RoR: Forum

Ed, you're basically correct in the differences between the Darden and Mentzer approaches. Frankly, I found Mentzer's claims and theories to be quite rationalistic: there was an awful lot of abstraction and deducing from First Principles, and Objectivist-style ranting about the "mysticism" of those who disagreed. The evidence he cited for his approach was largely anecdotal, not controlled studies. By contrast, Darden has a Ph.D. in exercise science, and cites the results of many studies on training and nutrition as the basis of his views. He also acknowledges when different information comes along, and adjusts his recommendations accordingly. I find him much more credible.

I'm not entirely sure that Mentzer's approach involved drop-sets; I just don't remember. I have one of his books at home, and will try to remember to check it out on that point. However, I remember that it did involve gradually diminishing the duration and frequency of workouts as one progressed, to the point where he was advocating 1-3 weeks between workouts for highly-developed bodybuilders.

Post 21

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 12:57pm

Robert,

Thanks for the info! I am awed when you guys discuss these different weight training theories. Goes to show how little I know about exercise science. I'll start with Dr. Darden's work. Again, thanks!

Post 22

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 1:02pm

You're welcome, Byron. But I'm no authority. I just try to learn from those who are.

Darden is a great place to start. After that, if you want to explore further, just Google under the search term "High Intensity Training."

Post 23

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 1:45pm

Robert, when you and I were at the gym for the TOC conference, were you then using the Slow-Burn method?

I may have missed this, but is Mentzer's rationalization, in your opinion, why you have switched methods? I recently started the Slow-Burn again, and note (as I did last time) that it has the most rapid effect on my body. I'm just wondering if you became disenchanted with it.

Post 24

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:25pm

Jennifer, if by "Slow-Burn" you mean Mentzer's method, I've never really used it. If you mean "SuperSlow" -- i. e., very slow reps, 4-20 seconds positive movement, 4-20 seconds negative -- that's what I like. I've never really changed from that, though my own workout schedule, alas, has been sporadic over the past couple of years. I won't claim it's the best way, in the sense of being superior to other approaches in building big muscles. But I find it is the best way to get a very intense, very productive, but relatively safe workout in a short period of time. I find it very time-efficient. I have a life, and no desire to live inside a gym for hours on end.

For those who don't know, High Intensity Training (HIT) generally refers to keeping workouts brief, but very hard and intense, usually by working the muscles to "failure" (or close to that) in each set. Not all HIT people advocate SuperSlow or similar slow, controlled reps: Darden does, Mentzer didn't. And Darden certainly isn't the only HIT advocate who does: the term "SuperSlow" is actually copyrighted by Ken Hutchins.

All these methods produce results. My advice is find something you like and stick with it. Any regimen you can stick to is better than an "ideal" method that you won't.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 4/07, 2:26pm)

Post 25

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:38pm

Ah, ok. Super-Slow and Slow Burn, I thought, were essentially the same (I believe the gentleman Francisco works for coined the "Slow Burn" term).

In any case, I use the technique as well -- very high intensity, low reps, short period of time. I don't have to toil away on the hamster wheel, and spend most of my life out of the gym. It's a beautifully efficient method, IMO.

Post 26

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:42pm

Ah, yes. What Francisco Villalobos teaches is very similar to Darden's method; so if that's called "Slow Burn," that's pretty much what I do. Francisco has been my personal guru on such matters.

Post 27

Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 2:50pm

Ditto. It's some of the best advice I've ever gotten.

Post 28

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 6:30am

Indeed, Mike Mentzer's HIT is different. Mike found Darden's (and Art's) recommended training frequency to be excessive, which eventually led Mike to focus on what HIT "dosage" was appropriate and beneficial for his clients. I understand that he eventually dropped 'drop' sets because of the negative impact on clients� recovery ability and progress. Note that in his latest book, Darden recommends that the second workout of the week be done with less intensity that the first and third workouts. I wonder why?

Training once a week, or once every two weeks, or once a month even using HIT is not new: Ken Hutchins of the SuperSlow� Exercise Guild found that some of his clients made progress on such infrequent training regimens years ago. I suspect Mike Mentzer was right: each person has a fixed amount of recovery ability and the ideal exercise program, HIT or otherwise, accounts for this essential element.

Post 29

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:13am

Most people do overtrain, and the "high volume" approach (as opposed to high intensity) is responsible for it. The reason sprinters are much more muscular than long-distance runners is because while the latter do more work, the former work more intensively -- i. e., they do hard work within a much briefer time span.

Long workouts (an hour or more) doing multiple sets of each exercise, and using lighter resistance, is aerobic; it doesn't really stimulate a lot of muscle growth, and over time such low-intensity, high-volume workouts deplete your recovery ability and lead to "overtraining." By contrast, brief, intense workouts doing single sets at higher resistance, and continuing each exercise to (or near) "failure," stimulates much more muscle growth, and faster.

However, Mentzer's argument that we should reduce training sessions to once a week, or even two weeks, might benefit highly trained individuals, but not most people. It's just not enough. In early stages of training (say, the first couple of years), two or three 30-minute sessions per week -- doing no more than about 10 intense, single-set exercises -- are about right for most people. That much volume and intensity stimulates muscle growth and (done quickly) has aerobic benefits, too, but won't overwhelm your recovery ability.

Post 30

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 9:47am

Robert B wrote:

"The reason sprinters are much more muscular than long-distance runners is because while the latter do more work, the former work more intensively -- i. e., they do hard work within a much briefer time span.

Long workouts (an hour or more) doing multiple sets of each exercise, and using lighter resistance, is aerobic; it doesn't really stimulate a lot of muscle growth, and over time such low-intensity, high-volume workouts deplete your recovery ability and lead to "overtraining."

I think you are trying to apply Metzer's philosophy out of context if you are saying that Metzer's methods would work for runners. If this isn't true then you can ignore the rest of this post.

I know for a fact that high volume aerobic/distance training works for distance runners (did a little distance running for recreation for a couple of years). Their goal is to build a different body to the one Metzer extolls. If you want to run a marathon you don't want 50 Kg of essentially useless upper body muscle weighing you down. Lean, lean, lean is the goal. Most distance runners wouldn't be able to bench much more than their own weight - but lifting dead weight isn't part of their sport! Moving down the road at high speed is, and let me tell you, good distance runners really haul arse!

So while Metzer and you are correct in pointing out the desperate need for rest days. Dropping the training load to one or two 30 minute runs a week isn't going to work very well. One long run a week with 2-3 shorter ones plus an occasional bout of weight training to balance your muscle groups and work your an upper body work out is a better bet IMHO. I believe it is possible to rest one part of your body while working the other.

If you want to improve your running ability I'd suggest that Arthur Lydiard's (see here or here) sports philosophy (regularly running at a sustainable pace over a long distance) is more suitable than Metzer's. After all Arthur trained 17 Olympic track & field gold medalists.

A smart man, serious about building both endurance & strength, would study both men's philosophies and cherry-pick the bits of both.

Post 31

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 10:55am

Robert W., we aren't in disagreement. The implicit objective I was referring to in my post was building strength, not aerobic ability. I used the sprinter/long-distance runner example only to illustrate the point that the intensity, not the volume, of exercise is the key to increasing strength. Endurance is quite another matter, as you indicate.

Post 32

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:29am

"If this isn't true then you can ignore the rest of this post." Obviously it wasn't and you did. :-)

The rest of the post wasn't completely superfluous though, I would recommend looking at Lydiard's ideas if you are serious about building up endurance & strength for things like cycling, running, swimming etc.

Post 33

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 7:10am

Hi I am an HIT advocate and regularly post on Dr Dardens website :www.drdarden.com. It is a very popular, friendly board, please check it out if you have any questions/queries regarding exercise.

Nick

(Edited by Nicholas Munro
on 8/29, 3:20pm)

Post 34

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 3:07pm

Mike Mentzer was a bodybuilder, and also, a business man . His method of training seemed to be more profitable to a trainer than to an athlete.
CD

Post 35

Monday, August 29, 2005 - 8:41pm

"It is a very popular, friendly board, please check it out if you have any questions/queries regarding exercise."

I'm not going to go there just because you say it is friendly and popular. Does the site have well supported and useful content?

Post 36

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 2:37am

Judge for yourself. In my opinion, yes. Dr Darden posts there as well.

Apart from that site, www.i-a-r-t.com
is a non-profit fitness certification organisation. It is run by Brian D Johnston, an Objectivist. There are lots of free materials on the site as well.

Nick

Post 37

Wednesday, March 31, 2010 - 5:53pm