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,
unrivaled
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 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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately,
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.
If nothing
is of fundamental
importance
what does
one think
about? Anything
or nothing,
since nothing
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 disintegration,
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 vacillating,
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.
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.
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 coincidence
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
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.
. .
read:
Part
2
read:
Part
3
~Mike Mentzer
Want
to read
more about
Mike Mentzer?
Click
Here!
