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 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

cmg

AShortt wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:

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

Ok Scott I am sorry I forgot you, but you are the rare challenge in the group as usual ;^)

Johnston as you may have read covered this a bit. Full body HIT has you training single sets to failure. It uses intensity as a replacement for volume. More volume at a lower intensity works as well and I think you know this.

Now volume has its drawbacks because adding more past a point sucks up energy and recovery without giving much if anything back. Intensity can do the same but offers way more in return. I think this is because high intensity is closer in keeping with the nature of anaerobic exercise (brief, intense, infrequent). Volume is secondary and becomes more of a necessary evil in many ways.

Now Dr. Darden's approach to using 3 sessions a week (or two) and his new addition of a NTF full body sessions are smart. You are training muscles while they are still a bit fatigued but only with one or two sets. This adds a volume type effect (training an all ready fatigued muscle, especially with NTF) without costing too much metabolically speaking. Darden even shows us that you have room to body part specialize and from this we see: Pure volume in the form of reps and sets does have something to offer. It offers more anaerobic fatigue, more choices in exercises (different attacks), deeper fatigue in a muscle per workout, enhanced feel and mind-muscle connection, more muscular contractions and draining of stored resources, more chances to take a muscle to complete muscular failure with good isolation intact etc. Body part specialization does this but you must make many concessions to implement it.

With JReps, all that is there in the workout...without adding any extra TUT to the clock!

Full body sessions (especially to failure ones) necessitate very little volume per muscle. The frequency thing (hitting the muscle multiple times per week) helps make up for it but Zone Training goes a step further. That and a whole host of other good stuff.

Look at Dr. Darden's shoulder specilization routine he ask me to look in on. A Zone Training workout is like that all the time for all the muscles, it is grand to say the least and doesn;t drain you as much as traditional full ROM training!

Regards,
Andrew


Hi Andrew,

I'm still not sure what you are saying. I you stating that JReps add that volume (more contractions per exercise) without adding multiple exercises per muscle - per workout.

I did a full body JRep workout yesterday and it was 11 sets. Basically 1 set for legs (my legs are over developed), 1 set calf, 2 chest, 2 back, 1 bicep, 1 forearm, 1 tricep,2 shoulder, 1 ab. I am sore as hell and my body (especially arms) were very pumped. I have not taken any measurements - I am holding off for approx. 4-6 weeks of steady training.

I will do this once every 3-5 days depending on level of fatique and soreness.

Does this sound right??

Regards,

Ron

Open User Options Menu

M Lipowski

New York, USA

eintology wrote:

Seven months to get comfortable with a weight training system, is longer than it would take someone to learn how to master the oboe.



That was 7 months to find the application that works best for me. I was performing the reps just fine for the first 6 months and saw good results. I saw better results when I balanced my application with other important components such as volume and frequency.

Those who are not "getting it" are the one's who are just performing the method as another rep scheme or intensity variable and not considering the other important aspects. For some, just plugging in the new method might work and work immediately because it satisfies a missing piece of the puzzle (whether it be intensity, quality of muscle fiber recruitment, hormonal response, etc, etc.) while all other things such as volume, frequency, quality of rest and nutrition stay the same.

The point being missed is that JReps can change the dynamics of one's workout to the extent that other adjustments to the training program must be made. What that means for each individual is, well, an individual matter.

Mike


Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Here's my take on the outcome of Jreps training:
(This was taken from one of John Christy excellent articles)

-------------------

Creating ?Virtual? Size - Sacroplasmic Hypertrophy (SH)


SH is where the muscle is measurably bigger because there is more ?stuff? inside the muscle. As mentioned above this ?stuff? is mostly support ?structures? and fluid ? Sarcoplasmic fluid ? hence the name. All of these support structures help to supply the fuel and carry away the byproducts that allow the actual contractile elements ? the myofibers ? to do the work. So it only makes sense that since they are ?giving out first? ? they (the support structures) will be the ?things? that the body makes more of so that it can get better at doing this particular task. Almost all of the measurable increase in size is from this additional ?stuffing?. There is very little increase in any of the actual contractile elements ? the muscle itself. And this is because there isn?t significant tension ? the weight isn?t heavy enough to cause ?damage? to the actual myofibers.

To create SH you need to develop high levels of fatigue without much concern for creating high levels of tension. You need to perform sets (usually one to three can do the job) of 10 reps or higher. You also need to keep the rest intervals short; one to two minutes. Working in this rep range with such a short rest interval doesn?t allow for the use of relatively (as compared to 8 reps and below) heavy weights ? so there isn?t much tension generated. And if you could create enough tension with this relatively ?light? weight your muscles would ?run out of gas? before it can do any substantial damage to the myofibers. You?re creating a lot of fatigue, but not much tension. ?But John, I can make up for this by ?flexing? ? right?? Wrong. ?Flexing? or creating what I termed voluntary tension, actually works against creating tension when working at higher rep ranges due to the fact that the additional flexing fatigues you faster than not flexing. This occurs when you pass a certain rep count -- in my experience past anywhere from 5 to 7 reps. This varies with individual genetic fiber makeup, and training history. So, again you are creating even more fatigue ? and less tension.

Generally, I don?t recommend training in this rep range (with the exception of beginners, trainees who are recovering from injury, or a trainee who needs to develop strength endurance of this duration) due to the fact that the gains in size are primarily from the ?stuffing? as I described above. I want my trainees size gains coming from the actual contractile proteins ? actual muscle tissue. In other words I want the size gains to add to someone?s functional strength. And you are not going to get much in the way of functional strength carryover from increasing just the ?stuff? inside the muscle. You?ll help increase the muscle?s endurance, but again, you won?t be doing much to improve its strength capability.

So the bottom line? You can get much bigger by solely working on creating SH -- but in my opinion this is virtually a ?worthless? size increase for most trainees. You become nothing more than a giant water weenie ? so to speak.
Open User Options Menu

M Lipowski

New York, USA

Drew Baye wrote:
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.


Drew,

It does not take a labratory to determine whether or not something holds true or atleast has substanance. Again I refer to using ourselves and clients as guinea pigs (for lack of a better description) to make these determinations. I won't get into the whole "research is flawed" debate, we know it is, and rarely does it tell the whole story. I read research reports and studies too but I certainly don't rely on them nor is there much greater value in them then there is emperical evidence.

Also, the study you pointed to in this thread refered to "strength increases". But demonstrated strength is not what we're after (as far as those who have been utilizing the method)...muscular size and appearance on the other hand, that is the goal and it doesn't take much more than a mirror, some photo's, or a body comp test to show if the method is working or not.

Regarding genetics. Yes they play a role, a big role, I would never contend that but I've seen NATURAL bodybuilders achieve great success with what would be considered average and in some cases, below average genetics. And most of these indivduals are following training routines that would be considered by most here to be gross overkill, yet they still develop. What I was referring to with my comment was that the problem is more psychological than physiological. People impose limitations on themselves the moment they say they don't have the genetics for x,y.z (whether they really do or they don't). They then conclude that a certain way of training (i.e. high-intensity/low-volume) is the only way they could overcome their physical limitations if they are to overcome them, and when they don't then they tell themselves it just is not in the cards, when it is, but they'll never do what's necessary to find out (mainly b/c the research doesn't back such a form of training).

Lastly, I meant no offense to you or your brother, just bringing up an example of the psychology of bodybuilding. I've been bodybuilding competively for over 7 years and the only thing more fearful than not making progress doing what you're doing is losing what you've got trying something else. A legitimate fear for anyone who has put time and energy into building their body, competitive or not.

Best,
Mike

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Ther is a lot to be said about how the muscular pump feels! Pretty Good! I love the way my muscles feel while trying to achieve a pump, and afterwards! I must admit, the pump can be addictive. My quadriceps still feel like they are going to explode if I follow squats with hack squats.

Most newcomers to this site would get the idea that the pump is not a desirable thing. That is unfortunate and sad. Muscular pumping might not be the "be/all/end/all" of weightlifting, but everyone I have ever seen achieve a "pump" has a smile. Can't beat that.

Marc
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Stage reps, JReps, Partial movements, in some form have been practiced for some time now. The JReps system in my opinion works well, and capitalizes on what many great lifters over history have practiced.

The greatest lifter ever, Paul Anderson, did quarter squats. The inclusion of these quarter squats allowed much heavier loads. Don't believe me, then read for yourself.

http://www.americanpowerliftev...
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

In the past I've always questioned how someone like Ken Leistner at 165 lbs is able to squat with over 400 lbs for over 20 reps and press over 200 lbs ... (in the same workout no less!) yet not look like he could handle that kind of weight. Or should I say not look like what we all 'thought' you should look like if you progressed to that level of strength.

Would you guys say that Dr Ken is a perfect example of what you're saying about 'learning' to lift heavy weights without the actual triggering alot of muscular growth ?
Open User Options Menu

saseme

marcrph wrote:
Ther is a lot to be said about how the muscular pump feels! Pretty Good! I love the way my muscles feel while trying to achieve a pump, and afterwards! I must admit, the pump can be addictive. My quadriceps still feel like they are going to explode if I follow squats with hack squats.

Most newcomers to this site would get the idea that the pump is not a desirable thing. That is unfortunate and sad. Muscular pumping might not be the "be/all/end/all" of weightlifting, but everyone I have ever seen achieve a "pump" has a smile. Can't beat that.

Marc


Not undesirable, just not indicitive, well of anything else than a happy making sensation. Like laughing whilst drinking and having it come out of ones nose. Now that's always funny.
Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

M Lipowski wrote:
eintology wrote:

Seven months to get comfortable with a weight training system, is longer than it would take someone to learn how to master the oboe.


That was 7 months to find the application that works best for me. I was performing the reps just fine for the first 6 months and saw good results. I saw better results when I balanced my application with other important components such as volume and frequency.

Those who are not "getting it" are the one's who are just performing the method as another rep scheme or intensity variable and not considering the other important aspects. For some, just plugging in the new method might work and work immediately because it satisfies a missing piece of the puzzle (whether it be intensity, quality of muscle fiber recruitment, hormonal response, etc, etc.) while all other things such as volume, frequency, quality of rest and nutrition stay the same.

The point being missed is that JReps can change the dynamics of one's workout to the extent that other adjustments to the training program must be made. What that means for each individual is, well, an individual matter.

Mike


Well done Mike. You stay within yourself.

After all, all one can do is look at the writing, and derive from that.

Just so you know, I knew the seven months was not an exact representation of the system's learning curve. And I hope you know, neither was my comment about mastery of the oboe. It was nothing more than a figure of speech, based on the "relative complexity" of the way the system has been presented, on this forum.

I understand, you need to re-adjust for the variance of systemic stress, and this does not happen, instantly.

Mike, I need not explain, I am not the close minded person in this particular gathering.

To address something you wrote up above, earlier, I honestly do not think fear of trying a "new" rep scheme is what is putting some people in the recoil mode of Zones or Jreps at this time. I really don't. And I would be the first person to say so if I did.

You have to understand that in a certain respect, unfortunatly, some people have seen the history involved, and are deciding where to put this, based on that experience.

This is what it has looked like to me... reconnaisance - exercisecertification.com - evolution of system - synthesis of objections - exercisecertification.com - morphing of system - exercisecertification.com - damage control - method - more damage control - more exercisecertification.com - Acceptance?

For myself, to view the metamorphosis has been kind of an odd combination of exercise science -- scratch it where it itches. It's been a slow segue from "rational objectivists" to "great feelers." I wonder why?

I am not in the exercise industry professionally. But I do know and understand the subject beyond the recreational practitioner/consumer. If I can be convinced based on the system itself, and at this point do it with a clear conscience; my natural tendancy is not to be closed off to it, and this is no different. No dogma on this one.

Erik
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

Crotalus wrote:
In the past I've always questioned how someone like Ken Leistner at 165 lbs is able to squat with over 400 lbs for over 20 reps and press over 200 lbs ... (in the same workout no less!) yet not look like he could handle that kind of weight. Or should I say not look like what we all 'thought' you should look like if you progressed to that level of strength.

Would you guys say that Dr Ken is a perfect example of what you're saying about 'learning' to lift heavy weights without the actual triggering alot of muscular growth ?




that maybe the ultimate example, in which the whole theme becomes quite obvious. there maybe other cases, where you won't notice it so easily while it happens.
As motivational as Dr. Ken's articles always have been, in which he always stresses good form, this 400lbs squat video was SHOCKING, performing each rep in 0.5/0.5 cadence, and having given up any sense of good form long ago. He did not even work out as hard as he could, which he also always stresses, you can clearly see, his mind says stop, not his body.

In an article by Dr.Ken he mentioned that Dr.Darden, after observing a Dr.Ken like workout, stated, that not a single rep was executed properly; after watching the video, i knew what he meant.


best regards
Open User Options Menu

Tougher

Alberta, CAN

I've been finding this debate really interesting and see good points on both sides. I'm not, however, an expert by any means and won't clog this debate up with my own opinions. I've also repeatedly heard about the next "revolutionary" method or technique, based in science and with tons of testimonials. I therefore prefer to decide for myself, should the idea appear to have merit.

I must admit, I like how JReps sound and therefore would like to start them in a week and a half. The question I have is where can I get info on how to perform them and how do they differ from regular stage reps?

Thanks,
Ben
Open User Options Menu

Paul Marsland

Henry, you've hit (no pun) upon a very important point, in that what we read and thus percieve in our minds can be the complete opposite when we come to view or experience it for ourselves. I too shared the same sentiments when i watched the Dr ken video clips, I was like " What the f##k!! That's TERRIBLE form!"...the same thing applied when I saw John Christy he was promoting plyos by having guys jumping onto boxes....

I percieved reading his articles in Hardgainer that this was not what he promoted, the video also showed guys training using terrible form.

And thus we come to the topic of Jreps, for all those that are against it, the problem does not lie with the method itself, as those that are using it correctly (myself included) are reaping the rewards. It is those that percieve in their minds that it is nothing new nor special, just a variation on a simple theme.

I too when I first read about it on the IART board (bearing in mind I have been a student of the IART for five years and have contributed to the Exercise Annual) was very sceptical of this method, stating that it seemed nothing more than Power Factor training which I had tried in the past.

But I bought the book and DVD and decided to give the method and honest try. Within a few workouts I knew this was totally different to anything I had used before, but even so and by my own admission it still took me a few months to finally master the method, once I did my gains took off!

Believe me if this was nothing more than a fad or set variable to jazz up a workout, you can bet your bottom dollar that myself, Brian, Andrew and Mike would have given it up long ago, such is the nature of outselves and we would have moved onto to pastures new.

Paul.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

john38 wrote:

What's with the stupid ad for a pic? Your others were more impressive.


I like being sarcastic in my way I guess ;^)

Besides I like the font from the JReps logo it was based on the lettering from a old fav. movie of mine 'TRON'.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

eintology wrote:

This is what it has looked like to me... reconnaisance - exercisecertification.com - evolution of system - synthesis of objections - exercisecertification.com - morphing of system - exercisecertification.com - damage control - method - more damage control - more exercisecertification.com - Acceptance?

For myself, to view the metamorphosis has been kind of an odd combination of exercise science -- scratch it where it itches. It's been a slow segue from "rational objectivists" to "great feelers." I wonder why?

Erik


Posts on casual internet boards can mislead very easily. Furthermore, we didn't consider how much this would be compared to something like X-Reps just because of the name. Moreover, we were as surprised as anyone how fast and how well this method as developed.

You see, we haven't moved away from objective results and methods. The fact is we have taken the measurements and numbers about as far as they need to go at this point.

What we discovered while flushing out this method was humbling. We discovered that the real time feedback or bodies give is fast, sophisticated and useful as all heck to integrate with the numbers. We were humbled by realizing how far we had drifted from what we knew and used effectively in the early years of our training:

Does the muscle feel well targeted/isolated and is it flexing and contracting hard at all times during the rep? Is the fatigue going deep into the muscle and throughout the full range of its movement or is the fatigue just as great in a general overall systematic sense? Is the load stimulating our chosen muscle or straining our joints and taxing our surronding musculature just as much if not more? And so forth and so on.

The brain can offer more than HITter's tend to allow it credit for.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Guys,

I'm really enjoying the various viewpoints that make up this thread. Thank you all for your posts.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

It's good to see the video link with regards to J-rep form. I see that my form could have been a bit tighter during my 3 month run, but my application seemed to have been similar. Though I don't use them as my primary method of training (right now I'm trying a "Doggcrapp for Natty's" variant), I found J-reps to be quite effective. Those at the HIT seminar had noticed my gains, which I contribute to much of what I've learned in the past year I.E. blitzing, using planned cycles, j-reps, etc.

I look forward to trying Negative-only Jreps when we get our new EE piece.

-Skyler

Open User Options Menu

Cherry

STanner wrote:
It's good to see the video link with regards to J-rep form. I see that my form could have been a bit tighter during my 3 month run, but my application seemed to have been similar. Though I don't use them as my primary method of training (right now I'm trying a "Doggcrapp for Natty's" variant), I found J-reps to be quite effective. Those at the HIT seminar had noticed my gains, which I contribute to much of what I've learned in the past year I.E. blitzing, using planned cycles, j-reps, etc.

I look forward to trying Negative-only Jreps when we get our new EE piece.

-Skyler




Neg-O J-reps.. how is that going to work ..i want to see that ;)
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Henry ;

Thanks for the response to the Dr.Ken stuff. For a long time I followed his routines suggestions and advice to the letter so I was as shocked as everyone else when I saw the poor form during his workout on his video 'Training Hard with Dr.Ken'. I was like "WTF! ... and he preaches good form ?!?!"

I especially remember the SLD and pullovers were especially bad - the way the SLD were done I'd consider dangerous. But still, squatting 400+ for 23 reps at his bodyweight blew me away.

I think the workout you mentioned that Dr.Darden criticised was one supervised by Leistner on Kevin Tolbert at a seminar in Ohio. I heard Darden's comments about Kevin's poor form and not training as hard as he could nearly caused a riot, LOL.
Open User Options Menu

M Lipowski

New York, USA

Cherry wrote:
STanner wrote:
It's good to see the video link with regards to J-rep form. I see that my form could have been a bit tighter during my 3 month run, but my application seemed to have been similar. Though I don't use them as my primary method of training (right now I'm trying a "Doggcrapp for Natty's" variant), I found J-reps to be quite effective. Those at the HIT seminar had noticed my gains, which I contribute to much of what I've learned in the past year I.E. blitzing, using planned cycles, j-reps, etc.

I look forward to trying Negative-only Jreps when we get our new EE piece.

-Skyler




Neg-O J-reps.. how is that going to work ..i want to see that ;)


Charle Haire has been doing Neg Only JReps for a good number of months now and reported great results. His case study is up on the Zone Training website.

Open User Options Menu

Cherry

M Lipowski wrote:
Cherry wrote:
STanner wrote:
It's good to see the video link with regards to J-rep form. I see that my form could have been a bit tighter during my 3 month run, but my application seemed to have been similar. Though I don't use them as my primary method of training (right now I'm trying a "Doggcrapp for Natty's" variant), I found J-reps to be quite effective. Those at the HIT seminar had noticed my gains, which I contribute to much of what I've learned in the past year I.E. blitzing, using planned cycles, j-reps, etc.

I look forward to trying Negative-only Jreps when we get our new EE piece.

-Skyler




Neg-O J-reps.. how is that going to work ..i want to see that ;)

Charle Haire has been doing Neg Only JReps for a good number of months now and reported great results. His case study is up on the Zone Training website.




Too many excursions and too short a stroke. You'll waste more time receiving the resistance from your partner than you will in actual training. Too much resting. I think it's a bit ridiculous isn't it?
Open User Options Menu

M Lipowski

New York, USA

eintology wrote:


Mike

Well done Mike. You stay within yourself.

After all, all one can do is look at the writing, and derive from that.

Just so you know, I knew the seven months was not an exact representation of the system's learning curve. And I hope you know, neither was my comment about mastery of the oboe. It was nothing more than a figure of speech, based on the "relative complexity" of the way the system has been presented, on this forum.

I understand, you need to re-adjust for the variance of systemic stress, and this does not happen, instantly.

Mike, I need not explain, I am not the close minded person in this particular gathering.

To address something you wrote up above, earlier, I honestly do not think fear of trying a "new" rep scheme is what is putting some people in the recoil mode of Zones or Jreps at this time. I really don't. And I would be the first person to say so if I did.

You have to understand that in a certain respect, unfortunatly, some people have seen the history involved, and are deciding where to put this, based on that experience.

This is what it has looked like to me... reconnaisance - exercisecertification.com - evolution of system - synthesis of objections - exercisecertification.com - morphing of system - exercisecertification.com - damage control - method - more damage control - more exercisecertification.com - Acceptance?

For myself, to view the metamorphosis has been kind of an odd combination of exercise science -- scratch it where it itches. It's been a slow segue from "rational objectivists" to "great feelers." I wonder why?

I am not in the exercise industry professionally. But I do know and understand the subject beyond the recreational practitioner/consumer. If I can be convinced based on the system itself, and at this point do it with a clear conscience; my natural tendancy is not to be closed off to it, and this is no different. No dogma on this one.

Erik


I'm with ya Erik, and I didn't take your "7 months" comment as anything offensive. It's just that I've mentioned that notion on other boards, as well as this board, but for anyone reading it the first time it may sound like the method is too complicated and one must invest months and months of work before they derive any benefit. Whereas the truth is--like with any method--EVERYTHING must be in its proper place if it is to work.

It's like performing the most productive, muscle stimulating workout, getting plenty of rest but not getting enough protein to make use of the workout and recovery period.

On another note, I feel it is unfortunate that the sheer skepticism and conspiracy theories of many have hindered them from giving the method a "real" try. Sure there are still questions as to the mechanism behind how it works and what is happening on a cellular level and most of the answers are based on our deductive reasoning from what we do know about exercise science and physiology. That does not mean there is no basis for performing it, especially when many of us have achieved results. We know that to some degree it works and works well and just because there have not been any double-blind, goverment funded studies on the method (which was only first brought to light about 10 months ago) does not mean that there is no evidence that it has merit.

Best,
Mike
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

M Lipowski wrote:
Cherry wrote:
STanner wrote:
It's good to see the video link with regards to J-rep form. I see that my form could have been a bit tighter during my 3 month run, but my application seemed to have been similar. Though I don't use them as my primary method of training (right now I'm trying a "Doggcrapp for Natty's" variant), I found J-reps to be quite effective. Those at the HIT seminar had noticed my gains, which I contribute to much of what I've learned in the past year I.E. blitzing, using planned cycles, j-reps, etc.

I look forward to trying Negative-only Jreps when we get our new EE piece.

-Skyler




Neg-O J-reps.. how is that going to work ..i want to see that ;)

Charle Haire has been doing Neg Only JReps for a good number of months now and reported great results. His case study is up on the Zone Training website.


Charle and I talked for about an hour about a bunch of things, including NO-Jreps.

One of the things that, I feel, allowed me to be able to take on jreps without hesitation were the babysteps I made in the prior year. First, I started adding a blitz every 10 weeks or so and fully admit my first blitz was a failure. The good news is it got me excited. After than, I began using intensity intervals throughout my training year in planned doses. Now I plan all of my peaks and valleys, which a year ago I would not have imagined doing.

Remember, I started off doing SS at 15 and teaching it at 16, so it took a bit of doing to go against the grain, but I've found substancial gains in doing so.

Skyler
Open User Options Menu

STanner

Texas, USA

Cherry wrote:
M Lipowski wrote:
Cherry wrote:
STanner wrote:
It's good to see the video link with regards to J-rep form. I see that my form could have been a bit tighter during my 3 month run, but my application seemed to have been similar. Though I don't use them as my primary method of training (right now I'm trying a "Doggcrapp for Natty's" variant), I found J-reps to be quite effective. Those at the HIT seminar had noticed my gains, which I contribute to much of what I've learned in the past year I.E. blitzing, using planned cycles, j-reps, etc.

I look forward to trying Negative-only Jreps when we get our new EE piece.

-Skyler




Neg-O J-reps.. how is that going to work ..i want to see that ;)

Charle Haire has been doing Neg Only JReps for a good number of months now and reported great results. His case study is up on the Zone Training website.




Too many excursions and too short a stroke. You'll waste more time receiving the resistance from your partner than you will in actual training. Too much resting. I think it's a bit ridiculous isn't it?

Jrep halves on the EE Multi-compound would work fine. As with all negative training, the movement is generally slower, so that would offset the shorter range of motion/time loading the weight.

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Cherry wrote:

Too many excursions and too short a stroke. You'll waste more time receiving the resistance from your partner than you will in actual training. Too much resting. I think it's a bit ridiculous isn't it?


The only thing ridiculous is the direction this thread has taken. Like anyone else who criticizes anything Johnston or the IART promotes, it ends up being buried in poorly argued and ad hominum attacks.

Judging from the number of private messages I've received, most of the people out there have enough critical thinking skills to see through a lot of the nonsense, and I've already clearly stated the points I wanted to make.

I'm not interested in continued debate with Johnston, Short, etc. since they're clearly not going to change their mind, and because the people who this post was intended for have already gotten the point.

One last thing though. I find it ironic that they would accuse me of lacking understanding of the subject, when in the J-reps book they still talk about muscular friction being the cause of differences in positive and negative strength, which has been proven wrong (the difference has to do with different cross-bridge mechanics).
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

The only thing ridiculous is the direction this thread has taken. Like anyone else who criticizes anything Johnston or the IART promotes, it ends up being buried in poorly argued and ad hominum attacks.

Judging from the number of private messages I've received, most of the people out there have enough critical thinking skills to see through a lot of the nonsense, and I've already clearly stated the points I wanted to make.

I'm not interested in continued debate with Johnston, Short, etc. since they're clearly not going to change their mind, and because the people who this post was intended for have already gotten the point.

One last thing though. I find it ironic that they would accuse me of lacking understanding of the subject, when in the J-reps book they still talk about muscular friction being the cause of differences in positive and negative strength, which has been proven wrong (the difference has to do with different cross-bridge mechanics).


Oh come on Drew you supposedly have support just like you did with S.S. so what?! What Ad Hominum attacks!?

Why would I change my mind:

- When your knowledge of this method ends at the Stage Rep style variable.
- When you have never test run the method with any degree of thoroughness.
- When without changing anything else I have received substantial new muscle growth with the method.
- When others I respect like Mike L. are noticing the same thing.

The cross-bridge dynamics hypothesis is not proven and is likely only a part of the eccentric strength picture. I wouldn't totally discount friction as a contributor.

Drew this sure sounds like a cop-out to me. I get P.M.'s and email by the dozens supporting me but it doesn't mean squat. We aren't communists at the IART we stand on our own. I like to share ideas and pats on the back are nice but I don't want nor need a 'guild' to make me feel comfy with my knowledge and experience.

Besides I can't believe you managed to move from super slow, super light reps to super heavy ones and are hung up there. S.B. tackled that years ago as did Heavy Duty and where did that go!?!
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy