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

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew I have thought this through and I can only offer you one reasonable suggestion:

Take any machine at your facility and work your way up to a load that starts to see you plateau, where you can't barely if at all add new weight each session. The try the same exercise in JRep thirds. See if you can use the same weight for the same total time under tension (i.e 60 sec. and 20 sec. X 3). If you can't (and likely you won't) ask yourself why. Ask yourself how come with the same move, with the same weight you couldn't match TUT. This may help you learn more about load in its important sense. That load must relate to the muscle in question not some outside abstract principle.

Remember all you are trying to do is spend the same amount of total TUT with the same weight in the same exercise.

I have been shocked that this point alone (noticed by machine trainees who are both for and against JReps) hasn't been the true eye-opener for all.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:

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.



There's solid research supporting it, and frankly, I'll take the head of the cellular biology dept. at Duke University's word over yours where muscle function is concerned.

Also, friction doesn't have any significant effect on muscle function. Friction inside the muscles and in healthy joints is so incredibly low as to be a non-issue. This isn't a hypothesis, this is a fact - friction is not the cause of differences in concentric and eccentric strength.

I'm not "copping out", I'm just not playing your game. This happens every time someone criticizes IART gospel - Brian, you, and other IART people come out of the woodwork to attack, attack, attack, until people finally get fed up with trying to reason with you, and stop posting. You don't win arguments by presenting support for your points, you win by repeating the same things over, and over again, as though by simply saying them often enough it will make it true, and by attacking the person.

I have nothing to gain by arguing with you or Johnston about this. I made my points, and despite all the attempts made to confound the issue and attack me, a lot of people have gotten them.

For all your criticism of "dogmatic HIT", Nautilus-style HIT is still being used over three decades after it was popularized. Three decades from now, it's still going to be used. I'll be interested to see how many people are still using J-reps only three years. from now It's not revolutionary. It's a hyped-up twist on stage reps with an aggressive online marketing push behind it.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Some of the most immature, ad hominem attacks have come from you... read your last paragraph. Completely uncalled for. You stooping to such comments clearly indicates your frustration.

The comments raised thus far where in response to your comments... your comments tell only part of the story while ignoring many other important factors... the most important being THE ACTUAL CHANGES ADVANCED TRAINEES ARE ACHIEVING.

Isn't that the name of the game? To make change and to do so in the best way possible? If so, then you can make negative comments all you like, and quote some research, but your challenges are falling on deaf ears and for obvious reasons... the method works!

For some reason this is driving you (and a few others) nuts, and I can't figure out why. I suppose it's because I'm promoting it, although I can't imagine you are that shallow. Pretend Eugene Sandow is behind it all, or Ken Hutchins, or your brother. Whatever and whoever. But if that isn't the reason, then why? If so many people are claiming their best results in years (and the best workouts they've ever had), then what is the problem? How is that hype?

Hype is based on false claims and testimonials, for example. I laid claim that people who implement the method properly would achieve the best pump... and achieve better progress (more muscle mass/size) relative to the investment (comparing one set to one set... of apples to apples), and that has been the case. I never indicated a gain of 40 pounds (like MM did), or that one set is better than 4 sets of something else. Rather, that the method makes exercise more productive and effective per unit of time. I also indicated that applied properly, people will 'feel' when they hit their limit in set volume... because of the feedback provided by the exercise environment and the signs they should watch for (more of that in the second book). AND THAT is the case, as Andrew, Mike, and others will tell you.

Now, how does reaching fatigue 2-3 times (or more) in the same TUT, while achieving a bigger pump and overall fatigue not suggest 'more' per unit of time; more bang for the buck?

Considering HIT people are so fixated on the 'effort' factor, and this requires far more effort (and targeted effort at that), suddenly some of you are up in arms about it. It is you and others who are making hype out of this. You started this thread, as did many others who started other negative threads. And then when I show up for damage control or to voice my opinion (heaven forbid... again, because only part of the story is told), then there's "just no talking to me."

Whatever. Show us your results and those of advanced trainees, and I will congratulate you, since the proof is in the pudding and no amount of rationalization can take away someone's progress. By the way, Mario Faucoult just won the Canadian Nationals Naturals, and is on to the World's (bodybuilding). Terry Witzu just won a silver at the
World's boxing... he fought with the flu and lost by one decision for the gold, to a guy with 75 fights under his belt (Terry has 4!). Both attribute their differences in the past six months to zone training... and Terry makes this claim 100%, having done weight training in the past, and for several years. Mario claims that he feels like he's walking in a new body, and nothing changed with him, including diet, supplements, etc. Both will be featured on the zone-training.net site in the near future, but I suppose their changes can be ignored, chalked up to something else, and then brushed under the carpet as you promote YOUR preferred method of exercise.

On that note, how does you promoting what you think is best any different than what I am doing? If I thought it was hype and does nothing special, I wouldn't be promoting it. I'm sure you feel the same with what you are doing, no? Consequently, if you want any respect, then time to do the same. Take care.
Open User Options Menu

Cherry

Let's not get carried away with ourselves.. zone training smooths out 'errors' in the strength curve. Increases AVG tension on muscle over full ROM.
That's about the long and the short of it to my mind. However, i am not convinced that it is any superior to working the strong zone ala bill deSimone style.

Neg-O zone training defeats the purpose. Too much time spent in the turn-around and foolin-around releasing and accepting the resistance etc. The goal is to MAINTAIN high levels of tension not unload-reload 60 times in a set. Besides, it is not necessary because of the supra-tension in Neg-O training.
Open User Options Menu

elecjet

New York, USA

I just dont know if anyone has seen the amount of replies on this post... incredible.
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

Cherry,

if you take the Negative Chin on the Nautilus Multi Exercise Machine for example...people always fail in the top part of the movement..if you divide the rom in halves, you still have to climb the stairs, but the top half gets fatigued faster and better, cause you can't rest in the bottom half like in a full range rep, and the bottom half gets more fatigued at all.
This is just one possibility with NO Zone Training, and it is both practical and effective.
Open User Options Menu

macke

AShortt wrote:
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!?!


Well the before and after pictures i have seen of Brian, Andrew and Mike L does not convince me to use j-reps!!
I can hardly see any difference at all....Brian looked better at the first pictures(harder and more muscular)...Mikes pictures on his arm could be switched and i would not see wich was before or after....and Andrews are just a joke....the difference is so small that you have to look for minutes to see it, it?s probably only a different light.
Open User Options Menu

M Lipowski

New York, USA

Cherry wrote:

Neg-O zone training defeats the purpose. Too much time spent in the turn-around and foolin-around releasing and accepting the resistance etc. The goal is to MAINTAIN high levels of tension not unload-reload 60 times in a set. Besides, it is not necessary because of the supra-tension in Neg-O training.



Not sure how doing negatives in zones defeats the purpose since the individual can now perform more eccentric contractions over the same ROM for the same TUT. The amount of "unloading" is actually less b/c it takes less time to get the weight back to its starting position.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

I would like to question why JReps are not done from the strongest point down as protocol? For example, why not do squats from the top position 1st. You can easily handle more weight/load.

This is what all the great lifters have done throughout history. Some of these crafty old lifters would just hold tremendous weights in an upright position in a power rack to increase grip strength.

In addition to Drew's points, this has not been explained to my satisfaction.

Marc
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

"I can hardly see any difference at all....Brian looked better at the first pictures(harder and more muscular)...Mikes pictures on his arm could be switched and i would not see wich was before or after....and Andrews are just a joke....the difference is so small that you have to look for minutes to see it."

A few things. First, pictures never do justice to an increase of 10 pounds of muscle, for example, and yet everyone here knows how hard it is to gain 10 pounds. Second, different lighting can have an effect, and so that has to be taken into account.

Third, I'm not sure what pictures you are looking at, but my legs never looked so well separated and my back never so hard. I was leaner at 160 pounds, but to get that lean I still would be a good 30 pounds heavier now, and so I'm unsure what photo you are even referring to in regard to me looking better.

Considering you can't see any size difference with Andrew, I suspect highly you either need glasses or you are mocking the changes for the sake of doing so. With Mike's photos, he got progressively more cut for a contest as he either retained size or added some size (and you're not going to notice a half inch increase on the arms in a photos a few inches high). I would love for people on this board to take photos today and then again in three months and post both.

Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

1. The book CLEARLY states that one can work in a reverse fashion.

2. The philosophy (check the web site) CLEARLY states that there is no particular order of zones, and that they can be worked in different manners, depending on the desire and nature of attack.

3. Based on the above, this is why JReps Zone Training is NOT stage reps, but that stage reps IS a possibility of JReps Zone Training.

If any of that is not clear, take part in the discussion board at the zone-training.net site. Thanks for your interest.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:

There's solid research supporting it, and frankly, I'll take the head of the cellular biology dept. at Duke University's word over yours where muscle function is concerned.

I'm not "copping out", I'm just not playing your game. This happens every time someone criticizes IART gospel - Brian, you, and other IART people come out of the woodwork to attack, attack, attack, until people finally get fed up with trying to reason with you, and stop posting. You don't win arguments by presenting support for your points, you win by repeating the same things over, and over again, as though by simply saying them often enough it will make it true, and by attacking the person.

I have nothing to gain by arguing with you or Johnston about this. I made my points, and despite all the attempts made to confound the issue and attack me, a lot of people have gotten them.

For all your criticism of "dogmatic HIT", Nautilus-style HIT is still being used over three decades after it was popularized. Three decades from now, it's still going to be used. I'll be interested to see how many people are still using J-reps only three years. from now It's not revolutionary. It's a hyped-up twist on stage reps with an aggressive online marketing push behind it.


Have you trained with him this Duke university chap? Does what he says translate into real world muscel growth or is it just more microscope master...well you get the point. ;^) I have read some of the most outrageous crap from University professors in subjects from economics to biology.

In this day and age, a PhD guarantees zilch, the education system in N.A. is so watered down it has become a joke. The only ones who are seeing massive success for there efforts are Wall Street shysters and independent entrepreneurs. What about Mike L.'s word? He is an all natural bodybuilder with zero to gain from saying what he does about how well the method works and he has tried evrything you have ever mentioned and wrote about.

And what friggen attacks are you talking about?! I repeat a lot because most of what you say about this method is either wrong or only a tiny part of the picture. Are you cherry picking bits you have an argument against just to look knowledgeable in front of anti-hero types? You have misrepresented the method to form your argument and I will keep repeating myself in different ways so folks can see what you have done.

Again what IART people are attacking you with name calling and personal ad hominum assaults?! I may be aggressive but it is because you are misrepresenting the thing you are critiquing. The Stage Rep approach is but one small variant in the method. Even that was expanded upon with halves etc in the first book to show how zones could be made to work. One more time Drew, we don't just use fatigue to make subsequent zones feel heavy and fatigue has as much to do with stimulating growth as load anyhow.

Certainly the fundamentals of HIT have stood the test of time but in the face of what?! Rubber balls and wobble Boards! Yoga and functional ?"ets play jumpy jump through a rope ladder"!? Even Dr. Darden keeps things moving forward for goodness sake.

Think you understand more about stimulating muscle growth? Fine but I have seen zero proof of that just a lot of talk and "I read this or that interesting research" and so forth.

From the beginning before you even read the book you said it was hype. Basically you went right off the bat and brought Johnston's character and honesty into question with your remarks. You used your 'buddy system' to spread your comments and cashed in on your rep to do so. I hope it was worth it because time will tell sir...it always does.

Andrew

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

marcrph wrote:
I would like to question why JReps are not done from the strongest point down as protocol? For example, why not do squats from the top position 1st. You can easily handle more weight/load.

This is what all the great lifters have done throughout history. Some of these crafty old lifters would just hold tremendous weights in an upright position in a power rack to increase grip strength.

In addition to Drew's points, this has not been explained to my satisfaction.

Marc



This is done at times but be aware that it is the mid range that offers the most force production not the fully contracted zone. Plus the mid range appears to recover quicker than the ends.

The key is:

We load any zone to its max provided the targeted muscle does the work in that zone and not the surrounding musculature and framework.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

AShortt wrote:


The key is:

We load any zone to its max provided the targeted muscle does the work in that zone and not the surrounding musculature and framework.

Regards,
Andrew


I am glad you stated this so simply. You have history on your side. look at the many lifters who have loaded zones to the max. The old-time lifters who were champions all did this.
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Crotalus wrote:
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's not exactly correct.Skill is only a small part of the puzzle.A part which is often overlooked,is the difference between sarcoplasmic/myofibril hypertrophy - one is fluid,the other is actual muscle tissue ..... the former makes you appear bigger/stronger than you are.



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

As for Jreps as a system/method or whatever you wish to name it; this sort of training is not new and has been used for decades through various guise.



Progressive Segmental Training:

This method involves dividing the range of movement into segments,then performing x number of repetitions in each successive segment.A popular form of this system in bodybuilding is known as 'Twenty-Ones',which consists of 7 repetitions done over three segments of a given exercise.Thus,in the case of bicep curls,the bar is lifted for 7 repetitions over the first thrid of the range,7 repetitions over the middle third,7 repetitions over the final third to the shoulders (or frquently,over the full range of movement).

Some weightlifters,such as the Russian midheavyweight,Rigert,used this method for training the pull in the clean and snatch.For instance,in the case of the clean pull,the bar first was raised to just below the knees for 1-3 repetitions,next the bar was moved for 1-3 repetitions between this point and mid-thigh,and.finally,1-3 repetitions were performed between mid-thigh and waist level with full shoulder shrug and extension onto the toes.Frequently,the set was completed with a full clean pull from the ground.

one bodybuilding variation is to exercise various segments of range in a different or random order pattern every set or workout to minimise the possibility of early accommodation to a pedictable regime,which can diminish the training effect.For want of a better term,this method might be referred to as Random Segmental Training.

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

Brian is well entitled to promote Jreps (as others have promoted their version/s),and i'm quite sure,given the dedication that any resistance training requires,that results will be seen.Nonetheless,for me they are just another variation of the above stated - which for most of whom have tinkered with the above are well aware.

Open User Options Menu

ryansergent

Kansas, USA

Okay, stop right there Logic. I've boxed for six years and placed in the colorado Junior Olympics. I went on to Box for the Marine Corps, so when you tell us that Terry Witzu attributes His Jay reps to His victory I raise the B.S. Flag. Why would a sarcoplasmic pump make you a better fighter? If it worked as you claimed it would it'd just put you into a higher weight class with harder punchers. Punchers that would Knock the Shi@ out of a water filled sloth. Ask Evander Holyfield or Chris Bird.

I don't know if J-reps work or not . I suspect it gives you a great pump but no real lasting Atrophy. But I know it wont make you a better boxer even while your muscles are engorged.

Recon Ryan
Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

AShortt wrote:
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


that's cool, but I think your pics are alot more impressive and add more to the posts here when people can see actual people such as drew and yourself in top shape. Just my opinion.
Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
Guys,

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

Ellington


I totally agree, especially since most of us troublemakers are staying out of it. Kudos to Drew for saying and proving what needed to be said. It's said this is turning into an insult contest though. Drew's right, no one''s gonna change their minds on this one.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

ryansergent wrote:
Okay, stop right there Logic. I've boxed for six years and placed in the colorado Junior Olympics. I went on to Box for the Marine Corps, so when you tell us that Terry Witzu attributes His Jay reps to His victory I raise the B.S. Flag. Why would a sarcoplasmic pump make you a better fighter? If it worked as you claimed it would it'd just put you into a higher weight class with harder punchers. Punchers that would Knock the Shi@ out of a water filled sloth. Ask Evander Holyfield or Chris Bird.

I don't know if J-reps work or not . I suspect it gives you a great pump but no real lasting Atrophy. But I know it wont make you a better boxer even while your muscles are engorged.

Recon Ryan



I boxed and kickboxed for years, you are wrong Ryan sorry. This is about real muscle mass (not fluff) which always counts in sports especially ones like boxing. I now hit harder than ever before. More real muscle mass means you can top your weigth class with less fat and more power.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

marcrph wrote:
AShortt wrote:


The key is:

We load any zone to its max provided the targeted muscle does the work in that zone and not the surrounding musculature and framework.

Regards,
Andrew

I am glad you stated this so simply. You have history on your side. look at the many lifters who have loaded zones to the max. The old-time lifters who were champions all did this.



We talk about that all the time and brought it up in the new book.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Law&Order wrote:

Brian is well entitled to promote Jreps (as others have promoted their version/s),and i'm quite sure,given the dedication that any resistance training requires,that results will be seen.Nonetheless,for me they are just another variation of the above stated - which for most of whom have tinkered with the above are well aware.



The similarities are sort of there but not nearly in the vain in which you think (maybe see my "Partially Right Partially Wrong" article).

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

john38 wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Guys,

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

Ellington

I totally agree, especially since most of us troublemakers are staying out of it. Kudos to Drew for saying and proving what needed to be said. It's said this is turning into an insult contest though. Drew's right, no one''s gonna change their minds on this one.

_____________________

Some fellow picks up Dr. Darden's TNHIT and tries a few full body sessions with sets to failure and says;

"Na! That's nothing, not what you want for building mass and strength", "You need far more volume than that, this is just a market share grabbing bunch of hype."

That is precisely what Drew's comments add up to.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

Cherry

AShortt wrote:
john38 wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Guys,

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

Ellington

I totally agree, especially since most of us troublemakers are staying out of it. Kudos to Drew for saying and proving what needed to be said. It's said this is turning into an insult contest though. Drew's right, no one''s gonna change their minds on this one.
_____________________

Some fellow picks up Dr. Darden's TNHIT and tries a few full body sessions with sets to failure and says;

"Na! That's nothing, not what you want for building mass and strength", "You need far more volume than that, this is just a market share grabbing bunch of hype."

That is precisely what Drew's comments add up to.

Regards,
Andrew




Stage reps have been around for decades. You fluffed up an old pillow.. bfd.
Open User Options Menu

ryansergent

Kansas, USA

AShortt wrote:
ryansergent wrote:
Okay, stop right there Logic. I've boxed for six years and placed in the colorado Junior Olympics. I went on to Box for the Marine Corps, so when you tell us that Terry Witzu attributes His Jay reps to His victory I raise the B.S. Flag. Why would a sarcoplasmic pump make you a better fighter? If it worked as you claimed it would it'd just put you into a higher weight class with harder punchers. Punchers that would Knock the Shi@ out of a water filled sloth. Ask Evander Holyfield or Chris Bird.

I don't know if J-reps work or not . I suspect it gives you a great pump but no real lasting Atrophy. But I know it wont make you a better boxer even while your muscles are engorged.

Recon Ryan


I boxed and kickboxed for years, you are wrong Ryan sorry. This is about real muscle mass not fluff, which always counts in sports especially ones like boxing. I now hit harder than ever before. More real muscle mass means you can top your weigth class with less fat and more power.

Regards,
Andrew


Andrew your F#$%ing Nuts! Now I know you're lying. I live in a boxing World. I spar with the pros, frequent training Camps and communicate with them on the phone.

Every trainer and seasoned boxer knows you don't rep out to increase punching power.

I guess It's true, you guys have repulsive sales tactics. Shame on you!

If you throw a quarter punch
then a half punch then a full punch you'll have thrown one and three quarters of a punch. very proud of you!

Ryan










trainers
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

AShortt wrote:

Some fellow picks up Dr. Darden's TNHIT and tries a few full body sessions with sets to failure and says;

"Na! That's nothing, not what you want for building mass and strength", "You need far more volume than that, this is just a market share grabbing bunch of hype."

That is precisely what Drew's comments add up to.

Regards,
Andrew



Drew made his points clearly, and backed up his reasons for having them. This comparison is laughable.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy