PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR

POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!

Unassailable logic

PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR

POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
Bodybuilding orthodoxy, exercise science and, even,
Arthur Jones

PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR

POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
Compelling logic

2
 PART ONE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
By Mike Mentzer

In this first of a two-part series, Mike Mentzer begins to align his reasons, deliver
the unassailable logic, responsible for his belief that fulfilling one's potential
should require very little time, less than even Arthur Jones believes possible!
Although controversial, one must admit that Mentzer stimulates thought like no
other writer in the field.

Prior to the advent of most - no, all! - of this century's greatest scientific
discoveries, e.g., the airplane, the radio, the television, interplanetary travel
and personal computers, how many of the great American unwashed would
have granted any plausibility to such. Damned few, aside from the literal
tiny minority of scientists researching those areas. It wasn't that many
decades ago that the philistine public had the attitude: "Go to the moon?
Impossible!" And what about the television; which, to my mind, is the
greatest invention in history? Before its invention, the overwhelming,
predominant majority never even conceived that the television might some
day exist. It's not that they questioned the possibility, or plausibility, it might
happen, as was the case with the airplane; after all, men had been attempting
to simulate the flight of birds since time immemorial. The idea of an actual
television never, ever occurred to them because there was no imitation of it
in nature, nothing that existed provided the slightest clue that someday there
might exist such a superlative, unrivalled device. Think of what is actually
involved in television: the artificial generation of radio and TV waves,
inserting perfect color images and sound into the waves; then broadcasting
them to every millimeter of space in a prescribed area - and so on.

(An interesting side note: In the Spring 1999 issue of Exercise Protocol,
Arthur Jones stated in his article Strength Testing VII -- "Eventually, the
Wright Brothers did build an airplane that would fly, but only after many
years of trial and error tinkering, with no slightest help from the scientific
community. In fact, most scientists continued to believe that flying was
impossible for several years after the Wrights were flying on a daily basis in
front of thousands of witnesses.

"Then, when a few scientists finally did become aware that flight was
possible, the first thing they tried to do was steal credit for the discoveries of

3
the Wright Brothers; both Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the
telephone, and the then director of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington,
entered into a criminal conspiracy to steal credit from the Wright
Brothers. . ."

This conforms to the pattern, the mode of response, to Mr. Jones' discovery
of the Nautilus machines, exhibited by members of the bodybuilding
orthodoxy and, to some degree, by the so-called exercise "science"
community. I refer to the pattern using a mnemonic device - namely,
IRACS; first they ignore the discovery, then ridicule it, attack it, copy it and,
finally, they steal it. With no presumption of stature intended, this is
happening to me, with my further development and promotion of the theory
of high-intensity training. The most remarkable involves a widely-
recognized, first rank physique champion of 30 years ago; one who, not long
ago, claimed to have discovered (and is now selling) an "exciting, startling
new approach to training centered around intensity and workouts lasting
ONLY nine minutes!" Most interesting is that this same individual had
written a few articles over the years attacking my theory of training; then,
recently, purchased a sizable number of my books wholesale to sell through
his own distribution company. He apparently had read my books, as soon
after his receipt of them, prior to his "exciting new discovery," I received a
very laudatory letter from him indicating how great my ideas are,
concluding with a sincere "thanks" for my having educated him on how to
best proceed with training.)

*** *** ***

For most of this century, everyone - not merely a majority - uncritically

accepted the notion that it would take five to 10 years to actualize one's
muscular/strength potential. Why has that belief prevailed for so long? Why
does it still predominate? Largely because of the inability or unwillingness
of most bodybuilders to engage in the mental effort required to understand
the requisite theoretical knowledge. (I say "inability" because, while that
knowledge does exist, it is so lost amidst the reams of concrete-bound,
unscientific hypotheses posing as scientific fact, that many never find their
way to it.) The only source of knowledge for the small number of alleged
misfits involved in the "esoteric" activity of weightlifting/bodybuilding early
on was physical culture magazines; which published exercise information
that revolved around the use of the Swiss ball, the Indian club, calisthenics,
some weights and the specious, sophistic "notions" of their eccentric
publishers.

4
It was at the conclusion of World War II that weight training gained a wider
recognition. Doctors at that time realized the need for rehabilitation
procedures to restore strength to various injured bodily areas was acute. The
need for truly effective rehabilitation of war veterans prompted a scientific
evaluation of weight training protocols; and it was the pioneering - albeit,
rudimentary - investigations by De Lorme and Watkins that were primarily
responsible for the increased acceptance of weight training by the scientific
community; which, then, trickled down to the muscle magazines.

The continued research conducted in this area are not in close agreement,
although a general overview emerged. The original work of De Lorme and
Watkins recommended the following program:

1 set of 10 repetitions, with one half of 10 RM

1 set of 10 repetitions, with three-quarters of 10 RM
1 set of 10 repetitions, with 100 percent of 10 RM

In essence, De Lorme and Watkins were recommending three sets for each
exercise, usually 10, all to be performed three days a week. As I've
explained before, the number "3" has a certain traditional magic in our
culture: there's the three bears, the three stooges, the Holy Trinity, three
square meals a day and the mystic belief that catastrophes occur in lots of
three. (I found it interesting recently, while reading Aristotle, that he noted
the ancient Greeks' propensity for the number "3," also.) And why would De
Lorme advocate the performance of three sets; where the first set is done
using one half of 10 RM; the second set with three-quarters of 10 RM; and,
finally, the last set was with 100 percent of RM - all for 10 reps? The use of
one-half, three-quarters and, then, 100 percent of RM, always for 10 reps,
represent a misguided, but scientific groping.

De Lorme's approach was quickly picked up by Bob Hoffman, the publisher

of Strength and Health magazine, the premier muscle publication of the 50's
and 60's, one that purportedly existed to advance "the science of modern
exercise." Hoffman's publication advocated three sets of 10 reps for each
exercise, with a total of 12 exercises (the "Baker's Dozen," as he referred to
it) to be conducted three days a week. I'm always suspect when so-called
scientific discoveries rely on convenient numbers, ones that are traditional
favorites, like three, ten and twelve. As I've, also, stated before, there is no
room in science for the arbitrary or the traditional. A truly productive,
scientific approach to exercise involves the application of factual, theoretical
principles discovered through a "genuine empiricism," or logic applied to
the material provided by sensory experience.

5
In the 1960's, Joe Weider made his way onto the scene, intent on wresting
the lion's share of the bodybuilding/weightlifting market away from his
nemesis, Bob Hoffman. In order to do so, he had to present the reading
public with something new. He accomplished his goal by using more
modern - "hip" - terminology in his articles and ads; making celebrities out
of bodybuilders to use on his garish magazine covers and to sell his
supplements; last but not least, he had to establish a new, superior,
"scientific" approach to bodybuilding exercise. To this end, he started the
"Weider Research Clinic," a quasi-scientific forum, really, made up of his
bodybuilding champions and writers, a few of which were exercise
scientists. And Joe, like others in this field, sincerely believed that if an
individual was an exercise scientist, with a Ph.D. affixed to his name, this
somehow made that individual's proclamations on the subject of exercise
unquestionable and absolute; and that their contributions made his
publications "scientific."

*** *** ***

(To the young, sincere and uninformed: No, not all scientists are hallowed
seekers or guardians of the objective truth. Remember the Wright brothers
and Alexander Graham Bell. And don't make the mistake of thinking that a
Ph.D. is a perfect reflection of a Platonic archetype in this, the real world. In
fact, as Ayn Rand identified, because of the collapse of philosophy in the
19th century, science is following a similar, though slower, course in this
century. This is as it must be, by the grace of reality, as philosophy is the
fundamental, integrating science. Or, as Aristotle, the man responsible for
the discovery of logic and, thus, of science, put it: Philosophy is the base of
science. The purpose of philosophy, ideally, is to identify the fundamental
nature of reality so that the special sciences can then study isolated aspects
of the universe.

Unforutnately, there is little today that promises a Second Renaissance, or

the return of philosophy to its proper role. This is because our universities
are teaching the evil views of Immanuel Kant, who was a subjectivist - he
held that reality is not real and that man's mind is impotent - the man
ultimately responsible for the collapse of philosophy mentioned earlier. It is
our universities that are the major villains in today's intellectually-morally
bankrupt culture, as there exists an overwhelming preponderance of
professors teaching Kant's ideas, including the notion that absolutes don't
exist; therefore, fundamental principles don't exist.

6
If nothing is of fundamental importance what does one think about?
Anything or nothing, since no-thing is more important than anything else. It
is people's unwillingness or inability to think in terms of fundamentals,
essentials and principles that leads to confusion; and is what prompted
someone to designate ours the Age of Complexity. Inundated by a ceaseless
profusion of data, facts, notions, information and (dis) information, the
philosophically bereft, unable to identify what is of fundamental importance,
cannot structure his thinking; and is overwhelmed by an unnecessary
"complexity." Such is why bodybuilders are agonizingly confused, never
certain as how to best proceed with their training or nutrition, almost
hysteric in their perpetual search for the "answer."

Let me remind you that Ph.D. literally means Doctor of Philosophy.

Considering that today's philosophy departments are dominated by
Kantians; and that philosophy's role in the intellectual division-of-labor is to
establish the epistemological (intellectual) criteria to guide human
knowledge in general and the special sciences, it is little wonder that we are
witnessing the continuing destruction, or dis-integration, of science,
including exercise science. As I've explained in the past, many exercise
scientists don't even understand the simple fundamentals of their own field.

If you are thinking that this is too professorial or intellectual, let me remind
you: It was 23 centuries ago, in the Golden Age of Greece, that men
simultaneously exalted the power of the mind and admired the beauty of the
human form. They clearly understood that to achieve one's full human
stature requires more than a healthy, muscular body; it requires "a healthy
mind in a healthy body."

The ultimate purpose of my articles is not merely to provide the readers with
another training program(s), and expect him to blindly follow it. That would
not be worth much long range. Instead, my purpose is to help you gain a
firm intellectual/conceptual grasp and understanding of the basic principles
of bodybuilding/exercise science; which is a prerequisite for learning how to
think logically about it. Having procured a logical, rational perspective,
makes it possible for one to become more or less intellectually independent
on the subject; never again having to rely on the vascillating, suspect
opinion of others. In the process of learning to think logically about
bodybuilding, you'll discover that you've learned something about the nature
of thought itself; which can then be extended to other areas of human life.
And with continued study and effort, you will progressively expand your
intellectual range; and, thereby, mature as a human being should.)

7
 *** *** ***

The core principle that guided the Trainer of Champs and his minions was
the bootleg logic "more is better." To them it seemed self-evident: more
knowledge, more money, i.e., more values, are better than less; therefore,
more exercise is better than less. (In fact, nothing is self-evident except the
material provided by the senses, e.g., the "redness" of an apple is self-
evident, it doesn't have to be proven.) The development of a practical,
scientific approach to productive bodybuilding exercise requires knowledge
that goes beyond the self-evident to the highly abstract, i.e., that which is not
directly perceivable, e.g., the concepts "theoretical" "logic" "growth
stimulation" "growth production "recovery ability" "fundamentals" "
derivatives" "principle," and, yes, "ethics." (Bear in mind, also, that since
man's knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the validity of his
knowledge depends on the validity of his concepts, i.e., their definitions.
Along with the fact that the bodybuilding orthodoxy's conceptual range is
profoundly limited, they never define their major concepts - making the use
of logic impossible.)

Dealing with higher, abstract knowledge is exactly what today's most

celebrated "post-Modern" (Kantian) philosophers don't want you to do.
Revelatory of the post-Modern's approach to the realm of the intellect is this
quote from its most celebrated proponent, Michael Foucault, "My work
irritates people because my objective isn't to propose a global principle or
analyze anything. . . .The conception of philosophy is no longer that of a
tribunal of pure reason which defends or debunks claims to knowledge made
by science, morality, art or religion. Rather the voice of the philosopher is
that of informed dilettante." And if you think that junk is relegated merely to
ivory tower intellectuals, you are wrong. It has already penetrated
bodybuilding (and every other area of human life), as two of my most
virulent detractors have made statements reflective of Kant's and Foucault's
influence. Jeff Everson, for instance, stated a few years ago in M&F, that ". .
. in bodybuilding, there are no fundamental principles" - while more
recently, Fred Hatfield exclaimed "All training theories are good!" These
two statements express essentially the same thing because, if all training
theories are good, then neither fundamental principles nor derivative
principles exist. If fundamental or derivative principles don't exist, then
knowledge doesn't exist; and for some, it doesn't; at least it has little value to
them. Fundamental principles of bodybuilding science do exist, dear reader;
and by the time you finish this two-part article series, you'll be able to grasp
them and their important inter-relationships.

8
(The Greeks, as I stated earlier, lived in a Golden Age - precisely because
they believed in the existence - the importance - of principles. Today we are
no longer living in a Golden Age nor even a Dark Age -- but, instead, a
Black Hole; and it's because of the abandonment of philosophy, i.e.,
fundamental principles. And when fundamental principles are denied, then
ethical principles, too, are inexorably rejected since they are derivatives, i.e.,
based on and derived from philosophical fundamentals. Anyone with a child
going to a public school need not be convinced that we are living in a Black
Hole. Death and murder was the goal of Kant and it was the goal of
Foucault. And it's no co-incidence that Hitler and Eichmann were Kantians?
After all, if reality is not real, then man is not real; so, why not butcher him?
It won't matter. No one will know because, as Kant posited, the mind is
impotent. To those still reading this: keep in mind that the first requisite for
building a healthier, more muscular body is that you have a live body,
something that too many in today's world, including the students at
Columbine High, are losing prematurely.)

It wasn't long before Joe Weider had taken over the market via skilled
"manipulation of the masses," as he was once quoted. Now, rather than
training in a reasonably sane fashion as advocated by De Lorme and
Hoffman, Weider had an entire generation of new bodybuilders training for
two, or more, hours per session using the Weider Double Split System -
involving two such long workouts a day - and later, three times a day - with
the Weider Triple Split. Of course, this mad, marathon training conducted
six days a week - (an arbitrary, blind, doubling of De Lorme and Hoffman's
three day a week protocol) - worked for none of his natural, non-steroid
readers; despite their wasting of hundreds of dollars a month, in many cases,
on his ever-enlarging inventory of "miraculous" nutritional supplements.

Many of his readers failed to realize that the heavily-muscled champs

purportedly using this volume (over)training approach were taking ever-
increasing quantities of steroids and other drugs to enhance their recovery
abilities; and, thereby, compensate for what otherwise would have amounted
to chronic, gross, mindless overtraining. (Who, in their right minds, would
want to train for four to six hours a day, six days a week? And why six days
a week? Well, there's an easy "scientific" answer to that: the seventh day
was off for Sabbath, or religious observance!)

It wasn't until the early 70's, that there arrived on the scene an unusual
individual, one smart enough to boldly and successfully challenge the
insanity, and to provide a more rational alternative to what Weider and
Schwarzenegger was advocating - namely, Arthur Jones. While Weider

9
operated semiconsciously on the unchecked, unchallenged premise "more is
better," Jones reacted violently (having developed a keen disdain for
Weider's intellectually sloppy, pseudo-scientific approach), and brazenly
proclaimed that "less is better." With that, Jones recommended, not 12-20
sets per bodypart involving six day a week workouts; but, instead, his notion
of 'less is better' led him to advocate 12-20 sets, not per muscle group, but,
for the entire body; and to be conducted three times (again, the magic
number " 3") a week.

The more intelligent bodybuilders of the time immediately recognized that

Jones was on to something, as we sure as hell weren't making any progress
with the Weider approach; and because Jones was offering what this field
sorely needed - a truly theoretical approach to training.

Within a short time after Jones' proffered his theory through the very pages
of Ironman, myself and numerous others realized we weren't experiencing
the progress that the theory suggested was possible. Jones, in fact, stated
repeatedly that the actualization of one's muscular/strength potential should
not require the 5-10 years as everyone had thought; instead the actualization
of potential should require but two years! As much as this small minority
believed in Jones and his revolutionary, theoretical approach, it was soon
apparent that there was a flaw in it. As much as we hated to admit it, we
weren't realizing anywhere near the results we had expected; the progress
being only slightly better than that delivered by the blind, nontheoretical,
volume approach. Better, but not good enough.

It wasn't until well after the end of my competitive career, in 1980, that I
developed an impassioned, unswerving devotion to discovering the flaw in
Jones' theory of high-intensity training. . .

10
 PART TWO: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
By Mike Mentzer

While part-one of this article certainly piqued the interest of our readers, the
following is certain to do the same, as Mike Mentzer levels damning indictments
against the bodybuilding orthodoxy, exercise science and, even, Arthur Jones.
Here he explains more of the thought processes, and identifies the basic
principle, that led to his conviction that bodybuilders can actualize their
potential in a very short time.

In Part One, of this three-part series, I made the point that for most of this
century the predominant majority of bodybuilders and strength athletes
sincerely believed that it should take 5-10 years to actualize one's
strength/muscular potential. This was because both the bodybuilding
orthodoxy and the exercise science establishment were - are - unaware of the
logical requirements of developing a truly scientific, theoretical approach to
exercise; and that such was the direct result of living in a period of
philosophical default. Today, many academicians are devoid of even a
nominal grasp of the rudiments of rationality; which is why confusion is the
intellectual hallmark of our time; and explains why bodybuilders are
impotent against the ceaseless tide of false ideas, fraudulent claims and
outright lies promulgated by many in the bodybuilding/fitness media. As a
result, many are wasting hundreds of hours a year, year in and year out, in
the attempt to develop a physique that they could have developed in one
year!

*** *** ***

The subject of logic is vast; a complete examination of which is certainly

outside the scope of this work. I will address, however, one of the most
crucially important aspects of logic - (completely overlooked by all of the
bodybuilding orthodoxy and, to a large degree, by exercise science) - which
relates to the role played by unequivocal definitions. Because man gains and
holds his knowledge in conceptual form, it is the validity of his concepts,
i.e., the precision of their definitions, which determines the validity of his
knowledge.

To quote Ayn Rand, from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, on this

issue, "Since concepts in the field of cognition, perform a function similar to

11
that of numbers in the field of mathematics, the function of a proposition is
similar to that of an equation: it applies conceptual abstractions to a specific
problem.

"A proposition, however, can perform this function only if the concepts of
which it is composed have precisely defined meanings. If, in the field of
mathematics, numbers had no fixed, firm values, if they were
approximations determined by the mood of their users - so that "5," for
instance, could mean five in some calculations, but six-and-one-half or four-
and-three-quarters in others, according to the user's 'convenience' - there
could be no such thing as mathematics."

A theory, properly defined, is a set of principles, or propositions (statements

of fact), which claims to be either a correct description of some aspect of
reality and/or a guide for successful human action. A theory can fulfill its
proper intellectual function only if the major concepts that make it up have
precisely defined meanings. This is true of any theory, whether it be the
theory of relativity, the theory of evolution or the theory of high-intensity
training. The process of establishing precise definitions is rigorously
demanding; which is why the mystics and skeptics (most people, today) turn
away from the realm of the intellect. Concepts are the tools of thought; the
better your tools, the better, i.e., more precise, the closer to the actual facts
of reality, will your thinking be. (From Chapter Three, Another Kind of
Definition, of my book "Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body.")

Balancing the Theoretical Account

Since starting my personal training business in the late 1980's, I've had
considerable success with my clients. Their progress, early on, was
primarily satisfactory (better than most); at times dramatic; and, in a few
cases, phenomenal. In the very rare cases where progress was poor, such
was the result of either very poor genetics and/or mistakes on my part,
mistakes which I won't make again.

During the first couple of years, all of my clients trained three times a week
- Monday, Wednesday and Friday - averaging seven to nine sets a workout,
on a split routine. (I had learned much earlier that Jones' prescription of 12-
20 sets per workout for the full body, conducted three times a week was too
much for almost everyone.) While most trainers and trainees settled - and
still do - for progress unpredictably in tiny dribbles every now and then, I,
on the other hand, expected my clients to make progress, i.e., grow stronger,
every workout.

12
The reader may be wondering how I had ever come to think that
bodybuilding progress should be experienced every workout. Allow me to
explain. I was in the midst of a period of very intensive study of philosophy,
logic and the nature of the theoretical knowledge. I had arrived at a juncture
in my studies where I clearly recognized that, if in possession of a truly
valid theory, and the proper, practical application of the theoretical
principles is made, then progress - no matter what the field of endeavor -
should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile, until the goal has been
reached.

My belief gained currency when I looked at other contexts of knowledge. In

medicine, for instance, once the "germ theory" of disease had been
discovered by Louis Pasteur in the 1880's, researchers couldn't work fast
enough; and it was less than a century before they had discovered cures for
practically every infectious disease that had plagued man from the
beginning. In aviation, the Wright Brothers' first successful flight of 1903
led to the Russian's Sputnik orbiting the earth in 1957 and the United States
putting a man on the moon in 1969. In physics, it was Einstein's theory of
relativity, developed in 1905, that rapidly resulted in the theory of fission
and the discovery of the cyclotron in the 1930's.

Given the knowledge and depth of understanding described above, I

developed an intransigent conviction that the bodybuilding orthodoxy, the
exercise science establishment and even the leading high-intensity theorists
were off the mark. Yet, I couldn't ignore the evidence regarding my own
clients' progress. While their progress was practically always immediate
from the outset of their training, it wasn't always continuous and
worthwhile. Why not, if, in fact, I was in possession of a valid theory and
was making the proper, practical application?

I was left to conclude that there had to be a flaw(s) in the theory of high-
intensity as proffered by Arthur Jones; and uncritically accepted by just
about everyone within his sphere of influence. Encapsulated, Jones' theory
held that, to be productive, exercise must be intense, brief and infrequent.

Recall from above that, in the field of cognition, concepts play a role similar
to that of numbers in equations; but that they may do so only if the concepts
are precisely defined.

If any of the major concepts of the theory of high-intensity training were

improperly defined, practice would be skewed to that extent; and progress
would be compromised. In checking Jones' theory, the first thing I did was
go to the cardinal fundamental, the principle of intensity; and found it

13
properly defined. He defined intensity as "the percentage of possible
momentary muscular effort being exerted." (The theory of high-intensity
training further maintains that to stimulate optimal increases in strength and
size one must train to failure, i.e., where he's exerting himself with 100
percent intensity of effort. If one doesn't train to failure, where does he cease
the set? Stopping anywhere short of failure is inexact and arbitrary.) Jones
was correct, as he had defined intensity in terms of its essential
characteristics. Using Jones' definition, in other words, one could
conceivably identify the intensity of any activity from low-intensity aerobics
to training to failure with weights, where 100 percent intensity of effort is
required. This stood in sharp contrast to the bodybuilding orthodoxy, who
was using the term 'intensty' with greater frequency, but never defined it,
often using it interchangeably with volume. Then there was the exercise
science establishment, who had denied the validity of Jones' definition-by-
essentials; and defined it loosely, by non-essentials. Two of today's more
celebrated exercise scientists, William Kraemer, Ph.D., and Steven Fleck,
Ph.D., defined intensity in their book Periodization Breakthrough, as "a
measure of how difficult training is" and even more loosely, less
philosophically acceptable - "a percent of the maximal weight that can be
lifted for a specific number of reps." (To what is one referring when
pointing to the "difficulty" of training? And, once difficulty is defined, is it
the difficulty of a set, a workout or what? And by identifying the percent of
a maximal weight that can be handled for a specific number of reps, how
was the weight and the number of reps to be performed arrived at? One may
be instructed to perform six reps with 80 percent of his one rep maximum
when, in fact, he's capable of performing 10 reps to failure; therefore, his
intensity of effort would be low; and little in the way of growth stimulation
would be induced. As Jones has indicated, the number of reps performed by
individuals with 80 percent of their one rep maximum will vary greatly,
depending on the individual's fiber type and neuro-muscular efficiency. In
his own research, Jones found one individual who could perform only three
reps to failure with 80 percent of his one rep max on the Curl, and another
who could perform 27 reps with 80 percent of his one rep max on the same
exercise!)

After having precisely defined intensity, Arthur Jones made a grievous

mistake, one that seriously compromised the efficacy of a superior approach
to training, such that I and thousands of others who thought we had
happened upon the Rosetta Stone of bodybuilding quickly grew frustrated. It
was here that Jones left the realm of science and cognitive precision, and
slipped into the arbitrary. Whereas the dominant training ideology of the
time, as espoused by Weider and Schwarzenegger et al, advocated that

14
everyone train each muscle with 12-20 sets two to three times a week, for a
total of six days a week, Jones properly countered, stating that such a
regimen amounted to gross overtraining. His prescription for the problem,
however, wasn't much better: He suggested that everyone train the entire
body three times a week, with a total of 12-20 sets per workout. This, too,
given the higher intensity levels than advocated by the Weider approach,
soon resulted in gross overtraining.

Jones' theory, recall from above, stated that - to be productive, exercise must
be intense, brief and infrequent. However, what does brief and infrequent
mean exactly? Jones equivocated, and left his legion of devoted followers -
many of whom seemed to regard him as omniscient and infallible - bereft of
rational training guidance.

In a very real sense, Jones was merely reacting to Weider in knee-jerk

fashion. This was due to a critical blind spot on his part. Jones wasn't
intellectually ensconced in theoretical fundamentals as much as he was
literally obsessed with discovering methods for making extremely accurate
measurements of certain derivative aspects of exercise science; with things
like torque, muscular friction, range of motion and stored energy, to name a
few. As noble an endeavor as this may be, the appropriate integration and
application of such knowledge is possible only within the context of having
first fully grasped the fundamentals.

Science is an exacting discipline whose purpose is to discover the specific,

precise facts of reality. Weider's notion that one should perform 12-20 sets
for each muscle is not exact, far from it. What is it exactly: 12 sets or 14 or
17 or 20 sets? And if 12 sets is sufficient, why do 20 sets? Since Weider
never provided any explanatory context to support his notion, it amounts to
nothing more than a groundless assertion. Jones' response wasn't based on a
scrupulous process of thought either. To advise people to train with 12-20
sets for the whole body, instead of each muscle, is just as arbitrary as
Weider's prescription.

Scientific Precision
"A number of the bodybuilding orthodoxy's self-styled "experts" have even
alleged that there are no universal, objective principles of productive
exercise. They claim that since each bodybuilder is unique, every individual
bodybuilder requires a different training program. And then they contradict
themselves by advocating that all bodybuilders train in the same fashion,
i.e., two hours a day, six days a week." (From Chapter One, Bodybuilders
Are Confused, of my book "Heavy Duty I.")

15
That allegation was leveled primarily against Joe Weider and his
bodybuilding orthodoxy, at the time I wrote my book in 1993. I have since
come to learn that the exercise science establishment holds the exact same
belief; and that they lifted it from Weider. You don't believe me? You don't
believe that exercise scientists, the supposed guardians of rationality and
logic in this field, could be so wanting that they would steal false,
contradictory ideas from that catch-all of irrationalists?

As evidence, I quote from the book "Science and Practice of Strength

Training," authored by Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky, professor of exercise
science at Penn State: "Each of you is a unique individual in every way; and
your resistance training program must meet your unique needs - for there is
no one all-encompassing 'secret' program." Dr. Zatsiorski - remember, he is
an exercise scientist - inexcusably contradicts himself later in the same book
when he recommends that bodybuilders perform 15-20 sets per bodypart
virtually every day, with up to 60 sets per workout. And later, Professor
Zatsiorsky spills the beans, confessing that he gained such knowledge from
"observations of professional bodybuilders," and from "studies which show
greater hypertrophy from such high-volume training." (Some readers may
recall past writings of Jones and myself indicating that, all too often, alleged
'studies' in the field of exercise science were never conducted at all.)

If, according to Weider and exercise science, there are no universal,

objective principles how could bodybuilding exist as a science since the
purpose of science is to discover universal principles? And since this
Zatsiorsky eschews the universality of principles, claiming we are all
"unique in every way," why, then, go ahead and advocate a universal
training prescription?

*** *** ***

So far, I've indicted Weider (and the orthodoxy), exercise science and, to a
lesser extent, Arthur Jones; everyone there is to indict, in fact, as all training
approaches - except mine - are based on the same basic principles, differing
only in degree. The primary problem with the Weider and the exercise
science approach is that it's based on the premise "more is better." The idea
that "more is better" means precisely that - more is better means more is
better. You see, there's a (false) built-in guarantee, you can't fail. If 20 sets is
good, i.e., yields satisfactory results, then 40 sets would be even better, and
80 sets better still. The advocates of the "more is better" approach won't go
that far because they "sense" that there's a factor involved that precludes the
possibility of performing such a high number of sets. Factor X was first

16
identified by Arthur Jones - namely, the fact of a limited recovery ability.
Jones' awareness that the human reserve of biochemical resources needed to
recover from a workout is not infinite; and is what led him to state: "It is
only rational to use that which exists in limited supply as economically as
possible." However, Jones didn't carry that fact to its logical conclusion, and
merely advocated "less is better," i.e., less than Weider. The principle that I
am advocating, the one that makes it possible for the bodybuilder to
actualize his potential in a very short time, is that neither "more is better"
nor "less is better," but "precise is best."

17
 PART THREE: ACTUALIZE YOUR MUSCULAR
POTENTIAL IN ONE YEAR!
By Mike Mentzer

In part-two of this series, Mike Mentzer identified the erroneous principles that
guide the training of most bodybuilders; thereby, explaining why they are
agonizingly confused with regard to how to best guide their training; and, thus,
fail to ever actualize their physique potential. In this last article of the series,
Mentzer cites more compelling logic, but, also, the evidence required to prove
that bodybuilding progress should be nothing short of spectacular, until one
actualizes his potential - in one year, or less!

*** *** ***

Last month, in part-two of this three-part series, I denounced the exercise

science establishment for failing to properly define, or identify, the nature of
the training stress responsible for inducing growth stimulation. Lacking
knowledge of the nature of the exercise stimulus, one cannot know anything
else of value about exercise. (Remember, too, that exact definitions are an
absolute, objective prerequisite for using logic.) Later in that article, I
explained that many exercise scientists today deny the existence of the one
fundamental that makes all science possible - namely, the universality of
principles.

Recall the quote from Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky, professor of exercise science

at Penn State, denying universal principles: "Each of you is unique in every
way"; who then unconscionably contradicts himself later by advocating all
bodybuilders perform 15-20 sets per bodypart, virtually every day, with up
to 60 sets a workout. And how might he have arrived at such numbers? He
claims in his book "Science and Practice of Strength," that such were arrived
at "from studies which show greater hypertrophy from high volume
training," and - here's the clincher - "from observations of professional
bodybuilders."

A number of years ago, a book was published which maintained that many
famous scientific studies at the highest levels of academia - even Galileo
and John Hopkins University were accused - are bogus; all in the name of
"publish or perish." Do you think exercise science would be the one
academic arena exempt from the publishing of fraudulent studies? I
seriously doubt it.

18
Not only did I contend that studies "proving the superiority of high volume
training" were never done - but, later, that the contention of Zatziorsky's
regarding volume training coming "from observations of professional
bodybuilders" meant that he mindlessly lifted, or stole, the notion from
Weider and some of his top IFBB professionals. Of course, neither Mr.
Weider nor the exercise science establishment informs us that any results
obtained from 60 sets per workout training is possible only with the
attendant use of nightmarish quantities of steroids, growth hormone and a
panoply of other drugs, many of which I have neither the time nor interest to
learn how to spell or pronounce. Make no mistake, dear reader, these drugs
are extremely potent recovery ability enhancers that allow a few to get away
with what otherwise would constitute chronic, gross overtraining.

In part-one of this series, I made the point that Weider (and the exercise
scientists) regard their operative principle 'more is better' as self-evident;
which is not true. Nothing is self-evident except the material provided by
sensory experience, e.g., the "redness" of tomato, as it is immediately
evident to man's sensory-perceptual apparatus, requiring no proof. It is this
type of epistemological ( intellectual ) savagery - failing to precisely define
your concepts and mistaking the self-evident for abstract knowledge - that
has left exercise science stalled indeterminately at an intellectual dead end,
until recently.

I concluded part-two, contending that the two dominant training ideologies

are both fallacious: Weider's and the scientists', with their "more is better"
premise; and Jones' -despite his cognizance of the fact of a limited recovery
ability - with his notion "less is better." With a truly scientific approach the
guiding, operative principle should be "precise is best."

Medical and Exercise Science

One of the major philosophic themes of my articles over the past few years
has been, in effect, because there is only one reality - which is an objective
absolute guided by one set of never-changing principles - there can be only
valid theory of anything. The following is a discussion of one aspect of this
issue from my most recent book, Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body.

"Recently, I was discussing the 'one valid theory of bodybuilding exercise'

controversy with one of my favorite clients. My client is the esteemed
Gregory Kay, MD, a highly trained Western, theoretical medical scientist.
An experienced cardiac surgeon, who performs close to 300 open-heart
surgeries a year, the good doctor has close to a 100 percent success rate in
the surgical suite. Dr. Kay made the point, in effect, that his success, not to

19
mention the overall success rate of modern medical science is proof positive
that 'there is - and can be - only one valid theory of medicine.' And I happily
rejoined, ". . .indirectly it proves the same for exercise theory.

"To stress the point one more step: If you were to find yourself in the jungle
tomorrow, and you happened upon a voodoo witch doctor, he would have
close to a zero percent success rate with his patients. Then, suppose you
were to introduce him to this miracle: Western, theoretical, medical science,
i.e., logical diagnostic procedure, antibiotics, analgesics, sterile technique
and surgery, etc. All of a sudden the witch doctor's success rate skyrockets
off the charts. He can't figure it out; he thinks you're in league with God and
the Devil.

"To say that there cannot be one valid theory, or, that all theories have merit,
is tantamount to stating that the intellectual method of the voodoo witch
doctor is as likely to correct a brain aneurysm as would that of a highly-
skilled neuro-surgeon. (The phenomenon just described is close to the
intellectual state of bodybuilding today.)

"Obviously, there is a life-and-death difference between the application of

false ideas and the application of true ideas. Knowledge (truly valid ideas),
remember, is man's means of achieving all of his goals, including that final
goal, or end, which makes all the others possible - the maintenance of his
life."

*** *** ***

If you were to undergo surgery, you would obviously very much want the
anesthesiologist to apply the precise amount of chemical compound required
to induce a state of anesthesia. If, instead, as you were being wheeled into
the surgical suite, you overheard the anesthesiologist say, "Pump him up,"
something like is said in bodybuilding, "pump the patient up! Give him
more, more anesthesia is better than less," you wouldn't feel very confident
about the situation. In fact, even a semi-rational individual would jump up
and run out the door. Or, if you heard the doctor say something slightly
different, "Let's give this patient less anesthesia than we gave that one
yesterday; we killed the poor man" you wouldn't feel much better. In this
particular case, where life-and-death clearly is the issue, it's quite easy to
grasp why scientific precision is so very important. However, that same
principle from medical theory carries over and has direct practical
application to bodybuilding/exercise science theory. (Keep in mind that
exercise science derives from medical science; and that the ideal in both

20
situations is to correct, or improve, human physiology with as high a degree
of precision as is required.)

In bodybuilding, the idea is to impose a training stress onto the body that
will serve to induce the biochemical changes which result in muscular
hypertrophy. Applying any more of the training stress (high-intensity) than
is required by nature will result in the equivalent of over-dosing on a
medicine; or, as we say typically in bodybuilding - overtraining.

A person exposed to the sun's ultraviolet rays at the equator in summer

would not have the slightest concern whether the intensity of the sunlight
stress is high enough to disturb the physiology sufficiently to induce an
adaptive response, i.e., the buildup of a suntan. His only concern, his
overriding consideration, would be to properly regulate the volume (or
duration) and frequency of exposure time so as not to overdose on the
stress/stimulus; and, thereby, incur a sunburn or, in extreme cases, death. A
person seeking to develop a suntan at the equator, or wherever the intensity
of the sunlight is high has no concern that he will develop a suntan; but only
if he doesn't overexpose. (Note that bodybuilding science is largely based on
the medical discipline of stress physiology. Also, that the end result of the
healing of a sunburn is not a suntan, just as the end result of the healing of
overtraining is not greater strength or added muscle.)

Bodybuilders utilizing the blind, nontheoretical volume approach to training

do fret continuously over the prospect of ever developing their muscles
because they know next to nothing about the nature of the specific
stress/stimulus required to induce a buildup of muscle tissue beyond normal
levels. Their obsession is with the volume, or amount, of training. Unlike
the suntanner, however, who is rationally concerned with the proper
regulation of the imposition of the sunlight stress, the bodybuilder has an
irrational obsession with (over)imposing the training stress; and,
unwittingly, allows his workouts to degenerate into an endurance contest.

An Air Bubble in the Sea of Causality?

Since I had my earlier clients performing considerably less than what Jones
advocated - 7 to 9 sets three days a week versus 12-20 sets three days a
week - I initially found it near impossible to believe that their less-than-
satisfactory, long-range progress was due to overtraining. I, also, realized
that it couldn't be the effect of undertraining. So, what was the cause?

At about the time I was considering this question, I signed up a wildly

enthusiastic training client, one who had studied Heavy Duty, high-intensity

21
training theory rather seriously; and thought he had found the "answer,"
after years of practically no progress with volume training. Interestingly,
after two months on the seven to nine sets of three days a week training, it
became starkly evident that the program was not working. His strength had
only increased negligibly at best; and he had even started decompensating -
losing strength - slightly by the end of eight weeks. And, of course, there
was no visible increase in muscle mass.

Since I had informed this young man of some of the results my other clients
were obtaining with the same routine, and we were both conversant with the
theory, it was decided to reduce his program to only five sets once every 72
hours, or third day. And after a few weeks, it was once again apparent that
something was wrong, as he made absolutely no progress.

This threw me into a bit of a quandary. This was the first time that I had
ever trained someone who was so thoroughly nonresponsive to high-
intensity; at least as I was practically applying it; and, to the best of my
knowledge, I was the only trainer in the world who had any of his clients
performing so little exercise. Could it be that I was wrong about the
universal validity of these training principles? Or, was this a species of
metaphysical churlishness, an air bubble in the sea of causality? I knew
better, of course, because the laws of nature are universal and immutable.
Just because I had a firm grasp of the theory, however, didn't mean I
possessed certain ancillary knowledge that might be crucial. There had to be
something about this individual's physiology which could be cited for his
lack of progress with the given routine. There had to be something that
would explain why on so brief and infrequent a program, this individual was
still overtraining.

This led me to review some of what I knew about the role of genetics. I
reasoned that, since genetically mediated traits such as height, sunlight
stress tolerance and intelligence were expressed across a broad continuum,
such would most likely be true of individual exercise stress tolerance. With
regard to height, there are midgets at the left end of the continuum and
giants at the other. In the area of individual sunlight stress tolerance, there
are light-skinned people, such as Scandinavians at one end, who tolerate
very little in the way of sunlight stress, and dark-skinned people who
obviously tolerate more. And with intelligence, you have literal medical
morons at one extreme and super geniuses at the other. I was very excited
upon recognizing that a similar situation had to be true for individual
exercise stress tolerance, with those at one extreme who tolerated a lot less
exercise than those at the other.

22
As my client liked to tease and cut up a lot, I met him at the gym - armed
with my new understanding - and referred to him as a midget, or moron, of
recovery ability. Although even hard for me to accept at first, my conclusion
about genetics led me to reduce this fellow's workouts again - this time to
only three sets once every four to seven days. And it worked; he finally
began growing stronger and larger on a regular basis, although his progress
was never dramatic. He properly concluded that he didn't have the genetic
predisposition to gain in strength and size at the greater rate exhibited by
some of my other clients.

Where I had been very apprehensive earlier at the prospect of reducing

training volume and frequency to so low a level with other clients, my
success with our "recovery moron" emboldened me. It was at this time,
about five years ago, that I finally reduced all my clients' training to three to
five sets once every four to seven days, or less, depending upon their innate
recovery ability, or individual exercise stress tolerance. (Interestingly, while
thousands of people around are the world are individually establishing their
own exercise prescriptions based on their own exercise stress tolerance, the
orthodoxy and the exercise science community are still advocating everyone
train everyday with up to 60 sets!)

What's Possible

With a properly conducted high-intensity training program, the individual

will grow stronger every workout, without any serious breach in progress,
until he has actualized his strength/muscular potential. I had a client several
years ago who improved the functional ability of his quadriceps such that he
was able to perform 10 reps with the whole stack, or 250 pounds, on the
Nautilus Leg Extension after only being able to do seven reps with 170
pounds two months prior, a tremendous increase. (This type of response is
not experienced by every one of my trainees; but it is far from atypical.)

The strongest client I ever had was able to perform 33 reps on the Nautilus
Leg-Extension with the whole stack. And that was an incredibly well-
developed, strong "genetic freak," the famed David Paul of the Barbarian
Brothers. When David first started having me supervise his workouts, he
performed 15 reps on the Leg-Extension and then went immediately, in
superset fashion, to the Nautilus Leg Press where he performed 18 reps to
complete failure with the full stack, 510 pounds. One week later David
performed 25 reps on the Leg-Extension and immediately ran to the Leg
Press where he did 38 reps. Impressive? You better believe it. But, keep
reading.

23
One week after that, he did 33 reps on the Leg-Extension followed by a
hard-to-believe 71 reps on the Leg Press! In both exercises, he again,
employed the entire weight stacks. No, the above is not a misprint. David
improved his Leg-Extension from 15 to 33 reps and his Leg Press from 18
to 71 reps as a result of only two leg workouts that lasted less than 15
minutes each. That represents an improvement of 388 percent in the
functional ability of the quadriceps of an already highly advanced
bodybuilder. In the one month I trained David, he gained seven pounds of
muscle. These are phenomenal increases, especially when considered
against the fact that for the previous five years, David's volume training,
involving training sessions that lasted for at least two hours (sometimes
twice a day ) six days a week, yielded zero strength and size increases.

Since David was capable of such a rate of improvement, imagine what a

rank beginner - (with similar genetics) - might achieve on such a program.
I've already provided you an indication, with the description of the first
individual. If a beginner can improve as I described above, going from 170
for seven reps to 250 for 10 reps on the Leg-Extension in two months, he
has only 23 reps to go with the same weight before achieving the functional
capacity of a super genetic freak. How long would that take him? He'd
probably never achieve it, as he, by all appearances, was only average - or
slightly above - in genetics. My point is: Given the enormous improvement
he made in only two months, it wouldn't even take year before he actualized
his strength/muscle potential. (We'll never know exactly; because of
enormous career pressures he had to cease training after two months.)

Bear in mind that a prerequisite for growing larger muscles is that one grow
stronger. Since the individual I described would cease growing in strength in
less than one year, his muscle growth would cease soon thereafter.

Conclusion

I am not suggesting that everyone who buys my books and/or tries a Heavy
Duty, high-intensity training program will actualize his potential in so short
a time. This is because, as I've learned through conversations with those
who have read my books, that they don't always fully understand the
theory's proper, practical application.

My main point is that with a sound, valid theoretical approach to training,

progress should be immediate, continuous and worthwhile all the way to the
full actualization of one's potential. Also, that the actualization of one's
potential, too, is a genetically determined trait; therefore, there will be those

24
who reach their upper limits in a matter of a few months, some a year and
others slightly longer.

25