Topic of the week: Is Overtraining BS?

[NoAddedHmones]

Isnt shooting someone for no reason some sort of mental disability? And since when does shooting someone make you "hard" like youre implying here?

And if you have to shoot someone for expressing an opposing view, I fear for the people in your direct contact

The interwebz brah, people can be who ever they like...

 

[pyrobatt]

The interwebz brah, people can be who ever they like...

Really? I'm a unicorn dragon now.

 

[tyga tyga]

no because i hate ****s like him .. here in SA you get shot for looking funny at a man.. pusies like this wont last 5sec

Lol

You wouldn't even bust a grape

Chill.

 

[R1187]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

 

[NoAddedHmones]

Really? I'm a unicorn dragon now.

I mean thats all good, just don't shoot me if I look at you funny?

 

[pyrobatt]

I mean thats all good, just don't shoot me if I look at you funny?

I won't shoot you bro. I'll go all mortal kombat and DO A FRIENDSHIP!

 

[NewAgeMayan]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

lulz

 

[Tufts604]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

Thats not real workout plan is it. 15 days between workouts. Sounds like get abs fast in 5 min a day. lol

 

[kisaj]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

Do you want to go 15 days between workouts? With so much BS out there and everyone thinking they are breaking new ground, you sometimes need to use common sense.

 

[Jiigzz]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

This cannot be a real thing surely lol

 

[JeremyNG25]

This cannot be a real thing surely lol

No it's real but everyone is saying this is new when in fact this is extremely old school. It's Heavy Duty style High Intensity Training protocols and principles. It worked because of the gear. I mean Mike Mentzer looked fantastic but he took this too far. Frequent HIT will kill the CNS if not on gear but this is the opposite end of the spectrum. This may have been the method he was trying to apply to natural clients? Not exactly sure would have to research more

 

[NewAgeMayan]

No it's real but everyone is saying this is new when in fact this is extremely old school. It's Heavy Duty style High Intensity Training protocols and principles. It worked because of the gear. I mean Mike Mentzer looked fantastic but he took this too far. Frequent HIT will kill the CNS if not on gear but this is the opposite end of the spectrum. This may have been the method he was trying to apply to natural clients? Not exactly sure would have to research more

I simply cannot fathom how any trainee would avoid becoming detrained running this 'protocol', let alone sustaining any sort of progression.

brb yeah I train 24 times...a year

 

[jaces]

Youre getting trolled like crazy and yet you still fall for it. Calm your internet voice down man and chill for a second.

Plus steroid users lose their balls so technically I guess that statement actually applies to yourself. Which is kinda funny

once again i did not say i use steroids and that is only with anabolic steroids ,not al steroids wil do that

 

[jaces]

Isnt shooting someone for no reason some sort of mental disability? And since when does shooting someone make you "hard" like youre implying here?

And if you have to shoot someone for expressing an opposing view, I fear for the people in your direct contact

yes because men of today will sit like cowards while other men rule them, or are you one of those that just go through life like a slave to other men? and clearly you dont understand the point I was making.. people think they can say what they want without any punishment or conseqeunces.. it just shows how pathetic men have gotten

 

[pyrobatt]

yes because men of today will sit like cowards while other men rule them, or are you one of those that just go through life like a slave to other men? and clearly you dont understand the point I was making.. people think they can say what they want without any punishment or conseqeunces.. it just shows how pathetic men have gotten

From reading this ..I feel I have to ask.

Are you a top or a bottom?

 

[jaces]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

didnt he do HIT?

 

[Jiigzz]

yes because men of today will sit like cowards while other men rule them, or are you one of those that just go through life like a slave to other men? and clearly you dont understand the point I was making.. people think they can say what they want without any punishment or conseqeunces.. it just shows how pathetic men have gotten

So youre bringing justice to the internet?

Bout time somebody took that job on :thumbsup:

 

[Tufts604]

Bodybuilding guys. Who cares about shooting people here. start a gang banging thread.

How lame would training every 15 days be!!! Although I am in the gym far less than when I started I don't like going more than three or I get the "itch"

 

[Shasow]

Jaces, just wanted to say good morning and I love you.

I think its time I took 15 days off.

 

[kenpoengineer]

yes because men of today will sit like cowards while other men rule them, or are you one of those that just go through life like a slave to other men? and clearly you dont understand the point I was making.. people think they can say what they want without any punishment or conseqeunces.. it just shows how pathetic men have gotten

No sir! A REAL man knows the great damage he can inflict and WALKS away! You can't be serious about shooting someone! If you truly think this way then get some help.

First Samurai Precept:
"Samurai have no reason to be cruel. They do not need to prove their strength. A Samurai is courteous even to his enemies. Without this outward show of respect we are nothing more than animals ..."

 

[HIT4ME]

Mike Mentzer programs.....15 days between workouts. Not 15 days to rest a muscle group, 15 days between workouts.

Thoughts?

This is a real thing and Mentzer's ideas work. There are two issue with Mentzer's ideas though.

1. Mentzer spoke so loudly no one could hear him. He came across to many people as being arrogant and too sure of himself.

2. People misinterpret his ideas, twist them, and then they get repeated with more twists - leading to more misunderstanding.

Should you follow Mentzer to a T? Maybe for a while. It WILL work, if you follow him to a T. Is he the only way or the best way? His ideas do provide a useful framework with which to progress, and even when I don't follow his programs, his ideas are in my mind.

If you are interested, get his book, "Heavy Duty II". You will understand much more. He does NOT recommend 15 days between workouts except in very extreme circumstances. He does recommend 4 days between workouts as a starting point for most people. 15 days between workouts would be for people who are basically on the crapiest end of the genetic spectrum and just cannot recover.

As far as his training leading to CNS burnout....it can. So can volume training. The difference is that Mentzer gives a lot of rest time between workouts to compensate for recovery and over compensation. People say to use common sense, but then they believe that doing a light workout is better for recovery than complete rest which is not common sense and relies on mixed data from studies.

In 18 months on HIT I dropped 45-50 pounds and gained almost 20 pounds of muscle and A LOT of strength without ever changing my diet. 6 months ago I decided to get serious about losing weight and have dropped another 50 pounds since then, but with the extreme dieting and life getting in the way (not working out for 2 months) I lost some strength recently.

I'm 5'8'', 195 pounds right now. I have about 35 pounds to lose to get to 10% bodyfat hopefully, maybe 40 pounds. A couple months ago I could deadlift 435 for reps and squat 285 for 8 reps AFTER going to exhaustion on leg extensions. Not super impressive, but I'm a small guy in a fat guy's body right now. I rarely do more than 2 sets of an exercise, most of the time just do 1 set, and when I am not dieting I see progress on 8 out of every 10 workouts even after almost 3 years of training. Maybe not big progress, but progress.

The hardest substance I've ever used is 11-Oxo, and I used it for fat loss.

Mentzer did not get big using the principles he finally recommended. He used steroids and had a routine that had less volume than most bodybuilders during his day, but he went even further with his principles once he started training the average guy who wasn't on steroids. People miss this point - his books are the result of him training NON-steroid users.

Also, anyone arguing that steroids make a night and day difference is fooling themselves, but that's OK, because most people have NO idea what natural looks like anymore. Steroids have been used for so long and are so prevalent, that most people have really false ideas of what is possible naturally.

John Grimmek was the eye opener for me. The Russians discovered steroids in the 40's or 50's and Grimmek MAY have had access to steroids, but if he didn't use, he is in a graduating class of bodybuilders that was probably the last not to have access. He was around 200 pounds at 5'8'' and about 10% bodyfat. He had some of the best genetics in the world and was arguably the best in the world. If you think you can beat that naturally....you have the best genetics in the world and you still may need to check your view of reality.

 

[pyrobatt]

No sir! A REAL man knows the great damage he can inflict and WALKS away! You can't be serious about shooting someone! If you truly think this way then get some help.

First Samurai Precept:
"Samurai have no reason to be cruel. They do not need to prove their strength. A Samurai is courteous even to his enemies. Without this outward show of respect we are nothing more than animals ..."

If I'm going to shoot someone...the last thing I'll do is warn them.

I feel threats are the most beta thing you can do.

In the words of Shia lebouf....DO IT!

 

[Shasow]

This is a real thing and Mentzer's ideas work. There are two issue with Mentzer's ideas though.

1. Mentzer spoke so loudly no one could hear him. He came across to many people as being arrogant and too sure of himself.

2. People misinterpret his ideas, twist them, and then they get repeated with more twists - leading to more misunderstanding.

Should you follow Mentzer to a T? Maybe for a while. It WILL work, if you follow him to a T. Is he the only way or the best way? His ideas do provide a useful framework with which to progress, and even when I don't follow his programs, his ideas are in my mind.

If you are interested, get his book, "Heavy Duty II". You will understand much more. He does NOT recommend 15 days between workouts except in very extreme circumstances. He does recommend 4 days between workouts as a starting point for most people. 15 days between workouts would be for people who are basically on the crapiest end of the genetic spectrum and just cannot recover.

As far as his training leading to CNS burnout....it can. So can volume training. The difference is that Mentzer gives a lot of rest time between workouts to compensate for recovery and over compensation. People say to use common sense, but then they believe that doing a light workout is better for recovery than complete rest which is not common sense and relies on mixed data from studies.

In 18 months on HIT I dropped 45-50 pounds and gained almost 20 pounds of muscle and A LOT of strength without ever changing my diet. 6 months ago I decided to get serious about losing weight and have dropped another 50 pounds since then, but with the extreme dieting and life getting in the way (not working out for 2 months) I lost some strength recently.

I'm 5'8'', 195 pounds right now. I have about 35 pounds to lose to get to 10% bodyfat hopefully, maybe 40 pounds. A couple months ago I could deadlift 435 for reps and squat 285 for 8 reps AFTER going to exhaustion on leg extensions. Not super impressive, but I'm a small guy in a fat guy's body right now. I rarely do more than 2 sets of an exercise, most of the time just do 1 set, and when I am not dieting I see progress on 8 out of every 10 workouts even after almost 3 years of training. Maybe not big progress, but progress.

The hardest substance I've ever used is 11-Oxo, and I used it for fat loss.

Mentzer did not get big using the principles he finally recommended. He used steroids and had a routine that had less volume than most bodybuilders during his day, but he went even further with his principles once he started training the average guy who wasn't on steroids. People miss this point - his books are the result of him training NON-steroid users.

Also, anyone arguing that steroids make a night and day difference is fooling themselves, but that's OK, because most people have NO idea what natural looks like anymore. Steroids have been used for so long and are so prevalent, that most people have really false ideas of what is possible naturally.

John Grimmek was the eye opener for me. The Russians discovered steroids in the 40's or 50's and Grimmek MAY have had access to steroids, but if he didn't use, he is in a graduating class of bodybuilders that was probably the last not to have access. He was around 200 pounds at 5'8'' and about 10% bodyfat. He had some of the best genetics in the world and was arguably the best in the world. If you think you can beat that naturally....you have the best genetics in the world and you still may need to check your view of reality.

Sounds similar to a what written in a book called "body by science" by dr doug mcguff. I followed it for awhile years ago. Hard a **** but not hypertrophy centered IMO. I would argue against some of Mentzer's stuff for the same reasons. Depends on your goals though.

 

[HIT4ME]

Sounds similar to a what written in a book called "body by science" by dr doug mcguff. I followed it for awhile years ago. Hard a **** but not hypertrophy centered IMO. I would argue against some of Mentzer's stuff for the same reasons. Depends on your goals though.

I believe it is very similar and he probably took some ideas from Mentzer. I see Mentzer's ideas repackaged in many many different ways, and as time passes, his ideas are becoming more and more accepted, even though they are being said in different ways. I mean, HIIT is pretty popular now over LISS, and that is more how Mentzer approached exercise.

Also, once you understand the ideas Mentzer has, I think you start to realize the framework can be tweaked. Mentzer realized there was a balance that must be struck between volume, frequency and intensity. He also realized that the the process for muscle growth was 1. Stimulate 2. Recover 3 Overcompensate. He believed that there was no way you would overcompensate until you had fully recovered.

In this light, he focused on "stimulate" - what stimulates muscle growth? We really don't have a definitive answer...many theories, but no answers. Mentzer realized that maybe 80% intensity would trigger growth, but how do you measure 80%? Or 75%? The only measurements he saw as being reliable were 0% and 100% - 100% being complete failure. This was the best way to ensure the "switch" was flipped. Then you focus on #2 and #3 - which take time. He wanted to allow for that time and realized if you aren't seeing results after you stimulated growth, on a regular basis (every workout), then stimulating more growth wasn't the answer - more recovery and more time to over compensate were.

And yeah - there is always the "hypertrophy" argument. 30 reps may cause hypertrophy and not strength increases, but gains in strength always have some hypertrophy component to them. You just don't have someone squatting 500 pounds with chicken legs. Plus, Mentzer had a mind for controlling the movement, reducing momentum and making the muscle do the work - this is actually counter-productive for pure strength gains. Really, Mentzer was increasing TUT before TUT was a "thing".

These theories apply to 5X5, DC training, 5/3/1 - the theories are applied differently, but they are all at play and Mentzer's theories tie them all together.

For instance - 5X5 doesn't use 100% intensity, but it came up with a way to deal with the "how do you measure less than 100% intensity" question. This allows for slightly more volume and slightly more frequency, although 5X5 isn't exactly high volume either. Lower intensity means less recovery time is required. But by finding a weight you can do 5X5 with and then continuously trying to increase it, you will be "flipping the switch" for growth.

 

[jaces]

Bodybuilding guys. Who cares about shooting people here. start a gang banging thread.

How lame would training every 15 days be!!! Although I am in the gym far less than when I started I don't like going more than three or I get the "itch"

yeah i always wonder how some people can just leave trainning ,i mean it becomes a part of you and what you are

 

[JeremyNG25]

then why dont you try some gear?? get some juice.. get some of that vitamin S.. those wonder pills.. man you weigh 160lbs?? wtf my borther is 12 and he weighs 190lbs.. its *****s like you that give the sport a ****y name because you pity your self

I even said in my post that I was gonna piss people off....anyway have a great day bro and relax

 

[JeremyNG25]

I simply cannot fathom how any trainee would avoid becoming detrained running this 'protocol', let alone sustaining any sort of progression.

brb yeah I train 24 times...a year

So according to you his style of training is stupid. Have you seen pictures of Mike Mentzer? Lol once again you're kind of saying "oh his training style is ****" so what would be the key factor that left him looking so incredibly good? The drugs. I mean it's not surprising. I see guys on gear who don't seem to have a clue as to what they're doing but they respond great to the drugs

 

[Tufts604]

So according to you his style of training is stupid. Have you seen pictures of Mike Mentzer? Lol once again you're kind of saying "oh his training style is ****" so what would be the key factor that left him looking so incredibly good? The drugs. I mean it's not surprising. I see guys on gear who don't seem to have a clue as to what they're doing but they respond great to the drugs

After reading a post above its sounds as if you rarely train 15 days apart unless you were physically inept. so you have completely misconstrued his training style. as posted abouve his training style doesnt sound ridiculous, only the way you have presented it is ridiculous. It doesnt sound as if he only trained every fiftteen days that appears to be one potential situation. I assume if you were completely out of shape and did HIT training you may need retarted recovery time
As far as the drugs go. Quite your bitching and whining you sound jealous. Some naturals have no ****ing clue and are still jacked. Hear of genetics?
Also most guys on gear don't keep growing it changes there base point. They too will hit a wall just like when you started and got beginner gains. Once they hit that wall they too wil have to work just as hard. Yes if you compare two people genetically similar, one being one gear and one being off the one on will be in better shape. duh. If you compared two blood samples from nattys the one with higher test levels would likely have a better build.
Quite with the excuses. Of course guys on gear look better than when they were not. steroids work but arent magic. who cares hard work makes great physiques.

 

[NewAgeMayan]

So according to you his style of training is stupid. Have you seen pictures of Mike Mentzer?

Lets no confuse his training philosophies in general, with how he specifically trained himself.

I mean, throwing out the idea of "training every 15 days" says little about who would benefit most from doing so, nor how long they should do so.

 

[Jiigzz]

Lets no confuse his training philosophies in general, with how he specifically trained himself.

I mean, throwing out the idea of "training every 15 days" says little about who would benefit most from doing so, nor how long they should do so.

If his training program actually states wait 15 days between workouts, there is no doubt that this is not optimal.

Even 4 days between is very limiting and suboptimal. Why would you need a minimum of 4 days rest if the neural pathways and motor patterns used on leg day do not cross over to upper body day? It is absurd lol

 

[NewAgeMayan]

If his training program actually states wait 15 days between workouts, there is no doubt that this is not optimal.

Even 4 days between is very limiting and suboptimal. Why would you need a minimum of 4 days rest if the neural pathways and motor patterns used on leg day do not cross over to upper body day? It is absurd lol

This thread is the first Ive ever come across the idea, mind you I havent read Mentzor's books but only what has been 'lifted' from them in publications ike IronMagazine etc and online articles.

You mentioned 'optimal', Id be interested to know in what scenario(s) such a protocol (the 15 day one) would indeed be preferred. Im struggling to imagine anyone with recovery capacities so sh!tty that they would be best off adopting such an approach (illnesses and whatnot aside).

...unless this is another troll.

 

[Jiigzz]

This thread is the first Ive ever come across the idea, mind you I havent read Mentzor's books but only what has been 'lifted' from them in publications ike IronMagazine etc and online articles.

You mentioned 'optimal', Id be interested to know in what scenario(s) such a protocol (the 15 day one) would indeed be preferred. Im struggling to imagine anyone with recovery capacities so sh!tty that they would be best off adopting such an approach (illnesses and whatnot aside).

...unless this is another troll.

I guess in correct terms 'optimal' doesnt really exist given that no one plan will ever be perfect but I cant think of anyone who would benefit from this lol.

 

[HIT4ME]

If his training program actually states wait 15 days between workouts, there is no doubt that this is not optimal.

Even 4 days between is very limiting and suboptimal. Why would you need a minimum of 4 days rest if the neural pathways and motor patterns used on leg day do not cross over to upper body day? It is absurd lol

These are good questions, and I think the answer lies in the fact that training part of your body doesn't really just train a specific area. You have support systems (heart, lungs, CNS) that still need to recover. They may be separate muscles and use different neural pathways, but there is still a toll that is taken. Ironically, people always point out that HIT will "fry your CNS" but then they claim that it isn't enough frequency. The fact is, Mentzer on some level seemed to realize this, and was trying to accommodate this with rest.

And the theory isn't that you need 4 days or 15 days to "recover". The theory is that you need this time to recover AND OVERCOMPENSATE. If you go back before you've overcompensated, you've wasted your effort. Mentzer himself, in his book, states it took him a long time to accept that anyone could need such long periods of time between workouts...but with some of his clients they didn't see results from overcompensation until he cut back. Often, he would put these people one full-body workouts, once every 15 days. He never claimed this was for everyone.

The value in what he said was that increasing volume didn't always make sense. If you've stimulated growth and you're not seeing improvement, then it isn't because you didn't stimulate growth - it is because you didn't recover. So, if this is the case, more frequency or more volume is absurd

 

[Jiigzz]

These are good questions, and I think the answer lies in the fact that training part of your body doesn't really just train a specific area. You have support systems (heart, lungs, CNS) that still need to recover. They may be separate muscles and use different neural pathways, but there is still a toll that is taken. Ironically, people always point out that HIT will "fry your CNS" but then they claim that it isn't enough frequency. The fact is, Mentzer on some level seemed to realize this, and was trying to accommodate this with rest.

And the theory isn't that you need 4 days or 15 days to "recover". The theory is that you need this time to recover AND OVERCOMPENSATE. If you go back before you've overcompensated, you've wasted your effort. Mentzer himself, in his book, states it took him a long time to accept that anyone could need such long periods of time between workouts...but with some of his clients they didn't see results from overcompensation until he cut back. Often, he would put these people one full-body workouts, once every 15 days. He never claimed this was for everyone.

The value in what he said was that increasing volume didn't always make sense. If you've stimulated growth and you're not seeing improvement, then it isn't because you didn't stimulate growth - it is because you didn't recover. So, if this is the case, more frequency or more volume is absurd

One workout will not place you in an overreached threshold. Moreover, the heart, lungs and CNS have ample time to recover if they are trained in different ways - consider a marathon runner performing long distance, intervals, threshold training etc all within one week - yes rest is important but those are all different forms of stress; taking 15 days between a leg workout and a chest workout is just absurd given as they arnt even a part of the same system.

No athlete would rest 15 days between sessions and yet smart programming (by an actual expert) wpuld see them utilising the same energy systems amd muscle groups multiple times per week but allow sufficient recovery between them (depending on the intensity, volume and density of the session).

Lack of progress is yes a part of recovery, but a smart programmer would never have you resting 15 days between each session - they would break down the training to overload one component and maintain others less specific (depending on the event or sport and the individuals needs).

Its all a game of balance

 

[Tufts604]

These are good questions, and I think the answer lies in the fact that training part of your body doesn't really just train a specific area. You have support systems (heart, lungs, CNS) that still need to recover. They may be separate muscles and use different neural pathways, but there is still a toll that is taken. Ironically, people always point out that HIT will "fry your CNS" but then they claim that it isn't enough frequency. The fact is, Mentzer on some level seemed to realize this, and was trying to accommodate this with rest.

And the theory isn't that you need 4 days or 15 days to "recover". The theory is that you need this time to recover AND OVERCOMPENSATE. If you go back before you've overcompensated, you've wasted your effort. Mentzer himself, in his book, states it took him a long time to accept that anyone could need such long periods of time between workouts...but with some of his clients they didn't see results from overcompensation until he cut back. Often, he would put these people one full-body workouts, once every 15 days. He never claimed this was for everyone.

The value in what he said was that increasing volume didn't always make sense. If you've stimulated growth and you're not seeing improvement, then it isn't because you didn't stimulate growth - it is because you didn't recover. So, if this is the case, more frequency or more volume is absurd

The bottom paragraph is key. Not that I will start working out once a week but it's def something to consider when things stall. Great point!
I still believe most philosophies work when done correctly with adaquate effort. Some more than others but I like to switch it up every so often. Always keeping some key exercises.

 

[HIT4ME]

One workout will not place you in an overreached threshold. Moreover, the heart, lungs and CNS have ample time to recover if they are trained in different ways - consider a marathon runner performing long distance, intervals, threshold training etc all within one week - yes rest is important but those are all different forms of stress; taking 15 days between a leg workout and a chest workout is just absurd given as they arnt even a part of the same system.

No athlete would rest 15 days between sessions and yet smart programming (by an actual expert) wpuld see them utilising the same energy systems amd muscle groups multiple times per week but allow sufficient recovery between them (depending on the intensity, volume and density of the session).

Lack of progress is yes a part of recovery, but a smart programmer would never have you resting 15 days between each session - they would break down the training to overload one component and maintain others less specific (depending on the event or sport and the individuals needs).

Its all a game of balance

Jiggz, your last sentence is extremely similar to what I've been saying Mentzer was really getting at - you have to modulate intensity, volume, frequency.

The issue you have with issue is your own experience. Your sample is different than Mentzer's sample. You and Mentzer would probably agree that for an "athlete", once every 15 days is not optimal. Actually, I'm not sure Mentzer ever says 15 days in his book...maybe...I do believe he says 10 days though.....but the point is the same - Mentzer did not say this is optimal for everyone.

Mentzer developed these theories working with personal training clients AFTER he retired from bodybuilding. His clients were average joe's who came to him and expected big things. His sample was different than yours. You are taking athletes, who by nature (and I think Mentzer would agree) are not going to get to the level you are at unless they already have superior abilities to recover and adapt and...well, be athletic.

Using the 15 day analogy is like comparing a midget to Shaq. The midget will NEVER achieve what Shaq achieved if they do the exact same things he did. They are at opposite ends of the genetic spectrum. Mentzer's 10 or 15 day recommendation was geared toward someone who just is not tolerant of exercise - and in his book even he says it took him a lot of time to work this out and even have enough faith in it to experiment on his clients with longer rest periods - but he found it worked once he did. For many people, 4 days in between is a good starting point. Honestly, I train 4 workouts every week to 12 days typically. Someone with superior genes may be able to go twice a week - but most people do not realize when they are overtraining because the only side effect will be lack of results...until it becomes so chronic they have issues.

Also, Mentzer is focused on muscle growth/strength. Marathon runners have just about the opposite goals.

And again, if Mentzer puts someone on longer rest periods, he typically moves toward more of a full-body workout or A/B type setup....not like you're doing legs and then chest 15 days later.

Further, athletes have different needs than just muscle growth. Obviously, practicing your skills has some bearing.

And finally, I'm not saying this is the only way or even the best way, but I do believe his ideas create a very useful framework or filter through which to view training styles.

 

[Rodja]

Mentzer as a trainer should have made his focus to get his clients to a better level of GPP. Unless the client is SEVERELY deconditioned, they should not need more than 4-5 days rest.

There's another thing going against Mentzer is that the overwhelming body of data supports two things: volume and frequency. Modulation of frequency, intensity, and volume is far from an idea that he innovated; Prilepin's chart has been around far longer and essentially breaks down optimal ranges based on percentages.

I'm curious to hear more about your sentence on overtraining regarding lack of results and subsequent issues. Most people stop getting results because they do not structure their training beyond what they've read in a magazine and not due to overtraining.

 

[HIT4ME]

Mentzer as a trainer should have made his focus to get his clients to a better level of GPP. Unless the client is SEVERELY deconditioned, they should not need more than 4-5 days rest.

There's another thing going against Mentzer is that the overwhelming body of data supports two things: volume and frequency. Modulation of frequency, intensity, and volume is far from an idea that he innovated; Prilepin's chart has been around far longer and essentially breaks down optimal ranges based on percentages.

I'm curious to hear more about your sentence on overtraining regarding lack of results and subsequent issues. Most people stop getting results because they do not structure their training beyond what they've read in a magazine and not due to overtraining.

If someone is looking for GPP training, they usually won't hire a former bodybuilding freak to do it. Conditioning has NOTHING to do with recovery time.

Mentzer didn't even innovate the idea of doing HIT. Arthur Jones is probably his inspiration. He just created a framework/philosophy that was more complete and reached into areas others were unwilling to go, and are still unwilling to go.

Overtraining and lack of results go hand in hand, IF you make the presupposition that the process works as "Stimulate > Recover > Overcompensate"

This is a hypothesis that is hard to prove or disprove, but seems plausible and almost any program that anyone on here would recommend probably would agree with. I think we can all agree that the process isn't "Stimulate > Grow", and even if it were that simple, you would still need time to grow - you don't do a set of barbell curls, eat a sandwich and then do a second set with more weight and bigger muscles.

So, given that presupposition, and given that you have stimulated muscle growth - you MUST see results, unless you are not allowing for sufficient time to recover and grow.

The question then becomes a matter of ....what is required to stimulate growth? How much time is needed to allow for recovery AND growth? Keep in mind, for progress, recovery is NOT enough.

And please keep in mind, I think Mentzer was onto a lot of correct ideas....but I don't follow him to a T, neither did Yates. And even having seen results, I still find going to extremely low volumes and long breaks hard to swallow.....so I get it.

From a purely theoretical perspective, I think about people doing actual work and adapting. For instance, if my job was to move rocks from a mine every day, I'd probably get some level of conditioning from lifting rocks....and that isn't going to be a complex training protocol, just a stress that my body adapts to. On the other hand, I know MANY contractors who work hard and long, and they get some physical fitness from it, but never seem to get really huge if they are grunt workers.

And there is evidence, as you say, that lower intensity, higher volume, can stimulate muscle growth very well also.

 

[Rodja]

If someone is looking for GPP training, they usually won't hire a former bodybuilding freak to do it. Conditioning has NOTHING to do with recovery time.

Mentzer didn't even innovate the idea of doing HIT. Arthur Jones is probably his inspiration. He just created a framework/philosophy that was more complete and reached into areas others were unwilling to go, and are still unwilling to go.

Overtraining and lack of results go hand in hand, IF you make the presupposition that the process works as "Stimulate > Recover > Overcompensate"

This is a hypothesis that is hard to prove or disprove, but seems plausible and almost any program that anyone on here would recommend probably would agree with. I think we can all agree that the process isn't "Stimulate > Grow", and even if it were that simple, you would still need time to grow - you don't do a set of barbell curls, eat a sandwich and then do a second set with more weight and bigger muscles.

So, given that presupposition, and given that you have stimulated muscle growth - you MUST see results, unless you are not allowing for sufficient time to recover and grow.

The question then becomes a matter of ....what is required to stimulate growth? How much time is needed to allow for recovery AND growth? Keep in mind, for progress, recovery is NOT enough.

And please keep in mind, I think Mentzer was onto a lot of correct ideas....but I don't follow him to a T, neither did Yates. And even having seen results, I still find going to extremely low volumes and long breaks hard to swallow.....so I get it.

From a purely theoretical perspective, I think about people doing actual work and adapting. For instance, if my job was to move rocks from a mine every day, I'd probably get some level of conditioning from lifting rocks....and that isn't going to be a complex training protocol, just a stress that my body adapts to. On the other hand, I know MANY contractors who work hard and long, and they get some physical fitness from it, but never seem to get really huge if they are grunt workers.

And there is evidence, as you say, that lower intensity, higher volume, can stimulate muscle growth very well also.

Conditioning and recovery are very much so intertwined. I'm not talking BB'ing conditioning; I mean actually being in shape from an athletic perspective. From this perspective, needing an extended rest period points to a glaring weakness on overall conditioning. If you think conditioning had nothing to do with recovery, start doing sprints for month. After the initial adaptation period, you'll see how much of a factor conditioning is to recovery.

Overtraining and lack of results are obviously going to go hand in hand, but you're making it seem as though it's the only reason for overtraining when very, very, VERY few ever reach that point. It's a buzzword that is tossed around by neophytes and those who don't understand the CNS. It does exist as I've both seen and experienced it. That being said, it is not easy to do and you have to more or less plan for it in order to truly reach that stage (barring hormonal impairment).

 

[jaces]

well its one of those programs were you like it or you dont.. i mean i have intensity but DC trainning doesnt cut it for me ..

 

[kisaj]

I need to hear the explanation for the comment about conditioning having nothing to do with recovery time. It has everything to do with it.

 

[pyrobatt]

If his training program actually states wait 15 days between workouts, there is no doubt that this is not optimal.

Even 4 days between is very limiting and suboptimal. Why would you need a minimum of 4 days rest if the neural pathways and motor patterns used on leg day do not cross over to upper body day? It is absurd lol

Because Internet logic.

 

[HIT4ME]

I need to hear the explanation for the comment about conditioning having nothing to do with recovery time. It has everything to do with it.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define recovery - but the way I'm viewing it, it has nothing to do with it. Someone who has trained for years, when they go 100% all out, will have very little difference in how long it takes them to recover from that workout vs. when they were untrained and went all out - actually, if it makes a difference it may be longer.

What I mean by this is, the stress on your body of lifting 500 pounds in a squat is much greater than when you were lifting 200 pounds. You may have been 100% all out on that 200 pounds when you are untrained, but you will recover in a couple days, because your body only needs to throw X grams of protein, micronutrients, hormones, etc. at the problem to correct it. When you lift 500 pounds, it isn't like you're going to recover faster from it just because you're trained. It will take MORE resources to recover from such a workout, regardless of training, not less.

As for the sprint analogy, that is kind of a perfect example to show this line of thinking. If you are untrained, you will sprint and your heart won't perform well enough to "recover" as Rodja is using the idea of recovery. Once you are trained, you will recover faster and be able to sprint more times in a workout, but this is really improved performance, not recovery per se. And if someone is just starting out sprinting, they will do 2-3 sprints, be huffing and puffing and be recovered and ready for the next workout, adaptations and all, in a few days maybe. As they become better at performing, they may increase the workload to 6-7 sprints and they may not huff as much, but their body won't recover, adapt and be ready for the next workout any sooner....it may actually take longer. This is, provided, they are going 100%.

In the analogy of the world of weights, if I can bench press 200 pounds and train, improve performance so that I can do 300 pounds, then I will recover much faster between sets of 200 pounds because it is no longer 100%. But I may actually recover less well from the 300 pound workouts that I'm actually doing, and it may take longer for me to recover from the added stress.

This may be a different view of recovery than you're thinking, and maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to hear more details on how you guys view the CNS, recovery, and what is wrong with my views. Always looking to learn and find distinctions that I may have missed...god knows there are plenty out there.

 

[HIT4ME]

Overtraining and lack of results are obviously going to go hand in hand, but you're making it seem as though it's the only reason for overtraining when very, very, VERY few ever reach that point. It's a buzzword that is tossed around by neophytes and those who don't understand the CNS. It does exist as I've both seen and experienced it. That being said, it is not easy to do and you have to more or less plan for it in order to truly reach that stage (barring hormonal impairment).

I'm not so sure about this, and again, this may have to do with your sample. I think a lot of things happen. One is, you have the person who does too little intensity, and/or not enough training and never sees results. They just never stimulate muscle growth, and these people crowd gyms and you see it all the time. The second is that people do a TON of work, with moderate intensity and no programming to modulate the 3 factors, and they falter. This is overtraining. It isn't magic, it's just that they are doing too much to allow for recovery AND adaptation. I think this is frequent, and I think the only side effect is lack of results.

Then you have the very few people who go 100% all out, all the time, with volume, and insufficient rest periods. This is also unsustainable. This is the reason I think most people look at HIT and say, "Oh, it will fry your CNS".

Basically, you are either stimulating muscle growth (sufficient effort and/or volume), or you are not (lack of effort/volume). If you aren't stimulating growth, it doesn't matter how frequently you train, no results. If you are stimulating growth but seeing no results, you are "overtraining", i.e.- you are not allowing for sufficient recovery and/or adaptation. Other factors are at play - sleep, nutrition, etc. all will improve your abilities to recover/adapt...but only to a finite extent.

I'm not saying I have this all worked out either....I have pieces of a bigger puzzle. I feel like HIT vs. Volume is kind of like Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity. They have to fit together somehow, and both theories have relevance, but they seem to conflict...

 

[HIT4ME]

PS. - I must be driving members like T-Bone crasy with my long winded messages. Sorry guys.

 

[Jiigzz]

I'm not so sure about this, and again, this may have to do with your sample. I think a lot of things happen. One is, you have the person who does too little intensity, and/or not enough training and never sees results. They just never stimulate muscle growth, and these people crowd gyms and you see it all the time. The second is that people do a TON of work, with moderate intensity and no programming to modulate the 3 factors, and they falter. This is overtraining. It isn't magic, it's just that they are doing too much to allow for recovery AND adaptation. I think this is frequent, and I think the only side effect is lack of results.

Then you have the very few people who go 100% all out, all the time, with volume, and insufficient rest periods. This is also unsustainable. This is the reason I think most people look at HIT and say, "Oh, it will fry your CNS".

Basically, you are either stimulating muscle growth (sufficient effort and/or volume), or you are not (lack of effort/volume). If you aren't stimulating growth, it doesn't matter how frequently you train, no results. If you are stimulating growth but seeing no results, you are "overtraining", i.e.- you are not allowing for sufficient recovery and/or adaptation. Other factors are at play - sleep, nutrition, etc. all will improve your abilities to recover/adapt...but only to a finite extent.

I'm not saying I have this all worked out either....I have pieces of a bigger puzzle. I feel like HIT vs. Volume is kind of like Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity. They have to fit together somehow, and both theories have relevance, but they seem to conflict...

Your definition of overtraining is not correct. Youre implying it can occur from a single session when it cannot.

If someone doesnt progress, overtraining should not be your knee jerk reaction. Your immediate focus should be to see if injury is an issue then move back to see how their training plan is designed. It may well be lack of recovery but for a BBer this is hardly ever the case given the amount of rest between movement sessions (unless youre even more of a bro) and the intensity of the average BB session is usually not high enough to lead to overtraining.

Also Its not a "theory", there are studies on volume, intensity manipulation readily available, if it were only a theory then coaches, strength and conditioning experts, physiologists etc wouldnt have a place in this industry.

I am wondering if your views are grounded In research as I would love to read them if possible

 

[Jiigzz]

Well, I guess it depends on how you define recovery - but the way I'm viewing it, it has nothing to do with it. Someone who has trained for years, when they go 100% all out, will have very little difference in how long it takes them to recover from that workout vs. when they were untrained and went all out - actually, if it makes a difference it may be longer.

What I mean by this is, the stress on your body of lifting 500 pounds in a squat is much greater than when you were lifting 200 pounds. You may have been 100% all out on that 200 pounds when you are untrained, but you will recover in a couple days, because your body only needs to throw X grams of protein, micronutrients, hormones, etc. at the problem to correct it. When you lift 500 pounds, it isn't like you're going to recover faster from it just because you're trained. It will take MORE resources to recover from such a workout, regardless of training, not less.

As for the sprint analogy, that is kind of a perfect example to show this line of thinking. If you are untrained, you will sprint and your heart won't perform well enough to "recover" as Rodja is using the idea of recovery. Once you are trained, you will recover faster and be able to sprint more times in a workout, but this is really improved performance, not recovery per se. And if someone is just starting out sprinting, they will do 2-3 sprints, be huffing and puffing and be recovered and ready for the next workout, adaptations and all, in a few days maybe. As they become better at performing, they may increase the workload to 6-7 sprints and they may not huff as much, but their body won't recover, adapt and be ready for the next workout any sooner....it may actually take longer. This is, provided, they are going 100%.

In the analogy of the world of weights, if I can bench press 200 pounds and train, improve performance so that I can do 300 pounds, then I will recover much faster between sets of 200 pounds because it is no longer 100%. But I may actually recover less well from the 300 pound workouts that I'm actually doing, and it may take longer for me to recover from the added stress.

This may be a different view of recovery than you're thinking, and maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to hear more details on how you guys view the CNS, recovery, and what is wrong with my views. Always looking to learn and find distinctions that I may have missed...god knows there are plenty out there.

Someone who has never training a movement before will not stimulate all the motor neurons in that movement - this is why noob gains exist because you effectively train more motor neurons to activate [Read more here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001023/ and here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16464122] also, when volume is equated tained individuals recover faster than non trained [http://www.ufjf.br/reabilitacaocardiaca/files/2008/07/EPOC.pdf] which is hardly surprising given the metabolic and neural adaptations that occur in a trained status. Mind you, giving an untrained person the same routine (volume, intensity, density etc) as a trained person would likely result in them fatiguing in the session much faster as they have not yet acclimated to that workload.

Also your srint analogy is off. Recovery IS a component of performance - you distinguishing the two separately doesn't make them separate. The ability to recover between training bouts (in this case sprints) IMPROVES performance. The lack of recovery between bouts shows lack of performance in that component. Additionally, 2-3 workouts is not enough time to see enough change to warrant an 100% increase in volume and in this case again, the lack of recovery shows their lack of performance capability.

Also a weight increase is relative and makes no sense in this context. If you can hit a 220lb bench press for 1 (at 100% 1RM) then 12 months later hit a 440lbs for 1 (100% of 1RM) then the net effect of the intensity is the same and the recovery would be similar. The fact it is more weight fails to take the % of intensity factor into consideration. I can recover faster from 12 sprints than I could a year ago at 1 sprint.

 

[Shasow]

I'm not so sure about this, and again, this may have to do with your sample. I think a lot of things happen. One is, you have the person who does too little intensity, and/or not enough training and never sees results. They just never stimulate muscle growth, and these people crowd gyms and you see it all the time. The second is that people do a TON of work, with moderate intensity and no programming to modulate the 3 factors, and they falter. This is overtraining. It isn't magic, it's just that they are doing too much to allow for recovery AND adaptation. I think this is frequent, and I think the only side effect is lack of results.

One thing to consider here would be that intensity always dictates how much recover time is needed. So those guys you mention in the gym working at a lower intensity (as compared to high intensity training that of mentza, etc) well be ok training more volume and frequency. They should still see gains and if not something else is the issue. You see, working at a lower intensity does not mean muscle breakdown is not occurring. My main issue with HIT is that it goes way past breaking muscle down into taxing the CNS often overly so. CNS is more geared for strength bulding than muscle building. For example I could go train legs on monday and then go train them again on thursday but couldn't manage the same amount of weight. Does that mean I didn't stimulate more growth? No. It just means my strength suffered but I dont train for specifically for strength so who cares. However if I want my strength to go up I would skip thursday and hit legs on saturday. The more rest allows for better strength building.

Then you have the very few people who go 100% all out, all the time, with volume, and insufficient rest periods. This is also unsustainable. This is the reason I think most people look at HIT and say, "Oh, it will fry your CNS".

But it will fry your CNS because by its nature HIT is all out 100% training but it needs to be infrequent to prevent burnouts.

I pretty much started training on HIT principles and what I wrote above was basically my conclusion. I got strong but not very big. As i trained more often i got bigger but i was still training with HIT principles. So obviously I kept burning out quite badly but I learnt that volume grew me. Eventually I learnt to lower my intensity a little so I could train more volume WITHOUT burning out but still growing.

 

[Rodja]

HIT4ME

Your definition of overtraining is just plain wrong. For example, your second person is by no means experiencing overtraining because they've plateaued. The reason for it is simple and you even put it: no programming. Overtraining will not have just a single effect of stagnation. There's often regression, injury, and illness.

It seems you're also mixed up on what exactly recovery and performance are. The better your body is conditioned, the more stress the body can handle. The higher the threshold, then the better the recovery capabilities. If it only takes you 90s to recover from a set as opposed to 180s, then your body (and brain) have become more efficient and can handle the stress better. Due to this, your recovery will also be improved. That's more or less the principle behind periodization: ramping up your training as your body becomes more adept at adapting to the increased stress aka recovery. The better your base layer of conditioning, the shorter time you need to spend during the initial phase(s).

You're viewing the CNS as a muscle when it is VERY different. Overtraining is a metabolic condition and not just something that applies to the gym. It's not even completely an overtrained state, but anyone that's done a PL meet will tell you how awful they feel the next day. This isn't due to muscular fatigue; it's completely due to CNS fatigue. Also, having a certain base of conditioning is necessary to complete said even as they often last 8+ hours.

 

[jaces]

i think ''undertraining'' is what people should be worried about.. i mean ive never felt that wow **** im doing to much and im going backwards.. if you train with sufficent intensity and good frequency with good diet you will not reach an overtrained state .. and if you reach that point in 1 or 2 workouts a month then you will not get huge negative effects..