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


"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


Indirect Effect


Florida, USA

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...
Calf raise
Leg press
Supinated grip pull down
Chest press
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.

Brian Nicklas
Open User Options Menu


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.
Open User Options Menu



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.
Open User Options Menu


Louisiana, USA


Well said. Probably not best for anyone looking for ultimate bodybuilding results to rely only on compound exercises.

But it seems the indirect effect approach would be good for the average person, with little time for working out. They'd still probably get 80% to 90% of the results, I would think.
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy