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
Ronnie Coleman DVD
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Coma

Illinois, USA

Has anyone seen the DVD Ronnie Coleman: The Unbelievable? It's one of the best comedies, um, I mean "training" video's I've seen in a long time. Yeah he uses more volume and his form sucks but the crazy weights he uses is still impressive.

Plus, he just sounds like a complete moron. For some reason I couldn't stop laughing when he told the camera man to "watch yourself" when he dropped 200lb. dumbbells. I guess I'm just easily amused. It's not something to learn from but it's very entertaining.
Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

Those who claim to be objectivists should learn a lot from it.
Open User Options Menu

RUGGED_INTELLECT

Coma wrote:

Plus, he just sounds like a complete moron. For some reason I couldn't stop laughing when he told the camera man to "watch yourself" when he dropped 200lb. dumbbells. I guess I'm just easily amused. It's not something to learn from but it's very entertaining.


I'm wondering who the moron is, being that he's a happy millionaire, and you bought his dvd? Perhaps he could have gotten up and nicely put the 200 pounders quitely back on the rack? I do it all the time, for flyes. I'm not sure what his problem was.
Open User Options Menu

Coma

Illinois, USA

Mr Nautilus wrote:
Those who claim to be objectivists should learn a lot from it.


Ha, you have point there.

Open User Options Menu

Coma

Illinois, USA

RUGGED_INTELLECT wrote:
Coma wrote:

Plus, he just sounds like a complete moron. For some reason I couldn't stop laughing when he told the camera man to "watch yourself" when he dropped 200lb. dumbbells. I guess I'm just easily amused. It's not something to learn from but it's very entertaining.

I'm wondering who the moron is, being that he's a happy millionaire, and you bought his dvd? Perhaps he could have gotten up and nicely put the 200 pounders quitely back on the rack? I do it all the time, for flyes. I'm not sure what his problem was.


First of all I didn't buy it, let's just say I saw it. It's no wonder that no one on this board likes you. You just like attacking everybody, though BDJ really did make you look like a fool. After this I won't bother responding to you anymore, I'm more mature than that. I didn't know this would start an argument, I was just trying to have a friendly conversation.

And all I was saying about him dropping the dumbbells was that the way he said what he did was funny, that's all.

Yes he's a happy millionaire, and I'm not taking anything away from his accomplishments. But he does sound dumber than a box of rocks.




Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Mr Nautilus wrote:
Those who claim to be objectivists should learn a lot from it.


How so?

regards
Nick
Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

NickMunro wrote:
Mr Nautilus wrote:
Those who claim to be objectivists should learn a lot from it.

How so?

regards
Nick


I saw Ronnie Coleman's DVD (Road to Redemption?) that shows him training for the 2003 Mr Olympia. His training is interesting.

His form is what I would describe as controlled cheating. Objectively, he isn't cheating at all because there are no "right" or "wrong" ways to train. He uses partial movements and multiple sets, but he does train intensely.

The thing that strikes me about his training is that he is consistently handling heavy weights. I know many think genetics and drugs are solely responsible for any top bodybuilder's success, but Coleman wasn't born squatting 800lb. He had to work hard and consistently to get to that kind of weight.

The handling of heavy weights is one thing the big guys all do. From Yates to Coleman, to Coe they are all tremendously strong. There is a big lesson here.

As for him sounding dumb. I remember the same criticism being levelled at a young Austrian called Arnold Strong.
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Mr Nautilus wrote:
NickMunro wrote:
Mr Nautilus wrote:
Those who claim to be objectivists should learn a lot from it.

How so?

regards
Nick

I saw Ronnie Coleman?s DVD (Road to Redemption?) that shows him training for the 2003 Mr Olympia. His training is interesting.

His form is what I would describe as controlled cheating. Objectively, he isn?t cheating at all because there are no ?right? or ?wrong? ways to train. He uses partial movements and multiple sets, but he does train intensely.

The thing that strikes me about his training is that he is consistently handling heavy weights. I know many think genetics and drugs are solely responsible for any top bodybuilder?s success, but Coleman wasn?t born squatting 800lb. He had to work hard and consistently to get to that kind of weight.

The handling of heavy weights is one thing the big guys all do. From Yates to Coleman, to Coe they are all tremendously strong. There is a big lesson here.

As for him sounding dumb. I remember the same criticism being levelled at a young Austrian called Arnold Strong.


Thanks for the reply but what does that have to do with Objectivism?

regards
Nick
Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

NickMunro wrote:
Thanks for the reply but what does that have to do with Objectivism?

regards
Nick


There is no right or wrong only what works and what doesn't.

Open User Options Menu

Cherry

Mr Nautilus wrote:
NickMunro wrote:
Mr Nautilus wrote:
Those who claim to be objectivists should learn a lot from it.

How so?

regards
Nick

I saw Ronnie Coleman's DVD (Road to Redemption?) that shows him training for the 2003 Mr Olympia. His training is interesting.

His form is what I would describe as controlled cheating. Objectively, he isn't cheating at all because there are no "right" or "wrong" ways to train. He uses partial movements and multiple sets, but he does train intensely.

The thing that strikes me about his training is that he is consistently handling heavy weights. I know many think genetics and drugs are solely responsible for any top bodybuilder's success, but Coleman wasn't born squatting 800lb. He had to work hard and consistently to get to that kind of weight.

The handling of heavy weights is one thing the big guys all do. From Yates to Coleman, to Coe they are all tremendously strong. There is a big lesson here.

As for him sounding dumb. I remember the same criticism being levelled at a young Austrian called Arnold Strong.



[I believe is was] Tom Platz once said,
"The experienced bodybuilder uses his body like a cam."

After you've learned the rules, there comes a time when you learn when to break them.

:))
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Mr Nautilus wrote:
NickMunro wrote:
Thanks for the reply but what does that have to do with Objectivism?

regards
Nick


There is no right or wrong only what works and what doesn't.


Hi

isnt that right and wrong then? (what works and what doesnt)

The argument that there can be only one true theory of anything is correct. Two contradictory theories/statements cannot both be true. EG: You cannot be ageing and growing younger at the same time.

However, seeing as human beings are highly diverse, it is obvious that the context of application will be also be highly diverse, and therefore, as with all other applied sciences (such as sociology), it is very hard, if not impossible to say much more beyond:

"train appropriately for the context of your situation"

regards
Nick


Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

NickMunro wrote:
Mr Nautilus wrote:
NickMunro wrote:
Thanks for the reply but what does that have to do with Objectivism?

regards
Nick


There is no right or wrong only what works and what doesn't.


Hi

isnt that right and wrong then? (what works and what doesnt)

The argument that there can be only one true theory of anything is correct. Two contradictory theories/statements cannot both be true. EG: You cannot be ageing and growing younger at the same time.

However, seeing as human beings are highly diverse, it is obvious that the context of application will be also be highly diverse, and therefore, as with all other applied sciences (such as sociology), it is very hard, if not impossible to say much more beyond:

"train appropriately for the context of your situation"

regards
Nick




I just knew someone would come on with the usual rhetorical bs.

Regards,

Mr Nautilus
Open User Options Menu

cpufast

Michigan, USA

Hi,

I just read an article in Muscle&Fitness about Colemans Chest workout. In the article he talks about the reasoning behind partial reps and not locking out at the top of the rep. This guy is 41 and he states that the partial rep has preserved his joints which makes sense. Since reading it I have focused on doing the same in regards to locking out when doing my HIT routine. Unless you can offer something more impressive you shouldn't put others to the floor about what they do, eh?
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

cpufast wrote:
Hi,

I just read an article in Muscle&Fitness about Colemans Chest workout. In the article he talks about the reasoning behind partial reps and not locking out at the top of the rep. This guy is 41 and he states that the partial rep has preserved his joints which makes sense. Since reading it I have focused on doing the same in regards to locking out when doing my HIT routine. Unless you can offer something more impressive you shouldn't put others to the floor about what they do, eh?



I thought it was common knowledge here to never lock out. Locking out unloads the muscle giving it a brief respite to recover. Standard proocol is to keep the muscle under tension at all times.

:))
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Mr Nautilus wrote:

I just knew someone would come on with the usual rhetorical bs.

Regards,

Mr Nautilus


Hi,

Then why bother making the comment? Have you successfully refuted the law of identity? Do you know something that I dont? Or is it possible that you were making a snide comment about a philosophy that you dont even understand?


regards
Nick
Open User Options Menu

RUGGED_INTELLECT

Coma wrote:

You just like attacking everybody.


I appologize. I didn't realize you weren't attacking anyone.

Coma wrote:

Plus, he just sounds like a complete moron.







Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

NickMunro wrote:
Hi,

Then why bother making the comment? Have you successfully refuted the law of identity? Do you know something that I dont? Or is it possible that you were making a snide comment about a philosophy that you dont even understand?


regards
Nick


Have you seen Ronnie's video?
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Mr Nautilus wrote:
NickMunro wrote:
Hi,

Then why bother making the comment? Have you successfully refuted the law of identity? Do you know something that I dont? Or is it possible that you were making a snide comment about a philosophy that you dont even understand?


regards
Nick

Have you seen Ronnie's video?


If you are asking that, I think you need to re-read my post. Colemans training worked for him, in his own personal context, and in that context only it can be said to "work". In another context another type of training (say HIT) may "work" for someone else - the two arent conflicting "theories" because the context of application is different.

So, for certain people, certain styles of training may be very efficacious, and others, not produce any results at all.

Im not attacking Coleman, or his training methods, but the fact that you seem to associate Objectivist philosophy
with a certain narrow point of view, held by one bodybuilder.

Objectivism has nothing to do with bodybuilding... nothing.

regards
Nick

Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

NickMunro wrote:
If you are asking that, I think you need to re-read my post. Colemans training worked for him, in his own personal context, and in that context only it can be said to "work". In another context another type of training (say HIT) may "work" for someone else - the two arent conflicting "theories" because the context of application is different.

So, for certain people, certain styles of training may be very efficacious, and others, not produce any results at all.

Im not attacking Coleman, or his training methods, but the fact that you seem to associate Objectivist philosophy
with a certain narrow point of view, held by one bodybuilder.

Objectivism has nothing to do with bodybuilding... nothing.

regards
Nick



Hmmmm. I'll take that as a no then.
Open User Options Menu

NickMunro

Mr Nautilus wrote:



Hmmmm. I'll take that as a no then.



What does Coleman's training have to do with Objectivism?


regards
Nick
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Aesthetics is a branch of any philosophy, including Objectivism. How we think about life and the things we do in life are guided by philosophy. Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence; other sciences were born as a result and consequence of philosophy.

Exercise application IS a science, whereas what any person does in the gym is a combination of the fundamentals of that science, i.e., intensity, volume, frequency, specificity, load (and overload), diminishing returns, and individualism, which factors are affected further by other principles, including Reliance, Influence, and Interaction.
Open User Options Menu

TigerFighter VS

New Jersey, USA

NickMunro wrote:
Mr Nautilus wrote:



Hmmmm. I'll take that as a no then.


What does Coleman's training have to do with Objectivism?


regards
Nick


Nick,

In don't think the original statement had to do with Colemans training, more so with the viewers inability to learn something from watching it, then commenting on it.

70%of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Open User Options Menu

Mr Nautilus

TigerFighter VS wrote:
Nick,

In don't think the original statement had to do with Colemans training, more so with the viewers inability to learn something from watching it, then commenting on it.

70%of all statistics are made up on the spot.



"There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em."


90% of people are only half the story.
Open User Options Menu

GatorFan

"It's called Sex Panther by Odeon. It's illegal in nine countries...Yep it's made with bits of real Panther, so you know it's good....They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works everytime."
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

My dad can beat up all of your dads.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy