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 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
Please don't resort to 'argumentum ad hominem' as your friend David. His reputation is going down the pan here don't follow suite.


It isn't Naitch.


James. Behind every user name lay a real person, they matter. Or are you of the opinion that no one matters on this board? Rather disrespectful to the forum and it's members don't you think?


Lot's of HIT guys post on this forum. It's a dedicated HIT forum in fact. You are very, very silly. The HITters matter, the idiots DON'T.

Can you guess which category you fall into?


The above is nonsense. Who's encourages joint problems? Every trainer but you I suppose huh? Come on James you know that's crap.


Most trainers encourage pointless, time wasting and dangerous methods. You wouldn't know because you train at home in your mum's front room.


If the opinion of people change (which it is) due to shallow arguments presented by HIT trainers who should know better, then that matters. Peoples opinions matter James. As I said, behind every user name lay a person IN the real world. You cannot "poo poo" the internet. It's just another way of communicating.

In fact, if I was a board member/HITer and had just read your remarks about members here and how they don't matter, I'd be somewhat offended.


Naitch, I really don't care.

Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
Read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

The book deals with the subjects of alien abduction, channeling, witchcraft and satanism, ghosts, crop circles, faith healing, hallucinations etc..

Can you specifically tell the board how it negates ALL exercise physiology and peer reviewed studies and research?


Wikipedia is a wonderful thing...
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
Lot's of HIT guys post on this forum. It's a dedicated HIT forum in fact. You are very, very silly. The HITters matter, the idiots DON'T.


Do you realize how cult like that sounds? No one's thoughts matter but HITers? This is exercise James not religion. So if a HITer finds Landau's arguments poor and offensive, does that make the person an idiot who's views no longer matter?

JamesT wrote:
Most trainers encourage pointless, time wasting and dangerous methods.


Such as?

JamesT wrote:
You wouldn't know because you train at home in your mum's front room.


More Ad Hominem, you just can't help yourself.

JamesT wrote:
Naitch, I really don't care.


You don't care about the real people behind the username. How very interesting. Perhaps it's only paying clients who's views matter?

JamesT wrote:
Wikipedia is a wonderful thing..


The point here is? I'm asking Landau a specific question. If the book he mentioned negates various aspects of the paranormal, I'm curious how exactly it negates all peer reviewed research in exercise science? Can he actually provide an answer? Can you?
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

Hello natty

Many apologies for not getting back to you for a few days but I had a chance to watch some paint dry and seeming that watching paint dry is far more interesting and fulfilling than having to read and respond to your posts I had to give you a miss.

You have clumsily avoided my questions about your interest in HIT yet again so I can only conclude you have no interest in High Intensity Training as explained by Dr Darden. Every thread on this board that you involve yourself in quickly becomes destructive and unpleasant. This is because you crave any type of attention, positive or negative, it doesn't matter to you as long as you get plenty of it.

You are just like pinter, casler, wayne, southbeach, etc etc. and I honestly apologise to the genuine HIT fans on this board for giving you any attention in the first place. You'll be sad to know that I'm not going to give you any more attention and I urge all others to do the same. Just cut this fool and others like him off and perhaps this board might get back to discussing High Intensity Training

Remember that characters like natty can't give a flying feck about HIT as all they worry themselves with is to attract as much attention as possible. The subject is completely irrelevant and you'll see them on any forum that lets them post. These sort of people stay up all night every night posting anywhere that'll let them just to get someone else to notice them for a while. They will quite happily engage you with the most trivial rubbish imaginable just to keep the attention coming. They will argue the toss of a coin for eternity if you give them the chance as the discussion subject itself means nothing to them. Your attention is what they crave and they're very good at sucking you in and keeping you going. Natty is desperate for me to open a thread all about him as that is the nearest thing these people get to heaven. He's opened one about himself already and won't need much of an excuse to get another going. Please remember that him and others like him don't care at all about HIT or whatever forum they may be on that day. They crave our attention and that's all. It's the curse of the internet I'm afraid. Nothing more really needs to be said about natty and the others of his persuasion.

Cut their attention off and they will fade away. Try it and see:)
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Statement on Exercise: Benefits and Recommendations for Physical Activity Programs for All Americans.

A Statement for Health Professionals by the Committee on Exercise and Cardiac Rehabilitation of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association.

Gerald F. Fletcher, MD, Chair; Gary Balady, MD; Steven N. Blair, PED; James Blumenthal, PhD; Carl Caspersen, PhD; Bernard Chaitman, MD; Stephen Epstein, MD; Erika S. Sivarajan Froelicher, PhD, MPH, RN; Victor F. Froelicher, MD; Ileana L. Pina, MD; Michael L. Pollock, PhD

http://circ.ahajournals.org/...t/full/94/4/857

^^Information with a HUGE amount of ACTUAL REFERENCES.

Landau how does this book which deals with the paranormal counter this type of actual peer reviewed research?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty wrote:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/...ull/94/4/857#R1

^^Information with a huge amount of ACTUAL REFERENCES.




Serious question, have you ever designed and performed your own research and write up?

If you haven't then you will not be aware how easy it would be to manipulate the process to suit your own agenda and aims.

When you reference all these studies are you certain that there is no corruption or bias present? If you aren't certain how can you trust what has been written?

Just because something is peer reviewed does not make it honest.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Read the GD Book or STHU. He we have some????? - that has his mind made up as soon as he conveniently scans the net. My Sources are my 10,000 Volume Library of Physical Culture. Read the Book or have someone read it to you.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

mentzerfan wrote:
Many apologies for not getting back to you for a few days but I had a chance to watch some paint dry and seeming that watching paint dry is far more interesting and fulfilling than having to read and respond to your posts I had to give you a miss.


No problem, perhaps watching paint dry would be a better pass time for you as you don't have anything substantial to contribute to this particular thread topic.

mentzerfan wrote:
Every thread on this board that you involve yourself in quickly becomes destructive and unpleasant. This is because you crave any type of attention, positive or negative, it doesn't matter to you as long as you get plenty of it.


The above is simple Ad Hominem attacks and lacking in depth and substance. This thread is not about me or "attention". It's about the benefits of exercise namely running/cardiovascular exercise. If you have anything that refutes the numerous amount of research I'll be pleased to read it but as of now you're simply attacking me as an individual for no reason as opposed to contributing to the debate.

Besides, if you took the time to read properly you'd see that it's useless personal attacks from closed minded jedi like yours that distrupt threads.

mentzerfan wrote:
You are just like pinter, casler.


Thankyou.

mentzerfan wrote:
Just cut this fool and others like him off and perhaps this board might get back to discussing High Intensity Training.


I can understand you desire for me to disappear from this board because I do at times make the overly dogmatic and cultist HITers look rather silly but this is based on science, research and studies not opinion.

mentzerfan wrote:
Remember that characters like natty can't give a flying feck about HIT as all they worry themselves with is to attract as much attention as possible.


More Ad Hominem. Useless. Besides, you seem to be giving me plenty of this so called "attention". Can you see the irony?

mentzerfan wrote:
The subject is completely irrelevant and you'll see them on any forum that lets them post.


All forums let anyone post provided they remain within forum rules.. And?

mentzerfan wrote:
They will quite happily engage you with the most trivial rubbish imaginable just to keep the attention coming.


Do you think that the attempted invalidating of ALL exercise physiology is "trivial rubbish"? I would certainly hope not.

mentzerfan wrote:
They will argue the toss of a coin for eternity if you give them the chance as the discussion subject itself means nothing to them.


More useless Ad Hominem. Who's actually been contributing to this thread subject, me or you? Take a look.

mentzerfan wrote:
Your attention is what they crave and they're very good at sucking you in and keeping you going.


You describe the HIT jedi very well.

mentzerfan wrote:
Natty is desperate for me to open a thread all about him as that is the nearest thing these people get to heaven.


What I suggested was for you to either open a thread or use my old thread which I specifically opened to answer questions about myself. I would prefer if this thread remained on topic.

mentzerfan wrote:
He's opened one about himself already and won't need much of an excuse to get another going.


I wouldn't have needed to open a thread if it wasn't for all the Ad Hominem attacks I've received since day 1 of me joining this board. Rather sad state of affairs wouldn't you say. You see, I don't crave any attention, some particular dogmatic forum members seem to reveal in giving it me anyway, much in the same way as you have done here with this post.

mentzerfan wrote:
Please remember that him and others like him don't care at all about HIT or whatever forum they may be on that day. They crave our attention and that's all.


Ad hominem, more useless speculative nonsense. You label my presentation of arguments as "attention craving" as you have nothing to refute them. Sad.

mentzerfan wrote:
It's the curse of the internet I'm afraid. Nothing more really needs to be said about natty and the others of his persuasion.


Define "persuasion", if you mean open minded and happy to discuss various training ideas with others than yep, that's me ;-). I'd rather that than be a closed minded dogmatic follower of Jones or Mentzer even when exercise physiology, research and studies suggest otherwise.

mentzerfan wrote:
Cut their attention off and they will fade away. Try it and see:)


You hope.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

The point here is? I'm asking Landau a specific question. If the book he mentioned negates various aspects of the paranormal, I'm curious how exactly it negates all peer reviewed research in exercise science? Can he actually provide an answer? Can you?


==Scott==

Hmmmm, paranormal....Sounds like the only way to resolve this thread is to call in the Ghost Busters !! Egon, where are you??
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Mr. Strong wrote:
If you haven't then you will not be aware how easy it would be to manipulate the process to suit your own agenda and aims.

When you reference all these studies are you certain that there is no corruption or bias present? If you aren't certain how can you trust what has been written?

Just because something is peer reviewed does not make it honest.


What you have done here Mr Strong is another logical fallacy.

"SOME studies are altered or bias therefore ALL studies are"

Sorry this reasoning does not wash.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Read the GD Book or STHU. He we have some????? - that has his mind made up as soon as he conveniently scans the net. My Sources are my 10,000 Volume Library of Physical Culture. Read the Book or have someone read it to you.


So nothing to substantiate the invalidation of ALL studies and research then David..

Again, I laugh at your sceptism of everything "on the net". The internet is simply a modern vast library of information, you cannot invalidate it just because some information goes against your opinions.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

entsminger wrote:
Hmmmm, paranormal....Sounds like the only way to resolve this thread is to call in the Ghost Busters !! Egon, where are you??


Would Landau SERIOUSLY place modern day exercise physiology in the same category as the "paranormal"? It would seem so..

Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
More Ad Hominem, you just can't help yourself.


You finally learn something and we all have to hear about it in every post you put out there!

Congratulations, well done, excellent work. Now WE know, YOU know what it means...can you call it a "piss take" instead?

Please?
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Hmmmm, paranormal....Sounds like the only way to resolve this thread is to call in the Ghost Busters !! Egon, where are you??

Would Landau SERIOUSLY place modern day exercise physiology in the same category as the "paranormal"? It would seem so..


Well they are both fantasy, so why not?

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Read the Fukin Book Loser or just seriously STFU - better yet since you know nothing about how research is performed.......you will never recognize potential flaws - ah duh ip's modan day excersize phiziologee, day aw weal ziontists - now dats zions.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Hmmmm, paranormal....Sounds like the only way to resolve this thread is to call in the Ghost Busters !! Egon, where are you??

Would Landau SERIOUSLY place modern day exercise physiology in the same category as the "paranormal"? It would seem so..



Very Close - Yes

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
You finally learn something and we all have to hear about it in every post you put out there!

Congratulations, well done, excellent work. Now WE know, YOU know what it means...can you call it a "piss take" instead?

Please?


If the shoe fits..

Now this contributes to the subject matter how now?

JamesT wrote:
Well they are both fantasy, so why not?


So why do you have your clients perform your form of cardio? perhaps you should think before you rush into backing up your friend here. What you just posted negates your self admitted cardio sessions that you have your own clients perform.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Read the Fukin Book Loser or just seriously STFU


Due to the fact that I haven't got the book, nor do most people here on this board. I would think it would be in your favor to present a logical argument based on the book (or one of your other 10,000)

Landau wrote:
better yet since you know nothing about how research is performed.......you will never recognize potential flaws - ah duh ip's modan day excersize phiziologe.


Yet you fail to tell us.. yawn.. I wonder why.

Guess what Landau, your own HIT methods of super slow is based on "the size principle" or motor unit recruitment which is based in exercise physiology. Did you even know that? Would you like to attempt to negate this also? Or is it just aspects of physiology that goes against your bias that you attempt to negate?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Again - here is YOUR PROBLEM - My Method is not Super Slow, it is a registered trade mark methodology used by Ken Hutchins and his licensees. You conveniently change the discussion, don't ask me, kindly ask Mr. Hutchins.

Progressive Exercise Training was understood long before the phrase "exercise physiologist" ever showed up. What is PRE and who started the concept, then you will know about your history, but WTF should you care - just go surf up some FIZ Resuch. Just admit, if you don't want to show up at Empire Gym, you can still surf the net BOZO.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Again - here is YOUR PROBLEM - My Method is not Super Slow, it is a registered trade mark methodology used by Ken Hutchins and his licensees. You conveniently change the discussion, don't ask me, kindly ask Mr. Hutchins.


OK lets not word play again, the fact is that you train using purposely slowed reps which do not recruit the higher threshold motor units until fatigue sets in (size principle). The claim of super-slow and all purposely slowed reps advocates is that the larger muscle fibers the type 2x, the HTMUs are recruited as the set progresses in line with the size principle. You cannot escape the fact that it's exercise physiology and science that has explained why and how these fibers and MUs are recruited during such a protocol. It's all well and good knowing that something works, science explains WHY it works..

In fact, if a client asked you how are the biggest fibers recruited using your methods, you would likely reply "due to fatigue as the set progresses" this would be correct yet this understanding has come about through exercise physiology.

Landau wrote:
Progressive Exercise Training was understood long before the phrase "exercise physiologist" ever showed up.

As I said, in this case the whys and the wherefore are EXPLAINED using exercise science and physiology, you cannot negate that.

You said to me that I conveniently change the discussion. What I've done is shown that your very own training methods are based on something that we only understand through studies, research and exercise science. All the things you wish to invalidate.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
If you haven't then you will not be aware how easy it would be to manipulate the process to suit your own agenda and aims.

When you reference all these studies are you certain that there is no corruption or bias present? If you aren't certain how can you trust what has been written?

Just because something is peer reviewed does not make it honest.

What you have done here Mr Strong is another logical fallacy.

"SOME studies are altered or bias therefore ALL studies are"

Sorry this reasoning does not wash.



How do you know which studies are honest and which are corrupt? Please explain.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty, with all this knowledge you have you should write a book. Lol.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
Again - here is YOUR PROBLEM - My Method is not Super Slow, it is a registered trade mark methodology used by Ken Hutchins and his licensees. You conveniently change the discussion, don't ask me, kindly ask Mr. Hutchins.

OK lets not word play again, the fact is that you train using purposely slowed reps which do not recruit the higher threshold motor units until fatigue sets in (size principle). The claim of super-slow and all purposely slowed reps advocates is that the larger muscle fibers the type 2x, the HTMUs are recruited as the set progresses in line with the size principle. You cannot escape the fact that it's exercise physiology and science that has explained why and how these fibers and MUs are recruited during such a protocol. It's all well and good knowing that something works, science explains WHY it works..

In fact, if a client asked you how are the biggest fibers recruited using your methods, you would likely reply "due to fatigue as the set progresses" this would be correct yet this understanding has come about through exercise physiology.

Landau wrote:
Progressive Exercise Training was understood long before the phrase "exercise physiologist" ever showed up.

As I said, in this case the whys and the wherefore are EXPLAINED using exercise science and physiology, you cannot negate that.

You said to me that I conveniently change the discussion. What I've done is shown that your very own training methods are based on something that we only understand through studies, research and exercise science. All the things you wish to invalidate.


What is PRE? - This is where it comes from. What is it? - Who is it? If you don't know, then WTF are you here?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Mr. Strong wrote:
How do you know which studies are honest and which are corrupt? Please explain.


Why would you assume a study is corrupt?

If it's conclusions were so far fetched or obviously bias then fair enough, these types of studies do exist.

But looking at this subject empirically, fact is when people engage in running, conditioning etc.. they get better at it..proof enough that elevated heart rates and lung activity results in adaptations and improvements, this we can all agree on as to state otherwise is futile.

So when studies reach the same conclusions as provided empirically and attempt to explain these adaptations, what basis do we have to claim them as false?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
What is PRE? - This is where it comes from. What is it? - Who is it? If you don't know, then WTF are you here?


David. Asking me a question and expecting an answer is rather "rich" wouldn't you say seeing as you refuse to answer several questions that I have posed to you.. So we try this again.

1/ Would you accept medicine that been "researched" as you don't accept research.

2/ You've made the claim that Arthur Jones told you in private that the information I presented in his athletic journals was null and void. I ask you is it worth for anyone to read ANY of Jones published works if he "null and void" them in private?

Surely, if you expect me to answer your questions you must answer mine?
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy