MIKE MENTZER: THE COMPLETE HEAVY DUTY SEMINAR (1981) - Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2022
- To learn more about Mike Mentzer's life, legacy and teachings, please visit: www.hituni.com/about/mike-men...
Attending a MIKE MENTZER seminar was a unique experience. He was a person who combined a Mr. Universe physique with a professorial mind. I’ve received numerous requests to post the 1981 seminar Mike Mentzer gave in Rexdale, Ontario in its entirety. This presentation contains the first half of the seminar, which was conducted in a classroom setting, with Mike standing before a chalk board on which he wrote down certain key points. There were lots of questions from the audience and Mike’s erudition and wit were on full display. I recorded this on cassette tape while seated in an audience of perhaps 70 people, so the sound quality is indicative of this (as opposed to say the pristine audio one would obtain from an in-studio interview). In this presentation (Part One of two) Mike addresses the following topics:
Muscle growth being a slow process
The role of nutrition in the muscle growth process
The importance of obtaining a well-balanced diet
How protein has been overemphasized in the muscle building process for commercial reasons
Specificity and Training
How carbohydrates have been maligned but are in reality very important for bodybuilders when training
Determining your daily maintenance need of calories
How to lose bodyfat
How he used his approach to diet to get ripped for the 1980 Mr. Olympia contest
The only time he uses nutritional supplements
Tom Platz’s improvement for the 1981 Mr. Olympia contest
The “Flash Report” of the 1981 Mr. Olympia contest
To see more of Mike Mentzer check out these videos by Wayne Gallasch of GMV:
MIKE & RAY MENTZER TRIPLE PACK DVD SET (V-209SP-DVD) tinyurl.com/ym4vdkta
MIKE & RAY MENTZER - GYM WORKOUT DOWNLOAD (V-121) tinyurl.com/2ua7p8rj
MIKE MENTZER - FINAL CHAPTER DOWNLOAD (V-208) tinyurl.com/yc4efn8y
I attended this seminar. I was 26 at the time. I had been training at Mr. Fitness for about 7 years. Lou Halozi was the owner then and brought Mike in for this seminar. It was a great seminar. I'm still training today at 67.
Hi Dave. Yes, it was a great seminar. Too bad none of us brought a camcorder to record it.
That is sweet man!!! Wish i was there
U R VERY LUCKY
What a waste of time that was
@@irishninja2009who hurt you? Why you so miserable?
Back in my 20's I had the sense to know that what Mike was espousing made the most sense for best results. Now 58, still pushing the limits and making gains with no injuries. Hello from Hamilton, Ontario
Hello good sir
My older brother back in the 80's had Clarence Bass' Ripped books. Reading those as I entered high school exposed me to Arthur Jones and Mentzer who he mentioned in the books. Mike's advice saved me from so much wasted time, work, and injuries over the years. At almost 49 I am in better condition and stronger than most of the 20-30 year old's at my gym and have no nagging aches or pains. I'm in and out before they're done with their bench presses.
Mike didn't have a son
But on the contrary,he does
It's all of us who look up to him as a father figure
We should try to spread Mike's teachings to the young and inexperienced bodybuilders who need a helping hand
We are blessed to have both of them and their knowledge in this world full of false information and corruption
This is common sense nutritional advice,
@@Krico2006 was talking about the whole Mentzer legacy boss...not just this video
Take a look into it...it might interest you
Well Said.. True
This is absolute gold, Mike truly was a special human being
Thanks for your post, Richard.
What a gem, THANKYOU John as usual knocking it outta the park with this one!
Glad you like it.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE John, once again MANY, MANY THANKS to you for keeping Mike "ALIVE."I've been training for the past 4 weeks at Doug's facility in South Carolina. We are oncentrating primarily on my neck, low back and abs. So help me... the chronic neck and back stiffness/ achiness that has followed me everywhere for the past 10 years has been arrested by hard work done once a week on the MedEx cervical and lumbar extension!!
John, thank you for keeping the memories of the greatest teacher in the history of bodybuilding alive.
You’re welcome. Thanks for your post.
I have been following Mike Mentzer's protocol since last 4 months or so.
And I have already got results.
I met Mike in Oxnard when I was living in California, ten days before he died. I came away thinking what a humble, decent human being he was. Which is way more than one could say about various 'luminaries' in the business.
i listened to and read everything this man had to say, i was 12 in 1981. i didn't want to be Mr. anything, i just wanted to gain wight and not be so thin. i thought i was just a hard gainer, Mike showed me through he's teachings, i didn't eat enough. i would fall asleep listen to Mike talk shop. lol
Love hearing Mike's voice, motivates me, and his knowledge is 2nd to none
Thnkx John
Really enjoy your videos
Thanks, Bobby.
Thank you to the owner of this Chanel I am learning and growing consistently from the information you are providing
Thanks John for this one, mike has completely revolutionised how I perceive bodybuilding, your educating generations here, love from India❤️
Thanks, Akshay. Mike would be pleased to hear this.
So I’ve had great results using Heavy Duty training in the past. Two months ago I started eating healthier for the first time in my life. Healthy diet coupled with this type of training is unreal. I hit nine reps on DB bench using 60# dumbbells using strict form last workout. I’m contemplating going for twelve reps same weight or trying 65# each arm and going for six reps. All other body parts have had insane progress as well. Still my favorite YT channel 💪
Thanks for your post, Thomas.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE You’re welcome and sincerely thank YOU. I just got eight reps at 65# 💪. Even when I was in my previous best shape the most I ever DB benched was 45. Every workout in the last two months I’ve gotten stronger with data to prove it. All I’m taking is a little bit of creatine and eating healthier coupled with HIIT training. Stunned I just got eight reps at that weight.
Get it!
@@americanthaiboxer7224 For sure 💪. So yeah I’m 31 and about two and half to three months ago I weighed 242 pounds at a height of 6’1”. Doing Mentzer/Little’s HIIT training intensely, briefly (20-25 mins per lifting session) and infrequently I’m already down to 205 pounds. All of that lost weight is fat because I’ve gotten stronger every single workout (plus my clothes are all getting super loose, the belt doesn’t lie haha) I also do road cycling about three times a week at moderate to intense workouts for about 30-60 mins per session. The eating healthy is accelerating this process even more. God bless Mike and John 💪
@@thomasjefferson182 amen sir
Another great upload John. I know you're probably sitting on mountains of Mike's old seminars. I hope you can find the time to keep uploading. As a recent convert to HIT from the Schwarzenegger school, it really has been an eye opener.
Thanks for your post. I wish I did have a mountain of Mike’s seminar material. What I have is finite unfortunately, but I’ll put up what I have.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGEdo you have any genuine footage of Mike training?
@@michaelclifford6468 I do not.
There is so much golden information on old school training, nowadays the cluster of information is overwhelming and there is so much rubbish out there. I’m so glad I came to this.
This was on mikes birthday! and the birthday before that he was in U.K. doing a seminar. Another great Video as usual John cheers!.
Thanks, chestnutsev7.
Always love listening to Mike😎
👍
Thank you for posting these
No worries, FREAK. Glad you like them
Thanks once again John.
You’re welcome, DoE.
I just started worked out laat year and was a t a gym doing hitt workouts. But mike had really made me rethink the whole process of how the body works and why and how to workout
❤️❤️🙏🙏 Love you Mike..!! Thankyou you John..!
The February 1979 seminar I attended (Liverpool, NY) was better (I believe) because it was only months after his '78 Mr. Universe win and before his 2nd place at the '79 Olympia and way before his retirement thanks to the 1980 Olympia farce.
Great video! Thanks John!
Thanks, Drew! All the best.
Life changing information. You and jay Vincent should do a video together.
Thank you John.
More gold. Thanks John.
Thanks, Sean.
Just great work from Mike and also you John
Thanks, Scott.
Simply the best your work John !!!
Thanks, Lisandro.👍
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE you’re welcome!!!
Hands down mike Mentzer was towering over Arnold Schwarzenegger in that pose down. Impossible for him to have been more conditioned than Mike in that competition
The Return of the King.
All of this knowledge is 100% today what the smartest fitness influencers say. Mike doesn't push all that BS that some "overly intellectual" do into explaining these processes. He is truly a lost knowledge being reborn by your dedication to the truth, John. Do you have any copies of his books for sale ? I've been trying to collect nautilus equipment and Mike Mentzer related work.
Hi G G. Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, I do not have any copies of Mike’s books for sale. I know that the one that we worked on together is available on Amazon. However, his earlier books are out of print unfortunately again.
I really hope you end up posting every seminar you have
Once part two from this seminar goes up I pretty much will have.
So how does an isometric contraction fit in here? I use my iso chain daily, I’m getting stronger and feel horrible....cns fatigue I guess. Can a 5-7 second lift replace the single set mike Mentzer recommends?
AWESOME
When he talks about 2k of anything to get ripped I’m reminded of that professor who just ate candy bars and lost weight. Mentzer was really ahead of the curve.
Hi Andrew. Yes, I remember that! Proved Mike’s point. Thanks for your post.
Thank you again for posting this great info.
Agree with most of what Mike says here, especially regarding training.
Where I take biggest issue with Mike is his theories about diet, much of which I know to be easily challenged with what we know today. I agree with Mike's desire for a "balanced" diet - where I disagree is the recommended proportion of carbs (60%) to protein (25%) to fats (15%). Mike was spot-on that there is an over-reliance on excessive protein for bodybuilding, and that we need much less of it to build muscle - no argument from me. He was also right that Fat needs to be consumed in much higher amounts than most "experts" say or have traditionally recommended. Where I disagree most strongly with Mike is his over-emphasis on carbs (making up 60% of diet).
Perhaps with the info Mike had available to him in 1981, and trusting the "wisdom" and "good intentions" of the FDA (debatable), etc this seemed to be a reasonable approach, but knowing what we know now about carbs, heart disease, insulin production, regulating blood sugar, benefits from intermittent fasting, benefits of extended fasting and autophagy, etc, I doubt seriously that Mike could take the same opinion today, given what we've learned. A preponderance of the evidence suggests a more limited intake of carbs has much greater health benefits than what Mike says here. Some "carnivores" have completely eliminated carbs from their diet to varying success (I don't advocate zero carbs - I'm just saying there are a growing number of people who do, with great documented success over long periods of time), and many are now learning the benefits of limiting plant-based food to a much lesser degree than we've been lead to believe.
Mike's hard line of 60/25/15 would not hold up today given the mountains of evidence we have to the contrary. His calling those who advocated high protein over carbs as "quacks and faddists" was only partially correct - no you don't need huge amounts of protein for bodybuilding gains....but no, you shouldn't be taking in 60% of your diet as carbs if you want to live a healthy life, either.
Mike's biggest challenge in his career, in my opinion, was timing his muscular peak for shows. He got better at it as his career unfolded, but Mike never attained the sharpness and muscular clarity of Zane, for example (few people did). I attribute part of that challenge for Mike to be assumptions he made about diet. Certainly, his training ideas were brilliant....but his muscularity was often a crapshoot at a given show. Given what we know now about nutrition, there is no chance Mike could hold onto a 60/25/15 philosophy today given the evidence and his tendency to think with a rational mind.
Still appreciate the video!
Thank you John, i also think imo that your book with him High Intensity Training is the best book i have read on that topic. Heavy Duty I+II are good but not as good as his last book with you 😃
Thanks, Andreas!
Pure gold
Mike looks great in every pose I've ever seen, his ab and thigh is the greatest ever, I think it's better than Frank Zane although zane's is pretty awesome too.
I know ppl say stuff to get attention on social media, but I have to speak out on this theory. Mike was brilliant and so were these applications. Since 19 years of age, I used the Weider system (volume), weighing between 169-175. Frustrated, at now 34 years of age, I’m 181 and I’ve only done six of his HIT workouts. Folks, I’m doing it all: measuring food, tracking water, logging each rep, tracking caloric intake, and taking photos. HIT is real, Mike & Arthur were not selling you anything, this is incredible. I’ll never compete in the Olympia, and I know it. However, I’m strong and feel damn good. I recommend this program to anyone looking for mass.
I’d like to be able to access those books and articles (at least some) from which Mike Menzter learnt about nutrition and the body’s anatomy and physiology because, I feel these days that to a much larger extent compared to back then, the information pushed within such fields of science are mainly according to the personal agendas of those who push them
Wait... Mike was at the gym I used to frequent?!?! I had no idea! Of course, the seminar was over a decade before I worked out and trained clients at that gym, but I'm surprised that Jim didn't put up a single photo on any of the walls.
That’s back when the gym was owned by Lou Hollosi.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE, oh, I don't believe that I ever met Lou (if my memory serves me correctly). When I first joined, back around 1993, James Bzovey was operating the gym and teaching martial arts (I haven't visited that gym since 2003, so I'm not sure if he's still there or if it has new owners).
@@RevBasilChristi Hi Basil. Is the gym still in the same location? Do you remember the address?
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE, yes, it's on northeast portion of the corner of Albion Rd. and HWY 27, at 20 Baywood Rd., Unit 20. It probably still has all of the same wood panelling, older Nautilus equipment (including a few pieces of their leverage lineup), and pieces of free weight and Universal equipment. Jim had moved the martial arts studio to the back, behind the ladies' bathroom, and added a boxing ring.
@@RevBasilChristi I think the back room was where Mike's seminar was conducted. It was a dojo at the time as well.
Again John another great video, is that Chris Lund talking on it? Do you have any contact with him now. Is he still around
Hi James. Yes, that's Chris Lund. I do speak with him occasionally and he's still doing great.
Immediately hit play didn't even read the title.
I'm a simple man. I see John Little post. I click.
The body has a reserve of carbohydrate in the form of glycogen, so again, provided you stimulate growth you can draw on that reserve. Essentially, this reinforces the fact that intense exercise is the stimulant of muscle growth. The body's reserves will facilitate that growth. Eating replenishes those reserves.
The only non exercise that we need is the one that is required to get our food in nature. Few minutes, no pain, no suffering, no heart beating like crazy. Just a looot of fun!
goated youtube channel
Haha.
Great video!!! When is part 2 coming?
It's coming, it's coming. It actually takes me a while to do the video edits on these.
I'm not rubbing this in, just pointing out for those that have not sussed this. Although 22% of muscle is protein, protein consists of more than 1/4 of the calories because water isn't metabolically active. The underlying principle still stands however; you don't need a massive amount of extra protein.
Mike Mentzer talking about maingaining 40 years before it became mainstream.
Mr Little thank you for the video
I had some questions
What did Mr Mentzer say about steroids... could you possibly make a video about it or perhaps tell us somehow
And where can i get the copies of Heavy duty I and Heavy duty II mind and body?
Thank you Mr little
Hi Faisal. Mike said plenty about steroids over the years, including during the years that he competed. In fact, he was the first professional bodybuilder to address the topic publicly in his writings. Since his statements on the topic would be several pages long, this is not the forum for posting them. I will share a couple of things he said, however. I only raised the topic on occasion while speaking with him. I recall that one of things that bugged him were bodybuilders who lied about their using steroids. He also said "It’s a personal decision. Whenever I was asked at seminars or exhibitions whether or not individuals should take drugs, I typically responded that, “I don’t want any part of that. That’s your decision.” I arrived at my decision personally after having read the literature and thought about it in reference to my career and goals and that’s what each individual has to do. And I don’t want any part of that; I’ve got enough of a hard time taking care of my own life. I’m not going to make decisions for other people."
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE ok mr little
And it would be very kind of you to make a video about it perhaps...if it's not too much
So that we can know if we should take them or not....and is it necessary to reach our genetic potential...you seem to be the best man to ask about....
Thank you sir
@@FaisalKhan-jl5hq Hi Faisal. You certainly don’t need them to reach your genetic potential. Mike only used them because he was a competitive and later a professional bodybuilder. It’s a personal decision, as Mike indicated. Consequently, the decision rests with each individual. I certainly don’t advocate their use, but that’s just me.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE thank you Mr Little
@@FaisalKhan-jl5hq You're welcome, Faisal.
Dear John
Im have been looking through the internet for one of Mike's book : Heavy duty 2 mind and body and i couldnt find any source or website from where i can buy the book
Can you help me out with this matter please
Hi Al. It's been out of print for some time now. If I come across a copy, I'll let you know.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE Thank you Mr Little. I'll be waiting for your reply ❤
Mr America John heart , he said he had some of Mikes books for sale .
Good luck! Found a great copy on EBay a few months ago, in perfect condition. Have been searching for years. Will cost you several hundred dollars, unless someone gifts you a copy.
@@tektoniks_architects I've tried searching for it but i couldn't find it. Can you please send me the link here
Hi John. Thanks for the Video! I had a question for you- how often do you train these days ? And generally speaking, how often did you Train back in the 90s and 2000s? Would be cool to know what splits you used too! Thanks!! 🙏
Hi Mark. Once a week usually. In the early 90s maybe twice a week, late 90s I was doing more martial arts training, so the weight training went to once a week. From 2000 on it was once a week. Nothing special about my splits or non splits (my books reveal the course of my training career, from Power Factor Training through till The Time-Saver's Workout and Body by Science.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE thanks for ur response:)
Reason I ask is cuz nowadays there tends to be a big Focus on high frequency (2+).
@@markwalker1464 Hi Mark. The masses typically play follow-the-leader (both now and in the past). They're welcome to the life-sentence of mortgaging whatever time they have left in their lives to chasing the rainbows promoted by the fitness industry. As Mike said, "Almost 99.9% of all bodybuilders -- in fact 99.9% of most people -- do everything that they do because other people do it. They do what they do out of convention, imitation, tradition and outright fear -- fear of being “different.” Rather than risk disapproval or alienation from the group, they completely go along and do what they see others doing. Not knowing why it’s done, even if it’s going to be productive."
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE There just seems to be more and more Research in support of 2x a week training i.e. hitting every muscle twice a week to keep muscle protein synthesis elevated as muscles generally take no more than 3-4 days to recover (perhaps even less for more advanced athletes).
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE That's a great question from Mark. Do you suffer from any lack of motivation as you get older, John? Because it's seems more difficult for me to motivate myself to exercise now (aged 53), than it was when I was twenty. I still train, but the frequency has gone down; though I have to say, the intensity of the training has not. Thank you for your time!
If I can locate HD #1. Will it give strict structure. Movement, Set, rep range, rest, days off
The book does have that information in it. But as Mike said, you will have to work with the practical application yourself as everyone falls into an individual-specific place on the continuum of tolerance of high intensity exercise.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE thought so. Before even starting to listen to M.M already I was opening up to less volume, more rest, simple diet, no force feeding, got results very quicky
Ironically, I was becoming sold on his teachings before I ever heard them. Just by trial, error, and adjustment.
I have a question. I live in a country with the metric system, so 10 pounds equals 4,5 kg. So if you use the formula for the amount of calories need to eat a year you will get a completely different answer. So this seems a little weird to me. What am i supposed to do? Do i follow the pounds or the kilograms?
Pounds
John, do you still practice max contraction training? I am about to start doing it; still think it’s valid?
I do still practice Max Contraction training, often with my clients. Indeed, it is still valid. Given that we are dealing with a stimulus response situation with the human body, if it is valid with a group of people at a given time, unless human physiology somehow changes the same stimulus will still be valid several years later. I find it particularly helpful for people with any type of joint problem or who have difficulty moving resistance over a full range of motion. It is impractical in some respects in that you can grow quite strong quite quickly and exceed the weight on the selectorized weight stacks in most gyms. In order to continue progressing you would then have to find a way to add weight to the movements, which some machines simply are not designed to accommodate.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE John, I am currently reading arthur jones natilus bulitin one, and came across something about static contraction training (chapter 6) that I do not fully comprehend. I would love if you could elaborate on his statement.
"But just what is the minimum amount of exercise that will impose the maximum amount of growth stimulation?
And that, of course, is the problem. A problem that will probably never be solved to the complete satisfaction of
everybody concerned, and the problem that has led to the presently existing great confusion on the subject of
just how much exercise is best.
But while it is perfectly true that the exact answer to that question remains unavailable, it is not true that no
information on the subject exists; on the contrary, a great deal of very well proven information has been
available for many years - and the last few years of research have given us at least a "practical" answer, if
perhaps not a perfect one.
Fairly recently, new and rather surprising discoveries were made in connection with the actual mode of
functioning involved in muscular contraction; and these true but largely misunderstood disclosures quickly led
to the proliferation of theories which produced several forms of so-called "static exercise." One of these -
isometric contraction - made the proposition that no actual exercise was required for the production of the
maximum possible degree of muscular size and strength; all that was required - according to this theory - was
the application of a high percentile of the existing strength level against an unmoving resistance, in a number of
various positions.
In theory, the results should have been nothing short of spectacular - but in fact, the results were anything but
spectacular; a spectacular failure, perhaps.
Yet the theory behind such exercise is basically sound - as far as it goes; unfortunately; the conclusions that
were drawn from the facts that provided the basis of that theory ignored several other well established facts. A
"cold" muscle is literally incapable of working within its existing level of reserve strength - and unless an
imposed workload is heavy enough to force the involved muscles to work well inside their momentarily existing
reserve levels of strength, then very little in the way of results will be produced.
Before it is even capable of anything approaching a maximum effort, a muscle must be properly "warmed-up"
by the performance of several repetitions of a movement that is much lighter than its existing level of strength is
capable of handling. If not, the muscle will "fail" at a point far below its actual strength level - but such effort,
even if carried to the point of muscular failure, will not provide much in the way of growth stimulation; because
it is not heavy enough to force the muscles to work inside their existing levels of strength reserve.
Thus, with static exercise, a man can repeatedly work to the point of muscular failure - while producing little or
nothing in the way of worthwhile results
But this does not mean that the theory behind such static exercise is totally worthless; on the contrary, some
aspects of this type of exercise are worthy of great consideration, and should be included in any sort of training
program. Maximum efforts should be made against an unmoving resistance - in every set of almost every
exercise; but only after the maximum possible number of full movements have been performed, when the
muscles are so exhausted from the immediately preceding repetitions that they are momentarily incapable of
moving the resistance - in spite of a one-hundred percent (100%) effort.
Then - and only then - should such maximum efforts be made; and they should be made because - without
them - it is literally impossible to induce maximum growth stimulation.
It is simply impossible to build muscular size or strength by performing that which you are already capable of
easily doing; you must constantly attempt the momentarily impossible, and such attempts should involve
maximum possible efforts - but only after the muscles have been properly "warmed-up", and only after they
have been worked to the point of momentary exhaustion immediately before the maximum possible effort
leading to a failure is attempted.
I don't really have an exact question as I do not fully comprehend his point. I guess im wondering, why is pre exhausting with full rom necessary in his pov, wouldnt contracting against immovable object provide 100% of possible effort?
Do you agree with his assertation that a static contraction alone is not enough to build muscle? It seems on paper that it would be, and in practice has worked for your clients in this video and in the referenced scientific study. I think back to what he said in chapter 2,
""The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers perform work by contracting, by reducing their length - and that they are incapable of performing various degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all - and they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed, pulled, or moved about by the movement - but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being performed.
Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.
However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.
It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a position of full contraction - no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least, unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.
But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be called into play.
Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.
And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position - at the very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required, literally none is provided.
In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these muscles - in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full contraction, there is no resistance - in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.
In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption that most of our research work has been based upon."
His statement- "Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction - and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers." seems to perfectly encapsulate the appeal of max contraction training imo, it seems that it would stimulate ALL of the fibers to a MAXIMAL degree...
@@nate8415 John, any insight? It is befuddling me on how to proceed with my training
It was his 30th birthday...
I thought weight training resistence to failure was found to be a better 'cardio- heart muscle' workout than aerobic low intensity endurance exercises as suggested in John Little's and Dr. Doug McGuff's ground breaking research explained in the book " Body By Science" . Mike Mentzer might have discovered this possibility later.
There's aerobic activity for health of the cardiovascular system and aerobic activity for fat loss (contest prep) purposes. Yes, for cardiovascular health, which is a big concern, aerobic and anaerobic are two sides of the same metabolic coin. Properly conducted high-intensity strength training is just as good in this regard as steady state, low-intensity activity (HIIT has established this beyond any doubt). Mike did learn about this later, via the late Greg Anderson, who published a paper on it on Mike's website. However, this was 1981 (when the seminar took place) and the aerobic benefits of resistance training (apart from certain benefits that occurred at West Point back in the 70s) weren't very well known.
Is there actual footage filmed?
No, unfortunately. No one had video cameras back then and the ones that were available were prohibitively expensive for people such as myself (I was a college student at the time). I wish there had been someone there filming the seminar.
At around 19 minutes, it sounds like he's describing insulin resistance or prediabetes. Gaining weight, sweating a lot...
Who else came here because he thought Mentzer is singing in this video...this thumbnail...
OMGG!!!
45:30 blew my mind. Growing up is realizing Mike Metzner is the true bodybuilding pioneer instead of Arnold.
Dying at the hypertrophy from taking steroids but at the end there.
I learned from Mike a long time ago that all of these massive supplements are a waste of time and money... hes saved me so so much money over the years... I take a whey protein sometimes but that is it.. I know people who spend 500+ dollars a month on supplements LOL
Is this Mike or is it someone repeating his words?
That would be Mike.
any true nattys who are succesful on these protocols ?
I enjoy Mike's philosophy however I don't understand his formula. He's assuming that the extra 16 calories per day go directly to building muscle. What if you run up to the mailbox to get the mail one day, those 16 calories would be burned as a source for energy rather than building muscle. If you checked the mail everyday day in that matter, those 6000 additional calories disappear. What am i missing?
Hi Ralph. As Mike said, the math was overly simplistic to illustrate a point. The point being that you do not need to force feed yourself hundreds or thousands of extra calories a week in protein as the caloric makeup of a pound of muscle tissue simply doesn’t require it. Running to the mailbox, etc. is taken care of when you calculate your daily maintenance need calories as he suggested.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE Hey John, that makes sense. Cheers. I bought one of his books 20 plus years ago...fascinating stuff. I'll have to dust it off and have another read.
@@ralphcarpenter760 No worries, Ralph. Thanks for your post.
Before nutrition facts were mandated
I ruined my body, increasing my body weight to 240 pounds at 6 foot
I was 1 90,10% body fat over eating for size with my mistake
For those who do like the maths; 22 (%) x 4 of calories = protein, 8 (%) x 9 = lipids. Therefore, for an additional 16 kcal per day, 88/(88 + 72) x 16, = 0.55 x 16 = 8.8 kcal or 2.2 grams of protein.
If I have your attention with this, please realise that the ideal maintenance diet is closer to 12% protein, 25% carbohydrate, 63% fat. The ideal fat ratio is that of our body's fat; 57% MUFA, 40% SFA, 3% PUFA.
wtf
Everybody knows this. The ideal PUFA is Actually 2.946%, however.
Does he propose that we can only gain 10 pounds of muscle a year?
Yet, he states in other videos/books, that you can even gain 5-10 pounds in a single month, going so far to state you can reach your genetic potential in one year or less. Is this true?
The 10 pound gain in one year was a hypothetical example to show the mathematics of the process in easily understandable terms. Some people will gain more, others will gain less, depending upon their genetics, training, history, nutritional equilibrium, and goals.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE Thanks! Do you believe the research that says it takes 2800 calories to build a pound of muscle is accurate? Or is a surplus in relation to 600 calories being in a pound of muscle still plausible?
@@mintoness62 It’s hard to say, as even the scientific evidence is inconclusive. A recent study stated: “While recent research has provided significant insight into optimization of dietary protein intake and application of evidence based supplements, the specific energy surplus required to facilitate muscle hypertrophy is unknown.” (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6710320/)
Mike’s point was that a pound of muscle contains approximately 600 calories, only 22% of which is protein (representing 132 calories), and that should you be 10 pounds of muscle heavier one year from now the protein component of those 10 pounds would still be 22% (or 1,320 calories worth). Consequently, force-feeding yourself hundreds of extra protein calories a week or thousands of extra protein calories a month, represents a surplus that is unnecessary. Many bodybuilders believe that, since muscle tissue is made of protein, the more that you eat, the bigger your muscles get. However, as Mike pointed out 76% of muscle is water. But you don’t grow bigger muscles simply by drinking more water than is required. The exact amount of surplus calories required to realize muscle growth, assuming, of course, that it has been stimulated, is unknown. And the other factor is that nobody can know ahead of time exactly how much muscle he will stimulate over the course of a year. If you only stimulate 5 pounds of muscle growth, but consume enough calories to feed the production of 20 pounds of muscle growth, you’re going to end up in a calorie surplus, which will be stored as body fat. Mike’s counsel was simply that one should not fall victim to marketing pitches of the supplement hucksters, and spend hundreds and thousands of dollars needlessly on protein supplements. Given that the vast majority of the North American population is over nourished to begin with, we all probably are consuming more than enough calories to build whatever muscle we are capable of, and according to the study cited, the calories required to do this may not have to come exclusively from protein sources.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE I love reading your comments. Thank you for the clarification, and introducing this study to me.
Would you not just have to make sure you have enough fat in your diet?
lorsque j ai quitté le bodybuilding pour le powerlifting j ai adapté le heavy duty systeme au powerlifting ! 1 seance squat , bench , deadlift tout les neuf jours , bcp de repos et par contre des seances a hautes intensité ( ex squat 10x20 8 x60 6x 100 6x140 6x180 6x220 5x 260 5x300 kg ! seul la serie a 300 ou a " 3x320 " etait d intensité max ) et apres rien !!! prochaine seance ds neuf jours
👍
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE et je suis devenu meilleur-90 kg de france en seulement 1 ans et demie et il a fallu 14 ans pour voir mes performances amélioré ( grace au nouveau materiel , gilet , combinaison etc ...... ) j ai un respect immense pour les freres mentzer qui etait une inspiration pour moi et mon frere ! merci john !!!!
@@fredericdanielou7873 Vous êtes le bienvenu. Félicitations pour votre réussite et merci pour votre message.
@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE merci a vous , video , echange , interview de mike ..... une mine d or !! merci encore !
@@fredericdanielou7873 aucun problème. Je suis content que vous appréciez le contenu.
Let's be real, even Tom Quatz wouldn't deserve the title of Mr. O because of the disproportion of the legs with the upper part
that year he was pretty balanced and the best on that day so he definitely deserved it
39:49 look at Mikes back compared to Arnolds not even close
When they pose that it is not only the back they judge, also triceps and hamstrings and calves, plus if you look Mike was more confident and was flexing his muscles the whole time, where as Arnold were sloppy and didn't even take it seriously. Plus look at Mike's lower back insane muscles development and his triceps again, he probaly has the best triecps, so fucking thick!
Edit: Plus you can see more muscles on Mike back than Arnold if you look closely.
Two heavy juicers. I guess Arnold's steroids were better than Mike's. Neither one would have backs like that if they didn't juice - fact.
Look at Dorian’s back compared to Arnold’s. Arnold’s looks weak in comparison.
@@tektoniks_architectsyou are a clown get lost
I love Mike but he was so wrong about the diet aspect. I don't eat carbs, I run a strict KETO diet and have for years. So I use fat for energy not carbs and I am ripped and jacked as hell.
Agree completely. I just wrote a long response elsewhere in the comments.
He is speaking to people who are looking to be ripped and full. I don’t think he is wrong .
@@scottlapointe9682 He's completely wrong on proportion of carbs/protein/fat. You can be completely full on far less carbs. But 60% carbs will kill your heart and circulation over time.
@@scottlapointe9682 Protein is not a energy source. If you exceed your calories in protein you won't gain weight or get fat.
You can see extreme examples of this in "Protein poisoning" and "rabbit starvation". Some people do it every few days to help them lose fat quickly. You can look up "Protein sparing modified fast" to see examples of this. Run an experiment for your self. Eat only LEAN protein and exceed your calories. Make sure its lean. Check your weight, if you've lost weight, then he is wrong.
@@tektoniks_architects how?
bad info
He's not right about protein. Eat the leanest possible cut of protein with as little fat as possible. Exceed your "calorie maintence". Check your weight. I bet you'd that you lose weight. Protein is not a source of energy. If you don't agree, test it yourself.
North Korea tried using protein as an energy source and grew giant rabbits. This led to a condition called rabbit starvation aka protein poisoning. People would waste away. These days people use it pragmatically to get leaner and call it "Protein sparing modified fast".
You can't get fat from eating protein.
Fat, Carbohydrate, and Protein all become sources of energy when your caloric needs are not met. Look up gluconeogenesis. Carbohydrate is the body's preferred source of energy, but the body can convert fat and protein to glucose when necessary. All three of these macro-nutrients contain calories (fat contains 9 calories per gram, carbs equal 4 calories per gram as does protein.). If your daily energy requirements (calories) are met and you continue to consume excess calories from protein, the body will be burdened to process that extra protein (kidneys, liver go into overdrive mode), and unused excess calories will be stored as adipose tissue. Mike was spot on about his discussion of nutrition. Compare his information to college textbooks on nutrition. It's a lot more cost effective as well to eat a balanced diet - and enjoyable. Once you get off the protein bandwagon it's actually very liberating in that you don't have to drive yourself crazy with constantly preparing protein meals. Do your body and wallet a favor and eat sensibly. You'll be happier and I bet your family will be happier too. Keto diets are a terrible idea unless prescribed by your doctor for unusual health conditions.
Thanks for your post, John. Good points.
@@johntaylor5288 I know what gluconeogenisis is. You're body doesn't covert *all* the protein into carbs. It converts it on demand for neccessary functions.
In other words, eating a tonne of protein is not equal to eating a tonne of carbs energy wise. Even the process of gluconeogenisis uses energy. Exceed your calorie intake with protein alone and you shall not put on fat.
1 gluconeogensis doesn't covert enough sugar so you would still be in energy deficit (not calorie because it's a false model). It doesn't even produce enough carbs for extreme activity, ketones take over.
2 gluconeogenisis takes enery
So ya can't get fat.
The average person shouldn't take his nutritional advice. His premise maybe right about muscle not wasting away. In that case, just eat a small amount of carbs to prevent gluconeogenisis. Eat meat, eat fat.
@@johntaylor5288 Sorry John, in previous message I was typing on my phone which is difficult. I have typos n stuff, and might sound like an asshole. Not my intention. Logged on to my pc to say that haha.
Also about "preferred calorie source". Theres a reason why people think they're "preferred". If glucose isnt used immediately, it causes damages to cells. This is why your body prioritises the use of glucose. People thought "ahh its preferred because its prioritised". But its prioritised to prevent inflammation and cell death. You can see this in diabetes patients. Their body loses the ability to process sugar, so it lingers in their blood and cells causing damage, they have to get surgery to remove a toe or something.
That’s false and you are clueless don’t post anymore