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 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
Author
Rating
Options

Ben_R

Drew Baye wrote:
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.


Hi Drew, please can you summarise the reasons why limiting rest between sets might be more effective? Thanks.
Open User Options Menu

Ryo

Switzerland

You must understand that guys like Bryan Haycock and Drew believe that the stimulation is directly proportional to the load (because heavier loads are supposed to cause more microtraumas which is supposed to be the hypertrophic stimulus).

When you believe such things doing jreps doesn't appear good. You cannot lift very heavy with jreps.

Here's an example :

Thoses guys believe you will stimulate a lot the shoulders with SUPER HEAVY NEGATIVE OHP* (for a few controled reps). Compare that to somone doing jreps on frontal raises and you'll understand their opinion about jreps.

*keep in mind that they aren't aware that fibers produce their own tension and are not directly affected by the load unlike the joints.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Ryo wrote:
You must understand that guys like Bryan Haycock and Drew believe that the stimulation is directly proportional to the load (because heavier loads are supposed to cause more microtraumas which is supposed to be the hypertrophic stimulus).

When you believe such things doing jreps doesn't appear good. You cannot lift very heavy with jreps.

Here's an example :

Thoses guys believe you will stimulate a lot the shoulders with SUPER HEAVY NEGATIVE OHP* (for a few controled reps). Compare that to somone doing jreps on frontal raises and you'll understand their opinion about jreps.

*keep in mind that they aren't aware that fibers produce their own tension and are not directly affected by the load unlike the joints.


All else being equal, hypertrophy stimulation is relative to the load. This is what research shows. Fatigue is an important factor, but not as important as load. Heavier loads DO cause more microtrauma, which IS the stimulus for growth.

See http://members.cox.net/...odel_intro.html

I don't think anyone isn't aware that fibers produce their own tension, but you're wrong about them not being affected by the load. If this was the case, people wouldn't need to lift weights at all, they could just perform the movements while contracting as hard as possible. Someone with very, very good motor ability might be able to get some benefit at first doing such a thing by working agonist/antagonist pairs against each other (infimetric neck rotation without a machine, for example), but eventually some other source of resistance is required.
Open User Options Menu

spud

But what happens when you can only increase the load by 5 pounds every 2 or 3 workouts?

And that's on big exercises.

What about small exercises where the weight progresses in even smaller, less frequent increments?

Whilst I haven't tried Jreps or any of the other IART methods, I can definitely say that I have exerienced the strength without mass.

Increasing the load and eat more did produce hypertrophy, to a point.

Beyond that point, lifting more and eating more made me stronger and fatter.

That was after about 8 months of training.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

The people that are still arguing on this thread scare me... immensely.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

spud wrote:

Whilst I haven't tried Jreps or any of the other IART methods, I can definitely say that I have exerienced the strength without mass.



There are numerous factors affecting strength which can be improved without increasing size, and how much size an individual gains relative to strength increases is dictated by their genetics, but ultimately, if you want to become larger, you must train progressively.

Not everybody is going to experience the same degree of size increases for a particular percentage of strength increase, but if you are continually progressing in weight, and all other requirements are met (rest, nutrition, etc.) you should eventually become as muscular as your genetics will allow.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Ben_R wrote:

Hi Drew, please can you summarise the reasons why limiting rest between sets might be more effective? Thanks.


I'm going to answer this in a new thread, as this one has been sidetracked from it's focus on J-reps and is now going in too many different directions.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Ryo wrote:
You must understand that guys like Bryan Haycock and Drew believe that the stimulation is directly proportional to the load (because heavier loads are supposed to cause more microtraumas which is supposed to be the hypertrophic stimulus).

When you believe such things doing jreps doesn't appear good. You cannot lift very heavy with jreps.

Here's an example :

Thoses guys believe you will stimulate a lot the shoulders with SUPER HEAVY NEGATIVE OHP* (for a few controled reps). Compare that to somone doing jreps on frontal raises and you'll understand their opinion about jreps.

*keep in mind that they aren't aware that fibers produce their own tension and are not directly affected by the load unlike the joints.


With JReps you lift with the targeted muscle in as isolated a fashion as can be mustered. The type of load Drew is speaking of is cheated up by utilizing plenty of outlying musculature and such. In other words JReps load the targeted muscle MORE than traditional full ROM reps.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

deanjones wrote:
The people that are still arguing on this thread scare me... immensely.


But ya can't help but rubber neck can ya!?
Open User Options Menu

saseme

AShortt wrote:
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



No good deed goes unpunished eh' Ryo?
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:

With JReps you lift with the targeted muscle in as isolated a fashion as can be mustered. The type of load Drew is speaking of is cheated up by utilizing plenty of outlying musculature and such. In other words JReps load the targeted muscle MORE than traditional full ROM reps.


This is not true. It is not necessary to "cheat up" a heavier load when performing full-ROM repetitions. Many people may do this, because:

1. they do not know how to perform the exercise properly

2. the have a low standard of "strict form"

3. they're more concerned with the amount of weight they're using than properly performing the exercise, and are forgetting the point is effective stimulation, and not simply to make a heavy weight go up and down

The load used should be the heaviest a person can handle using strict form for a duration appropriate to the individual.

If strict form can not be maintained, and a person must resort to using body movement other than the proper exercise movement to raise the weight, the weight is too heavy for the target musculature, and that's what counts.

You do not need to perform partials, or J-reps, or anything like that to minimize extraneous body movement. You just have to focus on how your body is moving, and equally importantly, on preventing unwanted movement to maintain proper positioning and/or alignment. This comes with learning the proper performance of the exercise, practicing proper performance, and learning how to properly focus during exercise.

While it isn't absolutely necessary to have perfect form to get results from exercise, it does make it safer and more effective.

If anything, it would be more difficult to maintain proper body positioning and/or alignment during J-reps, since the higher number of repetitions equals a higher number of turnarounds, and it is during the reversal of direction that the acceleration is greatest. The muscles in the rest of the body are maintaining the appropriate body position or posture for the exercise, countering reactionary force from the movement of the weight (while you're pushing or pulling against the barbell or movement arm, it's pushing or pulling against you). This is easier to do during continuous movement in a single direction than when changing direction.

Also, since the movements are shorter, the distance over which acceleration may occur at either end of the stroke is shorter, thus the rate of acceleration must be higher. While it is still entirely possible to perform very smooth, controlled turnarounds while performing even short partial movements, the shorter the movement, the more difficult this can become as a result.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

AShortt wrote:
deanjones wrote:
The people that are still arguing on this thread scare me... immensely.

But ya can't help but rubber neck can ya!?


It's like people at parties who get so involved in a conversation they don't notice almost everybody's left (or are passed out drunk or sleeping) until hours later and the sun is coming up.
Open User Options Menu

deanjones

AShortt wrote:
deanjones wrote:
The people that are still arguing on this thread scare me... immensely.

But ya can't help but rubber neck can ya!?


Actually, I stopped reading this thread at around 150 posts. :) Then I thought I'd have some fun and post. Then I figured I would come back in because I figured I'd have a response to what I just said. ha!

But yeah... scared.

Open User Options Menu

Ryo

Switzerland

Drew it's the "actual research" you know but there are a lot of research which show FATIGUE is THE factor which stimulate growth.

You pointed a study which compares continuous tension and reps with pause between. The results show that fatigue is not important but you MUST know that there are studies which show the EXACT opposite.

There are also studies which compare postitive (little traumas) to negative (lot of traumas) and show NO DIFFERENCE in protein synthesis.

And so on !

MORE IMPORTANT ! Did you already TRY to do heavy negatives ? It doesn't lead to fast growth...
Are you aware of ONE natural guy who got big MUSCLES (and not fat) doing John Little or Sisco training method ? ...
Did you try JREPS or another technique/method which allows to reach a DEEP inroad ? It leads to some growth !
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Ryo wrote:
Drew it's the "actual research" you know but there are a lot of research which show FATIGUE is THE factor which stimulate growth.


Fatigue is a contributing factor, not THE factor. This has been pretty well documented. Satellite cell proliferation and the increase in muscle fiber thickness occur in response to microtrauma.


Ryo wrote:
You pointed a study which compares continuous tension and reps with pause between. The results show that fatigue is not important but you MUST know that there are studies which show the EXACT opposite.


Yes, I happen to have a bunch of them, which I posted references for in another thread here. In particular, fatigue appears to be related to increased GH production. Fatigue without microtrauma isn't going to cause much in the way of growth, however, and interestingly, there is even research showing microtrauma without high levels of tension (microtrauma resulting from prolonged low intensity work, such as running) in itself isn't enough. Microtrauma is essential, but apparently so is a high level of tension, or mechanical load (which research has shown IGF-1 and Mechano Growth Factor are sensitive to).

So we need microtrauma, and we need a high level of tension, both of which are the product of high loads, but we also need a fatigue component, since some fatigue is necessary for thorough recruitment (as some units are fatigued, others are recruited, and if they're not recruited they're not stimulated) and in addition to the effects on GH, fatigue appears to contribute to a metabolic environment more favorable to growth stimulation.

While load is the most important factor, the others are also important. You can have deep fatigue and microtrauma (running) with little or now growth stimulus, but you can have a high load with little fatigue, and stimulate growth.

The key is in finding the best balance (the appropriate TUL) for the individual.


Ryo wrote:
There are also studies which compare postitive (little traumas) to negative (lot of traumas) and show NO DIFFERENCE in protein synthesis.


There's more to growth stimulation than microtrauma. It is one of the most important factors, but other factors (high level of tension) are also necessary.

Please post or PM me the references, as I'd like to read the studies you're referring to.


Ryo wrote:

And so on !

MORE IMPORTANT ! Did you already TRY to do heavy negatives ? It doesn't lead to fast growth...


Actually, the best arm growth I've ever experienced was from heavy negative chins and dips, and Charlie Haire did a study with high school lifters showing very impressive gains in a short period of time.


Ryo wrote:
Are you aware of ONE natural guy who got big MUSCLES (and not fat) doing John Little or Sisco training method ? ...


John's clients have been doing pretty well with it. I don't know anyone personally who's done Power Factor Training, and Max Contraction and Omega Set training is impractical for most people due to the amount of weight required and the need for several people to help lift it for you (unless you're using Eccentric Edge equipment). I used it for a while and enjoyed the results.


Ryo wrote:
Did you try JREPS or another technique/method which allows to reach a DEEP inroad ? It leads to some growth !


SuperSlow performed to, or close to static failure produces very deep inroad. The only time I experienced any growth with SS was after I started cutting the TUL way down and increasing the load.
Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

AShortt wrote:
With JReps you lift with the targeted muscle in as isolated a fashion as can be mustered. The type of load Drew is speaking of is cheated up by utilizing plenty of outlying musculature and such. In other words JReps load the targeted muscle MORE than traditional full ROM reps.


I agree with Drew on this. Sorry andrew but this statement is so contraditary of exercise at it's most basic level. Wasn't there something about owning the weight? If you exercise properly and know what you're doing then you won't cheat it up. also in this statement you made your method seem like a straight isolation exercise. you can't have it both ways.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

john38 wrote:

I agree with Drew on this. Sorry andrew but this statement is so contraditary of exercise at it's most basic level. Wasn't there something about owning the weight? If you exercise properly and know what you're doing then you won't cheat it up. also in this statement you made your method seem like a straight isolation exercise. you can't have it both ways.


They seem to think they can have it both ways. They claim load isn't important, then they talk about how J-reps uses meaningful loads. They criticize science and scientific research, but attempt to use it to bolster their claims.

They criticize Mentzer, claiming he wasn't "precise", then criticize precision and standardization as unimportant and promote subjective "feel" as a means of evaluating progress. They say there are all these different ways of doing J-reps, also based on "feel", but insist anyone who isn't impressed with it isn't doing it correctly.
Open User Options Menu

Law&Order

Drew Baye wrote:
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.


Both Zatsiorsky,Siff,& Verkoshansky,read much the same literature (most of which is in Russian only) - try Nikituk & Samoilov,1990.


Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
john38 wrote:

I agree with Drew on this. Sorry andrew but this statement is so contraditary of exercise at it's most basic level. Wasn't there something about owning the weight? If you exercise properly and know what you're doing then you won't cheat it up. also in this statement you made your method seem like a straight isolation exercise. you can't have it both ways.

They seem to think they can have it both ways. They claim load isn't important, then they talk about how J-reps uses meaningful loads. They criticize science and scientific research, but attempt to use it to bolster their claims.

They criticize Mentzer, claiming he wasn't "precise", then criticize precision and standardization as unimportant and promote subjective "feel" as a means of evaluating progress. They say there are all these different ways of doing J-reps, also based on "feel", but insist anyone who isn't impressed with it isn't doing it correctly.


I hate to be snarky but John38 I don?t even know what you are talking about....contradictory? In what 'specific manner' does it contradict the basics? The sort of cheating I am referring to appears to be well outside your scope of understanding.

Drew, we never said that load wasn't important, YOU implied that with your lack of time taken, attention and perhaps honesty with understanding the method. Ask anyone who has read the book if they gleaned that we thought load wasn't important. It's as though you didn't even read the book. Load on the muscle is of primary importance, it should not be sacrificed to showing what you can move on a stack or barbell. Basic good form and decent machines help this (properly loading a targeted muscle) but produce little more than basic results, perhaps a bit quicker and safer. Its as though you only train beginners or those coming from very poor exercise protocols.

All the rest of what you said is crap and incites needless argument.

Open User Options Menu

john38

Oklahoma, USA

AShortt wrote:
I hate to be snarky but John38 I don?t even know what you are talking about....contradictory? In what 'specific manner' does it contradict the basics? The sort of cheating I am referring to appears to be well outside your scope of understanding.



Snarky? anyway you know exactly what I'm talking about. in other forums you spouse that your method helps you to "own the weight", no cheating required. All basic weightlifting programs start with "owning the weight". No cheating should be tolerated outside of good form and done very sporadically for fear of over training. you can't have it both ways. either your method produces more accurate, non-cheating strength and muscle or it doesn't. Nuff said move on all ready.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Professor E.M. Orlick wrote about two variations of exercise systems that he referred to as The Variable Station Exercise Method and The Slow Motion Exercise Method.

These were Systems that were used over 40 years ago. These are variations of modern day HIT methods or are they? Just pointing out history and giving credit to one innovator in times gone by.
David
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

john38 wrote:

Snarky? anyway you know exactly what I'm talking about. in other forums you spouse that your method helps you to "own the weight", no cheating required. All basic weightlifting programs start with "owning the weight". No cheating should be tolerated outside of good form and done very sporadically for fear of over training. you can't have it both ways. either your method produces more accurate, non-cheating strength and muscle or it doesn't. Nuff said move on all ready.


John38,

I am still not sure what contradiction you are 'helping me out with ;^)'.

The cheating I am speaking of is not just lack of good basic form. It is the sort of thing you experience when slipping as you walk or when losing grip of a heavy object. It is an effective safety and energy saving response that is almost totally involuntary.

Working in zones makes it easier to overcome. This is akin to learning not to blink when a strike is thrown at you in boxing, M.A. etc. It is tough to notice let alone overcome and JReps are set up to deal with it. Hope that helps ;^)
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy