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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Bill De Simone

New Jersey, USA

To quote myself from about 100 posts ago:

"And the cons are usually buried by an avalanch of postings with IART logos, which should be following soon".

Ahem.

Now, Brian. Your account of my biceps rupture is completely, factually, how do we say...wrong. But forget it, because it was explained in that nasty little manual that you probably didn't read because you didn't write it.

Now, this following is not an insult:

"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."

The point was the aspirations, not what you're doing with it.

If someone said, "Moment Arm Exercise taps into the same mindset that led people to Hutchins' and Mentzer's articles on the excruciating details of training" or somesuch, that's not an insult, that's an observation, which is apparently true, because 99% of the interest came from HIT guys.

Now, this isn't an insult either:
"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."

Eh...Ok, you win that one. That's an insult AND a cheap shot, but it would have been worse if I wrote "Deca and calf implants".

But my real complaint about "J-reps" is the way you and your supporters hijack every single thread on every single board on the entire friggin' internet.

Really, do you really need to do more than throw a link on a thread that mentions J-reps?
If your method is legit, you and your associates won't have to dominate every message board. Isn't it amazing every post in favor of jreps takes several scroll downs? All the time?
It's like buying a magazine, and finding 99% of the pages are those testimonials disguised as articles, something Bill Phillips was a master at.

OOPS! Sorry! Didn't mean it!
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't you start a forum devoted to J-reps? This way, all questions or praises could be in one place, except of course for flames, trolls or immature comments.

Maybe in the future, if we go to say, this board, we could read up on HIT history and where Dr. Darden's thinking is nowadays, and if we go to Fred's board, we could see where at least one former Superslow guy's head is at (and read testimonials for Moment Arm Exercise heh heh), and if we go to Personal Fitness Professionals board, we could see swap ideas OTHER THAN J REPS with other PFPs.

If you need help setting up the forum, there's a guy who posts here regularly with some experience setting up sites...whoops, never mind, it was so long ago I forgot who started the thread.
Toodles!
Open User Options Menu

bdog

ryansergent wrote:
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


If you increase strength in certain zones, then can't you also increase punching power? I know when I was lifting intensely, doing presses, that I had more punching power. I am sure J-reps are not just about the pump. Wouldn't weight training in general be beneficial for boxing and punching power also?
Open User Options Menu

Growl

ryansergent wrote:
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

Yeah, let's ask the boxers how we should train for more muscle. Bigger, stronger muscles are capable of hitting harder in or out of the ring. I don't give a damn what some boxer's trainer says.

If I have questions about the skill of boxing, then I'll ask a boxer, pro or not.
Jeff

Open User Options Menu

saseme

Bill De Simone wrote:

Hey, I got an idea. Why don't you start a forum devoted to J-reps? This way, all questions or praises could be in one place, except of course for flames, trolls or immature comments.

Maybe in the future, if we go to say, this board, we could read up on HIT history and where Dr. Darden's thinking is nowadays, and if we go to Fred's board, we could see where at least one former Superslow guy's head is at (and read testimonials for Moment Arm Exercise heh heh), and if we go to Personal Fitness Professionals board, we could see swap ideas OTHER THAN J REPS with other PFPs.

If you need help setting up the forum, there's a guy who posts here regularly with some experience setting up sites...whoops, never mind, it was so long ago I forgot who started the thread.
Toodles!


Bill, you're so out of the loop. We've always had a forum for the IART(buy your way in, stay in by never taking issue) and now a board soley for J-reps. We're a small community, well, frankly it's only us guys who are associated with the IART that are posting, but at least we all agree.

Funny how we keep talking about all of our successes and successful clients, yet our organization isn't even a blip on the radar of the PT certification world. When, oh when, will the world realise our intellectual superiority.

There's a 1/4 bil population in the US alone, so with the way we talk we must have at least a few million supporters, well, a few hundred thou, well, 10's of thou, well, thousands, well, hundreds. What only a few hundred or less. All of those other greedy PT certs are soaking up the market.

I doubt J-reps will enter the language any time soon except for on these few boards. Muscle and Fitness just published an article on partials. We should sue!
Open User Options Menu

macke

logicbdj wrote:
"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.



Brian i ment your pictures in your success story.....at 195 you look harder and more muscular in the upper body...and legs, well that can be different flexing when you pose
Open User Options Menu

Bill Crawford

Arizona, USA

I think it would be awesome if the name calling stopped, and we started concentrating on the actual arguments being proposed.

First a disclaimer: I am not a biology guy. In fact, I majored in Finance and am an IT guy. I never took any biology in high school I did once watch an operation on the Discovery Channel, and I once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I want to summarize Drew's major argument as I understand it (not based solely on this thread, but my understanding of his other posts too). Drew - I do not want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me where I am mistaken:

1. The key to muscular growth stimualtion is microtrauma, not inroad.
2. Microtrauma is caused by exposing the muscle to mechanical load (tension) that slightly exceeds the capacity of the muscle, thus causing damage for which the body compensates.
3. Negative contractions have more cross bridges, creating more opportunity for microtrauma.
4. Jreps may indeed require more effort, because after working in one zone, the muscle is partially exhausted vis a vis the subsequent zones.
5. However, the partial pre-exhaustion of a Jrep requires lower weights. This reduces the mechanical tension (see point 2), and thus means that from a tension inducing standpoint, Jreps are not optimal for growth stimulation.
6. However, Jreps involve more negative excursions, and this may tend to be a positive factor for growth stimulation.
7. It is unknown whether point 5 outweighs point 6 or vice versa.

I recently started trying Jreps, and it's too early to talk about results, but I do feel like I'm getting a very thorough workout. My legs are still sore from Jrep squats that I did on Sunday.

Here's my question, related to point to above: Might it be that microtrauma is induced by exposing the muscle to a mechanical load that exceeds the capacity of the muscle _at that particular time_ ? Meaning, even though the actual weight is lower with the Jrep, the muscle is in a state where its capacity to bear the tension is temporarily reduced, thus resulting in microtrauma?

I don't know if this is a good argument. If the argument I just made were true, then one could pehaps argue that very light weights combined with very high reps would eventually induce microtrauma (by eventually reducing the muscle's capacity), and it's pretty recognized that light weight / high reps is worthless.

However, maybe my argument still makes sense within a relavent range. For example, a modified argument may be "A load that temporarily exceeds the capacity of a muscle that is operating anerobically (spelling?) has the potential to induce microtrauma and thus stimulate growth."

A further modification could be: "The more cross bridges in a muscle (and I may be using the terms incorrectly here)
the greater the potential for microtrauma"

"More cross bridges" could mean "more at at any particular instant" (as in negatives), but it could also mean "more within a given anaerobic window of time, owing to a faster cycle of bridge creation / destruction because of more contractions."

If the above modified arguments are valid, then the mechanism for Jreps claimed success could be the increased number of contractions that give the muscle more opportunity to be damaged by the load.

If this is the case, the fact that actual load is lower with Jreps would not necessarily indicate that microtrauma is lower with Jreps. Perhaps the increased contractions rate along with the extra negative excursions that Drew mentions cause greater microtrauma than a high load used in non Jrep fashion.

Thoughts?

Mac
Open User Options Menu

Bill Crawford

Arizona, USA

Correction to my previous message: I wrote (incorrectly) "I never took biology in high school". I MEANT to write "I never took any biology in college". I did take a freshman high school biology course, which is what makes me so qualified to speculate on muscular growth stimulation :)

Thanks,

Mac

P.S. I did a pretty cool bug collection for that class, and it didn't include any dangerous live bugs. This is in marked contrast to one of my classmates, who put a scorpion into his bug killing jar* for a 1/2 hour while watching a rerun of the Beverly Hillbillies, and then pinned the bug through its back to the styrofoam.

The next morning, the scorpion awoke from its apparent cyanide induced coma.

Because the scorpion was securely pinned, it couldn't get away, but it did trash my classmate's collection by repeatedly stinging the dead bugs that were pinned next to it. This resulted in white marks on the other bugs, but the teacher understood and didn't down grade him for it.


* I can't believe they let us make those jars and take them home. We're talking glass Mayo jars with sodium cyanide and sulpheric acid. Fortunately, no one's jar broke and no one got hurt.
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

As someone who is not connected with the IART in any way, to me it seems that some people have a problem with the IART and not with the real topic of this thread: the Pro and cons of Zone Training.


imagine your doing a 10rep set leg extension which may take you 60 seconds.
and then you fail in the top half. and knowing you're still strong enough to work the bottom half, your training partner puts some more weight on the machine and you work the bottom half to failure. which may take another 30seconds.


failure in 90 seconds.


with zone training you could have reached the same effekt in 60seconds.
and the set would have been harder.



so this seems to be an improvement, doesn't it?



and to quote myself from another thread:

"Before Arthur Jones/Nautilus there was HARD TRAINING and before BDJ there was Zone Training, BUT...AJ and also BDJ provide(d) a "scientific" background for such a style of training, explained it in detail and put it in context with other styles of training, which was never done before. And that is/was in fact NEW and what they should be given credit for."


Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

ryansergent wrote:

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


OMG, Ryan what in the f**k are you talking about!? Repping out...what!? We don't train for any longer time wise than any traditional HIT set or workout. Don't you get that, are you even halfway clued in here? Half a punch, a quarter punch W.T.F!? What in the world are you talking about?

We train the full ROM of an exercise in zones as in one half then the other but in say 30 seconds + 30 seconds. So a standard set ends up at 60 seconds total with twice as many muscular contractions and hitting failure twice at once (or 3 times in thirds, 4 times in fourths etc).

We look to put on muscle period. Muscle that stays and increases our strength and lean mass. This help athletes immensely - more muscle without more time spent training. You can use this new muscle to enhance your strength/power from the feet up.

The action (of performing Zone Training) or what you mistakenly think is the rep range (because you may not understand TUT) has zip to do with the skill of boxing.

Man, I know Drew's comments were misleading but not this bad...yeeesh!

Regards,
Andrew











Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Mac,

What is completely lost in Drew's points on load and microtrauma (over fatigue and everything else) is due to his misrepresentation of the method. This is where I take issue not specifically with his points. His points about stimulating muscle growth are not wrong just incomplete and a decade behind the times.

Of course, research shows that the primary elements for muscle growth are load and eccentric action. Take a look at how the research is conducted, separate issue a broken apart from the greater context. Let me explain:

The primary is; load must by high enough to force the exercise to be anaerobic not aerobic. Fine, we have understood this in one form or the other for thousands of years, i.e. lift real heavy stuff ;^) Next eccentric action causes the most muscular damage and micro damage is a big part of the stimulus so it must be an integral part of the puzzle.

JReps uses anaerobic loads and we don't sacrifice load in favor of volume, you might glean that from Drew's comments but that is because his understanding of the method is so poor. In fact as you have seen with my squat recommendations you often load certain zones far more than you would normally.

The point about load is; "It only counts when borne by the muscle in question". If you need a cam to deal with the progressive fatigue and weak spots of your strength curve then this is sup optimal. If you need to brace and use inter and intra muscular coordination to heave the load (even through only parts of the ROM) then load may be on the barbell of weight stack but no on the muscle. Load matters of course it is what makes the work/energy pathways used anaerobic not aerobic. However, it isn't just how much load you use but HOW you use it. Really overly simply ? 120 lbs may not be much to squat for but curling it could produce muscle growth. We load the muscles as best as they can handle in each zone.

***Now fatigue comes in and always does. In a full ROM set you face fatigue in say 60 seconds ? SO DO WE. If you can't handle the load for a total of 60 seconds in zones how did you handle it full ROM?! You didn't load your muscle you just moved the weight around and took breaks where you could to keep it going for that TUT (negative reps are far easier etc.)***

Moreover, as I already said fatigue does matter because the muscle fibers you begin moving a heavy anaerobic load with are not the ones you finish with 60 seconds later!

BTW, way perform just as much negative work and a bit more static work. We just don't take a big rest on the negative which for full ROM reps is like someone removes 40 % of the load for several seconds and gives you a big breather between every rep. In that sense load is sacrificed with full ROM reps.

I don't want to go on forever but the point is all this was not my problem with Drew's points. I already know what he thinks have read his posts and articles. It is solid but incomplete info but I am not surprised as he was stuck in a self admittedly poor training environment for too long.

We keep the load as high as possible as long as the target muscle is doing the work and without maing it so heavy that it is just a bunch of short lived 3 rep maxes or the like (though we do add the odd rest pause/extra heavy zones from tiem to time).

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

More facts that people would like to ignore, including a few for Bill:

1. I never once started a JReps thread on any other board except my own. If others do so, then don't blame me as if I have control over the lives of others. We're all responsible for our actions. I do respond, however, just as people are respond where they like. Or are you and others better than I am and I should not respond to misinformation?

2. Yes, these threads keep going and going, and Bill, you're one of the contributors to make it happen. Haven't you noticed that you keep on posting on this thread? Thanks for the support!

3. Don't anyone think for a moment that all weights are lighter with JReps. It depends on how you attack an exercise, and in general, sometimes the weight is heavier. For example, I can use more weight on my pullover machine and leg extension when working in zones than when doing traditional FROM. I can use more weight on back exercises, as well. I find where there is a reduction in load is in 'pressing' movements, such as chest presses and leg presses/squats.

HOWEVER, my pectorals and thighs have never looked better, and so obviously it is not an issue of the load, but how the load is used. Yup, ignore that bit of information and quote some research while you're at it. Hasn't anyone thought for a moment as to why bodybuilders (before a lot of drug use) look different and larger, but not necessarily be as strong as 'strength athletes'... those who focus on how much is lifted rather than how it is lifted and the overall nature of the training direction?
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

logicbdj wrote:

For example, I can use more weight on my pullover machine and leg extension when working in zones than when doing traditional FROM. I can use more weight on back exercises, as well. I find where there is a reduction in load is in 'pressing' movements, such as chest presses and leg presses/squats.



Brian,

for all zones (during LEX and Pullover) more weight, or just for some?


best regards.
Open User Options Menu

saseme

henry_bordeaux wrote:

and to quote myself from another thread:

"Before Arthur Jones/Nautilus there was HARD TRAINING and before BDJ there was Zone Training, BUT...AJ and also BDJ provide(d) a "scientific" background for such a style of training, explained it in detail and put it in context with other styles of training, which was never done before. And that is/was in fact NEW and what they should be given credit for."



Maybe you could requote the science of jrpes, I must have missed it. You do understand the difference between anecdote and published, accepted peer reviewed study with all the trimmings.

All I'm seeing is that "it's valid and it's true because it works for some hwo have tried it". That's hardly scientific, and if so, proves just about every training technique.

Arthur Jones should be in no way compared to Brian Johnston. Jones built revolutionary, patented machines and conducted well constructed, wide-ranging, peer reviewed studies(Kenneth Cooper in one study who no doubt was hoping Jones would fall flat on his face, but didn't). All we have here is an organization of techniques which already existed and is being touted as if it were being advertised in any of todays muscle rags.

Drew has shown you the science, or at least where it was coming from, who published it.(Duke University?) And yet it's shot down by the jreppers because, jreps simply work. Best you define for me what science is. Sounds like, primacy of consciousness to me. I think, therefore I am. I think jreps valid, therefore it is, or jreps works for me, so it shall for all in every case.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

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

TheSofaKing wrote:
Drew made his points clearly, and backed up his reasons for having them. This comparison is laughable.


I thought Andrew's analogy depicted Drew's actions to a 'tee'. I've stayed out of this one so far, but here's what's become clear as crystal to me:

1. It's interesting that Drew said that no one was going to change the other's mind, since it was apparent that he'd made up his mind ahead of time. Pshhh, some scientist, huh?

2. Having made up his mind he consulted his old pal, "the research", to find any "studies" he could that criticized partial-range reps.

3. He gave the method less than a half-assed try, just so he could say he did. Lame.

If you love "the research" so much Drew, then next time why don't you actually do "a study", even if it's just on yourself?

4. Drew's arguement about the load staying the same throughout a movement is totally wrong. Yeah sure, a 100-lb BB is a 100-lb BB (to take the simplest example). But how this weight/force/load is perceived changes constantly throughout a movement as the angles of the bones, muscles, and connective tendons shift.

I don't want to hear that tired old BS about correct or proper or 'good' strength curves either. They may be proper for an ideally proportioned individual, but not for everybody.

It's no revelation that Drew is against methods which preach anything but ever-increasing loads. I find that he's resistant to any changes at all. Look how long it took him to conclude the SS path was not productive!

He has been endorsing Mike Mentzer-style Rest-Pause training lately, so maybe in about 20 years we'll see him endorsing JReps!

It's not just Drew. I have a few choice observations for 'the other side' too, but these will have to wait until later.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

1. Empirical evidence should not be ignored. People who are making superior changes with this method are not figments of our imagination.

2. Scientific research projects were not conducted in regard to studying the planets, evolution, and some other 'sciences.' They were based on observation and reaching logical conclusions.

3. Each person who implements this method seriously (and we have some on our site already, with more to come) are individual research projects.

4. I can't help it if the research community HAS NOT made a comparison of Zone Training to traditional training. How can I quote that which does not exist? In any case, why something thinks it will or will not work is irrelevant to the FACT that serious applications of this method are seeing superior results. I refer you to point 1.

5. The Journal of Applied Fitness has several research projects on ths concept, i.e., that something 'selective' happens during exercise, whether dealing with the stimulus or recovery. I would encourage you to review those. Jones' work with Type S and G strength curves allude to this, but that is only a tip of the iceberg.

6. HOW I recommend people train in zones IS different from what has been published thus far. There is enough information on the zone site to make this clear if you care to read it objectively and thoroughly.

7. In regard to the boxer, and the boxer on this site who thinks I'm being shameful in my mentioning it, this person is highly skilled in several disciplines, and not only boxing (he's a dental surgeon, and was the dentist for the Edmonton Oilers during their Stanley Cup dynasty, big game hunter, successful business person, etc).

He is very objective about any changes that he experiences; he is well aware of his own skills, and the difference that this method of strength training made with him. Even his coach concluded that his striking power increased beyond anything he has witnessed in such a short time (and his coach won a Silver at the Olympics), and that it was his strength that carried him through the fight when ill. If you can't accept that, then so be it. Ignore that too.
Open User Options Menu

spud

logicbdj wrote:
7. In regard to the boxer........

He is very objective about any changes that he experiences; he is well aware of his own skills, and the difference that this method of strength training made with him. Even his coach concluded that his striking power increased beyond anything he has witnessed in such a short time


Brian,

Why do you think the boxer became a more powerful puncher?

More muscle?

Different (and perhaps better) skill training?

I'd be interested to hear what you think.
Open User Options Menu

Growl

simon-hecubus wrote:
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

TheSofaKing wrote:
Drew made his points clearly, and backed up his reasons for having them. This comparison is laughable.

I thought Andrew's analogy depicted Drew's actions to a 'tee'. I've stayed out of this one so far, but here's what's become clear as crystal to me:

1. It's interesting that Drew said that no one was going to change the other's mind, since it was apparent that he'd made up his mind ahead of time. Pshhh, some scientist, huh?

2. Having made up his mind he consulted his old pal, "the research", to find any "studies" he could that criticized partial-range reps.

3. He gave the method less than a half-assed try, just so he could say he did. Lame.

If you love "the research" so much Drew, then next time why don't you actually do "a study", even if it's just on yourself?

4. Drew's arguement about the load staying the same throughout a movement is totally wrong. Yeah sure, a 100-lb BB is a 100-lb BB (to take the simplest example). But how this weight/force/load is perceived changes constantly throughout a movement as the angles of the bones, muscles, and connective tendons shift.

I don't want to hear that tired old BS about correct or proper or 'good' strength curves either. They may be proper for an ideally proportioned individual, but not for everybody.

It's no revelation that Drew is against methods which preach anything but ever-increasing loads. I find that he's resistant to any changes at all. Look how long it took him to conclude the SS path was not productive!

He has been endorsing Mike Mentzer-style Rest-Pause training lately, so maybe in about 20 years we'll see him endorsing JReps!

It's not just Drew. I have a few choice observations for 'the other side' too, but these will have to wait until later.

Scott


Scott is right Drew. I'm not an IART guy and the only thing I've ever bought from them is the Arthur Jones collection.
I will be buying the JReps material soon though. I've been training for 20 plus years and thought that I had reached my potential years ago. I started what I called partial rep training over a year ago on some bodyparts as my own spin on POF training except I only went thru the range of motion where I could feel meaningful resistance. I gained a half inch on my arms.

I have no clue why it worked but I did reach failure 2-3 times per muscle group at various places throught the range of motion. I knew nothing of Brians JReps and no it didn't fit nicely into my HIT mindset and I cannot explain it intellectually but I became unwilling to accept stagnation, so I experimented. It looks like Brian has found something here as well and has taken "zone" training to another level.

I will never completely stop training this way and I do believe this will last the test of time. The other thing I was doing was training each muscle group once per week on a 3-5 day split, sometimes doing one bodypart per day. My experience tells me that Brian is on to something big here. Don't be afraid to tinker guys. Try some new things if your only maintaining anyway - what have you got to lose.

Drew, don't let guys who know far less about proper exercise than you get better developed just because you can't figure this out. I don't believe Drew, Brian, or Dr. Darden has it all figured out. I listen to all and keep trying.
Jeff
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

More muscle, but more thorough strength development (refer to the article Beyond Bodybuilding: JReps for Athletes and Rehabilitation, on the zone site). Both worked in his favor since larger muscles produce greater force, and the neuromuscular changes in force production (and an increase in such) allows a person to exert greater power. His skills did not change much if any in the last six weeks; is training remained consistent during that time; what altered was the quality and direction of his strength training. His case study will detail this in the near future. Similar effects would exist with any type of athlete, really, and whether the person did JReps or just hard strength training.

This boxer did traditional strength training in the past, but I only had six workouts in which to make a difference, and chose the more demanding JReps right off the bat than to have him do typical sets. If Andrew has not already, he can tell you about his cousin's work with a competitive boxer (also on JReps), who is dominating his fights as of late.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

logicbdj wrote:
1. Empirical evidence should not be ignored. People who are making superior changes with this method are not figments of our imagination.

2. Scientific research projects were not conducted in regard to studying the planets, evolution, and some other 'sciences.' They were based on observation and reaching logical conclusions.


Give me empirical data (backed up with logical and thorough analysis) every time.

There hasn't been a study yet that covers all the bases.

Like AS said, are you going to trust some egghead with a microscope or the guys down in the trenches?

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

logicbdj wrote:
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.


I'm not making ad hominum attacks. I was commenting on a pattern of behavior I've observed on several message boards by IART members, any time someone criticizes IART material, such as J-reps. The exact thing that is happening here.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


I never said J-reps wouldn't produce changes. I pointed out a few problems with claims being made for it. Like I've said, over, and over, any method of progressive resistance training that provides adequate overload, and a volume and frequency appropriate to the individual will stimulate improvements.

I think the thing that makes J-reps effective is the increased number of excursions while maintaining a reasonable TUL, but there is nothing special about the zone aspect of it, except that it serves as a sort of mediator of load to accomplish the same effect as a drop set - dropping the load after having achieved fatigue by moving to an easier portion of the ROM when using equipment with poorly balanced resistance curves. A similar effect could be achieved using a single portion of the ROM with conventional drop sets.

It's not a "bad" method, it just doesn't do certain things being claimed. It doesn't really compensate for poor resistance curves. This might not be a huge problem, however, because as long as there is some motion, you probably won't benefit significantly more from going full range in terms of hypertrophy, and in certain exercises there needs to be limitations on one or both ends of ROM for safety and effectiveness (avoiding lockout on some exercises, avoiding positions of extreme stretch or compression of vulnerable tissues in others).

Also, claims about the pump being so important simply aren't supported. The pump may play some small factor, but it isn't a major one.


logicbdj wrote:
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!


When did I say it doesn't work? That's not my point. I just haven't seen much proof that it works any better than dozens of other methods, and I don't believe it lives up to the hype. Show us properly standardized before/after photos of drug-free individuals (or if individuals are using drugs, just be honest about it).

I'm not making "challenges", I'm just pointing things out. Take it however you like. It's not falling on "deaf ears", however.


logicbdj wrote:
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?


It's not driving me nuts, and it's not you in particular. I'd question anyone else if they were making similar claims for a new variation on an old training method and marketing it by posting about it over and over on a varity of forums.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


It does produce quite a pump. However, that's not really important. I still haven't read a plausible explanation from you or anyone else supporting the pump being a significant factor in hypertrophy. People with medical and physiology backgrounds I've spoken with about it have said if pump contributes anything to hypertrophy stimulation at all, it would be very little.

Besides, a person can get a pretty good pump doing all sorts of other things.

You keep talking about these people who've been making all this progress, but for all the months this has been discussed online, I've only heard of a few, and I've heard from a lot of people who've tried it and gotten little or nothing out of it, or lost muscle.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


You all keep saying this, but I have yet to see any proof that this is more effective than any other rep method.


logicbdj wrote:
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?


For the sake of clarifying my response, and not to play semantics games, what you are referring to isn't reaching fatigue, but momentary muscular failure.

Momentary muscular failure just means the existing strength level has been reduced so the force output is equal to the resistance at that point in the ROM. This says nothing about the overall level of fatigue, but rather the fatigue relative the resistance at that point. At the point of reaching fatigue the third time, you will have produced a deeper overall level of fatigue than if you had simply performed the set to failure in normal, full-ROM dynamic exercise, since with an imbalanced resistance curve you'd typically fail where in the portion of the ROM where the resistance was disproportionately harder.

This is no different than what happens when performing a short drop-set, however, or when using forced reps to continue to produce a deeper level of fatigue. The number of times you reach momentary failure isn't an issue.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the pump is not a significant factor in growth stimulation, and not a meaningful indicator of exercise effectiveness. One can have effective exercise without achieving a pump.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


This is subjective. How much effort any method of training requires is dependent on many factors. How exactly do you quantify effort to support this claim?

In my opinion, negative-only and hyper require more effort.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


I am not making hype out of it, I am responding to hype.

Whether this is a negative thread or not depends on your position on J-reps. Some see the points made as positive.


logicbdj wrote: 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."

Many people have commented about noticing anything said that is critical of J-reps is simply attacked over and over and over, as has occurred in this thread. The same arguments are simply repeated over and over, no matter how many times they've been clearly addressed, and requests for clarification or plausible supporting arguments are often ignored.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


We'll post some before/after photos of clients once the new business is up and running, with case studies. We plan to do video as well.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


You know as well as I do not to put too much stock in isolated anecdotes.

I don't have a preferred "method" of exercise. I have a preferred set of fundamental and derivative principles, and apply them in whatever manner and using whatever protocol is most appropriate for the client and their goals, with the only real limitation being that whatever method we use with clients, above all the risk of injury should be minimized as much as practical.

We use a very middle-of-the-road HIT approach as a starting point, and modify it to suit the individual. We've used rest-pause, negative-only, forced reps, etc. As long as it's safe, and it gets our clients the kind of results they want, we'll use it.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


The difference is that I won't make claims unless there is a lot more support for them, both scientific and empirical. You seem to keep forgetting that I've never said J-reps don't work. I've just pointed out that they don't do certain things that have been claimed, and the reasons they work aren't the ones claimed.

They work for the same reasons other methods work, they incorporate adequate load, adequate fatigue, negative movement, and presumably are performed progressively. The pump is not a significant factor, and making the rep feel harder in underloaded portions of the ROM is not the same as actually increasing the load.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

logicbdj wrote:
"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.


It is very easy to do standardized comparison photography, and 10 pounds certainly does make a difference in a photo, if they are done properly.

I will post a portion of a journal entry from baye.com detailing this in another post, as this one is already too long. We recently photographed a client who is already lean, but needs to gain muscle, and will photograph him again after a 10 pound gain as an example.


logicbdj wrote:
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.


I'm in agreement with Brian on the photo thing. It would also provide people with motivation to eat better and train harder. It would also allow us to see just what kind of results people are having with different methods, J-reps included.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:
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.


I asked him a question about differences in positive and negative strength, and he briefly explained the current scientific consensus on this, as well as sent me several supporting papers. That friction is not the cause of the differences has been proven, and known for some time. Friction in the muscles and in normal, healthy joints is so low as to be a total non-factor.


AShortt wrote:
In this day and age, a PhD guarantees zilch, the education system in N.A. is so watered down it has become a joke.


This is a broad generalization for which you have no proof, and sounds like sour grapes.

There are certain things a PhD from an accredited university does guarantee, which is a certain level of knowledge way above the average person. I can guarantee, for example, that Dr. Reedy knows far, far more about how muscles function than you, and probably everybody else here, for that matter.


AShortt wrote: The only ones who are seeing massive success for there efforts are Wall Street shysters and independent entrepreneurs.

Another broad generalization. Not everybody on Wall Street is a "shyster", nor are all entrepreneurs.


AShortt wrote: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.

If Mike L's word is that friction is the cause of differences in positive and negative strength (the subject Dr. Reedy was mentioned in relation to) then he would be wrong.

If J-reps worked well for Mike L., good for him. That still doesn't have any bearing on the points I've made. Try to keep in mind I've never said it doesn't work, only that it doesn't do certain things claimed, and that the reasons it does work have nothing to do with pump, as pump is not a significant factor in hypertrophy stimulation.


AShortt wrote:
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.


I don't see how I've misrepresented it. I've read the book (unfortunately, I don't have it with me now to quote from, as I lent it to someone and never got it back) and it isn't that difficult to understand.


AShortt wrote:
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.


Fatigue is an important factor, but not as important as load. If you have a deep level of fatigue with inadequate load, you will have little or no stimulus for hypertrophy, but if you have a very heavy load and very little fatigue, you will. Ideally, there should be an appropriate combination of both, however.


AShortt wrote:
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.


Who said we haven't moved forward? The principles are certainly sound, but application has advanced in different ways.


AShortt wrote:
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.


Yes, I do think I understand more about stimulating muscle growth than you, simply because I spend a good deal of time reading whatever current research I can find or am given on the subject, and I studied biology and exercise phys at a university level for three years (I'm about 40 credits short of a BS).

I'm not bragging (not particularly proud about not finishing my BS), just explaining why I think I understand more about it than you. Also, your comments in this and other threads indicate a lack of understanding or misunderstanding of various things.


AShortt wrote:
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



My first impression was that it was hype. Then I read the book, tried it briefly, and after further consideration I still think it's hype. It is not a bad method. In fact, it is most likely an effective method of training. However, it is being hyped up as being revolutionary, and it's not. It is a new twist on an old method.

I'm sure time will tell. That's what I said earlier.
Open User Options Menu

TheSofaKing

Manitoba, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
making the rep feel harder in underloaded portions of the ROM is not the same as actually increasing the load.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the zone training methods that you do increase the load? My personal experimentation with ZT has been limited to Nautilus 2ST Pullovers. I have been using halves with a short 15 sec rest in between. I also adjust the load for each zone. I am much stronger in the first half (270lbs) of the zone, then I am in the second half(185lbs).
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

bdog wrote:

If you increase strength in certain zones, then can't you also increase punching power? I know when I was lifting intensely, doing presses, that I had more punching power. I am sure J-reps are not just about the pump. Wouldn't weight training in general be beneficial for boxing and punching power also?


Anything that improves strength would improve any type of athletic performance.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:

Man, I know Drew's comments were misleading but not this bad...yeeesh!


How were any of my comments misleading? At no point did I state anything false about J-reps, or how they are performed. My comments are based on J-reps as they are described in the book (which I probably won't be getting back, so I'll have to buy another one).
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy