MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Heavy Duty Training
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

jason_m

Hello,

I've recently become aware of the principles of "Heavy Duty" training...

After seeing some of the workouts that Mike Mentzer recommends, I feel very skeptical... It just seems like far too little exercise to stimulate growth (especially for me).

When I was following a fairly conventional 3 day per week, 10 exercise per workout, 3 sets per exercise non-HIT routine, if it happened that I couldn't get to the gym for a week, when I came back, I would feel weak and unready on some of the exercises. My strength did not seem to increase very much in comparison to when I would workout more regularly, and would even decrease sometimes...

Yeah, I wasn't doing HIT, so you could say I wasn't training "intensely" enough to warrant a long break. However, on my last set of an exercise, I'd usually try to do as many reps as I could, with my partner assisting me if I couldn't complete the last ones...

Has anyone here actually tried Heavy Duty training? What have your results been?

Jason.
Open User Options Menu

jason_m

Another point:

I think I remember Dr. Darden saying on this forum that good progress means increasing the weight/reps on about half of your exercises each workout. I think this would indicate that, on average, under ideal circumstances, each exercise would increase by at least a rep every other workout. So this would mean that if you're following a typical 3 day per week HIT routine, over a two week period, you would experience an increase of at least three or four reps per exercise.

With about a two week break between most exercises in the heavy duty system, you would have to increase each exercise by about three or four reps to make the same gains. It seems to me that when people train, they make gains in small increments, not big leaps. So you can see another reason why I'm skeptical.

So, if anyone has had success on this system, did you find you were making big gains on each workout? (Or have found that you like heavy duty because your previous training wasn't really getting you any gains at all...)

Jason.
Open User Options Menu

noone

New York, USA

I personally trained with Mike. I did very well in strenght gains, but I didn't get the mass he claimed. He taught me what a really "intense" set means.

It hurts your ego when you have all personal bests and people asked you if you lift.

Bret
Open User Options Menu

NATUREBOY

I did HIT ala Dr. Darden for one year with good results, but this year I decided to try Mentzer's program as outlined in High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way (with some modifications due to equipment). I'm expecting good things. Despite the program's brevity, it's one hell of a workout. I'll keep you posted!
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Reading Mike Mentzer is what started me with HIT training. As soon as I switched to his program I instanly started gaining strength. On almost all exercises I could increase the weight by 5 or 10 pounds depending on the size of the muscle i was training and increase the amount of reps from my previous workouts as well. It was fantastic. However with that being said I gained right off the bat, but I now feel it was mostly due to no longer overtraining and not the stimulation from the Heavy Duty workouts. After a month I continued to gain strenth but litte in size.

From Heavy Duty I eventually found Dr.Darden, Arthur Jones and the nautilus principles. It took me awhile to switch to there full body twice a week style because of the strength gains I was experiencing.

The change came when my Dad who started reading "in Arthurs Shawdow" believed that 4 days after his arm day he could beat his numbers for reps and weight that he perfromed in the previous workout. I did not think he could considering that under Heavy Duty 2 arm day comes once every 16 days. Also bear in mind he is 54.

The workout he performed was
1. Nautilus side lateral
2. Nautilus overhead Press
3. Nautilus Preacher Curl(plate-loaded)
4. Nautilus Tricep exstention(PL)
5. Negative Dips (bodyweight)

I always believed that working the whole body sent a stonger growth messege to the body but didn't believe the body could overcompensate that fast. After my Dads workout was successful myself and my training partner switced to 2 fullbody routines twice a week. Strenth increases have stayed fairly constant but are bodyweights are now increasing and both of us look much fuller.

I believe that you must train In a Hight Intensity fashion as frequent as your recovery ability will allow. Assuming my dad did this routine every 4 days instead of every 16 days with a starting weight of 20lbs(lets say bicep curls) and performed the same amount of reps with 5 pounds more each workout which is his normal rate of increase, 16 days later on Heavy Duty he would be at 25lbs where as with Dr.Darden system he would be at 40lbs. Also by training fullbody everything else would be growing. What would you rather have?

This is offcourse assuming that his recovery could handle the increased inroad that 40lbs would impose on him. If it was too much another day of rest could be added, NOT 12 more.
I found Mentzers writings fantastic and what he is saying is better than anything you read in the musclemags, but while the musclemags promote gross overtraining, Mentzer may promote gross undertraining.

Also look at the fact that the program he used on himself is much closer to a program Dr.Darden would prescribe than one that mentzer would now.
This is just what I have observed and is strictly my opinion. I hope this helps.
Michael
Open User Options Menu

hdlifter

What people overlook is Mike was merely a man. He wasn't omni-infallible, and he knew it. Instead, he provided the guidelines for Heavy Duty, leaving the individual to figure out the precise formula (sets/reps/exercises) to meet his or her individual needs.

Why did Mike present so many variations of Heavy Duty over the years? As he was constantly perfecting the basics premise of his system. Even his training clients required at least a few sessions with him so Mike could assess what worked and didn't work on them, so he could help perfect the version that was just right for each individual.

So how someone applies the theory determines whether someone is undertraining or overtraining. Mike and his system can't be blamed for that. Instead the onus lays purely upon each individual to put to use what's best for them, disregarding the rest.
Open User Options Menu

DownUnderLifter

BretC wrote:
I personally trained with Mike. I did very well in strenght gains, but I didn't get the mass he claimed. He taught me what a really "intense" set means.

It hurts your ego when you have all personal bests and people asked you if you lift.

Bret


I experienced the same thing when I did his Athlete's Routine for 5 weeks. I got stronger on a calorie deficit diet but lost muscle and fat (1.5lb and 2.5lb)

I tried a full body routine 2 x week a few months ago for 5 weeks and gained 1.8lb of muscle and lost 4.5lb of fat on it. I am now trying the intermediate routine 1 from TNHIT and expecting good results from it.

Later
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

hdlifter wrote:
What people overlook is Mike was merely a man. He wasn't omni-infallible, and he knew it. Instead, he provided the guidelines for Heavy Duty, leaving the individual to figure out the precise formula (sets/reps/exercises) to meet his or her individual needs.

Why did Mike present so many variations of Heavy Duty over the years? As he was constantly perfecting the basics premise of his system. Even his training clients required at least a few sessions with him so Mike could assess what worked and didn't work on them, so he could help perfect the version that was just right for each individual.

So how someone applies the theory determines whether someone is undertraining or overtraining. Mike and his system can't be blamed for that. Instead the onus lays purely upon each individual to put to use what's best for them, disregading the rest.



From the outset let me state I was and in some regards a Mentzer fan, he's writings are what me on my path today.....however.

While indeed Mentzer may have been fallable he did not merely give guidelines, he gave out specific advice and routines, such as his consolidation routine, his advice when gains are not forthcoming to further reduce the amount of volmue or frequency again is highly specfic and does not take into account an individuals abilty to recover or tolerance to exercise.

Heady Duty is nothing new and it most certaintly is NOT the therory of exercise science as Mike proclaimed and the principles which govern heavy duty and any other method of training were around long before Mike coined the phrase "Heavy Duty."

I used to think that Mentzer was the second Messiah, but after reading Brian Johnstons crtique in his book System Analysis I began to see things very differently, it was uncomfortable reading, but once read it opened my mind and allowed to think about exercise science in a manner which I thought was beyond my comprehension, in this regard were once I was the pupil, I guess you could say I have now become the master.

Regards

Paul.

Open User Options Menu

ron33

hdlifter wrote:
What people overlook is Mike was merely a man. He wasn't omni-infallible, and he knew it. Instead, he provided the guidelines for Heavy Duty, leaving the individual to figure out the precise formula (sets/reps/exercises) to meet his or her individual needs.

Why did Mike present so many variations of Heavy Duty over the years? As he was constantly perfecting the basics premise of his system. Even his training clients required at least a few sessions with him so Mike could assess what worked and didn't work on them, so he could help perfect the version that was just right for each individual.

So how someone applies the theory determines whether someone is undertraining or overtraining. Mike and his system can't be blamed for that. Instead the onus lays purely upon each individual to put to use what's best for them, disregading the rest.

I agree with HDlifter i talked to Mike on several ocassions,I have different health issues that make it hard to train on a set schedule.His thoughts to me were to try the different workouts he suggested,and find the one that fit my needs best then tweek it to fit my needs for a productive workout.
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Paul Marsland wrote: I guess you could say I have now become the master.

Regards

Paul.



lol...until someone writes an analysis of Brian Johnston.

Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

TheSofaKing wrote:




lol...until someone writes an analysis of Brian Johnston.


I'm not sure were or why you make this remark, be it in jest or not, maybe it's a lack of understanding or a fear of something which you don't understand or have yet to comprehend.

With regards to my comment in becoming the master, it was meant in a somewhat light hearted way, but in many ways what I'm trying to get across as rather than merely follow mentzer or any other of the so proclaimed high intensity experts advice ( as did I for many years) I looked beyond their logical reasoning and principles and in fact found huge gaping holes in there philosophys. The only way i was able to do this was to look at things in an objective and critical mannner, rather than merely accpet what they have to say just because they have some sort of reputation.


Regards

Paul.
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Paul Marsland wrote:

I'm not sure were or why you make this remark, ....

found huge gaping holes in there philosophys. ...

rather than merely accpet what they have to say just because they have some sort of reputation.


Regards

Paul.


Who knew a philosophical zenmaster would have such lousy spelling and grammar?

Open User Options Menu

Audley

New Hampshire, USA

I started my weightlifting following Arnold. I knew nothing about working out, and 20 years ago I picked up a copy of Education of a Bodybuilder and went from there. About 8 years ago, I was looking at information on other bodybuilders, and discovered who Mike Mentzer was. Though the Weider mags, I thought all bodybuilders trained alike. Of course I was wrong.

I certainly became influenced by Mentzer, I knew nothing about HIT until I found his website. Through Mentzer I discovered Arthur Jones, Dr. Darden, Dr. Ken,(and many other HIT advocates) and a whole new look at working out. Say what you want about Mentzer, but his big positive is opening the door to HIT for myself, and I'm guessing many others as well.
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

TheSofaKing wrote:
Paul Marsland wrote:

I'm not sure were or why you make this remark, ....

found huge gaping holes in there philosophys. ...

rather than merely accpet what they have to say just because they have some sort of reputation.


Regards

Paul.


Who knew a philosophical zenmaster would have such lousy spelling and grammar?


My apologies for such poor spelling and grammar, but I tend to type quite quickly as I only have limited time to write my respones. I'm not proclaiming to being superior to anyone else merely giving my views on why I don't follow mentzer or any other of the self proclaimed hit intensity experts...anymore.

As usual, zealots such as yourself have nothing productive to offer to this debate and continue to worship mentzer and ridicule anyone who dares challenge his beliefs, how very very sad.
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Audley wrote:
I started my weightlifting following Arnold. I knew nothing about working out, and 20 years ago I picked up a copy of Education of a Bodybuilder and went from there. About 8 years ago, I was looking at information on other bodybuilders, and discovered who Mike Mentzer was. Though the Weider mags, I thought all bodybuilders trained alike. Of course I was wrong.

I certainly became influenced by Mentzer, I knew nothing about HIT until I found his website. Through Mentzer I discovered Arthur Jones, Dr. Darden, Dr. Ken,(and many other HIT advocates) and a whole new look at working out. Say what you want about Mentzer, but his big positive is opening the door to HIT for myself, and I'm guessing many others as well.


Yeah, I discovered HIT through Mentzer as well. I still think he was a fantastic writer, just mistaken in his interpretation of the fundamentals of exercise science.
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Paul Marsland wrote: I'm not proclaiming to being superior to anyone else merely giving my views on why I don't follow mentzer or any other of the self proclaimed hit intensity experts...anymore.

As usual, zealots such as yourself have nothing productive to offer to this debate and continue to worship mentzer and ridicule anyone who dares challenge his beliefs, how very very sad.



You certainly seem to think your astounding intellect is superior to Mike Mentzer's. Here's a quote in case the dizzying array of knowledge you possess has clouded your memory.

"I looked beyond their logical reasoning and principles and in fact found huge gaping holes in there philosophys."

Sounds like you're so superior that you may not even be human. Your intellect is truly on another level.

Look...all kidding and sarcasm aside... Guys like you really annoy me. I am no zealot, and I don't blindly follow anyone, but Mike Mentzer was a pretty smart guy. He was also one of the first to use his smarts in this field, and expose many people to a more logical method of training. Was he 100% correct on everything? I would say that not only was he not even close, but nobody will ever know. We will never know when we have achieved a 'perfect' training method. I find it ludicrous that you claim to 'look beyond' and 'find gaping holes in philosophys (sic)'. How can you find flaws in something you can't even spell? Whatever epiphanies you had about Mentzer's training philosophies were thanks to Brian Johnston, not yourself, so get off your high horse....he's drowning in your self satisfied, up your own ass BS.
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

TheSofaKing wrote:
Paul Marsland wrote: I'm not proclaiming to being superior to anyone else merely giving my views on why I don't follow mentzer or any other of the self proclaimed hit intensity experts...anymore.

As usual, zealots such as yourself have nothing productive to offer to this debate and continue to worship mentzer and ridicule anyone who dares challenge his beliefs, how very very sad.



You certainly seem to think your astounding intellect is superior to Mike Mentzer's. Here's a quote in case the dizzying array of knowledge you possess has clouded your memory.

"I looked beyond their logical reasoning and principles and in fact found huge gaping holes in there philosophys."

Sounds like you're so superior that you may not even be human. Your intellect is truly on another level.

Look...all kidding and sarcasm aside... Guys like you really annoy me. I am no zealot, and I don't blindly follow anyone, but Mike Mentzer was a pretty smart guy. He was also one of the first to use his smarts in this field, and expose many people to a more logical method of training. Was he 100% correct on everything? I would say that not only was he not even close, but nobody will ever know. We will never know when we have achieved a 'perfect' training method. I find it ludicrous that you claim to 'look beyond' and 'find gaping holes in philosophys (sic)'. How can you find flaws in something you can't even spell? Whatever epiphanies you had about Mentzer's training philosophies were thanks to Brian Johnston, not yourself, so get off your high horse....he's drowning in your self satisfied, up your own ass BS.



What you think and what you know are two different things, you make an assumption of me merely on the basis of a few posts? Take and read what you like from my posts if I annoy you then that is your problem not mine. I'm not up my own ass,as you proclaim I'm giving an honest and open view on how I was able to move away from the thinking and writings of mentzer I did this only by looking at his writings (and many others) in a crtical and logical manner, and yes it was the writing of Brian Johnston that helped me come to understand this.

Do I always agree with Brian Johnston? no, but what he has taught me through his books is to look at things from all angles and apply an active mind to the information I have in front of me. It's took me five years to get to the point were i am now and I'm still learning.

Why is this so hard to understand or accpet, the fact that someone might in fact be smarter than Mentzer? Are we merely to stop thinking about the subject of exercise merely because mentzer passed away?

If mentzer hadn't had won his titles (due to a large part genetics and steroids) do you really think his writings would have as much of an impact as they did? Personally I don't think so.

I speak from experience and with regards to mentzer, jones and in fact ellington darden, I been there bought the books (many years ago) and if the truth be known got very little from them, sad, but I'm afraid true.

Regards

Paul.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

TheSofaKing wrote:
Paul Marsland wrote: I guess you could say I have now become the master.

Regards

Paul.



lol...until someone writes an analysis of Brian Johnston.



Johnston would love this and has openly welcomed this type of thing for years. He has gone as far as to offer publication (unedited but with an opportunity to rebut) in the hardcover IART annual (Synergy).

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Though Mike did offer some nice insights, he went way off too far like many HVT gurus (only in the other direction).

After years of reading and practical application, it is my opinion that Dr. Darden was far better at and more successful than M.M. in organizing and furthering the work of Arthur Jones.

REgards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Paul Marsland wrote:


Why is this so hard to understand or accpet, the fact that someone might in fact be smarter than Mentzer?

If mentzer hadn't had won his titles (due to a large part genetics and steroids) do you really think his writings would have as much of an impact as they did? Personally I don't think so.



There are plenty of people smarter then Mike Mentzer. That wasn't my point. My point was that you aren't one of them. Passing yourself off as some intellectual anomoly, capable of seeing through the falsehoods of Mentzer's wrtings while the rest of us just nod and drool is laughable. You read, and marginally understood Johnston's analysis... great job, but don't belittle Mike's contributions to this field by pretending the world needed somebody like you to pick apart his writings.
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

TheSofaKing wrote:
Paul Marsland wrote:


Why is this so hard to understand or accpet, the fact that someone might in fact be smarter than Mentzer?

If mentzer hadn't had won his titles (due to a large part genetics and steroids) do you really think his writings would have as much of an impact as they did? Personally I don't think so.



There are plenty of people smarter then Mike Mentzer. That wasn't my point. My point was that you aren't one of them. Passing yourself off as some intellectual anomoly, capable of seeing through the falsehoods of Mentzer's wrtings while the rest of us just nod and drool is laughable. You read, and marginally understood Johnston's analysis... great job, but don't belittle Mike's contributions to this field by pretending the world needed somebody like you to pick apart his writings.


Have you not read anything I wrote? I stated from the outset that i was and indeed still am a mentzer fan, this isn't about mentzer the person this is about his views on exercise. Am I smarter than mentzer? Who knows maybe I am. I don't see why you feel so strongly to defend the likes of mentzer, he merely carried on the works of Jones and as AShort pointed out, Dr Darden probably did more to forward the case for so called high intensity training.

The focus of my posts was to give a personal view of someone who for many years was your typical high intensity zealot who blindly followed the writings and principles of the likes of mentzer, jones, darden and in later years ken hutchins, because they seemed and indeed made a lot of sense.
I bought nearly every book that Darden wrote, Massive Muscle in Ten Weeks, Bigger Muscles in 42 days, BIG, High Intensity BodyBuildng, Super High Intensity BodyBuilding,Nautilus Advanced Bodybuilding (the one with a drug free Boyer Coe) the list goes on. I even have the ORIGINAL High Intensity BodyBuilding Video with Mike and Ray Mentzer.

But the question I asked myself many times over the years was "Why aren't i gaining like I say they should".. hell the phrase "HardGainer" was even coined for those who supposedly didn't resond to exercise in a favourable manner. I remember my first post on Johnstons site before I became familiar with his writings. When I made an inital post regarding some aspect of HIT, I replied stating that I thought he was wrong in regards to HIT, he replied back, "Ok, then explain to me, why?" My reaction was much the same way you have reacted to me, hostility and a "Who the hell are you? Your a nobody" type of attitude.....The truth was and why I reacted the way I did, was that i didn't have the answers to his questions. I "thought" I knew about exercise science as I had read all of mentzers and the likes writings. Once I swallowed my pride I asked Johnston if he could explain further on why I was wrong.

Well I might be nobody to you mr sofa king, but this nobody has been training for 17 years unlike the two you state, this so called nobody has written for, Hardgainer, Master Trainer, IART, Fred Fornicola's HIT News Letter and Muscle Talk.

So as you can see I've been there seen it done it when it comes to training.

Open User Options Menu

QmAn

Mentzer opened the door of HIT to a lot of guys, including myself.

The first article I read by Mentzer was titled "The Ideal Routine" from I think an September/October 92 UK edition of FLEX ( I've got a good memory ).

From what I remmember it was the only article in the magazine written from an intellectual perspective, all the others being about their personal training routines with no coherent philosophy, and as such it stood out.

The main flaw in my opinion with Heavy Duty was the frequency of exercise.

The volume is fine if you do the exercises right, providing your goal is to build muscle and dont want to specialize on a bodypart.

Peoples main complaint with Heavy Duty seems to be that they:-

1.Gained fat
2.lost areobic condition
3.failed to increase muscle, even though they gained strength.

Well of course if you reduce the exercise volume and frequency of your workouts whist still consuming the same calories you will gain fat and of course you will loose areobic condition doing a shorter, less frequent workout and of course not build muscle if the stimulus is not frequent enougth. This is all common sense!

My Solution:-

1.Train more often
2.Do areobic exercise to stay lean and prevent deconditioning

You may disagree heh?

QmAn





Open User Options Menu

QmAn

Reality?

Define reality?
Does the world exist beyond the soul?

When dead does the world exist still, did it ever exist?

What part does the mind play?

QmAn
Open User Options Menu

aikon

Honestly, I'm glad I'm not new to weight training. I'd be a nervous wreck just wondering if I was on THE right program.

Squats, deadlifts, bench press, chins, rows, OH presses, curls, calf raises done once a week for 3 sets of 8 - 12 reps will add muscle to your frame.

Do an upper/lower body split - training twice a week. Eat well, sleep well and add weight to the bar in good form when you can.

You can't train heavy and hard all the time so you'll need to back off for periods of time.

The rest is complete and utter BS.
Open User Options Menu

MotorFed

California, USA

I think Mike's main contribution to the world was the simple fact that he made people think and question everything. You may or may not agree with his training ideas, but the man's philosophy was that of doing what is precise for you, not for others. For me, it brought my brain more into my training. Instead of following blindly what someone else was doing (like Arnold), I started thinking more about my own body and what worked and didnt work for me.

I was even inspired to pick up The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand and read it along with many of her other books, at Mike's suggestion. That's what Mike was and still is for me...an inspiring thinker.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy