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 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

antz

Waynes wrote:

HIT is mythology and folklaw.




I've heard/read similar statements attacking HIT even from popular guys such as Bill Pearl and Fred Hatfield.

All they have done is misleading and deceiving people.

I've found that at least for me, hard and brief weight training done not more than 2 days a week works better than 6-days a week weight training.

So according to me, HIT works, and is a science.

HIT is Body By Science.

HVT is Body despite Science.

:-)
Open User Options Menu

antz

southbeach wrote:

health? longevity & well being?


Add these as well:

Stress busting

Joy/Happiness

Sense of well being/achievement


Regarding running:
Some people run despite injuries because they like it. It gives them some sort of joy that makes them addicted to it.

Some people run even though they do *not* like it, because they believe (wrongly) that it is necessary for being healthy.

I pity the later because they do something that they do not like, and still do not get the benefits they deserve for the time and energy invested.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Ok, you guys have had fun fussing with each other long past the point of no return so how about actually getting back to the point of this thread and that was, is running really bad for you. It's clear that some think it is and some don't. We've established that. No need to further elaborate on that division. If running is bad then what is the better alternative way to work the cardio vascular system ?

Scott
Open User Options Menu

TBoneMitch

Quebec, CAN

Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

TBoneMitch wrote:
Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.


Rushing thru a circuit of 10-12 machines all set up in advance is pretty good cardio but what gyms these days allow for this? Without setting them all up in advance the cardio workout drammaticaly less effective.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

antz wrote:
Waynes wrote:

HIT is mythology and folklaw.




I've heard/read similar statements attacking HIT even from popular guys such as Bill Pearl and Fred Hatfield.


Yes as they understand training and science.

antz wrote:
All they have done is misleading and deceiving people.


Why would they want to do that, and how ???

antz wrote:
I've found that at least for me, hard and brief weight training done not more than 2 days a week works better than 6-days a week weight training.


Why ??? Just because you say HIT works better than something else, you cannot say it is better, or works better. What you most properly did not do on the six day a week, was to have a set plan, the biggest arsenal to HIT is its fantastic set plan.

How and why did you find it better, please define this, better.

antz wrote:
So according to me, HIT works, and is a science.


I or lots could make up a training program and it will work for you, is this science or not ???

Why and how is HIT a science???

antz wrote:
HIT is Body By Science.

HVT is Body despite Science.

:-)


You say HVT is Body despite Science, yet Arthur and Ellington build their bodies using very HVT.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

TBoneMitch wrote:
Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.


It will NOT, give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require, it will give you cardiovascular benefits, but it will not get you are fit as you could be.

Why not do your HIT workouts, and then see how you fair against a 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and a rower, first would be the easy test, take your pulse, you might be lucky to get it down to 60 to 65 doing HIT only, but you need more to get it lower.

Then see if you could keep up with the 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and the rower.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Waynes wrote:
TBoneMitch wrote:
Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.

It will NOT, give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require, it will give you cardiovascular benefits, but it will not get you are fit as you could be.

Why not do your HIT workouts, and then see how you fair against a 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and a rower, first would be the easy test, take your pulse, you might be lucky to get it down to 60 to 65 doing HIT only, but you need more to get it lower.

Then see if you could keep up with the 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and the rower.

Wayne


I'm Sorry - I could NOT Resist it - What You Said is SO Completely Stupid, Baseless, and With Out Merit. You are ONE Stupid Idiot. T-Bone - Chime in, This Guy Makes Me Sick.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Landau wrote:
Waynes wrote:
TBoneMitch wrote:
Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.

It will NOT, give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require, it will give you cardiovascular benefits, but it will not get you are fit as you could be.

Why not do your HIT workouts, and then see how you fair against a 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and a rower, first would be the easy test, take your pulse, you might be lucky to get it down to 60 to 65 doing HIT only, but you need more to get it lower.

Then see if you could keep up with the 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and the rower.

Wayne


I'm Sorry - I could NOT Resist it - What You Said is SO Completely Stupid, Baseless, and With Out Merit. You are ONE Stupid Idiot. T-Bone - Chime in, This Guy Makes Me Sick.



David, why not try and prove what I said was wrong, with why you think it was, thats if you can, if you mock or do not answer, I will take it I am right.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Wayne: Seriously - are you retarded, because if you can't point out your glaring mistakes, then I can't help you. Something has to be done here folks - These FS ND CD UP Badly
Open User Options Menu

TBoneMitch

Quebec, CAN

I have no further comment, except, Wayne, ask yourself, is a 3 mile run more a test of fitness than a 20 mile run? Or than a 40 mile run?

If so, why? If not, why not?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Waynes wrote:
TBoneMitch wrote:
Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.

It will NOT, give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require, it will give you cardiovascular benefits, but it will not get you are fit as you could be.

Why not do your HIT workouts, and then see how you fair against a 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and a rower, first would be the easy test, take your pulse, you might be lucky to get it down to 60 to 65 doing HIT only, but you need more to get it lower.

Then see if you could keep up with the 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and the rower.

Wayne



Whats your time for the 3 mile run?
Open User Options Menu

antz

Waynes wrote:
antz wrote:
Waynes wrote:

HIT is mythology and folklaw.




I've heard/read similar statements attacking HIT even from popular guys such as Bill Pearl and Fred Hatfield.

Yes as they understand training and science.

antz wrote:
All they have done is misleading and deceiving people.

Why would they want to do that, and how ???

antz wrote:
I've found that at least for me, hard and brief weight training done not more than 2 days a week works better than 6-days a week weight training.

Why ??? Just because you say HIT works better than something else, you cannot say it is better, or works better. What you most properly did not do on the six day a week, was to have a set plan, the biggest arsenal to HIT is its fantastic set plan.

How and why did you find it better, please define this, better.

antz wrote:
So according to me, HIT works, and is a science.

I or lots could make up a training program and it will work for you, is this science or not ???

Why and how is HIT a science???

antz wrote:
HIT is Body By Science.

HVT is Body despite Science.

:-)


You say HVT is Body despite Science, yet Arthur and Ellington build their bodies using very HVT.

Wayne




1) First let me know your definition of HIT. Without that, I do not know whether we are talking about the same thing.

2) No they did not understand science. They understood how to deceive people by hiding their steroid habits (remember Bill's comment "good enough for a bull; good enough for me"?), and make money by promoting supplement sales.

3) HIT is better because I get better results for the time and energy spent. When I calculate time spent, I include the 1 hour drive to and fro the gym.

4) Ok give me a set plan and a training program. Then I'll tell you whether it works or not.

5) Yes HVT is Body despite Science, no matter who built their bodies using HVT.
Open User Options Menu

antz

entsminger wrote:
Ok, you guys have had fun fussing with each other long past the point of no return so how about actually getting back to the point of this thread and that was, is running really bad for you. It's clear that some think it is and some don't. We've established that. No need to further elaborate on that division. If running is bad then what is the better alternative way to work the cardio vascular system ?

Scott


Alternative for those who insist on doing cardio: swimming

Alternative for those (including me) who do not want to do cardio: 20 and 50 rep squats (50 rep is done once a month)
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


Landau wrote:
Wayne: Seriously - are you retarded, because if you can't point out your glaring mistakes, then I can't help you. Something has to be done here folks - These FS ND CD UP Badly


If you could find a mistake, I am sure you would have.

TBoneMitch wrote:
I have no further comment, except, Wayne, ask yourself, is a 3 mile run more a test of fitness than a 20 mile run? Or than a 40 mile run?

If so, why? If not, why not?


Hi TBoneMitch,

You look very fit and strong.

Who is the fittest, the person who can do the 3 mile run 1 minute faster than the other, or the person who can do the 20 mile run 1 hour faster than the other, or the person who can do the 40 mile run 2 hours faster than the other ???

Point is, if you get someone who is very fit, like a decathlon, they are going to be far far far faster in ANY cardio event other than the events in decathlon, WHY, because they are fitter.

You can get quite go fitness on a HIT workout done one exercise after the other, but compeered to people that are into other sports, you would not live with them, why ??? Because you are not as fit as them.

Mr. Strong wrote:
Waynes wrote:
TBoneMitch wrote:
Scott: rush-factor style HIT will give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require.

It will NOT, give you all the cardiovascular benefits you require, it will give you cardiovascular benefits, but it will not get you are fit as you could be.

Why not do your HIT workouts, and then see how you fair against a 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and a rower, first would be the easy test, take your pulse, you might be lucky to get it down to 60 to 65 doing HIT only, but you need more to get it lower.

Then see if you could keep up with the 3 mile runner, 10 mile cyclist and the rower.

Wayne



Whats your time for the 3 mile run?


My time 30 years ago was quite close to the World record, however I used to run quite a lot then, and at the time was built for running, slim and quite strong for my size.

antz wrote:
Waynes wrote:
antz wrote:
Waynes wrote:

HIT is mythology and folklaw.




I've heard/read similar statements attacking HIT even from popular guys such as Bill Pearl and Fred Hatfield.

Yes as they understand training and science.

antz wrote:
All they have done is misleading and deceiving people.

Why would they want to do that, and how ???

antz wrote:
I've found that at least for me, hard and brief weight training done not more than 2 days a week works better than 6-days a week weight training.

Why ??? Just because you say HIT works better than something else, you cannot say it is better, or works better. What you most properly did not do on the six day a week, was to have a set plan, the biggest arsenal to HIT is its fantastic set plan.

How and why did you find it better, please define this, better.

antz wrote:
So according to me, HIT works, and is a science.

I or lots could make up a training program and it will work for you, is this science or not ???

Why and how is HIT a science???

antz wrote:
HIT is Body By Science.

HVT is Body despite Science.

:-)


You say HVT is Body despite Science, yet Arthur and Ellington build their bodies using very HVT.

Wayne




1) First let me know your definition of HIT. Without that, I do not know whether we are talking about the same thing.


Ellingtons HIT, from about 5 years ago. I find it fantastic for beginners, of for 4 weeks out of 50 for an advanced. As it has all important set plan, other than that, looking back, its all made up as its goes, and thats quite easy to do.

antz wrote:
2) No they did not understand science. They understood how to deceive people by hiding their steroid habits (remember Bill's comment "good enough for a bull; good enough for me"?), and make money by promoting supplement sales.


Not sure what you are talking about here, I am not talking of steroids, never have.

antz wrote:
3) HIT is better because I get better results for the time and energy spent. When I calculate time spent, I include the 1 hour drive to and fro the gym.


I did HIT for 15 years, I know how fast the sticking points come, and then how slow progress is, if there is any. I know how much you want it to work. I know that your thinking but if I add another 30 pounds to my bench and 15 to my curls, my chest and arms might just start t grow at a faster rate. Sorry you will be like you are in 10 years time.

antz wrote:
4) Ok give me a set plan and a training program. Then I'll tell you whether it works or not.


See PM.

antz wrote:
5) Yes HVT is Body despite Science, no matter who built their bodies using HVT.


As I said, Ellington and Arthur built their bodies on HVT, and did every other bodybuilder, powelifter and strongman.

Wayne


Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Waynes wrote:



As I said, Ellington and Arthur built their bodies on HVT, and did every other bodybuilder, powelifter and strongman.

Wayne




no they didn't !
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

southbeach wrote:
Waynes wrote:



As I said, Ellington and Arthur built their bodies on HVT, and did every other bodybuilder, powelifter and strongman.

Wayne




no they didn't !



Oh yes they did.


Wayne

Open User Options Menu

NewYorker

New York, USA

entsminger wrote:
Ok, you guys have had fun fussing with each other long past the point of no return so how about actually getting back to the point of this thread and that was, is running really bad for you. It's clear that some think it is and some don't. We've established that. No need to further elaborate on that division. If running is bad then what is the better alternative way to work the cardio vascular system ?

Scott


A good elliptical trainer.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Waynes wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Waynes wrote:



As I said, Ellington and Arthur built their bodies on HVT, and did every other bodybuilder, powelifter and strongman.

Wayne




no they didn't !


Oh yes they did.


Wayne



No they didn't! They did SSTF on EACh exercise.

Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


southbeach wrote:
Waynes wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Waynes wrote:



As I said, Ellington and Arthur built their bodies on HVT, and did every other bodybuilder, powelifter and strongman.

Wayne
no they didn't !


Oh yes they did.


Wayne



No they didn't! They did SSTF on EACh exercise.



We all know very well from Arthurs records that he did 12 exercises per week, and did 4 sets of each exercise, and gained something like 30 pounds, and then he chanced it a little and gained another 20 pounds or something close to like that.

When Ellington was training for comps, he never knew nothing about HIT, HIT came years and years after, all that was known then was HVT or there about.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

spud

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=UQbuzsY_34Q
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

spud wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/...zsY_34Q


i bet i could eat that whole pizza

Open User Options Menu

spud

I'd eat the whole pizza too.

It is alarming though how quickly you can consume a ridiculous number calories.

The guy on the treadmill would have burned off the equivalent calories in about an hour of running at that pace. How many people actually run at that pace for an hour?

Even if they do all they succeed in doing is working up an appetite.

Episode 4 is particularly good as it highlights how awful starbucks is for you.
Open User Options Menu

AceHIT

Wayne

Why do you post on this site if HIT is myth and folklore?

The fact of the matter is that your training is no different to the way millions of trainees the world over train.

Those with above average genetics gain muscle and then assume that their training will work for everyone. Those who don't gain muscle quit in the first year of training.

With HIT, you can gain as much muscle as your genetic potential will allow. What's more, you will get there faster.

I am proof of this. With below average genetics, dieted down, I still look better and more muscular than 90% of my peers.

I train once a week on not more than five exercises all taken to failure. Some weeks I do just three exercises.

In five years of training HIT I have only gotten stronger.

I never, ever, ever run but am fitter on the squash court than EVERYONE I play in my league. Note I didn't say I win every game (that is a matter of skill) but there is unanimous agreement in my club that I am the fittest player by far. How did I achieve such a level of fitness in the squash court?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

spud wrote:
I'd eat the whole pizza too.

It is alarming though how quickly you can consume a ridiculous number calories.

The guy on the treadmill would have burned off the equivalent calories in about an hour of running at that pace. How many people actually run at that pace for an hour?

Even if they do all they succeed in doing is working up an appetite.

Episode 4 is particularly good as it highlights how awful starbucks is for you.


If I can burn 300-400 ADDTL cals per day doing some form of aerobics that ADDS UP! In the process I also get fitter. Of course CALORIC RESTRICTION is the most important aspect to losing fat weight.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy