Talk:Mike Mentzer

Re: Objectivism and Philosophy
Respectfully, I'm not sure that Mike Mentzer is notable for his observations on Kant or Rand. A basic biography and summary of his bodybuilding accomplishments are probably sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.166.242 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: The recent edit by dochatteras
Wikipedia should contain as much fact as possible, therefore references are essential. I have done a thorough amount of reading about Mike Mentzer, in his personally published works, those published in collaboration (mostly with John Little), and the Internet sites in favor of, and those opposed to his training philosophies. There are also a great deal of other works written about bodybuilding, and high intensity training, that speak about or make reference to Mike Mentzer. Therefore, I felt it necessary to make some additions to this page, focusing on the sort of information that would make a person who has recently just HEARD of Mike Mentzer get a multi-faceted viewpoint of him. There are many references to his works, as I have read nearly all of them, and in due time I will make sure to include page numbers as well. The order of articles was also edited to give a more coherent flow of information. Some of the previous information was deleted, even though it was factual, because there were no references. Yet most of the content was preserved, because I only deleted information that was included in other areas where I was able to find the appropriate references. Even the less-than-favorable aspects were retained, yet now with references, namely Ellington Darden's 2005 The New High Intensity Training. Please continue to add to this article, and let me know if there's is any way that I can improve on it.

Dochatteras (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The passages you introduce, while well-written, reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. You'll want to start by reading our policies on original research, neutral point of view, and WP:Reliable sources. Thanks--Yankees76 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please let me justify why I did that. If you would actually read the work Mike Mentzer - Heavy Duty Nutrition, you'd realize that the entire booklet was an explanation of his nutrition theory. After stating his rather outrageous (for the bodybuilding world) theory, he spend pages demonstrating why he could be so bold. It reads more like a college thesis than a guide to nutrition, therefore I felt it necessary to describe it as such. Dochatteras (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually quite well-informed on Mentzer's work, having met the man in 2000 before he died. However, as I mentioned above, this is an encyclopedia, and what you've written, while being an enjoyable read, still reads like an essay. Phrases like "careful use of his reasoning abilities" "extremely well balanced", "The reasoning behind this was simple" make some of your edits sound like personal commentary. You asked for ways to improve it, so I'm giving them to you, having made similar edits to another article awhile back that suffered from the same problems. --Yankees76 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate the help, and hope that I gave the article some 'legs', so it can get moving a little more. Unfortunately, I'm probably not the right guy to create a synopsis of topics I really enjoy, but perhaps the information and outline I've created will be enough for others to work their magic. I wanted to present information and resources, so others will have something to work with. Thanks, 99.232.173.60 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By-the-way, I've had a hard time establishing the resources section, because none of the references actually go anywhere. I later entered them at the bottom, as a sort of bibliography, but they still don't link anywhere. Could you help me out, Yankee76? Thanks again, 99.232.173.60 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should be article be written so that persons who know nothing about weightlifting or muscle subculture should be able to verify everything in short order? I propose that the article be edited by a Mentzer expert, or left as is content-wise. Much of the article is Common knowledge for fans of Mentzer, at leat. Jeff Vincent, Fort Wayne, IN USA

1. the article discusses Mentzer's ideas, and does not take a position on their absolute value. 2. All of what I wrote has been previously published, but some of it was locked in my memory.I don't save muscle mags like IRONMAN. Maybe someone else can track down the article. 3. The buisness about Olympic lifting has been gone over so much that you can take your pick of 100,000 citations. 4. MM's HEAVY DUTY JOURNAL will be re-published by the estate, at some point in the future. The work details rest-pause and other issues. 5. I have done original research,but this article reflects only knowledge in public domain. fbjm1979@yahoo.com


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Before you continue, please read the Wikipedia policy about citing sources - WP:SOURCE. It's important to know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.
 * I've noticed you've added alot of material that appears to be mostly uncited. I've placed a request for you to add citations for this material. Your sources should be credible published materials with a reliable publication process; and authors that are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but however there are exceptions.
 * For information on how to properly add citations, please read and follow WP:REF, which should give you a how-to of how to credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism, and ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. Thanks. Yankees76 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone like John Little can come along and improve the article. I am a college prof. who lifts weights; I have all of this knowledge of Mentzer stuck in my head,going back to 1978. I was hoping to provide some info. on a neutral forum, as Mentzer's ideas are often censored out of mainstream lifting/bb blogs. If the AynRand/Mentzer link is enough to get a good Mentzer article here, so be it. I simply don't have time to fool with it anymore or track down sources; cut it up as you will. I am sure there are muscle writers out there who can document everything in the piece. The 12 week lag is in Sisco's book; the controversy over olifts is so vast that a huge number of pro and con arguments can be cited. fbjm1979@yahoo.com

Maybe "Mentzer CLAIMED to have the only valid theory of bb" would address the discussion post below. fbjm1979@yahoo.com

Watermarked Images
I removed two images watermarked with "moneywellspent.com". While they claim to be self-made, they're clearly not (the image of Yates and Mentzer can be found online w/o the watermark). Whoever uploaded the images should re-upload them without the watermarks. --Yankees76 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stories of erratic behavior
The only reference for the stories of erratic behavior admits that "Some of these stories are true, some are not." Since it is not clear which are true and which are not, how much weight should stories of this nature be given in a Wikipedia article? Acts 1:8 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like an advert or a fan page
"Mentzer took the bodybuilding concepts developed by Arthur Jones and attempted to perfect them. Through years of study, observation, knowledge of stress physiology, the most up-to-date scientific information available, and careful use of his reasoning abilities, Mentzer devised and successfully implemented his own theory of bodybuilding."

It just doesn't sound objective or professional. Would suggest more scrutiny on this article

''"Diet has always been as important, if not more, as weight-training for bodybuilders. However, in his book Heavy Duty Nutrition, Mentzer demonstrated that nutrition for athletes did not need to be nearly as extreme as the bodybuilding industry would lead one to believe. His recommended diets were well balanced, and he espoused eating from all four food groups, totaling four servings each of high-quality grains and fruits, and two each of dairy and protein daily, all year-round.[3]" '' What did Mentzer 'demonstrate' about nutrition that was useful/novel/successful ? Did he demonstrate (clearly show the existence of truth) ? Or did he have some ideas that he put forward in a book. Anyone can write a book.  "Jones pioneered the principles of high-intensity training in the late 1960s. He emphasized the need to maintain perfectly strict form, move the weights in a slow and controlled manner, work the muscles to complete failure (positive and negative), and avoid over-training. Casey Viator had seen fantastic results training under the direction of Jones, and Mentzer became very interested in this training philosophy.[4] Eventually, however, Mentzer concluded that even Jones was not completely applying his own principles, so he began investigating a more full application. He began training clients in a near experimental manner, evaluating the perfect number of repetitions, exercises, and days of rest to achieve maximum benefits.[1]"

Vague, nonsense. Is this HIT ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.250 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/becker22.htm
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Mentzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140914224634/http://www.veooz.com/photos/TH6IWiE.html to http://www.veooz.com/photos/TH6IWiE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Philosopher?
Uh, really? In what way was Mike Mentzer a philosopher? Because he had beliefs about things?

I really don't think that he should be described as a philosopher simply because he had certain philosophical views - every single person does. He holds no credentials related to philosophy and has no publications on philosophy. Authoring a book that includes, to a minor degree, the thought and scientific processes behind participation in a sport is hardly worthy of the title philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.148.95 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Mike Mentzer was never Mr. Olympia!
see title 90.242.197.6 (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you recommending a change to something? The article doesn't state that he was Mr. Olympia but rather says that he won the Heavyweight Division Mr. Olympia in 1979, losing to Frank Zane (the Lightweight Division winner) in the Overall Mr. Olympia category. Vyselink (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)