most guys have a team nutritionists ect this dude is a walking bodybuilding bible

Same

me too! game changing!

Me too, I didn’t know who he was a month ago. At the risk of being cringe, it’s life changing.

Same here

Very heartwarming action. Also thankyou for sharing.

Yeah this is an audio from the MM2000 series that I had digitized few 🧐 years back ... there's some classic stuff. Timeless. No idea how whoever's running this page grabbed it but kudos 💪💪

@@strength365are you bills son?

@@Bobby-hn3cuhis brother

This is the greatest interview ever on weight training science. If everyone followed this. There would be millions of well built men walking around NATURALLY. Not thousands most of them using steroids. That's what people cant realize. Unless they wise up like I did.

Simple yet profound...he was a simple guy ;)

Not exactly what the Buddha taught 😅

@@mikehev222 Ever heard a Buddhist talk and Buddhism? It's usually, as Mike said, romantic hogwash.

Psycho Cybernetics is a clean cut way to set and protect your goals from internal / external sabotage. Happy Winning!

@@karamlevii read the book, that’s more like for self-esteem!

My pleasure. Thanks for your post.

Can I have a scan of HD II? That’s one hell of a hard book to find at the moment 😂

@@giakhanhthehinhcoban Sorry....I can't do that. Its copywritten. I agree its very hard to find. It took me a few decades to get a perfect copy, which I got last year.

@@tektoniks_architects mike it's not benefiting from that... And i belive that he would rather have people train right than someone gain a few buck out of copyright.

@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE according to workout how many reps we will be doing?

If you go back and listen to Arthur Jones, it seems Mike adopted his cadence and tone in his delivery. It's very telling...Mike is my mentor now...unfortunately at 52 I have to rest longer because HIT really drains the tank on everything.

@@johnsims2293 Hi John I’m in your age group can we agree on his training philosophy minus going to failure everything else I follow but I find always going to failure is just too much , training with intensity 100% but failure just takes too much out of my body , depending on the day I stop 1 or 2 reps before

@CAPTAIN CARIBE I'm still learning the process honestly. I do agree, failure is pretty taxing on the body and I feel finding a balance with near failure and intensity may be the key for me. I'm going to try finding the 90% failure threshold. My tendons in my biceps tend to take a week to feel like using them again. Mike wad in his 30's so that should be considered as well. What it has taught me is how to dig down deep into effort and focus on the mind/muscle connection. Time under tension is pretty much what we are doing. 4 seconds to lower and 4 seconds back up. That's 8 seconds of work. So a one minute set is alot of time....this method showed me I have been overtraining just throwing mediocre poundages at 10 to 15 sets and 10 to 15 reps each. Do less, rest more and see how it goes. It's a constant evolution of learning. Thanks for reaching out. Good luck.

Na he seems working class to me

By well spoken to you mean that his accent sounds neutral to an American ear?

Bro pure love for this

Thank you sir!

You are much appreciated!😊

Thank you sir

Great metrics. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks for the conversion to English units lol. Keep it up 🏋🏻‍♂️

@@timothyrussell1179 have gained now over 7,5 kgs actualy ;)

When the student is ready the master appears.

Same here bro. Been training around 20 years, thought I had read and understood all the different hypertrophy programs. Hearing Mike for the first time recently was like that rush from 20 years ago when I picked up my first Men's Health or Muscle and Fitness mag.

I am in the process of switching from 6 days a week to doing his Heavy Duty Program. There is so little info of people doing the program, it makes me wonder if it’s not shown for a reason. All of the comments on here are people saying how much they enjoy the method and how they are seeing incredible results! I have so much respect and love for Mike and I wish people actually listen to what he has to say. Thanks for your comment and I will be joining the gain train soon 💪❤️

@@DaltonRosee Yes, I agree it's a bit strange that Mentzer's training methods are not more mainstream. I suspect partly it's due to MONEY. Training in the gym, 30 minutes per session for only 3 days per week does not afford most coaches a lot of time to make money... Much more profitable to coach a young bodybuilder with the high volume method, where he is spending 2-3 hours per day in the gym, 6 days per week. If the coach is getting paid hourly, it's no surprise that he'll prefer to push Arnold-style training.

What’s the workout boys?

Where can I find Mike's programs?

⁠​⁠@@RAVENBOY986 I agree but it’s not just coaches. It is magazine sales, supplement sales and the constant barrage of training programs and home use equipment. It definitely is all about the almighty $$$!

Glad you enjoyed it!

@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE this video is awesome

Nice, if I may ask, did you ever implement the High Intensity Training?

This seems too good to be true. And hard to hit the perfect balance

It's fantastic isn't it? I am the strongest I have ever been, getting over a plateau by putting more weight on the bars and doing less sets , mind-blowing

I came from hit program , changed everything that is contradicted by research and I'm making progress better than ever. Training more frequently and with more volume, getting less worn out by the intensity of the exercise, ... I'm not lifting to become insanely strong, I'm lifting for aesthetics and for health. I progress weights less often which was being an issue under hit, so my joints actually feel better. Of course ao still progressively overload with reps and sets and tempo and only then weights. If you were stagnant you were probably doing something wrong (and error I see, is going through the routine and nit actually pushing yourself to make actual progress).

My gains came after 1 year of high volume then 2 months of Mike's program and I'm exploding with gains. Even my calves 😂

​@technolus5742 Yeah, right 😂

@@pietroscarpa2384 It's well documented. Look at the research.

Yes to the second paragraph completely

could you pls elaborate how you train, exactly what exercise you do, how many days rest in between, etc.

Agreed. Listening it my third time now. Gold. Absolute gold.

Mike left no question in anyone's mind, that he knew what he's talking about.

Thanks for the kind words Lisandro, I’m glad you like the content.

Where can I find his routines?

@F A thank you!

Thanks for your post.

The hardest part about his training theory is actually convincing yourself it's okay to rest more and work out less.

Dorian Yates is proof enough

As a former client of Troys and funny how I’m literally stumbling upon your comment bruv! Anyways….as A former client i can attest that i was growing the most i have on these very principles. I have forgotten “the way” in the last 7 years of my life. I have now been re enlightened and cannot wait to start High Intensity Training again after my cns rest at the moment🎉❤🫡👏🏻Cheers! -Andreas

Don't think Dorian applied all of Mike's strategies cause in the videos of Dorian during his pro career you can see he's training many sets and at least 4 different exercises on same muscle group with several sets on each. Classic split regiment. The duration wasn't 20 min either. I've seen him coaching guys today with the same system, he even suggest cardio. Mike never endorsed that. So I think Dorian picked up fragments of Mikes philosophy. @@silentsmilez503

Thanks very much for the kind words.

Hey what exactly did you do in workouts. Thank you

Haha! Thanks, Bobby!

I've started to understand this as I age. I'm 39 and started lifting at age 22. as I've aged I have become acutely aware of injury and soreness of the not-so-good-kind. I got off hard drugs 6 months ago and started lifting seriously again and my post-dope energy kick I have been overtraining. This was not possible in my younger days. I've been stronger than ever but I have constant pains. I have recruited more intensity but less frequency, as my diet is and usually has always been on point, and I find better results with less soreness and more time for my kids and hobbies/work (I'm a programmer and a hardcore 'computer nerd' and like spending more time at the terminal and books than anything else). The results stay, I always feel strong at the gym, with not as much pain. I do train more than Mentzer advised but weight lifting is a release and escape for me. I just have toned down things a lot in terms of high intensity high time with high intensity low time.

@@chrisbrownlovesrihanna you have a family, got a good job & were addicted to hard drugs!!🤔 I can't take you seriously with a user name like yours!!

I question my whole life after finding mike mentzer. Dont overtrain in gym, dont overwork your job

You haven't. Mike's claims are often blatantly disproven by evidence based research on these topics. Guy was just a good salesman.

​@@chrisbrownlovesrihannawhat? All the science says going to failure triggers the body's compensatory mechanism. In 10 reps or 30, it really is an afterthought if intensity is accounted for.

Thank you for your support.

Glad you enjoyed it.

No worries!

You're welcome, TJ.

It would be an instant hit!

Its the same in the Gym..when you do a set...take 10 minutes off..then do another set like a total recovery from the other set.The way the Gym is set up is to do your sets faster,but if you want to grow,more time between sets.

Thanks for your post. I believe his analogy was in contrasting the volume of work performed by a sprinter versus that performed by a marathon runner. As he pointed out, the sprinter always has bigger, more muscular, legs and calves and yet they perform only a fraction of the work of the marathon runner, even in terms of their training for their respective competitions. He never said that sprinters only do one all out sprint in their training. You may very well be oscillating the intensity of your sprints during your training, but there is absolutely no question that your event calls for 100% intensity of effort in order to be successful and that the marathon runner must pace himself in order to do an event requiring much longer duration. Consequently, the shorter volume, higher intensity training that the sprinter performs is a far better stimulus for muscle size and strength than the latter is. He wasn’t talking about training for speed; he was simply pointing out the big picture effects of higher or lower intensity levels on muscular development as it pertained to two types of running.

​@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGEYou speak well like Mr. Mentzer.

What’s up Andrew

THE EINSTEIN, OF BODY BUILDING..LOVED THIS INTERVIEW. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

How did Mike pass?.... Makes me wonder 🤔

He was a meth head.. so I’m not sure he mastered his mind. He also gave up on bodybuilding after a loss and gave up on med school

Not joking around or anything but honestly what do you do the rest of the time (as far as exercise)? Even with working full time and 2 kids I still feel like something is wrong if I don't workout at least every other day. It's a hard habit to break, comparable to a drug. I'm in decent shape now from 5-6x per week but I'm willing to give it a shot, I'm just not sure how I can get myself to rest that long.

@zr78 yeah man that is completely understandable. With the extra time I have I did what Mentzer said. I use it to read, research and learn new things. You don't have to jump straight into training everything once every 14 days. Assuming you train each body part once a week now. What you can do is start with training training each bodypart every 8 days then if you start stalling then go to 9 days and then every 10 days, etc. Do it gradually and you'll find your sweet spot for recovery.

@@QRU39 How have you found it? Has it yielded good results? I am afraid to attempt it due to potential loss of musculature.

​@@NEDMD have you tried Bulgarian light training?

Have you tried doing bong lifts? Just lift it when you want a toke and then eat some munchies. Do this 10 times a day for 5 bong hits each set and you'll eat alot and get bigger.

You’re welcome. Thanks for your post.

It wasn’t localized muscle recovery that Mike was as concerned about as it was systemic recovery. Every time you workout, your entire system is being stressed, and that must recover, as well as the muscles that were stressed, before muscle growth occurs. Energy reserves must be replenished, waste products must be metabolized, etc. Adding frequency simply builds up the energy debt and the buildup of metabolic byproducts so that your system is like a highway that has a traffic jam; nothing gets through. The idea is to stimulate the adaptation and then give your body the time it needs to recover and to adapt.

@@HEAVYDUTYCOLLEGE got it, so the 2 main factors for splitting body parts down further are: 1) an upper session, is inevitably more systemic work than just chest/back, push, pull, or delts/arms, that factor alone means recovery demands are far greater. 2) Just because the muscles could ‘feel recovered’ from an upper session, say 7 days later, doesn’t mean everything has fully adapted - and so it’s not beneficial to hit those same muscles again. Would you say that’s accurate?

"The stimulus for strength and growth originates with stress on the muscle, and rebuilding it afterward requires nutrition and rest." Bingo! And, that principle of "stress it then rest it" had been understood long before Art Jones (with his inimitable caustic pontification and impatience, lol) reminded the bodybuilding world in 1970 with his first "Workout Bulletin". However, while Mentzer is correct in that "only ONE way!" (stress it then rest it) produces growth until a person's genetic ceiling for muscle mass is achieved, he fails to adequately explore that it's the APPLICATION of "stress it then rest it" that can vary tremendously among individuals, and, vary even over time for the same individual. Even during the 1960s/1970s era of "do 12 to 20 sets per bodypart" (which high volume worked for some for short terms only because anabolic steroid use had become the norm), the importance of individual APPLICATION was understood: it was recognized even then that some could grow on 20 sets per bodypart but that others needed to limit to 15 sets per bodypart and others limit to 12 sets or even fewer. As a 67-year-old who began bodybuilding at age 15 in 1971, I recall reading articles around 1973 in both Weider's and Hoffman's magazines which advised only 6-8 sets per bodypart twice a week. The fact that capacities for training have limits and must be coupled with adequate time being workouts for recovery, that those capacities/recovery needs vary among people, and that many people can tolerate only relatively little stress and require far more recovery, was understood long before before Jones's or Mentzer's teachings. In fact, the first few months of my own training as a beginner in 1971/1972 was on a barbell course, written long before Jones or Mentzer, which programmed a full body workout of only 10 sets total including abs and calves, done three times per week; while Jones' catchphrases of "high intensity" and "to failure" weren't found in that course, the idea of "put as much effort as you can in each set" was taught, and the need for adequate recovery including good nutrition was told. Point being again, "stress it then rest it" isn't a new understanding originated by either Art Jones with his original version of HIT or Mike Mentzer with his modified version of HIT he named Heavy Duty. Problem had become that too many bodybuilders, especially average-gened guys and non-anabolic steroids-using guys, misunderstood and misapplied the principle. Jones's and Mentzer's major contribution to bodybuilding is that they re-introduced (not invented but revived) the forgotten or neglected facts that OVERtraining and UNDERrecovery were the most common misapplications hindering growth, and that too many bodybuilders in the 1960s and 1970s were mistakenly thinking "applying more volume/more frequency is always more effective"; as well as that they got people to face the limitations of genetics, honestly explaining that (anabolic steroids aside) why most people fail to achieve the elite and champion levels of physique desired isn't due to lack of sufficient volume and frequency but due to genetic limits. Mentzer's initial articles in Weider's late-1970s "Muscle and Fitness" magazines confirmed to me, who'd been bodybuilding for several years by then, that, despite what many other bodybuilders claimed I needed to do to continue making gains, I'd been correct in severely reducing my workout volume and frequency after failing to gain on high-volume programs. I'm grateful to Mentzer for being willing to speak contrary to what had become the party-line of higher volume/higher frequency (at least, the popular line - - while plenty of top-level competitve bodybuilders such as Schwarzenegger may have used high volume/high frequency workouts immediately prior to contests, most of the year they used surprisingly low volume and lower frequency to build mass; but the magazines often failed to communicate that truth, so the popular notion was that high volume/high frequency was how to grow year round). Mentzer helped put stress-it-then-rest-it in balance again, back to the training mindset which had been used successfully by bodybuilders between 1890 and 1960. [Mentzer's suntanning comparison is flawed, by th' way; as a many-decades-of-suntanning with my Italian sun-tolerant skin genetics 67-year-old, I know he states fact that "skin not merely responds by darkening but harmfully burns if the maximum exposure time for which the skin has developed tolerance is exceeded". However, Mentzer fails to understand or at least acknowledge an additional fact: once a certain level of skin darkness is acheived, in order to become even darker, LONGER exposure to sunlight is required. Meaning, that, to gradually become more darkly suntanned, it's necessary, while definitely avoiding burning, to gradually INCREASE VOLUME of time exposed to the sunlight; to get darker, one has to gradually spend a little more time in the sunlight but not too much more as to cause burning. Unwittingly, Mentzer's used a comparison that might be turned around and used as an argument FOR incrementally increasing workout volume. However, his comparison does support the necessity of individual variance - - and does demonstrate the difficulty when seeking the balance of "not too little and not too much" .] [Regrettably, Mentzer's philosophy of "Objectivism" put him at a reasoning disadvantage. The crucial challenge to Objectivist thought is, "How can you ever be certain that you presently have ALL the data necessary and/or ALL the data that will become available to form an infallible, indisputable, permanent, absolute conclusion?" Such conclusion-forming requires being all-knowing, all-foreknowing, all-present, and perfectly reasoning, none of which human beings are. Art Jones realization, admitted in one of his later writings, demonstrates the flaw in Objectivistic thinking (although, Jones was not an Objectivist, merely an extremely-intelligent, arrogant salesman, lol): Jones later admitted he was unaware of the differences in muscle fiber types among individuals when he formulated his "one-size-fits-all" HIT principles, and admitted he hadn't known then that muscle-fiber type variance among people means that training has to be individualized. Mentzer's Objectivistic thinking rests too heavily on the assumption -- almost a faith -- that he already knew all there was to know, or would ever be subsequently known, about muscle growth. He didn't, same as none of us don't. Mentzer knew plenty, but not all, nor as much as needful to infallibly declare "there's only one way to APPLY the principle of stress-it-then-rest-it."]

@@joesantus1663 I agree with pretty much everything you said. They’re still trying to pin down the physiology of hypertrophic stimuli to this day. “Mechanical tension” is largely believed to have something to do with the whole thing, but how your body decides to adapt and remodel is still not understood. Beyond that, excessive hypertrophy is not a natural survival mechanism in the first place. Our bodies love efficiency and survival, and packing on extravagant levels of metabolically-expensive muscle serves neither purpose. To some extent, then, modern bodybuilding is about trying to convince the body to do something it will actively work against (at sone point). Designing a study to measure that would be pretty difficult. It seems that Mentzer’s conclusions beyond the basic physiological principles were largely a result of individual cases of trial and error and anecdotal observation. That might be enough to show that his methods are likely to do *something* in a particular direction, but it’s not exactly a meta-analysis of solid controlled studies. I use HIT principles in my training, but I’m not a bodybuilder, per se. I’m in my 50’s and natty, and I’m still gaining strength and even a little mass. I also train for endurance and mobility, and the HIT approach to strength is working well for me. I’d be interested in seeing something like HIT applied more broadly for general conditioning. Most people aren’t going to completely grind through a mega-set like Mentzer or Yates, but training to failure with a little pause-rest or drop set action might serve as well. (That’s what I’ve been doing anyway.) Great discussion.