1 High Intensity Set to Momentary Concentric Muscular Failure is equal to your 3-5 pump sets with 5 RIR and 3-5 minute rest intervals

>>76315636 (OP)
literally only one person got results doing his program

no one could find me a single other person that transformed their physique using his method without having already done high volume training

>>76315654
>no one could find me a single other person that transformed their physique using his method without having already done high volume training
And?

>>76315654
Well, his method is focused on recovery, I but only people who already have absurd amounts of muscle mass would actually need an entire week to recover a muscle group, that's why Dorian Yates got results with less volume - he was already freakishly huge

>>76315636 (OP)
I'm assuming the only way to gain actual results on such a program is to be strong enough to do atleast 75 to 100 reps.

For example, if you decide to get on his program and perform one set of bench press at 135lbs for your bench and you can only do 20 reps, you won't gain any results.

But if you are capable of doing 60 reps in a single set of bench press at 135lbs then you are the type that can gain from his exercise methods.

I'm only surmising this from the fact that German volume training requires 10 sets of 10 reps which equates to 100 reps which means the maximum amount of reps needed to perform menzters high volume one set program is 100 reps while the lowest minimum is based off of the combination of 3 sets of 20 reps each which equates to 60 reps at minimum needed to work for his one set to maximum training methods.

Basically, if you cannot pump out 60 to 100 reps for a one set maximum then you are better off doing 3 sets of 20 reps for volume.

>>76316014
This is assuming you are not taking any steroids

>>76315654
I don't see anyone getting life-changing results on any program without suspected drug use. If lifting is going to do mostly nothing past the first couple years there is no point in investing in it beyond the minimum to maintain.
>>76315636 (OP)
It's actually 2 since he does an accessory for whatever head is less dominant in the compound.

>>76316014
That's not how gvt, mentzer's hit or how muscle grows.

GVT is 10 reps done with around your 20 rep weight. The rest time is specific at one minute. That's not full recovery. So what happens is the reps in reserve keep decaying as the sets progress which each set having less rir until it's zero. But it's still light load so you can recover enough mid set to finish it. It comes down to being mostly warmup sets integrated into a set rep scheme.

Mentzer's HIT was performed ideally in the 6-10 rep range on compounds and slightly higher on accessories.

As far as we can tell muscle type2 fibers hypertrophy response is mainly caused in response to loading + near failure proximity = mechanical tension on type2 muscle fibers. Rep ranges above 30 (or 15 for that matter) mostly fault on metabolic thresholds before peak tension of type2 fibers is achieved and elicit an entirely diffent host of adaptations. Even in molecular simulations there's little type2 hypertrophy occuring under 70%orm load and that's if human willpower is infinite.

How volume translates to growth is not linear at all. It's progressively less growth for every subsequent set not even adding double digit %s after 1.

>>76316082
I don't get it, Google says he trained one muscle group for one set for max reps

>>76316082
Never mind.

>>76316082
So you're telling me, that if I decided to only train 3 muscle groups.

With my first two sets out of four sets in total being my 5 rep max, and the third and fourth set being my 20 rep max, with 60 seconds of break between each one.

>>76316102
Where's the question?
If you're asking if RIR decays between sets where full rest is not achieved yes.
Full rest depends on the rep range and failure proximity.
Like if you took a set of 8 done with your 10 rep weight and rested 2 minutes between them your reps would probably look like
8,8,8*,7,6,5 and so on.
The first set had 2 rir the second had 1, the 3rd had zero but hit it's rep goal anyway. Then the decay just kept going because there's other metabolic, neurological and physical shit going that's stopping you from even hitting failure at point again without full rest and likely recovery.

The broader reaching implication of this is that reps within 5 of failure are the most productive and we can either manipulate rest times to "skip" the initial reps needed to get close to failure or (Doggcrapp training is an example of this) program in RIR in the initial set with the expectation of it decaying in order to achieve straight sets with adequate warmup, and lower fatigue in an attempt to achieve larger volumes. While this is less productive given the time if you're after the maximum possible return per training interval that is how you do it.

>>76315992
ok but its still all THEORY
smart people rely on EVIDENCE

>>76315654
Didn't Mike Mentzer only create this after he quit professional body building?

>>76315636 (OP)
May as well ask here, but what exactly is the actual 3 day split to use? googling gives me different results.
https://www.reddit.com/r/naturalbodybuilding/comments/175sqkh/mike_mentzer_heavy_duty/

https://streamlinedstrength.com/blogs/ss/mike-mentzers-3-day-split

Which one /fit/?

>>76315654
anon, don't stop your enemy when they are doing a mistake (yes, every single moron in this website is your enemy)

>>76316346
If I reach a plateau, add a rest day into my rotation, and get stronger thereafter, then that's the best possible evidence I'll ever find.

>>76316353
He didn't even create it, so no.

>>76316353
Sorta.
He started working with Arthur Jones and coming up with heavy duty some time in the 70s. After losing mr olympia 1980 he retired then started selling Heavy Duty(1) and later in the 90s Heavy Duty 2. He was doing this in what were his peak years and started to win smaller competitions with it. He started publishing after he was retired but he did share this stuff before he retired.

>>76316493
Oh shit that's good to know thank you.

>>76315654
>>76316346
nta. Evidence is inconcluive:
https://exrx.net/WeightTraining/Volume

>>76316353
yeah, that's what makes me skeptical about his philosophy. New age techniques only work when you already have established muscle growth from previous methods.

I think a lot of people with some lifting experience felt intuitively drawn to low volume at some point. When you're kinda strong and keep pushing yourself, you'll inevitably notice you can't recover on time and either start experimenting with deloads, programming and so on (which consumes time and energy) or reduce the volume or/and frequency. I went with the latter and it definitely feels productive plus I get to save time, so it's a win imo.

>>76317548
Multi-set training is a new age technique.

>>76315636 (OP)
There's an interesting podcast between Jeff Alberts and Eric Helms. Eric said that after years experimenting on himself he needs 20+ sets for his upper body and around 15 for his lower body, while Alberts cannot possibly recover from more than 6 sets per body part and they cite an interesting study where each subject trained one limb with low volume and the other one with high volume. They measured each subject and saw a trend for more volume cause more gains, BUT, some trainees, a small amount, saw worse gains on more volume and MORE with low volume, so it's valid to say that volume is highly individual

>>76318878
So what your saying is that i should work out with 4 sets. Sets one and two are my 5 rep maxes, while sets three and four are my 20 rep maxes???????

>>76319237
That's not what that means at all.

>>76318878
But none saw no gains right? That's why volume doesn't matter. Cumulative growth is what makes the largest difference regardless of volume. If you can do any amount of work that's hard enough to cause hypertrophy at regular intervals over a long period of time you'll have gone as far as you can take it within 4 or 5 years if you keep loading somewhat optimal. You're not going to be able to stop lifting and keep it all either.

>>76316353
What became known as High Intensity Training, of which Mentzer had his own brand called "Heavy Duty," was introduced by Arthur Jones in the 70's in response to the high volume nonsense which popped up in magazines that only works if you take a lot of drugs and that even the bodybuilders who claimed to do that never did with few exceptions. Jones' observation was that Intensity of Effort and progressive overload were what was most important for training.

Jones prescribed it in a 3 day per week full body routine with 1-2 sets per muscle group depending on how you count with pre-exhaust supersets to address proportional problems in compounds in order to train targeted muscle groups. i.e. the standard Colorado routine that Jones did with Casey Viator in the Colorado experiment had typical supersets that Mentzer continued to write down like the pec fly into machine press and leg extension into leg press supersets.

Mentzer in particular did a 2-way split twice per week with similar volumes to the Colorado routine. According to Roger Schwab, the head judge at the time, when Mike was training for the 1979 Mr. Olympia and Roger watched him, he was doing that Colorado routine three days per week.

Viator, Mike Mentzer, and his Brother often worked out together and did the same routine. Though Casey and his Brother did a lot of heavy partials and Mike had to stop doing those because they started to hurt his joints.

The stuff that came later like the 4-7 rest days between each workout with only one pre-exhaust superset came in the late 90's when he was mostly training gen-pop and only a handful of advanced trainees.

>>76319297
Between the two routines which you prefer or it is you're opinion the best one.

If you don't enjoy going to the gym, then don't, nobody forces you to.

>>76319338
If you're a beginner don't bother with the supersets. Just full body once every 72 hours. Warm up on the BP, Row, and Leg Press. You don't need warm ups for anything else.
>BP
>Barbell Row with strict form
>Pec fly
>Cable Pull over
>Curl
>French Press
>Lateral Raises
>Shrugs/Partial High Pulls
>Leg Press
>Leg Extension
>Leg Curls
>Calf Raises

>>76319252
So if I workout with 3 sets, the first two sets are my 5 rep maxes while the third set is my 100 rep max.

Is this okay?

Can anybody explain how I gained chest muscles after having a flat chase when I was doing 100 to 200 push ups per day. But everyone on this website says I would need only 5 to 15 reps for push ups but I made volume gains on my chest from 100 to 200 push ups per day.

Can anyone here explain how that happened?

>>76318878
>it's valid to say that volume is highly individual
It's not. Why? The dozens of extremely significant unaccounted for variables on such studies. If it were possible to lock everyone in a building with the exact same diet, perfect sleep, etc. etc. for the duration of the study, perhaps it would be meaningful. But the reality is that shit happens that affects the levels of all hormones which then affect gainz.

>>76315654
Depends on what program you're talking about. There are probably six or seven programs you can associate with him.

>>76319421
I think you mean "work out". Workout is a noun.

>>76315636 (OP)
Mentzer won.

>>76319455
I can.