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
Stage Reps And Its Variants
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

henry_bordeaux wrote:

we also have equipment with balanced resistance curves. some trainees can use 50lbs in the last 5-10% of extension of the nautilus leg ext. and 130 during the rest. same with a lot of other exercise machines.


This is one area I feel zone training has some real value. The first half of a Nautilus Pullover has me using 270lbs...for the last half all I can handle is 180. Instead of finding the "mush" in the middle (220-230), I can now work each zone with more precision.

Open User Options Menu

davise

I guess the thing that stood out to me is you never trained for health reasons or strength.

My priorities are a little different.

1. Health
2. Strength
3. Appearence

Does JREPS improve your health?
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

I am still wondering what Drews improvements are in the last 10 years?

Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

Drew Baye wrote:

Just out of curiosity, I just stepped into the next room to try it again. We put 210 on the stack (the whole stack) and Jon Kilcoyne helped me lift it into the finished position. I held it there for over 25 seconds before the weight started to come down. For the Omega sets, the resistance should be so heavy you can only hold the weight for between 1/4 and 1 second.



Drew,

I haven't read much about OMEGA SETS, but do you really think there is any value in holding a very, very heavy weight for 1 second?


Open User Options Menu

Cherry

Drew Baye wrote:
logicbdj wrote:
If it was about load, then the strongest people would be the largest, and I know some pretty stringy people who can outlift me any day of the week... and they don't even look like they train. Why? Bodybuilding is NOT weight lifting.

This is not true, as there are numerous factors affecting muscular force output which vary between individuals, as well as differences in the ratio of size to strength increases between individuals. You can not compare different individuals where strength and size are concerned. Differences in leverage, predominant fiber types, neurological and psychological factors, nutritional status, skill, and a wide variety of other factors affect how much strength one can demonstrate.

If an individual becomes stronger, it may be due to many factors, of which muscle fiber size is only one, but the opposite can not be said of an increase in muscle fiber size, if all else remains equal.

If J-reps is an effective protocol, I suspect it would be more due to the effects of fatigue on GH production, and not because of anything special about training in zones, other than the effect of a higher number of negative excursions per time. Perhaps partials performed for an equal number of drop sets in a single portion of the ROM would have the same effect, without having to work in different zones.

The reason I didn't spend a lot of time using J-reps is simply because I didn't see any in doing so, since I have equipment with balanced resistance curves.



No machine has perfectly adapted "balanced resistance curves" that fit you like a tee but are an average of a range of values. Didn't you just argue for anthropological differences for strength? Considering this you may benefit still from Stage reps/zone training/J-reps (whatever you want to call it a rose by any other name..;)
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Health issues:

Ask yourself what aspects of health you are trying to improve upon, and whether traditional strength training can address those aspects. If so, then there is no reason why JReps cannot do, likewise. After all, working in zones as per the JReps method is nothing more than a 'method' of how to execute or perform sets when lifting a load. It does not erradicate anything else.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

I know that I'm just a silly programmer and a bit of a layman in exercise science and I have massive respect for Johnston, Drew and Andrew because they are all madly intelligent in exercise science... But, this made a lot of sense to me:

Drew Baye said:
No, but this is the most important point. The fact that you can make certain "zones" feel harder by pre-fatiguing the muscles in other parts of the ROM doesn't change the fact that the actual resistance encountered in the easier parts of the ROM is lighter. It may feel hard because the muscle is fatigued, but the actual tension, which is what matters, is still well below what the muscle is capable of, and thus doesn't constitute overload. It's extra work, extra energy expended, without additional meaningful growth stimulus.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

henry_bordeaux wrote:

we also have equipment with balanced resistance curves. some trainees can use 50lbs in the last 5-10% of extension of the nautilus leg ext. and 130 during the rest. same with a lot of other exercise machines.

so...there really are no machines with properly balanced resistance curves. you always have light, medium and hard parts during a rep. and zone training just tries to make each part harder; because in a regular rep you are always limited by the amount of weight you can use during the "hard" part of the rep.



It doesn't sound like you understand what I mean by balanced resistance curves. If the resistance curve is well balanced, the resistance should feel the same over the full ROM.

Also, you missed my point completely. Just because J-reps makes a particular part of the ROM feel harder does not mean the actual mechanical load has increased. Just because it feels harder due to fatigue doesn't mean it is providing a greater growth stimulus.

Perhaps it's important to clarify that what I mean by "harder" in this context is, working against a higher level of resistance. I'm talking about the quality of resistance, not the way the exercise feels.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Hi Drew,

It appears you have overlooked the subtle but fundamental difference between Zone Training and full ROM reps (not to mention rep variables). Cams etc do not account for a lot of things when attempting to match force curves with strength curves.

That is why there are no perfect machines. One person will say this or that machine is great and another will try it and say no this other one is better. How the resistances feels (for isolation and targeting) is body specific, cadence specific, fatigue dependant, load dependant, muscle fiber type dependant, qualityof nerve inervation dependant etc, etc, etc.

Machines have helped provide better full range resistance but they didn't solve even half the issues present. This is why people still use free weights and get just as good results. People who truly build muscle and are serious about it (and don't give in to genetic constraints)know inherently that they must milk the angles and ROM's that truly target and isolate a muscle.

Zone Training make this far easier to do while producing a whole host of added benefits. A large one is more contractions per the same unit of time. More static work, less negative resting all without losing all that positive squeezing and flexing. The ability to fit the load, cadence, ROM to the muscle specifically for that angle in that position. I could go on for pages but already have in the new book.

Drew you are a classic example of what is stagnant in the HIT community. You read and post all sorts of research and know everybody but still use 30-40 year old protocols. You physique as is was built a long time ago, since then you have regressed getting lost in S.S. and then what? - bulk up with some body fat and lift greater and greater poundage's (ala HD)?

Those who fail to move forward with exercise science get hung up on how easy it is to maintain ones physique with HIT. It is great that a full body session twice even once a week allows for maintenance but in the end so what?

Gain fat, rip down add maybe a pound of muscle or retain a few that you usually lose leaning out. It is all just stagnant. Read and quote research and yakyakyak but if it is nothing more than any old hard and progressive program brings why bother with all the writing and hype? Why use 10's of thousands of dollars worth of machines to get exactly the same results as a set of free weights in your basement provide?

The likes of Mike L. and I, Johnston, and many others (now being listed more and more on the zone site) are adding new muscle because of JReps. That is why we do it. Not for money or notoriety but muscle plan and simple. We like to talk muscle and fitness and thus we yap about what is working for us now not just what worked 20 years ago.

We discuss Zone Training because it is the next step forward in smart training not because it is magical. It augments HIT very well, it does not detract from it. The HIT community deserves more and better like TNHIT and such.

You read the first JRep book and tried it on a couple of sets? How very unbiased and thorough of you. If that is how you test and judge things why should we follow your opinion at all? Because you fine tune and regurgitate the writings from 30 years past? Because you have a decent physique your built decades ago? You got caught in S.S. for a reason I suggest you have a 'real' look inside. Johnston and I both let our physiques suffer from poorly conceived notions from the HIT community but we learned accepted and moved on.

Time to move on Drew.

Regards,
Andrew

P.S. If you have even have half a clue about what this method suggests, you would know that the Stage Rep variable is but one of thousands of such possible outcomes from proper application of Zone Training. Are you being sarcastic or do you really not 'Get It'?
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

henry_bordeaux wrote:
I am still wondering what Drews improvements are in the last 10 years?



I'm still wondering why you "zone" guys continue with ad hominum arguments while completely avoiding addressing any of the points in the original post.

Perhaps you have so much invested in this method of training, including your reputations, that you can't look at it objectively. I'll be more interested to see what people are saying about it in a year or two, than all the claims being made now.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

deanjones wrote:
I know that I'm just a silly programmer and a bit of a layman in exercise science and I have massive respect for Johnston, Drew and Andrew because they are all madly intelligent in exercise science... But, this made a lot of sense to me:

Drew Baye said:
No, but this is the most important point. The fact that you can make certain "zones" feel harder by pre-fatiguing the muscles in other parts of the ROM doesn't change the fact that the actual resistance encountered in the easier parts of the ROM is lighter. It may feel hard because the muscle is fatigued, but the actual tension, which is what matters, is still well below what the muscle is capable of, and thus doesn't constitute overload. It's extra work, extra energy expended, without additional meaningful growth stimulus.


This shows you only one thing, if you are really interested read carefully. This shows you that Drew does NOT understand the method. It shows you the type of thing that derails people from true bodybuilding.

First off fatigue as described affects a full ROM rep and set in exactly the same way.

More importantly training in zones is not just about the Stage rep variable type thing. I mean how many exercises do you think you could find to fit Stage Reps to? 3 zones all performed in equal reps to failure in progressive (hard to easy) fashion. There aren't many such exercises to breakdown that way. For most one Stage would be too light and another too heavy and so forth.

With Zone Training you fit all aspects (load, cadence, zone size etc) to your specific muscle needs. We don't just use fatigue to even out a force curve that was thought of years ago. We match the zone to the muscle and vice versa. Very simple and elegant in structure but not so easy to master let alone grasp as a concept when you mind is already full of personal bias.

Besides what Drew said negates half of what constitutes proper anaerobic exercise. The load is only part of the
picture. As soon as you begin lifting various bundles of fibers fatigue and others take over. You want to fatiuge as many fibers as possible and you cannot bring them all into play at once, mega loads or not. This is why we stick to at least 55-65 seconds TUT and such things. Drew seems to have slid backwards in HIT methadology.

The body reserves much of its possible force output. Even after lifting massive 1 RM you are capable of lifting just under that amount...I can't believe I have to explain that in response to a Drew Baye comment!!!

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
henry_bordeaux wrote:
I am still wondering what Drews improvements are in the last 10 years?

I'm still wondering why you "zone" guys continue with ad hominum arguments while completely avoiding addressing any of the points in the original post.

Perhaps you have so much invested in this method of training, including your reputations, that you can't look at it objectively. I'll be more interested to see what people are saying about it in a year or two, than all the claims being made now.



LOL! talk about ad hominum, Henry doesn't have anything invested in Zone Training! hahaha, that is so friggen silly Drew.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Cherry wrote:

No machine has perfectly adapted "balanced resistance curves" that fit you like a tee but are an average of a range of values. Didn't you just argue for anthropological differences for strength? Considering this you may benefit still from Stage reps/zone training/J-reps (whatever you want to call it a rose by any other name..;)


This is correct, but the resistance curve doesn't have to be perfect to be effective, just reasonably close, for other reasons stated here. Full ROM isn't necessary for growth stimulation, and probably does not produce significantly better growth stimulation, if at all, so even if the resistance curve is relatively close and provides meaningful resistance over an adequate portion of the ROM, it's fine. In the case of the Nitro equipment, and for me, it feels pretty good over the full ROM on the majority of machines.

As long as the load is adequate and there is adequate negative movement, growth will be stimulated.

If I thought for one second that J-reps would help me gain additional muscle, I'd give it more than a brief try, but frankly, I don't. I think Brian is trying to come up with something unique to sell, and that while on the surface it may sound like a good idea, the premises aren't sound. If a person has the potential to gain a lot of muscle, they'll do so regardless of the specific rep method, provided they train hard, avoid overtraining, and get adequate rest and nutrition. If not, then unnecessarily sophisticated rep methods aren't going to make much of a difference. I think the additional negative excursions may provide some slight additional benefit, but no more than regular partials.

Time will tell :)
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:
...I can't believe I have to explain that in response to a Drew Baye comment!!!

Regards,
Andrew



Andrew, I'm well aware of everything you mention, and the fact you assume I'm not shows you also misunderstood the points I'm trying to make.

Nowhere did I say anything about 1 RMs. We use similar TULs with our clients, and I use 40 to 60 seconds in my own training when using regular, positive/negative reps. We don't do 1RMs with anyone we train. The closest we come to that is doing rest pause, in which case we might use 90 to 95% of a 1RM (estimated, since we don't do 1RM testing) for several reps with a long pause in between. You're attempting a straw man argument.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:

LOL! talk about ad hominum, Henry doesn't have anything invested in Zone Training! hahaha, that is so friggen silly Drew.

Regards,
Andrew


"Invested" doesn't exclusively refer to financial investment. It can also mean investing one's time and effort, and when one makes public statements supporting a method their ego gets involved, and that's an "investment" that can go bad if the method ends up being less than what it's cracked up to be.
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

Drew Baye wrote:
henry_bordeaux wrote:
I am still wondering what Drews improvements are in the last 10 years?



I'm still wondering why you "zone" guys continue with ad hominum arguments while completely avoiding addressing any of the points in the original post.

Perhaps you have so much invested in this method of training, including your reputations, that you can't look at it objectively. I'll be more interested to see what people are saying about it in a year or two, than all the claims being made now.






Drew,

I am no "Zone"-Guy, whatever that means. And I am still waiting for your answer about your improvements during the last 10 years.
And this is not meant to offend you in any way. Just be honest to yourself and all the guys who respect you on this board.


best regards.

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

It doesn't sound like you understand what I mean by balanced resistance curves. If the resistance curve is well balanced, the resistance should feel the same over the full ROM.

Also, you missed my point completely. Just because J-reps makes a particular part of the ROM feel harder does not mean the actual mechanical load has increased. Just because it feels harder due to fatigue doesn't mean it is providing a greater growth stimulus.

Perhaps it's important to clarify that what I mean by "harder" in this context is, working against a higher level of resistance. I'm talking about the quality of resistance, not the way the exercise feels.


That has not been accomplished with any machine thus far. The variables are too great to bother dealing with in machine construction, even Jones knew this. This is why he said most muscles couldn?t be isolated properly. Fatigue sets in and things change. You should know that trying for perfectly smooth cadence doesn?t help either. You get tired as you go from stretch to contraction but then get a big rest on the neg.

What you are missing is that needs change as fatigue sets in and we use bracing and coordination to make up for it. Just look closely at one of your clients as they near failure. The load is taken up more and more by surrounding musculature. You see them press into certain pads more than before and body position and weight distribution shifts though in a subtle fashion. Subtle or not the bracing and coordination is one of our bodies greatest abilities. It allows us to survive with relatively low amounts of muscular strength - relative that is to most species on the planet with small undeveloped brains.

Fatigue brings into play fibers not used plain and simple. You cannot rely solely on load this is why we do reps not 1 rep max lifts only. Harder is not just about the load but how your body handles it.

If you keep proper targeting and isolation on a muscle (ala JReps) it moves the same load with different fibers from the same muscle and drains and damages a great number of them (but not all by any means). If the load is too much at any point you must bring in surrounding musculature to help (or fail) - which is a unloading (like a strip set) of the muscle. Too much unloading (or failing too soon) does not allow you to fatigue a great number of the fibers. Nor will it fatigue the fibers with the most potential for growth.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

AShortt wrote:
The body reserves much of its possible force output. Even after lifting massive 1 RM you are capable of lifting just under that amount...I can't believe I have to explain that in response to a Drew Baye comment!!!

Regards,
Andrew



Like I said, I have respect for you all. Drew is very intelligent and that just made sense to me. I wouldn't discount any of Drew's comments. I've read the articles on his site and found many of them to be very thought provoking and intelligent. Same with Brain's comments and articles. Same with you.

I'm just here to gather knowledge. Not debate. I still have yet to read the JReps book that I have. I've read the first few pages of it and even though I read many many C, C++, PHP and other computer books and articles daily for my job, I lost interest quickly and moved onto something else.

I'm not saying it's a bad book or that I couldn't understand it... I'm saying that I just wasn't in the right frame of mind to begin reading it and haven't been for a few month's now. Probably due to all the other crap I have to read daily.

Unless a book is well written and provides immediate interest to me, I usually put it down quickly due to all of the reading I do daily... But, that's my fault.

So, I really have no ground to debate on this topic. I just wanted to point out that what he said made some sense to me. Could have been due to my lack of knowledge on the whole topic... But I'm reading everyone's comments here.

I hope the new JReps book and DVD have a better flow to them than what I have read so far, though... I mean, something that starts off with simple explanations and leads into the more technical definitions. It seemed like to me that the current JReps books starts out pretty dense and is really what made me put it aside for the few months that I have.

In my opinion, Darden has mastered the perfect writing style. Starting off light, easy to understand and once the reader has a solid grasp of the ideals, moves into the more technical aspects of the topic. Much how most technical programming texts are written... Well, the ones that most people consider "A must for any programmers bookshelf", anyway.


Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
AShortt wrote:
...I can't believe I have to explain that in response to a Drew Baye comment!!!

Regards,
Andrew



Andrew, I'm well aware of everything you mention, and the fact you assume I'm not shows you also misunderstood the points I'm trying to make.

Nowhere did I say anything about 1 RMs. We use similar TULs with our clients, and I use 40 to 60 seconds in my own training when using regular, positive/negative reps. We don't do 1RMs with anyone we train. The closest we come to that is doing rest pause, in which case we might use 90 to 95% of a 1RM (estimated, since we don't do 1RM testing) for several reps with a long pause in between. You're attempting a straw man argument.


I used 1 rep max to illustrate my point about load. You speak of load as independant of reps/TUT this is your mistake. I know you use reps not 1 rep max but your comments against JReps are based on a 1 rep max mentality. As in everything is load dependant.
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

Drew Baye wrote:
AShortt wrote:

LOL! talk about ad hominum, Henry doesn't have anything invested in Zone Training! hahaha, that is so friggen silly Drew.

Regards,
Andrew

"Invested" doesn't exclusively refer to financial investment. It can also mean investing one's time and effort, and when one makes public statements supporting a method their ego gets involved, and that's an "investment" that can go bad if the method ends up being less than what it's cracked up to be.





Drew,

in the public opinion you are now connected with OMEGA SETS.


best regards
Open User Options Menu

HIT

Norway

henry_bordeaux wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
henry_bordeaux wrote:
I am still wondering what Drews improvements are in the last 10 years?



I'm still wondering why you "zone" guys continue with ad hominum arguments while completely avoiding addressing any of the points in the original post.

Perhaps you have so much invested in this method of training, including your reputations, that you can't look at it objectively. I'll be more interested to see what people are saying about it in a year or two, than all the claims being made now.





Drew,

I am no "Zone"-Guy, whatever that means. And I am still waiting for your answer about your improvements during the last 10 years.
And this is not meant to offend you in any way. Just be honest to yourself and all the guys who respect you on this board.


best regards.





Drew has "invested" a lot of time learning about how to gain muscles. I wonder just as much as you what he has to show for the time invested??

Drew's brother (David Baye) is a top national bodybuilder, almost a pro. He trains by using the volume approach. Drew has said that he has tried to get his brother to train HIT, I wonder why he hasn't taken his brothers advice........??
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Well, Drew, you seem to be really promoting a book and method that you wrote a foreword to, and so right back at you. I could have written on anything, and people wanted me to do more advanced writing on the issue of muscle fiber type, fine-tuning TUTs, etc., but I did not. Consequently, I don't write to make money, but write for my own self-interest. Again, this has been stated I don't know how many times, whereas I make my living dealing with rehabilitation.

You stated: "'Invested' doesn't exclusively refer to financial investment. It can also mean investing one's time and effort, and when one makes public statements supporting a method their ego gets involved, and that's an "investment" that can go bad if the method ends up being less than what it's cracked up to be. "

I worked with this method intimately for over two months before even making word of it... and based on my results, that of Andrew and a few other test subjects, I went full bore with investigating and writing about it.

In terms of it not being what it's cracked up to be, to what extent would results have to exist for it to be considered a success? At age 41, I gained another 10 pounds of lean... Andrew another 12 pounds (and I suspect another 10 in the cards for him)... and then you have Coombes and the martial artist he's training. And then you have a natural bodybuilder who competes at the National level in Canada who claims that never did he achieve such quick and dramatic results (his name is Mario Foucault, and his story should be up soon).

And there are many others. I never made up the testimonials on the Zone site, and these are people with years of experience who have tried everything from static holds, to heavy partials, to Heavy Duty and Superslow, etc. Charlie Haire likely is one of the most knowledgeable on the issue of negative-only training... he is no stranger to hard work, and he is producing better results with zone training (and mostly negative-based JReps) than with traditional full ROM negatives. Charlie is an example of someone applying the method to fit his preference.

As stated already, you can rationalize why the method may not work, but you can't argue with the actual results of those who have committed to it (rather than tried it on a few exercises). Like a Slowburn person I know, who owns flat force curved machines, and who makes no progress himself (or little with his clients) you already made up your mind, and that limited any potential the method had from day one.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

deanjones wrote:

Like I said, I have respect for you all. Drew is very intelligent and that just made sense to me. I wouldn't discount any of Drew's comments. I've read the articles on his site and found many of them to be very thought provoking and intelligent. Same with Brain's comments and articles. Same with you.

I'm just here to gather knowledge. Not debate. I still have yet to read the JReps book that I have. I've read the first few pages of it and even though I read many many C, C++, PHP and other computer books and articles daily for my job, I lost interest quickly and moved onto something else.

I'm not saying it's a bad book or that I couldn't understand it... I'm saying that I just wasn't in the right frame of mind to begin reading it and haven't been for a few month's now. Probably due to all the other crap I have to read daily.

Unless a book is well written and provides immediate interest to me, I usually put it down quickly due to all of the reading I do daily... But, that's my fault.

So, I really have no ground to debate on this topic. I just wanted to point out that what he said made some sense to me. Could have been due to my lack of knowledge on the whole topic... But I'm reading everyone's comments here.

I hope the new JReps book and DVD have a better flow to them than what I have read so far, though... I mean, something that starts off with simple explanations and leads into the more technical definitions. It seemed like to me that the current JReps books starts out pretty dense and is really what made me put it aside for the few months that I have.

In my opinion, Darden has mastered the perfect writing style. Starting off light, easy to understand and once the reader has a solid grasp of the ideals, moves into the more technical aspects of the topic. Much how most technical programming texts are written... Well, the ones that most people consider "A must for any programmers bookshelf", anyway.



Thank uou Dean, probably some of the most level headed comments I have heard on a chat board.

The fist book was going to be an all out technical manual for Fitness Clinicians. After seeing what the world thought of HIT Johnston knew that not many would grasp the method in its proper context. I said no way! This has to go out mainstream it is a major step forward and I can tell from the outset it is an extremely productive addition to proper training. I am less developed than Johnston so the gains were far more obvious to me. Well thus far he was right but here are a few suggestions for you.

First read my comments in the afterward first for lighter conversational stuff to get your bearings and spark your interest. Next check out the zone site there are lots of good and interesting articles (even a short vid.) there as well.

Glad you knew you weren't in the right frame of mind. Johnston has no interest in canned routines. He supports only thinkers and serious trainers and trainees. This leaves room for his certified F.C.?s (like me) to show folks what exactly to do if they wish to utilize the services we offer.

Now that Johnston has committed and seen what Zone Training does for even rehab people he agreed to a more thorough and converstaional book. We had lots of new stuff to add so instead of just putting it out in Synergy we developed a whole new book. There was no better way to write about where the method was going (or taking us ;^) and I helped so he didn't mind the lighter stuff as much.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

HIT wrote:
henry_bordeaux wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
henry_bordeaux wrote:
I am still wondering what Drews improvements are in the last 10 years?



I'm still wondering why you "zone" guys continue with ad hominum arguments while completely avoiding addressing any of the points in the original post.

Perhaps you have so much invested in this method of training, including your reputations, that you can't look at it objectively. I'll be more interested to see what people are saying about it in a year or two, than all the claims being made now.





Drew,

I am no "Zone"-Guy, whatever that means. And I am still waiting for your answer about your improvements during the last 10 years.
And this is not meant to offend you in any way. Just be honest to yourself and all the guys who respect you on this board.


best regards.





Drew has "invested" a lot of time learning about how to gain muscles. I wonder just as much as you what he has to show for the time invested??

Drew's brother (David Baye) is a top national bodybuilder, almost a pro. He trains by using the volume approach. Drew has said that he has tried to get his brother to train HIT, I wonder why he hasn't taken his brothers advice........??





Drew said some time ago that his brother is a) not drug-free and b) has better genetics.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

HIT wrote:

Drew has "invested" a lot of time learning about how to gain muscles. I wonder just as much as you what he has to show for the time invested??

Drew's brother (David Baye) is a top national bodybuilder, almost a pro. He trains by using the volume approach. Drew has said that he has tried to get his brother to train HIT, I wonder why he hasn't taken his brothers advice........??


The point is though, if he has not built new muscle in a very long time then what of all the investment in reading, writing, practice etc. Perhaps he should have adopted some of his brothers skills!? Perhaps there is something to be said for a greater number of muscular contractions especially if your total time training remains the same.

People can cop-out with the 'genetic limits' argument and fine but I see little from much of the HIT community that any progressive protocol cannot match. Shouldn't we want more?

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy