MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
NEW! Negative-Accentuated Machines
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

southbeach

Drew Baye wrote:
Isokinetic - the motor controls the speed of the repetition during the positive and negative - resistance depends on the effort put forth by the user.


i knew it!

how long have i been telling you isokinetic is superior, and you busted my balls for it everytime! :|

Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

jonsmith wrote:
Dr. Darden, this negative accentuated stuff is interesting but how come in your books (from what I've read anyways, and I'm still finishing The New Bodybuilding for Old School Results,

So maybe I've not got to this part) it seems that negative only or negative accentuated training has only been used occasionally (whether the whole routine for a few weeks or just a few exercises in a routine) but not as an exclusive training method consistently?

Anyways I'm only asking because reading this kind of stuff makes me wonder why I'm even bothering with the positive in my training, and maybe I should just be doing negative's or negative accentuated exclusively (even if I have to use spotter for the positive or something)

Anyways, thanks very much and God bless. I look forward to your response.


I have made an effort to utilize NO , HYPER , or NA whenever I could ( following Arthurs advise from the early 70s ) . I am also convinced that building muscular size will also cause improved cardio.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

southbeach wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
Isokinetic - the motor controls the speed of the repetition during the positive and negative - resistance depends on the effort put forth by the user.

i knew it!

how long have i been telling you isokinetic is superior, and you busted my balls for it everytime! :|



Why do you isokinetic is superior ??? As no matter how much effort is exerted, the movement takes place at a constant speed !!! I think I would hate to train on a machine like that, as you will be exerting yourself for what ??? Just to keep the movement arm going at the same speed ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

SO WHY HAS NO ONE COMMENTED ON THE BELOW ???

Sort of PROBLEM, with full positive and full negative

Set 1,
You use 80% in a normal set x 12 reps, and let us call this 80 pounds, but the negative is 40% to light, so you are using 80% positive and 40% negative, = 960 pounds moved.

Set 2,
But if you use full positive and negative you are using 80% positive and 80% negative, thus you will not get the 12 reps, but say only 7 reps !!! = 560 pounds moved.

Set 3,
Ok you might say lighten the weight on both to 60% and 60% 720 pounds moved, less than the normal set, set 1. And 20% less weight on the positive, but 20 more on the negative ???

Know I know there is a 1.5 second stop during the positive to negative, and negative to positive, what I said below is wrong.

I think the 60% and 60% set, set 3 would be a fantastic workout, as there would be constant tension on the muscles.

I now think the 60% and 60% set, set 3 would be an ok workout.

However the muscles did not evolve to work like this, this evolved to be stronger in the negative, otherwise we could not run so far, or lift something as many times.

So I wonder if constant tension on the muscles on positive and negative, is the best for size and strength ??? I think hmm, yes for now, but have not thought it out as yet.

RIGHT, the point is you did have constant tension on the positive and negative at the same time, I THINK you are NOT getting the most out of your POSITIVE or NEGATIVE strength.

Just look at set 1 and 2 above, and just maybe full tension on both positive and negative is a step backwards ???


Your positive and negative strength will fail WELL before they have both used all their strengths, if you see what I mean.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

As I said on my last post, your positive and negative strength will fail WELL before they have both used all their strengths, if you see what I mean.

It would be like doing training for 100m and you are going to do 5 full out 100m this afternoon, but in-between every 100m sprint, you do a backward 100m sprint,

thus your forward {or positive strength} is going to suffer, thus you will not get the most out of it, doing the backward {negative rep} sprint will make you run the 100m forward sprit FAR slower,

Or in other words, you will not be able to use as much weight as your could just doing normal positive negative, with the underloaded negative.

So we are back to set 1 and 2, for you to see my point.

Set 1,
You use 80% in a normal set x 12 reps, and let us call this 80 pounds, but the negative is 40% to light, so you are using 80% positive and 40% negative, = 960 pounds moved.

Set 2,
But if you use full positive and negative you are using 80% positive and 80% negative, thus you will not get the 12 reps, but say only 7 reps !!! = 560 pounds moved.

BUT THE STORY GETS MORE INTERESTING.

Set 3,
Negative only set, using 100% or 100 pounds, lowered 12 times = 1200, add this weight to set one, the normal positive negative set, and its 1200 + 960 = 2160 pounds moved, compared to only 560 pounds moved on set 2, the full positive and negative set ??? Boohoo.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:

how long have i been telling you isokinetic is superior, and you busted my balls for it everytime! :|



I don't remember arguing with you about this.

There were problems with older isokinetic equipment (way, way, way back), mainly that they did not provide negative work and used servos which did not provide a smooth, even resistance, but this was old stuff.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Wayne,

I don't think anybody will be able to explain this to you. However, if you're ever in the States and can make it to Florida, you're welcome to come by and try it out. I think once you've felt it you'll definitely get it. It is absolutely brutal.
Open User Options Menu

Dan_The_man

For those of you who have the time and money, and are from Europe. You can see these machines at a trade show in Essen, Germany in April. 23rd - 26th I believe.


Dan
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Drew Baye wrote:
southbeach wrote:

how long have i been telling you isokinetic is superior, and you busted my balls for it everytime! :|



I don't remember arguing with you about this.

There were problems with older isokinetic equipment (way, way, way back), mainly that they did not provide negative work and used servos which did not provide a smooth, even resistance, but this was old stuff.


Isokinetics are not (IMHO) the Holy Grail, but they can offer some unique benefits. in particular in highly controllable eccentric loads.

However the normal methods of creating and employing them (electric motors, hydraulics, and pneumatics) lack the isoinertial qualities the body depends on for proprioception, and this reduces their long term qualities as the primary mode of training.

They have been available as training tools for over 20 years, yet have not flourished due to these aspects.

Their best implementation (again IMO) is as an addition to a conventional program, so as to harvest their unique capability without the stagnation many encounter with their exclusive use.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Well, THIS thread is not about isokinetics.

I can't wait to try the X-Force line-up. There is just smthg about a watching a huge weight-stack move up & down by my own effort that gets me motivated!

:)
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Drew Baye wrote:
Wayne,

I don't think anybody will be able to explain this to you. However, if you're ever in the States and can make it to Florida, you're welcome to come by and try it out. I think once you've felt it you'll definitely get it. It is absolutely brutal.


I bet it is absolutely brutal training on those kind of machines. However I just do not think I would enjoy training on a machine that states the speed of movement, it just does not seem natural. And if you let off the tension, the movement arm will not drop out of the air like free weights. But I hope you gain on them, and sorry I am being a bit ify on them, but as you said, if I did train on them I might change my mind.

As I enjoy moving a weight of 60 to 95% as fast as I can, as I am then producing as much force as I can, thus tension on the muscles.

And when I train negative only, I also like to use as much force, lower in 2 to 3 seconds.

Drew Baye wrote:
It also makes it more practical to perform other advanced high intensity training techniques like negative-only


Now you are talking. Do your normal positive negative, on these machines, and use ALL you positive strength, then do negative only and use all your negative strength. Do these on the same day, or alternate them on different days.

I would love to try negative only at 2 seconds for 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, add weight, 10 reps, rest 5 minutes add weight 6 reps, then a normal positive negative at 20 fast reps, Yates look out.

TO EVERY ONE, UNLESS YOU LIKE TO BURY YOUR HEADS IN THE SANDS AND JUST PRETEND THINGS ARE BETTER

As I stated above, too which NO ONE replied, I come to the conclusion full force positive and negatives at the same time are a step backwards, not forward, unless anyone could counter what I came up with above ???

Wayne




Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

I must say it seems like X-Force are using a hammer to crack a walnut. What is next tilting gyms?
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Is there some reason you cannot simply apply some sort of breaking system to an exercise cam in order to increase negative resistance?
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

southbeach wrote:
Well, THIS thread is not about isokinetics.

I can't wait to try the X-Force line-up. There is just smthg about a watching a huge weight-stack move up & down by my own effort that gets me motivated!

:)


It seems like this isokenetic system moves at a constant speed no matter what. If thats right then I think the absence of overcoming the weight through effort is pshychologically limiting.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

It's not psychologically limiting at all. The display is a major motivating factor. It's just different.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Is there some reason you cannot simply apply some sort of breaking system to an exercise cam in order to increase negative resistance?


A brake would only increase the concentric load. A brake cannot cause active force as needed to create force as needed in an eccentric action.

To create greater eccentric you need a force "source" like an electic motor, hydraulics, pneumatics, or other active force which you can control.

That is why I designed in the "constant force" of a reversable electic motor as presented through a magnetic "clutching" system to add force to the weight stack.

Anything else has too many limitations.

Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
I must say it seems like X-Force are using a hammer to crack a walnut. What is next tilting gyms?


Being able to train effectively with an adequately loaded eccentric is hardly "cracking a walnut".

It if done well will offer some nice training qualities.

In fact it is a far greater advancement than a single force curve mechanical cam, as far as strength and hypertophy.

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
Is there some reason you cannot simply apply some sort of breaking system to an exercise cam in order to increase negative resistance?

A brake would only increase the concentric load.



LMAO

It was very late when I wrote that. Maybe 3 oclock in the morning here, thats my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Drew Baye wrote:
It's not psychologically limiting at all. The display is a major motivating factor. It's just different.


It is not different it is quantifiably inferior. The reason is that it is a purely visual. Overcoming of the weight is both visual and kinesthetic.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

BIO-FORCE wrote:

Being able to train effectively with an adequately loaded eccentric is hardly "cracking a walnut".



Nobody is saying that it isn't important to crack walnuts. The saying is intended to illustrate that you do not need a sledge hammer to do so.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:

Being able to train effectively with an adequately loaded eccentric is hardly "cracking a walnut".



Nobody is saying that it isn't important to crack walnuts. The saying is intended to illustrate that you do not need a sledge hammer to do so.


Understood, and there are no "simple" or easy ways to change the load to the eccentric action that will cause the benefit.

What benefit?

In essense without a partner or device of this type you are simply wasting around 50% of every rep of every set, with a underloaded condition.

However, it is even a bit more important than that. This underloading is at the HIGHEST MUSCLE TENSION of the set.

THAT is a pretty nice improvement to the training stimulus.

While the mechanical means is simple and even crude, it does make these forces available to those who are fortunate enough to have access to them.

That said I cannot vouch for the total function of any of the machines discussed here, and their implementation may not be as good as the concepts themslves.

Time will tell.

Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

Being able to train with the same concentric as normal but with a heavier eccentric means that you will be able to do less reps this way than with the same weight on both concentric and eccentric. The naysayers will call this "much ado about nothing". What makes this new development so important?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Larry T wrote:
Being able to train with the same concentric as normal but with a heavier eccentric means that you will be able to do less reps this way than with the same weight on both concentric and eccentric. The naysayers will call this "much ado about nothing". What makes this new development so important?


Hi Larry,

I made two posts above on the point you bring up, but NO BODY, will take up the challenge of debating it with me ??? As I think full negatives and positive could be a step back.

Are they unwilling to debate this, because so far, only me and you have thought of this, or what ??? I find it odd.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Larry T wrote:
Being able to train with the same concentric as normal but with a heavier eccentric means that you will be able to do less reps this way than with the same weight on both concentric and eccentric. The naysayers will call this "much ado about nothing". What makes this new development so important?


and why is that less productive?

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:

Being able to train effectively with an adequately loaded eccentric is hardly "cracking a walnut".



Nobody is saying that it isn't important to crack walnuts. The saying is intended to illustrate that you do not need a sledge hammer to do so.

Understood, and there are no "simple" or easy ways to change the load to the eccentric action that will cause the benefit.

What benefit?

In essense without a partner or device of this type you are simply wasting around 50% of every rep of every set, with a underloaded condition.

However, it is even a bit more important than that. This underloading is at the HIGHEST MUSCLE TENSION of the set.

THAT is a pretty nice improvement to the training stimulus.

While the mechanical means is simple and even crude, it does make these forces available to those who are fortunate enough to have access to them.

That said I cannot vouch for the total function of any of the machines discussed here, and their implementation may not be as good as the concepts themslves.

Time will tell.



When you think that for less cost you could probably more than double the size of the weight stack it seems like using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut to me. The concept of the machine will not appeal as much to people who are not already initiated into strength training and they'd get more use out of a bigger stack!
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy