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
My Thumbs-Up To McGuff & Little
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA


I do not know Dr. McGuff very well, other than a few pre-interviews I did with him over the telephone years ago and I have never even communicated with John Little, but I must say that I very much like their book! It is an interesting mix of basics with cutting-edge research, which makes me wonder how that got past their editors and publisher, considering the dumbing-down that too many in the non-fiction world partake in.

Specifically, what I like is McGuff's and Little's introduction of EPIGENETICS to the weight-training book world, which if you recall I mentioned about a year ago in connection to my condemnation of certain xeno-estrogens and estrogen-like chemicals that are all too common in our modern world.

Of course, so far from what little (no pun intended) I have read of their book, the context of the book by McGuff and Little is that weight-training can change an individuals GENETICS for the better; whereas, I mostly highlighted how estrogen-like substances can damage genetic-material. I think that I did mention about how a mother's involvement with music can better the genetics of the next generation, epigenetically speaking... where I read that I cannot recall.

Well, with all that said, McGuff's and Little's book is a very good start to the subject of EPIGENETICS, which I think that every serious weight-trainer and weight-trainee should learn and learn now. I think that another subject that is related that is worthy of study by any weight-training devotee is RESVERATROL, albeit I was disappointed that the McGuff & Little book only mentioned once in passing.

Of course, the thrust of the book was training, but not necessarily nutrition, which RESVERATROL is quasi-nnutrition for it is primarily found in red-grapes, mainly its product of red-wine, and peanuts to a much lesser extent with unknown promise of providing the same benefit as wine.

Like I stated above, I have not completed the book, as it only arrived in my mail today. Nevertheless, I have read the areas concerning EPIGENETICS and I have read all the index to know what subjects they do and do not cover in their writing. Also, I have skimmed through all the pages and, with all that said, I just can tell it is a worthy read and "a must have" for any Jonesian-thinker that desires to add to their bookcase!

Of course, I plan to finish every word within this gem and, if I have find more to either praise or critique, I will write back to detail my reflections.

If I had to rate this book, I would give it either an EIGHT or NINE OUT OF TEN, when compared to the many volumes of writings by Jones and Jones-influenced writers, as I'm still very partial to a few books authored by Ellington Darden and Brian Johnston. However, when comparing the McGuff & Little book to non-Jonesian fitness books, THE AUTHORS ARE AT TWELVE!!

My Best to McGuff and Little!!! Buy this book and buy several more to give out for belated Christmas presents!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:

I do not know Dr. McGuff very well, other than a few pre-interviews I did with him over the telephone years ago and I have never even communicated with John Little, but I must say that I very much like their book! It is an interesting mix of basics with cutting-edge research, which makes me wonder how that got past their editors and publisher, considering the dumbing-down that too many in the non-fiction world partake in.

Specifically, what I like is McGuff's and Little's introduction of EPIGENETICS to the weight-training book world, which if you recall I mentioned about a year ago in connection to my condemnation of certain xeno-estrogens and estrogen-like chemicals that are all too common in our modern world.

Of course, so far from what little (no pun intended) I have read of their book, the context of the book by McGuff and Little is that weight-training can change an individuals GENETICS for the better; whereas, I mostly highlighted how estrogen-like substances can damage genetic-material. I think that I did mention about how a mother's involvement with music can better the genetics of the next generation, epigenetically speaking... where I read that I cannot recall.

Well, with all that said, McGuff's and Little's book is a very good start to the subject of EPIGENETICS, which I think that every serious weight-trainer and weight-trainee should learn and learn now. I think that another subject that is related that is worthy of study by any weight-training devotee is RESVERATROL, albeit I was disappointed that the McGuff & Little book only mentioned once in passing.

Of course, the thrust of the book was training, but not necessarily nutrition, which RESVERATROL is quasi-nnutrition for it is primarily found in red-grapes, mainly its product of red-wine, and peanuts to a much lesser extent with unknown promise of providing the same benefit as wine.

Like I stated above, I have not completed the book, as it only arrived in my mail today. Nevertheless, I have read the areas concerning EPIGENETICS and I have read all the index to know what subjects they do and do not cover in their writing. Also, I have skimmed through all the pages and, with all that said, I just can tell it is a worthy read and "a must have" for any Jonesian-thinker that desires to add to their bookcase!

Of course, I plan to finish every word within this gem and, if I have find more to either praise or critique, I will write back to detail my reflections.

If I had to rate this book, I would give it either an EIGHT or NINE OUT OF TEN, when compared to the many volumes of writings by Jones and Jones-influenced writers, as I'm still very partial to a few books authored by Ellington Darden and Brian Johnston. However, when comparing the McGuff & Little book to non-Jonesian fitness books, THE AUTHORS ARE AT TWELVE!!

My Best to McGuff and Little!!! Buy this book and buy several more to give out for belated Christmas presents!


Excellent post!

Unfortunately, the book must be over the heads of most here!

For example, most here want to argue about rep speed and other minute factors of training that add up to nothing! A large majority just like to post inflammatory comments. That is why I plan on posting very little here in the future. This forum simply is lost. There simply is nothing to gain!

Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

I am 2 chapters in. I look forward to more discussion on the book when I have read it through.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Michael

I wish you well getting a discussion on the book here.

I have my doubts!

Open User Options Menu

winstonnmccay

I would suggest a rereading of what you have read. No where in the book do Little or McGuff even as much as hint as being able to change genetics through training. The book does an excellent job with every subject related to health and traing.

The synthesizing of knowledge to show how good proper strength traing is for health is awe inspiring. Again, though, training wont change your genetics or make you super healthy. Proper training will, if volume,frequency and intensity are regulted properly, will take you to your genetic limit as quickly as possible and assist in staying healthy.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA


winstonnmccay:


The study of EPIGENETICS has shown genes to switch both on and off, either to benefit or harm. No one is saying that our genetics change in that we could (POOF!) change into a giant bug a la Kafka. So, when I write about genetics (genetic profiles) changing, I reference the fact that genes turn both on or off. Case in point, if I give you enough gamma-radiation, you might turn green from all the disease to your skin, but you won't transform into THE INCREDIBLE HULK... unless you can survive HALF-GALLON DAILY DOSAGES OF YOUR FAVORITE ADULT-BEVERAGE INJECTABLE OTHERWISE KNOWN AS STEROIDS.

All joking aside, McGuff (is the one I believe that was writing the following passage) in the McGuff & Little book that he felt that he was once too DETERMINISTIC, quote and unquote. So, to say that genetics can't ever change is utterly DETERMINISTICS, but to understand how EPIGENETICS has demonstrated that genetic profiles can and do change in individuals in their lifetime (and for sure to their offspring) flies in the face of determinism. McGuff has taken a bite out Philosophy!!! Ruff, Ruff!

One last mention about genetics changing, if I take you into one of the most genius geneticists in the world to have you cured of one of the curable genetic-diseases with gene-therapy, DO YOU NOT THINK THAT YOU HAVE CHANGED!? Perhaps, you are still human (and not a cockroach), but change has taken place.









Open User Options Menu

MDieguez

I think the best thing about the book may be all the evidence they provide in support of proper strength training being the best thing you can do for your body. The endless amounts of cardio are far from necessary for health purposes.
Mike
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

I have read the book, but want to read it again before commenting. My initial impression was mostly favorable. In fact, I found some of it very compelling reading.

But you'll never sell me on 10/10. And I'm also a bit skeptical of the Wescott YMCA studies they reference in the book.

Nonetheless, I'd say it's required reading, and a very good overall read at that.

As I always say, if you get just one or two new insights from a book, then that book was worth your time.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

marcrph wrote:
Michael

I wish you well getting a discussion on the book here.

I have my doubts!



I jumped ahead and read the hockey training just for you. My in season training program was somewhat similiar to what they recommend.
Sometimes I went weeks without any lower body training though because I was on the ice 5 times per week.
I felt instead of using a full ROM that doing exercises in a j-rep fashion was less systematically taxing.

Although the exercises are all good ones for a hockey player I feel that a well conditioned athlete can and should train more then 5 exercises once a week. I have progressed people much quicker then that several times. Not a bad starting point though.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Michael Petrella wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Michael

I wish you well getting a discussion on the book here.

I have my doubts!



I jumped ahead and read the hockey training just for you. My in season training program was somewhat similiar to what they recommend.
Sometimes I went weeks without any lower body training though because I was on the ice 5 times per week.
I felt instead of using a full ROM that doing exercises in a j-rep fashion was less systematically taxing.

Although the exercises are all good ones for a hockey player I feel that a well conditioned athlete can and should train more then 5 exercises once a week. I have progressed people much quicker then that several times. Not a bad starting point though.

Michael


Although this is very preliminary, just yesterday I spoke with someone connected to West Point about utilizing a McGuff style football conditioning program.

It seems several Cadets have trouble staying awake! Even the ex-coach Mr. Brock stated the Cadets got little rest. He sometimes provided sandwiches so they could eat at times, and shortened practices because they were tired. This is not the best way to run a football team. Is Army ready for HIT! You bet!

I also spoke with a Division 1-AA(where they have a playoff for National Champion) college team about the same thing previously! As Dylan sung, "The times, they are a changing." HIT is more economical to install than all these other programs, just ask Michigan for an expense report of switching to another program. Athletic directors love that. It takes less support staff, and a smaller footprint of real estate. All favoring HIT! There is a ground swell for HIT grass roots program right now!

Furthermore, with the acquiring of historic option offenses, stupid football coaches want to hold on to pass happy formations, and run the wildcat option. Did anybody notice Florida run the wildcat last night? Jim Thorpe's ghost has returned. The option is a defensive nightmare, and before long all the stupid football coaches will want to run the option, spread, and wildcat. POINT: Practice time is limited, leaving little room for S&C! Enter HIT!
HIT would work better if a smart coach would just run the option only, practice perfect, and play on Saturday!

I feel 5 exercises is a good starting point also. With wear and tear of a competitive season, I think weekly training could be a definite plus later in the season, but not initially. However, later in the season is when the money is won! Guess which way I would go!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

coachjeff wrote:

But you'll never sell me on 10/10. And I'm also a bit skeptical of the Wescott YMCA studies they reference in the book.


Jeff,

Of perhaps some interest to you, Dr. Darden has also referenced Mr. Wescott in regards Superslow rep cadences.
I don't want a rep speed battle, but slow rep speeds do work, and they are a very safe way to train.

P.S. Wayne, go away!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Michael Petrella wrote:

Although the exercises are all good ones for a hockey player I feel that a well conditioned athlete can and should train more then 5 exercises once a week. I have progressed people much quicker then that several times. Not a bad starting point though.

Michael


Michael,

Remember, that Little has a BodPod! He has tracked the body composition of players! He know the ups and downs. His conclusions are based on test results. A well conditioned athlete may just be a deviation from the norm spoken of by Dr. McGuff, and not a good representative of the whole hockey team.
Beware the exceptions. You can't design a program based on Casey Viator's results, would you?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

The first few pages spell it out - without reading any more, a must have! Thank You Doug and John, you have done yourselves proud - make as much money as you can on the book, you all deserve it!
Open User Options Menu

DSears

marcrph wrote:

HIT would work better if a smart coach would just run the option only, practice perfect, and play on Saturday!

!


Have you read anything about John Gagliardi at DIII St. Johns of MN? He's college's career coaching leader with 453 victories. His philosophy is practice perfect and play on Saturday.

He doesn't just run the option only, he adapts the offense to his players, but he doesn't waste time with a lot of meaningless drills. They don't do any conditioning in practice either, they just run the plays. His players lift but they do it on their own.
Open User Options Menu

Paul25

Landau wrote:
The first few pages spell it out - without reading any more, a must have! Thank You Doug and John, you have done yourselves proud - make as much money as you can on the book, you all deserve it!


TOTTALLY agree David, a must have. Got the ebook today and loving it! Great job Doug/John and hope it's a real seller as the Industry needs it!

Open User Options Menu

johnbhoy

Armed Forces - Europe

Looking foreward to getting this book. I have been big admirer of John Little's work for about 20 years. He used to write for a great British magazine called Bodybuilding Monthly back in the 80's.

This magazine published articles by Little, Ellington Darden, Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer. A great magazine in it's day.

I am not so sure about his "power factor" period but he is one of the most intelligent and articulate people writing on this subject.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

DSears wrote:
marcrph wrote:

HIT would work better if a smart coach would just run the option only, practice perfect, and play on Saturday!

!

Have you read anything about John Gagliardi at DIII St. Johns of MN? He's college's career coaching leader with 453 victories. His philosophy is practice perfect and play on Saturday.

He doesn't just run the option only, he adapts the offense to his players, but he doesn't waste time with a lot of meaningless drills. They don't do any conditioning in practice either, they just run the plays. His players lift but they do it on their own.


I posted on him perhaps 2 years ago here on this forum.

Note: The triple option is adaptable, and may well be the next offense to have after the spread popularity is over. Not everyone can recruit the top 100 High school athletes in the U.S.

Quote: Vince Lombardi;

"What would happen if someone came out with a single-wing offense? It would embarrass the hell out of us."

The triple option's genesis is from the old single wing, now over 100 years old, which in it's day was almost for 50 years, was unstoppable.
Open User Options Menu

Professor Chaos

marcrph wrote:
Michael

I wish you well getting a discussion on the book here.

I have my doubts!



Dude,

I tried my best to engage in a healthy, friendly discussion with you regarding this book... you not-so-politely refused to do so.

If you actually tried, I think you would find that along with myself, many here would love to talk and learn about this book.

That doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but why is that a requirement?

All the best.
Open User Options Menu

Supersteve

Professor Chaos wrote:
Dude,

I tried my best to engage in a healthy, friendly discussion with you regarding this book... you not-so-politely refused to do so.

If you actually tried, I think you would find that along with myself, many here would love to talk and learn about this book.

That doesn't mean we will agree on everything, but why is that a requirement?

All the best.


Have you read the book?
If you have, what are your thoughts? what specifics would you like to discuss?

If you haven't you might find it is a minimum requirement to enable you to have this discussion.
I'm sure you'll agree, you taking the time to read the book is easier than members explaining the content to you.
Open User Options Menu

coach-jeff

Louisiana, USA

marcrph wrote:
coachjeff wrote:

But you'll never sell me on 10/10. And I'm also a bit skeptical of the Wescott YMCA studies they reference in the book.


Jeff,

Of perhaps some interest to you, Dr. Darden has also referenced Mr. Wescott in regards Superslow rep cadences.
I don't want a rep speed battle, but slow rep speeds do work, and they are a very safe way to train.


My issue with Wescott's YMCA studies is the way they tested strength increases. They used a slow rep speed for the post study tests, so it's no surprise the folks who had been training at slow speeds were able to give a better slow lifting performance for the test, than the group which trained faster rep speeds.
Open User Options Menu

james pate

Ontario, CAN

I found a copy at a local book store last week. It made for a nice surprise.
Regards
James
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


winstonnmccay wrote:
I would suggest a rereading of what you have read. No where in the book do Little or McGuff even as much as hint as being able to change genetics through training. The book does an excellent job with every subject related to health and traing.


I wonder if the book had anything like the below, real World knowledge of what muscle physiologists have found out, bet they know nothing of the below. They bring up genetic, because maybe they and the people they train do not grow.

Why would they even bother talking about changing someones genetics ???

marcrph wrote:
Unfortunately, the book must be over the heads of most here!


Please put in a part of the book that you think is over the head of most here, what a very unintelligent thing to say, what you are really saying is what I said, that the book has said nothing new at all.

marcrph wrote:
For example, most here want to argue about rep speed and other minute factors of training that add up to nothing!


I do not like to say what you just said, but it seems I have to, the whole World trains with a faster rep speed, the whole World makes very goods gains, you and most who use slow speeds do not make gains, that is why you are constantly asking questions, and looking for new ways to train, and buying new book to trying and find an easy fix, sorry there is no easy fix, you have to use high effort, or in other words you have to use all your strength, to gain the best.

Or if you could possibly explain to me in a grown up manner, why when using a very slow rep and NOT using all your strength, do you think you will grow better then using all your strength ???

marcrph wrote:
A large majority just like to post inflammatory comments. That is why I plan on posting very little here in the future. This forum simply is lost. There simply is nothing to gain!


You have the audacity to say the above ??? When one, you just tried to say that the members here are all think as two short planks. You said; Unfortunately, the book must be over the heads of most here!. Two you have gone on and on at me with inflammatory comments, when I did not say anything against you. Three, you will NOT back up your claims on why a slow speed is better, you are the one of the people who makes inflammatory comments !!!

marcrph wrote:
coachjeff wrote:

But you'll never sell me on 10/10. And I'm also a bit skeptical of the Wescott YMCA studies they reference in the book.


Jeff,

Of perhaps some interest to you, Dr. Darden has also referenced Mr. Wescott in regards Superslow rep cadences.
I don't want a rep speed battle, but slow rep speeds do work, and they are a very safe way to train.

P.S. Wayne, go away!


Yes they do work, but only up to a point.

So could you possibly post your photo of you now before you start you 10/10, and then the after 3 months on ??? As if you even think that 10/10 for someone that?s been working out for a while will produce results, are much be living in Cuckoo land.

Let us just take the negative of the 10/10, first on the normal 1/1 using 80% the negative is underloaded, now if you are doing 10/10, you would be using ??? 50%, so the positive porting in very underloaded, thus the negative portion will be so underloaded, and for a hell of a long time, 10 seconds, you could actually go make a cup of coffee, and come back and catch the very slow negative before it finishes negative its that underloaded.

I have seen Grannies and weight watchers workout far far far more intensely, and Granny was knitting fast, and the housewives was carrying the groceries home.

Marcrph, do not you now that I am actually trying to help you, I do not want a name calling war, I want a grow up debate, but you will not have one, as you fain to answer or back up any claim you have. SSSTF, that?s Slow Single Sets To Failure, will ONLY take you so far, because the way the body evolved and because of physics, then you will just have to speed up your reps and up the sets, or you will still be the same as you was now and 10 years ago, I am not picking on you, because I was once doing and thinking the same as you.

Bench press, if you start on SSSTF, at 100 pounds, you will be lucky to get to 150, 50% progress, then you will have very big sticking points, progress will be slow, or even backwards, change to FMSNTF, and you should make to up to 250 another in several months, 70% progress.

10/10 is for no one, its that bad and low in intensity.

Now could you not make any inflammatory comments and have a nice grow up debate please ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

DSears

marcrph wrote:
DSears wrote:
marcrph wrote:

HIT would work better if a smart coach would just run the option only, practice perfect, and play on Saturday!

!

Have you read anything about John Gagliardi at DIII St. Johns of MN? He's college's career coaching leader with 453 victories. His philosophy is practice perfect and play on Saturday.

He doesn't just run the option only, he adapts the offense to his players, but he doesn't waste time with a lot of meaningless drills. They don't do any conditioning in practice either, they just run the plays. His players lift but they do it on their own.

I posted on him perhaps 2 years ago here on this forum.

Note: The triple option is adaptable, and may well be the next offense to have after the spread popularity is over. Not everyone can recruit the top 100 High school athletes in the U.S.

Quote: Vince Lombardi;

"What would happen if someone came out with a single-wing offense? It would embarrass the hell out of us."

The triple option's genesis is from the old single wing, now over 100 years old, which in it's day was almost for 50 years, was unstoppable.


Have you read the two books about him and his methods? A Sweet Season by Austin Murphy and No How Coaching (or something like that). I've got them both and have really enjoyed them. If you've not read them I'd recommend both of them.

I'm a basketball man myself, having played and coached in the past, and would love to see someone use his ideas in basketball. My feeling is that 99% of basketball teams are overtrained, especially by the time the tournaments roll around. I'd love to have a Bodpod like Little and test some basketball players. I know I was overtrained when I played. When I coached I tried to implement a HIT program and it worked pretty well but now that I've read McGuff and Little's book I realize I was still probably overtraining them.

I think you're right on the option. One thing it might buy some folks is that you could find some smaller, quicker linemen and make use of mobility instead of size. It seems to me that the quick 300 pound future NFL linemen are as rare as hen's teeth and wind up at the football factories. A coach who decided to use mobile linemen could convert some tight ends and go for speed instead.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

marcrph wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:

Although the exercises are all good ones for a hockey player I feel that a well conditioned athlete can and should train more then 5 exercises once a week. I have progressed people much quicker then that several times. Not a bad starting point though.

Michael


Michael,

Remember, that Little has a BodPod! He has tracked the body composition of players! He know the ups and downs. His conclusions are based on test results. A well conditioned athlete may just be a deviation from the norm spoken of by Dr. McGuff, and not a good representative of the whole hockey team.
Beware the exceptions. You can't design a program based on Casey Viator's results, would you?


I will give it to Little his bodpod is probably more accurate then my electro-lipograph but I didn't follow just one high conditioned athlete.

I followed a team of 22 guys which ranged from full of potential to little potential.

Most in the off-season could easily handle twice a week fullbody and 3x per week if it was a split.

This was not the case in season.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

Paul25

Waynes wrote:

winstonnmccay wrote:
I would suggest a rereading of what you have read. No where in the book do Little or McGuff even as much as hint as being able to change genetics through training. The book does an excellent job with every subject related to health and traing.

I wonder if the book had anything like the below, real World knowledge of what muscle physiologists have found out, bet they know nothing of the below. They bring up genetic, because maybe they and the people they train do not grow.

Why would they even bother talking about changing someones genetics ???

marcrph wrote:
Unfortunately, the book must be over the heads of most here!

Please put in a part of the book that you think is over the head of most here, what a very unintelligent thing to say, what you are really saying is what I said, that the book has said nothing new at all.

marcrph wrote:
For example, most here want to argue about rep speed and other minute factors of training that add up to nothing!

I do not like to say what you just said, but it seems I have to, the whole World trains with a faster rep speed, the whole World makes very goods gains, you and most who use slow speeds do not make gains, that is why you are constantly asking questions, and looking for new ways to train, and buying new book to trying and find an easy fix, sorry there is no easy fix, you have to use high effort, or in other words you have to use all your strength, to gain the best.

Or if you could possibly explain to me in a grown up manner, why when using a very slow rep and NOT using all your strength, do you think you will grow better then using all your strength ???

marcrph wrote:
A large majority just like to post inflammatory comments. That is why I plan on posting very little here in the future. This forum simply is lost. There simply is nothing to gain!


You have the audacity to say the above ??? When one, you just tried to say that the members here are all think as two short planks. You said; Unfortunately, the book must be over the heads of most here!. Two you have gone on and on at me with inflammatory comments, when I did not say anything against you. Three, you will NOT back up your claims on why a slow speed is better, you are the one of the people who makes inflammatory comments !!!

marcrph wrote:
coachjeff wrote:

But you'll never sell me on 10/10. And I'm also a bit skeptical of the Wescott YMCA studies they reference in the book.


Jeff,

Of perhaps some interest to you, Dr. Darden has also referenced Mr. Wescott in regards Superslow rep cadences.
I don't want a rep speed battle, but slow rep speeds do work, and they are a very safe way to train.

P.S. Wayne, go away!

Yes they do work, but only up to a point.

So could you possibly post your photo of you now before you start you 10/10, and then the after 3 months on ??? As if you even think that 10/10 for someone that?s been working out for a while will produce results, are much be living in Cuckoo land.

Let us just take the negative of the 10/10, first on the normal 1/1 using 80% the negative is underloaded, now if you are doing 10/10, you would be using ??? 50%, so the positive porting in very underloaded, thus the negative portion will be so underloaded, and for a hell of a long time, 10 seconds, you could actually go make a cup of coffee, and come back and catch the very slow negative before it finishes negative its that underloaded.

I have seen Grannies and weight watchers workout far far far more intensely, and Granny was knitting fast, and the housewives was carrying the groceries home.

Marcrph, do not you now that I am actually trying to help you, I do not want a name calling war, I want a grow up debate, but you will not have one, as you fain to answer or back up any claim you have. SSSTF, that?s Slow Single Sets To Failure, will ONLY take you so far, because the way the body evolved and because of physics, then you will just have to speed up your reps and up the sets, or you will still be the same as you was now and 10 years ago, I am not picking on you, because I was once doing and thinking the same as you.

Bench press, if you start on SSSTF, at 100 pounds, you will be lucky to get to 150, 50% progress, then you will have very big sticking points, progress will be slow, or even backwards, change to FMSNTF, and you should make to up to 250 another in several months, 70% progress.

10/10 is for no one, its that bad and low in intensity.

Now could you not make any inflammatory comments and have a nice grow up debate please ???

Wayne


Wayne,
You pathetic demented nutter. READ the book before you come on with complete crap! READ the FUCKING book you will LEARN ALOT prat! It's one of the best books you will ever read!
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy