle magazines are not sacred scripture. They're not even science journals. Something I learned, and that I'm still learning, is to be a radical in terms of what I accept as true. Muscle magazines, in fact, are popular organs aimed at the common, nondiscriminating mind.

To summarize: In order to be productive, exercise must be intense, brief and infrequent. If you want to just plug it into your memory bank in simple form, use the letters IBI (intense, brief, infrequent). If you're not making progress in your bodybuilding training, you have to be violating one, two or all three of these principles. If you're not making progress, you're not training intensely enough, you're not training briefly enough or you're not training infrequently enough. Most bodybuilders commit all three errors: They don't train hard enough, they do too many sets, and they work out too often. Now that you understand these three principles, there's no reason for you to make the same mistake.

Editor's note: Next month John Little outlines a proper Heavy Duty workout based on the principles elucidated in Parts 1 and 2 of this series. Little is now available for phone consultations to educate and elaborate on Mike Mentzer's revolutionary Heavy Duty' Training System. For information on rates and information, contact Joanne Sharkey at (310) 316-4519, visit her at Mike Mentzer's official Web site at www.mikementzer.com or see her ad elsewhere in this issue for Mentzer-Sharkey Enterprises, Inc.

Article copyright ' 2003, John Little. All rights reserved. Mike Mentzer quotations that appear in this series provided courtesy of Joanne Sharkey ' 2003 and used with permission. IM