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
More Proof That Arthur Was Right All Along
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

goya

There's a great new article on Clarence's Bass page:

http://www.cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Basically, TUL does not matter, load does not matter, rep speed does not matter, as long as the effort is high at the end of the set.

Open User Options Menu

physcult

goya wrote:
There's a great new article on Clarence's Bass page:

http://www.cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Basically, TUL does not matter, load does not matter, rep speed does not matter, as long as the effort is high at the end of the set.



What a coincidence - moments ago, i just virtually said the same thing on THE HIT CONTEXT THREAD........spooky :)
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

"You can't go wrong with maximum effort, of course. That way, you'll be sure you have crossed the activation threshold. But it's perfectly alright--a good idea, actually--to back off on the intensity when you feel tired or over-trained. Set yourself free. Push your limits from time to time and you?ll be fine. Just don't forget "use it or lose it." If you never challenge yourself, you will slowly grow weaker. Overload is necessary, but not every workout."
________________________________________

Why not just take an extra day off rather than lower intensity?

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

goya wrote:
There's a great new article on Clarence's Bass page:

http://www.cbass.com/...gWithEffort.htm

Basically, TUL does not matter, load does not matter, rep speed does not matter, as long as the effort is high at the end of the set.



Just did a search for Dr. Ralph Carpinelli at the Adelphi University NY, but he could not be found, so why should we believe anything he says ??? Or another fact, why do you or anyone else believe it without real proof and evidence ??? Do you believe all that is wrote just like that ???

Anyway, its been obliterated/fundamentally {fundamentally, get it John, come on only teasing ROL} by a forum member months ago.


Wayne


Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

AShortt wrote:
"You can't go wrong with maximum effort, of course. That way, you'll be sure you have crossed the activation threshold. But it's perfectly alright--a good idea, actually--to back off on the intensity when you feel tired or over-trained. Set yourself free. Push your limits from time to time and you?ll be fine. Just don't forget "use it or lose it." If you never challenge yourself, you will slowly grow weaker. Overload is necessary, but not every workout."
________________________________________

Why not just take an extra day off rather than lower intensity?

Regards,
Andrew


Andrew,

Your training is lowering the intensity all the time.

Are you that dumb ??? As you have totally contradicted yourself, YOU DO NOT DO HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, AS PROVED ON MY THREAD, WHICH AS YET YOU HAVE NOT ANSWER ??? What get me is why you think you do high intensity when you do not ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

physcult

AShortt wrote:
____

Why not just take an extra day off rather than lower intensity?

Regards,
Andrew


Is that the old single factor versus the newer dual factor debate I hear a coming ? :)
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

physcult wrote:
AShortt wrote:
____

Why not just take an extra day off rather than lower intensity?

Regards,
Andrew

Is that the old single factor versus the newer dual factor debate I hear a coming ? :)


Well I am kool with split routines if your total demands per session will allow it.

regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Waynes wrote:

Andrew,

Your training is lowering the intensity all the time.

Are you that dumb ??? As you have totally contradicted yourself, YOU DO NOT DO HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, AS PROVED ON MY THREAD, WHICH AS YET YOU HAVE NOT ANSWER ??? What get me is why you think you do high intensity when you do not ???

Wayne


Perhaps you have your morning pills mixed up with your night time ones ;n)
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Arthur believed that a subject should employ a rep range that suited his or her fiber type. Suitable rep ranges and/or TUL's are the same thing.

He believed that "heavy" resistance should be employed. Or more specifically, heavy enough to reach momentary muscular failure within an appropriate time frame (see above).

Arthur emphasised the importance of proper form time and time again. He stated many times that A SLOW SPEED of movement could be the most important factor with regards to proper exercise.

A score of one in four! Because Arthur obviously agreed with training to failure...but wait...half a point deducted for even the suggestion of "reduced intensity". Just have a day or two off...like Arthur used to recommend.

Is anybody actually bothering to read Jones' writings?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


AShortt wrote:
Waynes wrote:

Andrew,

Your training is lowering the intensity all the time.

Are you that dumb ??? As you have totally contradicted yourself, YOU DO NOT DO HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING, AS PROVED ON MY THREAD, WHICH AS YET YOU HAVE NOT ANSWER ??? What get me is why you think you do high intensity when you do not ???

Wayne


Perhaps you have your morning pills mixed up with your night time ones ;n)


Andrew,

Just like when you were debating with John the other day, what did N1 say ??? Stop sidestepping the questions PLEASE ???

You know very well I have nothing mixed up, you are the one who has intensity, force, strength, power and a few other things mixed up, Stop sidestepping the questions PLEASE ??? Or would you like me to open another thread ??? Al my questions were polite and directed to you or any hitter, and it shows that basically train not know what or why you do things.

Its a shame really, but surely from you none reply you must know what I write is right ??? Do not you understand what force is ??? Not sure why I said that, as you do not know.

You have let yourself and the whole HIT community down, unless there is someone else who will answer for you ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Waynes wrote:
You have let yourself and the whole HIT community down, unless there is someone else who will answer for you ???

Wayne


Wayne, I think you're upset by Andrew. Do you think he's being cruel keeping secrets this way?
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Rep ranges/TUL do matter.

First off, individuals vary in their response to exercise with some doing better with higher reps, and some with lower reps. This has been demonstrated with research.

While Carpinelli, Otto, Winnett, etc. get a lot right, they get a few things wrong as well.

I start everybody out at a moderate range, and adjust up or down based on how they respond.

Some people have made noticeably better progress after having their rep range increased or decreased. If effort was all that counted, this would not be the case.
Open User Options Menu

SubDoc

Washington, USA

Waynes....

A thorough search for Dr. Carpinelli revealed several things. Like you, I could not find him at Adelphi. That means either our search criteria is flawed, he was never there or perhaps he is no longer there. I find the latter to be the most likely explanation since the papers are dated a couple of years ago.

A further search show abstracts from scholarly papers published by him in respected, peer reviewed journals such as JAMA and Journal of Physiology.

I believe his bona fides are well established.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

JamesT wrote:
Arthur believed that a subject should employ a rep range that suited his or her fiber type. Suitable rep ranges and/or TUL's are the same thing.


I would have thought the best way was to work in all rep ranges ???

Lifting slowly in rep ranges will cause an endurance adaption of 2X fibers and motor units with a subsequent loss of speed and absolute strength. No wonder 90% of hitters find it hard to put on muscle.


JamesT wrote:
He believed that "heavy" resistance should be employed. Or more specifically, heavy enough to reach momentary muscular failure within an appropriate time frame (see above).


What does he call heavy ??? And in what time frame, as you had to use different weights on all different rep ranges.

All-pro wrote,
ATP fuels 2X, fast twitch fibers. It only lasts for about 5 to 15 seconds. Therefore there are only 2 ways to train the 2X fiber group.

1) lift a weight of 70% of a 1 rep max as fast as possible.
2) lift a weight of 85-90% of a 1 rep max.

Lifting slowly in the 8+ rep range will cause an endurance adaption of 2X fibers and motor units with a subsequent loss of speed and absolute strength.
S.A.I.D.
Specific Adaption to Imposed Demands.
If you use less than 80% of a 1 rep max and a slow contraction speed, the 2X fiber group will run out of fuel before it ever produces maximum rate coding/tension. The 2As will have to carry the load.

JamesT wrote:
Arthur emphasised the importance of proper form time and time again. He stated many times that A SLOW SPEED of movement could be the most important factor with regards to proper exercise.


That is not at all what he thought; the real Arthur knew a thing or two.

By Arthur Jones himself,
The Arthur Jones Collection
Nautilus Bulletin #2
37
Proper Form,

It is not, however, necessary nor desirable -- to use an extremely slow speed of movement during the first few reps of a set; if, for example, you could curl a barbell in one-third of a second, then it is not necessary to restrict your speed to a point where the first rep takes two or three seconds -- instead, perform the movement at a speed where perhaps one second is required for the complete "upwards" movement.

But it should be remembered that best training results will ALWAYS be produced when exercises are performed with as much speed as possible under the proper conditions.

During a recent workout, one of our test subjects was accurately tested while generating slightly over three horsepower; disregarding the power required for raising a good part of his own bodyweight, he raised 275 pounds a distance of over two feet in less than one third of a second.

Cheating methods should never be used -- on the contrary, they; should be used, they should be used in almost every set, and in every exercise where they can be used to an advantage; but they should be used only at the end of a set.

JamesT wrote:
A score of one in four! Because Arthur obviously agreed with training to failure


Why ??? And what did he think happens at failure ??? Not that I have anything against going to failure some of the time.

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.


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 ???



JamesT wrote:
...but wait...half a point deducted for even the suggestion of "reduced intensity". Just have a day or two off...like Arthur used to recommend.

Is anybody actually bothering to read Jones' writings?


BUT JamesT, when you did train, or any other hitter that does train, trains with low intensity, as proved below.

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.

You have hit failure and are say pushing into it 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.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland




JamesT wrote:
Waynes wrote:
You have let yourself and the whole HIT community down, unless there is someone else who will answer for you ???

Wayne


Wayne, I think you're upset by Andrew. Do you think he's being cruel keeping secrets this way?


Andrew, hitters, and people like you, misunderstand, force, strength, power, accelerations, failure and a few other things, we know this from your writings, and why you all cannot reply to my post on the other thread, or above on this post.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Waynes wrote:
JamesT wrote:
Waynes wrote:
You have let yourself and the whole HIT community down, unless there is someone else who will answer for you ???

Wayne

Wayne, I think you're upset by Andrew. Do you think he's being cruel keeping secrets this way?

Andrew, hitters, and people like you, misunderstand, force, strength, power, accelerations, failure and a few other things, we know this from your writings, and why you all cannot reply to my post on the other thread, or above on this post.

Wayne


I feel guilty for letting you go crazy or fortify crazy. You have to start with this Wayne - I REPEAT - read this first. Not all HITters train with a slow or superslow cadence. Some may use this cadence but not all the time.

That said your arguments about rep speed and intensity are mute. You may argue best rep speed according to you but that is all.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


See you failed to answer some of my questions ???

Drew Baye wrote:
Rep ranges/TUL do matter.

First off, individuals vary in their response to exercise with some doing better with higher reps, and some with lower reps. This has been demonstrated with research.


This seems to be the case, but then again I am not so sure. As the people doing these studies do not really know much about training, do they train beginners or advanced ???

Drew Baye wrote:
While Carpinelli, Otto, Winnett, etc. get a lot right, they get a few things wrong as well.


Imagine this is so.

Drew Baye wrote:
I start everybody out at a moderate range, and adjust up or down based on how they respond.


But you would be training beginners, and they progress for the first few months quite good. And I imagine most stop training after the first 6 months.

Why not try working then in all rep ranges, each for 6 weeks ??? Then they will be using many different weight, different rep ranges, and hitting all muscle fibers in different ways.

Drew Baye wrote:
Some people have made noticeably better progress after having their rep range increased or decreased. If effort was all that counted, this would not be the case.


See above, as they might make even better progress going to and from each rep range.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Wayne,

With all due respect, you're the one who is misunderstanding and/or misapplying physics here. I suppose it doesn't help that you've been reading Bioforce's stuff, since he has a talent for writing convincing sounding bullshit.


Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland


SubDoc wrote:
Waynes....

A thorough search for Dr. Carpinelli revealed several things. Like you, I could not find him at Adelphi. That means either our search criteria is flawed, he was never there or perhaps he is no longer there. I find the latter to be the most likely explanation since the papers are dated a couple of years ago.

A further search show abstracts from scholarly papers published by him in respected, peer reviewed journals such as JAMA and Journal of Physiology.

I believe his bona fides are well established.


Ok.

Could we have a couple of links to is writings please ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

goya

Drew Baye wrote:
Rep ranges/TUL do matter.

First off, individuals vary in their response to exercise with some doing better with higher reps, and some with lower reps. This has been demonstrated with research.


Define doing better. I am sure you mean getting stronger (usually relative to some estimated % of 1RM). Like many here, I have found that I can progress better with lower reps, in the sense that I can add more weight more frequently to the bar. But i think this is normal for a lot of people.

On the other hand, I find that with lower weight/longer TULs I can work to failure (and beyond) better as reaching failure seems more progressive. So I can do a few more very hard reps before failing.

As mentioned, if I use lower weight/longer TUL it seems my progress in terms of adding weight to the bar is better, BUT there might not be a significant impact on muscular development and body mass.

Thoughts?
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

So one camp is saying reps range desn't matter and that all ranges work, and the other camp says that you must find what works for you within 6-12 or something like that.

Lets face it we might aswell go and do 6-12 reps even if we don't really think it matters. What will we have lost if it doesn't matter?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

AShortt wrote:
Waynes wrote:
JamesT wrote:
Waynes wrote:
You have let yourself and the whole HIT community down, unless there is someone else who will answer for you ???

Wayne

Wayne, I think you're upset by Andrew. Do you think he's being cruel keeping secrets this way?

Andrew, hitters, and people like you, misunderstand, force, strength, power, accelerations, failure and a few other things, we know this from your writings, and why you all cannot reply to my post on the other thread, or above on this post.

Wayne


I feel guilty for letting you go crazy or fortify crazy. You have to start with this Wayne - I REPEAT - read this first. Not all HITters train with a slow or superslow cadence. Some may use this cadence but not all the time.


So are you now saying that after all the debating on here that you and many hitter now train at a faster rep cadence, and now realise what force, strength, power, accelerations mean, wow fantastic, as thats great. You train rep speed very fast and do 17 sets, you do the complete opposite of HIT, you do very high volume training.

But hold on, YOU yourself do not train at a fast rep speed do you ??? As you just wrote the below.

AShortt wrote:
I always found Johnston's fatigue testing procedures more useful. Use an exercise you are familiar with and a weight which you know causes failure at about 55-60 seconds. Set to failure rest 3 min and set to failure again, compare set lengths.


55 to 60 seconds is a very slow rep speed, so I must repeat, why do you think this type of rep speed is higher intensity when I have proved it is not ???


AShortt wrote:
That said your arguments about rep speed and intensity are mute.


Again like lots here, you keep making points but you cannot back them up with a why, why do you think they are mute, when I have proved many times rep speed is one of the most important things, as you WIIL and CANOOT progress much if you do a slow rep speed.

This is why, we will NEVER see anyone here doing even 180 pounds on the bench press at a 2/4, because as I said, you can NOT progress if your doing slow reps, and thats a fact.

AShortt wrote:
You may argue best rep speed according to you but that is all.


NO, I debate rep speed according to ALL bodybuilders, strongmen, powerlifters, weightlifters, athletes, and sportspeople that know its essential NOT to intently slow down your reps, its all a matter of training science and physics, to which I say it sadly, you nor a lot of people on here know much about, and even sadder you seem to pigheaded to learn, why I do not know.

And there was what I put on failure which you also failed to address ???

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
Wayne,

With all due respect, you're the one who is misunderstanding and/or misapplying physics here. I suppose it doesn't help that you've been reading Bioforce's stuff, since he has a talent for writing convincing sounding bullshit.



Yup

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Drew Baye wrote:
Rep ranges/TUL do matter.

First off, individuals vary in their response to exercise with some doing better with higher reps, and some with lower reps. This has been demonstrated with research.

While Carpinelli, Otto, Winnett, etc. get a lot right, they get a few things wrong as well.

I start everybody out at a moderate range, and adjust up or down based on how they respond.

Some people have made noticeably better progress after having their rep range increased or decreased. If effort was all that counted, this would not be the case.


Good post Drew I agree.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

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


Wayne. I'm asking you would you please stop with these vague "some of this was written by..." if you wish to quote something I said then please be specific. I do not wish to be associated to quotes that I may not agree with.

Thankyou.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy