Interesting read. One point of contention I would have would be that I cannot see a way someone could go from unfit to fit taking 3 weeks off between workouts. Perhaps for someone already in very good shape wanting to bulk up, maybe. Judging from the read I would think that LaVelle agrees with that.
Yes, he thinks Mentzer went too far on the recovery side. Even so, I find it surprising that he has now settled on working each muscle group only 3 times a month -- and this on low volume. (I think he does a split routine comprising about 3 or so exercises of 1 set each to complete failure for the major muscle groups, and 1 exercise for smaller muscle groups.) Although I only do 1 set of 2 exercises for the major muscle groups each workout (no direct arm work), I still can't bring myself to do fewer than 2 workouts a week. And I have to keep reading this stuff to convince myself it's enough.
Has anyone else experimented for any length of time with workout/muscle group frequency, while trying to keep all or most of the other variables constant? I'm curious to know if you have noticed any difference in strength and/or body composition.
This is how you make the big bucks. I'm talking about the trainer. Not Rory. Dream up new and different stuff and sell it as a miracle worker. I bet Spieth doesn't do this.
Here is an interesting article. Genetics are often mentioned regarding training. https://www.yahoo.com/news/dna-analysis-could-help-improve-workout-study-021639668.html "DNA analysis could help improve your workout: study"
Cap'n, just curious. Would you actually want to look like that? Personally, I think it's over the top. And the guy whose two-part interview I posted recently is also overmuscled. The reason I posted the interview is because I found it interesting that, despite his obviously having taken steroids, which aid in recovery, he still required low frequency workouts to adequately recover from HIT. That should give pause to anyone who is working out with meaningful intensity but is not juicing/gearing.
No I would not. Even though the guy is not freak show big, and I have seen him in the gym, that kind of size isn't for me. That said, we can learn something about proper technique, but there is even debate about that. It certainly isn't a one size fits all when it comes to fitness and body building. One observation as a side note. I have never, not once, seen any of these big guys during the morning. Normally, like today, I'm at the gym sometime between 7 and 9am. Occasionally a little later. Rarely after 2 pm. The only time I see these guys is mid day, or mid afternoon. I'm never there after 5 pm so I can't say what happens then. I just wonder if there's a reason for that. We've had some discussion on what time of day is best to workout. Maybe they just don't have enough gas in the tank early in the day.
Okay, we're in agreement about aesthetics. Even though he is not, as you say, "freak show big," he's still bulkier than, say, Frank Zane, when he won the Olympia a few decades ago. There is definitely a new normal now in the pro bodybuilding world, and not in a good way. (Admittedly, Zane was one of the smaller guys even in his day, although I don't think anyone came close to him in aesthetics.) For the most part, I don't think there is too much to debate about exercise form. Generally, I think there is a clear right way and any number of wrong ways. Of course, we each add a bit of a personal touch to what we believe to be the right way. Even the matter of rep ranges seems to have been largely settled. Unless the person is a genetic outlier in terms of muscle fiber composition, recent studies show that properly performed rep ranges between 5 and 15 yield fairly similar results. So for someone in the 95% group, the distinction between different rep ranges, such as 5 for strength, 10 for hypertrophy and 15 for endurance, is largely superfluous finessing. Or so the research suggests. I think the debate mostly rages on about intensity, volume and frequency. You can get lost in Internet debates on the subject with differing opinions supported by differing research results. We each have to settle on what research we deem valid and what seems to work for us. Lots of gray area there, it seems.