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 | 8 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

In conclusion:

1. The stimulus for hypertrophy is strongly correlated with load. Making part of an exercise FEEL heavier by fatiguing the involved muscles doesn't actually make the load higher, or make doing the exercise in the lighter portion of the ROM more effective. Stage reps does not solve the problem of insufficient load.

So, find a better tool, or if possible alter the performance of the exercise to make the resistance and strength curves more congruent.

2. Some range of motion is necessary for hypertrophy (negative motion, in particular is strongly associated with cellular signaling for hypertrophy), but a full range of motion is not. Too many people have made significant gains with partial reps and methods like Power Factor Training and Bill de Simone's Moment Arm Exercise to dismiss this.

So, if you can't find a better tool or alter the performance of the exercise to make the resistance and strength curves more congruent, perform the exercise only over the range where a meaningful load is encountered. If you want to cover the full range, alternate between exercises who's resistance curves provide meaningful load in different portions of the ROM, such as dumbbell pullovers ( first half of the ROM) and straight armed cable pullovers (second half of the ROM).

3. A nice pump might feel good and make you look bigger and more vascular momentarily, but alone is not an indication of effective exercise or a significant factor in stimulating hypertrophy. It is possible to become very pumped without having an effective workout, and to have a very effective workout without much of a pump.

So, if you like being pumped up, fine, but don't evaluate your workouts based on pump.


1. The stimulus for hypertrophy is a stress response. Load, damage, fatigue,hormones, inflammation etc are all little pieces of the puzzle.

The load doesn't just FEEL heavier it IS heavier relative to your possible force output at that moment(two very different things). Just like a set to failure just means force output is below the load and action required to move it. Why go to failure if it is so much about load. Why? Because you need the progressive fatigue to bring into play more fibers not just the ones that the initial load brought into play.

If you understand Stress Physiology at all (the basis for exercise science) you know that stress is a negative. You know that it is threat of sorts. Just lifting more than the last time isn't that much of a threat. You need to create the whole stress picture and push a muscle to all its limits at once to create a true threat. This is because you need to significantly challenge your limits to see a muscle growth adaptation. You cannot actually do more than is possible with your present body but you can work all the limits in a full and balanced way. Just concentrating on intensity and load will do little especially past the intermediate stage of development.

More load only works in the beginning because you add so much as skill and muscle grow fast. As soon as everything becomes familiar gains slow then stop. That is where most peoples lifting careers end...sad.

2. There is carry over effect in both directions of a partial ROM but more growth and strength comes from working all aspects of a full ROM. Partial only training is always sub optimal. Just put someone through rehab to see this. Sure you can make gains with partial ROM training but so to can you make gains with HVT. I cannot belive you didn't learn that from Jones MedX work and personal observation over the years. See some of Johnstons experiments for more.

Old time bodybuilders worked all sorts of different exercises looking for and milking the sweet spots. This is why they needed hours in the gym and eventually drugs to keep following with this line of thinking. Zone Training has you making all parts of any exercises ROM 'sweet/productive'(as you can alter load, cadence, zone size etc 'between' zones).

3. Very oversimplified and all to often the opinion of dogmatic HITters. A pump from tons of light sets isn't productive. However - the more pump brought on by short, hard and heavy sets means more fibers worked and fatigued. It means more oxygen and nutrients pumped to the working muscles for better quality sets. It means better hormonal response, more draining of stored resources (see ATP deficit theory) and possible thickening of the muscle cell walls which in and of itself is linked to greater hormonal response.

Besides for goodness sake Drew! More, quicker and better pump allows for far better muscular feel, which instantly leads to better targeting and isolation. The mind muscle connection is far more important than load, they aren't even in the same category! It is your brain that chooses what muscles to work in what order and how hard and for how long. A traditional HIT trainer who favors and pushes folks to failure (instead of multiple sets) should know this like the back of his hand. I am astonished at your outlook , S.S. did some real messing with your mind?

Switching zones, more contractions etc all flush out metabolic watse products better and thus fight burn and premature muscular failure. Premature caused by too much burn and/or so much swelling build up that nerve communication is grossely hindered. Now of course the end result (because this is all just Stress in the end) is more swelling and pump than evere before brought on by Zone Training. This causes nerve constriction, swelling and burn like never before but the whole point IS to bring it to a new level without having to train longer or drain energy more.
Open User Options Menu

RX Fitness

New York, USA

Couldn't have said it better myself Andrew.

Regards,
Craig Murway CCS CRT CFC
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

A point to consider:

My business primarily is in working with rehab clients (usually car accident victims). However, I have a passion in trying to take an advanced bodybuilder's physique to the limits (drug-free is best, so that I know and can control the changes).

On this basis, the people who are utilizing this method consist of a large minority of advanced trainees (a number of these people are trainomg beginners and intermediates, but they will respond to just about anything).

On that basis, the fact that advanced trainees who have done everything under the Sun are claiming superior results and changes not before achieved should suggest something very clear.

On that basis, to demonstrate the advantage of flat force curved machines and Mr. Baye's methods (which could be very good), would require taking advanced trainees... people who are not responding any longer to traditional, hard training, and then to produce change that never existed before (which is different than regaining).

I have not done Omega sets and will not comment on them. I have done heavy negatives with no change except strength output. I have done heavy partials and static holds, although not so heavy as to keep my hold for only a second or so. Therefore, my experience is limited in the method, and in some other methods (such as Dogg Crapp).

Consequently, once Drew produces some results with advanced trainees... results that have these people standing up and taking notice, then so will I, and I would appreciate the same courtesy rather than an ad hominem attack that I wrote about this method merely to sell books. In any case, I really don't care if the positive results are nothing more than testimonials, or if body comp and photos are available, since I trust Drew in the outcome of the data.
Open User Options Menu

davise

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but asking some honest questions.....with a properly setup 12 machine circuit done 2-3 times a person could build strength and muscle, cardiovascular fitness and full range flexibility.
Can JREPS do that?
Open User Options Menu

M Lipowski

New York, USA

From my observations of those who are critical of Zone Training there seems to some commonalities:

1) Each relies more on studies and research done by others (who have their own biases)instead of doing their own research using themselves and their clients. Without being present for a study it's difficult to determine all the variables that may have effected the outcome.


2) Each feels that they have "better tools" thus they do not need a better method. As if a machine can make up for the shortcomings of training program outside the performance of a repetition.

3) Each is quick to point to their own genetic limitations as the reason why even their highly intelligent, scientifically proven training regimens have not continually produced results beyond lifting heavier weight.

4) None have utilized the method long enough to make a true determination of its effectiveness (I'm as skilled a lifter as any and it took me 6-7 months to fine-tune the technique and I was using JReps for EVERY exercise at EVERY workout up until that point). To say that you tried it out on a few exercises for few workouts here and there and made a determination based on that is not research.

Finally...

5) I believed that each got burned so badly doing Super Slow--investing all their time and effort for nothing--that the thought of investing more time and energy into a "new" method that may or may not work much better than what they are currently doing and what got them out of the SS rut, actually scares them to some degree.

What can be worse than getting a second wake-up call that what you believe simply does not work (at least not as well as something else). This is the reason why Drew's brother won't take on HIT just like Drew has not "completely" taken on Zone-Training. It's the "what if's". What if it doesn't work as well? What if it does?

Best,

Mike
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

davise wrote:
Sorry to interrupt your argument, but asking some honest questions.....with a properly setup 12 machine circuit done 2-3 times a person could build strength and muscle, cardiovascular fitness and full range flexibility.
Can JREPS do that?


I have used traditional Nautilus and Darden based protocol in the past with myself and many others. Add JReps and it enhances the results in a very significant and undeniable way. In fact it was my opinion from the outset that this method puts back into full body training (circuit style or not) what it had to give up.

Don't think of Zone Training as being something totally 'other' than HIT. It is an augmentation of rep and set performance to fit to your personal needs and choice in training method (i.e. to failure, NTF, HVT, whatever) it can help you see what those approaches are missing and need added.

In the end the amount of volume (reps, TUT, number of sets, workout length) you use, intensity, frequency, load, specificity, cycling style, exercise choices etc you use - * will be dictated by how well a rep and set are going ? not the other way around*. It is backwards engineering that exercise science has so long suffered from. The body is dynamic and isn't fixed or changed like an automobile if you catch my drift.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

M Lipowski wrote:

5) I believed that each got burned so badly doing Super Slow--investing all their time and effort for nothing--that the thought of investing more time and energy into a "new" method that may or may not work much better than what they are currently doing and what got them out of the SS rut, actually scares them to some degree.

Best,

Mike


Best comment in the thread, thanx Mike.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

AShortt wrote:
I have used traditional Nautilus and Darden based protocol in the past with myself and many others. Add JReps and it enhances the results in a very significant and undeniable way. In fact it was my opinion form the outset that this method puts back into full body training (circuit style or not) what it had to give up.


Andrew,

Please expand on what you're syaing here. What exactly did full-body traning have to "give up" and how does JReps/ZT "put it back"?

Regards,
Scott
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

Lots of rhetoric here about how it works and most of it is just general speech. No one really knows just what is going on at the physiological level.

But one big mistake would be to dismiss out of hand new ideas and methods for the simple reason you don't understand it or can't make it fit in your present worldview.

An appealing dream try to deduce the world by thought alone but proof in the pudding is in the eating!

Maybe it doesn't make sense [now], Drew, but TRY IT nonetheless. What have you got to lose?

My 2 cents.

:))
Open User Options Menu

JJ McClinton

I personally think a lot of great information has come from this forum topic.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

AShortt wrote:
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.


So, these books are primarily designed for the FC's? And then the FC's are the ones that explain it to laymen like me? Or are you saying that's the way the old JReps book was and the new one is better? Because, I don't think I like that idea...

I think throwing in at least one canned routine for example is a good idea to help show how one would incorporate JReps into a routine...

Open User Options Menu

gdm

Decades ago Peary Rader had a course I believe called Isotonic training, used is a power rack. Some people such as Anthony Ditillo thought it was unmatched fro building size and strenght. This waq a form of zone trainig. The partials moves were generally broken into 3 areas. Oviously you you do any number zones you wished. In addition, since you workrd within a power rack, you could do an isomentric hold after each rep I am not clear on exactly how Jreps are done, but with zone training within a power rack you could use the heaviest possible weight for each area plus an isometric hold.
I don't know how you messure progression with Jreps,i.e. how do you know you are using the same distance in each zone as the last time? Plus what if you get stuck in one zone and cannot get to the next zone? Please explain, as i said Iam not certain on how to perform this method.
With power rack zone training this would not happen, but moving from zone to zone would take time (possibly 30- 60 seconds or more).
Has any tried this type of power rack training?
Would like comments especially from the jReps folks.
Thanks, Don
Open User Options Menu

davise

Just watched your video on your zone web site.

http://www.zone-training.net/...es/JRepdemo.mov

Another question? I'm young and healthy so no problems for me (rep speed) Would zone training and quick rep speed be safe for someone like my Mom (late sixties)?
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:
1. The stimulus for hypertrophy is a stress response. Load, damage, fatigue,hormones, inflammation etc are all little pieces of the puzzle.


The stimulus for muscle fiber hypertrophy is a response to a very particular type of stress, and current research shows cellular signaling for hypertrophy is strongly correlated with load and eccentric muscle actions. There is a linear relationship between load and microtrauma. Insulin-Like Growth Factor and Mechano Growth Factor are sensitive to load.

Load and eccentric work are the two most important aspects of exercise where hypertrophy is concerned. There are other contributing factors, including fatigue, but load and eccentric muscle action are the major factors.


AShortt wrote:
The load doesn't just FEEL heavier it IS heavier relative to your possible force output at that moment(two very different things).


Whether the load is heavier relative to your possible force output at that moment is irrelevant. If you fatigued yourself to the point where you could barely move against a pound of resistance, that pound might represent a significant percentage of your momentary ability, but the actual tension in the muscle wouldn't be adequate to cause damage/microtrauma.


AShortt wrote:
Just like a set to failure just means force output is below the load and action required to move it. Why go to failure if it is so much about load. Why? Because you need the progressive fatigue to bring into play more fibers not just the ones that the initial load brought into play.


Yes. Fatigue is a necessary factor for motor unit recruitment, and the load needs to allow for at least some reasonable time for fatigue, which will vary between individuals. Set duration/TUL is somewhat of a compromise between using a high enough load to cause microtrauma while still enabling a long enough duration to ensure thorough recruitment so that microtrauma can occur throughout the muscle. Fatigue is not the most important factor however.

See Folland JP, Irish CS, Roberts JC, Tarr JE, Jones, DA. Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br J Sports Med 2002;36:370?374

The authors say, "... for normal dynamic training of a large muscle group (quadriceps), the accumulation of metabolites ? typically associated with the sensation of pain during exercise ? is not a necessary characteristic of training conducted to increase muscle strength. The use of large rest periods between each repetition did not limit the gains in strength achieved compared with traditional sets of 10 repetitions."

You can download this from http://baye.com/...t_necessary.pdf


AShortt wrote:
If you understand Stress Physiology at all (the basis for exercise science) you know that stress is a negative. You know that it is threat of sorts. Just lifting more than the last time isn't that much of a threat.


If the load is increased enough, regularly enough, it is. This is the most fundamental principle of resistance training: progressive resistance.


AShortt wrote:
You need to create the whole stress picture and push a muscle to all its limits at once to create a true threat. This is because you need to significantly challenge your limits to see a muscle growth adaptation. You cannot actually do more than is possible with your present body but you can work all the limits in a full and balanced way. Just concentrating on intensity and load will do little especially past the intermediate stage of development.


The primary function of muscle is force production, and nearly everything going on in the muscle is in support of that function, and stressed by placing a demand on it's ability to perform that function. A sufficiently hard set of sufficient duration will do the job, regardless of the repetition method used.


AShortt wrote:
More load only works in the beginning because you add so much as skill and muscle grow fast. As soon as everything becomes familiar gains slow then stop. That is where most peoples lifting careers end...sad.


This is not true. At first you are capable of increasing the resistance you use quickly because your starting level is well below what your muscles are actually capable of. As you become more skilled in performing the exercise and as you become more confident and overcome mental inhibitions to pushing yourself harder, you'll get to the point where further improvements will come mostly from real muscle gains, and not just further skill improvement. It is those first six to eight weeks where a baseline is established from which to start real progress. Unfortunately, many people confuse this with the real progress, and assume the slowdown after six to eight weeks is a plateau, when it's really the point where you're at the starting line and the real progress begins.


AShortt wrote:
2. There is carry over effect in both directions of a partial ROM but more growth and strength comes from working all aspects of a full ROM. Partial only training is always sub optimal. Just put someone through rehab to see this. Sure you can make gains with partial ROM training but so to can you make gains with HVT. I cannot belive you didn't learn that from Jones MedX work and personal observation over the years. See some of Johnstons experiments for more.


Jones was brilliant and insightful, but not infallible. MedX equipment can be very useful for testing purposes, but it's not perfect, nor are all study designs.

I prefer full-range training because most exercises involve more than a single muscle and the relative contribution of those muscles varies over the full ROM, thus the effectiveness of the exercise for the different muscles involved (thus strength over the full ROM) depends somewhat on the resistance curve. However, as you mention, there is carryover to either side, and as long as there is meaningful load for enough of the ROM, the exercise will be effective.

If an exercise has a terribly unbalanced resistance curve, it can be alternated with an exercise with a complementary resistance curve. Instead of alternating zones, why not alternate performing partials with exercises working the muscle in different portions of the ROM if you don't have equipment with balanced resistance curves? Perhaps do dumbbell kickbacks in the top half only, followed immediately by dumbbell overhead extensions in the bottom half only? You'd probably be better off performing a different exercise with a more balanced resistance curve altogether, however.

Most free weight and cable exercises can be performed in a manner that provides a more balanced resistance curve, and as long as there is meaningful resistance over a significant portion of the ROM, it will be effective for stimulating hypertrophy.

In any case, if a resistance curve is way off, fatiguing a muscle prior to performing the exercise in the underloaded portion of the ROM isn't going to change the fact that the actual load - the tension on the muscle, not the percentage of momentary strength - isn't any higher, and that any additional work after performing partials in the first, hardest portion of the ROM probably contributes little additional growth stimulus.

Someone else, who I'm not sure would like to be quoted on this or not, compared J-reps to a mechanical manipulation of the exercise to accomplish the same effect as a drop set. You're basically fatiguing the muscle at the hardest portion of the ROM, then going to an easier portion and fatiguing it further, then doing it again if dividing the exercise in thirds. While this certainly adds more fatigue to the set, and it does so while still staying within a reasonable TUL, it doesn't address the inadequate load in some portions of the ROM on some exercises, which is what I was pointing out.


AShortt wrote:
Old time bodybuilders worked all sorts of different exercises looking for and milking the sweet spots. This is why they needed hours in the gym and eventually drugs to keep following with this line of thinking.


David Landau is the expert on this, so perhaps he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't many old time bodybuilders stick to pretty basic barbell exercises like squats, various presses and rowing movements, curls, and bodyweight movements? Also, didn't the really high volume training first start coming into vogue in the 70's?


AShortt wrote:
Zone Training has you making all parts of any exercises ROM sweet/productive'(as you can alter load, cadence, zone size etc 'between' zones).


No, it doesn't, and that's my point. It doesn't affect the actual load/tension on the muscle, but rather the perceived difficulty as a result of fatigue. It may be an effective way of producing a very deep level of fatigue, but it doesn't solve the problem of unbalanced resistance curves, or improve the quality of loading during the exercise.


AShortt wrote:
3. Very oversimplified and all to often the opinion of dogmatic HITters. A pump from tons of light sets isn't productive. However - the more pump brought on by short, hard and heavy sets means more fibers worked and fatigued. It means more oxygen and nutrients pumped to the working muscles for better quality sets. It means better hormonal response, more draining of stored resources (see ATP deficit theory) and possible thickening of the muscle cell walls which in and of itself is linked to greater hormonal response.


The pump is not a significant factor, and is not necessarily an indication of more fibers worked or fatigued, and is not an indication of a quality set, a "better hormonal response", or any of these things. One can get a good pump doing all sorts of things that will have none of the above effects, and something as simple as hydration and current blood volume will affect one's degree of pump.


AShortt wrote:
Besides for goodness sake Drew! More, quicker and better pump allows for far better muscular feel, which instantly leads to better targeting and isolation.


Proper form and practice will improve muscular feel and the ability to isolate particular muscle groups during exercise, without relying on the pump.


AShortt wrote:
The mind muscle connection is far more important than load, they aren't even in the same category!


This simply is not true. Regardless of how good your motor control, kinesthetic sense, "mind muscle connection" or whatever you want to call it is, if you are not working your muscles against a meaningful level of resistance, you're not going to stimulate growth. By dismissing the importance of load, you're dismissing the most fundamental principles of resistance training: overload and progression, not to mention a lot of research showing a linear relationship between load and microtrauma.


AShortt wrote:
Switching zones, more contractions etc all flush out metabolic watse products better and thus fight burn and premature muscular failure.


Not necessarily, and this isn't necessarily a good thing either. Consider research suggesting vascular occlusion contributes to greater growth stimulation.


AShortt wrote: Premature caused by too much burn and/or so much swelling build up that nerve communication is grossely hindered.

Nervous function is not "grossly hindered" by lactic acid concentration or edema.


AShortt wrote: Now of course the end result (because this is all just Stress in the end) is more swelling and pump than evere before brought on by Zone Training. This causes nerve constriction, swelling and burn like never before but the whole point IS to bring it to a new level without having to train longer or drain energy more.


The point of exercise for bodybuilding isn't to cause swelling and burning sensation, it is primarily to cause microtrauma to stimulate growth, which is directly related to load.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

deanjones wrote:

So, these books are primarily designed for the FC's? And then the FC's are the ones that explain it to laymen like me? Or are you saying that's the way the old JReps book was and the new one is better? Because, I don't think I like that idea...

I think throwing in at least one canned routine for example is a good idea to help show how one would incorporate JReps into a routine...



No the JRep books are not manuals (though there will be one available soon). I was saying that Johnston would have presented it that way but I encouraged him to go for a more APEX style thing. So the first book is still a bit dry and compact but it does offer routines and examples. The second book is likely the best thing the IART has ever produced and that comes from Johnston not just me.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Hello.

1. The rep speed is not fast, since the movement is based on a hard squeeze of the muscle rather than the propulsion of a load (as in throwing). In other words, you do not move explosively, but squeeze hard into position. When you do so under muscular control, and while targeting and relaxing (as need be), the forces are not very high. I work with rehab and some of them are elderly... they have no problems and their progress accelerates more so than with traditional lifting (particularly since I can work around sore spots by working in zones).

2. The first book contains some example routines, and the second book does likewise, but the idea is to custom design workouts based on the equipment at your disposal, which varies considerably among trainees. I do write books with our instructors in mind, whereas the general public comes second, but hundreds of people have the first book and are able to follow it. The second book involves more advanced applications.

3. Based on this last point, one can implement isometrics within zones, and one can train zones in descending or ascending style... or add forced overloads or negatives, etc. In other words, one trains in zones, but applies set variables as one sees fit. Again, zone training is about performance and execution without specifics in overall prescription or the addition of variables within zones.

4. Zones do not have to remain constant. You must go by feel, to determine where the tension eases off and where it is too hard. From there you work your zone, and the distance could alter as you fatigue. By doing so, you are optimizing the extent of fatigue, to the point of only working fractals within a zone. No machine with 'ideal' force curves can match the dynamics of what is going on with this methodology (unless you use the machine WITH the methodology).

5. Measuring progress is not limited to how much you can lift. If your primary goal is your physique, then THAT is what you are measuring progress on. If it is how much you can lift, then you need to ask yourself how you plan on measuring that... how much is used when zone training or how much you can do in a full ROM rep (and if you're not a competitive lifter, does it really matter?), or how well you function in daily life.

6. In regard to the last point above, if you have to measure your strength based on how much you can lift, then you're really limiting how you think about your body. Your function outside the gym and how strong you feel in general when doing ADLs are far more important. A person simply can feel when he or she is strong (or stronger) and healthy. A person can bench press 400 pounds, but may not be very strong in unrelated movements. There are plenty of articles on the zone-training.net site, including one on athletes and rehab with JReps (the people I train have increased their strength far more by working in zones, because of the overall inroad effect and constant tension per distance and time).

7. If you get stuck in one zone and cannot get to the next, then do a JReps Extreme... rest 15-20 seconds and resume... or adjust the weight and resume. JReps is NOT a fixed method of how to work in zones (as per the example of the person in the power rack).

8. What typical HIT misses out on is the lack of volume, which is why frequency is substituted. That works fine for some people, but I find it works better with those who have a high degree of fast twitch fibers. Those people fatigue very quickly and get a lot out of 1-2 sets per muscle. For many others, those with slow twitch and intermediate, more volume works better than more frequency... to obtain sufficient inroad within a single workout (since each workout stands on its own in regard to the stimulus-response mechanism). Hence, if you limit your training to 1-2 exercises per muscle, and you execute around 24 contractions on average in 60 seconds, and reach fatigue 2-3 times in 60-seconds, you not only get the intensity, but you get the volume effect (because of the contractions as opposed to the number of sets). However, many full body people find JReps too demanding, and so need to divide the body into two sections each time... half JReps one full body workout, and then JReps for the remainder of the body next full body workout. The demands of JReps are obvious when a person needs to do this, and so if the issue of overall demands and intensity is most important in stimulating gains, then training in zones is more HIT than full ROM reps.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

gdm wrote:
Decades ago Peary Rader had a course I believe called Isotonic training, used is a power rack. Some people such as Anthony Ditillo thought it was unmatched fro building size and strenght. This waq a form of zone trainig. The partials moves were generally broken into 3 areas. Oviously you you do any number zones you wished. In addition, since you workrd within a power rack, you could do an isomentric hold after each rep I am not clear on exactly how Jreps are done, but with zone training within a power rack you could use the heaviest possible weight for each area plus an isometric hold.
I don't know how you messure progression with Jreps,i.e. how do you know you are using the same distance in each zone as the last time? Plus what if you get stuck in one zone and cannot get to the next zone? Please explain, as i said Iam not certain on how to perform this method.
With power rack zone training this would not happen, but moving from zone to zone would take time (possibly 30- 60 seconds or more).
Has any tried this type of power rack training?
Would like comments especially from the jReps folks.
Thanks, Don


We are not interested in max load but properly loading the targeted muscles. That is to say we want load and fatigue but without losing proper isolation. If the targeted muscles isn't doing almost all the work you get lack luster pump, lack luster contractions and poor results no matter how much you lift or how hard you work. With Zone Training you gauge by the feed back your body gives. You feel the muscle working hard, it pumps and flexes hard and you see it and the fatigue goes real deep and throughout the full ROM. Then you gauge the overall picture (volume, frequency, strategy etc) by whether you are building new muscle or not.

Zone size just like load, cadence etc. is dictated by how well you can isolate the muscle and feel it contracting hard. Once you have felt the JRep effect you know what to look for. We look to hit failure after covering the full ROM in about 60 seconds. You adjust the TUT up or down if you feel a muscel needs it (i.e. Slow to Fatigue/STF,Mixed/MTF or Fast/FTF)

Regards,
Andrew


Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

M Lipowski wrote:
From my observations of those who are critical of Zone Training there seems to some commonalities:

1) Each relies more on studies and research done by others (who have their own biases)instead of doing their own research using themselves and their clients. Without being present for a study it's difficult to determine all the variables that may have effected the outcome.


Not all of us have laboratories or access to the kind of high tech equipment or study populations to conduct proper scientific or clinical research on muscle cell physiology. Perhaps you could lend me your small-angle x-ray scattering beamline and solid-phase radioimmunoassay equipment, and a bunch of technicians. Until then, I'll keep reading other people's research.


M Lipowski wrote:
2) Each feels that they have "better tools" thus they do not need a better method. As if a machine can make up for the shortcomings of training program outside the performance of a repetition.


I've said on many occassions that the method is far more important than the tools. The method in question, however, was proposed at least in part as a solution to the problem of poor resistance curves on equipment like the Bowflex, and I simply explained why this isn't the solution some people believed, because it doesn't really address the problem of inadequate load in certain parts of the ROM. Of course, that probably isn't as big of a problem as some people believe either, so in a way it's a flawed solution to a problem that might not be a big deal to begin with.


M Lipowski wrote:
3) Each is quick to point to their own genetic limitations as the reason why even their highly intelligent, scientifically proven training regimens have not continually produced results beyond lifting heavier weight.


Genetic limitations are a very real consideration, and not everybody can gain muscle size continually (drug free) year after year beyond some point, assuming they were training and eating correctly to begin with.

Perhaps with steroids or other growth drugs, but most people would be well served by taking on a more realistic perspective on genetics and forget what they see in the muscle magazines.


M Lipowski wrote:
4) None have utilized the method long enough to make a true determination of its effectiveness (I'm as skilled a lifter as any and it took me 6-7 months to fine-tune the technique and I was using JReps for EVERY exercise at EVERY workout up until that point). To say that you tried it out on a few exercises for few workouts here and there and made a determination based on that is not research.


You don't have to try certain things to recognize a flaw in the premises behind them. I don't have to try doing 100 rep sets with tiny weights to know it isn't going to do much for me, or bang my head against the wall to find out whether or not it will hurt.

I'm not saying J-reps aren't an effective way to train, only that there's nothing special about them that makes them any more effective than doing normal stage-reps or heavy-range partials. They're not bad, they're just not the "next big thing" a few people are trying to make them out to be. For the handful of people here talking about all these results they've gotten with them, I've received four times as many private messages and e-mails from people saying the opposite, who simply don't want to get into an argument here because anyone who disagrees with Brian or Andrew is simply attacked nonstop until they get sick of arguing and give up, or wear down and say "fine, fine, I'll give it a try" because they don't want to waste any more time talking with them about it.



M Lipowski wrote:
Finally...

5) I believed that each got burned so badly doing Super Slow--investing all their time and effort for nothing--that the thought of investing more time and energy into a "new" method that may or may not work much better than what they are currently doing and what got them out of the SS rut, actually scares them to some degree.


Not at all. I've experimented with lots of things since then. Rest pause, Max Contraction, negative-only, short "pulse reps", or whatever you want to call them, at the end of a normal set, etc.


M Lipowski wrote:

What can be worse than getting a second wake-up call that what you believe simply does not work (at least not as well as something else). This is the reason why Drew's brother won't take on HIT just like Drew has not "completely" taken on Zone-Training. It's the "what if's". What if it doesn't work as well? What if it does?

Best,

Mike


First off, you don't know my brother. He got poor results with low-load, high-TUL SS, then got good results with more conventional HIT, and only started doing HVT after getting involved with competitive bodybuilding, and I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't realize that competitive bodybuilding is more about chemistry than training. Without knowing the specifics of the situation, you're not qualified to comment on them.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

davise wrote:

Another question? I'm young and healthy so no problems for me (rep speed) Would zone training and quick rep speed be safe for someone like my Mom (late sixties)?


What looks like a fast rep is not. If it takes 2 seconds for a zone (1 sec. up and 1 down plus a slight pause at both ends) and there are 3 zones - that is 3 seconds up and 3 seconds down (or 2/4) for a full ROM rep. Now that would be say an arm curl where a pullover would be more like 1.5 - 2 seconds per zone for thirds (5-6 up and 5-6 seconds down).

We use only an appropriate load and cadence for each muscle relative to what that muscle can handle in a particular zone in a particular exercise. It is safer than anything I have ever done.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
The idea that one can improve the effectiveness of an exercise by dividing the ROM into zones and performing partial movements in those zones in order from hardest to easiest overlooks the fact that while this may make each zone feel equally hard, the actual resistance encountered in each zone does not change.



That big run on sentence is misleading as all heck.

The resistance doesn't change but how the muscle bears the load does!!! That is what matters, what the muscle is doing not how much load is attached to the tool.

- At different angles muscles work differently and tension is distributed differently.

- At different lengths muscles work differently. There is way more chance for force production when a muscle is only half contracted (as per Bill's book which you supposedly understood). Thus there is more chance for dramatically loading the muscle at stretch (for a alarming stress response)and more need for loading heavy in the middle etc. Muscle shape (fatter to the middle and shortening from both ends toward the middle) and what happens on a microscopic level (overlap) is the reason.

- As a muscle fatigues different bundles of fibers take over to handle the load so as fatigue sets in it isn't even the same fibers working (when say hitting a new rep or zone) as you began with. Muscles fatigue and are either on or off.

- Muscles often need time to reach peak force output.

- Working a shorter range allows you to concentrate more on targeting and isolating the chosen muscle(s). This helps the mind muscle connection, which allows you to work the muscle more thoroughly because of enhanced control. This is like learning to raise an eyebrow, or flex muscles better when posing etc. It works better through a shorter range because you aren't distracted by the differences between stretch, middle and full contraction and aren't letting off on the negative for so long.

You work rhythmically and in short beats which in all skills enhances learning and mind muscle feel. The better you can feel and control a muscle the more you can load and work it without just moving your limbs like a powerlifter. With JReps you keep adjusting everything to keep isolation and quality feel, high.

We work to enhance muscular feel like a sport weightlifter works to coordinate all muscle function to move a load from point A to point B.
Open User Options Menu

Bill De Simone

New Jersey, USA

Since my name's popped up here a few times I'll throw in.

I haven't gotten too excited, pro or con, about J-reps. I cut my teeth on the muscle mags of the 70s, where each issue had REVOLUTIONARY NEW TECHNIQUES...until the next issue, which did the same. Then I saw the same articles reprinted in the 80s, and found old mags from the 60s, 50s, and 40s, and THEY had REVOLUTIONARY NEW TECHNIQUES too.

With J-reps morphing from a technique to a way of life, Brian's tapping into the same aspirations that kept us feeding Joe Weider and then Bill Phillips month after month.

Now the pro's of J-reps are well-documented...especially if you include internet postings as documents. And the cons are usually buried by an avalanch of postings with IART logos, which should be following soon, so I have to make my points.

The best thing Brian has written is the paragraph above where he talks about relaxing non-involved muscles; a point I make in Moment Arm Exercise about avoiding "successive recruitment" so we agree there.

But I also agree with Drew's point about J-reps working through the extra fatigue bringing on a hormonal response.

Bingo.
Drew nails why J-reps or any "advanced" technique works. Two basic points from physiology, whether you regard academics as relevant or not, is that hypertrophy comes from a combination of load for fast twitch fiber recruitment and accumulated byproducts of contraction ie "burn" for the hormonal response.
This is why any change to a routine works, whether its J-reps, Darden's plateau busters, "advanced HIT techniques", or breaking away from a stagnant protocol.
If you're not used to it, your body is less efficient at doing it, creating more byproducts...hence, more hormonal response, and more hypertrophy.
I could have taken (name a Superslow advocate here), put him on Delorme's 3 sets of 10 from the 1940s, and gotten new results.

Internet chatter aside, my only concern with J-reps from a biomechanical point of view might be the emphasis on the stretched position. Joint and muscle biomechanics texts are clear: loading muscles much past "favorable length" is not a good idea. Contractile components of the target muscle can't contribute to tension, putting more stress on stabilizers and connective tissue; the tautness of the target pulls on unintended joints (tenodesis), risking those joints and the muscles trying to stabilize them. So I have a tough time justifying "stretch" position exercises or "full range of motion", but let's not start that again.

This isn't specific to J-reps but to any exercise (as anyone who saw my presentation in Indy would know, now available on DVD from our friend Bo)(unpaid advertisement).

Now it may be that my and Brian's interpretation of stretch differs. The start of a barbell curl, eg, is not the same as the stretched position of the biceps. So there may not necessarily be a discrepancy between J-reps and biomechanics, which may or may not disappoint.

But to Brian's credit, he does say it is a niche product. And just like Crash Weight Gain 7 or vanadyl sulfate or Arnold Arm Blasters, it's not my niche.


Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
AShortt wrote:
1. The stimulus for hypertrophy is a stress response. Load, damage, fatigue,hormones, inflammation etc are all little pieces of the puzzle.

The stimulus for muscle fiber hypertrophy is a response to a very particular type of stress, and current research shows cellular signaling for hypertrophy is strongly correlated with load and eccentric muscle actions. There is a linear relationship between load and microtrauma. Insulin-Like Growth Factor and Mechano Growth Factor are sensitive to load.

Load and eccentric work are the two most important aspects of exercise where hypertrophy is concerned. There are other contributing factors, including fatigue, but load and eccentric muscle action are the major factors.



Big bloody deal Drew, we have known that the load has to be high enough to create quality anaerobic work for decades. As well there needs to be negative work but to what degree? - no one knows! This is far from current research, body builders have known they need to go fairly heavy since the 1800's! How much of everything is dependant on the individual and the exercise/muscles in question.

It is no surprise that 'your pet' researchers provide little in the way of effective exercise protocols. Nothing more effective (and often less and/or contradictory to other researchers work) than any old home based body builder can come up with on there own.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

Whether the load is heavier relative to your possible force output at that moment is irrelevant. If you fatigued yourself to the point where you could barely move against a pound of resistance, that pound might represent a significant percentage of your momentary ability, but the actual tension in the muscle wouldn't be adequate to cause damage/microtrauma.


Don't play high school debate club 'context' games. I am not talking about lifting 1 pound nor am I talking about aerobic exercise. Your comment here is fake with a capital 'F'. I am talking about loads and fatigue within a proper anaerobic window (failure in 45 to say 90 seconds. I am not suggesting a thousand reps with a light load. Tension remains very high in the targeted muscles during zone training OR the load and style is adjusted.


Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

Yes. Fatigue is a necessary factor for motor unit recruitment, and the load needs to allow for at least some reasonable time for fatigue, which will vary between individuals. Set duration/TUL is somewhat of a compromise between using a high enough load to cause microtrauma while still enabling a long enough duration to ensure thorough recruitment so that microtrauma can occur throughout the muscle. Fatigue is not the most important factor however.

See Folland JP, Irish CS, Roberts JC, Tarr JE, Jones, DA. Fatigue is not a necessary stimulus for strength gains during resistance training. Br J Sports Med 2002;36:370?374

The authors say, "... for normal dynamic training of a large muscle group (quadriceps), the accumulation of metabolites ? typically associated with the sensation of pain during exercise ? is not a necessary characteristic of training conducted to increase muscle strength. The use of large rest periods between each repetition did not limit the gains in strength achieved compared with traditional sets of 10 repetitions."

You can download this from http://baye.com/...t_necessary.pdf

If the load is increased enough, regularly enough, it is. This is the most fundamental principle of resistance training: progressive resistance.


Yes I know that stuff, knew it years and years ago...yeeesh!

Increasing the amount you lift is fundamental yes but how much more do you think you can lift when only gaining a couple of pounds here and there? Intermediates and Advanced trainees don't build muscle very fast so once skill is at a safe level load becomes just another one of the elements of the growth stimulus.

Get over the newbie stuff and move on already. I can lift more weight in a practiced lift without gaining an ounce of muscle and I mean substantialy more weight. I want fitness and to build muscle/retain muscle, not to be a weightlifter or powerlifter.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Bill De Simone wrote:
Since my name's popped up here a few times I'll throw in.




I have recently re read your book and the biomechanics stuff is interesting but your conclusions are wrong unless you are unbelievably feeble and scared to be injured.

Muscles need to be stressed and sticking with their strong zone is actually counter to proper exercise stress-stimulus response. It is similar to only training with a load for reps you can handle just fine. No new stress no need to adapt (not with new muscle growth anyhow).

(And while we are being nasty with our little sarcastic quips and comparisons) You are one to talk about creating and following trends, what with you core stability balls and yoga you mention including with your new facility.

Andrew
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy