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
A Warning about Bioforce
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

PWainwright Ph.D

I read this board occasionally - when time permits - and, for the most part, I enjoy it. But there is one particular poster whose comments I cannot let go without saying my piece. This poster is hell-bent on furthering his twisted aims at the expense of a valuable training system.

You all know him as "Bioforce". His theories on training are ridiculous. What's even more disturbing is that he is allowed to post them even though they do nothing to further HIT and a lot to damage it.

For those of you who are new to HIT, I want you to know that his training represents the OPPOSITE of all that Arthur Jones stood for. But, just like a belligerent encyclopaedia salesman, he continues to keep his foot firmly planted in the door while launching into his patter about his "system".

And, just like every pushy door-to-door salesman, he turns up uninvited in threads where he sees an opportunity to push his agenda.

What he is trying to sell you is no ordinary set of encyclopaedias. His are self-published and made up of odds and ends of disjointed and unsubstantiated information from disparate and disreputable sources.

The pages are tatty and soiled and held loosely together by years of lies, deceit, and bitterness. Over time, most have fallen out on to the floor only to be hastily and amateurishly wedged back in without regard for their quality or the original sequence.

These books are bound not in nice, quality leather like the best encyclopaedias that cherish and preserve the information they contain, but in a cheap, imitation snake skin embossed with fading gold lettering that has become smudged and unrecognisable.

If you let him get a foot in the door, he will try to sell you on his claim that the "system" his books contain can take you further than HIT. This claim is predicated on the misconception that HIT employs only one set per body part, and that any system based on one set per body part can, as he puts it, "only take you so far".

But he didn't bother to do his homework and read up about HIT from a reputable source. Even though this information is available for free, he prefers to rely on his fading memory and his own incomplete and biased data.

Had he made the effort to source accurate and freely available information on the subject, he would have realised that HIT uses one set per EXERCISE, not one set per body part.

He would have also realised that because of this his claim that trainees need multiple sets per body part to make progress beyond HIT doesn't make sense on any level. But that's the danger of relying on an education with more holes in it than a swiss cheese.

As a result, yet another hurried amendment was made to his books and a few new pages of inaccurate information were wedged in and a few new acronyms were added to try to cover up the obvious mistake. But these new, clean pages stand out from the old tatty ones like a sore thumb. They have not yet been aged by falling out onto the dirty floor, and they are held in by new, clear sticky tape that shows no signs of the characteristic browning like the rest of the make-shift binding.

The past few days have been a difficult time for Bioforce as he continues to deny that his understanding of HIT - and the premise that forms his argument against it - was lacking in crucial details. But, like a true salesman, the show must go on and he continues to twist and turn and misdirect in the hope that newcomers who do not know him will not look back at his words and remain an easy mark.

His magic formula for advanced trainees is multiple sets of the same exercise. He claims that three sub-maximal sets deliver greater stimulation than one. This is based on his own completely unfounded notion that each set of the three somehow provides a different - and cumulative - stimulus to the same muscles by using differing reps and various technical-sounding speeds. Leaving the issue of rep quality aside for the moment, at best all this does is provide three sets of varying inroad.

I say "at best" because he claims to recognise the importance of intensity as it relates to exercise but displays a distinct lack of understanding of the concept by recommending that the trainee intentionally DILUTE his intensity of effort by performing multiple sets of the same exercise.

He says that his system is more intense than HIT, even though he continues to recommend three sets of the same exercise.

His idea of intensity is predicated on faulty logic and an obvious lack of practical experience with intense training. Anyone who engages in all-out effort on each set knows that trying to repeat that effort on a second set - let alone a third set - is almost impossible. Not only that, but attempting to repeat the set is counterproductive to continued progress. But, having never experienced high intensity of effort himself, he recommends that one repeat the same set THREE TIMES to create a 'stimulus package' - whatever that is.

If he had ever experienced true HIT training, he would realise how ridiculous his recommendation is.

The bedrock of his theories is based on his flawed attempt at measuring intensity of effort by using calculations relating purely to mechanical work. With a blatant disregard for any physiological measurement, he attempts to prop up his ideas by the gross misapplication of a mechanical formula to a living, breathing, biological organism. Importantly, he completely ignores - among numerous other involved fundamentals - the finite energy reserves of the trainee.

His staunch adherence to this set of faulty ideas is fueled by his next big sales trick - a machine that he claims can measure intensity of effort. Nobody has ever seen this machine, and it remains somewhat of a mystery, like the Lockness Monster and the Yeti. Occasionally you will hear him mention it, but you will never get to see it.

The fact that the potential for maximum intensity is reduced by each subsequent set of a workout seems to escape him. (This is one of the reasons Nautilus recommended working the largest body parts first in a workout and the smallest last. The largest body parts require more energy to work than their smaller counterparts.)

You only have so much readily available energy for your workout. Repeatedly squandering it on sets of diminishing intensity will result in a lack of progress and, if continued, losses in muscle size and strength by compromising the amount of intensity you can generate for each body part. Common sense, really. You don't need a machine to tell you that.

That he demonstrates so little understanding of HIT - he didn't even bother to check how many sets per body part HIT workouts use - should tell you that his attempts at associating himself and his workouts with HIT are not what he claims them to be.

He accuses many who disagree with him - and who with any sense wouldn't disagree with him? - Of being threatened by his "system", of lacking the knowledge and experience to understand it. This is the last resort of someone with little ability to truly explain his ideas.

For the most part, the ones questioning and challenging him are neither intimidated nor ignorant but are merely concerned that someone should claim their methods to be something they are not.

But there is one question he will never answer on this forum. He has been asked repeatedly for a full explanation of his so-called system but he will never give it. HE WILL NEVER EXPLAIN IN FULL HIS IDEAS OR ROUTINES BECAUSE HE WANTS YOU TO CONTACT HIM PRIVATELY AND PART WITH YOUR MONEY.

If you doubt this, go ahead and ask him to list it. He will refer you to his thousands of previous posts and tell you it is all listed in there and you should read them all to find it.

I'll save you the time and trouble, it isn't.

Oh, he will open his book to give you a brief glimpse of what's inside. And if he leaves it open long enough you will see pages crammed full of long, esoteric and made-up words that are designed to give the impression of wisdom and knowledge. But their true purpose is to confuse and bewilder those that don't know better.

He is desperate to align himself and his methods with a prominent training system like HIT so he can make a name for himself and along with it take money from people who know no better - people who are genuinely looking for a solution but don't have the street-smarts to recognise a huckster.

So I say to those of you who have arrived here as a result of reading Dr Darden's books and are new to HIT - PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT WHAT BIOFORCE PROMOTES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIGH INTENSIY TRAINING.

There's lot's of good stuff to be found here, but you have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

If he comes knocking, the best thing to do is simply ignore him. Do not open the door to him so he can get a foothold. That's all he's looking for. Don't answer the door and politely smile at him through the window until he goes away. Eventually, he'll move on to another neighbourhood and try his luck there.

Open User Options Menu

HSDAD

Well I agree with you that he's not promoting HIT in any way. What little I can glean of his "system", it's 3 sets pyramiding in intensity but never really getting to max intensity for each exercise. How this qualifies as "Rogue HIT", I don't know. It seems more of a system that a Jr. High gym teacher might propose.

My big thing is that Ellington Darden hosts this site to promote his books, training services and HIT in general. Hosting is not free by any means. Certainly cheaper than publishing, but not free. When you make a forum part of your site, people hijacking it to sell competing wares is a risk you take and I'm sure Dr. Darden is aware of that. But I have precious little respect for the hucksters that do it. When we post here, we are ostensibly standing on a podium that Dr. Darden paid for, lock, stock & barrel. To use it to tear him or his system down is just bad form.

Perhaps Bio-Force should set up his own site for his "plans". He should have a forum too. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Open User Options Menu

arnold strong1

Let's see you tackle some issues rather than discussing any members.
Open User Options Menu

Growl

All should run from him and not debate him as he is pure evil. Actually, he's even worse than that, he's...............I don't know how to say this.....SATAN!!!!!
Unfortunately he's even worse than that, he's Satan's eviler smaller clone. I bet Bio-Force never told any of you that he's only two and a half feet tall. Well, you can't tell that from the pictures due to his good proportioning but he is.

He was cloned from a much larger, balder, Satan and can't even speak.
You have all been warned.
Never, ever, think for yourselves. Simply use the internet for anonymous or biased sources and run off half cocked...... It's for the best, really.

The Saving Angel,
Jeff
Open User Options Menu

Terry Carter

Georgia, USA

An excellent summary that is very well stated. Bio and friends are not friends of HIT or reason and logic.

Terry
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

Bioforce has his own forum. His training I believe is "high intensity", in that maxing out on the first high rep set(20-30 reps) then waiting five minutes doing second set 12-10 reps then finish with a heavy weight of 5-8 reps after further 3-5 minute rest is quite a workout. Each set I think is supposed to be its own separate entity and not just a warmup. I tried it and enjoyed the workouts but my old injuries(old age) didn't like the high speed reps especially on the heavy sets.

He likes to show examples of pro bodybuilder's and powerlifters on Youtube that demonstrate his style of lifting which has them doing high reps at high speed with heavy weights.

There is some debate in the literature whether slow or high speed repetitions produce better hypertrophy. The high speed group likes to use a study that used isokinetic equipment which I'm not sure can be related to isotonic exercise I prefer slow controlled speed. I like to feel the movement hit the target which I find hard to do with high speed reps.

This is just my 2 cents. I can assure you the avalanche from Bioforce, Wayne(what ever he goes under)and Pinter will probably soon follow.
Open User Options Menu

jeffpinter

California, USA

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
I read this board occasionally - when time permits - and, for the most part, I enjoy it. But there is one particular poster whose comments I cannot let go without saying my piece. You all know him as "Bioforce".


Your post has got to be the biggest rambling diatribe I've ever encountered on this forum. It's so full of errors, misconceptions, and outright lies that I wouldn't even know where to start.

My only questions to you are the following:
1) Do you actually train with weights?
2) What is your Ph.D in - basketweaving?

Jeff
Open User Options Menu

Paul25

jeffpinter wrote:
PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
I read this board occasionally - when time permits - and, for the most part, I enjoy it. But there is one particular poster whose comments I cannot let go without saying my piece. You all know him as "Bioforce".


Your post has got to be the biggest rambling diatribe I've ever encountered on this forum. It's so full of errors, misconceptions, and outright lies that I wouldn't even know where to start.

My only questions to you are the following:
1) Do you actually train with weights?
2) What is your Ph.D in - basketweaving?

Jeff


Lol Jeff, John been onto you to get yourself to post on his behalf? The oringal post was spot on!

Open User Options Menu

arnold strong1

Agree with your comments Jeff - where has bioforce actually promoted something to sell on this website?

Nowhere! Where are all these books, products for sale.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

I dont really see the point in letting posts in like, why do not the mods just check the IP of this person.

jeffpinter wrote:
PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
I read this board occasionally - when time permits - and, for the most part, I enjoy it. But there is one particular poster whose comments I cannot let go without saying my piece. You all know him as "Bioforce".


Your post has got to be the biggest rambling diatribe I've ever encountered on this forum. It's so full of errors, misconceptions, and outright lies that I wouldn't even know where to start.

My only questions to you are the following:
1) Do you actually train with weights?
2) What is your Ph.D in - basketweaving?

Jeff


Well said Jeff.

Cant we stop all this mocking, I mean Ellington pays for this site, lets respect him.

Whoever wrote the above shows so much envy and jealousy it stands out a mile, it shows they are so mad that they are so wrong, as when I first started debating with John I too was so mad that he was saying that all I was doing was basically wrong, I tried which and every way to prove him wrong, but he was 100% right, as he had nearly 50 years of training experience, training himself and with others, including some of the greats of bodybuilding, and the original Westside crown, he also had physics on his side, and a fantastic body with huge strength to back up anything he wrote.

So I admitted I was wrong and then just wanted to learn more and more and more, it all became fascinating and the best learning curve of my life, as like I always say I want the truth and what is right, and if somebody proves me wrong I will admit and say sorry.

John is one if not the most knowledge men on this planet about the exersices and the human body, and I often joke that he knows more about the exersices and human body than God himself.

I did John wrong, but he knows I did not mean it, he in my opinion is one of the nicest men you will meet, and as this thread is a wind up, and try at pulling the leg I dont think John will bother to reply he is far above this, as if anyone want to debate anything openly I know he will.

A sort of epicaricacy is what some here like to and get pleasure out of, they try to put people down and try to make other see them in a different light, but it dose not work. They just seem to want a slagging match.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
I read this board occasionally - when time permits - and, for the most part, I enjoy it. But there is one particular poster whose comments I cannot let go without saying my piece. This poster is hell-bent on furthering his twisted aims at the expense of a valuable training system.


And quite a "piece" it is for a first post. I am quite flattered that you at your attention, as well as impressed with your passion, However your level of accuracy to facts is not as good.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:

You all know him as "Bioforce". His theories on training are ridiculous. What's even more disturbing is that he is allowed to post them even though they do nothing to further HIT and a lot to damage it.


All that I post is related to and in support of High Intensity Training, and a better understanding of how it relates to training. I am only too happy to discuss what you might think is less than accurate.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
For those of you who are new to HIT, I want you to know that his training represents the OPPOSITE of all that Arthur Jones stood for. But, just like a belligerent encyclopaedia salesman, he continues to keep his foot firmly planted in the door while launching into his patter about his "system".


While I certainly have developed various training applications that I think are effective for various levels of training, they are not really "my" systems, since they are simply the assembly of training components to a goal.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:

And, just like every pushy door-to-door salesman, he turns up uninvited in threads where he sees an opportunity to push his agenda.


The only agenda I support is "upping" the level of awareness to how training really works and maybe "losing" some of the dogma that is inaccurately portrayed.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:

What he is trying to sell you is no ordinary set of encyclopaedias. His are self-published and made up of odds and ends of disjointed and unsubstantiated information from disparate and disreputable sources.


Quite a claim. Do you have any particular issue to discuss?

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
The pages are tatty and soiled and held loosely together by years of lies, deceit, and bitterness. Over time, most have fallen out on to the floor only to be hastily and amateurishly wedged back in without regard for their quality or the original sequence.

These books are bound not in nice, quality leather like the best encyclopaedias that cherish and preserve the information they contain, but in a cheap, imitation snake skin embossed with fading gold lettering that has become smudged and unrecognisable.

If you let him get a foot in the door, he will try to sell you on his claim that the "system" his books contain can take you further than HIT. This claim is predicated on the misconception that HIT employs only one set per body part, and that any system based on one set per body part can, as he puts it, "only take you so far".

But he didn't bother to do his homework and read up about HIT from a reputable source. Even though this information is available for free, he prefers to rely on his fading memory and his own incomplete and biased data.


You writing style is showing who you are and I find it interesting that you choose to "hide" behind a new and fake identity to post like this. Writing styles are like fingerprints, and yours shines through.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:

Had he made the effort to source accurate and freely available information on the subject, he would have realised that HIT uses one set per EXERCISE, not one set per body part.


It depends on what version of HIT you subscribe to, when you joined the club, and how literally you take SSTF as the maximum stimulus.

JamesT wrote:

He would have also realised that because of this his claim that trainees need multiple sets per body part to make progress beyond HIT doesn't make sense on any level. But that's the danger of relying on an education with more holes in it than a swiss cheese.


You are supplying a lot of Physiology with your rebuttals. What does Swiss cheese have to do with training stimuli?

JamesT wrote:

As a result, yet another hurried amendment was made to his books and a few new pages of inaccurate information were wedged in and a few new acronyms were added to try to cover up the obvious mistake. But these new, clean pages stand out from the old tatty ones like a sore thumb. They have not yet been aged by falling out onto the dirty floor, and they are held in by new, clear sticky tape that shows no signs of the characteristic browning like the rest of the make-shift binding.


Very creative writing style. but like your other posting arguments little (actually NO) substance. It is infinitely more effective in an argument to argue substance.

JamesT wrote:
His magic formula for advanced trainees is multiple sets of the same exercise. He claims that three sub-maximal sets deliver greater stimulation than one. This is based on his own completely unfounded notion that each set of the three somehow provides a different - and cumulative - stimulus to the same muscles by using differing reps and various technical-sounding speeds. Leaving the issue of rep quality aside for the moment, at best all this does is provide three sets of varying inroad.


Obviously you don't know that PR's lead to RM's which "ARE" maximal efforts, Additionally Maximum Effort during a set is what produces "HIGH INTENSITY". It is not a magical state of mind, but a physically viable and measurable output.

JamesT wrote:

I say "at best" because he claims to recognise the importance of intensity as it relates to exercise but displays a distinct lack of understanding of the concept by recommending that the trainee intentionally DILUTE his intensity of effort by performing multiple sets of the same exercise.


Obviously we don't (as we already know) share the same definition of intensity.

JamesT wrote:

He says that his system is more intense than HIT, even though he continues to recommend three sets of the same exercise.


Interestingly enough, you feel you can perform multiple sets for the same muscle groups with "your" high intensity, because they are "different" exercises. yet you can't do it with the same exercise.

Seems to be a lapse in logic there.

JamesT wrote:
His idea of intensity is predicated on faulty logic and an obvious lack of practical experience with intense training. Anyone who engages in all-out effort on each set knows that trying to repeat that effort on a second set - let alone a third set - is almost impossible. Not only that, but attempting to repeat the set is counterproductive to continued progress. But, having never experienced high intensity of effort himself, he recommends that one repeat the same set THREE TIMES to create a 'stimulus package' - whatever that is.


A repeat of the logic lapse. Plus a little bit of "I train harder than you" egotism.

JamesT wrote:

If he had ever experienced true HIT training, he would realise how ridiculous his recommendation is.


JT you can certainly have your opinions but much of the world trains equally as hard as you "claim" you do and with multiple set systems. And they get results.

JamesT wrote:

The bedrock of his theories is based on his flawed attempt at measuring intensity of effort by using calculations relating purely to mechanical work. With a blatant disregard for any physiological measurement, he attempts to prop up his ideas by the gross misapplication of a mechanical formula to a living, breathing, biological organism. Importantly, he completely ignores - among numerous other involved fundamentals - the finite energy reserves of the trainee.


Using output to measure physical work of muscles in not unique to me, or anything I suggest. EVERY research project relating to muscular work uses the same thing.

JamesT wrote:

His staunch adherence to this set of faulty ideas is fueled by his next big sales trick - a machine that he claims can measure intensity of effort. Nobody has ever seen this machine, and it remains somewhat of a mystery, like the Lockness Monster and the Yeti. Occasionally you will hear him mention it, but you will never get to see it.


I have never claimed a "machine". I said I have the intellectual property on a device and program, that can track intensity of muscular output.

JamesT wrote:

The fact that the potential for maximum intensity is reduced by each subsequent set of a workout seems to escape him. (This is one of the reasons Nautilus recommended working the largest body parts first in a workout and the smallest last. The largest body parts require more energy to work than their smaller counterparts.)


It seems you confuse "intensity" with ability. Intensity is your "momentary" ability to apply the greatest effort. It is based on the ability at that moment.

You are confusing your "qualities". Each set (in fact each rep) has its own level of intensity. You simply are looking at elements like "fresh strength" and such and calling them "intensity". Which demonstrates your level of understanding to the quality.

JamesT wrote:

You only have so much readily available energy for your workout. Repeatedly squandering it on sets of diminishing intensity will result in a lack of progress and, if continued, losses in muscle size and strength by compromising the amount of intensity you can generate for each body part. Common sense, really. You don't need a machine to tell you that.


Again, your ability to respond against a load with "intensity" it always related to you ability at that moment.

JamesT wrote:

That he demonstrates so little understanding of HIT - he didn't even bother to check how many sets per body part HIT workouts use - should tell you that his attempts at associating himself and his workouts with HIT are not what he claims them to be.


How many sets per body part "does" a HIT workout use? Where is this information kept? Your HIT Encyclopedia?

JamesT wrote:

He accuses many who disagree with him - and who with any sense wouldn't disagree with him? - Of being threatened by his "system", of lacking the knowledge and experience to understand it. This is the last resort of someone with little ability to truly explain his ideas.


It appears you are so threatened that you will masquerade as someone else to post in opposition. That in itself is quite interesting. Did you think that your writing style was not obvious?

JamesT wrote:

For the most part, the ones questioning and challenging him are neither intimidated nor ignorant but are merely concerned that someone should claim their methods to be something they are not.

But there is one question he will never answer on this forum. He has been asked repeatedly for a full explanation of his so-called system but he will never give it. HE WILL NEVER EXPLAIN IN FULL HIS IDEAS OR ROUTINES BECAUSE HE WANTS YOU TO CONTACT HIM PRIVATELY AND PART WITH YOUR MONEY.


I would say that I have "explained" ideas in volumes. I also plan on retiring next week with all the millions from posting here. You can't find one person on this site who has paid me a penny, except MICHAEL because he wanted to try some bands.

JamesT wrote:

If you doubt this, go ahead and ask him to list it. He will refer you to his thousands of previous posts and tell you it is all listed in there and you should read them all to find it.

I'll save you the time and trouble, it isn't.

Oh, he will open his book to give you a brief glimpse of what's inside. And if he leaves it open long enough you will see pages crammed full of long, esoteric and made-up words that are designed to give the impression of wisdom and knowledge. But their true purpose is to confuse and bewilder those that don't know better.


If you are "bewildered" it might be because you are encountering new levels of awareness.

JamesT wrote:

There's lot's of good stuff to be found here, but you have to sort the wheat from the chaff.


On this we agree.

JamesT wrote:

If he comes knocking, the best thing to do is simply ignore him. Do not open the door to him so he can get a foothold. That's all he's looking for. Don't answer the door and politely smile at him through the window until he goes away. Eventually, he'll move on to another neighbourhood and try his luck there.



James the real pity is that you feel so insecure as to post behind another name.



Open User Options Menu

Gazz

I don't post here too often, but enjoy reading the debates that go on.

However I stopped reading this post half way through. It's nothing more than a personal attack on someone whose views dare to differ from Arthur Jones.

You're comparing Bioorce to some snake oil or encyclopedia salesman. Funny, I've read a lot of Bioforces posts and I've never yet seen the guy request any payment for advice/views given, he doesn't seem to be selling protein powders, books or from what I've seen anything else (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...but give me specifics not unfounded diatribe).

I've even committed the ultimate betrayal to the HIT philosophy & tried a variation of his system......I lost all my size, reverted to a 9 stone weakling and all because of the extra two sets per bodypart which clearly resulted in overtraining....not.

Whether you agree or disagree with Bio, he is a contributor. He seems to give a lot and asks for nothing in return. If you disagree with his system then ignore his posts, or use your Phd to give the guy a constructive argument, but don't just slag the guy off.

Gazz
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

Growl wrote:
All should run from him and not debate him as he is pure evil. Actually, he's even worse than that, he's...............I don't know how to say this.....SATAN!!!!!
Unfortunately he's even worse than that, he's Satan's eviler smaller clone. I bet Bio-Force never told any of you that he's only two and a half feet tall. Well, you can't tell that from the pictures due to his good proportioning but he is.

He was cloned from a much larger, balder, Satan and can't even speak.
You have all been warned.
Never, ever, think for yourselves. Simply use the internet for anonymous or biased sources and run off half cocked...... It's for the best, really.

The Saving Angel,
Jeff


Years ago I could use a good "comb over" to hide the horns, but as you can now see, the horns are bare as is my pate.

Come to think of it, have you ever seen a depiction of the Devil that didn't look a bit like a bodybuilder.

Lot of DHT.
Open User Options Menu

HamsFitness

no disrespect but what exactly does this post have to do with training?

Although I agree that this is Dr D's forum - if he had any form of issue with BioForce advices do you not think he would step up and say he doesnt agree.

Numerous other boards run by respected coaches are infiltrated by opposing theorires and the site owner (DR D in this boards case) step up and say what they think if it is in opposition to what they promote.

If Dr D disagreed with Bio then surely he would say so - in fact he has a duty of care to.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

HSDAD wrote:
Well I agree with you that he's not promoting HIT in any way. What little I can glean of his "system", it's 3 sets pyramiding in intensity but never really getting to max intensity for each exercise. How this qualifies as "Rogue HIT", I don't know. It seems more of a system that a Jr. High gym teacher might propose.


Hi HSDAD,

Thanks for the kind words. I might suggest that your "gleaning" is not accurate enough to make an educated assessment.

The program in question is based most heavily on the function of scientifically applied "HIGH intensity"

HSDAD wrote:

My big thing is that Ellington Darden hosts this site to promote his books, training services and HIT in general. Hosting is not free by any means. Certainly cheaper than publishing, but not free. When you make a forum part of your site, people hijacking it to sell competing wares is a risk you take and I'm sure Dr. Darden is aware of that. But I have precious little respect for the hucksters that do it. When we post here, we are ostensibly standing on a podium that Dr. Darden paid for, lock, stock & barrel. To use it to tear him or his system down is just bad form.


You bring up excellent points and they should be addressed.

First off, I have many times pointed out that I believe INTENSITY is likely the most important of training elements.

I also believe HIGH INTENSITY is valuable to progressions from stimulus.

I have never hidden the fact that I am in the "industry", but have not posted or actively promoted a site or route that would benefit me.

I post to MANY forums and groups, in the same manner, because I enjoy it.

I whole heartedly support Ellington in all his work, and publications, and respect the fact that he has the courage to let his site serve the function of discussions of this type of training, even if the discussions might not always be duplications of all his beliefs.

I might also add that while some have taken HUGE opposition to what I might post, I align rather closely to Ellington's fundamental teachings, but from a slightly different perspective. Classical (or whatever version) of HIT is not a Perfect System. I am not aligned with "ANY" specific system or training element to the point that I will support areas of inconsistency or inaccuracy.

Being that the "typed" word is not a perfect communication medium, there is also area for miscommunication.

While a site like this is certainly an area where PASSION should be displayed, that is not the same as EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT. And it is also a place to have fun and share ideas, but the degree of name calling and such does not demonstrate good feelings.

Obviously it does not bother me, but constructive conversation and substance are always better than personal attacks like we see here.




Open User Options Menu

Robert Francis

New York, USA

Growl wrote:
All should run from him and not debate him as he is pure evil. Actually, he's even worse than that, he's...............I don't know how to say this.....SATAN!!!!!

The Saving Angel,
Jeff



Jeff!
NOT TRUE!
Satan USED TO BE on this board. And is a different guy than Bioforce. But now he's gone. And I miss him.
(I never laughed so hard)

zand.....
Open User Options Menu

Mark S

jeffpinter wrote:
It's so full of errors, misconceptions, and outright lies that I wouldn't even know where to start.


Jeff


That's ironic isn't it?.
Open User Options Menu

Mr Flibble

Waynes wrote:

A sort of epicaricacy is what some here like to to and get plesure out of,
Wayne


Brilliant Wayne! I'm overjoyed you've started to use the thesaurus. Now all you need to do is concentrate on the spelling dictionary and you're almost there.

One problem though is that you've gone and used the word "epicaricacy" in completely the wrong context. Your context would suggest poor Casler has suffered a great misfortune which we're all laughing at. Perhaps he's not sold any rubber bands this month?

Back to the main subject I can only applaud Dr Wainwright's stance. I only hope this doesn't curtail Bile-Farce's posts as I'm looking forward to his next ridiculous lie and pathetic attempts at self-aggrandizement on another mans website. They really cheer me up.
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

BIO-FORCE wrote:
James the real pity is that you feel so insecure as to post behind another name.


*large intake of breath, big sigh*

...John, John, John,

Do you really think I would write something so eloquent and not take credit for it myself?????

Come on my man, you should know better. I absolutely agree with everything in the initial post however. It highlights everything that's wrong with your approach to "the masses" AND exercise in general.

How does it go now? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.......

You are here to further your own ego and to push a system you developed(?), everyone who knows exercise can see that.

You should be well aware that I rarely post here and I only occasionally post on www.pure-hit.com. I don't think my involvement on this forum is particularly helpful to anyone and sifting through the garbage you, Pinter, All Pro and Wayne produce certainly doesn't help me. Why on earth would I waste any more time butting heads with a guy who will lie in order to appear in the guise of an internet guru????? Why????? To maintain the same approach and expect a different result would be a sign of my going mad. I'm not interested.

The irony is that I was looking at your web site only this morning. NO ONE CARES JOHN. Why should I? It must be great for you though....I mean, you are conversing with yourself on a daily basis! Happy days! Wouldn't it be nice to have a reply on a couple of those threads though John? One or two maybe?

If I were you I'd stick to the world of AV. Seriously, if you don't know the difference between multiple sets and single sets of multiple exercises you genuinely fell at the first. I think Mike Mentzer would have said you are "intellectually self arrested", he was good with words.

So, anyway....oh, your courses are VERY expensive....I'll bet you haven't sold many? Any at all??????? Yes, anyway, the answer is no John, it wasn't me. Not guilty Sir.

And say hello to Big Tony for me when you see him next.....

Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

jeffpinter wrote:
Your post has got to be the biggest rambling diatribe I've ever encountered on this forum. It's so full of errors, misconceptions, and outright lies that I wouldn't even know where to start.

Jeff


Hold your horses there Jeff "Midlifecrisis" Pinter!!! Are you telling me you have never browsed a post by your great leader John Casler?!

Surely you should be out chasing nineteen year old girls in your red soft top and trying to score some cheap growth.

What are you doing here? Go prep your chest wig, tight jeans and cowboy boots for smokin Friday night.

Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Wizard wrote:
no disrespect but what exactly does this post have to do with training?

Although I agree that this is Dr D's forum - if he had any form of issue with BioForce advices do you not think he would step up and say he doesnt agree.

Numerous other boards run by respected coaches are infiltrated by opposing theorires and the site owner (DR D in this boards case) step up and say what they think if it is in opposition to what they promote.

If Dr D disagreed with Bio then surely he would say so - in fact he has a duty of care to.


Very well said Wizard, this has nothing to do with training whatever.

Mr Flibble wrote:
Waynes wrote:

A sort of epicaricacy is what some here like to and get pleasure out of,
Wayne


Brilliant Wayne! I'm overjoyed you've started to use the thesaurus. Now all you need to do is concentrate on the spelling dictionary and you're almost there.

One problem though is that you've gone and used the word "epicaricacy" in completely the wrong context. Your context would suggest poor Casler has suffered a great misfortune which we're all laughing at. Perhaps he's not sold any rubber bands this month?

Back to the main subject I can only applaud Dr Wainwright's stance. I only hope this doesn't curtail Bile-Farce's posts as I'm looking forward to his next ridiculous lie and pathetic attempts at self-aggrandizement on another mans website. They really cheer me up.


Waynes wrote:
I dont really see the point in letting posts in like, why do not the mods just check the IP of this person.

A sort of epicaricacy is what some here like to try and get pleasure out of, they try to put people down and try to make other see them in a different light, but it dose not work. They just seem to want a slagging match.

Wayne


There are no miss spelt words, and what if there were ???

Sorry its you who missed what I wrote.

I said SORT of epicaricacy, TRY and get pleasure, TRY to put people down, TRY to make other see them in a different light. And as I proved you just want a slagging match, but as most know I am the best there is at mocking, you should join our World Mocking Championships forum.

The point of this thread is envy, jealousy as John is right, if you or anyone thinks his is not you would be able to have a grown up debate and state what you think is wrong, but cant, and when anybody does and are wrong they dont seem to like it so they mock and give out personal attacks, I mean whats the point, as we all like the same sprot can not we get along ??? Or are there some here that just like to spoil Ellington's forum and start trouble.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Mr Flibble wrote:
Waynes wrote:

A sort of epicaricacy is what some here like to to and get plesure out of,
Wayne


Brilliant Wayne! I'm overjoyed you've started to use the thesaurus. Now all you need to do is concentrate on the spelling dictionary and you're almost there.

One problem though is that you've gone and used the word "epicaricacy" in completely the wrong context. Your context would suggest poor Casler has suffered a great misfortune which we're all laughing at. Perhaps he's not sold any rubber bands this month?

Back to the main subject I can only applaud Dr Wainwright's stance. I only hope this doesn't curtail Bile-Farce's posts as I'm looking forward to his next ridiculous lie and pathetic attempts at self-aggrandizement on another mans website. They really cheer me up.


I missed that word!!!!! I totally missed it.

Wayne, I f**king love you! Mr Entertainment!
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
His magic formula for advanced trainees is multiple sets of the same exercise. He claims that three sub-maximal sets deliver greater stimulation than one. This is based on his own completely unfounded notion that each set of the three somehow provides a different - and cumulative - stimulus to the same muscles by using differing reps and various technical-sounding speeds. Leaving the issue of rep quality aside for the moment, at best all this does is provide three sets of varying inroad.


Please state why you think only one set is needed ??? And why you thing two or three sets do not deliver greater stimulation than one

Have you ever tried the program ??? I would say no, as if you did you would not be saying those things.


PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
I say "at best" because he claims to recognise the importance of intensity as it relates to exercise but displays a distinct lack of understanding of the concept by recommending that the trainee intentionally DILUTE his intensity of effort by performing multiple sets of the same exercise.


Doing three sets is far more intense than one, how you even state or think otherwise ??? Lets exaggerate the issue, what is the hardest to run one marathon or three ???


PWainwright Ph.D wrote:
He says that his system is more intense than HIT, even though he continues to recommend three sets of the same exercise. His idea of intensity is predicated on faulty logic and an obvious lack of practical experience with intense training


Please explain the faulty logic.

Lack of practical experience with intense training, funny joke.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote: . Anyone who engages in all-out effort on each set knows that trying to repeat that effort on a second set - let alone a third set - is almost impossible.

How and why do you state to do two sets is impossible ??? Do you only do one set and go home ??? Very strange statement, as if you go to the gym and do say eight exersices, then you have totally contradicted yourself.

Its not at all imposable, you must be very out of condition.

PWainwright Ph.D wrote: Not only that, but attempting to repeat the set is counterproductive to continued progress. But, having never experienced high intensity of effort himself, he recommends that one repeat the same set THREE TIMES to create a 'stimulus package' - whatever that is.

If he had ever experienced true HIT training, he would realise how ridiculous his recommendation is.


Please state why you think attempting to repeat the set is counterproductive to continued progress ??? How come that all that have tried the program have made the best gains in their live ??? Please read Bigmikes last thread on his progress using the program

So lets see your log on the last years you have been training ???

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

BIO-FORCE wrote:


Years ago I could use a good "comb over" to hide the horns, but as you can now see, the horns are bare as is my pate.

Come to think of it, have you ever seen a depiction of the Devil that didn't look a bit like a bodybuilder.

Lot of DHT.


I can just about get away with it if I file the horns down as long as my hairs not too short. Have you tried that?

PS: What do you do about your forked tail?
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

JamesT wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
James the real pity is that you feel so insecure as to post behind another name.


*large intake of breath, big sigh*

...John, John, John,

Do you really think I would write something so eloquent and not take credit for it myself?????

Come on my man, you should know better. I absolutely agree with everything in the initial post however. It highlights everything that's wrong with your approach to "the masses" AND exercise in general.


James, James, James....

You were pretty obvious if you were trying to hide your identity then you made a "tatty" job of it. Thats unless of course the actual poster was trying to create the impression that they were you in which case they were quite thorough.

Tatty, who the f"ck writes that? If it wasn't you or somebody impersonating you then it's likely somebody in your locality.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy