Ironeagle
Total Posts: 4498
|
11-30-08 08:35 PM - Post#506258
Found this pic thumbing through an old 1971 MD!
Enjoy!
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
11-30-08 08:43 PM - Post#506260
I love that pic. Definitely a sign of things to come!
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
Longhorn1rob
Total Posts: 2419
|
11-30-08 11:23 PM - Post#506296
Wow. Thanks for posting. That can't even be called potential. It's way past that point. Very impressive.
Have Bucket. Will Travel... R.I.P. Kris.
"If you train hard, you'll not only be hard, you'll be hard to beat." |
|
Kevin C
Total Posts: 385
|
Wow Colonel, what a find!
Mike Mentzer looked fantastic. Ironically, this pic is from the days where he perhaps was either in the Air Force or just got discharged. More irony; Mentzer was doing volume training at the time.
Kevin
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
When mentioned, Mike becomes a divisive figure. He has a number of die-hard fans and adherents but there are also many others who don't identify with him.
What I most admired about Mentzer was more so his sense of balance to bodybuilding. I know Dorian trained in a similar way and inevitably surpassed both Mentzer brothers but (no offence intended), I don't think Dorian reflected that same kind of message for balance.
To me, both Mentzer, Arnold and maybe Zane were not just bodybuilders but had something to say about a whole range of other issues. All were capable of conveying to outsiders how bodybuilding as a sport ticks and why it can be attractive to the layman.
Dorian seemed to me to be more of a pure bodybuilder who would just freak people out with his size. He trained and kept quiet and never really stirred up controversy or rocked the boat.
Wow Colonel, what a find!
Mike Mentzer looked fantastic. Ironically, this pic is from the days where he perhaps was either in the Air Force or just got discharged. More irony; Mentzer was doing volume training at the time.
Kevin
|
Budhi
Total Posts: 552
|
When mentioned, Mike becomes a divisive figure. He has a number of die-hard fans and adherents but there are also many others who don't identify with him.
What I most admired about Mentzer was more so his sense of balance to bodybuilding. I know Dorian trained in a similar way and inevitably surpassed both Mentzer brothers but (no offence intended), I don't think Dorian reflected that same kind of message for balance.
To me, both Mentzer, Arnold and maybe Zane were not just bodybuilders but had something to say about a whole range of other issues. All were capable of conveying to outsiders how bodybuilding as a sport ticks and why it can be attractive to the layman.
Dorian seemed to me to be more of a pure bodybuilder who would just freak people out with his size. He trained and kept quiet and never really stirred up controversy or rocked the boat.
It's not terribly difficult to understand, although rather than "divisive" terms such as "tragedy" and "pathos" come to mind. Despite that he remains one of the idols of 20th century bodybuilding.
Of those writing today, I find Scott Abel exemplary in both his blog's monthly philosophical and psychological orientation to training. As a coach, the evidence speaks for itself with the large number of winners he's trained. Unlike Mentzer, his training ideas are rooted in science and with genuine analytical skills leading to training innovation. He's a tough read in that he brings research disciplines to the discussion others aren't even aware of.
The other incredible author is an American now a professor of health education in Australia for the past 30 years and developer of the Matrix Principle training system. His works are very well written, his training ideas tested in research, and his perspective on training drug-free, natural, and holistic. He's Dr Ron Laura.
Zane's still at it. His newest book, The Mind in Bodybuilding, is an incredible read (I say that despite the fact he's included some of my writing in the book).
best
best
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
I've lost touch with modern bodybuilding but it just seems to me none of the modern bodybuilders have anything concrete to say.
In fact, I was watching T.V. late last night and they had a modern British bodybuilder on discussing his training and food regime e.t.c. e.t.c. It struck me as a total turn-off. The interview revolved around how the guy in question trained 3 hours a day, every day and ate every half hour. People watch these interviews and then assume bodybuilding demands this kind of monastic routine, to the exclusion of studies, family, work and outside hobbies.
The last modern bodybuilding show I saw was also a turn-off. Most of the posing revolved around rap and none of the guys seemed to have any thing to communicate as individuals. It was awful.
When mentioned, Mike becomes a divisive figure. He has a number of die-hard fans and adherents but there are also many others who don't identify with him.
What I most admired about Mentzer was more so his sense of balance to bodybuilding. I know Dorian trained in a similar way and inevitably surpassed both Mentzer brothers but (no offence intended), I don't think Dorian reflected that same kind of message for balance.
To me, both Mentzer, Arnold and maybe Zane were not just bodybuilders but had something to say about a whole range of other issues. All were capable of conveying to outsiders how bodybuilding as a sport ticks and why it can be attractive to the layman.
Dorian seemed to me to be more of a pure bodybuilder who would just freak people out with his size. He trained and kept quiet and never really stirred up controversy or rocked the boat.
It's not terribly difficult to understand, although rather than "divisive" terms such as "tragedy" and "pathos" come to mind. Despite that he remains one of the idols of 20th century bodybuilding.
Of those writing today, I find Scott Abel exemplary in both his blog's monthly philosophical and psychological orientation to training. As a coach, the evidence speaks for itself with the large number of winners he's trained. Unlike Mentzer, his training ideas are rooted in science and with genuine analytical skills leading to training innovation. He's a tough read in that he brings research disciplines to the discussion others aren't even aware of.
The other incredible author is an American now a professor of health education in Australia for the past 30 years and developer of the Matrix Principle training system. His works are very well written, his training ideas tested in research, and his perspective on training drug-free, natural, and holistic. He's Dr Ron Laura.
Zane's still at it. His newest book, The Mind in Bodybuilding, is an incredible read (I say that despite the fact he's included some of my writing in the book).
best
best
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
"Zane's still at it. His newest book, The Mind in Bodybuilding, is an incredible read (I say that despite the fact he's included some of my writing in the book)."
Frank was a real good representation of the sport and maybe his look will come back into vogue one day.
When mentioned, Mike becomes a divisive figure. He has a number of die-hard fans and adherents but there are also many others who don't identify with him.
What I most admired about Mentzer was more so his sense of balance to bodybuilding. I know Dorian trained in a similar way and inevitably surpassed both Mentzer brothers but (no offence intended), I don't think Dorian reflected that same kind of message for balance.
To me, both Mentzer, Arnold and maybe Zane were not just bodybuilders but had something to say about a whole range of other issues. All were capable of conveying to outsiders how bodybuilding as a sport ticks and why it can be attractive to the layman.
Dorian seemed to me to be more of a pure bodybuilder who would just freak people out with his size. He trained and kept quiet and never really stirred up controversy or rocked the boat.
It's not terribly difficult to understand, although rather than "divisive" terms such as "tragedy" and "pathos" come to mind. Despite that he remains one of the idols of 20th century bodybuilding.
Of those writing today, I find Scott Abel exemplary in both his blog's monthly philosophical and psychological orientation to training. As a coach, the evidence speaks for itself with the large number of winners he's trained. Unlike Mentzer, his training ideas are rooted in science and with genuine analytical skills leading to training innovation. He's a tough read in that he brings research disciplines to the discussion others aren't even aware of.
The other incredible author is an American now a professor of health education in Australia for the past 30 years and developer of the Matrix Principle training system. His works are very well written, his training ideas tested in research, and his perspective on training drug-free, natural, and holistic. He's Dr Ron Laura.
Zane's still at it. His newest book, The Mind in Bodybuilding, is an incredible read (I say that despite the fact he's included some of my writing in the book).
best
best
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
Of those writing today, I find Scott Abel exemplary in both his blog's monthly philosophical and psychological orientation to training.
Ever met him? Far different in person than his 'writings'.
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
Stan Jaffin
Total Posts: 2661
|
In what way or should I not be asking?
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
In what way or should I not be asking?
Just different. Not good different or bad different, mind you. It is interesting I have found - when we 'read' somebody we have a preconceived notion of how they will be personally. Very often they are completely different.
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
Longhorn1rob
Total Posts: 2419
|
In what way or should I not be asking?
Just different. Not good different or bad different, mind you. It is interesting I have found - when we 'read' somebody we have a preconceived notion of how they will be personally. Very often they are completely different.
Yes, the pen is a magnificent transformation device. These days, so too is the keyboard.
Have Bucket. Will Travel... R.I.P. Kris.
"If you train hard, you'll not only be hard, you'll be hard to beat." |
Edited by Longhorn1rob on 12-02-08 11:33 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
IB138
Total Posts: 9321
|
In what way or should I not be asking?
Just different. Not good different or bad different, mind you. It is interesting I have found - when we 'read' somebody we have a preconceived notion of how they will be personally. Very often they are completely different.
Yep. I'm tall dark and handsome in real life.
|
Budhi
Total Posts: 552
|
Of those writing today, I find Scott Abel exemplary in both his blog's monthly philosophical and psychological orientation to training.
Ever met him? Far different in person than his 'writings'.
Never met him in person but have had a number of lengthy telephone calls when doing the article for Iron Man, and at least 18 months of ongoing emails. Actually, the impressions I gained of him came from some months of contact before reading his tour de force book.
All of which is to say I find congruency and consistency between what he's written in the two books I've read, his articles (T-nation), his Tao blog, and DVDs and personal correspondance and calls.
Here's one observation, for what it's worth. I realized recently that everyone I've done articles about in the past and ongoing have a Masters or Doctorate. So every one of them went through some program on the theme of 'research methods and analysis'in first semester graduate school. And all of us, myself included, earned those degrees in residential programs, not extended university settings commingled with one's workplace (hence loss of objectivity). That common ground in research methods and analysis seems to serve as an outlook on research,etc. Sure beats having to dance around prima donna egos.
Degrees are no guarantee of anything - I've met so world class idiots with advanced degrees, too. What the guys I've worked with have in common is what they learned in grad school they continue doing - research, development, experiment. I can tell you, Scott Abel's New Era book has been by far the most demanding training book I've ever read - in part because he's gone way outside of the tunnel vision of standard bodybuilding, into areas of research demanding i get up to speed to follow what he's talking about - and to ensure I wasn't being misled as a writer.
Not that folks I've worked with haven't also been the subject of complaints aired to me. I've also heard those complaints about myself! Most of them boil down to interverted temperments not being overly easy in social situations, almost immune if not downright bored with irrelevant small talk and gossip, not prone to being the subject of hero worship, and distracted by their own busy, inventive creative minds. All of which is to say not all people are alike, and all have differing gifts. We all fail the expectations of some people some of the time anyway.
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
The only Tour De Force book I read concerned Lance Armstrong and his team mates. It also delved into the infamous Michaele Ferrari and his involvement with various pro riders.
"in part because he's gone way outside of the tunnel vision of standard bodybuilding, into areas of research demanding i get up to speed to follow what he's talking about.."
There's always a place for sports science but I've come to consider muscle building as basically straightforward and possibly even simple. You subject the muscles to heavy, intense training periods to break them down. To do this, the basic compound exercises such as squats, deadlifts, rowing, chins e.t.c. cover primary and secondary muscle groups. Sufficient protein needs to be ingested (although not as much as has been advocated in magazines). Rest days are also essential as are intervals of intensity periodisation.
Most of these basic principles have been with us for some time. Anyone who trains hard, heavy, systematically and with sufficient rest and diet will gain muscle. I would, however, recommend Tom Platz's Golden Eagle book I found offers a fairly sensible training regime for newcomers (more advanced workouts also included).
Of those writing today, I find Scott Abel exemplary in both his blog's monthly philosophical and psychological orientation to training.
Ever met him? Far different in person than his 'writings'.
Never met him in person but have had a number of lengthy telephone calls when doing the article for Iron Man, and at least 18 months of ongoing emails. Actually, the impressions I gained of him came from some months of contact before reading his tour de force book.
All of which is to say I find congruency and consistency between what he's written in the two books I've read, his articles (T-nation), his Tao blog, and DVDs and personal correspondance and calls.
Here's one observation, for what it's worth. I realized recently that everyone I've done articles about in the past and ongoing have a Masters or Doctorate. So every one of them went through some program on the theme of 'research methods and analysis'in first semester graduate school. And all of us, myself included, earned those degrees in residential programs, not extended university settings commingled with one's workplace (hence loss of objectivity). That common ground in research methods and analysis seems to serve as an outlook on research,etc. Sure beats having to dance around prima donna egos.
Degrees are no guarantee of anything - I've met so world class idiots with advanced degrees, too. What the guys I've worked with have in common is what they learned in grad school they continue doing - research, development, experiment. I can tell you, Scott Abel's New Era book has been by far the most demanding training book I've ever read - in part because he's gone way outside of the tunnel vision of standard bodybuilding, into areas of research demanding i get up to speed to follow what he's talking about - and to ensure I wasn't being misled as a writer.
Not that folks I've worked with haven't also been the subject of complaints aired to me. I've also heard those complaints about myself! Most of them boil down to interverted temperments not being overly easy in social situations, almost immune if not downright bored with irrelevant small talk and gossip, not prone to being the subject of hero worship, and distracted by their own busy, inventive creative minds. All of which is to say not all people are alike, and all have differing gifts. We all fail the expectations of some people some of the time anyway.
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
What interests me, even after all this time since his death, Mike Mentzer has had an "impact" that goes far beyond anything that occured during his life.
People discuss ad nauseam his physique and then later his philosophies concerning training (with the squat/lat pulldown, dip/deadlift being the most debated.) and life. (Believe me, Mike Mentzer was not the first person to get sideways over Ayn Rand.)
|
amr
Total Posts: 3250
|
12-03-08 11:16 AM - Post#507044
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
Oh God thy sea is so great and my boat is so small.
"Forgive him who wrongs you; join him who cuts you off; do well to him who does evil to you; and speak the truth even if it be against yourself†prophet mohamed pbuh
check my bulking log :D plz
CURRENT CHALLENGE: Beat jesse in the Incline press HARD!  |
|
IB138
Total Posts: 9321
|
12-03-08 11:21 AM - Post#507047
Ayn Rand was just a slut that had to invent a philosophy to justify her slutiness. 
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
12-03-08 12:34 PM - Post#507086
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
MM said that those four exercises, done in those pairs, to an absolute limit of effort, with enough days in between to recover, were all a man needed to reach his zenith.
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
Look at Abba. Nobody dared to admit they were good in the seventies till way after the band broke up. Then suddenly people realised Abba was a really terrific band so now you have the Mama Mia movie selling out.
Star Trek never did amazingly well at the time of broadcast and then it took off after the series had wound up.
Thus, there's nostalgia for some of the foremost seventies/eighties bodybuilders now people realise those were good times.
Sorry to drift off about Abba... 
What interests me, even after all this time since his death, Mike Mentzer has had an "impact" that goes far beyond anything that occured during his life.
People discuss ad nauseam his physique and then later his philosophies concerning training (with the squat/lat pulldown, dip/deadlift being the most debated.) and life. (Believe me, Mike Mentzer was not the first person to get sideways over Ayn Rand.)
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
12-03-08 01:49 PM - Post#507112
Substitute weighted chins for lat-pulldowns. Chins beat lat-pulldowns any day.
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
MM said that those four exercises, done in those pairs, to an absolute limit of effort, with enough days in between to recover, were all a man needed to reach his zenith.
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
12-03-08 02:05 PM - Post#507119
Substitute weighted chins for lat-pulldowns. Chins beat lat-pulldowns any day.
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
MM said that those four exercises, done in those pairs, to an absolute limit of effort, with enough days in between to recover, were all a man needed to reach his zenith.
The lat pulldown was a manifestation of the pullup because of the greater potential for overload and negative reps. A 200 pound lifter doing pulldowns with 300 pounds for sets of 15, followed by several 5-10 second negatives was easier (relatively speaking) than a 200 pound lifter doing 15 pull-ups with an additional 100 pounds attached. IIRC, MM also advocated a very narrow parallel grip for the pulldowns.
|
Steve Wedan
Total Posts: 2112
|
12-03-08 02:06 PM - Post#507120
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
MM said that those four exercises, done in those pairs, to an absolute limit of effort, with enough days in between to recover, were all a man needed to reach his zenith.
Keep in mind the context in which he wrote this. It was a routine meant to cater to the needs of two populations: the true hard gainer, for whom the intense effort Mike espoused was too much in any dose above those four drills, widely spaced; and advanced guys whose ability to dip into a limited recovery ability was too great to allow greater volume (or frequency).
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
12-03-08 02:07 PM - Post#507121
Mike was cool with people doing chins vs. lat pulldowns. His advocacy of the lat pulldown was often due to his working with neophyte trainees who could not do 12-15 flawless reps in the chinup. Actually now that I think of it a lot of PRO bodybuilders couldn't do 12-15 flawless reps in the chinup.
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
The "problems" with that routine were manifold. Most trainee's would not work hard enough. They could not believe that such a limited amount of work would actually provide results. Since nobody else did a routine like that, it was too difficult for them to be different.
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
12-03-08 02:27 PM - Post#507129
I've never been fond of negatives but you can do them easily on chins. The old way was to use a step ladder and then just slowly lower yourself down under control.
Substitute weighted chins for lat-pulldowns. Chins beat lat-pulldowns any day.
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
MM said that those four exercises, done in those pairs, to an absolute limit of effort, with enough days in between to recover, were all a man needed to reach his zenith.
The lat pulldown was a manifestation of the pullup because of the greater potential for overload and negative reps. A 200 pound lifter doing pulldowns with 300 pounds for sets of 15, followed by several 5-10 second negatives was easier (relatively speaking) than a 200 pound lifter doing 15 pull-ups with an additional 100 pounds attached. IIRC, MM also advocated a very narrow parallel grip for the pulldowns.
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
The "problems" with that routine were manifold. Most trainee's would not work hard enough. They could not believe that such a limited amount of work would actually provide results. Since nobody else did a routine like that, it was too difficult for them to be different.
If a trainee does not believe a routine will work, it won't. Consciously or subconsciously, they will do something to preclude its efficacy.
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
amr
Total Posts: 3250
|
12-03-08 03:08 PM - Post#507143
thnx guys thats a wealth of info
Oh God thy sea is so great and my boat is so small.
"Forgive him who wrongs you; join him who cuts you off; do well to him who does evil to you; and speak the truth even if it be against yourself†prophet mohamed pbuh
check my bulking log :D plz
CURRENT CHALLENGE: Beat jesse in the Incline press HARD! |
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
12-03-08 04:11 PM - Post#507159
I've never been fond of negatives but you can do them easily on chins. The old way was to use a step ladder and then just slowly lower yourself down under control.
Substitute weighted chins for lat-pulldowns. Chins beat lat-pulldowns any day.
what's the squat/lat pulldown and dip/deadlift care to explain?
MM said that those four exercises, done in those pairs, to an absolute limit of effort, with enough days in between to recover, were all a man needed to reach his zenith.
The lat pulldown was a manifestation of the pullup because of the greater potential for overload and negative reps. A 200 pound lifter doing pulldowns with 300 pounds for sets of 15, followed by several 5-10 second negatives was easier (relatively speaking) than a 200 pound lifter doing 15 pull-ups with an additional 100 pounds attached. IIRC, MM also advocated a very narrow parallel grip for the pulldowns.
After going to positive failure with an additional 100 pounds around my waist, I would need more than a step ladder.
|
SOLDIEROFGOD
Total Posts: 419
|
|
SOLDIEROFGOD
Total Posts: 419
|
Look at Abba. Nobody dared to admit they were good in the seventies till way after the band broke up. Then suddenly people realised Abba was a really terrific band so now you have the Mama Mia movie selling out.
Star Trek never did amazingly well at the time of broadcast and then it took off after the series had wound up.
Thus, there's nostalgia for some of the foremost seventies/eighties bodybuilders now people realise those were good times.
Sorry to drift off about Abba...
What interests me, even after all this time since his death, Mike Mentzer has had an "impact" that goes far beyond anything that occured during his life.
People discuss ad nauseam his physique and then later his philosophies concerning training (with the squat/lat pulldown, dip/deadlift being the most debated.) and life. (Believe me, Mike Mentzer was not the first person to get sideways over Ayn Rand.)
Wow, talk about tangential  .
"A person should not believe in an -ism"
Ferris Bueller
All this chitter-chatter, chitter-chatter, chitter-chatter,'bout schmatte, schmatte, schmatte |
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
12-03-08 05:35 PM - Post#507180
Her affair with somebody many years her junior was decades after her philosophy of Objectivism was formulated. The Philosophy of Objectivism does not encourage promiscuity. So by her own Philosophy she was in error.
I'm a Christian, not an Objectivist. I know plenty of us Christians who have messed up and made the same error Ayn Rand did. One of the many beauties of Christianity is sincere repentence and God's forgiveness. That's all I have to say about that. Sorry to be off-topic.
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
Vast
Total Posts: 753
|
12-04-08 11:37 AM - Post#507415
I think Mentzer is so followed in the BB world because he had very different ideas and was somewhat of a puzzle to many people. He (and his brother) was a tragic mystery wrapped in enigma.
Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right.
|
|
DOBRIYCHELOVEK
Total Posts: 2846
|
12-09-08 07:54 PM - Post#508997
I know Ayn Rand originally came from Russia and perhaps experiences in the USSR somehow shaped her philosophical outlook.
Mark Goddard the guy in the pic below once stated the one book he'd like to take to a desert island as the only read was Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. Evidently he was intrigued by the book.
However the case may be, philosophy is really all about ordering your thoughts and using logical deductions based on assumed fact to reach conclusions. It's about making decisions based on logic and not emotion. How many of us have made decisions that weren't rational because we were influenced by emotion at the time?
Philosophy needn't interfere with a belief system although it's true the Pythagoreans did have a core set of beliefs, related to vegetarianism, mathematics and so on. However, much of philosophy is concerned with logical thought processes - training the mind to be analytical and precise.
Bodybuilders who studied philosophyt include Tom Platz, Frank Zane and Mike Mentzer.
Her affair with somebody many years her junior was decades after her philosophy of Objectivism was formulated. The Philosophy of Objectivism does not encourage promiscuity. So by her own Philosophy she was in error.
I'm a Christian, not an Objectivist. I know plenty of us Christians who have messed up and made the same error Ayn Rand did. One of the many beauties of Christianity is sincere repentence and God's forgiveness. That's all I have to say about that. Sorry to be off-topic.
|
ArtV
Total Posts: 883
|
The only Tour De Force book I read concerned Lance Armstrong and his team mates. It also delved into the infamous Michaele Ferrari and his involvement with various pro riders.
"in part because he's gone way outside of the tunnel vision of standard bodybuilding, into areas of research demanding i get up to speed to follow what he's talking about.."
There's always a place for sports science but I've come to consider muscle building as basically straightforward and possibly even simple. You subject the muscles to heavy, intense training periods to break them down. To do this, the basic compound exercises such as squats, deadlifts, rowing, chins e.t.c. cover primary and secondary muscle groups. Sufficient protein needs to be ingested (although not as much as has been advocated in magazines). Rest days are also essential as are intervals of intensity periodisation.
Most of these basic principles have been with us for some time. Anyone who trains hard, heavy, systematically and with sufficient rest and diet will gain muscle. I would, however, recommend Tom Platz's Golden Eagle book I found offers a fairly sensible training regime for newcomers (more advanced workouts also included).
I agree with this. I love the passion of a researcher, but the bottom line is...Just read one of Daves books and you have all you really need to know.
There are other books too that will give you the same information. Like Dave says, "The secret is there is no secret".
How a muscle fires when moving a heavy object isn't really important other than the fact that it fires.
Simple minded approach perhaps.
I find the necessary training info to increase endurance, VO2 max, and cardio strength to be much more complex.
Art
Art
I'd rather wear out than rust out.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.â€
Support an Olympic Athlete.
|
Edited by ArtV on 12-14-08 03:55 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
jxb
Total Posts: 647
|
Found this pic thumbing through an old 1971 MD!
Enjoy!
Wow, this topic flew around the world and back. 
But, hey, back to your initial post, I remember finding that picture last year some time in that same issue of the same magazine and sending it over to the people who run the Mentzer web site and book business, etc.
I was struck by what amazing development he already had as a very young man. It actually made we wonder how receptive the folks selling his training books now would be to these kind of early photos of him . . . After all, it sort of makes it appear as though no matter what method he would later choose to employ for his training, he surely was going to be quite "above average" in his development.
I have the same reaction to looking at very early photos of Casey Viator . . . Another Heavy Duty, Arthur Jones method "success story" . . .
As Boyer Coe once said to me, referring to Casey, his genetic potential was such that "He could grow by just looking at the weights".
This isn't to say that these early (and sometimes passing) devotees of High Intensity training didn't train like there was no tomorrow. It just points out the general logical problem of seeking exercise advice from someone who would probably succeed, improve and grow themselves NO MATTER what training methods they chose to employ.
As far as the enduring fascination with Mentzer's over-the-top persona . . . I met him when I was a teenager. He had just gone through the 1980 Olympia fiasco in Australia. He did a seminar at my gym in New York and was mean-spirited, rude and angry. An experience you'd never forget (for better or worse). Flash-forward 25 years or so and I was told, by a few of his closest colleagues and comrades after that 1980 Olympia, about a completely different side of his personality . . . about what a decent man and good friend he was. So, maybe it's the outrageous and provocative stuff that lives on longer in the collective memory. Who knows . . .
Again, great photo.
|
Budhi
Total Posts: 552
|
12-14-08 04:44 PM - Post#510209
I know Ayn Rand originally came from Russia and perhaps experiences in the USSR somehow shaped her philosophical outlook.
Mark Goddard the guy in the pic below once stated the one book he'd like to take to a desert island as the only read was Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. Evidently he was intrigued by the book.
However the case may be, philosophy is really all about ordering your thoughts and using logical deductions based on assumed fact to reach conclusions. It's about making decisions based on logic and not emotion. How many of us have made decisions that weren't rational because we were influenced by emotion at the time?
Philosophy needn't interfere with a belief system although it's true the Pythagoreans did have a core set of beliefs, related to vegetarianism, mathematics and so on. However, much of philosophy is concerned with logical thought processes - training the mind to be analytical and precise.
Bodybuilders who studied philosophyt include Tom Platz, Frank Zane and Mike Mentzer.
All things considered, Ayn Rand is pretty petty stuff. Her affair was with Nathaniel Brandon, a fairly well known man in his times - and, yes, younger. Is there a double standard that says an old crackpot like Art Jones can purchase younger trophy women while an Ayn Rand can't frolic with younger guys?
When it comes to Rand and her Objectivism, that isn't taken seriously enough to even be included in college philosophy curriculum - where Existentialism, another literary movement but with solid epistemological foundation, is. Rand certain has her point to make, one usually championed by bright kids finding their youthful independence somewhere in mid high school.
Mike Mentzer is held out to be an intellectual due to reading and advocating Rand. All that says is that people of astonishingly less education and thinking ability find themselves impressed that he was semi-literate and could read in the midst of mental illness and drug addiction. That he was a great bodybuilder cannot logically be extended to saying he was anything close to an intellectual. I've read a great deal of his writins, enough to say what he regards as "intellectual" is very biased polemics. The man loved slogans and evidenced no skill in rational analysis and independent thinking. Too bad he couldn't muster the self-control and discipline to finish college instead of inventing a mountain of self-justifying rationalizations for being a drop out failure.
Zane did not read Rand simply because Mentzer had recommended it to him!
Discussion of Rand is trivial. Far more important 20th century literature has been published. Same with Mentzer - far more important sports and training material has come to life.
Those of you who saw the E! network special on Dave Draper have an example of a man whose risen from his own ashes, defeated his own demons, and become an exceptionally gifted writer. His bodybuilding career speaks for itself. And Dave shoots from the hip - he is who he says he is. Mentzer's addictions destroyed his life prematurely, resulting in a history to be pitied for its succumbing to the pathos we all face. I don't really care what philosophy he gave lip service to - the philosophy he lived by took his life due to a drug overdose that percipitated a heart attack. I doubt that if he hadn't died so early he'd be receiving little to no attention today since the train wreck his life was would be general knowledge discrediting him. Sad business, but neither the first nor the last to so fall.
|
IB138
Total Posts: 9321
|
12-14-08 06:45 PM - Post#510244
Her affair with somebody many years her junior was decades after her philosophy of Objectivism was formulated. The Philosophy of Objectivism does not encourage promiscuity. So by her own Philosophy she was in error.
I'm a Christian, not an Objectivist. I know plenty of us Christians who have messed up and made the same error Ayn Rand did. One of the many beauties of Christianity is sincere repentence and God's forgiveness. That's all I have to say about that. Sorry to be off-topic.
Also Christians know when they f*cked up (or should) and ask for forgiveness instead of saying some bullsh*t like man is a heroic being with only his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life. 
|
Budhi
Total Posts: 552
|
12-14-08 08:22 PM - Post#510273
I'm a Christian, not an Objectivist. I know plenty of us Christians who have messed up and made the same error Ayn Rand did. One of the many beauties of Christianity is sincere repentence and God's forgiveness. That's all I have to say about that. Sorry to be off-topic.
Also Christians know when they f*cked up (or should) and ask for forgiveness instead of saying some bullsh*t like man is a heroic being with only his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand didn't propose a moralistic philosophy but rather one of rugged individualism - hence her choice of sexual partners for sexual pleasure is her business, no one else's. Calling her promiscuous is the kind of judgement she rejects; after all, promiscuity is not found in the world, only in the minds of people who think in certain little ways. Them's the ones who've invented the fiction that life has a purpose or a meaning, especially the fantasy that there's a "moral purpose" to life. That's an idea Zoroastrianism invented, then was borrowed by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim mythologies. It's otherwise not found in nature, just in some human imaginations. Let us all be free of that one!
|
Stan Jaffin
Total Posts: 2661
|
Promiscuous - (1) A term used to describe a member of the opposite sex who has several partners, none of which is you. (2) A term also used to describe a member of your sex who has more partners than you do.
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
12-15-08 09:30 AM - Post#510359
So to summarize all of the above
1) Mike Mentzer was a very good bodybuilder. In some people's minds he should have won the '79 and/or the '80 Olympia - regardless of one's opinion on this subject, he was a high level bodybuilder
2) He is better known for his writings and training system than for his competitive career
3) He was a controversial figure beloved by many and disliked by many
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
Joe Roark
Total Posts: 446
|
I have read several of Ayn's books and have read some anti-Rand materials and some of her serious philosophy statements.
In my opinion her novels were well written and interesting, but the material about her personal life was disturbing:
If you disagreed with her about music appreciation you were wrong- no debate, no possibility she was wrong, YOU WERE.
She thought that one of her lovers should be able to ignore her physical shape/age and simply reach, shall we say 'the conclusion of such matters' by considering who it was he was under the sheets with!
She was a very disturbed person in later life, and therein is the parallel with Mentzer. Blinders should be for horses in heavy traffic, not for philosophers in heavy debate.
Edited by Joe Roark on 12-15-08 09:54 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Laree
Total Posts: 26002
Country: Z
Show User Page
(Blog, Gallery, Shoutbox & Buddies etc...): No
Last Login IP: 162.158.63.64
Last Online: 06-15-23
User ID: 3
Login Name: ldraper
Date Agreed to Rules: 12-09-10
Country: Z
Occupation: Website work
info_have_been_training_since: 12-31-79
Primary Training Purpose: Fitness and strength beats aging badly
Real Email Address: ld@davedraper.com
Homepage: davedraper.com
(Rhymes with Marie)
Full name: Laree Draper
Gender: female
|
12-15-08 10:37 AM - Post#510387
Hey, what happened to the early years part of this thread? You know, BEFORE he found Ayn Rand.
|
cajinjohn
Total Posts: 12495
|
12-15-08 10:37 AM - Post#510389
I thought this was a training site. Was I wrong?
|
Steve C
Total Posts: 3799
|
12-15-08 10:42 AM - Post#510396
Hey, what happened to the early years part of this thread? You know, BEFORE he found Ayn Rand.
But don't you know? No thread on Mike Mentzer can exist without assaults on his character and repeating, ad nauseum, semi-truths. Nothing more mature and fulfilling than kicking a dead man.
"It is not an uncommon experience for people to talk and argue a great deal about something without anybody bothering to define precisely what it is."
- Ross J.S. Hoffman
I would like to see the truth clearly before it is too late.
- Sartre
We must begin by a definition, although definition involves a mental effort and therefore repels.
- Hilaire Belloc |
|
Wicked Willie
Total Posts: 16864
|
Suffice it to say...the genetic potential was there long before any chemical assistance, high intensity training or philosophical mindsets. You simply don't get that big while still in your late teens without everything being in place.
At nineteen, I barely weighed 175 lbs on a good day and still looked like I was seriously ill, despite having trained fairly regularly for four years.
(I was handsome of face, though....  )
Wicked
"I'm in good shape for the shape I'm in."
"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man comes to the Father, but by me." John 14:6 |
|
cajinjohn
Total Posts: 12495
|
12-15-08 11:04 AM - Post#510411
At 19 I weighed 149 even though I had been training since 12. I can say I was stronger then anybody around me.
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
12-15-08 11:21 AM - Post#510419
I have to say, until this thread I had no idea Ayn Rand was a Cougar. Good for her.
|
Butters
Total Posts: 286
|
I was struck by what amazing development he already had as a very young man. It actually made we wonder how receptive the folks selling his training books now would be to these kind of early photos of him . . . After all, it sort of makes it appear as though no matter what method he would later choose to employ for his training, he surely was going to be quite "above average" in his development.
In Mike's defense, while he didn't follow his extremely low volume 1-2 sessions a week routines he advocated later in life during his early BBing career. Neither was he following 6 day a week routines either. He did the typical full body 3x a week routines that everyone from Reeves, to Arnold, to Dave started out on. They weren't HIT low volume, but the misconception is he was training 6 days a week. He talks about this in one of his articles I've read where his progress stalled when he switched to 6 days a week like the champions at the time. Mike has said he would have trained even less if he had it to do all over again and would have gotten at least equal results even quicker. Who knows how much of this is just propoganda and if he really could have. He also said he didn't follow 6 day a week routines later on, but we have people on this board that said they saw him doing volume workouts.
My favorite Heavy Duty tale is that you can achieve your genetic potential in one year following it. It's a nice thought, but that means someone can achieve their genetic potential training at most 52 times in one year (assuming you don't have to reduce frequency, which HD says you should), that's only 26 direct sessions for each muscle group in that year, and around 17 hours of training total. It just doesn't pass the smell test to me and I've read Atlas Shrugged.
| I am his father. He comes to me for advices. So it's not that hard for me to give him the wrong advices. |
|
Budhi
Total Posts: 552
|
12-15-08 06:58 PM - Post#510639
Hey, what happened to the early years part of this thread? You know, BEFORE he found Ayn Rand.
But don't you know? No thread on Mike Mentzer can exist without assaults on his character and repeating, ad nauseum, semi-truths. Nothing more mature and fulfilling than kicking a dead man.
We all leave the story of our lives behind when we die; those following dissect those stories, often weighing them against one's published words in an attempt to find the balance of lived-in truths. Rather than a puny tactic aimed at evasion and avoidance of truth, the historian simply lays out the truths as found. History doesn't kick dead men, it merely sorts out the truth, no doubt discomforting those who chose to live by fantasy and fiction.
|
|
Attachment: 