| | Grrrr.....There are a few things that need addressing here, Linz (and others). First, Linz writes:
"But realise I am not doubting the effectiveness of short, infrequent, high-intensity workouts. I just don't believe they build you into steroidal freak proportions a la Mentzer. I *do* believe they can build you into sensible, Greek Adonis proportions a la Francisco Villa Gorgeous. Understand, it's not the concept I'm criticising. It's Mentzer, first of all endorsing the grotesque, gargantuan look, & second, pretending his method created that for him when he clearly was on steroids."
Thank you for the clarification. With you, at least, Linz, we can move on from the validity of the theory (that Heavy Duty HIT is the easiest way to the greatest increases of lean muscular mass with the shortest time committment). Heavy Duty/HIT is NOT a training system to optimally lose weight, reduce risk of heart attack, make you a better athlete, increase your stamina, or improve your Tae Kwon Do skills (though it does all of these incidentally). People using HIT for these purposes would do better to look for sport or goal specific training prescriptions. But for gaining mass, Heavy Duty/HIT is the best prescription. After all, you don't take an aspirin for a stomach ache, so why would anyone bash HIT for failing to induce training-specific adaptation it is not desgined nor intended to produce? Yet people do. A failure of logic and common sense.
The fellow above who says HIT makes you gain strength and LOSE mass, well, not only can I attest for myself and several training partners (anecdotally) that his conclusion is incorrect, but it also does not make any sense whatsoever. How does one get stronger? By inducing adaptive changes in the body (i.e., gaining muscle where required to adapt to the last training stress). How can ~anyone possibly~ get stronger if they are not also gaining muscle mass? Magic fairies?
So, now on to Linz's two specific bones of contention.
First: Mentzer advocated men of gargantuan proportions. It is no secret to Linz or anyone else that this is a simple matter of esthetics--of taste. And Linz is more apt to kick an arse for a 'wrong' esthetic preference than I am. So there will likely never be a meeting of the minds here. But let me clarify a few points. First, he was a professional bodybuilder, his chosen endeavor. Being a man of volitional conciousness, to whom his happiness was his highest moral imperative, he wanted to succeed, to win. That is utterly moral and proper. They need to be massive to be competitive. Ergo, to succeed, he became massive. After his competitive career was over, he got pretty big once, to prove he could do it, but by and large, after his competitive career, he never got monster freaky huge. Really, we have very little evidence of his personal preferences in men or women. I will leave the esthetic preference for freaky large men alone after making this point--being attracted to freaky large men is no more metaphysically- or sense of life- significant than being attracted to waif-ish, underfed, look-like-gawky-teenager type men--or even girls. I cannot understand how you or anyone else can rationally hold differently. And don't break out the 'health' issue, as it is not more risky to be large and muscular than it is to be bulemic and heroin-addicted. Read any model's true biography for what it takes for all but the very few genetic freaks to maintain 100-pound body weights into their 20's and 30's.
Linz's second criticism is that Mentzer advocated the idea that anyone can get freaky huge by using his workout system. This conclusion is like criticizing Ayn Rand for being "selfish" but failing to read her to understand what she meant. Mentzer makes it crystal-clear that, like all genetically mediated traits, recovery ability and the potential to gain muscular mass exist over a broad continuum--with 400 pound NFL lineman at one end, and wee waifish lads on the other--just like there is a range with height, there are 7 foot tall NBA players, and midgets. Simply, Mentzer never writes that anyone is going to gain any muscle beyond what is genetically possible for them as individuals. And such capacity can only be gauged accurately in retrospect.
Contrary to Linz's assertion, Mentzer does address steriods in his in first book, Heavy Duty, where he makes it clear that they are powerful drugs which greatly increase recovery ability, water rentention in the muscle, and so assist in gaining muscular mass. He has given interviews in magazines where he is candid about the fact that he used steriods. In one of his books, he admits that he used steriods. But Linz is correct in pointing out that Mentzer ~doesn't~ advertise this fact on the front page of his books, nor in the first paragraph of any article of which I am aware. Why might this be?
Well, first, possession of steriods is a felony. Second, advocating the use of steriods could be considered an inducement to his readers to commit a criminal act, which is criminal in itself. But third, and most poignant, is the simple idea that most people do not need to even consider steriods to gain the amount of muscular mass they desire. Most women would be ecstatic with a 5 to 10 pound mass gain. Most men would feel like Hercules with a 10 to 20 pound mass gain. Both of these are entirely possible with no pharmaceutical assistance. Mike Mentzer's system is the fastest, easiest way for these legions of people to gain that mass.
But making steriods an overt topic would also obfuscate the purpose of his writing--to turn people on to a system that helps them reach their goals regardless of steriods or any other anabolic assistant. Overt references to steriods would scare away the mainstream, and would relegate Mentzer and his wonderful system to the fringe, where it would find only a small market, limit his income, and help vastly fewer people to acheive their personal goals. Why would anyone intentionally sabotage their product, rather than market it wisely (obviously stopping short of deception)?
Here's another very-relevant analogy for you. Does Linz market SOLO as "Homosexual Objectivism"? Why not? After all, according to Linz, one of the primary purposes of SOLO was to eradicate the inexcusable treatment of homosexuality and homosexuals by Objectivists and Objectivism. Some of its key supporters and 'movers and shakers' are gay. Homosexuality is an often-discussed (but by no means exclusive) topic. But many people who hang around SOLOHQ and the SOLOForum take months to discover that Objectivism and Homosexuality is an issue addressed by SOLO.
The reason is that SOLO is not a homosexual group, and its products are not homosexual products. It is an Objectivist organization, with a wonderful and powerful (and growing) Objectivist message. If SOLO billed itself as a homosexual group, its relevance, and reach and membership would be severely and pointlessly limited. It would be pointlessly exclusionary. Just as the reach of Menter's ideas would be limited by making steriods a major issue when it isn't--not to his intended audience.
Neither of Linz's conclusions about Mentzer are particularly supported by facts, but rather, it is my impression, snap value judgments. And neither of his conclusions seem to be to be very good reason to brand him as immoral. Being Objectivists, we must ~never~ forget that each man is a being of volitional conciousness, free to choose his own mental contents, goals, and the best way to further his personal happiness. Branding someone immoral for conclusions unsupported by facts, and for variances in esthetic preferences, is a dangerous, slippery slope, and not indicative of a "live and let live" attitude which is a fixture of any healthy Sense of Life.
|
|
entzer, Mike
