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 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23
Author
Rating
Options

Landau

Florida, USA

The Perception of the "so called" number of calories "burned" is grossly exaggerated. (it is conveniently preprogrammed in treadmills, steppers, and elipticals as an vastly overrated guestimate number of expended calories) Also figure X = Y minus Z or what do I normally do instead of this sloven treadmill to no where - the difference is minimal from normal daily activity to canned activity.

Also, generally people that do planned exertional activities with an "objective" to "burn" calories (bad objective), normally by day's end are tired from their onslaughts, tired during work - etc., so there is a balanced scale so to speak. Bottom line is to enjoy the simple personal activities in life that you like to indulge in and place no premium on planned activity (or just avoid it out right) where as when you expect change, there is none........only that being worse for the wear.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
The Perception of the "so called" number of calories "burned" is grossly exaggerated. (it is conveniently preprogrammed in treadmills, steppers, and elipticals as an vastly overrated guestimate number of expended calories) Also figure X = Y minus Z or what do I normally do instead of this sloven treadmill to no where - the difference is minimal from normal daily activity to canned activity.

Also, generally people that do planned exertional activities with an "objective" to "burn" calories (bad objective), normally by day's end are tired from their onslaughts, tired during work - etc., so there is a balanced scale so to speak. Bottom line is to enjoy the simple personal activities in life that you like to indulge in and place no premium on planned activity (or just avoid it out right) where as when you expect change, there is none........only that being worse for the wear.


Dave, agree I largely ignore "treadmill cals". A study done at Syracuse a while back gave good evidence that a 9:30 mile burned avg of ~105 cals for males (less for women) So I use this as a rule of thumb. I burn up at least 300 to 400 cals per day in some form of aerobics, some days more some less.

It adds up over a month!
Open User Options Menu

antz

AceHIT wrote:
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?


My experience has been similar. Excellent post.
Open User Options Menu

antz

Waynes wrote:

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:
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:
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




1) So it is Dr. Darden's definition of HIT that you are against.
HIT does not belong to any one person, including Arthur Jones.

Let us take only the no. of sets here for brevity:
HIT is not limited to SSTF alone. HIT proponents such as Dr. Ken, Bob Whelan, and Stuart McRobert have written about and done multiple sets. Have you heard of 50% sets and 10-10-10 sets?

If you take only Dr. Darden's definition of HIT, I still believe it has credibility as he did do research with real people for several months and then had written about it.

2) Ok I am doing HIT since 4 yrs (after one decade of HVT). I know I am not the same as 4 yrs ago. Will let you know whether I remain the same after 10 years. :-)

3) I don't think everybody built their bodies using HVT. You should find out how Arthur Saxon, Hise, Rader, etc. built their bodies.
And speaking of people who built their bodies only using HIT, few names comes to my mind: Alex Fee, John Wood, Kevin Tolbert, and Gregory Leistener.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

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


==Scott==
I have tried going from one Nautilus machine to the next with as little time as possible between sets to work cardio and I find it very difficult to keep my breathing or palse up consistantly as I recover pretty good in the time it takes to get into the next machine. Even after a hard puuffing set I seem to recover pretty good in less than ten seconds. I just can't keep the breathing up consistantly like I can on an erg, or a stationairy bike or running fast.
Of the few times that I was able to keep the breathing up when jumping from one machine to the next I found the muscle building aspect suffered greatly for the anarobic effect the speed between sets produced.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

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

==Scott==
I have tried going from one Nautilus machine to the next with as little time as possible between sets to work cardio and I find it very difficult to keep my breathing or palse up consistantly as I recover pretty good in the time it takes to get into the next machine. Even after a hard puuffing set I seem to recover pretty good in less than ten seconds. I just can't keep the breathing up consistantly like I can on an erg, or a stationairy bike or running fast.
Of the few times that I was able to keep the breathing up when jumping from one machine to the next I found the muscle building aspect suffered greatly for the anarobic effect the speed between sets produced.


are you setting all the machines up in advance? even then i run to next throw myself into it. another thing you will fuss with the seatbelt (subconsciously) to gain time, don't give in grab that belt and LOCK N'LOAD!!
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Lets get this thread back on track. Study over a 17 year period.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...sk-d831572.html

To ignore ALL studies that draw similar conclusions shows nothing more than a closed mind.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

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

BULLSHIT.

Be specific about what aspect of science is not compatible with the simple concept that a muscle that can perform 100 units of work with a heavy load will be bigger than a muscle that can only perform 10 units of work with the same load all else being equal.

Seriously.. common sense people!
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Natty wrote:
Lets get this thread back on track. Study over a 17 year period.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...sk-d831572.html

To ignore ALL studies that draw similar conclusions shows nothing more than a closed mind.


==Scott==

Was there a track on this thread, ha ha. Without me having to re-read some long paper, can someone refresh my memory as to what was the point of the origional post?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

entsminger wrote:
Natty wrote:
Lets get this thread back on track. Study over a 17 year period.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...sk-d831572.html

To ignore ALL studies that draw similar conclusions shows nothing more than a closed mind.

==Scott==

Was there a track on this thread, ha ha. Without me having to re-read some long paper, can someone refresh my memory as to what was the point of the origional post?


read the header
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Natty wrote:
Lets get this thread back on track. Study over a 17 year period.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...sk-d831572.html

To ignore ALL studies that draw similar conclusions shows nothing more than a closed mind.

==Scott==

Was there a track on this thread, ha ha. Without me having to re-read some long paper, can someone refresh my memory as to what was the point of the origional post?

read the header


==Scott==
Yea I know what the header says but what was the point of the paper mentioned? Was it saying running, etc was bad or good?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Natty wrote:
Lets get this thread back on track. Study over a 17 year period.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...sk-d831572.html

To ignore ALL studies that draw similar conclusions shows nothing more than a closed mind.

==Scott==

Was there a track on this thread, ha ha. Without me having to re-read some long paper, can someone refresh my memory as to what was the point of the origional post?

read the header

==Scott==
Yea I know what the header says but what was the point of the paper mentioned? Was it saying running, etc was bad or good?


what paper scott?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

I missed this one, sorry.

antz wrote:
Waynes wrote:

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:
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:
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




1) So it is Dr. Darden's definition of HIT that you are against.
HIT does not belong to any one person, including Arthur Jones.


All HIT that is basically SSSTF Slow Single Sets To Failure, there is no science to it, actually its the opposite to what science says, but is the best plan for a beginner.

The reason that HIT can work at times, is because so many lifters are so grossly over trained. Noted exercise physiologist and researcher Bannister coined the expression "fatigue masks fitness" to describe how results magically appear when the training stimulus is reduced. Once these guys back off from the volume, they finally give their bodies an opportunity to grow. But they can do it far more efficiently other ways

antz wrote:
Let us take only the no. of sets here for brevity:
HIT is not limited to SSTF alone. HIT proponents such as Dr. Ken, Bob Whelan, and Stuart McRobert have written about and done multiple sets. Have you heard of 50% sets and 10-10-10 sets?


If HIT was a real program, and people grew quite big from it, it would not have to be unlimited, but limited, but it has to be unlimited, as it needs to change things, but if it had it right it would not have to change the basic things like Slow Single Sets To Failure, but only the little things, but as there are so many versions how can sports people take it serious, which they do not. No bodybuilders do HIT.

antz wrote:
If you take only Dr. Darden's definition of HIT, I still believe it has credibility as he did do research with real people for several months and then had written about it.


It would take far more than a few before and after photos to believe HIT works. I could take a good size person or bodybuilder, put him on a restricted diet, dehydrate him, stop him training, and then do the opposite, and easy add 30 pound in 8 weeks.

antz wrote:
2) Ok I am doing HIT since 4 yrs (after one decade of HVT). I know I am not the same as 4 yrs ago. Will let you know whether I remain the same after 10 years. :-)


Most did HVT, but they had no fantastic set plan that Ellington give in his books, the set plan is one of the keys to building muscles, it keeps you motivated, tell you what to do week after week, and so on, most people cannot go wrong with Ellingtongs books, I totally loved them, but after the initial gains, they just turned into long hard manual labour, and very some gains if any, most here are also experiencing the same thing.

But the books are brainwashing, you think HIT is right and everything else is wrong, and in the end you keep seeing other people gaining, and you keep saying to yourself, dammed he is doing everything wrong but still gaining, if only I was not a hard gainer, and you in the end just want/will it to work so much, that you keep on doing it for years and years, without hardily any growth.

But that other person was not doing everything wrong, and you are not a hard gainer.

antz wrote:
3) I don't think everybody built their bodies using HVT. You should find out how Arthur Saxon, Hise, Rader, etc. built their bodies.
And speaking of people who built their bodies only using HIT, few names comes to my mind: Alex Fee, John Wood, Kevin Tolbert, and Gregory Leistener.


There is far more out there than HVT.

Did you know that Mike Mentzer never did HIT.

I would not believe most of what you hear or read.

But if its honestly working, and only you know that by what the scales are saying, cool.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Natty wrote:
Lets get this thread back on track. Study over a 17 year period.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/...sk-d831572.html

To ignore ALL studies that draw similar conclusions shows nothing more than a closed mind.

==Scott==

Was there a track on this thread, ha ha. Without me having to re-read some long paper, can someone refresh my memory as to what was the point of the origional post?

read the header

==Scott==
Yea I know what the header says but what was the point of the paper mentioned? Was it saying running, etc was bad or good?

what paper scott?


==Scott==
I'm sorry, I thought there was some article everyone was refering to about how bad running is or isn't. There's been so much back and forth crap on this thread I got confused. Here's my answer to those who feel running is bad. Erging!! check out my video. 5--8 sets of 30 seconds all out rowing will put you into a breathless state that is tough to beat and no pounding of the knees etc.

http://s673.photobucket.com/...v95/entsminger/
Open User Options Menu

rephore

I just started running again a few weeks ago.

The last time I ran was in 8th grade when my PE teacher got mad and forced the whole class to run 3 miles.

It took me about two weeks to be able to run a mile without stopping. And about a month to be able to run three miles.

I hate running though, almost as much as squatting. But you have to do what you don't like doing right?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

rephore wrote:
I just started running again a few weeks ago.

The last time I ran was in 8th grade when my PE teacher got mad and forced the whole class to run 3 miles.

It took me about two weeks to be able to run a mile without stopping. And about a month to be able to run three miles.

I hate running though, almost as much as squatting. But you have to do what you don't like doing right?


you running on track or treadmill?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

I am curious is anyone familiar with Nordic Walking?



http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=ZKTufkzpo8E

Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy