"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.
I tested myself twice using those guidelines a few years apart, and each time I tested the same. That told me I was blessed with mainly fast-twitch muscle fibres in my upperbody as I could only manage 4-5 strict reps, and 8 on my lower body. My--now wife--was even more blessed than I was as she could only manage 3 pressing and 4 on pulling exercises. So I am glad you still endorse those methods, but why was it omitted from your new book?
Liftnbig, not poking my nose in, and not trying to be cleaver or nothing, but as you and your wife have low reps, when you worked it out, thought I might say, or ask you did you do the testing with a stop watch that?s bleeps out the seconds, or did you call out the seconds, as this needs to be done right, AND when you tested your ONE REP max did you time that too, as if you did not you are making a big mistake.
Lets take the curl, lets say you did not time it, you might be able to do 110 pounds, but if you timed it, you may have only been able to do 100 pounds,
Then there would be a difference in the weight your going to use when repping out, 110 pounds take off 80% = 88 pounds, 100 take off 80% = 80, if you see my point, if you had timed your one rep max, it would have been lower, thus your reps would have been higher.
Just thought I would say.
Hi Wayne, I hear what you are saying and appreciate your concerns. No I didn't, BUT I have enough years behind me to perform my reps at a speed to avoid momentum while keeping the stress on the muscle trained. I average about 2-3/4-5 rep tempo, so each test was fairly uniform, enough I believe to say that each result was ample proof low reps suite me best.
In many ways I have known that over the years as unlike a former training partner who prefered reps in the 12+ range, I have never felt suited to high reps. For me 8 is quite high, that is the upper limit of what I strived for for years. So 6 was about average for me, but in recent times being older and all I try and keep my rep range around 8 for everything.
With the rep range equation I would then be suited to do approx. 3-5 reps per set. If I use 80% of 1 rep max I can only get approx. 3-5 reps. I would need about 50% 1 rep max to do approx. 12 reps for upper body. Lower body more like 8 reps.
One more thing that may be of interest, I use a stopwatch that bleeps out every second, to do my reps, its great. I have used it for years for 2/4 4/4 10/5 rep speed, or what ever rep speed you like to use.
People tell me that more fibers are used with fast speed reps, I tell them that's very true, but you really can't do fast reps with 80% of your one rep max, also as we know, fast reps start your body swaying and bring into action other muscle groups with is not wanted.
I thought the faster you moved the more muscle fibers you used, anyone ???
MY stopwatch is about 15 years old but its very clever, it will bleep out every second, or every three seconds of whatever you like it to bleep out, its very clever, its a timex make, pop into your local watch shop I am sure they will have one.
this would mean that you recruite the most muscle fibres in the bizeps for example while performing curls as fast as you can with the "weight" of your hand(and forearm) only.
Force is definetely the right answer.