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

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:
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.


Andrew, I am certainly not a decade behind the times in my understanding of muscular growth. Such a statement is ironic coming from someone who still believes friction is a factor in differences between eccentric and concentric strength.


AShortt wrote:
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.


I challenge you to find one instance of my comments suggesting that J-reps involves sacrificing load in favor of volume.

If you interpreted anything I've said that way, you've misunderstood.

I am well aware that J-reps involves reasonable TULs, and accomplishes the higher rep count because the individual reps are shorter duration. Nowhere have I stated otherwise.


AShortt wrote:
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.


The purpose of the cam is to modulate the resistance so the muscle is adequately loaded in all positions of the ROM.


AShortt wrote:
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.


Proper form using any type of rep method will avoid this. This isn't exclusive to J-reps.


AShortt wrote:
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.


This is relative to the existing strength level of the muscle at that point in the exercise, and not relative to the total load the muscle could handle in that portion of the ROM.

As I've stated several times already, it is the actual load, or resistance encountered that matters where microtrauma is concerned, and not the perceived load, which may be lighter or heavier due to your level of fatigue at the time.


AShortt wrote:
***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.)***


This is not true. If you compare the cumulative fatigue, negative-only reps can produce as deep or deeper fatigue per unit of time. If they are performed properly, you get very, very little rest between reps (under 2 seconds).


AShortt wrote:
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!


Nobody said fatigue didn't matter, only that it was not as important as load.


AShortt wrote:
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.


This is an issue with any rep method involving both positive and negative work.


AShortt wrote:
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.


There were positives and negatives to being at an SS facility, but that's for another discussion.

I don't see how any of my points or the info I provided was incomplete, but I'd be very interested in your explanation.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
Give me empirical data (backed up with logical and thorough analysis) every time.


We're still waiting for this from J-reps.

Empirican data and logic is great, but scientific research is important as well.

simon-hecubus wrote:
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


In matters of muscle cell function I'll ask someone who's doing cutting edge research on the subject before I ask some personal trainer who may or may not even have any college level education on the subject.
Open User Options Menu

henry_bordeaux

TheSofaKing wrote:
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).





Drew, how about that one? Same with someone who uses halves on the leg extension or leg press, and increases the weight by 50%-100% for 50% of the rom.


best regards
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

In conclusion.

Jreps works in the same sense a Dr D specialisation routine would work, they just go about using load, exercises and gravity in a different way to ensure force is put upon the muscle in the right place for the right time.

Drew you are right.

Andrew/Brian you are right.

Bill you too (just so you dont feel left out:)

The way Jreps has been put forth has been very aggresive and "look at me" - not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing - just an observation.


Anyone joe bloggs looking to this or any other forum for info on either HIT/Jreps would be bombarded with information, personal attacks and childish repsonses - I would be put off - however, it is the respect for Dr D that keeps this site good.

This discussion has been good but is diminishing now.

Maybe there should be a "beginners" section to the board that is a little more beginner friendly with select articles? Or maybe just a note somewhere advising that articles by DR D should be read first!?

Anyhow.

Night.

ham
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

henry_bordeaux wrote:
TheSofaKing wrote:
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).





Drew, how about that one? Same with someone who uses halves on the leg extension or leg press, and increases the weight by 50%-100% for 50% of the rom.


best regards


well thats why the specialisation routines use several exerises to hit the useful points of movement - jreps just allows this to be done with 1 exercise. simple.

People make stuff so much more complicated than needed.

If someone tries to overcomplicate such a simple thing as exercise then they are clearly trying to make money. Which is cool as we all need to make a living.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
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?


That's not quite what I said. I'm willing to consider new information, if there is sufficient evidence or good reasoning behind it. I was referring to Brian and Andrew. They seem to have too much riding on J-reps to concede it's just another way to train, and nothing revolutionary.


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


I didn't criticize partial reps. I even said full range probably isn't necessary for optimal growth stimulus, as long as an adequate portion of the ROM was trained.


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


That isn't true. I didn't spend a significant time using the method, but that doesn't mean I only gave it a "half-assed" try. I also didn't do it just so I could say I did, I did it to see what it was like.

It isn't always necessary to experience something firsthand to judge it, as long as you have sufficient knowledge and comparable experience to draw from.


simon-hecubus wrote:
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?


There are a few things we'd like to experiment with, and when we're fully up and running we'll probably do a few small studies.


simon-hecubus wrote:
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 never said that. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I am certainly not unfamiliar with the biomechanics of exercise.


simon-hecubus wrote:
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 not "tired old BS", it's an important consideration. Perhaps you don't want to hear it because it conflicts with what you'd like to believe about exercise?

I never claimed there was a "perfect" resistance curve for everybody. There is variation between individuals. However, these differences can be averaged to develop resistance curves that are a well-enough balanced match for most people.


simon-hecubus wrote:
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!


Would you suggest people never attempt to increase the load they use during exercise?

I'm not resistant to change, either. I'm resistant to unwarranted hype.

I also never said SS was not productive, only that it was less productive when used with very low loads and very high TULs, and that it isn't necessary for people to move that slowly in most cases.

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


I haven't been endorsing Mentzer-style rest-pause, I've only reported that we used it for a while and had good results.

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

henry_bordeaux wrote:
Drew, how about that one? Same with someone who uses halves on the leg extension or leg press, and increases the weight by 50%-100% for 50% of the rom.


If the resistance curve was balanced to begin with, this wouldn't be necessary. There would be no difference between doing this, and simply doing normal stage reps on a machine with a balanced resistance curve, in terms of overall effect.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Drew:

Why is it that I have done drop sets without the same effect? If so, I'd write a drop set book. If the SAME results could be had with a drop set within a single zone of a ROM, then prove it... demonstrate it through case studies or have people try it and report it. And what is it that is being claimed is false? You have not clarified that. I CLEARLY stated more pump, more growth, better feeling workouts, and more even strength throughout the full ROM. In ALL cases (some report more in some areas than in others) this has been the case. The JReps method CLEARLY indicates not locking out, and never, ever mentions 'extreme' points of stretch, whatever that means (since a good stretch for one person is an extreme stretch for someone else). Hence, why even bring up that point? Never did I state that the pump was 'extremely' important, but that there could be a correlation to growth (accordin to Dr. Mauro DiPasquale, Frank Zane, and others, there could be, as per an increase in vascular proliferation, mitochondria increase, and sarcoplasm increase, viz., the 'cosmetic' increase of hypertrophy). It is not an issue of pump, but achieving it under intense conditions as quickly as possibly... CLEARLY indicated in the book, but I guessed you missed it, like a few others.

In regard to photos, I have yet to see changes produced by such people as Coombes and Ellison. Andrew Shortt has done everything possible before, and look at his photos. Look at my photos when age 40 and now (before then, the lighting was different, and I certainly was not 'harder' before, as one person claims, since I had overhead lighting at age 35 and NO overhead lighting now). And you have people like Foucault and others who down right claim superiority of training in such a manner. Are they liars?

In regard to posting about this method in a variety of forums, again, not me. I visit 3 forums in total, and so don't exaggerate this as being some huge marketing ploy. I do work full time at something completely different (accident rehab).

Please, who 'lost' muscle while on this method. Give me a break. I'm still waiting for the great progress you and your ADVANCED trainees have been making (since any idiot can get a beginner to make progress).

By the way, I've never been so insulted as having you suggest this is hype. What I consider it is bias, frustration, ego, and a hope of launching his own certification... on your behalf. I expected far more from you. Quote all the science you want, but you know what your body looks like and the lack of results being obtained from YOUR methods. It's that plain and simple. You have yet to acknowledge the people who claim benefit from this method, and yet suggest that you know of people who 'lost' muscle while on it... who... since I'm in touch with those who bought the first book?

In regard to the boxer, this is not an anectodote, but a friggin' client of mine, a person who is in tune with his body, and not some moron who sends in an e-mail about how great something is. Still waiting for your ADVANCED trainees and not beginners... and when you post their results, are they anecdotes as well, or must we accept your word as gospel?

And you won't make claims unless there is more support for them? You mean, like results? That is what I focus on... not what a science text tells me. Ever wonder if these people even train or where they get their information, such as a one-term study at a university with people who take part for extra credit, with no real intention of wanting to exercise, and who are not long-term trainees?

And who says that people don't increase the loads with JReps? My god, you haven't read the book! It even CLEARLY states to use as heavy a load as is necessary and as one is capable of handling while maintaining targeted form. You make it sound like we're recommending light loads and a bunch of pumping, which is a misrepresentation. Either you are lying or an idiot and can't understand basic English. You have an agenda, my friend (and I use that term loosely).

In regard to standardizing photos, very easy when you live in the same city and in the same lighting, genius. Read my posts carefully. My photos at age 35 were done at a different location and city. Now, check my photos when I was age 40 to that of now... a 15 pound difference. Yes, I'm well aware of standardization, as you well know from the book I wrote and which you own (Scientific Inquiry). Don't make it sound like you are the scientific expert in all this.

Regardless, even without standardized photos, a trained eye can spot when something is right and something is wrong.

By the way, friction in a high-performance car engine is roughly 20%, with all the lube, etc. How did scientists measure the amount of muscular friction in a live human, and with what tool?

In regard to your knowledge in building muscle, that comes from demonstration in the field. Reading physiology texts and research is laughable. I have many current texts, and the information is so barren that it means nothing. It never addresses the balance of the principles, the basic concept of stress physiology, how to strategize for long-term application, etc. To base one's knowledge of developing muscle on such texts and the research being conducted is a step down from the muscle mags (at least in the mags there might be a few points to get you thinking).

If 'ideal' cams produce better results and negate the use of such methods as JReps, please provide your proof of such muscular changes (that the cam and not the increase intensity of effort, motivation, etc. is the cause). I own MedX and Nautilus, and can produce as good a change with springs, barbells, dumbells, etc., with few exceptions (the MedX low back machine for the low back, which is not an issue of cam, but of isolation and targeting).

It is apparent to any 'bodybuilder' that he or she can make a weight feel heavier simply by how it is used, the positioning of the body, etc. Hence, it is not the load, but how the load is used (to play an old tune). Therefore, focusing more on how much weight you use rather than the manner in which it is used classifies a person as a weight lifter and not someone trying to manipulate the load to optimize physical development. A person so well versed in hypertrophy should understand this, since a muscle has no idea if you're using 90 pounds or 100 pounds, but you can make 90 pounds feel more demanding than 100 pounds if you know what you're doing. In regard to fatigue vs. load, the load is USED in such a way to create a sense of fatigue. I can squat 50 pounds more than usual and even UNLOAD my quads by doing so, depending on how I use it. To suggest that load is more important than fatigue, or vice versa, ignores the Principle of Influence.

In regard to empirical data and scientific research, research is dependent on empirical data... Principle of Reliance. When a person conducts research, he obtains data based on experience of the subjects; hence, empirical data. The term emperical refers to that which is based on observation and experiment. Research is based on observation and experiment, is it not? Refer to the Oxford Dictionary. This data then helps to confirm or support theory.

And I have nothing riding on JReps... it has lasting power beyond anyting I have implemented with myself or my clients. You must think I sell thousands of books and make thousands of dollars on this, lol. What is riding on this is your ego, for whatever reason, and I suspect it is based on your dogmatic beliefs and the desire to get that HIT certification off the ground. If no one wants to implement this method, then so be it. I'm very happy in the results I am achieving, and so are others... people who had done just about everything, including your current training methods of "how much can I lift and still look the same."

I look forward to your studies, considering you have yet to complete a simple client case study as per your word to Mr. Shortt.

As you stated to someone else: "Perhaps you don't want to hear it because it conflicts with what you'd like to believe about exercise...", please keep that in mind and think about it carefully. I, too, was dogmatic and was set in certain beliefs that you currently uphold. It would have been in my best interests (ego wise) to keep believing it, but I moved on.

And now you are not claiming SS to be unproductive? You stated that you lost muscle on it. How much more unproductive can you get!? Stand up for yourself and speak out loud, since you think you're doing so with Zone Training. Now you claim to have achieved "good results" with rest pause. Well, I guess we can take your word for it... what is the scientific evidence that it works (specific studies that deal with rest pause); why should we believe you?; where are the case studies with standardized photos? Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I'm posting photos and data as I get them (people are volunteering it), whereas you were doing the research, and so give us the body comp info, photos, etc. to show these "good results."

This thread is getting too long, and I'm wasting too much time bantering with a person who wants to be an expert, who insults a colleague with terms such as 'hype,' and who has yet to provide evidence that he knows what he's talking about through real-world results. Thank you, and good night!
Open User Options Menu

saseme

logicbdj wrote:
Drew:

Why is it that I have done drop sets without the same effect? If so, I'd write a drop set book.


I wouldn't doubt it, being that drop sets already exist.
Open User Options Menu

saseme

logicbdj wrote:

Thank you, and good night!


Finally some sanity. But I'd like to see the thread get to 200. Our first I think.

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

logicbdj wrote:
Drew:

Why is it that I have done drop sets without the same effect? If so, I'd write a drop set book. If the SAME results could be had with a drop set within a single zone of a ROM, then prove it... demonstrate it through case studies or have people try it and report it.


Brian, you are the one's making claims about J-reps being more effective than other methods, the onus of proof is on you. I haven't seen anything to convince me it is any more effective than any other rep method.


logicbdj wrote:
And what is it that is being claimed is false? You have not clarified that. I CLEARLY stated more pump, more growth, better feeling workouts, and more even strength throughout the full ROM.


1. You and others have stated the pump is a significant factor in hypertrophy stimulation, but there is no evidence for this, no plausible explanation for a mechanism by which this might occur, and people with medical and physiology backgrounds I've spoken to have said the pump would probably have very, very little if any effect on hypertrophy.

2. You and others have stated that J-reps can provide effective stimulation in all portions of the ROM with exercises with unbalanced resistance curves, based on how hard the exercise feels in these portions of the ROM due to fatigue.

Microtrauma is structural damage, and damage to a structure occurs when the structure is exposed to a force that exceeds it's structural strength. It takes X amount of force to cause damage to Y structure. Fatigue may make the exercise feel harder in portions of the ROM which don't provide X amount of resistance, since the load is high relative to the momentary strength level, but unless the load is actually close to X, it is unlikely to cause microtrauma.

Of course, there are mitigating factors, one of which is fatigue, but if a resistance curve is off far enough that a portion of the ROM is significantly underloaded, pre-fatiguing the involved muscles in another part of the ROM isn't going to change the fact that the load in the underloaded portion of the ROM isn't at least X.

It is the load relative to the structural strength of the muscle fibers that matters, not the load relative to the momentary strength level. If a set of J-reps is started in the hardest portion of the ROM, continuing the set in the additional, underloaded portions would probably not provide much in the way of additional growth stimulus.

Increasing the weight between the performance of the different portions of the ROM might compensate for this, but if the resistance is balanced over the full ROM to begin with, there probably wouldn't be any significant difference in results than if a normal dynamic set, or a set of mid-range partials (to equal the rep count) were performed.


logicbdj wrote:
In ALL cases (some report more in some areas than in others) this has been the case.


I don't doubt it produces a pump. Whether the workouts feel better is subjective. As for the growth, I haven't seen proof that this produces any more growth than any other rep method is capable of.


logicbdj wrote:
The JReps method CLEARLY indicates not locking out, and never, ever mentions 'extreme' points of stretch, whatever that means (since a good stretch for one person is an extreme stretch for someone else). Hence, why even bring up that point?


That was a side note to the comments on a full ROM not being necessary for hypertrophy, and in some instances not safe.


logicbdj wrote:
Never did I state that the pump was 'extremely' important, but that there could be a correlation to growth (accordin to Dr. Mauro DiPasquale, Frank Zane, and others, there could be, as per an increase in vascular proliferation, mitochondria increase, and sarcoplasm increase, viz., the 'cosmetic' increase of hypertrophy).


The importance of the pump is mentioned in the J-reps book, as well as many of your posts.

You have said the following, in this thread alone:

"Interesting that those who do focus on obtaining a great pump WHILE working hard have better physiques than those who focus merely on strength increases"

"You may not believe it, because 'research' doesn't show it, but there is value in the pump and the effects achieved through JReps... greater vascular proliferation, mitochondria numbers, greater sarcoplasm content, etc. This is a cosmetic change that is not affected much through heavy lifting, which is why bodybuilders look different than powerlifters, although the latter lift heavier, whereas the former go for the extreme pump and volume in short periods."


Increased vascularity and mitochondrial density wouldn't make any noticeable difference in overall muscle size, and these things occur with other repetition methods any way.

What proof do you have that these things occur to a greater degree with J-reps than with other repetition methods?

Sarcoplasm levels can change with hydration and glycogen storage.

The pump isn't going to have any significant long term effect on these. Transient, yes. Permanent, not significant, if at all.

I just went through the section on adaptation to exercise in the 2002 edition of Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, & Plasticity, and there isn't even mention of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This is one of the best books on the effecs of exercise on muscle physiology, so if it was significant, they'd probably have covered it.

I would love to hear an explanation of the mechanism behind pump-induced sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, because so far, nobody reputable I know thinks the pump would be a significant factor.

logicbdj wrote:
It is not an issue of pump, but achieving it under intense conditions as quickly as possibly... CLEARLY indicated in the book, but I guessed you missed it, like a few others.


Regardless of the conditions under which the pump is achieved, the pump in and of itself is not a significant factor in growth stimulation. Depending on your level of hydration, you could perform the exact same workout and have a different level of pump.


logicbdj wrote:
In regard to photos, I have yet to see changes produced by such people as Coombes and Ellison. Andrew Shortt has done everything possible before, and look at his photos. Look at my photos when age 40 and now (before then, the lighting was different, and I certainly was not 'harder' before, as one person claims, since I had overhead lighting at age 35 and NO overhead lighting now). And you have people like Foucault and others who down right claim superiority of training in such a manner. Are they liars?


Without the photos being properly standardized, it is difficult to judge objectively.


logicbdj wrote:
In regard to posting about this method in a variety of forums, again, not me. I visit 3 forums in total, and so don't exaggerate this as being some huge marketing ploy. I do work full time at something completely different (accident rehab).


It's pushed heavily enough on this forum, Fred Hahn's, and PFP.


logicbdj wrote:
Please, who 'lost' muscle while on this method. Give me a break. I'm still waiting for the great progress you and your ADVANCED trainees have been making (since any idiot can get a beginner to make progress).


A few people stated this in PM's. If they want to make it public, I'll leave that to them.

I'll be posting recent photos within another couple weeks (still dieting, considering doing a contest in Nov in Miami).


logicbdj wrote:
By the way, I've never been so insulted as having you suggest this is hype.


You are making a lot of outstanding claims about the results J-reps is producing, but I haven't seen anything to convince me it's any better than many other repetition methods. It sounds like hype to me.


logicbdj wrote:
What I consider it is bias, frustration, ego, and a hope of launching his own certification... on your behalf.


I'm not frustrated about anything. Things are going quite well for me at the moment. I'm not sure what you think my ego has to do with any of this.

The certification isn't mine, it's a collaboration between several people.


logicbdj wrote:
I expected far more from you. Quote all the science you want, but you know what your body looks like and the lack of results being obtained from YOUR methods.


I'm not in contest condition now, but I don't look bad, by any stretch.


logicbdj wrote:
It's that plain and simple. You have yet to acknowledge the people who claim benefit from this method, and yet suggest that you know of people who 'lost' muscle while on it... who... since I'm in touch with those who bought the first book?


You have yet to provide any kind of standardized before/after photos from which to judge, or anything else concrete for us to acknowledge by. I still haven't seen anything to warrant the claims that J-reps are in any way revolutionary.

logicbdj wrote:
In regard to the boxer, this is not an anectodote, but a friggin' client of mine, a person who is in tune with his body, and not some moron who sends in an e-mail about how great something is.


That's still just an anecdote.


logicbdj wrote:
Still waiting for your ADVANCED trainees and not beginners... and when you post their results, are they anecdotes as well, or must we accept your word as gospel?


This isn't a discussion about my clients, it's about J-reps.

As for my clients results, I won't represent them as anything other than what they are - examples of what particular individuals were able to accomplish using particular methods.


logicbdj wrote:
And you won't make claims unless there is more support for them? You mean, like results? That is what I focus on... not what a science text tells me.


No, I won't make a claim unless there is either adequate evidence to support it or reasoning based on sound premises.


logicbdj wrote:
Ever wonder if these people even train or where they get their information, such as a one-term study at a university with people who take part for extra credit, with no real intention of wanting to exercise, and who are not long-term trainees?


You're assuming I'm only talking about clinical exercise studies. There is a lot of useful information in other areas of research, particularly genetics, cellular biology, endocrinology, etc.


logicbdj wrote:
And who says that people don't increase the loads with JReps? My god, you haven't read the book! It even CLEARLY states to use as heavy a load as is necessary and as one is capable of handling while maintaining targeted form. You make it sound like we're recommending light loads and a bunch of pumping, which is a misrepresentation.


I never stated people don't increase the loads with JReps. I asked people who suggested load wasn't important whether they thought they could improve without ever increasing the load.

I did read the book, and I never said you were recommending light loads. What I said was that making an underloaded portion of the ROM feel heavier is not the same as, or as effective as, actually making it heavier.


logicbdj wrote:
Either you are lying or an idiot and can't understand basic English. You have an agenda, my friend (and I use that term loosely).


If I have any agenda related to this issue it's simply to not sit by and say nothing while people make unfounded claims. J-reps may be an effective repetition method, but again, I haven't seen anything that convinces me that it is any better than many other ways of training, much less revolutionary.


logicbdj wrote:
In regard to standardizing photos, very easy when you live in the same city and in the same lighting, genius. Read my posts carefully. My photos at age 35 were done at a different location and city. Now, check my photos when I was age 40 to that of now... a 15 pound difference.


That's a 5 year period. The changes you've made over the past 5 years aren't what we're discussing here. We're talking about the changes made since you've started using J-reps. Unless you've moved since then, you have no excuse.


logicbdj wrote:
Yes, I'm well aware of standardization, as you well know from the book I wrote and which you own (Scientific Inquiry). Don't make it sound like you are the scientific expert in all this.


Scientific Inquiry is a very good book. I know you are aware of the importance of standardization, which is why I'm surprised you didn't take standardized before/after photos of yourself and others you're training using J-reps, since that would have been a very good way to show the results you're claiming.


logicbdj wrote:
Regardless, even without standardized photos, a trained eye can spot when something is right and something is wrong.


This might be ok for magazine ads, but for backing up claims of a particular type of physical change, standardization is important. Or at least a more recent before picture.


logicbdj wrote:
By the way, friction in a high-performance car engine is roughly 20%, with all the lube, etc. How did scientists measure the amount of muscular friction in a live human, and with what tool?


A discussion of the friction issue deserves it's own thread. I will answer this elsewhere in detail. In a nutshell, the numbers simply don't support the friction model. Ryan Hall and I discussed this a while back, and he mentioned a few studies, but I couldn't get him on his cell this late, and will try to get references tomorrow.


logicbdj wrote:
In regard to your knowledge in building muscle, that comes from demonstration in the field. Reading physiology texts and research is laughable.


Are you saying there is no value in learning about physiology and current research related to exercise? That would be laughable.

There is benefit in both academic research and practical experience.


logicbdj wrote:
I have many current texts, and the information is so barren that it means nothing. It never addresses the balance of the principles, the basic concept of stress physiology, how to strategize for long-term application, etc.


Perhaps the problem isn't the texts, but your understanding of them, or your ability to translate the information into practical application.


logicbdj wrote:
To base one's knowledge of developing muscle on such texts and the research being conducted is a step down from the muscle mags (at least in the mags there might be a few points to get you thinking).


So you're saying that people who study biology, anatomy and physiology, kinesiology, and other exercise related fields, are worse off than if they just read muscle mags? This is like saying a four year subscription to Muscle & Fitness would better prepare one for a career in exercise than a health or exercise-related degree.


logicbdj wrote:
If 'ideal' cams produce better results and negate the use of such methods as JReps, please provide your proof of such muscular changes (that the cam and not the increase intensity of effort, motivation, etc. is the cause). I own MedX and Nautilus, and can produce as good a change with springs, barbells, dumbells, etc., with few exceptions (the MedX low back machine for the low back, which is not an issue of cam, but of isolation and targeting).


I've said before on many occassions, results from exercise have far more to do with the method than the tools used. Well balanced cams help by providing more efficient loading of the target musculature, but ultimately results depend on how they're used.

I had better results using Heavy Duty with basic barbell equipment and low-end machines than I did using SS with low loads and high TULs on MedX and retrofitted Nautilus equipment.


logicbdj wrote:
It is apparent to any 'bodybuilder' that he or she can make a weight feel heavier simply by how it is used, the positioning of the body, etc. Hence, it is not the load, but how the load is used (to play an old tune).Therefore, focusing more on how much weight you use rather than the manner in which it is used classifies a person as a weight lifter and not someone trying to manipulate the load to optimize physical development.


It is important to distinguish between making the load feel heavier as a result of fatigue versus making it feel heavier because of a change in biomechanics. Part of the point of J-reps is to make the underloaded zones feel heavier due to fatigue from first performing partials in the adequately loaded zones, and as I've pointed out earlier, this is not the same as increasing the load in the underloaded portion of the ROM.

Both load AND proper exercise performance are important. Perfect form without adequate load isn't going to accomplish much, and adequate load with sloppy form is going to be far less than ideal, and potentially dangerous.

One should try to use the heaviest load they are capable of using IN GOOD FORM for a TUL appropriate to them and their goals. I've never stated otherwise, and this isn't at all exclusive to J-reps.

Attempting to increase load over time isn't the exclusive domain of weightlifters, either. Progression is necessary to stimulate further increases in hypertrophy, the primary goal of a bodybuilder. An essential part of "manipulating the load" is systematic progression.


logicbdj wrote:
A person so well versed in hypertrophy should understand this, since a muscle has no idea if you're using 90 pounds or 100 pounds, but you can make 90 pounds feel more demanding than 100 pounds if you know what you're doing.


This is true, but if you continue to do the same exercise, in the same manner, with that same 90 pounds and never try to increase it, you're not going to progress very far. You can make the exercise "harder" (depending on how you define the term) in many different ways, but the only kind of harder that is going to make a significant difference in hypertrophy in the long run is increased load.


logicbdj wrote:
In regard to fatigue vs. load, the load is USED in such a way to create a sense of fatigue. I can squat 50 pounds more than usual and even UNLOAD my quads by doing so, depending on how I use it. To suggest that load is more important than fatigue, or vice versa, ignores the Principle of Influence.


Load is more important than fatigue for the purpose of hypertrophy. There is a linear relationship between load and microtrauma andInsulin-like Growth Factor and Mechano growth factor are both sensitive to load. Fatigue is an important factor for various reasons, but load is more important for hypertrophy.


logicbdj wrote:
In regard to empirical data and scientific research, research is dependent on empirical data... Principle of Reliance. When a person conducts research, he obtains data based on experience of the subjects; hence, empirical data. The term emperical refers to that which is based on observation and experiment. Research is based on observation and experiment, is it not? Refer to the Oxford Dictionary. This data then helps to confirm or support theory.


I'm not sure why you're bringing this up, since nobody said anything to the contrary, and you were just criticizing research a few paragraphs ago.


logicbdj wrote:
And I have nothing riding on JReps...


You're selling books and videos about it and it's named after you.


logicbdj wrote:
it has lasting power beyond anyting I have implemented with myself or my clients.


Considering it's only been less than a year, it's very, very premature to be making any statements about lasting power.

logicbdj wrote:
You must think I sell thousands of books and make thousands of dollars on this, lol.


No, I definitely don't think that.


logicbdj wrote:
What is riding on this is your ego, for whatever reason, and I suspect it is based on your dogmatic beliefs and the desire to get that HIT certification off the ground.


You were the one that brought up the HIT certification. When was the last time I've even mentioned it here?


logicbdj wrote:
If no one wants to implement this method, then so be it. I'm very happy in the results I am achieving, and so are others... people who had done just about everything, including your current training methods of "how much can I lift and still look the same."


If it works for you, great. I never said it didn't. I am just very skeptical of claims being made about it being so much more effective than everything else, and some of the claims, which were addressed in the initial post, simply aren't true.


logicbdj wrote:
I look forward to your studies, considering you have yet to complete a simple client case study as per your word to Mr. Shortt.


My apologies to Mr. Shortt. I did agree to do a case study in exchange for the Scientific Inquiry book. We're getting our Korr ReeVue tomorrow and will be testing one of the clients who's progress we're going to be recording a little more closely than others as a case study, and will post info on it when it's finished.


logicbdj wrote:
As you stated to someone else: "Perhaps you don't want to hear it because it conflicts with what you'd like to believe about exercise...", please keep that in mind and think about it carefully. I, too, was dogmatic and was set in certain beliefs that you currently uphold. It would have been in my best interests (ego wise) to keep believing it, but I moved on.

And now you are not claiming SS to be unproductive? You stated that you lost muscle on it. How much more unproductive can you get!?


The problem was with how it was being applied. The issue wasn't so much a matter of the repetition performance as it was of way too little weight, and way too long a TUL. I was using far less weight than I could have, and being someone who responds much better to shorter TULs, the high TULs were not at all effective for me.

SS could be far more productive if used with heavier loads and shorter TULs.


logicbdj wrote:
Stand up for yourself and speak out loud, since you think you're doing so with Zone Training. Now you claim to have achieved "good results" with rest pause. Well, I guess we can take your word for it... what is the scientific evidence that it works (specific studies that deal with rest pause); why should we believe you?; where are the case studies with standardized photos? Now, the shoe is on the other foot.


No, it isn't. I didn't make claims about rest pause producing better results than anything else I've ever done, or being better than any other way of training. I also didn't claim any specific magnitude of change. I just said we had good results with it.


logicbdj wrote:
I'm posting photos and data as I get them (people are volunteering it), whereas you were doing the research, and so give us the body comp info, photos, etc. to show these "good results."


We'll use rest pause with a few clients if it suits what they're trying to accomplish and let everyone here know how it goes. I have no problem with that.
Open User Options Menu

macke

logicbdj wrote:
Drew:

Why is it that I have done drop sets without the same effect? If so, I'd write a drop set book. If the SAME results could be had with a drop set within a single zone of a ROM, then prove it... demonstrate it through case studies or have people try it and report it. And what is it that is being claimed is false? You have not clarified that. I CLEARLY stated more pump, more growth, better feeling workouts, and more even strength throughout the full ROM. In ALL cases (some report more in some areas than in others) this has been the case. The JReps method CLEARLY indicates not locking out, and never, ever mentions 'extreme' points of stretch, whatever that means (since a good stretch for one person is an extreme stretch for someone else). Hence, why even bring up that point? Never did I state that the pump was 'extremely' important, but that there could be a correlation to growth (accordin to Dr. Mauro DiPasquale, Frank Zane, and others, there could be, as per an increase in vascular proliferation, mitochondria increase, and sarcoplasm increase, viz., the 'cosmetic' increase of hypertrophy). It is not an issue of pump, but achieving it under intense conditions as quickly as possibly... CLEARLY indicated in the book, but I guessed you missed it, like a few others.

In regard to photos, I have yet to see changes produced by such people as Coombes and Ellison. Andrew Shortt has done everything possible before, and look at his photos. Look at my photos when age 40 and now (before then, the lighting was different, and I certainly was not 'harder' before, as one person claims, since I had overhead lighting at age 35 and NO overhead lighting now). And you have people like Foucault and others who down right claim superiority of training in such a manner. Are they liars?

In regard to posting about this method in a variety of forums, again, not me. I visit 3 forums in total, and so don't exaggerate this as being some huge marketing ploy. I do work full time at something completely different (accident rehab).

Please, who 'lost' muscle while on this method. Give me a break. I'm still waiting for the great progress you and your ADVANCED trainees have been making (since any idiot can get a beginner to make progress).

By the way, I've never been so insulted as having you suggest this is hype. What I consider it is bias, frustration, ego, and a hope of launching his own certification... on your behalf. I expected far more from you. Quote all the science you want, but you know what your body looks like and the lack of results being obtained from YOUR methods. It's that plain and simple. You have yet to acknowledge the people who claim benefit from this method, and yet suggest that you know of people who 'lost' muscle while on it... who... since I'm in touch with those who bought the first book?

In regard to the boxer, this is not an anectodote, but a friggin' client of mine, a person who is in tune with his body, and not some moron who sends in an e-mail about how great something is. Still waiting for your ADVANCED trainees and not beginners... and when you post their results, are they anecdotes as well, or must we accept your word as gospel?

And you won't make claims unless there is more support for them? You mean, like results? That is what I focus on... not what a science text tells me. Ever wonder if these people even train or where they get their information, such as a one-term study at a university with people who take part for extra credit, with no real intention of wanting to exercise, and who are not long-term trainees?

And who says that people don't increase the loads with JReps? My god, you haven't read the book! It even CLEARLY states to use as heavy a load as is necessary and as one is capable of handling while maintaining targeted form. You make it sound like we're recommending light loads and a bunch of pumping, which is a misrepresentation. Either you are lying or an idiot and can't understand basic English. You have an agenda, my friend (and I use that term loosely).

In regard to standardizing photos, very easy when you live in the same city and in the same lighting, genius. Read my posts carefully. My photos at age 35 were done at a different location and city. Now, check my photos when I was age 40 to that of now... a 15 pound difference. Yes, I'm well aware of standardization, as you well know from the book I wrote and which you own (Scientific Inquiry). Don't make it sound like you are the scientific expert in all this.

Regardless, even without standardized photos, a trained eye can spot when something is right and something is wrong.

By the way, friction in a high-performance car engine is roughly 20%, with all the lube, etc. How did scientists measure the amount of muscular friction in a live human, and with what tool?

In regard to your knowledge in building muscle, that comes from demonstration in the field. Reading physiology texts and research is laughable. I have many current texts, and the information is so barren that it means nothing. It never addresses the balance of the principles, the basic concept of stress physiology, how to strategize for long-term application, etc. To base one's knowledge of developing muscle on such texts and the research being conducted is a step down from the muscle mags (at least in the mags there might be a few points to get you thinking).

If 'ideal' cams produce better results and negate the use of such methods as JReps, please provide your proof of such muscular changes (that the cam and not the increase intensity of effort, motivation, etc. is the cause). I own MedX and Nautilus, and can produce as good a change with springs, barbells, dumbells, etc., with few exceptions (the MedX low back machine for the low back, which is not an issue of cam, but of isolation and targeting).

It is apparent to any 'bodybuilder' that he or she can make a weight feel heavier simply by how it is used, the positioning of the body, etc. Hence, it is not the load, but how the load is used (to play an old tune). Therefore, focusing more on how much weight you use rather than the manner in which it is used classifies a person as a weight lifter and not someone trying to manipulate the load to optimize physical development. A person so well versed in hypertrophy should understand this, since a muscle has no idea if you're using 90 pounds or 100 pounds, but you can make 90 pounds feel more demanding than 100 pounds if you know what you're doing. In regard to fatigue vs. load, the load is USED in such a way to create a sense of fatigue. I can squat 50 pounds more than usual and even UNLOAD my quads by doing so, depending on how I use it. To suggest that load is more important than fatigue, or vice versa, ignores the Principle of Influence.

In regard to empirical data and scientific research, research is dependent on empirical data... Principle of Reliance. When a person conducts research, he obtains data based on experience of the subjects; hence, empirical data. The term emperical refers to that which is based on observation and experiment. Research is based on observation and experiment, is it not? Refer to the Oxford Dictionary. This data then helps to confirm or support theory.

And I have nothing riding on JReps... it has lasting power beyond anyting I have implemented with myself or my clients. You must think I sell thousands of books and make thousands of dollars on this, lol. What is riding on this is your ego, for whatever reason, and I suspect it is based on your dogmatic beliefs and the desire to get that HIT certification off the ground. If no one wants to implement this method, then so be it. I'm very happy in the results I am achieving, and so are others... people who had done just about everything, including your current training methods of "how much can I lift and still look the same."

I look forward to your studies, considering you have yet to complete a simple client case study as per your word to Mr. Shortt.

As you stated to someone else: "Perhaps you don't want to hear it because it conflicts with what you'd like to believe about exercise...", please keep that in mind and think about it carefully. I, too, was dogmatic and was set in certain beliefs that you currently uphold. It would have been in my best interests (ego wise) to keep believing it, but I moved on.

And now you are not claiming SS to be unproductive? You stated that you lost muscle on it. How much more unproductive can you get!? Stand up for yourself and speak out loud, since you think you're doing so with Zone Training. Now you claim to have achieved "good results" with rest pause. Well, I guess we can take your word for it... what is the scientific evidence that it works (specific studies that deal with rest pause); why should we believe you?; where are the case studies with standardized photos? Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I'm posting photos and data as I get them (people are volunteering it), whereas you were doing the research, and so give us the body comp info, photos, etc. to show these "good results."

This thread is getting too long, and I'm wasting too much time bantering with a person who wants to be an expert, who insults a colleague with terms such as 'hype,' and who has yet to provide evidence that he knows what he's talking about through real-world results. Thank you, and good night!

Are you really working fulltime? Considering you are writing posts like this!! Seems like you?re on this forum 24/7....if Jreps really are that good let the results speak for them selves.

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

macke wrote:

Are you really working fulltime? Considering you are writing posts like this!! Seems like you?re on this forum 24/7....if Jreps really are that good let the results speak for them selves.



I know Johnston and what you think is based on how long it would take you to critique. If he is working at his comp. or taking a break, he will kick out a page of detail in no time. I know I co authored with him just recently and his idea of wasting time is spending more than 4-5 minutes on say a 6-8 paragraph post.

Luv it or hate it Johnston's critiquing skills are about as good as it gets and the book 'System Analysis' proves this. He doesn't just talk the talk, that extensive book is thorough as all hell, well beyond Internet yakking.

The thing is, only so much is worth responding to on the net. There are too many guys like you who re paste big long threads within a thread for no reason then say something inane and insulting at the end. This is likely to purposely pollute the thread - sad how much jealousy, envy and empty skepticism exists.

Andrew
Open User Options Menu

saseme

Wizard wrote:
In conclusion.

Jreps works in the same sense a Dr D specialisation routine would work, they just go about using load, exercises and gravity in a different way to ensure force is put upon the muscle in the right place for the right time.

The way Jreps has been put forth has been very aggresive and "look at me" - not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing - just an observation.



This is a brilliant post that seems to have been largely overlooked and I never thought about the full ROM specialization routines in that way.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:
In conclusion.

Jreps works in the same sense a Dr D specialisation routine would work, they just go about using load, exercises and gravity in a different way to ensure force is put upon the muscle in the right place for the right time.

The way Jreps has been put forth has been very aggresive and "look at me" - not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing - just an observation.



This is a brilliant post that seems to have been largely overlooked and I never thought about the full ROM specialization routines in that way.



Again similar but not where it counts, not the same at all. I won't ramble on about why unless asked so as not to offend with my bullish behavior ;^)

Andrew
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:
In conclusion.

Jreps works in the same sense a Dr D specialisation routine would work, they just go about using load, exercises and gravity in a different way to ensure force is put upon the muscle in the right place for the right time.

The way Jreps has been put forth has been very aggresive and "look at me" - not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing - just an observation.



This is a brilliant post that seems to have been largely overlooked and I never thought about the full ROM specialization routines in that way.



Although i have not read and will not unless I am given it free then this is exactly what Jreps shows like to me and I find it hard to see how others that have followed Jones/Darden etc didnt grasp this at the start - i ams ure I posted this ages ago on another thread!?

Jreps does the same as Dr D's specialisation but in a slightly shorter time frame - which for some is a good thing, in the same way HIT is a good thing for some but not for all - it all depends on how you like to train.

Andrew by all means enlighten me as to how jreps is different if you wish to share, either by replying here or by PM - I have no standing in either direction on this and believe that Jreps (like Drew) could work just fine, infact I have no doubt it would work.

Every major player in this debate has vast knowledge and clearly a good thorough education and grasp on physiology, however sometimes too much knowledge in any field can be just as camoflaging as too little -

"specialisation is for insects" remember?


Ham
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Just curious is Jreps Exploded view ready to ship out yet? I think I heared early fall last time someone asked but sometimes things change and I just wanted an update.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

bigmikep wrote:
Just curious is Jreps Exploded view ready to ship out yet? I think I heared early fall last time someone asked but sometimes things change and I just wanted an update.

Michael


It is out in CD now and in hardcover I think end of the month or begining of Sept. But it is just a bunch of blahblahblah about HOW to lift a barbell and such ;^)

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

saseme

AShortt wrote:
bigmikep wrote:
Just curious is Jreps Exploded view ready to ship out yet? I think I heared early fall last time someone asked but sometimes things change and I just wanted an update.

Michael

It is out in CD now and in hardcover I think end of the month or begining of Sept. But it is just a bunch of blahblahblah about HOW to lift a barbell and such ;^)

Regards,
Andrew


Don't be like that Andrew. Mike asked you a serious question, or the IART at large, without any pretense or spite or anything, like he want's to purchase, and you couldn't just answer him without being a smarty pants.
Open User Options Menu

saseme

Wizard wrote:
saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:
In conclusion.

Jreps works in the same sense a Dr D specialisation routine would work, they just go about using load, exercises and gravity in a different way to ensure force is put upon the muscle in the right place for the right time.

The way Jreps has been put forth has been very aggresive and "look at me" - not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing - just an observation.



This is a brilliant post that seems to have been largely overlooked and I never thought about the full ROM specialization routines in that way.


Although i have not read and will not unless I am given it free then this is exactly what Jreps shows like to me and I find it hard to see how others that have followed Jones/Darden etc didnt grasp this at the start - i ams ure I posted this ages ago on another thread!?

Jreps does the same as Dr D's specialisation but in a slightly shorter time frame - which for some is a good thing, in the same way HIT is a good thing for some but not for all - it all depends on how you like to train.

Andrew by all means enlighten me as to how jreps is different if you wish to share, either by replying here or by PM - I have no standing in either direction on this and believe that Jreps (like Drew) could work just fine, infact I have no doubt it would work.

Every major player in this debate has vast knowledge and clearly a good thorough education and grasp on physiology, however sometimes too much knowledge in any field can be just as camoflaging as too little -

"specialisation is for insects" remember?


Ham


Did you get an answer to this to your satisfaction yet Ham? I guess with all of the fancy talk and myriad of posts, that the specialization comparison slipped right by me. You summed it up nicely and simplified the matter well. If you pick a number of exercises as per Dr. D's spec. routines that focus on different parts of the rom and such, you can't go wrong. Like leg ext. to squat to hip ext. or reverse with no rest. I also like calve raise to leg curl to straight-legged deadlift.
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

No answer as yet Sesame, I am sure I will though - given time

This thread has taken up loads of time already, people are busy I am sure, or maybe there isnt really an answer for what I notice because it is right?
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Wizard wrote:
No answer as yet Sesame, I am sure I will though - given time

This thread has taken up loads of time already, people are busy I am sure, or maybe there isnt really an answer for what I notice because it is right?


With a specialization routine, you have to withstand far more total volume to hit a bunch of 'sweet spots'. With Zone Training, you 'create' all the sweet spots, multiple ones within the same exercise all within about 60 seconds per set.

Thus you have a total TUT of say 4 sets (4 maybe 5 sweet spots, 4 minutes TUT plus whatever rest periods you need) verses 2 exercises and 4 to 6 or more sweet spots, total TUT 2 minutes (plus a rest between exercises). More sweet spots with half as much sets.

This also means you can use more load with Zone Training because you don't waste lots of energy moving through the less or non productive points of an exercises ROM.

The comparison may not look huge but over time the difference in being able to use less volume and more load is significant. Being that energy and recovery resources are a major limiting factor Zone-Training tends to be the most productive way to go.

Besides, specialization routines work only if the exercises and order create sweet spots for the user. With JReps you make all exercises/zones effective.

What amazes me is how some HIT based trainees fail to see how this method gives you more without asking for more. As in HIT you get more stimulus with less wasted time and energy. Plus you make the best use of any equipment choices, and so forth.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

cmg

AShortt wrote:
Wizard wrote:
No answer as yet Sesame, I am sure I will though - given time

This thread has taken up loads of time already, people are busy I am sure, or maybe there isnt really an answer for what I notice because it is right?

With a specialization routine, you have to withstand far more total volume to hit a bunch of 'sweet spots'. With Zone Training, you 'create' all the sweet spots, multiple ones within the same exercise all within about 60 seconds per set.

Thus you have a total TUT of say 4 sets (4 maybe 5 sweet spots, 4 minutes TUT plus whatever rest periods you need) verses 2 exercises and 4 to 6 or more sweet spots, total TUT 2 minutes (plus a rest between exercises). More sweet spots with half as much sets.

This also means you can use more load with Zone Training because you don't waste lots of energy moving through the less or non productive points of an exercises ROM.

The comparison may not look huge but over time the difference in being able to use less volume and more load is significant. Being that energy and recovery resources are a major limiting factor Zone-Training tends to be the most productive way to go.

Besides, specialization routines work only if the exercises and order create sweet spots for the user. With JReps you make all exercises/zones effective.

What amazes me is how some HIT based trainees fail to see how this method gives you more without asking for more. As in HIT you get more stimulus with less wasted time and energy. Plus you make the best use of any equipment choices, and so forth.

Regards,
Andrew



Hello Andrew,

I don't get the idea that you can use more weight. Since it is so much more strict due to no momentum over the sticking point I have to use the same or less in one of the zones and significantly reduce in the second zone.

Example Incline DB Press - lower zone first 80 lbs for 11 reps - 20/30 seconds rest and then upper contracted zone with 55lbs for 5 reps. This is typical for me - is this typical for others??

I do full body approx. 10-12 exercises every approx. 4-5 days.

Todays workout leg curl,leg ext, inc db press, machine row, fly, pulldown, reverse lateral, side lateral, db tri extension, machine curl, reverse machine curl.

This was probably my 8th JReps workout and I didn't feel as strong and didn't pump as well. This was the first one that didn't feel as good.

After one zone to failure I feel wiped - and the second zone is difficult even if it is the stronger zone using significantly less weight (approx. 30% drop ) from the bottom of incl db press to top contracted area.

Also, side laterals are very difficult JReps. Top half I've had to go down to 10lbs to complete good 13 reps - I used 20lbs on the exercise full ROM that I felt was good form.

Any suggestions etc??

Regards,

Ron
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

cmg wrote:
Hello Andrew,

I don't get the idea that you can use more weight. Since it is so much more strict due to no momentum over the sticking point I have to use the same or less in one of the zones and significantly reduce in the second zone.

Example Incline DB Press - lower zone first 80 lbs for 11 reps - 20/30 seconds rest and then upper contracted zone with 55lbs for 5 reps. This is typical for me - is this typical for others??

I do full body approx. 10-12 exercises every approx. 4-5 days.

Todays workout leg curl,leg ext, inc db press, machine row, fly, pulldown, reverse lateral, side lateral, db tri extension, machine curl, reverse machine curl.

This was probably my 8th JReps workout and I didn't feel as strong and didn't pump as well. This was the first one that didn't feel as good.

After one zone to failure I feel wiped - and the second zone is difficult even if it is the stronger zone using significantly less weight (approx. 30% drop ) from the bottom of incl db press to top contracted area.

Also, side laterals are very difficult JReps. Top half I've had to go down to 10lbs to complete good 13 reps - I used 20lbs on the exercise full ROM that I felt was good form.

Any suggestions etc??

Regards,

Ron


Hi Ron,

Seems you are reacting to the enhanced demands and reverting back to old habits (the new level of localized stress/LAS). This is the same reaction I had. I started out with this new method got in the groove fine then when I started to dig in and make it demanding I stumbled.

I fell back into not relaxing my outlying musculature and bracing myself. Basically, I got into the groove because it was so new but then once I felt a bit more comfortable I reverted back to cheating though in a subtle fashion.

Again forget load, you must be able to work the zone with good targeting and isolation or the load is too much for you in that zone. Forget the numbers only go as heavy as you can properly handle. You can always try a few more pounds the next session. Adjust cadence, load, size of zones and start each rep by flexing the targeted muscle(s). Breathe in and stretch/ease out as you take a new breath.

Feel through each force curve by moving amongst the zones during a warm-up and stop concerning yourself with the numbers so much. The numbers don't lie but are very easy to misinterpret.

Keep in mind that each zone and each exercise needs its own fine-tuning, no blanket approach here. Experiment and listen to your body then compare the numbers and strategize for next time.

With regards to specialization I mean this: You waste lots of energy moving through easy zones during full ROM yet in the end only fully tax the toughest spots. This mean you accumulate fatigue needlessly during full ROM reps. You may think you are lifting more weigth but only because you rest through the easy spots and get that big let off on the neg. for long enough to make a difference between pos. reps through the toughest spots.

With zones no part of the ROM goes wasted, at least once you become proficient at it. I have off sets and zones all the time but most training beyond the novice stage is just maintenance anyway. If it weren't we would all be over 300 lbs ripped!

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

AShortt wrote:
Wizard wrote:
No answer as yet Sesame, I am sure I will though - given time

This thread has taken up loads of time already, people are busy I am sure, or maybe there isnt really an answer for what I notice because it is right?

With a specialization routine, you have to withstand far more total volume to hit a bunch of 'sweet spots'. With Zone Training, you 'create' all the sweet spots, multiple ones within the same exercise all within about 60 seconds per set.

Thus you have a total TUT of say 4 sets (4 maybe 5 sweet spots, 4 minutes TUT plus whatever rest periods you need) verses 2 exercises and 4 to 6 or more sweet spots, total TUT 2 minutes (plus a rest between exercises). More sweet spots with half as much sets.

This also means you can use more load with Zone Training because you don't waste lots of energy moving through the less or non productive points of an exercises ROM.

The comparison may not look huge but over time the difference in being able to use less volume and more load is significant. Being that energy and recovery resources are a major limiting factor Zone-Training tends to be the most productive way to go.

Besides, specialization routines work only if the exercises and order create sweet spots for the user. With JReps you make all exercises/zones effective.

What amazes me is how some HIT based trainees fail to see how this method gives you more without asking for more. As in HIT you get more stimulus with less wasted time and energy. Plus you make the best use of any equipment choices, and so forth.

Regards,
Andrew



Thanks for the reply Andrew.

So it is exactly as I stated.

Jreps is the same as Dr D specialisation routine, but more time effective - so in the schemme of things more work done per unit of time so more stimulation.

Makes sense.

Not bashing here so dont take it that way.

Without reading the book/s -

Jreps is a new title and new culmination of previous methods and tactics. That is not taking anything away from anyone - the ideas are not new by any stretch - the way that it has been all put together in way for everyone to utilise in a "method" is new and thats what we should be seeing here -

time and effort has gone into compiling it all and thought has been put into the method.

The parts make the whole, bringing all the parts together was the hard bit.

Anyone can have all the parts to buld a car but very few have the skill to put it all together into a working car and then write a manual so others can too!

Jreps is new,yes, its parts arent. simple.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy