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
Is Running Really all that Bad?
First | Prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Marketing - there is much more to it than just that. I am an individual, what Ken believes now - I am unsure. "cardivascular connditioning" is at BEST, a specious pursuit. That's where I stand.


You ignored this question:

Did Author Jones believe that aerobic conditioning/efficiency could be improved or not? No pontificating just answer Yes or no
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

southbeach wrote:
2. i did. He said to allow for greater aerobic conditioning.


Aerobic "capacity" is for the most part genetic. Some studies suggest that there is only room for an improvement of 5%. Minimal.

What does "aerobic conditioning" have to do with health? Nothing.

Plastic knees, plastic hips and crippling back pain aren't generally considered markers of good health. A lack of muscle, all manner of foot conditions and "Joggers Nipple" aren't either.

So, what are you running from?


Open User Options Menu

southbeach

JamesT wrote:
southbeach wrote:
2. i did. He said to allow for greater aerobic conditioning.

Aerobic "capacity" is for the most part genetic. Some studies suggest that there is only room for an improvement of 5%. Minimal.

What does "aerobic conditioning" have to do with health? Nothing.

Plastic knees, plastic hips and crippling back pain aren't generally considered markers of good health. A lack of muscle, all manner of foot conditions and "Joggers Nipple" aren't either.

So, what are you running from?




Aerebic capacity as measured by MET capacity is associated with reduced mortality and greater life expentancy even when other variables are accounted for. How healthy are you when dead?

You obviously haaven't read any study posted this thread. Shame on you.

BTW, why are you 'wasting' time building a bigger bicep? How is that related to health?? huh huh? yeah, that's right ;)
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

southbeach wrote:
Aerebic capacity as measured by MET capacity is associated with reduced mortality and greater life expentancy even when other variables are accounted for. How healthy are you when dead?

You obviously haaven't read any study posted this thread. Shame on you.

BTW, why are you 'wasting' time building a bigger bicep? How is that related to health?? huh huh? yeah, that's right ;)


Firstly, you didn't bother reading my initial reply - you must have either missed it or...? Healthy people are able to exercise. They call it selection bias. Unhealthy people tend to die sooner - it has bugger all to do with exercise, running or otherwise.

Secondly, I don't think my huge, ripped and massively strong biceps will have a positive effect on longevity BUT I'm sure I'll be functional for a much longer period during my life.

I'm a charitable bloke SB. I'll fetch the morning papers for the crippled runners and olympic lifters when I'm old, grey and "healthy". I'm good like that.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

JamesT wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Aerebic capacity as measured by MET capacity is associated with reduced mortality and greater life expentancy even when other variables are accounted for. How healthy are you when dead?

You obviously haaven't read any study posted this thread. Shame on you.

BTW, why are you 'wasting' time building a bigger bicep? How is that related to health?? huh huh? yeah, that's right ;)

Firstly, you didn't bother reading my initial reply - you must have either missed it or...? Healthy people are able to exercise. They call it selection bias. Unhealthy people tend to die sooner - it has bugger all to do with exercise, running or otherwise.

Secondly, I don't think my huge, ripped and massively strong biceps will have a positive effect on longevity BUT I'm sure I'll be functional for a much longer period during my life.

I'm a charitable bloke SB. I'll fetch the morning papers for the crippled runners and olympic lifters when I'm old, grey and "healthy". I'm good like that.


Functional for what.. fetching morning papers? or are you a furniture mover (and even then large biceps aren't necessary)

And all that excess muscle must be fed with more calories.. ever hear of caloric restriction and increased life expectancy. More muscle = more calories and food.

As for your last point "healthy people are able to exercise? Go back a 're-read' the studies i posted on subjects with diseased arteries finding improvement in endothelial dysfunction. while you're at it 're-read' the stdy on liver function.

ps you haven't read one damn thing because you are close minded. you prob haven't learned a new damn thing in 30 yrs
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

southbeach wrote:
As for your last point "healthy people are able to exercise? Go back a 're-read' the studies i posted on subjects with diseased arteries finding improvement in endothelial dysfunction. while you're at it 're-read' the stdy on liver function.

ps you haven't read one damn thing because you are close minded. you prob haven't learned a new damn thing in 30 yrs


Exactly. Numerous studies (although rejected by Landau due to bias) have shown less than healthy individuals improving aspects of health through exercise. James and Landau et al are simply closed minded and bias and wish to bury their heads in the sand and create their own alternate reality. HIT jedi anyone?
Open User Options Menu

johnbhoy

Armed Forces - Europe

Southbeach.
If you are so against large or larger muscles, why do you train HIT style with Nautilus machines?
Just curious.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Natty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
As for your last point "healthy people are able to exercise? Go back a 're-read' the studies i posted on subjects with diseased arteries finding improvement in endothelial dysfunction. while you're at it 're-read' the stdy on liver function.

ps you haven't read one damn thing because you are close minded. you prob haven't learned a new damn thing in 30 yrs

Exactly. Numerous studies (although rejected by Landau due to bias) have shown less than healthy individuals improving aspects of health through exercise. James and Landau et al are simply closed minded and bias and wish to bury their heads in the sand and create their own alternate reality. HIT jedi anyone?


thanks man. right back at ya. your tearing them up! painful to watch (almost) lol
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

A few excerpts from Arthur Jones own research taken from the Nautilus & Athletic Journals.

Metabolic Condition

Contrary to widespread opinion, it now appears that there are three separate levels of condition 1)muscular strength
2)cardiovascular ability and 3)a previously mentioned unsuspected level of condition that I have named metabolic condition.

And it is well established that the exercises and activities that have traditionally been used for the improvement of cardiovascular
condition
will do almost nothing in the way of increasing muscular strength, in fact, it frequently happens that cardiovascular training actually produces a loss in muscular strength.

Thus, it frequently happens that a particular athlete has only one or the other, either strength or cardiovascular endurance, but not both. It is almost certain that the two distinct types of training have been used, one type of exercise for the development of strength, and an entirely different type of activity for the development of cardiovascular ability.

Yet even when an athlete does have both strength and cardiovascular endurance, something of very great value is still missing, the third level of condition, the previously mentioned metabolic condition is missing. As a result, the athlete can work very hard for a brief period of time or, instead, he can work at a much lower level of intensity for a prolonged period of time. But he can not work with maximum intensity for a prolonged period of time.

In effect, he can engage in brief anaerobic activities with a very high intensity of effort or he could perform aerobic activities with a greatly reduced level of intensity for a much longer period of time.

In order to perform aerobic work (steady-state work) it is necessary to limit the level of intensity.

It then seems logical to assume that muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance must always remain some distance apart, must always be developed by separate and greatly divergent types of exercise. The real facts indicate otherwise.

During this project we were interested in all aspects of condition, we wanted to increase muscular strength as much as possible, and as quickly as possible but we also wanted to produce large scale increases in cardiovascular condition and we wished to demonstrate that both results could be produced by exactly the same style of training.

Producing such an almost unbelievable strength increase in such a short period of time would certainly have been a significant result even if absolutely nothing was accomplished in the way of cardiovascular improvement but, in fact, an equally significant improvement in cardiovascular endurance was produced simultaneously produced as a result of the same very brief training program that produced the spectacular strength increases.

It is neither necessary nor even desirable to conduct two distinct types of exercise programs, one program to produce strength increases and a second program to improve cardiovascular condition. In practice, it is easily possible to produce both results from the same program.

Cardiovascular benefits will not result from such training for obvious reasons 1)because the pulse rate and the level of breathing will never be brought to a very high level and 2)because the brief periods of hard work will be spaced with rather prolonged periods of total rest (between sets) that will permit the pulse rate and level of breathing to drop before additional work is started.

Cardiovascular benefits seem to be produced best when the pulse rate and the breathing rate are both raised to a high level and are maintained at a high level for a prolonged period of time, 10 minutes, 15 minutes or even longer. Just how long such levels need to be maintained for the production of maximum cardiovascular benefits is a question that has not been satisfactorily answered but, a period of 15 to 20 minutes will certainly produce large scale cardiovascular benefits even when such training is repeated only three times weekly.

Now here's the REAL kicker for you Landau below.

Significant improvement was demonstrated on all 60 separate tests conducted for the purpose of determining cardiovascular improvements. For example, the subjects we trained improved their time in the two mile run by an average of 88 seconds in a period of six weeks as compared to an improvement of only 20 seconds produced by the control group of matched subjects that were not trained in this fashion.

http://arthurjonesexercise.com/...lexibility1.PDF

Arthur Jones OWN research and studies agree WITH ME Landau it flys in the face of your head stuck up arse bias dogmatic opinions.

How many more references to aerobic and cardiovascular improvements do you need, and from THE MAN HIMSELF! Arthur Jones owns you!
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

JamesT wrote:
southbeach wrote:
2. i did. He said to allow for greater aerobic conditioning.

Aerobic "capacity" is for the most part genetic. Some studies suggest that there is only room for an improvement of 5%. Minimal.

What does "aerobic conditioning" have to do with health? Nothing.

Plastic knees, plastic hips and crippling back pain aren't generally considered markers of good health. A lack of muscle, all manner of foot conditions and "Joggers Nipple" aren't either.

So, what are you running from?




Excellent Homework James and the 5% at that is meaningless.

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

I spoke in private with Jones up until his death (spidercam knows) - what you quote is long removed from what he told me again in private. Both you and SB are GHIT and simply don't know - hint, you can't find it on the Internet.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

It seems AJ disagrees with you mr Landau. is AJ wrong or are you wrong? are you man enuf to admit it?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
I spoke in private with Jones up until his death (spidercam knows) - what you quote is long removed from what he told me again in private. Both you and SB are GHIT and simply don't know - hint, you can't find it on the Internet.


ooh of course, and none of which can be verified right? ;)

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

I am going to ask you what your opinion was over 30 years ago - OK - You were just considered a possible unit and still are.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

That's right - I will carry it till my death - Go FUK Yourself.
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

Natty wrote:


I thinks it's only natural to defend oneself when faced with speculation and bias however I'm not interested further in your speculative nonsense about me which has no training related substance whatsoever.


What speculative nonsense about you? What ARE you talking about?!

Other than this thread where I've gotten harsher with Landau due to his relentless insults I have tolerated for months now (unprovoked) I ask you to provide other examples of me insulting members.


Oh come on now! There was a relatively recent thread that Dr Darden himself had to stop. You were more than just insulting in that. Let's just take it that you are as insulting and rude as any other member on this site. Dragging out your "I didn't start it" and "double standards" excuses makes no difference whatsoever to the facts.


Then talk to a moderator about your concerns. Are you a moderator? No.. thought not. I'd be happy to discuss the benefits of running/cardio with you as per thread tittle.


I'd rather talk to you about my "concerns" than running off to tell teacher!

You mention the word "cardio" quite a lot, what do you think the word means?


What I suggested was for you to open your own thread dedicated to your concerns about me and not to use a thread dedicated to the discussion of aerobic exercise, as you can tell from my numerous posts actually related to running/cardio, I'm taking the subject matter rather seriously here. If you wish for me to answer your questions I've suggested for you to open an appropriate thread, where was the mention of avoidance?


I use the word avoidance because you have avoided answering my questions! What's the problem? Your excuse about keeping to the thread is pathetic at the very least. Please just answer them, it'll take about two minutes of your very valuable time.

mentzerfan wrote:
I am amazed that I have to point out on a dedicated HIT forum how important the critique to running and other "cardio" is to the most basic HIT principles of Jones and Darden. Do you even know what Jones and Darden have written about "cardio"? Have you even heard of the Westpoint Study for instance?

Check the original post, did I open this thread topic? No.. so if you take issue with this threads topic, take it up with either the OP or the moderators who have allowed it. It has nothing to do with me other than my participation in the actual threads subject. Feel free to join us.


Please just answer the questions. Do you have any idea what Jones and Darden have written about "cardio"? Have you even heard of the Westpoint study? I'm asking you direct questions about the thread topic here so please don't avoid them anymore.


How many more times do I have to tell you. I'll be happy to answer your concerns in the proper thread. How you translate this as avoidance is amazing. I wish to stay on topic in this interesting thread. I've posted numerous studies testifying the benefits of aerobic exercise, what do you think?


What do you think about Jones's and Darden's views on "cardio"? Are they right or wrong in your humble opinion? As this is a HIT forum I'm sure you've got no problem with keeping discussions to a HIT slant.

Also what exactly is "aerobic exercise"? Answers on a postcard please!


I must have missed the part where I was answerable to anyone other than Ellington and the moderators. Who do you think you are?


I'm me the last time I looked! Are you telling me that on a specific HIT forum you refuse to answer if someone asks about your interests in HIT? Oh dear.


If I know nothing about HIT then you've clearly already made up your mind about me so why ask? Again I ask you to point out where in on the site it states that I have to explain myself to other members?


Yet more desperate avoidance. Do you have an interest in HIT? Do you have any knowledge or experience in HIT? Are you interested in the literature of Jones and Darden?

I'm not asking you to explain yourself. I am simply enquiring about your interest in HIT. Not much of a surprise on a dedicated HIT forum is it?


Once again your lack of reading ability is staggering. Who said anything about avoidance? I told you, start an appropriate thread dedicated to your concerns about me and I'll be happy to participate. Right now I'm rather busy in this thread trying to stay on topic. Mods have closed threads before due to subject matter not staying on topic. I would like this thread to stay open as it's a very interesting subject. Feel free to contribute.


Yet more avoidance! It's getting a bit pathetic now you know?

I do try to contribute to this discussion but you ignore my questions!

What do you think about Dr Darden's views on "cardio exercise"?

What do you think about Jones and Darden's Westpoint study?

mentzerfan wrote:
I am suspicious because you seem to know nothing about HIT and yet you post so much on the largest HIT forum on the net. Please just tell me why.

Again I ask if you are a moderator?


Again I ask why you avoid the question? Do you have any interest at all in HIT? I ask because your knowledge and experience seems to be nil and yet you post so often. If you have a genuine interest in HIT then please just let me know. Is it too much to ask?

I didn't realize I was answerable to you. Never the less I have stated my interest in training with intensity many times.


Surely you're answerable to anyone who asks you a question. Isn't that what forums are about?

I didn't ask you about your "interest in training with intensity" as you well know. I asked you about your interest in HIgh Intensity Training.

Do you have an interest in HIT? Yes or no?

Why are you unable to answer such a simple question?

Are you freakin kidding me! Proof that you're just trolling and have absolutely zero interest in my posts AS YOU'VE NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO READ MY POSTS IN THIS THREAD otherwise you'd know the answer to my views on aerobics which would be extremely clear to anyone that had read my posts.


I'm not "freaking kidding" you! As you have views on "aerobics" can you tell me what you think the word means? That would help to understand what you are attempting to say.

Have you "BOTHERED TO READ..." Dr Darden's views on so called "aerobics'? It would help if you wish to discuss the topic on his own board!

mentzerfan wrote:
I don't really understand how you swapping insults is "on topic". Perhaps you can explain?

Perhaps you can ask Landau?


I'm asking you. Twice now!

mentzerfan wrote:
Different rules apply when people I trust speak highly of David Landau. You see, it's all to do with relationships between real people that I tend to put my trust in.

Underlined for emphasis. Right, got it. As I thought. It's ok for your HIT buddies to insult but not anyone else when provoked. Just as I thought thanks for verifying.


I don't really have any "HIT buddies" actually. I just have friends, is that a bit difficult for you to understand? I support Dave Landau because several people I trust speak highly of him. Nobody knows who you are so nobody will vouch for you. Simple really!

mentzerfan wrote:
Whatever could have changed your view?! Difficult questions perhaps?

My wish to remain on topic and not digress any further in THIS thread.


Then just PM me about your interest in HIT. I'm dying to know!

As I have told you twice already. I am very interested in training with intensity.


Are you interested in training HIT as written by the owner of this forum? "Training with intensity" as you like to put it means absolutely nothing. Everybody trains with some level of intensity or they wouldn't be training! You know this of course and are just avoiding a simple question.

mentzerfan wrote:
Have you ever trained HIT or do you plan on training HIT?

Intensity is defiantly part of my program.


Good god not again! Intensity is part of everybody's "program". Even training with tins of beans incorporates some level of intensity for god's sake:)

mentzerfan wrote:
As you are such a prolific member of this specialised HIT forum what are your main interests in HIT?

Do you even have any interest in HIT?

I believe I've answered that.


You most certainly haven't so I'll give you another chance!

Do you have any interest in HIT? Just yes or no is fine.

mentzerfan wrote:
Yes or no answers are more than acceptable if you're worried about spending too much time "off topic"! Surely it can't be that difficult for you to answer?

I've told you, this is the 4th time now. I'm very interested in training with intensity. Now please man can we get back to the subject matter.


It's the fourth time at least that you've avoided the question!

I also find it offensive that you assume that I am a man:) I wish you'd stop this speculative nonsense about me and get to the questions in my post.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'll be sure to check in tomorrow evening after work.

Good for you. I look forward on reading your opinions on aerobic exercise.


Great stuff. What exactly is "aerobic exercise" in your opinion?

Please try to get to bed a bit earlier tonight. Staying up all night posting here like last night can't be good for you.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
I spoke in private with Jones up until his death (spidercam knows) - what you quote is long removed from what he told me again in private. Both you and SB are GHIT and simply don't know - hint, you can't find it on the Internet.


How convenient. I've heard it all now. You really are a case of "believe me because I said so" and provide no proof. Never known anything like it what huge freaking joke. I've never known desperation like it.

David Landau the great knower of secrets only known to him and the deceased.

How embarrassing. Notice you're even making other HIT advocates question you here.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
JamesT wrote:
southbeach wrote:
2. i did. He said to allow for greater aerobic conditioning.

Aerobic "capacity" is for the most part genetic. Some studies suggest that there is only room for an improvement of 5%. Minimal.

What does "aerobic conditioning" have to do with health? Nothing.

Plastic knees, plastic hips and crippling back pain aren't generally considered markers of good health. A lack of muscle, all manner of foot conditions and "Joggers Nipple" aren't either.

So, what are you running from?




Aerebic capacity as measured by MET capacity is associated with reduced mortality and greater life expentancy even when other variables are accounted for. How healthy are you when dead?

You obviously haaven't read any study posted this thread. Shame on you.

BTW, why are you 'wasting' time building a bigger bicep? How is that related to health?? huh huh? yeah, that's right ;)



You are a Ga Troll - get over it.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
That's right - I will carry it till my death - Go FUK Yourself.


thank you, sir. you enjoy yourself too.

ps your FOS

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

N - GHF, SB - GHF = LOVERS
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

mentzerfan wrote:
What speculative nonsense about you? What ARE you talking about?!


Did you or did you not speculate about my quality of life which has no bearing on this topic matter? Please try and remember what you posted last.

mentzerfan wrote:
Oh come on now! There was a relatively recent thread that Dr Darden himself had to stop. You were more than just insulting in that.


It got stopped due to veering off topic. What insults did I use? Quote them..

mentzerfan wrote:
Let's just take it that you are as insulting and rude as any other member on this site.


If you notice Landau has just told me to go FUK myself, if you can find any such foul insults from me here I'll happily admit you're right, as of now, you are not.

mentzerfan wrote:
Dragging out your "I didn't start it" and "double standards" excuses makes no difference whatsoever to the facts.


The facts are. I am nowhere near as rude, insulting and obnoxious as many including your "trusty worthy" Landau who just told me to FUK myself.. nice eh.. Carry on defending him if you like hypocrite.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'd rather talk to you about my "concerns" than running off to tell teacher!


You and I are both on an equal, we are both permitted to play in Ellingtons house. I am not answerable to you.

mentzerfan wrote:
You mention the word "cardio" quite a lot, what do you think the word means?


If you go back and read my many ON TOPIC posts in this thread that should be clear to you.

mentzerfan wrote:
I use the word avoidance because you have avoided answering my questions!


I've already told you to search for my old thread "The truth of natural2" my training beliefs are in the first post. Is a little "research" too much for you? Can you not let this thread be and remain on topic?

mentzerfan wrote:
What's the problem? Your excuse about keeping to the thread is pathetic at the very least.


This thread is about the benefits of cardiovascular exercise. Not my training beliefs. But I've already told you repeatedly that I train with intensity.

mentzerfan wrote:
Please just answer them, it'll take about two minutes of your very valuable time.


It's been answered. Why did I spend considerable time writing that thread "The truth of Natural2" if I was going to re-write it every time someone asked? I wrote so anyone that wished to know my training opinions can read it. Please do so.

mentzerfan wrote:
Please just answer the questions. Do you have any idea what Jones and Darden have written about "cardio"?


I ONLY JUST posted up exerts taken from Jones athletic journals regarding the tread topic, please don't ask me such stupid questions.

mentzerfan wrote:
Have you even heard of the Westpoint study? I'm asking you direct questions about the thread topic here so please don't avoid them anymore.


See my Author Jones post and link for your answer.

mentzerfan wrote:
What do you think about Jones's and Darden's views on "cardio"? Are they right or wrong in your humble opinion?


Based on the post I made explaining Jones views I agree with much of what he said.

mentzerfan wrote:
Also what exactly is "aerobic exercise"?


I think you'll find the answers if you read my numerous posts in this thread.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm me the last time I looked! Are you telling me that on a specific HIT forum you refuse to answer if someone asks about your interests in HIT? Oh dear.


Why would I be here if I wasn't interested in training with intensity?

mentzerfan wrote:
Yet more desperate avoidance.


I believe I've answered your question, besides, seriously, what does it matter to you. It's all getting a little embarrassing now your fascination with me..

mentzerfan wrote:
Do you have an interest in HIT? Do you have any knowledge or experience in HIT? Are you interested in the literature of Jones and Darden?


I JUST POSTED some of Jones literature.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm not asking you to explain yourself. I am simply enquiring about your interest in HIT. Not much of a surprise on a dedicated HIT forum is it?


It's been answered and if you do the search for my old thread, all will be revealed ;-)

mentzerfan wrote:
Yet more avoidance! It's getting a bit pathetic now you know?


What's pathetic is your lack of

1/ Ability to read.

2/ Willingness to search for my old thread that will contain your answers.

mentzerfan wrote:
I do try to contribute to this discussion but you ignore my questions!

Answered.

mentzerfan wrote:
What do you think about Dr Darden's views on "cardio exercise"?


How is that relevant to THIS discussion? All that I care about is MY views on aerobic exercise based on the numerous studies and research I have provided. if I was bothered about Ellingtons view I'd start a thread and inquire. We probably would disagree about a lot but so what? Ellingtons a mature man I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over it.

mentzerfan wrote:
Again I ask why you avoid the question? Do you have any interest at all in HIT? I ask because your knowledge and experience seems to be nil and yet you post so often.


Of what relevance is my HIT knowledge in THIS PARTICULAR thread. Good grief interrogation anyone? I'm debating running/cardio etc which is the threads topic. I'm not on trial here big-shot.

mentzerfan wrote:
If you have a genuine interest in HIT then please just let me know. Is it too much to ask?


Yes it is considering I've dedicated my own thread to the subject AND gave you the title for you to find it.

mentzerfan wrote:
Surely you're answerable to anyone who asks you a question. Isn't that what forums are about?


No. Discussing training related issues, not having to explain oneself to a nobody. ie not a moderator.

mentzerfan wrote:
I didn't ask you about your "interest in training with intensity" as you well know. I asked you about your interest in HIgh Intensity Training.


Well then due to the VAST amounts of variations among high intensity advocates you'll have to be more specific as to what YOU mean by "intensity" won't you.

mentzerfan wrote:
Do you have an interest in HIT? Yes or no?


I wouldn't train with intensity if I wasn't interested now would I!

mentzerfan wrote:
Why are you unable to answer such a simple question?


How many times do you need it answered?

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm not "freaking kidding" you! As you have views on "aerobics" can you tell me what you think the word means? That would help to understand what you are attempting to say.


I have defined my use of the term "aerobics" more than once IN THIS THREAD.

mentzerfan wrote:
Have you "BOTHERED TO READ..." Dr Darden's views on so called "aerobics'? It would help if you wish to discuss the topic on his own board!


Ellingtons views are not relevant in as much as they wouldn't influence what I post. Yes I know it's his board, that does not mean I HAVE to agree with everything Ellington believes. Ell can handle this, he's a mature man that allows free expression of opinion.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm asking you. Twice now!


Perhaps you'd like to ask Landau why he felt it necessary to post "Go FUK Yourself." Don't you think this type of language is of far greater severity than mine? or is it ok for him to use such filth and not get questioned on it as you question me?

mentzerfan wrote:
I don't really have any "HIT buddies" actually. I just have friends, is that a bit difficult for you to understand?


Why would it? What's friends got to do with the debate? Are you as desperate as Landau to bring up moot invalid point not applicable to the thread? Friend.. mMM no, sorry, don't see the correlation.

mentzerfan wrote:
I support Dave Landau because several people I trust speak highly of him.


Yer nice bloke, nice language!

mentzerfan wrote:
Nobody knows who you are so nobody will vouch for you. Simple really!


What's simple is Landau is a HITer hence why you WILL NOT pick him up on his disgusting forum language yet you simply won't let my lesser postings go? Do you have an issue of some sort?

mentzerfan wrote:
Are you interested in training HIT as written by the owner of this forum?


As I've said. Ell doesn't require everyone that posts to agree with him on everything.

mentzerfan wrote:
"Training with intensity" as you like to put it means absolutely nothing. Everybody trains with some level of intensity or they wouldn't be training! You know this of course and are just avoiding a simple question.


You're free to interpret anyway you so wish.

mentzerfan wrote:
You most certainly haven't so I'll give you another chance!

Do you have any interest in HIT? Just yes or no is fine.


See above. Clue = Old thread.

mentzerfan wrote:
It's the fourth time at least that you've avoided the question!


What part of "I've written my own thread entitled The truth of Natural2 that will answer your questions" are you having problems with comprehending.

mentzerfan wrote:
I wish you'd stop this speculative nonsense about me.


Yet you speculate about my life and friends.. How very odd.

mentzerfan wrote:
Great stuff. What exactly is "aerobic exercise" in your opinion?


May again refer you to my actual definitions on that very question earlier in this very same thread. Or do you want ME to find them again *sighs*

Finally. Are you going to criticize Landau now for his disgusting foul insulting language the way you have me for far lesser? Or is he free to do so simply because you "know" him. LMAO.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
N - GHF, SB - GHF = LOVERS


Update:

Landau has been presented with an overwhelming amount of research and studies including some from his hero Aurthur Jones.

He has rejected ALL of this based on opinion and provided no references.

Re Jones research he has said:

"Author Jones told me when there was nobody else around that he didn't really mean what he put in his athletic journals."

And has since told me to go "FUK myself"

Seriously, I ask you the reader, how does this sound? This is an example of a modern day HIT trainer.

So according to David Landau. It would be a waste of time to read ANY of Jones literature. He only revealed "the truth" to David behind closed doors. What an honour.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
mentzerfan wrote:
What speculative nonsense about you? What ARE you talking about?!

Did you or did you not speculate about my quality of life which has no bearing on this topic matter? Please try and remember what you posted last.

mentzerfan wrote:
Oh come on now! There was a relatively recent thread that Dr Darden himself had to stop. You were more than just insulting in that.

It got stopped due to veering off topic. What insults did I use? Quote them..

mentzerfan wrote:
Let's just take it that you are as insulting and rude as any other member on this site.

If you notice Landau has just told me to go FUK myself, if you can find any such foul insults from me here I'll happily admit you're right, as of now, you are not.

mentzerfan wrote:
Dragging out your "I didn't start it" and "double standards" excuses makes no difference whatsoever to the facts.

The facts are. I am nowhere near as rude, insulting and obnoxious as many including your "trusty worthy" Landau who just told me to FUK myself.. nice eh.. Carry on defending him if you like hypocrite.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'd rather talk to you about my "concerns" than running off to tell teacher!

You and I are both on an equal, we are both permitted to play in Ellingtons house. I am not answerable to you.

mentzerfan wrote:
You mention the word "cardio" quite a lot, what do you think the word means?

If you go back and read my many ON TOPIC posts in this thread that should be clear to you.

mentzerfan wrote:
I use the word avoidance because you have avoided answering my questions!

I've already told you to search for my old thread "The truth of natural2" my training beliefs are in the first post. Is a little "research" too much for you? Can you not let this thread be and remain on topic?

mentzerfan wrote:
What's the problem? Your excuse about keeping to the thread is pathetic at the very least.

This thread is about the benefits of cardiovascular exercise. Not my training beliefs. But I've already told you repeatedly that I train with intensity.

mentzerfan wrote:
Please just answer them, it'll take about two minutes of your very valuable time.

It's been answered. Why did I spend considerable time writing that thread "The truth of Natural2" if I was going to re-write it every time someone asked? I wrote so anyone that wished to know my training opinions can read it. Please do so.

mentzerfan wrote:
Please just answer the questions. Do you have any idea what Jones and Darden have written about "cardio"?

I ONLY JUST posted up exerts taken from Jones athletic journals regarding the tread topic, please don't ask me such stupid questions.

mentzerfan wrote:
Have you even heard of the Westpoint study? I'm asking you direct questions about the thread topic here so please don't avoid them anymore.

See my Author Jones post and link for your answer.

mentzerfan wrote:
What do you think about Jones's and Darden's views on "cardio"? Are they right or wrong in your humble opinion?

Based on the post I made explaining Jones views I agree with much of what he said.

mentzerfan wrote:
Also what exactly is "aerobic exercise"?

I think you'll find the answers if you read my numerous posts in this thread.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm me the last time I looked! Are you telling me that on a specific HIT forum you refuse to answer if someone asks about your interests in HIT? Oh dear.

Why would I be here if I wasn't interested in training with intensity?

mentzerfan wrote:
Yet more desperate avoidance.

I believe I've answered your question, besides, seriously, what does it matter to you. It's all getting a little embarrassing now your fascination with me..

mentzerfan wrote:
Do you have an interest in HIT? Do you have any knowledge or experience in HIT? Are you interested in the literature of Jones and Darden?

I JUST POSTED some of Jones literature.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm not asking you to explain yourself. I am simply enquiring about your interest in HIT. Not much of a surprise on a dedicated HIT forum is it?

It's been answered and if you do the search for my old thread, all will be revealed ;-)

mentzerfan wrote:
Yet more avoidance! It's getting a bit pathetic now you know?

What's pathetic is your lack of

1/ Ability to read.

2/ Willingness to search for my old thread that will contain your answers.

mentzerfan wrote:
I do try to contribute to this discussion but you ignore my questions!

Answered.

mentzerfan wrote:
What do you think about Dr Darden's views on "cardio exercise"?

How is that relevant to THIS discussion? All that I care about is MY views on aerobic exercise based on the numerous studies and research I have provided. if I was bothered about Ellingtons view I'd start a thread and inquire. We probably would disagree about a lot but so what? Ellingtons a mature man I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over it.

mentzerfan wrote:
Again I ask why you avoid the question? Do you have any interest at all in HIT? I ask because your knowledge and experience seems to be nil and yet you post so often.

Of what relevance is my HIT knowledge in THIS PARTICULAR thread. Good grief interrogation anyone? I'm debating running/cardio etc which is the threads topic. I'm not on trial here big-shot.

mentzerfan wrote:
If you have a genuine interest in HIT then please just let me know. Is it too much to ask?

Yes it is considering I've dedicated my own thread to the subject AND gave you the title for you to find it.

mentzerfan wrote:
Surely you're answerable to anyone who asks you a question. Isn't that what forums are about?

No. Discussing training related issues, not having to explain oneself to a nobody. ie not a moderator.

mentzerfan wrote:
I didn't ask you about your "interest in training with intensity" as you well know. I asked you about your interest in HIgh Intensity Training.

Well then due to the VAST amounts of variations among high intensity advocates you'll have to be more specific as to what YOU mean by "intensity" won't you.

mentzerfan wrote:
Do you have an interest in HIT? Yes or no?

I wouldn't train with intensity if I wasn't interested now would I!

mentzerfan wrote:
Why are you unable to answer such a simple question?

How many times do you need it answered?

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm not "freaking kidding" you! As you have views on "aerobics" can you tell me what you think the word means? That would help to understand what you are attempting to say.

I have defined my use of the term "aerobics" more than once IN THIS THREAD.

mentzerfan wrote:
Have you "BOTHERED TO READ..." Dr Darden's views on so called "aerobics'? It would help if you wish to discuss the topic on his own board!

Ellingtons views are not relevant in as much as they wouldn't influence what I post. Yes I know it's his board, that does not mean I HAVE to agree with everything Ellington believes. Ell can handle this, he's a mature man that allows free expression of opinion.

mentzerfan wrote:
I'm asking you. Twice now!

Perhaps you'd like to ask Landau why he felt it necessary to post "Go FUK Yourself." Don't you think this type of language is of far greater severity than mine? or is it ok for him to use such filth and not get questioned on it as you question me?

mentzerfan wrote:
I don't really have any "HIT buddies" actually. I just have friends, is that a bit difficult for you to understand?

Why would it? What's friends got to do with the debate? Are you as desperate as Landau to bring up moot invalid point not applicable to the thread? Friend.. mMM no, sorry, don't see the correlation.

mentzerfan wrote:
I support Dave Landau because several people I trust speak highly of him.

Yer nice bloke, nice language!

mentzerfan wrote:
Nobody knows who you are so nobody will vouch for you. Simple really!

What's simple is Landau is a HITer hence why you WILL NOT pick him up on his disgusting forum language yet you simply won't let my lesser postings go? Do you have an issue of some sort?

mentzerfan wrote:
Are you interested in training HIT as written by the owner of this forum?

As I've said. Ell doesn't require everyone that posts to agree with him on everything.

mentzerfan wrote:
"Training with intensity" as you like to put it means absolutely nothing. Everybody trains with some level of intensity or they wouldn't be training! You know this of course and are just avoiding a simple question.

You're free to interpret anyway you so wish.

mentzerfan wrote:
You most certainly haven't so I'll give you another chance!

Do you have any interest in HIT? Just yes or no is fine.

See above. Clue = Old thread.

mentzerfan wrote:
It's the fourth time at least that you've avoided the question!

What part of "I've written my own thread entitled The truth of Natural2 that will answer your questions" are you having problems with comprehending.

mentzerfan wrote:
I wish you'd stop this speculative nonsense about me.

Yet you speculate about my life and friends.. How very odd.

mentzerfan wrote:
Great stuff. What exactly is "aerobic exercise" in your opinion?

May again refer you to my actual definitions on that very question earlier in this very same thread. Or do you want ME to find them again *sighs*

Finally. Are you going to criticize Landau now for his disgusting foul insulting language? Yes or no?



NOW THIS IS WHAT I CALL DESPARATE!
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
NOW THIS IS WHAT I CALL DESPARATE!

What's "desperate" about highlighting the sad double standards that the jedi HITers seem to share among themselves? While I have nothing against the concept of low volume high effort training I do find great delight in showing up the "one rule for us, another for everyone else" mentality that reigns supreme among the "jedi"
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

My observations and experience don't come from a garage/internet (you are an internet copycat) - I would except the Jedi comment - get an original thought juvenile boy - that HF phrase is from your hero "Dr. Squat." It doesn't quite cut it junior. You need to get out once and a while, but you won't - I know why - "the DEVIL told me."
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy