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
Prohibition 2007
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Author
Rating
Options

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

It's your position that we have no right or there is no compelling public health interest in knowing what is in our food supply? Does this extend to clean water o and air too? Maybe we should let "market forces" alone dictate these too?

"If you don't like what's in your air don't breathe"

LOL oh man..


It does not extend to public water supply or air, since it is not a matter of choice, and a person can not avoid breathing polluted air and it is unrealistic to expect a person to be able to avoid coming in contact with the local water supply.

The difference between regulating what goes into the air and water, and regulating trans fats, is that people don't have a choice where breathing is concerned - they have to breathe.

They do, however, have a choice what they eat, where they eat, and where they shop.

As for nutritional information, upon further consideration, the labels are necessary to avoid fraud, since it is important to at least contain information as to the amounts in either weight or volume (depending on the item) so a person is knowing how much they're paying for. What is debatable is what other information is necessary.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

marcrph wrote:
Is it not true, if we exercised our choices well, a provider would have to produce the best product?

Is the reason service has become so bad in America, that the consumer has such low expectations? An educated consumer is the shrewd businessmens' best friend! That was the way it used to be many years ago, and should be now in America. There is only one problem, in that the general public is less educated now than ever. Gimmicks and fraud abound, primarily because of consumer ignorance. These gimmicks quickly disappear around the SHREWD consumer.

Words of wisdom! Buyer beware! It pays to be SHREWD!

A SHREWD person is practical and clever, sound in judgment and sharp in perception, judicious and prudent, discerning and wise. He is neither devious nor manipulative. Yes, shrewdness, is a desirable trait.

Making wise choices and being successful in life certainly requires the ability to distinguish what is right from what is wrong.

Hence, we must learn to differentiate what is truly right from what appears to be right.

The rich and famous of the world are generally viewed as respectable people to be admired. Their social and financial success may make it seem that their way of doing things is right. What, though, about the means that many of such individuals use to gain wealth or fame? Are their ways always upright and moral? Remember my original post?

A way may also appear upright because of self-deception. To base our decisions on what we personally feel is right is treacherous at best.

Dr. Darden in his latest book had a list of what Mr. Jones would tell you that HIT was not! I would like to add one to that list.

HIT is NOT about foolishness and being undereducated!
Only the SHREWD HIT!

Marc


if life were only this simple..
Open User Options Menu

Trandahl

Tennessee, USA

marcrph wrote:
HIT is NOT about foolishness and being undereducated!
Only the SHREWD HIT!

Marc

Nice tie in.
Drew, I have to agree with you. Especially after taking a government class 2 semesters ago.
When rights are taken away for whatever reason, it sets a judicial precedent for more rights to be taken away in the future.
It all comes down to one issue.
The role of the government in this statement "Trans fats are unhealthy."
What we OUGHT to do and what the government OUGHT to do are two totally different things.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Gluteus Maximus wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Is it not true, if we exercised our choices well, a provider would have to produce the best product?

Is the reason service has become so bad in America, that the consumer has such low expectations? An educated consumer is the shrewd businessmens' best friend! That was the way it used to be many years ago, and should be now in America. There is only one problem, in that the general public is less educated now than ever. Gimmicks and fraud abound, primarily because of consumer ignorance. These gimmicks quickly disappear around the SHREWD consumer.

Words of wisdom! Buyer beware! It pays to be SHREWD!

A SHREWD person is practical and clever, sound in judgment and sharp in perception, judicious and prudent, discerning and wise. He is neither devious nor manipulative. Yes, shrewdness, is a desirable trait.

Making wise choices and being successful in life certainly requires the ability to distinguish what is right from what is wrong.

Hence, we must learn to differentiate what is truly right from what appears to be right.

The rich and famous of the world are generally viewed as respectable people to be admired. Their social and financial success may make it seem that their way of doing things is right. What, though, about the means that many of such individuals use to gain wealth or fame? Are their ways always upright and moral? Remember my original post?

A way may also appear upright because of self-deception. To base our decisions on what we personally feel is right is treacherous at best.

Dr. Darden in his latest book had a list of what Mr. Jones would tell you that HIT was not! I would like to add one to that list.

HIT is NOT about foolishness and being undereducated!
Only the SHREWD HIT!

Marc


if life were only this simple..


Yes indeed, a simple life and simple training, both highly valuable!
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

wayneman wrote:
Tacitus,

Would I have to use kettlebells in the New World?




Wayneman

Nyet for kettleballs. And the same goes for doing bench presses on sodding beachballs. Comrade Stalin is rather keen on J-Reps though.
Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

wayneman wrote:
eintology wrote:
Well I don't know, what if the spandex pants are tucked into a pair of sowboy boots, and accented with a gold medallion the size of Argentina?

I don't know what a "sowboy" is, but if they wear spandex leggings and boots they should be banned!


A sowboy?

It's little more than an ancient Mesopotamian term, given to those who sow.

The act of sowing is typically displayed by wearing skin tight orange spandex leggings, tucked into maroon suede boots, and highlighted by a gold medallion of a continent or country revered for their heightened level of oppression.

Sometimes the medallions have faux emeralds embedded, to highlight the major cities.

It's a little known cultural travesty that sowboys are frequently banned from pubs, because they more often than not, get in the line of fire during dart games, which is an infringement on their civil liberties.

I have tried to solve this problem by removing the guiding feathers from the darts, while forcing people to throw the darts backwards, but to no avail.

And if you don't agree with me, or you have never seen this, then you are a Troll, who does not know me personally.

& U R igurent, bee cuz eye just wented a fiendly Dubai.




Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

It's your position that we have no right or there is no compelling public health interest in knowing what is in our food supply? Does this extend to clean water o and air too? Maybe we should let "market forces" alone dictate these too?

"If you don't like what's in your air don't breathe"

LOL oh man..

It does not extend to public water supply or air, since it is not a matter of choice, and a person can not avoid breathing polluted air and it is unrealistic to expect a person to be able to avoid coming in contact with the local water supply.

The difference between regulating what goes into the air and water, and regulating trans fats, is that people don't have a choice where breathing is concerned - they have to breathe.

They do, however, have a choice what they eat, where they eat, and where they shop.

As for nutritional information, upon further consideration, the labels are necessary to avoid fraud, since it is important to at least contain information as to the amounts in either weight or volume (depending on the item) so a person is knowing how much they're paying for. What is debatable is what other information is necessary.


Let me get this straight

Eating safe nutritious food is a personal responsibility but we are not entitled to know what's in the food?

ok, lol

Just how do you propose we make these healthy choices?
Open User Options Menu

saseme

Gluteus Maximus wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

It's your position that we have no right or there is no compelling public health interest in knowing what is in our food supply? Does this extend to clean water o and air too? Maybe we should let "market forces" alone dictate these too?

"If you don't like what's in your air don't breathe"

LOL oh man..

It does not extend to public water supply or air, since it is not a matter of choice, and a person can not avoid breathing polluted air and it is unrealistic to expect a person to be able to avoid coming in contact with the local water supply.

The difference between regulating what goes into the air and water, and regulating trans fats, is that people don't have a choice where breathing is concerned - they have to breathe.

They do, however, have a choice what they eat, where they eat, and where they shop.

As for nutritional information, upon further consideration, the labels are necessary to avoid fraud, since it is important to at least contain information as to the amounts in either weight or volume (depending on the item) so a person is knowing how much they're paying for. What is debatable is what other information is necessary.

Let me get this straight

Eating safe nutritious food is a personal responsibility but we are not entitled to know what's in the food?

ok, lol

Just how do you propose we make these healthy choices?


That's not what you're saying. You're saying it's ok for the gov to restrict something from the food, not that it shouldn't be advertised what exactly is in it. If one did not advertise what was in the food, as is already, and should be, the law.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

saseme wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

It's your position that we have no right or there is no compelling public health interest in knowing what is in our food supply? Does this extend to clean water o and air too? Maybe we should let "market forces" alone dictate these too?

"If you don't like what's in your air don't breathe"

LOL oh man..

It does not extend to public water supply or air, since it is not a matter of choice, and a person can not avoid breathing polluted air and it is unrealistic to expect a person to be able to avoid coming in contact with the local water supply.

The difference between regulating what goes into the air and water, and regulating trans fats, is that people don't have a choice where breathing is concerned - they have to breathe.

They do, however, have a choice what they eat, where they eat, and where they shop.

As for nutritional information, upon further consideration, the labels are necessary to avoid fraud, since it is important to at least contain information as to the amounts in either weight or volume (depending on the item) so a person is knowing how much they're paying for. What is debatable is what other information is necessary.

Let me get this straight

Eating safe nutritious food is a personal responsibility but we are not entitled to know what's in the food?

ok, lol

Just how do you propose we make these healthy choices?

That's not what you're saying. You're saying it's ok for the gov to restrict something from the food, not that it shouldn't be advertised what exactly is in it. If one did not advertise what was in the food, as is already, and should be, the law.


That's right I think banning trans fats is a great idea. And so do many others including health care professionals and organizations.

But drew doesn't believe we have the right to know what's in our food, and he doesn't think anyone should be forced to disclose their ingredients.

So, I'm asking him how would we make right food choices if we don't know what's in it?
Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

That's right I think banning trans fats is a great idea. And so do many others including health care professionals and organizations.

But drew doesn't believe we have the right to know what's in our food, and he doesn't think anyone should be forced to disclose their ingredients.

So, I'm asking him how would we make right food choices if we don't know what's in it?


Both the FDA and the EPA go to great lengths to choose their battles. Even so, they must have been the guiding light on this.

There was a time when grain was cut with low levels of arsenic.

Who should decide if farmers should be allowed to spray DDT on their crops?

Farmers? The public at large, by not consuming products sprayed with DDT; even though they would have essentially no way of knowing? Government? Or a check and balance between all three?

Some think the food supply is safer now, then it's ever been in the history of world civilization.

If there is a grass roots movement to legislate against trans fats, the crystal ball says the next one to fall is mercury levels in fish.

Erik

Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Drew Baye wrote:
Tomislav,

I need to make this quick, since I have to train someone in about two minutes.

I limit soy intake as much as possible due to the phytoestrogens.

Ephedra and pro-hormones should not be banned. Anabolic steroids shouldn't be illegal either, for that matter. The use or non use should be left up to the individual.

The important thing where the consumption of drugs, foods, etc. is concerned is informed choice. Nobody should be able to make fraudulent claims regarding the safety, quality, or therapeutic effects of any item.


Drew,

I was actually asking you about the latter example - some cattle farmers feel they should have a right to feed ground bovines to bovines; we know this is potentially pathalogical - even more so than trans fats as it can cause mad cow disease. Do you agree with them?

As far as ephedra and tryptophan (banned amino acid), I think they are in a different category because they were obviously safe; with tryptophan this is very self evident as it is an essestial amino acid (so banned or not we have to have it anyway) but more sophoric than the leading chemicals, thus the banning seemed to be for that reason, seemed corrupt.

The hormone based supplements like steroids, soy and pro-hormones are in their own category to me; I just don't think it's appropriate for the foods I eat to be suddenly soy without telling me so I can choose not to eat them.

And I don't think labeling goes far enough for Ovaltine - this is a food that says "malt" in big letters and has cultivated a deep cultural identity over many years as a maltodextrin source; at the least there should be some kind of color coding to clue in the consumer - I don't think we should ban soy, but I seriously propose a pink label for all foods that suddenly go soy along with a mandatory steroid warning decrying the estrogen content like with nutrasweet!
Open User Options Menu

BloodandGuts

Gluteus Maximus wrote:
That's right I think banning trans fats is a great idea. And so do many others including health care professionals and organizations.

But drew doesn't believe we have the right to know what's in our food, and he doesn't think anyone should be forced to disclose their ingredients.

So, I'm asking him how would we make right food choices if we don't know what's in it?


just because a lot of people think something is a great idea doesnt mean it's right. A lot of people in Russia thought communism was a great idea and look how that went. popular opinion means jack shit when it comes to ethics or anything else.

to say that you have the right to know what's in your food implies the belief that you have the right to the food itself.
you have the opportunity to work, make money and purchase and/or grow your food. As humans we are all born with the need for food but once we become adult age, it is up to each of us to decide how we go about obtaining it. No one is born with the "right to food".

Like when someone decrees "i have the RIGHT to a job and a home" even though they havent bothered to learn any skill or havent saved any of the money they may have earned to purchase one. (and those are usually the type of people that decree things of that nature the loudest!)

in a truly free country there would be no need to force the manufacturers of food products to disclose their ingredients to the consumers. the manufacturer of quality foods would be eager and proud to put the ingredients on the labels of their products as proof of that quality and as a way to better the competition. a manufacturer of poor quality foods wouldn't bother because they know full well that their customers could care less what they put in their bodies. It would make sorting out the good from the bad much much easier for those who are inclined to care about such things. for those that dont, it makes little difference what the label says.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

BloodandGuts wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:
That's right I think banning trans fats is a great idea. And so do many others including health care professionals and organizations.

But drew doesn't believe we have the right to know what's in our food, and he doesn't think anyone should be forced to disclose their ingredients.

So, I'm asking him how would we make right food choices if we don't know what's in it?

just because a lot of people think something is a great idea doesnt mean it's right. A lot of people in Russia thought communism was a great idea and look how that went. popular opinion means jack shit when it comes to ethics or anything else.

to say that you have the right to know what's in your food implies the belief that you have the right to the food itself.
you have the opportunity to work, make money and purchase and/or grow your food. As humans we are all born with the need for food but once we become adult age, it is up to each of us to decide how we go about obtaining it. No one is born with the "right to food".

Like when someone decrees "i have the RIGHT to a job and a home" even though they havent bothered to learn any skill or havent saved any of the money they may have earned to purchase one. (and those are usually the type of people that decree things of that nature the loudest!)

in a truly free country there would be no need to force the manufacturers of food products to disclose their ingredients to the consumers. the manufacturer of quality foods would be eager and proud to put the ingredients on the labels of their products as proof of that quality and as a way to better the competition. a manufacturer of poor quality foods wouldn't bother because they know full well that their customers could care less what they put in their bodies. It would make sorting out the good from the bad much much easier for those who are inclined to care about such things. for those that dont, it makes little difference what the label says.


Maybe in Shangri-la but this is the real world.

A free society has rules and regulations too. Capitalism is a creation of man to SERVE man, not the other way around. Not for man to serve capitalism. Sure allow free market forces to work in areas that they work well, commerce etc, but when it comes to public health concerns, children's health, it is in society's best interest to ensure protection.

We are in midst of a health care crises. An epidemic of heart disease, diabetes etc. Estimates of 30,000 to as much of 100,000 or more lives saved every year just by eliminating trans fats.

Trans fats are artificially introduced into then food, and we have no idea how much of it we're consuming when we eat out. How do the restaurants know? How many restaurants have sent their meals to the lab for assay?

LOL. C'mon the only rational thing to do is to ban this junk "additive" that is causing great harm but serves no useful purpose. I applaud NY! Now we need similar action on the NATIONAL level.
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

Surely capitalism serves only those with capital. A lot of people are left out of that service I can tell you.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Tacitus wrote:
Surely capitalism serves only those with capital. A lot of people are left out of that service I can tell you.


Ummm, no.

Capitalism = freedom and individualism.

Sorry, dude. You DON'T have the right to my pocketbook.
Open User Options Menu

Robert Francis

New York, USA

BloodandGuts wrote:

I dont think there is a more historically destructive term than "the greater good". Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc, they all used it.
I have to wonder, who decides just what the "greater good" actually is?

B&G


B&G, you seem to have left out, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao, Ho-Chi Mihn, Saddam Hussein, and Uncle Fidel.

After getting everyone to agree on what is the "greater good"....LOOK OUT!

zand....
Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

zanderinst wrote:
BloodandGuts wrote:

I dont think there is a more historically destructive term than "the greater good". Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc, they all used it.
I have to wonder, who decides just what the "greater good" actually is?

B&G

B&G, you seem to have left out, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao, Ho-Chi Mihn, Saddam Hussein, and Uncle Fidel.

After getting everyone to agree on what is the "greater good"....LOOK OUT!

zand....


...You seem to have left out George Bush, who echoed the same words, prior to the invasion of Iraq.

It's interesting how the same message intent, is uniquely dependent on the political, historical, and cultural climate, the message is being directed toward.

Erik
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

eintology wrote:
zanderinst wrote:
BloodandGuts wrote:

I dont think there is a more historically destructive term than "the greater good". Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc, they all used it.
I have to wonder, who decides just what the "greater good" actually is?

B&G

B&G, you seem to have left out, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao, Ho-Chi Mihn, Saddam Hussein, and Uncle Fidel.

After getting everyone to agree on what is the "greater good"....LOOK OUT!

zand....

...You seem to have left out George Bush, who echoed the same words, prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Prior to getting agreement on what 'the greater good is," know the motives, and the political, historical, and cultural climate, the message is being directed toward.

Erik


Are you really serious about putting Bush in the same class as Hitler and all those others?

Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
eintology wrote:
zanderinst wrote:
BloodandGuts wrote:

I dont think there is a more historically destructive term than "the greater good". Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc, they all used it.
I have to wonder, who decides just what the "greater good" actually is?

B&G

B&G, you seem to have left out, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao, Ho-Chi Mihn, Saddam Hussein, and Uncle Fidel.

After getting everyone to agree on what is the "greater good"....LOOK OUT!

zand....

...You seem to have left out George Bush, who echoed the same words, prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Prior to getting agreement on what 'the greater good is," know the motives, and the political, historical, and cultural climate, the message is being directed toward.

Erik

Are you really serious about putting Bush in the same class as Hitler and all those others?


No, I wouldn't. And I wasn't. Although I don't think anyone is immune from scrutiny, just because history has not been allowed to have a field day with them.

I was merely pointing out, that all have used the same words; as Zand mentioned, and there is nothing unique about those words being used as part of a political doctrine.

If it would have been Jerry Brown who would have said "for the greater good" and not George Bush, does that make it any different?

As a prophylactic, I don't think you can throw a blanket 'over there,' without having the ability to recognize message intent, and how that would apply to your own government.

Propoganda, cuts in many different directions; to serve the needs of the time. And there is an overt danger in not being able to say it, for what it is.

Erik






Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Ironic the food industry themselves are now asking the govt for more regulation in light of recent concerns over food safety.

Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

In my very limited understanding of all things political - the people vote in a government so as to best serve them and "society", surely then the government has a duty of care toward all under its wing?

If every single matter were left to "society" to decide upon, then wouldnt life grind to a halt whilst people just argued over what is best,as you cant please all the people all the time.

Someone would eventaully get the arse ache, realise that they can only get what they want by forcing people to accept their views through force or threat of force, they would perhaps rise to a position of power if a majority support the views too - socialist/communist leader?

Their views would then snowball, even if they were skewed - critical mass would have been reached and it would be too late for originators to back out and if they did try then the next leader would step up and push their views.

Point of that being, not sure, however I feel it is something to do with governments being skewed mixces of a few good men and lots of bad men covering their own backs and playing catch up.

Duty of care falls in the lap of any in positions of power (inclucing us trainers), if you fail to to show duty of care - you lose support and cant use the excuse of "it was you responsibility as an individual".

The line has to be drawn, sometimes quietly and sometimes rather deeply and loudly.

You cant please all the people all the time.

I believe A Jones made an observation that fits quite well here;

when a society of any creature reaches a population of "x"/critical mass then command and structure fall apart leaving a free for all shit storm mess.

Welcome to the future.

Ah I feel better -possibly stupid but better :)
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

"The growing interdependence of the world has given rise to a series of global problems that individual states can no longer resolve by themselves. Only through worldwide cooperation can we cope with the growing dangers and challenges that mankind faces."-Ghulam Umar, Pakistani political analyst.

Today's world is full of paradoxes. In the midst of material abundance, many barely eke out a living. This electronic generation could well be the most educated and knowledgeable to date, yet more and more people have a hard time finding a stable job. Though people seem to have more freedom than ever before, millions live in a climate of fear. We may be surrounded by alluring opportunities, but corruption and lawlessness in places high and low have resulted in hopelessness for many.

The scope of the problems facing mankind is so overwhelming that it far exceeds what any one nation, or even group of nations, can handle. Thus, many observers have concluded that for world peace and security to become a reality, all nations must unite under a single government. Albert Einstein, for example, long advocated such an idea. In 1946, he asserted: "I firmly believe that the majority of peoples in the world would prefer to live in peace and security - mankind's desire for peace can be realized only by the creation of a world government."

WHY should you be interested in a world government? Persons in increasing numbers are today. For what reason?

Fear is the main factor with many. True, logic alone tells us that having scores of divided, and often uncooperative, political systems brings inefficiency, waste, disagreeable hindrances. So, some men "began dreaming of a world government as early as the 1300's," according to The World Book Encyclopedia (1970 edition, Vol. 20, page 363). But it was the shock of World War I that made men think seriously of world government. The League of Nations formed at the war's end was a step in that direction. But the League collapsed in World War II. The horrors of that war, and the prospect of an all-out modernized war, moved governments to form the United Nations in 1945.

Since then men have been faced with new dangers. National boundaries and frontiers provide no protection against growing pollution of air, water and land. An economic crisis in one part of the world can now disrupt the interwoven fabric of many national economies, bringing poverty and hunger.

Why has the U.N. failed to bring solutions to these problems? Because even as fear edged men toward world government, fear makes them back off from giving up the power that would make such a government possible. Each nation distrusts the others. Men fear that, no matter who forms the world government, sooner or later those ruling will let selfish interests control them.

As the Encyclopedia article on "World Government," quoted earlier, says: "Some of the questions that must be solved include the problem of finding leaders for a world government, the problem of keeping it from becoming tyrannical, and the problem of avoiding civil wars, often bloodier than international ones."

Who, for example, would you trust to head a world government? What national leaders are doing such a superb job today in their own lands-proving themselves free from favoritism and selfishness, devoted to justice, and possessed of wisdom and ability to solve problems-that they would qualify for such a responsibility?
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy