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

saseme

Wizard wrote:

Thanks for the reply Andrew.

So it is exactly as I stated.



Think he could've given you the dredit and just have said that huh. Hey we HIT 200 post. Congrats guys.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Wizard wrote:

Jreps is new,yes, its parts arent. simple.


As the first 200 post I guess I can concede that, just as Jones conceded that Zander beat him to the punch by a long shot on machine design.

The point is that exercise is about balancing ALL the variables not relying just on a few for mediocre results. Zone Training is the first comprehensive method to come along which makes this possible. It is in many ways HVT meets HIT but the effects are all new.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:

Thanks for the reply Andrew.

So it is exactly as I stated.


Not really ;^) I was just pointing out the main difference. I would have to ramble on about all the benifits of the method to talk about what you get that you don't from traditional specilization routines.

Andrew
Open User Options Menu

saseme

AShortt wrote:

The point is that exercise is about balancing ALL the variables not relying just on a few for mediocre results. Zone Training is the first comprehensive method to come along which makes this possible. It is in many ways HVT meets HIT but the effects are all new.

Regards,
Andrew


And herein lies possibly most of the resistance to you and yours. The insinuation that the way people are training is wrong and giving them mediocre results. Yeh, jreps may work, but so does everything else given the effort and time. It would be understandable if we were being shown something we hadn't already seen, but we've seen equally, and even superior, transformations in Dr. D's stuff and elsewhere from HIT to HVT and back again, yet your way is superior and the only way to go all of a sudden.

Not the first comprehensive method, just another, if at all.
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Drew Baye wrote:
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.


submaximal loads at higher reps (or more work reps per unit of time) do not overtax the muscle fibers,but rather the metabolic capacity of the muscle.The muscle fibers respond by sarcoplasmic hypertrophy so that the work can be handled for long.An heavier load overworks the myofibers,they literally are damaged from trying to do the work,so the body repairs them and makes them larger (and stronger) to prevent that damage in the future.

There is Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy,which is growth of sarcoplasm (this would include glycogen,and organelles like mitochondria,and enzymatic adaptations),and non contractile proteins.

The other kind is Myofibrillar hypertrophy,which is enlargement of muscle fibers as it gains more myofibrils,and consequently more actin and myosin filaments.Myofibrillar is found at higher degrees in elite weight lifters,and sarcoplasmic is seen to a higher degree in bodybuilders.

Much of the reason why sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is achieved to a greater extent through higher repetition work,is because these energy systems are stimulated more.You will utilize glycolysis to a greater extent when training in the 8-12 rep range,than the 1-4,as power lifters do.Hence,you will adapt by improving several factors involved in glycolysis.This includes enzymes,glycogen stores,water etc.And by performing higher repetition ranges,and lower rest periods,you will utilize your aeorobic capacity to a greater extent - this will stimulate adaptations in the aeorobic energy pathway,including enhanced mitochondria.

However,i'm not saying these things occur to a greater degree with J-reps.


Open User Options Menu

JOE W


Much of the reason why sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is achieved to a greater extent through higher repetition work,is because these energy systems are stimulated more.You will utilize glycolysis to a greater extent when training in the 8-12 rep range,than the 1-4,as power lifters do.Hence,you will adapt by improving several factors involved in glycolysis.

This includes enzymes,glycogen stores,water etc.And by performing higher repetition ranges,and lower rest periods,you will utilize your aeorobic capacity to a greater extent - this will stimulate adaptations in the aeorobic energy pathway,including enhanced mitochondria.

However,i'm not saying these things occur to a greater degree with J-reps.


[/quote]
L&O,
I have zero experience with this method of training. My initial impression is that one set of J-reps has the increased volume of three regular sets. I would expect an improvement in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with this method but I would expect the same result by simply doing three traditional sets instead of only one. Remember when Mike Mentzer was actually winning contests,he performed five sets for each bodypart.
Joe

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

These are the things I've read online about it, but I have only found one mention of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in a paper, and it says,

"...such has strictly theoretical basis and the actual increase in sarcoplasmic area has yet to be empirically verified."

http://anton.free.net.ph/...hyperplasia.pdf

Since sarcoplasmic hypertrophy would be more sensitive to things like hydration, glycogen and creatine stores, etc. this could be effected just as much by diet and fluid intake as training, and be another argument in favor of consuming large volumes of water, as recommended in Dr. Darden's books.
Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

AShortt wrote:
saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:

Thanks for the reply Andrew.

So it is exactly as I stated.


Not really ;^) I was just pointing out the main difference. I would have to ramble on about all the benifits of the method to talk about what you get that you don't from traditional specilization routines.

Andrew


I don't want to be a jerk about this, but for those of you who are trying to seem a least a little intelligent about this subject, it would be more impressive if you would check your spelling before posting.
Open User Options Menu

Growl

john38 wrote:
AShortt wrote:
saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:

Thanks for the reply Andrew.

So it is exactly as I stated.


Not really ;^) I was just pointing out the main difference. I would have to ramble on about all the benifits of the method to talk about what you get that you don't from traditional specilization routines.

Andrew

I don't want to be a jerk about this, but for those of you who are trying to seem a least a little intelligent about this subject, it would be more impressive if you would check your spelling before posting.

Hi John,
You misspelled the word "at". The sentence is poorly written but I think you were trying to write "at least".
Jeff

Open User Options Menu

Al Coleman

Ohio, USA

Law&Order wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:

I just went through the section on adaptation to exercise in the 2002 edition of Skeletal Muscle Structure, Function, & Plasticity, .This is one of the best books on the effecs of exercise on muscle physiology,


Agreed. Everybody on this forum should pick up a copy of this book.

Al
Open User Options Menu

Ryo

Switzerland

I think Drew believes in the tension theory (microtraumas) and Brian is more oriented toward fatigue.

If you believe in the theory of Tension a la HST then objectively Zone Training and Jreps aren't good (light loads / low tension).

If you believe in the theory of fatigue and (momentary) energy depletion then JREPS and Zone Training method appear a very good way to stimulate muscles to reach a very deep inroad.

To have tested both I have an idea of what works.

-------

Here's an exemple of Full Range vs Zones Training :

When I trained in full range on the one arm Pullover (dumbell) I could use 23kg for 10 reps but there was only a small ROM (zone) which was challenging. So for my muscles what I did was not really 10 "reps" but more like :

10x 1 second of high force generation with a few seconds of rest between (while the easy zones). The degree of fatigue reached was very low even if I used my 10RM for that exercise !

Now I work in static in the hardest Zone for 40 seconds and I reach a much deeper inroad then I can even move in an easier zone for additional work or an intensity technique. It's not an endurance type stimulation ! The TUT is still hypertrophy specific and the stimulation much higher !
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

JOE W wrote:

L&O,
I have zero experience with this method of training. My initial impression is that one set of J-reps has the increased volume of three regular sets. I would expect an improvement in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with this method but I would expect the same result by simply doing three traditional sets instead of only one. Remember when Mike Mentzer was actually winning contests,he performed five sets for each bodypart.
Joe


Absolutely - Note my closing sentecnce: *However,i'm not saying these things occur to a greater degree with J-reps*

Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Drew Baye wrote:
These are the things I've read online about it, but I have only found one mention of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy in a paper, and it says,

"...such has strictly theoretical basis and the actual increase in sarcoplasmic area has yet to be empirically verified."



That's probably due to the fact that almost all literature on the subject is in Russian.

Search for,Nikituk & Samoilov,1990.


Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Apparently, we can throw the whole "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" thing out the window.

I recently received the following from Ryan Hall, which he said I could quote him on. This is a quote from an older discussion.

"I saw you were having a discussion about so-called sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This does not
happen. Here's a quote from an old discussion topic.


This is in line with other research I?ve seen suggesting that all structural components of muscle fibers hypertrophy simultaneously with training.

?This implies that with exercise-induced hypertrophy, the sarcoplasmic reticulum, cytoplasm, and lipid components increase proportionately with contractile protein

J Appl Physiol 64:3, 1114-20 (1988) Functional and structural adaptations in skeletal muscle of trained athletes. Alway, SE, MacDougall, JD, Sale, DG, Sutton, JR and McComas, AJ

Other studies show similar results.

?This hypertrophy of muscle fibers by 30% with training resulted in no change in the cytoplasm-to-myonucleus ratio.?

J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55:7, B347-54 (2000) Effects of high-intensity resistance training on untrained older men. II. Muscle fiber characteristics and nucleo-cytoplasmic relationships. Hikida, RS, Staron, RS, Hagerman, FC, Walsh, S, Kaiser, E, Shell, S and Hervey, S

Given the above data, it seems unlikely that selective hypertrophy occurs, at least in the confines of most strength training protocols."
Open User Options Menu

JOE W

Law&Order wrote:
JOE W wrote:

L&O,
I have zero experience with this method of training. My initial impression is that one set of J-reps has the increased volume of three regular sets. I would expect an improvement in sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with this method but I would expect the same result by simply doing three traditional sets instead of only one. Remember when Mike Mentzer was actually winning contests,he performed five sets for each bodypart.
Joe

Absolutely - Note my closing sentecnce: *However,i'm not saying these things occur to a greater degree with J-reps*



L&O,
If a low volume trainer triples his reps something should change.
Attributing the gains to the magic of J-reps sounds more commercially marketable.
Wonder why the other Joe W didn't invent this principal ?

Joe

Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

Growl wrote:
john38 wrote:
AShortt wrote:
saseme wrote:
Wizard wrote:

Thanks for the reply Andrew.

So it is exactly as I stated.


Not really ;^) I was just pointing out the main difference. I would have to ramble on about all the benifits of the method to talk about what you get that you don't from traditional specilization routines.

Andrew

I don't want to be a jerk about this, but for those of you who are trying to seem a least a little intelligent about this subject, it would be more impressive if you would check your spelling before posting.

Hi John,
You misspelled the word "at". The sentence is poorly written but I think you were trying to write "at least".
Jeff



Oh yeah, well you smell! I'm kidding. Ironic isn't it?
Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

Well, I think this thread is done and picking on IART needs to be finished up. I have one suggestion though. I would like to know how someone transitioned from their usual workout to one of a jreps or even a stage reps workout. It seems to me that you just can't jump into the method as described here, and the actual procedure of the transition would be more interesting to me then debating if it works or not.
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Drew Baye wrote:
Apparently, we can throw the whole "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" thing out the window.

I recently received the following from Ryan Hall, which he said I could quote him on.


Well,i guess that's that sorted;we can throw the whole "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" thing out the window - because Ryan Hall said.

I realise that the subject of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is rather controversial,but to say the whole thing can be thrown out the window is laughable.... you hold your views and stand steadfast,but so do others - i.e. nothing has been settled.

Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

Drew Baye wrote:
Apparently, we can throw the whole "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" thing out the window.
I recently received the following from Ryan Hall, which he said I could quote him on. This is a quote from an older discussion.
"I saw you were having a discussion about so-called sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This does not
happen. Here's a quote from an old discussion topic.
This is in line with other research I?ve seen suggesting that all structural components of muscle fibers hypertrophy simultaneously with training.
?This implies that with exercise-induced hypertrophy, the sarcoplasmic reticulum, cytoplasm, and lipid components increase proportionately with contractile protein
J Appl Physiol 64:3, 1114-20 (1988) Functional and structural adaptations in skeletal muscle of trained athletes. Alway, SE, MacDougall, JD, Sale, DG, Sutton, JR and McComas, AJ
Other studies show similar results.
?This hypertrophy of muscle fibers by 30% with training resulted in no change in the cytoplasm-to-myonucleus ratio.?
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 55:7, B347-54 (2000) Effects of high-intensity resistance training on untrained older men. II. Muscle fiber characteristics and nucleo-cytoplasmic relationships. Hikida, RS, Staron, RS, Hagerman, FC, Walsh, S, Kaiser, E, Shell, S and Hervey, S
Given the above data, it seems unlikely that selective hypertrophy occurs, at least in the confines of most strength training protocols."


Not sure if I understand you right there Drew, are you saying, 1, Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and Myofibrillar hypertrophy, occur or happen the same, what ever reps your doing ???

The below that might be of intrest;

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (common in bodybuilding) involves the growth of the sarcoplasm (fluid like substance) and non contractile proteins that do not directly contribute to muscular force production. Filament area density decreases while cross-sectional area increases, without a significant increase in strength. Myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs due to an increase in myosin-actin filaments. Contractile proteins are synthesized and filament density increases (Zatsiorsky 1995). This type of hypertrophy leads to increased strength production. Sarcoplasmic Hypertrophy Muscle fibers adapt to high volume training by increasing the number of mitochondria (organelles in the cell that are involved in ATP production) in the cell. This type of training also leads to the elevation of enzymes that are involved in glycolytic and oxidative pathways. The volume of sarcoplasmic fluid inside the cell and between the cells are increased with high volume training.This type of training contributes little to maximal strength while it does increase strength endurance due to mitochondria hypertrophy. Growth of connective tissue is also present with sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.Myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs due to increases in the number of myosin/actin filaments (sarcomeres) inside the cell. This leads to increased strength and size of the contractile unit of muscle.

Ultimately this means greater force production. This is often referred to as functional muscle, while sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is referred to as non-functional muscle. ATP and Muscular Growth As we said earlier, increasing the number of mitochondria in the cell means increased ATP production.

ATP is required for protein synthesis to occur. Low levels of ATP will halt muscular growth as well as inhibit other metabolic functions that take place inside the muscle cell. Siff and Verkhoshansky have shown that it is possible to increase your muscles contractile unit faster than the mitochondria???s ability to compensate for this growth. When actin/myosin filaments out grow the number of mitochondria, growth of elements besides the sarcomere is inhibited. The insufficient quantity of ATP results in the bodies inability to promote protein synthesis.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

waynegr

Switzerland

Hi there all,

I think the pump is very important,

Logicbdj wrote;

Growth is the result of two things: 1) the strain produced by the load, which increases cell production in muscle fibers, which factor causes them to hypertrophy; and 2) the growth that results from the expansion of the vascular system, the mitochondria, the sarcoplasm (interstitial fluid in and around cells), etc., all of which are affected by fluid pressure as a result of the pump.

People confuse pumping with light weights as opposed to pumping undering intense conditions... two different things. Those who achieve a good pump under intense conditions look more like bodybuilders because of the effect it has on appearance and muscle fullness (as per the paragraph above). Those who do not pump or pump very much (e.g., powerlifters) have a different looking physique for the same reason. And for those who offer up names or photos of powerlifters or Olympic lifters with good builds, let us not forget the influence of genetics and drugs in those sports. I'm talking about the average fitness enthusiast who decides to train as a bodybuilder, powerlifter, or Olympic lifter.

If people cannot accept this, well, it's their bodies. You reap what you sow.

Best wishes.


I like the idea of inducing both Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and Myofibrillar hypertrophy at the same time, and as a lot of you know I have been doing John Caslers D.C.T. it goes like this;

You do not really have to take the first set to failure, but I took all other sets to full failure.

1/2 rep speed,

Hypertrophy,
Set 1, 30 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, 10 to 20 reps, you drop down weight to your first or second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.

Strength,
Set 1, 20 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, which is 5 reps, drop down weight to your second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.


Open User Options Menu

Bill Crawford

Arizona, USA

John 38

I have decided to try Jreps, and here is how I have been making the change:

First, I am only doing halves, not thirds. It seems easier to me to focus if the zones are a little larger. I think that as I get better at the method, I will try thirds.

I started with squats. I've done about 5 workouts now with Jreps squats in halves. Next, I changed my pullovers (Nautilus gen 2) to Jreps. Then I added chest fly (first exercise of the Nautilus duo chest).

I added lateral raise at the same time as the chest, and just did my first neg chin Jrep style.

I'll let you know how things work.

Thanks,

Mac
Open User Options Menu

JOE W

waynegr wrote:
Hi there all,

I think the pump is very important,

Logicbdj wrote;

Growth is the result of two things: 1) the strain produced by the load, which increases cell production in muscle fibers, which factor causes them to hypertrophy; and 2) the growth that results from the expansion of the vascular system, the mitochondria, the sarcoplasm (interstitial fluid in and around cells), etc., all of which are affected by fluid pressure as a result of the pump.

People confuse pumping with light weights as opposed to pumping undering intense conditions... two different things. Those who achieve a good pump under intense conditions look more like bodybuilders because of the effect it has on appearance and muscle fullness (as per the paragraph above).

Those who do not pump or pump very much (e.g., powerlifters) have a different looking physique for the same reason. And for those who offer up names or photos of powerlifters or Olympic lifters with good builds, let us not forget the influence of genetics and drugs in those sports. I'm talking about the average fitness enthusiast who decides to train as a bodybuilder, powerlifter, or Olympic lifter.

If people cannot accept this, well, it's their bodies. You reap what you sow.

Best wishes.


I like the idea of inducing both Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and Myofibrillar hypertrophy at the same time, and as a lot of you know I have been doing John Caslers D.C.T. it goes like this;

You do not really have to take the first set to failure, but I took all other sets to full failure.

1/2 rep speed,

Hypertrophy,
Set 1, 30 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, 10 to 20 reps, you drop down weight to your first or second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.

Strength,
Set 1, 20 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 2, add 25% 15 reps, rest 5 minutes, set 3 add 15% 10 reps, set 4, which is 5 reps, drop down weight to your second sets weights, and do a full stop at the top and bottom to take advantage of Good recognition of the role of stretch in sarcolemma (cell membrane of a muscle fiber or muscle cell. The membrane is designed to receive and conduct stimuli.) Disruption.




Wayne,

I admire your enthusiasm and I like the different rep ranges but I have one question. Why do you train so slowly ?
I know Dorian Yates rested seven minutes between sets, I guess to handle heavier weights while Arthur Jones had Hitters rushing almost nonstop through their workouts. If the pump is so important to you wouldn't you pump more with shorter rests between sets ?
Thank you,
Joe

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Wayne,

Lots of people, Poliquin, Siff, Verkhoshansky, etc. quote Zatsiorsky on this, but Ryan Hall has informed me "...the research generally indicates that with hypertrophy of skeletal muscle, the other organelles and cytoplasm increase proportionately with contractile protein."

It seems that Zatsiorsky was theorizing, but we're not aware of any actual studies supporting this, which would also explain why I could find no mention of it in any of the textbooks I have, many of which are relatively current.

A search for studies on scholar.google.com turned up hundreds of articles mentioning sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and one paper that referenced Zatsiorsky, but not a single paper supporting the theory that one could selectively train for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. It appears to be just another bodybuilding myth that has been widely spread and uncritically accepted.

You can't seletively train for just myofibrillar or just sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. You could effect sarcoplasm levels somewhat through hydration and diet, but the upper limit is still going to be dictated by muscle cell size.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

JOE W wrote:

Wayne,

I admire your enthusiasm and I like the different rep ranges but I have one question. Why do you train so slowly ?

I know Dorian Yates rested seven minutes between sets, I guess to handle heavier weights while Arthur Jones had Hitters rushing almost nonstop through their workouts. If the pump is so important to you wouldn't you pump more with shorter rests between sets ?
Thank you,
Joe



I was also leaning towards a little more rest between sets for a while, but Ryan Hall informed me that research shows limiting rest between sets is more effective. He sent me studies, but those are on my computer at home. I will post references from home later.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Ryo wrote:
I think Drew believes in the tension theory (microtraumas) and Brian is more oriented toward fatigue.

If you believe in the theory of Tension a la HST then objectively Zone Training and Jreps aren't good (light loads / low tension).

If you believe in the theory of fatigue and (momentary) energy depletion then JREPS and Zone Training method appear a very good way to stimulate muscles to reach a very deep inroad.

To have tested both I have an idea of what works.



A good example of why the debate goes nowhere. JReps aren't fatiuge based nor do they negate load in anyway. We don't lift 'light' in any way shape or form, not even close. We load the muscles for all they can handle though not 1 or 2 rep maxes (except as possibly a wild varient once in a blue moon).

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Starr, Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy