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 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
My observations and experience don't come from a garage/internet


What the hell has that got to do with the issue, more "appeal to authority".

Landau wrote:
I would except the Jedi comment - get an original thought juvenile boy - that HF phrase is from your hero "Dr. Squat."


Origin of the word irrelevant, usage relevant. It describes the dogmatic bias closed minded ignorant HIT advocates of which you are.

Landau wrote:
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."


Landau please stop the useless pontification. I have provided you with numerous studies AND research all of which you have rejected in favor of "opinion". You've accused all studies of being bias (lol). When I presented you with actual research supporting my argument from your hero Arthur Jones himself, you STILL try to invalidate it by claiming he "told you otherwise in secret" (lol still gettin over that one).

Answer this. Is it even worth anyone reading ANY of Jones literature if he "told you otherwise behind closed doors"?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Define Research
Define Variables
Define Terms
Control Variables
Assume Cause and Effect
Research Controls
Validity
Confidence (Low)
Environment
Hawthorne
IRB
= Rots of Ruck

My advice son: Study Research - don't accept at face value because of the said "experts" are always right?
No More OK - unless you show a little education - Please!
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Define Research
Define Variables
Define Terms
Control Variables


Information included in the studies, again you cannot invalidate research on the basis of "I said so"

Landau wrote:
My advice son: Study Research - don't accept at face value because of the said "experts" are always right?


But you'd have me and the entire forum believe you at your word simply because you say so. You offer no references, nothing substantial and you even deny the studies/research of Author Jones.

Landau wrote:
No More OK - unless you show a little education - Please!


I think I've presented a bit more than a "little education" here. I've presented studies, research and from Jones himself all of which you have tried to invalidate based on "I said so". When will YOU bring something substantial to the discussion?

You wish to invalidate any and all research and references that prove you wrong yet you cannot substantiate that assertion.

And please answer this question:

Why should anyone read ANY of Jones literature if according to you, he made it null and void to you in private where no one can verify?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Pointing out basics to you is a waste of time - again.

1. You are not in this field (major factor)
2. You have never done investigative research (there are such things as libraries)
3. Your sources are Internet, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Web Heroes, and Research that you have no idea about
4. You need to know the basics of philosophy, grammar, history, word use and definitions, and hard sciences (your history is way flawed - trust me)
5. Your soft "science" depends on traditional "exercise physiology" (so called experts again whose words you accept at face value)
6. There is no longer need for me to post here with you - whoever you are - you have shown your complete incompetence in the aforementioned
7. Start by reading a dictionary
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
Define Research
Define Variables
Define Terms
Control Variables
Assume Cause and Effect
Research Controls
Validity
Confidence (Low)
Environment
Hawthorne
IRB
= Rots of Ruck

My advice son: Study Research - don't accept at face value because of the said "experts" are always right?
No More OK - unless you show a little education - Please!


You seem to have a disdain for science, a distrust of scientific methodology that probably stems from a lack of understanding. It's a shame science brought us out of the Dark Ages of myth and unreason.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
Define Research
Define Variables
Define Terms
Control Variables
Assume Cause and Effect
Research Controls
Validity
Confidence (Low)
Environment
Hawthorne
IRB
= Rots of Ruck

My advice son: Study Research - don't accept at face value because of the said "experts" are always right?
No More OK - unless you show a little education - Please!

You seem to have a disdain for science, a distrust of scientific methodology that probably stems from a lack of understanding. It's a shame science brought us out of the Dark Ages of myth and unreason.



OK Now You - Human Physiology - Low Confidence Levels - I told YOU before, in order to understand "Research" you must understand the basics of it - just don't blindly point to something you know nothing about in order to prove your invalid "point" - Common practice amongst a few indiscriminates here.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Pointing out basics to you is a waste of time - again.


Pointing out science to you is a waste of time.

Landau wrote:
1. You are not in this field (major factor)


Bullshit. Many "in the field" completely disagree with you making your "in the field argument" null and void and yet another appeal to authority. Beside who the hell do you think conducts the research Iv presented if not those IN THE FIELD!

Landau wrote:
2. You have never done investigative research


I've produced way more research here than you.

Landau wrote:
3. Your sources are Internet, Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Web Heroes, and Research that you have no idea about


Twitter facebook? You think I get training information from there? idiot. More false accusations in an attempt to invalidate the scientific research and studies I've presented. Another assertion of yours is that any and all information from the internet is wrong, this is something you cannot prove. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it wrong either.

Landau wrote:
4. You need to know the basics of philosophy, grammar, history, word use.


More bullshit. You cannot based training beliefs based in biology, physiology and science in "philosophy" and word play.

Landau wrote:
5. Your soft "science" depends on traditional "exercise physiology" (so called experts again whose words you accept at face value)


Landau Landau Landau.. We have to get our information from somewhere correct? So who to believe, those offering opinion or those providing actual scientific evidence, research and studies? Why you have such a huge distrust of all scientific is staggering. Especially when the science is backed up empirically (people who exercise are fitter than those that don't)

Landau wrote:
6. There is no longer need for me to post here with you - whoever you are - you have shown your complete incompetence in the aforementioned


HA HA HA!! Comic gold! I've provided you with evidence ad nauseam from ACTUAL researchers with QUALIFICATIONS. I've presented evidence from Jones OWN research, you've rejected ALL based on opinion and appeal to authority and you call me incompetent! What a huge joke.

You saying I'm "incompetent" simply due to disagreeing with me doesn't make it so.

Landau wrote:
7. Start by reading a dictionary


Start by accepting modern day science over opinion and philosophy.

So come on Landau explain to us clueless poor souls EXACTLY why we cannot trust EACH AND EVERY study that's been presented here. I await your answer backed up with evidence with interest.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
Define Research
Define Variables
Define Terms
Control Variables
Assume Cause and Effect
Research Controls
Validity
Confidence (Low)
Environment
Hawthorne
IRB
= Rots of Ruck

My advice son: Study Research - don't accept at face value because of the said "experts" are always right?
No More OK - unless you show a little education - Please!

You seem to have a disdain for science, a distrust of scientific methodology that probably stems from a lack of understanding. It's a shame science brought us out of the Dark Ages of myth and unreason.


OK Now You - Human Physiology - Low Confidence Levels - I told YOU before, in order to understand "Research" you must understand the basics of it - just don't blindly point to something you know nothing about in order to prove your invalid "point" - Common practice amongst a few indiscriminates here.


I understand physiology better than you do.

ps i hope your writing style isn't a reflection of your thought process, it's often very difficult to tell WTH you're talking about. ;}
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

southbeach wrote:
i hope your writing style isn't a reflection of your thought process, it's often very difficult to tell WTH you're talking about. ;}


I have to agree 100% here. Landau expects us to view him as the uber authority with no evidence yet he struggles to make sense in basic English.

Two questions for Landau and we want answers.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Natty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
i hope your writing style isn't a reflection of your thought process, it's often very difficult to tell WTH you're talking about. ;}

I have to agree 100% here. Landau expects us to view him as the uber authority with no evidence yet he struggles to make sense in basic English.

Two questions for Landau and we want answers.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?


Great points. I would also ask him do you exercise, and exercise your clients for vanity because that's the only conclusion that can be reached if you accept his premise that exercise provides no health benefits.
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Do YOU run SB?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

JamesT wrote:
Do YOU run SB?


i just finished a brisk 3 mile this morn.
Do you or do you just like to bash it as an activity?

Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

No I don't.

And you perform HIT workouts as outlined by Arthur Jones?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

JamesT wrote:
No I don't.

And you perform HIT workouts as outlined by Arthur Jones?


That's pretty openended but basically yes. ALL my workouts are HIT to failure.

If you're not going to take a set to completion (failure) then why even start it?

You don't run but you bash what you don't know? I do 60 min of cardio (combo of running, cycling, rowing, or heavy bag work; i mix it up)



Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

James: Notice the Religious Devotion to 60 Minutes.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
James: Notice the Religious Devotion to 60 Minutes.


So what if the workout lasted 59 or 61 minutes? You do understand that any workout as GOT to last "x" amount of time right? So would you no matter what value "x" has cry "notice the religious devotion to "x" duration?

The only religious devotion to dogmatic bias close mindedness round here David is you and the other jedi type characters cultist devotion to the number ONE. ONE set..

And please kindly refrain from ignoring these questions:

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?

I await your answers with interest.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
James: Notice the Religious Devotion to 60 Minutes.

So what if the workout lasted 59 or 61 minutes? You do understand that any workout as GOT to last "x" amount of time right? So would you no matter what value "x" has cry "notice the religious devotion to "x" duration?

The only religious devotion to dogmatic bias close mindedness round here David is you and the other jedi type characters cultist devotion to the number ONE. ONE set..


right, 60 mins is just an avg over time.

he submits compelling arguments doesn't he , yawn ;)
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

mentzerfan wrote:
entsminger wrote:

==Scott==
Ok Mentzer fan or anyone else out there, if Landau or anyone else for that matter is really interested in Arthur Jones so much how come non of you come to the Arthur Jones message board where it's all about Jones and pretty much nothing else??????? I think alot of you guys just like to fuss and fume at each other more than just talking about Jones or Dardens principles or any other relivant HIT ideas for that matter.Just discussing issues in a calm and friendly manner and sticking to the intended posts point and finding a solution isn't quite as entertaining is it? It's the attacking each other aspect of this board that's really where it's at, isn't it?

Scott, Im not sure if you're spamming for your own board or you're giving an opinion here!

Good luck to you either way!



==Scott==
I don't think I'd call what I said spamming? I hear all the time about how devoted some of you are to Jones and yet so much of this back and forth crap like this thread has has nothing to do with Jones or much else for that matter. It's over the edge waste talk. The other board I spoke of is not mine, I just moderate it. On this board all can talk about anything and most do. The Jones board is supposed to be only about Jones yet hardly anyone comes to it. Maybe that's a blessing?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
James: Notice the Religious Devotion to 60 Minutes.

So what if the workout lasted 59 or 61 minutes? You do understand that any workout as GOT to last "x" amount of time right? So would you no matter what value "x" has cry "notice the religious devotion to "x" duration?

The only religious devotion to dogmatic bias close mindedness round here David is you and the other jedi type characters cultist devotion to the number ONE. ONE set..

And please kindly refrain from ignoring these questions:

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?

I await your answers with interest.


1. Exercise Physiology - Low Confidence
Chemistry - High Confidence
I told you what you need to do is to understand the underlying principle of research ..... which is......... Take a Guess - I gave you a hint????? It does matter.
2. Some People (Just About All) change their minds and views over a 30 year period. You are referring to works over 30 years removed.
3. You don't care about my answers, they just reinforce the fact that you have no foundation.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

I see you're avoiding my questions very carefully David.

Landau wrote:
1. Exercise Physiology - Low Confidence
Chemistry - High Confidence


WTF are you even trying to say?

Landau wrote:
I told you what you need to do is to understand the underlying principle of research ..... which is......... Take a Guess - I gave you a hint????? It does matter.


ALL science and medicine is based on studies, research and empiricism. Do you accept medication? WHY it's been "researched". Would you go under the knife for an operation and entrust your life to doctors? WHY!? There knowledge is based on RESEARCH! If you wish to condemn science research and studies you condemn it all.

Landau wrote:
2. Some People (Just About All) change their minds and views over a 30 year period. You are referring to works over 30 years removed.


One thing that has not changed over 30 years and more is that physical activity is good for you.

Landau wrote:
3. You don't care about my answers, they just reinforce the fact that you have no foundation.


My "foundation" is in science, research, studies. You've offered mere opinion as your foundation and you refuse to answer my questions so I'll remind you yet again.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
I see you're avoiding my questions very carefully David.

Landau wrote:
1. Exercise Physiology - Low Confidence
Chemistry - High Confidence

WTF are you even trying to say?

Landau wrote:
I told you what you need to do is to understand the underlying principle of research ..... which is......... Take a Guess - I gave you a hint????? It does matter.

ALL science and medicine is based on studies, research and empiricism. Do you accept medication? WHY it's been "researched". Would you go under the knife for an operation and entrust your life to doctors? WHY!? There knowledge is based on RESEARCH! If you wish to condemn science research and studies you condemn it all.

Landau wrote:
2. Some People (Just About All) change their minds and views over a 30 year period. You are referring to works over 30 years removed.

One thing that has not changed over 30 years and more is that physical activity is good for you.

Landau wrote:
3. You don't care about my answers, they just reinforce the fact that you have no foundation.

My "foundation" is in science, research, studies. You've offered mere opinion as your foundation and you refuse to answer my questions so I'll remind you yet again.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?



You have now shown that you do not have any FOUNDATION to anything you express on this thread to say the least. Forget my responses from now on, (you don't even have a basic understanding) if your FOUNDATION is not there, then the derivatives are specious at best.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Landau wrote:
1. Exercise Physiology - Low Confidence
Chemistry - High Confidence

WTF are you even trying to say?




Can someone help him out. After I state obvious factors in research, he then sticks his foot in his mouth and contradicts my statement.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
Natty wrote:
I see you're avoiding my questions very carefully David.

Landau wrote:
1. Exercise Physiology - Low Confidence
Chemistry - High Confidence

WTF are you even trying to say?

Landau wrote:
I told you what you need to do is to understand the underlying principle of research ..... which is......... Take a Guess - I gave you a hint????? It does matter.

ALL science and medicine is based on studies, research and empiricism. Do you accept medication? WHY it's been "researched". Would you go under the knife for an operation and entrust your life to doctors? WHY!? There knowledge is based on RESEARCH! If you wish to condemn science research and studies you condemn it all.

Landau wrote:
2. Some People (Just About All) change their minds and views over a 30 year period. You are referring to works over 30 years removed.

One thing that has not changed over 30 years and more is that physical activity is good for you.

Landau wrote:
3. You don't care about my answers, they just reinforce the fact that you have no foundation.

My "foundation" is in science, research, studies. You've offered mere opinion as your foundation and you refuse to answer my questions so I'll remind you yet again.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?


You have now shown that you do not have any FOUNDATION to anything you express on this thread to say the least. Forget my responses from now on, (you don't even have a basic understanding) if your FOUNDATION is not there, then the derivatives are specious at best.


no foundation ..??

he's posted peer reviewed research.. what more do you want?

that's a lot more than your gibberish and hearsay haha
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
Natty wrote:
I see you're avoiding my questions very carefully David.

Landau wrote:
1. Exercise Physiology - Low Confidence
Chemistry - High Confidence

WTF are you even trying to say?

Landau wrote:
I told you what you need to do is to understand the underlying principle of research ..... which is......... Take a Guess - I gave you a hint????? It does matter.

ALL science and medicine is based on studies, research and empiricism. Do you accept medication? WHY it's been "researched". Would you go under the knife for an operation and entrust your life to doctors? WHY!? There knowledge is based on RESEARCH! If you wish to condemn science research and studies you condemn it all.

Landau wrote:
2. Some People (Just About All) change their minds and views over a 30 year period. You are referring to works over 30 years removed.

One thing that has not changed over 30 years and more is that physical activity is good for you.

Landau wrote:
3. You don't care about my answers, they just reinforce the fact that you have no foundation.

My "foundation" is in science, research, studies. You've offered mere opinion as your foundation and you refuse to answer my questions so I'll remind you yet again.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research or MD's or PhD's...?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?


You have now shown that you do not have any FOUNDATION to anything you express on this thread to say the least. Forget my responses from now on, (you don't even have a basic understanding) if your FOUNDATION is not there, then the derivatives are specious at best.


no foundation ..??

he's posted peer reviewed research.. what more do you want?

that's a lot more than your gibberish and hearsay haha



You are also incredibly ignorant also - I gave you both clues. Again, if you don't understand the foundations of Research, your opinions become NOTHING. It's so Funny how the both of you quote "research" studies, but don't even know the basic underlying principles. I have nothing more to say. SB quit trying to be a SA on something you are showing a NEGATIVE KNOWLEDGE of.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
You have now shown that you do not have any FOUNDATION to anything you express on this thread to say the least. Forget my responses from now on, (you don't even have a basic understanding) if your FOUNDATION is not there, then the derivatives are specious at best.


Seriously man you type but don't actually say a darn thing! As SB told you, I have posted research, studies etc.. You've given nonsense, closed minded dogmatic bullshit. You've even rejected Jones work.

Now you try to invalidate me and SB in an attempt to invalidate the research, sorry pal that doesn't wash.

Now please answer the darn question your refusal to speaks volumes.

1/ If all scientific research is flawed then would you accept any medication or cancer treatments (if the unfortunate situation called for it) seeing as these would had been "researched" and you don't trust science or research?

2/ Is there any point in anyone reading anything of Jones printed works if he told you behind closed doors in private that he was wrong?

Please stop pontificating and kindly answer.

Landau wrote:
Can someone help him out. After I state obvious factors in research, he then sticks his foot in his mouth and contradicts my statement.


Kindly explain what type of research you accept and which you don't and how you can tell the difference. Don't pontificate, just answer the question.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy