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
Questions for Andrew & All Hitters
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Waynes

Switzerland

Andrew and some hitters THINK they are generating high effort on a slow set to failure, but can NOT say why they THINK they are doing this. They also THINK failure is what it is not; again they cannot say what happens at failure or why they do it.

So here is my scientific debate with proof and evidence against what they seem to think is the truth.


You are NOT applying maximum effort, but quite low effort ???
I would say a HIT SSSFT {Slow Single Set To Failure} IS REDUCED EFFORT/INTENSITY.


1,
If I run a 100m slow its low effort, if I run 100m as fast as I could its the highest effort.

2,
N1 said; At MMF, muscular work is at the LOWEST in the entire set, CNS output is HIGHEST; you then are using high effort at the wrong point, are you NOT ???

3,
So HOW do some people THINK they are generating high effort when they are NOT ???

Say you are lifting 80% say 160 pounds.

Your MMF for 5 seconds = 160 pounds of force.

My fast 5 reps at .5/.5 for 5 seconds = 800 pounds of force.

My force output in the same time frame is 400% than yours.

Power = force x velocity.

Or we could put it another way.

Your MMF for 5 seconds = 160 accumulated overall poundage moved/held.

My fast 5 reps at .5/.5 for 5 seconds 800 accumulated overall poundage moved.

My accumulated overall poundage moved in the same time frame is 400% than yours.

Maybe before you just did not see this, I did not either years ago, but when I did I just knew I had to say I was wrong.

To Jeff Pinter, as I know that its not able to work out the strength/force power used in a static hold at failure, so I went for accumulated poundage moved, not sure if you have anything else to add ??? As I imagine when I asked you, you were a little too busy. However, on a static or at failure we must be using up the last bits of strength we have left
I asked Roger recently if there was any way of working this out, and here is his reply.
Wayne,

I am not exactly sure what you are asking. When the lift involves a displacement, the performance can, as you described, be quantified by the work that was done by the muscles or the power that was produced. When the task does not involve a displacement, the performance can be expressed as the impulse (F x t), which is a reasonable estimate of the energy required to hold the position of the weight against gravity. However, there it is not possible to compare the magnitudes of work (or power) and impulse for the two tasks.

I hope this helps.


Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Integrative Physiology
University of Colorado


AShortt wrote:
It is completely up for debate how many additionally sets after one to failure are useful. In my experience it is best to either change exercises of you wish another set for same muscle, or dramatically change the way you perform the second set of the same exercise. Trying to get more fatigue with set extenders and additional sets has some merit but diminishing returns kicks in right after the first set to failure.


The best way to keep any sticking point at bay, is to not dramatically change how you do the seconds third of forth sets, but to just rest several minutes and perform another set with maybe more weight for less reps, and repeat.

AShortt wrote:
Your argument is a logical fallacy called the 'either/or' proposition. Look it up, I have long ago a don't get drawn into B.S. set-ups like that Mr. Pinter.

I suppose if you use illegal drugs to get gains and are fine with throwing around weights and arbitrary extra sets will-nilly none of this really matters. As a natural bodybuilder I regulate systemic fatigue carefully.


??? You do the opposite of regulate fatigue.

Some of the below was written by N1, and me, and some may have been written by John and All-pro.

4,
Training to failure will only fatigue you faster, and fatigue is not really wanted, TENSTION is, but you do not get much tension in a slow rep, do you ???

5,
After the beginners stage, reps should be done the majority of the time, as fast as possible to give the highest tension, and when your reps slow down quite a bit, and you hit your desired number of reps, it is far more beneficial for a fatigue sparing set to stop, rest and do another set, this then reduces the fatigue in favour of creating a greater amount/number of high force/tension/effort reps for a better stimuli.


Like some of you, I was programmed to train nothing less than failure, and failure is based on fatigue, you would find tension dominant sets far better for size and strength.


On your low intensity and low force/tension/effort several first reps, you will be working at accumulating fatigue, I would suggest very high load forces, which gives you the very high muscular tension/forces that are far far far higher than what you are creating, with a slow reps set to failure.


On the end of a slow set, you will have to stop because of fatigue on the muscle fibers, and CNS fatigue, not because of high tension on the muscle, which is the prime and best for strength and hypertrophy.


On several fast high force/tension/effort sets, there will be far higher tensions stimulus, and not much fatigue which lets you do far more sets of the same high force/tension/effort stimuli.


The muscle overload is far greater.

I do not think SSSTF is the best way, if you actually know whats happening, its ok to go to failure now and again if it suits you, I do and have nothing against failure, however my reps and sets are very hard from the start, to create high tensions straight away, a SSSTF creates quite low tensions, why is this ???

When your hitting failure, all muscle fibers have been recruited, {on a fast set with 50% and over all muscle fibers have been recruited} and the CNS is trying to fire the muscle fibers at their highest firing rate, but because of fatigue many will not responding.

The rate of contraction and the protein degradation will have gone down, while CNS effort and fatigue will has gone up.

AShortt wrote:
A bit more fatigue in the targeted muscle is often not worth the systemic drain. Recovery is where growth happens and we need to give it as much concern as we do hammering muscles in the gym.

For the record I don't think there is anything magical about MMF - I think there is something special about it and that it allows better and more accurate use of resources.



Could you also tell us what you think happens to the muscle fibers before a slow set to failure and at failure, that is if you of anyone else knows ???

Andrew and some others, you NOT growing because you NOT eating enough, and because your CNS is sick of going to failure, and doing mentally only draining slow sets. I know there are very polite people here like Andrew and others, so please I am not picking on you, just trying to help, and hopefully to learn myself

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

http://www.drdarden.com/...ic.do?id=532741
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Waynes wrote:
...You are NOT applying maximum effort, but quite low effort ???
I would say a HIT SSSFT {Slow Single Set To Failure} IS REDUCED EFFORT/INTENSITY.


Well there's one person.


1, If I run a 100m slow its low effort, if I run 100m as fast as I could its the highest effort.

Jones and Mentzer used up all the best running/HIT analogies. Yours is just retarded.

Please stop with the extremely poor running analogies.

And the elevator ones while you're at it!

2,
N1 said; At MMF, muscular work is at the LOWEST in the entire set, CNS output is HIGHEST; you then are using high effort at the wrong point, are you NOT ???


At MMF, the FORCE may be lowest but ALL available muscle fibers are firing (albeit at the lower force is due to accumulated fatigue).

Your fast reps only fatigue a portion of the musculature.

3,
So HOW do some people THINK they are generating high effort when they are NOT ???


Effort is relative. Heaving the weight only gives the perception of effort --- not all fibers throughout the muscle are being engaged.

Say you are lifting 80% say 160 pounds.

Your MMF for 5 seconds = 160 pounds of force.

My fast 5 reps at .5/.5 for 5 seconds = 800 pounds of force.


Let me stop you right there, as you AGAIN try to stubbornly and idiotically apply mechanical work analogies to exercise meant to induce hypertrophy.

Apples don't equal oranges my nutty little fruitcake!
______________________________________

Seriously though:
Good God man, give it a rest, will ya?!?! What do you hope to accomplish by preaching this shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the textbook definition of INSANITY. It's how the folks at the "nervous hospital" know they have a patient who's in the right place.

Reading your threads, Wayne, would get the guy who makes the extra-long-sleeved jackets all excited.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

PLEASE DO NOT PROVIDE THIS FOOL WITH ANY "ANSWERS" - THIS IS A SICK PERSON THAT NEEDS HIS SEDATIVES
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Wayne,

No offense intended what so ever but you have been presenting the exact same argument for what seems like years, no matter the subject you have interjected the same comments, and the same material. i really think everyone has heard your position.

in some way i admire your persistence but couldn't you at this point just cut and paste it to nearly every subject or maybe just post the words "Wayne's position" and we'll all know exactly what you are wanting to say.i'm not arguing the validity of any of your points right now, just the redundancy.

Joshua
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

stevehit wrote:
http://www.drdarden.com/...=532741


As you will note from what I wrote there I agree, but stevehit, what if you had not been so good with your muscle gains, or even with your gains, what if you did not know the above ??? What if you thought the opposite of the above was true, and then starting understanding the above, applying it and making progress, would not you want to have known, as there are lots or most of the people here and on other forums that find it hard to gain muscle.

Thing is I like to know whats right and wrong, and in certain things are right and wrong ways. As a racing driver knows how to drive a car around a track far faster than a beginner, its because he knows many things, one is forces and accelerations that act on the car, there are also many other things to learn about driving faster around a track, some might get on better without know all the thinks, but some will get on far better knowing these things.

But whatever, I like to learn things.

Nearly forgot, all mocking will be taken as you cannot answer and/or do not understand, and if you dont understand anything please ask, and also that you know the above is right but just do not like to debate, as you cannot, as you proclaim its right. All none answer will be taken as the above is very right in your eyes, hmm, thus any mocking/riddles on this thread will be ignored by me.

Wayne




Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Wayne,

No offense intended what so ever but you have been presenting the exact same argument for what seems like years, no matter the subject you have interjected the same comments, and the same material. i really think everyone has heard your position.

in some way i admire your persistence but couldn't you at this point just cut and paste it to nearly every subject or maybe just post the words "Wayne's position" and we'll all know exactly what you are wanting to say.i'm not arguing the validity of any of your points right now, just the redundancy.

Joshua


Yes I do see your point, and I bet this will get on peoples nerves, but Andrew and some others made some outrageous claims recently, but when I wrote some of the above they did not answer, I will always answer or try to back up my claims, people who do not, seem like people who say things without knowing anything about what they say, thus this is their chance to change things, or STOP making claims that are NOT the TRUTH.

Sorry again Joshua and some others, but you could stay for entertainment only ROL.

Very late here, think I will check my Euro lotto to see if I have won again, have a little bite to eat, ok a big bite to eat, then turn in for the night, have fun, and tell David I am/had going to ignore his last post as promised.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Waynes wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
...You are NOT applying maximum effort, but quite low effort ???
I would say a HIT SSSFT {Slow Single Set To Failure} IS REDUCED EFFORT/INTENSITY.

Well there's one person.


Who ???

Waynes wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
1, If I run a 100m slow its low effort, if I run 100m as fast as I could its the highest effort.

Jones and Mentzer used up all the best running/HIT analogies. Yours is just retarded.

Please stop with the extremely poor running analogies.


You or anyone could explain why you think its a bad analogy, you might be right, but until then your a 100% wrong.


simon-hecubus wrote:
And the elevator ones while you're at it!


Thats quite funny, as first Einstein used it, then Mel Siff, then me, so its not bad, but totally right, and very good example of physics in action.

Waynes wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
2,
N1 said; At MMF, muscular work is at the LOWEST in the entire set, CNS output is HIGHEST; you then are using high effort at the wrong point, are you NOT ???

At MMF, the FORCE may be lowest but ALL available muscle fibers are firing (albeit at the lower force is due to accumulated fatigue).

Your fast reps only fatigue a portion of the musculature.

3,
So HOW do some people THINK they are generating high effort when they are NOT ???

Effort is relative. Heaving the weight only gives the perception of effort --- not all fibers throughout the muscle are being engaged.


If you use as less as 50%, all muscle fibers are engaged, but not used in full or stimulated, thus then say 80% is used at very high efforts, forces/strengths, ALL not only engaged and recruited, but lots are dropping out of the pool as they have temporary used up all there force and fuel.

WHY do you think you fail faster in the faster reps ??? That is NOT perception, but a reality of the truth, and at times you fail 50% faster in a faster reps, please say how you think that is ???

Waynes wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
Say you are lifting 80% say 160 pounds.

Your MMF for 5 seconds = 160 pounds of force.

My fast 5 reps at .5/.5 for 5 seconds = 800 pounds of force.

Let me stop you right there, as you AGAIN try to stubbornly and idiotically apply mechanical work analogies to exercise meant to induce hypertrophy.

Apples don't equal oranges my nutty little fruitcake!
______________________________________


AGIAN, you say something without any backup, debate, proof, evidence, but I back mine up, why do you think muscles grows, its primary because of tension, and a faster rep, and far far far higher poundage moved means 100s of times more tension.

Go watch any Strongman workout, I mean they spent hours in the gyms moving huge abbots of poundages, and these are the biggest and strength men alive. Or look at powerlifters, bodybuilders.

Do you really thing one slow set with very low tensions is going to get you very far ??? Not it not only cannot, it will not, AS of yet we have not seen anyone move big weights in a 2/4, I would just like one of you to move say 180 pounds on the bench press at 2/4 for 12 reps, but no one can, as the sticking points will come far earlier than this.

simon-hecubus wrote:
Seriously though:
Good God man, give it a rest, will ya?!?! What do you hope to accomplish by preaching this shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?


Some nice PMs, and people saying they are progressing now.

simon-hecubus wrote:
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the textbook definition of INSANITY. It's how the folks at the "nervous hospital" know they have a patient who's in the right place.

Reading your threads, Wayne, would get the guy who makes the extra-long-sleeved jackets all excited.


If you could refute something in a serious manner, and write something good, it might stop them taking you, remember what I wrote in case you missed it, mocking and none answers like your will be ignored as you know what I write must be true.

You did not answer one thing; you just put in basically nothing of substance.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

sgsims1

simon-hecubus wrote:

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the textbook definition of INSANITY. It's how the folks at the "nervous hospital" know they have a patient who's in the right place.

Reading your threads, Wayne, would get the guy who makes the extra-long-sleeved jackets all excited.


There is a reason "Wayne" rhymes with "insane".....Darden ought to send this clown a monthly bill for bandwith, as his incessant cutting and pasting must use up half of this forum.


Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Waynes wrote:
Waynes wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:
...You are NOT applying maximum effort, but quite low effort ???
I would say a HIT SSSFT {Slow Single Set To Failure} IS REDUCED EFFORT/INTENSITY.

Well there's one person.

Who ???



I would guess he means Drew.

Theoretically the hybrid machine which Drew has access to allows him to apply maximum effort as soon as and for as long as his body can generate it. Simply because the resistance will only move at a pre-programmed velocity regardless of the force applied to it.

I would like to know what results he's getting because in theory it should make a really rapid inroad. Maybe too rapid?

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

sgsims1 wrote:

There is a reason "Wayne" rhymes with "insane".....Darden ought to send this clown a monthly bill for bandwith, as his incessant cutting and pasting must use up half of this forum.




I make the combined text of everybody on this thread to be 17.3kb and the picture of Albert Eistein you just posted is 55.1kb.

It doesn't seem like Wayne posting alot of text is a major bandwidth concern.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

FACT: FOUNDATIONAL FLAWS THAT SHOULD NOT BE ANSWERED DUE TO PATHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF THE WR MIND
Open User Options Menu

thebiggfella

Why do people reply to this crap? Doh.
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

Wayne,

This, from John Christy (someone who has trained countless trainees to get very big and very stong) might interest you . . .

Creating as much fatigue as possible during a training session by performing high reps and relatively light weights; GETTING A GREAT PUMP WITH LIGHT WEIGHTS, can make you big, but the size gain will be mostly from an increase in the amount of support structures of the muscle cell, instead of an increase in muscle fibres. This type of size gain wont contribute significantly to functional strength, and you'll lose the size quickly if training gets even somewhat inconsistent.

Creating the combination of as much fatigue and tension as possible by training an the 5 to 8 rep range:GETTING A GOOD PUMP WITH HEAVY WEIGHTS, will make you bigger, and functionally stronger. This is the way to go for the fastest gains in "real" size.

Creating as much tension as possible by working in the 1 to 4 rep range and by eliminating fatigue by using long rest intervals:LIFT AS HEAVY AS POSSIBLE AND AVOID THE PUMP, will make you much stronger without much increase in size.

Learning how to manipulate the variables of tension and fatigue will go a long way in making workout design less confusing, and will make your training more efficient; you'll save time by stimulating your body in a specific way to create the specific changes you desire.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


stevehit wrote:
Wayne,

This, from John Christy (someone who has trained countless trainees to get very big and very stong) might interest you . . .

Creating as much fatigue as possible during a training session by performing high reps and relatively light weights; GETTING A GREAT PUMP WITH LIGHT WEIGHTS, can make you big, but the size gain will be mostly from an increase in the amount of support structures of the muscle cell, instead of an increase in muscle fibres. This type of size gain wont contribute significantly to functional strength, and you'll lose the size quickly if training gets even somewhat inconsistent.

Creating the combination of as much fatigue and tension as possible by training an the 5 to 8 rep range:GETTING A GOOD PUMP WITH HEAVY WEIGHTS, will make you bigger, and functionally stronger. This is the way to go for the fastest gains in "real" size.

Creating as much tension as possible by working in the 1 to 4 rep range and by eliminating fatigue by using long rest intervals:LIFT AS HEAVY AS POSSIBLE AND AVOID THE PUMP, will make you much stronger without much increase in size.

Learning how to manipulate the variables of tension and fatigue will go a long way in making workout design less confusing, and will make your training more efficient; you'll save time by stimulating your body in a specific way to create the specific changes you desire.


Thx but no time to answer now.

However did you spot something in his writings ??? He never once had an explanation or said why he thinks this ??? I like people that say why they think or do things. And the thing is because he has a name; people tend to believe what he writes without question it. Maybe we could ask him, and maybe he has answers.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

For all the people that mocked or did not answer, wow afraid, shallow men.

http://www.drdarden.com/...ic.do?id=532924

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Waynes wrote:
However did you spot something in his writings ??? He never once had an explanation or said why he thinks this ??? I like people that say why they think or do things. And the thing is because he has a name; people tend to believe what he writes without question it. Maybe we could ask him, and maybe he has answers.

Wayne


I can't see anything wrong from a physiological point of view from what John Christy wrote Wayne. While I wouldn't apply it as a hard and fast rule, as a generalization he's correct IMO.
Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

Waynes wrote:

However did you spot something in his writings ??? He never once had an explanation or said why he thinks this ??? I like people that say why they think or do things. And the thing is because he has a name; people tend to believe what he writes without question it. Maybe we could ask him, and maybe he has answers.

Wayne


We cant ask him as he unfortunately passed away earlier this year. He does go into detail in his book, and has various certifications. He built 20" arms at 5 10" 250lbs, he has won a few drug-free bodybuilding titles , and was a drug-free raw powerlifter. He operated Total strength from 1986 until his death in 2009, has logged over 60,000 hours of one on one training sessions. But more importantly he produced big results for thousands of trainees.

Sounds like he might know what he's talking about.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

stevehit wrote:
We cant ask him as he unfortunately passed away earlier this year.


I never knew. This is gutting news Steve.

Open User Options Menu

SteveHIT

N@tural1 wrote:
stevehit wrote:
We cant ask him as he unfortunately passed away earlier this year.

I never knew. This is gutting news Steve.



I know.

www.brookskubik.com/john-christys-passing/
Open User Options Menu

BobGeorge

Waynes wrote:
1,
If I run a 100m slow its low effort, if I run 100m as fast as I could its the highest effort.


That is true.

But this is how I see the analogy:

A) Running 100m slowly uphill (momentum eliminated)= superslow lifting (momentum eliminated).

B) Running 100m as fast as possible downhill (momentum involved)= lifting as fast as possible (momentum involved).

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

BobGeorge wrote:
Waynes wrote:
1,
If I run a 100m slow its low effort, if I run 100m as fast as I could its the highest effort.


That is true.

But this is how I see the analogy:

A) Running 100m slowly uphill (momentum eliminated)= superslow lifting (momentum eliminated).

B) Running 100m as fast as possible downhill (momentum involved)= lifting as fast as possible (momentum involved).



Yup
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Still waiting Andrew and any hitter, for a good repply.


N@tural1 wrote:
stevehit wrote:
We cant ask him as he unfortunately passed away earlier this year.

I never knew. This is gutting news Steve.



Bad news indeed, I knew nothing of this, how did he die ???

stevehit wrote:
Wayne,

This, from John Christy (someone who has trained countless trainees to get very big and very stong) might interest you . . .


I have more time for a reply now.

stevehit wrote:
Creating as much fatigue as possible during a training session by performing high reps and relatively light weights; GETTING A GREAT PUMP WITH LIGHT WEIGHTS, can make you big, but the size gain will be mostly from an increase in the amount of support structures of the muscle cell, instead of an increase in muscle fibres.


Yes I would say this as true. Last year I bumped up the volume and in three months gained about 7 pounds.

stevehit wrote:
This type of size gain wont contribute significantly to functional strength,


Not sure about that, as whatever training program I try, I write everything down in my log book, and added weight very consistently, say 99% and found good gains in all round strength.

stevehit wrote:
and you'll lose the size quickly if training gets even somewhat inconsistent.


Yes I would say that.

stevehit wrote:
Creating the combination of as much fatigue and tension as possible by training an the 5 to 8 rep range:GETTING A GOOD PUMP WITH HEAVY WEIGHTS, will make you bigger, and functionally stronger. This is the way to go for the fastest gains in "real" size.


Hmm, this is a tricky one, as I think this all depends on the individuals muscle fiber ratios in each bodypart. However if I had to pick a rep number for the average person I would go for 8, and not getting into a rep speed debate, but all reps would be done normal fast cadence.

But then we get into the number or sets ???

However I have found the best way for size and strength gains is to do all rep ranges. When doing Johns program I did each of the following for 6 weeks, 30/15/10/5, 20/15/10/15 and 15/10/5/20, all lest sets were dead stops at each end.

And did the same, when doing the following each of the following for 6 weeks, 3 x 20, 3 x 15, 3 x 12, 3 x 10, 3 x 8, 3 x 6.

8 x 8, 4 x 20, 1 x 50.

6 x 6, 4 x 8, 4 x 10, 2 x 20.

stevehit wrote:
Creating as much tension as possible by working in the 1 to 4 rep range and by eliminating fatigue by using long rest intervals:LIFT AS HEAVY AS POSSIBLE AND AVOID THE PUMP, will make you much stronger without much increase in size.


Imagine this true for most. How many sets ???

stevehit wrote:
Learning how to manipulate the variables of tension and fatigue will go a long way in making workout design less confusing, and will make your training more efficient; you'll save time by stimulating your body in a specific way to create the specific changes you desire.


Definitely VERY true.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

stevehit wrote:
Waynes wrote:

However did you spot something in his writings ??? He never once had an explanation or said why he thinks this ??? I like people that say why they think or do things. And the thing is because he has a name; people tend to believe what he writes without question it. Maybe we could ask him, and maybe he has answers.

Wayne


We cant ask him as he unfortunately passed away earlier this year. He does go into detail in his book, and has various certifications. He built 20" arms at 5 10" 250lbs, he has won a few drug-free bodybuilding titles , and was a drug-free raw powerlifter. He operated Total strength from 1986 until his death in 2009, has logged over 60,000 hours of one on one training sessions. But more importantly he produced big results for thousands of trainees.

Sounds like he might know what he's talking about.


A few days ago John Christy, one of the iron worlds greatest trainers, past away unexpectedly. He was only 47 years old and left a wife and three young kids. He died of a tear in a cerebral artery.

Sorry I did hear of this.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Waynes wrote:
Still waiting Andrew and any hitter, for a good repply.

Wayne


BobGeorges reply was pretty darn good.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy