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 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
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.


Let's try again:

1. Chemistry - High Confidence
2. Aerobics - Low Confidence


I will ask again - What is the underlying principle of research?

Forget me for the instant and answer the simple question - this should change your host of juvenile smatterings in Your Fallacy of "Everybody Says So" and the Fallacy of "authority."
Open User Options Menu

jeffpinter

California, USA

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

Can someone help him out.

OK - let me see if I can translate from your native Venusian to our Earthly diction.

I think what you're saying above, and from previous ramblings, is that Exercise Physiology is a "soft" science and therefore you have a low confidence in it's ability to explain and predict the human body.

Chemistry is a "hard" science and therefore you have high confidence in its ability.

On a basic level I would tend to agree with the above.

But that's not taking anything away from Exercise Physiology - as Chemistry is about as "hard" as you can get.

And it certainly doesn't mean that Exercise Physiology is not viable as a science. No science is infallible. That is the nature of science - it MUST have the ability to be falsified and refined as we understand deeper.

Do we know everything about our physiology? No. But Exercise Physiology is the best chance we have at the moment. Reason being that science is by far the best bet at understanding the world around us. And Exercise Physiology is certainly science, as it must follow all the "rules", as must any science.


My observations and experience don't come from a garage/internet (you are an internet copycat)

This is just a silly statement David.

There is a plethora of good scientific information to be found online. In many cases the same exact information can be found online as is found in a library.

For example, in my field of Solid State Physics, the most highly regarded scientific journals are those of the "IEEE". I can go to the library to access these, or I can go online - to www.ieee.org.

The only thing I'm missing by sitting on my fat butt in front of the keyboard are the college coeds. (Come to think of it.....).

Here's another link that a cohort just turned me on to - www.mathpages.com

I've got hundreds of math and physics books at home but this one site is amazing - a very comprehensive, technical, and detailed explanation of many areas of math and physics. I would highly recommend this site to anyone interested in these subjects.

Is there bogus information on the internet? Of course. There's also bogus information in a library.

Therefore it is up to US to read, comprehend, and analyze the information, and then draw conclusions. And it makes no difference where this information comes from.

Jeff
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

if this is what your saying landau ..

bark once for yes. twice for no.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Jeff: I am only painting part of the picture with Exercise Physiology where "we have to believe something" or accept it at face value - The Bellman's Fallacy, The Fallacy of Authority, or The Fallacy of the Golden Mean to name a few - I wouldn't touch their "research" with a 46 foot pole. The Exercise physiology Field Premise was (still is) Aerobics and now those same original "experts" are having second thoughts, whilest their predecessors are making the same mistakes. This is well documented, and as Dr. Doug McGuff once said, "they are all ignoring the turd in the punch bowl." Science? Hardly! Try Fun and Games for 100.00 - the answer is?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Let's try again:

1. Chemistry - High Confidence
2. Aerobics - Low Confidence

I will ask again - What is the underlying principle of research?

Forget me for the instant and answer the simple question - this should change your host of juvenile smatterings in Your Fallacy of "Everybody Says So" and the Fallacy of "authority."


Your posts do not negate exercise physiology or research in anyway shape or form. While it may not be as "hard" as chemistry, there is no reason to view it as inaccurate. I ask you what do you have to offer that proves otherwise? NOTHING but opinion.

Your constant appeal to authority is tiresome. I'm supposed to ignore exercise science because "everybody says so" yet accept your opinion because you say so?

Now please kindly answer the question. Would you accept medical options as these are based on biology, physiology, science and research which you clearly distrust?

Back to your claim of Jones telling you that he withdrew his works of aerobic conditioning.. I ask you yet again is it worth anyone reading ANY of Jones published works as he "only told you the truth" in private were nobody can verify?

Please stop avoiding the questions.

Landau wrote:
The Exercise physiology Field Premise was (still is) Aerobics and now those same original "experts" are having second thoughts, whilest their predecessors are making the same mistakes. This is well documented.


If it's well documented then kindly provide us with the references. All your giving is opinion and hearsay.

Jeff. Thanks for your post and for injecting some reason into this discussion.
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

What I was actually getting at was, do you incorporate the so called "rush factor" into your proper exercise sessions?

Your starting to paint a picture of a man who'll try anything and attempt to give it credibility. Desperation, chasing the Golden Fleece.

I'm not seeing a dog SB, in your case I see a sheep...
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
Jeff. Thanks for your post and for injecting some reason into this discussion.


Very good Natural!

Jeff loves to INJECT...a little reason!

Excellent!

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
Very good Natural!

Jeff loves to INJECT...a little reason!

Excellent!


I see what you did there James.. very clever. You know even IF Jeff did inject or use.. WTF would that have to do with his knowledge of science, research and his solid post?

You're getting as desperate as Landau. Using complete nonsense to attempt to make a point. Try to stick to the subject matter it will reflect a lot better on you if you do so.

Hint: I have already received PMs from silent readers who's opinions are being "re-thought" due to seeing through Landaus dogma. I dare say you wouldn't wish to contribute to the further bad reputation of HIT and it's trainers.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

There are such fundemental concepts like reading comprehension, if you can read into my posts, your answer exists. Understand the word desparate, it defines you, not me. I am a practical thinker, I don't desparately search the internet to come up with "research studies" from some "exercise physiology lab," OH MY!

I have done what is called Investigative Research, and have done this long before you ever done yer liftin' - I'm a Maverick, Iconoclast - call it what you want, but I don't take the simpleton route to prove my point, any IMBECILE can do that - now that's what I call desparate and comical.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
JamesT wrote:
Very good Natural!

Jeff loves to INJECT...a little reason!

Excellent!

I see what you did there James.. very clever. You know even IF Jeff did inject or use.. WTF would that have to do with his knowledge of science, research and his solid post?

You're getting as desperate as Landau. Using complete nonsense to attempt to make a point. Try to stick to the subject matter it will reflect a lot better on you if you do so.

Hint: I have already received PMs from silent readers who's opinions are being "re-thought" due to seeing through Landaus dogma. I dare say you wouldn't wish to contribute to the further bad reputation of HIT and it's trainers.


OK the faggot fallacy (do you know what that is?) - ok readers, feel free to PM me and I will freely explain my "dogma."

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
There are such fundemental concepts like reading comprehension, if you can read into my posts, your answer exists.


You post cryptic nonsense. you've presented no evidence for your opinions yet you'd have us believe that all scientific research based on the human body is null and void so kindly please answer, would you have medical treatments which have been researched or not? Please quit avoiding this simple question.

Landau wrote:
Understand the word desparate, it defines you, not me.


The last few pages would suggest otherwise. The PMs I've received would also suggest otherwise.

Landau wrote:
I am a practical thinker, I don't desparately search the internet to come up with "research studies" from some "exercise physiology lab.


How can you possibly arrive to a logical and accurate knowledge of biology and exercise if you reject ALL science based on your "practical thinking" ? On what is your "practical thinking" based?

Landau wrote:
I have done what is called Investigative Research, and have done this long before you ever done yer liftin' - I'm a Maverick, Iconoclast - call it what you want.


What I call it is a rejection of science and research based on your dogmatic closed mind and agenda. You share NONE of your so called "research" here on the board yet expect us to believe you based on "you say so".

Landau wrote:
but I don't take the simpleton route to prove my point, any IMBECILE can do that.


Modern research, studies and science.. simpleton? People with actual qualifications conducting research is how we have modern day science and medicine, I ask you again if all research is flawed would you except medicine?

Landau wrote:
now that's what I call desparate and comical.


What you define as desperate and comical is ACTUAL SCIENCE. You show no understanding of physiology this is evident in your arguments as to the "superiority" of the SSTF model. This ignorance is further displayed at your rejection of modern physiology.

Why ask people to email you, why not share your wisdom right here on the board where we can all benefit. You claim you've done years of personal research, well share it here with us if you feel it will rescue us poor souls.

I find your unwillingness to share your research here quite staggering, that is, if it actually holds water.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
OK the faggot fallacy (do you know what that is?) - ok readers, feel free to PM me and I will freely explain my "dogma."


Explain it here.Why on earth would you wish to with hold valuable information that would support your case?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

One More Time - Advice - Learn to READ.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Authenticity by PMs - get real, I could care less. I have a thing called a telephone, where real people call me and say what a complete utter MORON you are. It gets better when I actually see those people in person internet boy. Get Lost.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
One More Time - Advice - Learn to READ.


I wish you would learn to read and answer a couple of very simple questions:

1/ Do you accept medicine and it's a result of research which you reject?

2/ Is Jones works worthy of reading if he denied it's relevance to you in private?

I'll add to these a third:

3/ If you reject all science and research, on WHAT do you base your opinions?

Please kindly quit avoiding these questions, or is it a case of the answers if truthful would incriminate you?

Landau wrote:
Authenticity by PMs - get real, I could care less. I have a thing called a telephone, where real people call me.


So it wasn't a real person that PM'd me?

Landau wrote:
and say what a complete utter MORON you are. It gets better when I actually see those people in person internet boy. Get Lost.


How does the fact that you see your friends in real life negate years of scientific research?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Read my posts, the answer is as plain as day.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Read my posts, the answer is as plain as day.


You have not answered these questions:

1/ Do you accept medicine as it's a result of research which you reject?

2/ Is Jones works worthy of reading if he denied it's relevance to you in private?

3/ If you reject all science and physiology research, on WHAT do you base your opinions?

You have not answered and refusal to answer only serves to prove my point further.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Faggot Fallacy
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Faggot Fallacy


You have not answered these questions:

1/ Do you accept medicine as it's a result of research which you reject?

2/ Is Jones works worthy of reading if he denied it's relevance to you in private?

3/ If you reject all science and physiology research, on WHAT do you base your opinions?

You have not answered and refusal to answer only serves to prove my point further.
Open User Options Menu

jeffpinter

California, USA

Landau wrote:
Jeff: I am only painting part of the picture with Exercise Physiology where "we have to believe something" or accept it at face value - The Bellman's Fallacy, The Fallacy of Authority, or The Fallacy of the Golden Mean to name a few - I wouldn't touch their "research" with a 46 foot pole.

Speaking of logical fallacies - aren't you guilty of "ad hominem" here?


The Exercise physiology Field Premise was (still is) Aerobics and now those same original "experts" are having second thoughts, whilest their predecessors are making the same mistakes. Science? Hardly! Try Fun and Games for 100.00 - the answer is?

I will admit that exercise physiology is not as mature a field as physics or chemistry. But it is science. Your statements above define it as so.

That is, it's studies and subsequent conclusions and theories are subject to peer review, and are therefore subject to change if contradictory evidence is proved to be sound. This happens in EVERY scientific field.

This is the nature of science. This is the way it MUST be. And it the best way we have found for arriving at the truth.


and as Dr. Doug McGuff once said, "they are all ignoring the turd in the punch bowl."

McGuff is obviously a sharp guy, but I'm afraid he is ignoring a few turds in his own punch bowl.

Namely, his fundamental foundation for very slow reps is fatally flawed (BIG turd). Add to this a few more critical SS tenets (small turds) which are "red herrings" at best (alas - yet another logical fallacy).

Jeff

Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

jeffpinter wrote:
Landau wrote:

and as Dr. Doug McGuff once said, "they are all ignoring the turd in the punch bowl."




McGuff is obviously a sharp guy, but I'm afraid he is ignoring a few turds in his own punch bowl.

Namely, his fundamental foundation for very slow reps is fatally flawed (BIG turd). Add to this a few more critical SS tenets (small turds) which are "red herrings" at best (alas - yet another logical fallacy).

Jeff




"Yes, I would like to mention that prior to age 15 I was a fat kid.

My first attempt at physical improvement was to jog to the end of my street, rest at the stop sign, and then jog back.

I was astounded how quickly my condition improved after just a few attempts. This was the beginning of my amazement with the adaptability of the human body."

Dr. Doug McGuff









Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

eintology wrote:
"Yes, I would like to mention that prior to age 15 I was a fat kid.

My first attempt at physical improvement was to jog to the end of my street, rest at the stop sign, and then jog back.

I was astounded how quickly my condition improved after just a few attempts. This was the beginning of my amazement with the adaptability of the human body."

Dr. Doug McGuff


^^ Great quote and supportive of the benefits of running. Thx.

Landau, do ANY of your references actually agree with you? First Jones now McGuff.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

jeffpinter wrote:
I will admit that exercise physiology is not as mature a field as physics or chemistry. But it is science. Your statements above define it as so.

That is, it's studies and subsequent conclusions and theories are subject to peer review, and are therefore subject to change if contradictory evidence is proved to be sound. This happens in EVERY scientific field.

This is the nature of science. This is the way it MUST be. And it the best way we have found for arriving at the truth.


This is an excellent point Jeff. Not ALL Studies and research can be disregarded with the argument "logical fallacy" it's the best we have and if we reject it then what the hell are we supposed to base our understanding on? Guess work?

This explains perfectly why David rejects everything other than his "living" which science and physiology has proven to be flawed ie purposely slow reps..
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

"Meet the Trainer" - Faggot Fallacy - does this mean anything to you? How about you Jeff - A Front, A Fraud?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

I ran also - but WTF did it do? NOTHING! Jeff Pinter - you are a FRAUD - SUPER SLOW - explain your way out of that and you looked healthier.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy