"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.
A contradiction I keep running into is the indirect effect. Arthur Jones and Dr. Darden have writen about the "chemical reaction" that takes place in the human body when it is proprely stimulated. They both have said that if a person were to properly work there legs, that person would see growth all the way to there arms from just stimulating the large muscles of the lower body. If this is true, why do so many hitters do such marathon workout's? Truly, if a person did...
Supinated grip pull down
They would have worked every bodypart and even if they had not, the indirect effect would pick up the slack(so to speak).
So which is it? is the notion of indirect effect bullshit, or do most hitters do more exercises than they need to.
Good point Brian, I have essentially designed all my routines around that premise, certain exercises cause soreness in many bodyparts so obviously nothing is lacking by not working them directly. I too am lost why people who abide by the HIT principles work every aspect of their body when a handful of exercises would suffice. Not to forget the extra toll on your recovery abilities.
The indirect effect does exist (look at the upper bodies of sprinters --- not bad). However, it doesn't mean *optimal* results will come from it. For each muscle to reach its ultimate potential, direct work will be required at some point.
There are different degrees of growth stimulation. I don't recall Jones or anyone else saying optimal stimulation occurs from in the indirect effect. I don't see any contradiction here.