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
How Do YOU Measure Progress
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Cherry

How do you measure your progress or that of your clients?

What's the first thing you look for?
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

I hope Eric answers this one.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Cherry wrote:
How do you measure your progress or that of your clients?

What's the first thing you look for?


It depends entirely on what the client wants out of their training. More later, when I have time...
Open User Options Menu

brother3

I think that is a great question. With my clients I track the length of the workout, the average heart rate, maximum heart rate, time in the aerobic training zone, calories burned, what calories are burned from fat, and the weights and reps. The goal is to increase the amount of work (weight and reps with good form) while at the same time decrease the maxHR and HRAvg, and of course shortening the length of the workout. I do this with myself as well. The more i record the better chance I have of improvement with myself and my clients
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Cherry wrote:
How do you measure your progress or that of your clients?

What's the first thing you look for?


We record the exercises performed, resistance, and TUL for all clients. Everything else depends on their goals.

Workout charts are valuable tools for evaluating progress, but they're certainly not the only measure of progress.

The client's goal dictates the definition of progress. Progress for one person might include decreases in skinfold measurements and improvements in circumference measurements. Progress for another might include reduced lower back pain and more yards at the driving range. Progress for another might include improving their physical fitness test scores for work, or being able to run faster or with less fatigue while wearing 27 pounds of gear and motorcycle boots.

The important thing is to really listen to what the individual wants to accomplish and the motivation behind it, to help them establish realistic short term goals and a realistic schedule for accomplishing them, and to use measurements that are appropriate for the goal.

The same can be done with other types of training, such as skill training or learning tactics and strategy. You can measure some aspect of skill performance, and record that periodically to evaluate progress. You can evaluate the effectiveness of the application of a particular tactic or strategy for anything, and adapt the tactic or strategy over time based on those evaluations. Progress charts and journals are very valuable tools for evaluating performance and adjusting practice or training for a huge number of goals.
Open User Options Menu

landparklance

Hi All,

I'd like to measure my own success by completing the prescribed H.I.T. routine without experiencing symptoms of hyperventalation.

I must be doing something wrong!

I keep experiencing extreme hyperventalation symptoms: shakiness, dizziness, tingling sensations in my hands and face, and weakness, immediately after completing a H.I.T. routine.

Any suggestions or thoughts would be much appreciated.

Lance
Sacramento, CA
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

With clients I use the Bio-Analogics device. It takes full body electrical impedance, anthropometrical measurements, age, sex, weight and calculates body comp. Body comp. in fat lbs, Lean mass pounds, Water in liters, Ratio of lean to fat and bodyfat %. It provides excellent printouts detailing the results and charts progress over time. It is highly accurate and very consistent.

I use to use benchmark exercises/strength gains, pictures (which I still use), Body Comp. through digital calipers and compared against measurements but it all took to long and wasn't very accurate.

Now don't laugh but for myself I do use the Bio Analogics but not that often, mostly when I am experimenting with something new or dieting.

I personally measure progress with; What does my wife think? Am I enjoying myself? Am I as strong and getting stronger than before? Do I look as good or better than before? In the end my wife's opinion tends to be as accurate as the Bio Analogics, go figure!

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

Drew Baye wrote:
Cherry wrote:
How do you measure your progress or that of your clients?

What's the first thing you look for?

We record the exercises performed, resistance, and TUL for all clients. Everything else depends on their goals.

Workout charts are valuable tools for evaluating progress, but they're certainly not the only measure of progress.

The client's goal dictates the definition of progress. Progress for one person might include decreases in skinfold measurements and improvements in circumference measurements. Progress for another might include reduced lower back pain and more yards at the driving range. Progress for another might include improving their physical fitness test scores for work, or being able to run faster or with less fatigue while wearing 27 pounds of gear and motorcycle boots.

The important thing is to really listen to what the individual wants to accomplish and the motivation behind it, to help them establish realistic short term goals and a realistic schedule for accomplishing them, and to use measurements that are appropriate for the goal.

The same can be done with other types of training, such as skill training or learning tactics and strategy. You can measure some aspect of skill performance, and record that periodically to evaluate progress. You can evaluate the effectiveness of the application of a particular tactic or strategy for anything, and adapt the tactic or strategy over time based on those evaluations. Progress charts and journals are very valuable tools for evaluating performance and adjusting practice or training for a huge number of goals.



Let's say his/her goal is more yards on driving range, trimmer waist and less back pain. How do you train this person differently than someone with back pain that wants to "get in shape"? I guess what I am getting at is wouldn't the 'standard' HIT circuit-style training be best for each?

Train all the muscle groups frequently, teach them a little about intensity and proper form, condition them with the circuit, council them on nutritious diet. To me the standard HIT is best for almost every civilian that walks thru the door. Take them thru quickly and they get conditioning too.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

AShortt wrote:
With clients I use the Bio-Analogics device. It takes full body electrical impedance, anthropometrical measurements, age, sex, weight and calculates body comp. Body comp. in fat lbs, Lean mass pounds, Water in liters, Ratio of lean to fat and bodyfat %. It provides excellent printouts detailing the results and charts progress over time. It is highly accurate and very consistent.

I use to use benchmark exercises/strength gains, pictures (which I still use), Body Comp. through digital calipers and compared against measurements but it all took to long and wasn't very accurate.

Now don't laugh but for myself I do use the Bio Analogics but not that often, mostly when I am experimenting with something new or dieting.

I personally measure progress with; What does my wife think? Am I enjoying myself? Am I as strong and getting stronger than before? Do I look as good or better than before? In the end my wife's opinion tends to be as accurate as the Bio Analogics, go figure!

Regards,
Andrew



i din't realize that ANY devise was so accurate short of hyrostatic weaighing.

Do you have papers on this Bio-A device?
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Go the to IART site... click on the reports and articles section... then click on produce reviews. There you will find a 20+ report on the BioAnalogic Health Mangement System. It includes info and related research, including a comparison study between hydrostatic and this system, with over 700 subjects of different ages, sexes, cultures, races, and weight (athletic, obese, average). The BioAnlaogics system is as accurate and more consistent than hydrostatic.

For those who think they are gaining mass, they would be quite surprised as to the outcome of regular testings on this system, i.e., more fat and water retention without any actual change in dry weight tissue.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
Go the to IART site... click on the reports and articles section... then click on produce reviews. There you will find a 20+ report on the BioAnalogic Health Mangement System. It includes info and related research, including a comparison study between hydrostatic and this system, with over 700 subjects of different ages, sexes, cultures, races, and weight (athletic, obese, average). The BioAnlaogics system is as accurate and more consistent than hydrostatic.

For those who think they are gaining mass, they would be quite surprised as to the outcome of regular testings on this system, i.e., more fat and water retention without any actual change in dry weight tissue.



ONE study done in 1988? Do you have this study and where was it published? Prolly funded by the company? No follow-up study to verify the remarkable correlation b/w expensive & equipment intensive hydrostatic weighing and simple bioelectrical impedence??


Convince me of the reliability and accuracy of this device, please. i really will buy one of these!
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
Go the to IART site... click on the reports and articles section... then click on produce reviews. There you will find a 20+ report on the BioAnalogic Health Mangement System. It includes info and related research, including a comparison study between hydrostatic and this system, with over 700 subjects of different ages, sexes, cultures, races, and weight (athletic, obese, average). The BioAnlaogics system is as accurate and more consistent than hydrostatic.

For those who think they are gaining mass, they would be quite surprised as to the outcome of regular testings on this system, i.e., more fat and water retention without any actual change in dry weight tissue.



In that report, there is but a brief mention of that study you refer to that was done almost 20 yrs ago. Do you have the entire study? Do you know where it was published? Any other follow-up studies comparing this device with gold standards such as hydrostatic weighting?

I'd buy this today if i can verify its results.

Thanks
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

The IART doesn't sell the Bio-Analogics, we just promote it because of it high quality. We have tried almost everything on the market. In other words, Johnston is selling reliable unbiased recommendations and reviews.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

1. Because I don't own the company, I really don't have the interest to convince you of anything. Buy it or not, but I doubt you will at $1500.

2. It was an independent study conducted by the university... regardless of how funded it (which I am not aware of who did... I don't do the university's books).

3. I have a copy of the study.

4. Contact BioAnalogics directly... they do exist with an actual phone number. I'm sure they can help you if you actually have money and interest.

5. If you knew anything of research and the costs attached, you would understand why there aren't more studies of this nature... none of which are done by any competitor, like Tanita.

6. This device and its correlating software originally was developed for medical doctors who work/operate obesity research clinics.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
1. Because I don't own the company, I really don't have the interest to convince you of anything. Buy it or not, but I doubt you will at $1500.

2. It was an independent study conducted by the university... regardless of how funded it (which I am not aware of who did... I don't do the university's books).

3. I have a copy of the study.

4. Contact BioAnalogics directly... they do exist with an actual phone number. I'm sure they can help you if you actually have money and interest.

5. If you knew anything of research and the costs attached, you would understand why there aren't more studies of this nature... none of which are done by any competitor, like Tanita.

6. This device and its correlating software originally was developed for medical doctors who work/operate obesity research clinics.


Logic & Short,

I'm not questioning your integrity but everything I am reading about the method (bioelectrical impedence) suggests it is of limited accuracy and reliability for assessing body composition.

Here's a sample of what I am seeing..

PMID: 14559320 - CONCLUSION: Use of regional impedance devices to assess body fatness is limited by a lack of precision and accuracy.

PMID: 15640463 - CONCLUSIONS: BIA is a good alternative for estimating %BF when subjects are within a normal body fat range. BIA tends to overestimate %BF in lean subjects and underestimate %BF in obese subjects.



In this study they ..PMID: 16648620 - "examined validity of specific bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) prediction equations and BMI as predictors of physiologically relevant general adiposity."

These equations form the basis for a machine's computer to calaculate the body composition results from the raw data it recieves during the testing.

They conclude..

"These results suggest that BIA is not superior to BMI as a predictor of overall adiposity in a general population."


I'm not faulting any specific machine or manufacturer but BI is only as good as the accuracy of its predictive equations. There is possibly some inherent limitation of impedence in general.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

BioAnalogics has patented algorithms not found with other impedance devices. It's like driving a Honda and saying "all cars are..." Some research will use bio-impedance and make good or bad claims, but to suggest those claims are accross the board is highly irrational. Contact the company if you have the money and interest. Otherwise, I'm done defending them. I'm well aware of what it does and the effect and value it has in my working with my clients.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
BioAnalogics has patented algorithms not found with other impedance devices. It's like driving a Honda and saying "all cars are..." Some research will use bio-impedance and make good or bad claims, but to suggest those claims are accross the board is highly irrational. Contact the company if you have the money and interest. Otherwise, I'm done defending them. I'm well aware of what it does and the effect and value it has in my working with my clients.


Either the research supports BI or it does not. Nothing "highly irrational" about looking at the evidence as it exists in the scientific literature. I am certainly not going to rely on the results of one 18 yr old study that has never been verified (to my knowledge).

Maybe your experience is sufficient proof for you but unfortunately i can't evaluate testimonials.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Read your posts... you already made up your mind before making your final post. If you think that the quality, nature of the current, etc., are the same among all machines, then you really don't know what you're talking about. Simply consider a Tanita scale and how much it can fluctuate simply by having a person with damp feet vs. dry feet. You need to verify your own knowledge about the technology before you decide to critique research based on the technology and how varied it actually is. Once again, you don't draw conclusions about all cars based on one make of car, do you? Even hydrostatic weighing can be way (weigh) off if the technician does not control the variables properly, and you consider that the most accurate? How about DEXA imaging, which actually IS the gold standard.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
Read your posts... you already made up your mind before making your final post. If you think that the quality, nature of the current, etc., are the same among all machines, then you really don't know what you're talking about. Simply consider a Tanita scale and how much it can fluctuate simply by having a person with damp feet vs. dry feet. You need to verify your own knowledge about the technology before you decide to critique research based on the technology and how varied it actually is. Once again, you don't draw conclusions about all cars based on one make of car, do you? Even hydrostatic weighing can be way (weigh) off if the technician does not control the variables properly, and you consider that the most accurate? How about DEXA imaging, which actually IS the gold standard.



Ok, show me the evidence that THEIR machine has all the others beat. Has their technology changed in 18yrs?
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Learn to read: I clearly stated that I have no intention trying to convince you of anything. Contact the company at (800) 327-7953 and speak to Rich Wooten, who has been with the company since its inception. You continue to make claims without even knowing about the device or its underlying technology. If you even understand what patents are and why other BIA devices are less accurate because they CAN'T use the technology found in BioAnalogics (the benchmark of BIA), then you wouldn't even ask why BioAnalogics has the others beat. And, yes, I did clearly say they had patents attached to this technology. Now, rather than yammering about this product, contact the company.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
Learn to read: I clearly stated that I have no intention trying to convince you of anything. Contact the company at (800) 327-7953 and speak to Rich Wooten, who has been with the company since its inception. You continue to make claims without even knowing about the device or its underlying technology. If you even understand what patents are and why other BIA devices are less accurate because they CAN'T use the technology found in BioAnalogics (the benchmark of BIA), then you wouldn't even ask why BioAnalogics has the others beat. And, yes, I did clearly say they had patents attached to this technology. Now, rather than yammering about this product, contact the company.


LOL.
YOU recommended their product on my thread. and YOU are making all the claims. I'm just asking for proof their machine does what it says it does. Is that too much to ask? Of course I'll contact the company since you have none to give. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you don't ask for the same. But then again I am not surprised by much anymore these days ;)
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Cherry wrote:

LOL.
YOU recommended their product on my thread. and YOU are making all the claims. I'm just asking for proof their machine does what it says it does. Is that too much to ask? Of course I'll contact the company since you have none to give. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you don't ask for the same. But then again I am not surprised by much anymore these days ;)


Cherry why do you always morph into a troll?

Research doesn?t support single sets over multiple...or wait it does, no here is another paper it doesn't...get it? The sort of supposed proof you are looking for doesn't exist. What you are suggesting is 'overwhelming" evidence and this sort of device isn?t mainstream enough to have that. Just like training with single sets to failure isn?t mainstream enough to have 'overwhelming evidence to support it.

You have to try in and see and judge the credibility of those who promote it. Bio Analogics will offer you a money back guarantee for a test drive if you can prove you are serious. This is why there is interest in the likes of Dr. Darden or Johnston recommending (or not) things.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

AShortt wrote:
Cherry wrote:

LOL.
YOU recommended their product on my thread. and YOU are making all the claims. I'm just asking for proof their machine does what it says it does. Is that too much to ask? Of course I'll contact the company since you have none to give. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you don't ask for the same. But then again I am not surprised by much anymore these days ;)

Cherry why do you always morph into a troll?

Research doesn?t support single sets over multiple...or wait it does, no here is another paper it doesn't...get it? The sort of supposed proof you are looking for doesn't exist. What you are suggesting is 'overwhelming" evidence and this sort of device isn?t mainstream enough to have that. Just like training with single sets to failure isn?t mainstream enough to have 'overwhelming evidence to support it.

You have to try in and see and judge the credibility of those who promote it. Bio Analogics will offer you a money back guarantee for a test drive if you can prove you are serious. This is why there is interest in the likes of Dr. Darden or Johnston recommending (or not) things.

Regards,
Andrew



Try it and judge its results against what? What standard should *I* judge its accuracy by?

Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

You ignoramous, you have no idea what evidence I have, how long I've been working with the company in getting details, or the years I've been using this device with clients (and knowing that the data has fit the results). You expect me to bow to your whims of supplying you with whatever I know at the cost of my time and effort. Book a consultation if you need to know that bad, or as I clearly indicated many posts ago, contact the company for free.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

logicbdj wrote:
You ignoramous, you have no idea what evidence I have, how long I've been working with the company in getting details, or the years I've been using this device with clients (and knowing that the data has fit the results). You expect me to bow to your whims of supplying you with whatever I know at the cost of my time and effort. Book a consultation if you need to know that bad, or as I clearly indicated many posts ago, contact the company for free.


You're right I have no way of evaluating any of your experience and you've presented very little objective evidence to back up your claims, expressed or implied.

As for 'expectations, I don't expect you to live to any of my expectations ;)

Have a nice day, sir.

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy