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 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

N@tural1

Mr. Strong wrote:
What came first, productive training methods or physiological understanding?


Irrelevant. Physiological understanding opens our eyes as to WHY productive training works. The two do not clash or conflict.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

With all this back and forth talk I've lost the point of this late in the thread discussion. Landau, could you please restate the gist of what your point is here in laymrnd terms about cardio training and it's relation to the heart and lungs.

Thanks
Scott
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
See your wishes come true in "exercise studies" that have an agenda. I deal with Medical Professionals on a DAILY Basis and all you can do is quote studies that mirror your fantasies? Rumors are correct, you are what you are - that's why you stay in your garage. I'm a fool HUH? James T - your turn now!

Funny. Not one health professional I've ever met has told me to be a sedentary lazy arse. I wonder why.

Perhaps your "health professional" friends can provide you with studies or some type of substance that backs up your claims that cardio has zero benefits?

And while you're at it, I'm still waiting on your answer on WHY a runner is better at running than a non runner IF there are no benefits/adaptations?

Will you provide something substantial? I doubt it.

*awaits more opinion*



1. Define Sedentary.
2. 30 Year Old Imbecile Question - Answer - No Rational Intelligent Person Cares
3. No Benefit - Sorry and IT HAS BEEN PROVEN YOU BLIND HF

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

entsminger wrote:
With all this back and forth talk I've lost the point of this late in the thread discussion. Landau, could you please restate the gist of what your point is here in laymrnd terms about cardio training and it's relation to the heart and lungs.

Thanks
Scott


Stressing those Organs for NO GOOD REASON - Human Biology - Heart and Lung Objectives
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

Landau wrote:
entsminger wrote:
With all this back and forth talk I've lost the point of this late in the thread discussion. Landau, could you please restate the gist of what your point is here in laymrnd terms about cardio training and it's relation to the heart and lungs.

Thanks
Scott

Stressing those Organs for NO GOOD REASON - Human Biology - Heart and Lung Objectives


Hold on while I get my Jethro Bodine Double-Naught-Spy Decoder Ring to decipher that reply.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
1. Define Sedentary.


Landau wrote:
2. 30 Year Old Imbecile Question - Answer - No Rational Intelligent Person Cares


Cop out. Side step. You can't answer because the question in itself owns you.

Landau wrote:
3. No Benefit - Sorry and IT HAS BEEN PROVEN YOU BLIND HF


Then provide the study, research or evidence that shows this. NUMEROUS studies have been presented to you proving otherwise.

Again, I ask for evidence not opinion.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
1. Define Sedentary.

Landau wrote:
2. 30 Year Old Imbecile Question - Answer - No Rational Intelligent Person Cares

Cop out. Side step. You can't answer because the question in itself owns you.

Landau wrote:
3. No Benefit - Sorry and IT HAS BEEN PROVEN YOU BLIND HF

Then provide the study, research or evidence that shows this. NUMEROUS studies have been presented to you proving otherwise.

Again, I ask for evidence not opinion.


Your Question leads to an answer that leads you NO WHERE - NO ONE CARES - IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RUN INTO A WALL. YOU ARE A DUMMY. WHY DON'T YOU RUN IN THE GP.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
Your Question leads to an answer that leads you NO WHERE - NO ONE CARES - IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RUN INTO A WALL. YOU ARE A DUMMY. WHY DON'T YOU RUN IN THE GP.

More side stepping.. if my question leads to an answer.. WTF IS IT THE ANSWER?

What makes people training to get better at running so wrong yet lifting weights is so right.. YOUR opinion...?

Why lift? Why get stronger? Why improve physique? Does it make you healthier? I can throw the same questions you ask of runners at you.

Your replies are so lacking it's embarrassing.
Open User Options Menu

spud

http://en.wikipedia.org/...wiki/Sarcopenia

Sarcopenia is why lifting weights is essential as we age. It can also help counteract osteoporosis.

Muscle loss happens to us all, but it can be slowed down, paused and even reversed just with a little bit of strength training. 20 minutes once or twice a week could be the difference between becoming old and frail or remaining relatively young and spritely.

Strength training can be performed in a manner that is safe on your joints, ligaments and tendons etc whilst till being tough on muscles.

Running does nothing to build muscle, it actually speed up the process of muscle loss, and tends to be performed in a relatively fast manner for longer, more frequent periods than strength training and over time is not so healthy for your joints.

Leg muscles moves through a partial range of motion, under low load with no easy way of implementing progression.

Strength training is the reverse. Pretty much all muscles move through a full (or at least far greater) range of motion, under meaningful load and implementing progression is easy i.e. more plates on the bar, heavier dumbbells or drop the pin further down the weight stack.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
Your Question leads to an answer that leads you NO WHERE - NO ONE CARES - IT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RUN INTO A WALL. YOU ARE A DUMMY. WHY DON'T YOU RUN IN THE GP.

More side stepping.. if my question leads to an answer.. WTF IS IT THE ANSWER?

What makes people training to get better at running so wrong yet lifting weights is so right.. YOUR opinion...?

Why lift? Why get stronger? Why improve physique? Does it make you healthier? I can throw the same questions you ask of runners at you.

Your replies are so lacking it's embarrassing.


I can't get you to THINK - you suffer from specialization. Running - Sport WeightLifting - Sport HIT - Exercise

Your Definitions, Fundamentals, Etc are LACKING + you depend on the INTERNET way too much - think of it as Physical Medicine (Dosage), not gross activity - do I need research - I am afraid not and if I did, I'd be playing your game. Unless you show up and actually train with James (I now understand why you don't - same as SB), then you are a keyboard "expert" I actually participate, you live in your hole.

You don't own a thing on me, other than being what they call a TROLL and you are one, no one person has actually met you and again I understand why closet boy.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
I can't get you to THINK


You post NOTHING thats thought provoking.

Landau wrote:
you suffer from specialization. Running - Sport WeightLifting - Sport HIT - Exercise


You're an idiot, you're saying anything thats not HIT isn't exercise. You're a clown. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Landau wrote:
Your Definitions, Fundamentals, Etc are LACKING


Your opinion, where is your evidence? Enough has been presented to you that discredits your "opinions". Where's the substantial rebuttal not this opinionated bias nonsense.

Landau wrote:
do I need research - I am afraid not and if I did, I'd be playing your game.

My game is called facing reality researching/learning all the time. You're just a closed minded fool. You embarrass yourself and contribute hugely to the poor name of HIT.

Landau wrote:
Unless you show up and actually train with James (I now understand why you don't - same as SB), then you are a keyboard "expert" I actually participate, you live in your hole.


Not your classic "appeal to authority" argument again!

Landau wrote:
You don't own a thing on me, other than being what they call a TROLL


You've offered NOTHING substantial to this debate, just insults and bias opinion, I owned you SB owned you. You've offered NOTHING to counter but insults, opinion and appeal to authority. You're a huge joke.

Landau wrote:
no one person has actually met you and again I understand why closet boy.


WTF has that got to do with the health/fitness benefits and adaptations from cardio/running!!!!!!

No one on this board has "met me" so therefore everything I post must be nonsense!

Landau, you're owned pal, you're desperate! Now present me with something substantial or continue looking like a bias HIT jedi clown that views ANYTHING else other than SSTF as not being exercise.

Goodness why Your permitted to post here you talk so much shit it's frightening.

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

OK F - Running - Sport, Weightlifting -Sport, HIT - System of Physical Training (Exercise). Yes it does lend credibility thru the definition of terms, then what do you have? OOPs Yeah - This is a Site about Physical Training (HIT). See You're a Punk Kid.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Health and Fitness - Oil and Water - Basically Understood by Most as Such. Remember - define the terms and don't make up your own definition to fit your agenda. This is WHERE YOU ARE WRONG! Remember, turn the lights out when you are done in the garage. Health and Fitness - Funny.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
OK F - Running - Sport, Weightlifting -Sport, HIT - System of Physical Training (Exercise).


So running and lifting weight isn't exercise.. LOL you're a joke.

During HIT heart/lungs activity is elevated, same thing happens through cardio/running, you tell me how the hell the heart/lungs can tell the difference?

During HIT your muscle exerts force against a load. Again, same thing happens during other forms of weight training. Where's the difference in terms? How the hell does the muscle tell the difference?

Landau wrote:
Yes it does lend credibility thru the definition of terms.


Only the way YOU define them in your retarded bias little world.

Landau wrote:
This is a Site about Physical Training (HIT). See You're a Punk Kid.


WRONG this site is about one particular type of physical training (HIT)

You're a punk trainer, which is worse?

Landau wrote:
Health and Fitness - Oil and Water


Different but certainly not oil and water. The two are related to some degree.

Landau wrote:
don't make up your own definition to fit your agenda.


I have no agenda, you do. You worship ONE particular training style and view IT only as "exercise". I'm open minded to many forms of training and their specific benefits. Who's the bias one with the agenda? Certainly not me. You're the one making up terms to suit your bias.

Landau wrote:
Remember, turn the lights out when you are done in the garage. Health and Fitness - Funny.


WTF has this to do with anything. Lacking substance again are we huh?
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

Natty, there's a lot of unpleasant emotion being displayed here so I thought I might help you out with some of your issues.

You wonder why David Landau is "allowed" to post here. I would suggest it is mainly because:

1. He's a professional HIT trainer with an excellent knowledge off our chosen training method.

2. He's a friend of Dr Darden and pretty much everyone else professionally involved in HIT training. He was also a friend of Arthur Jones during his lifetime.

3. He cares passionately about HIT training.

I don't post very often now but it does annoy me when HITers have to justify their chosen training technique on a site dedicated to HIT!

It's quite clear why Dave Landau posts here because he cares about the legacy of Arthur Jones. What is not so clear to me is why certain members like yourself post here.

Are you interested in HIT?

Are you interested in Dr Darden's books?

Are you interested in Arthur Jones's life's work?

I hope you answer "yes" to one of these questions at the very least because if you don't then I just cannot understand why you spend so much time here.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

mentzerfan wrote:
Natty, there's a lot of unpleasant emotion being displayed here so I thought I might help you out with some of your issues.


The only issue I have is with Landau bias and ignorance. NOT because he's a HIT trainer but rather because he shits on everything else.

mentzerfan wrote:
1. He's a professional HIT trainer with an excellent knowledge off our chosen training method.


Yet never offers anything substantial here on the forum expect appeal to authority, believe me because I said so.

mentzerfan wrote:
2. He's a friend of Dr Darden and pretty much everyone else professionally involved in HIT training.


I honestly would had though he'd show his friends board a little more class than he does.

mentzerfan wrote:
3. He cares passionately about HIT training.


Caring is one thing, being a deluded fool is another.

mentzerfan wrote:
I don't post very often now but it does annoy me when HITers have to justify their chosen training technique on a site dedicated to HIT!


This debate has absolutely nothing to do with justifying HIT. It has everything to do with Landaus attitude to everything else, namely, everything not HIT isn't exercise, this is utter bull shit.

mentzerfan wrote:
It's quite clear why Dave Landau posts here because he cares about the legacy of Arthur Jones.


He gives HIT a stinking bad name. WTF would the silent reader think, a newbie showing interest in HIT? They'd likely think WTF! These guys sound like pompous bias cultist! No one on the planet is exercises correctly but them! What a joke.

This isn't a reflection on all HIT advocates, I am referring specifically to David.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Thanks MentzerFan
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natural, Natty...Numpty...

...whatever you call yourself at the moment (I can think of more appropriate "names")...

Have you read anywhere that "Superhealth" is impossible, a fantasy? I doubt it. What you're failing to understand is the concept of health. Health is (generally considered to be) a freedom from disease. Running CANNOT prevent the inevitable. Call it fate, the stars, heredity, the genes - whatever you want - if it's going to happen - you can't run away from it my friend.

The physiological changes running may possibly bring are just that - changes, mostly for the worse (blanket term - Overuse Syndrome). Of course, if you have the genetic gift for running long distance, specific skill practice is essential. You must run long distance.

Running will also improve your conditioning with relation to the chosen event, within (as per) genetically predetermined boundaries. So, what? Again, I must state that you may still die on the spot aged 25 from a heart attack regardless!

I know of two professional athletes, one aged 26 and one aged 32 who both died within the last six months in my area of severe heart attacks. Perhaps they didn't run ENOUGH?

Generally speaking, the runners lose muscle at the same rate as the sedentary. Generally speaking, they aren't living any longer than anyone else. Generally speaking all they seem to do is run (poor souls). And WORSE STILL they generally suffer from POOR HEALTH compared to the rest of us.

Coughs, colds, shin splints, sore knees, ankles, groins, hips and back. Poor immunity across the board. We used to have a local running club based at our place...a bunch of broken down crocks! Put bluntly, you wouldn't wish for their health, functionality or physiques. All that aside, the so called health benefits you may attain by running (if you're a little scared) can be attained in a much safer manner via a PROPER HIT schedule. So, why bother?

Natural, why are you arguing this point? You surely don't run? From the look of your waistline in the last picture you put out, I'd avoid the impact of running...might slow your progression to 200lbs in the FULL squat! Here's a tip. Running for fat loss is an EXERCISE in futility. Just avoid the fish and chips.

The invite still stands old chap. When can I book you in for, services provided gratis of course...?

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
What you're failing to understand is the concept of health. Health is (generally considered to be) a freedom from disease. Running CANNOT prevent the inevitable.


I've never claimed otherwise. It may benefit you to read the last few pages and understand this debate within context and also address the numerous studies some spanning many years testifying the benefits of cardiovascular exercise.

JamesT wrote:
The physiological changes running may possibly bring are just that - changes, mostly for the worse


Explain and be specific.

JamesT wrote:
Of course, if you have the genetic gift for running long distance, specific skill practice is essential. You must run long distance.


The old nonsense "skill" argument, the answer for everything not HIT. Laughable.

JamesT wrote:
Running will also improve your conditioning


Exactly, well done. An IMPROVMENT in conditioning. At least you admit that cardio DOES net improvements.

JamesT wrote:
So, what? Again, I must state that you may still die on the spot aged 25 from a heart attack regardless!


And?

JamesT wrote:
I know of two professional athletes, one aged 26 and one aged 32 who both died within the last six months in my area of severe heart attacks. Perhaps they didn't run ENOUGH?


I wonder what population is more likely to have a heart attack.. an over weight sedentary person huffing and puffing after climbing a set of stairs or lean fit people.. Cardio is no guarantee against any disease or illness, but who's more likely to have heart issue out of the two populations above?

JamesT wrote:
Generally speaking, the runners lose muscle at the same rate as the sedentary.


Muscle gain/loss isn't the issue here.

JamesT wrote:
Generally speaking all they seem to do is run (poor souls).


Hey if that's their preference over lifting good for them.

JamesT wrote:
And WORSE STILL they generally suffer from POOR HEALTH compared to the rest of us.


Depends if they over train or stray outside of their bodies natural recovery, I don't believe running 100+ miles per week is needed or even desirable outside of competitive running but rather 2-3 session per week 20-30 mins cardio.

JamesT wrote:
Coughs, colds, shin splints, sore knees, ankles, groins, hips and back. Poor immunity across the board.


See above.

JamesT wrote:
All that aside, the so called health benefits you may attain by running (if you're a little scared) can be attained in a much safer manner via a PROPER HIT schedule. So, why bother?

My issue isn't JUST in defense of sensible running (not pounding yourself into the ground) but in cardio exercise in general.

I'll put to you the same question that Landau cannot answer.

Two identical twins, one runs the other doesn't. The runner is better at running than the other proving that running causes adaptations, improvements. How can you say there's no benefit to running and/or cardio if empirically proven there are improvements?
Open User Options Menu

johnbhoy

Armed Forces - Europe

JamesT wrote:


Coughs, colds, shin splints, sore knees, ankles, groins, hips and back. Poor immunity across the board.

/quote]
I could add sweat rashes, sore nipples and gastrointestinal problems to that list.
Running was very popular here in the UK back in the 80's when i was a boy. I rarely see anyone running now unless there is a police officer chasing them. They all must be on treadmills in the fancy health clubs which keep popping up everywhere.

Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
Two identical twins, one runs the other doesn't. The runner is better at running than the other proving that running causes adaptations, improvements. How can you say there's no benefit to running and/or cardio if empirically proven there are improvements?


And I suggest you reread my one and only post Wayne...sorry Natural. Apologies for my confusion, but your question is on par.

The non-runner lives longer and never needed his knees replacing. The bloke never had a cold...He also took up HIT, so he was leaner, more muscular and had plenty of time to entertain the hot girls. Happy?

I'm taking an educated guess so I'm one up on you...

Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
Depends if they over train or stray outside of their bodies natural recovery, I don't believe running 100+ miles per week is needed or even desirable outside of competitive running but rather 2-3 session per week 20-30 mins cardio.


Most of my clients do two 20 minute cardio sessions weekly. Leg extension, no rest, leg press, no rest, pulldown, no rest, etc, etc...

If there are benefits to be had - I've got it covered. I think you have too much invested in the apparent pluses.

Now tell my again why I should run as opposed to performing a HIT schedule? Surely you don't advocate several multiple set sessions weekly ALONG SIDE two or three dedicated cardio sessions? You wouldn't encourage FIVE or SIX exercise sessions weekly would you? For a DRUG FREE trainee???

You always speak of staying within the realms of individual recovery capacity - but you have no idea what that means. Words.

Wow! You could be on to something! You should write to Men's Health Magazine, they might give you a job.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
The non-runner lives longer and never needed his knees replacing. The bloke never had a cold...


Vague at best. Are you talking about a triple figure mileage runners per week or some one that exercise sensibly 2-3 per week for the health/fitness benefits?

JamesT wrote:
Most of my clients do two 20 minute cardio sessions weekly. Leg extension, no rest, leg press, no rest, pulldown, no rest, etc, etc...


Ok so, you have your trainees do cardio, you clearly are of the opinion that there are benefits to be had. 2-3 20-30 minute session of cardio sounds reasonable to me.

JamesT wrote:
Now tell my again why I should run as opposed to performing a HIT schedule?


Where have I suggested running over any other cardio activity? The emphasis is on cardio, GETTING the exercise. Not everyone cares to lift weights.

JamesT wrote:
Surely you don't advocate several multiple set sessions weekly ALONG SIDE two or three dedicated cardio sessions?

Me personally, no. This has never been implied.

JamesT wrote:
You wouldn't encourage FIVE or SIX exercise sessions weekly would you? For a DRUG FREE trainee???


Again, personally no, however, not to say this is impossible for a drug free lifter.

JamesT wrote:
You always speak of staying within the realms of individual recovery capacity - but you have no idea what that means. Words.


I only suggest staying within recovery when using single factor super-compensation, not when using DFT. DFT is planned over-reaching but that's a different topic.
Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan

So what you're saying Natty, is that your very emotional problem with Landau is just down to the way he phrases his posts. Is that right?

Is he outspoken? Yes he is but he isn't thrusting his views down people's throats. He doesn't tour the internet and post everywhere he can trying to annoy everyone who doesn't like HIT. He posts here on a board dedicated to Arthur Jones and HIT. If somebody has no interest in HIT then they wouldn't be on this board to read his views in the first place. Or so I would have thought!

Is he opinionated? Yes he is, but he does make it very clear where he stands and what he believes. I appreciate that. Would you prefer to have a conversation with someone very open about their subject or would you prefer talking to someone just interested in argument and "scoring points" in some limp ego contest? I know what I'd prefer!

Is he abrasive? Yes, sometimes. But then so are you in most of your posts. if you dish it out then don't get upset if someone throws it right back at you! I know a few people who have met Dave Landau and they all like him a lot. You and me hide behind anonymous usernames which makes it difficult to take the moral high ground criticising a man who makes his name and physique known to all.

If I were you I'd think about what it is that makes you so upset with Landau.

Is it the style he writes his posts in? If so then it's really not worth getting upset and angry about how somebody chooses to arrange words on a message board.

Is it his beliefs and his stance on training that upsets you so much? If so then I should remind you this is a specialist forum dedicated to HIT. If you're not interested in HIT training or you don't like HIT training then you've really got to question why you're here in the first place!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Landau has been NOTHING but nice to me in his private replies.

I conclude from his viewpoints and his actions that he is a "blue chip" Iron Man.

Everyone, including myself has faults, but if we were all in a gym training together, I would bet we would ALL be friends within a short period of time, with few exceptions.

Let us all be friends just like the old days! One day perhaps too soon, we will all be gone, with little to remember us except for the good times, as no one wants to remember the bad times.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy