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.
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."
read:
Part
1
read:
Part
2
~Mike Mentzer
Want
to read
more about
Mike Mentzer?
Click
Here!
