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 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.
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 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 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.")
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
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."
read:
Part
1
read:
Part
3
~Mike Mentzer
Want
to read
more about
Mike Mentzer?
Click
Here!
