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
3 Little Changes and Finally I'm Getting Bigger!
First | Prev | 1 | 2
Author
Rating
Options

smanjh

Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
serf wrote:
smanjh wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

If the 10% number is based off an actual caliper, then most people do not ever get to 10% in the first place. If said caliper test is performed by morons, the results are always severely skewed.



The main flaw with calipers is they only give you an approximate figure for the part measured, e.g. your arms. This doesn't take into account the rest of your body -- and as we all know, some people don't have typical physiques; some of us store fat in funny places. For these people in particular, one would be better off taking caliper readings in lots of places -- but even better, as per one of Dr Darden's very early books, the gold standard of body fat measurement is weighing oneself under water, or *hydrostatic weighing*. Fat is lighter than water. So one's true body fat percentage can be worked out by the difference between one's normal weight compared with one's weight on a special underwater scale.

This is true. However a lot of people are going to OCD about being as lean as they can the whole time yet always wonder why the size part is not happening, or at least not happening quickly.

I am not saying to get fat as hell or do anything your unhappy with, but generally the biggest guys go that route where they do add a good bit of fat and morph into like a linebacker in order to add a lot of size quickly.

Then you come back down and your 10-20 pounds heavier lean.

Contrast this with the guy who tried to stay ripped all the time. My guy above will put on 4x the muscle in the same time as this guy.


Out of the two groups who are healthier and fitter?


My guy is at the end of the day since he has more LBM and equal or less of a BF percentage.

If maxing out your potential for muscle size does not interest you, take up triathlons like Southbeach.
Open User Options Menu

HDLou

serf wrote:
HDLou wrote:

Are your workouts full-body or split?

Always full-body workouts. Split routines only 3-4 40min sessions a week (~9 exercises, each to failure) makes no sense. (The interval between consecutive sessions for some body parts would be too long to keep 'building up' the muscle tissue.


It's likely that you started gaining due to increasing the frequency over the last few weeks because you also increased the weekly volume as well.

Ramping up total volume and/or frequency can cause gains in the short term until you get to a point of over-reaching where you will hit a sticking point and stop making gains. Only by backing off by taking a week or so off or returning to your previous 2 times per week frequency will the gains likely continue.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Serf wrote;

An NTF workout is an excellent idea too, as the whole point of Darden himself eventually adopting NTF workouts is due to the inarguable fact that beyond 48 (?) hours of inactivity, muscles begin to atrophy.

................................

Turpin wrote;
Is this in your experience or something you read Serf ?
A muscle in no way begins to Atrophy beyond 48 hrs of inactivity/stimulus , in fact it most likely has only begun its recovery proceess at this stage.
& Im pretty sure Dr Darden has stated he is now advocating x 1 weekly workouts for his clients as he has witnessed ( first hand ) better response from such .

T
Open User Options Menu

anab0lic

serf wrote:
Just to clear up a common fallacy, your overall calorie intake each day is what matters, not when you take it. If you do start getting too fat however, you might want to stop having the milkshake.

The goal is to consume slightly more calories than you use each day, and even if that means slight increases in body fat, that is better for muscle growth than not consuming enough calories. In fact Darden's research has shown that those who are slightly fat to begin with tend to make better gains than those who are thinner.

As per Darden's recommendations in more than one of his books (e.g. Bigger Muscles in 42 Days), calorie-dense shakes are suitable as the last meal at night to bolsters one's calorie intake for the day, especially for those who have trouble eating enough.


I don't agree with this I think nutrient timming is important.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

smanjh wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
serf wrote:
smanjh wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

If the 10% number is based off an actual caliper, then most people do not ever get to 10% in the first place. If said caliper test is performed by morons, the results are always severely skewed.



The main flaw with calipers is they only give you an approximate figure for the part measured, e.g. your arms. This doesn't take into account the rest of your body -- and as we all know, some people don't have typical physiques; some of us store fat in funny places. For these people in particular, one would be better off taking caliper readings in lots of places -- but even better, as per one of Dr Darden's very early books, the gold standard of body fat measurement is weighing oneself under water, or *hydrostatic weighing*. Fat is lighter than water. So one's true body fat percentage can be worked out by the difference between one's normal weight compared with one's weight on a special underwater scale.

This is true. However a lot of people are going to OCD about being as lean as they can the whole time yet always wonder why the size part is not happening, or at least not happening quickly.

I am not saying to get fat as hell or do anything your unhappy with, but generally the biggest guys go that route where they do add a good bit of fat and morph into like a linebacker in order to add a lot of size quickly.

Then you come back down and your 10-20 pounds heavier lean.

Contrast this with the guy who tried to stay ripped all the time. My guy above will put on 4x the muscle in the same time as this guy.


Out of the two groups who are healthier and fitter?

My guy is at the end of the day since he has more LBM and equal or less of a BF percentage.

If maxing out your potential for muscle size does not interest you, take up triathlons like Southbeach.


pretty funny from a guy that admits he's never been under 10% BF in his life. i'd love to see your true size..about 180lbs @5'10" i would imagine.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

southbeach wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
serf wrote:
smanjh wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

If the 10% number is based off an actual caliper, then most people do not ever get to 10% in the first place. If said caliper test is performed by morons, the results are always severely skewed.



The main flaw with calipers is they only give you an approximate figure for the part measured, e.g. your arms. This doesn't take into account the rest of your body -- and as we all know, some people don't have typical physiques; some of us store fat in funny places. For these people in particular, one would be better off taking caliper readings in lots of places -- but even better, as per one of Dr Darden's very early books, the gold standard of body fat measurement is weighing oneself under water, or *hydrostatic weighing*. Fat is lighter than water. So one's true body fat percentage can be worked out by the difference between one's normal weight compared with one's weight on a special underwater scale.

This is true. However a lot of people are going to OCD about being as lean as they can the whole time yet always wonder why the size part is not happening, or at least not happening quickly.

I am not saying to get fat as hell or do anything your unhappy with, but generally the biggest guys go that route where they do add a good bit of fat and morph into like a linebacker in order to add a lot of size quickly.

Then you come back down and your 10-20 pounds heavier lean.

Contrast this with the guy who tried to stay ripped all the time. My guy above will put on 4x the muscle in the same time as this guy.


Out of the two groups who are healthier and fitter?

My guy is at the end of the day since he has more LBM and equal or less of a BF percentage.

If maxing out your potential for muscle size does not interest you, take up triathlons like Southbeach.

pretty funny from a guy that admits he's never been under 10% BF in his life. i'd love to see your true size..about 180lbs @5'10" i would imagine.


I'd love to see you in general. Post a picture, coward.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

1-HIT wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
1-HIT wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
serf wrote:
smanjh wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

If the 10% number is based off an actual caliper, then most people do not ever get to 10% in the first place. If said caliper test is performed by morons, the results are always severely skewed.

The only thing skewed is you using 2 accounts to validate yourself. Just let your smarter alterego southbeach post for you. Neither of you appear to workout but both of you appear equally inexperienced.

The main flaw with calipers is they only give you an approximate figure for the part measured, e.g. your arms. This doesn't take into account the rest of your body -- and as we all know, some people don't have typical physiques; some of us store fat in funny places. For these people in particular, one would be better off taking caliper readings in lots of places -- but even better, as per one of Dr Darden's very early books, the gold standard of body fat measurement is weighing oneself under water, or *hydrostatic weighing*. Fat is lighter than water. So one's true body fat percentage can be worked out by the difference between one's normal weight compared with one's weight on a special underwater scale.

This is true. However a lot of people are going to OCD about being as lean as they can the whole time yet always wonder why the size part is not happening, or at least not happening quickly.

I am not saying to get fat as hell or do anything your unhappy with, but generally the biggest guys go that route where they do add a good bit of fat and morph into like a linebacker in order to add a lot of size quickly.

Then you come back down and your 10-20 pounds heavier lean.

Contrast this with the guy who tried to stay ripped all the time. My guy above will put on 4x the muscle in the same time as this guy.


Out of the two groups who are healthier and fitter?




It was a legitimate question, care to answer?

Why dont you get your alter ego southbeach to answer? Oh yeah you already did. Do you know how ridiculous you look answering your own questions with another name?



You do realise our accounts are from different countries? You keep saying this, but you do realise you are believing a lie don't you?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

smanjh wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
serf wrote:
smanjh wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

If the 10% number is based off an actual caliper, then most people do not ever get to 10% in the first place. If said caliper test is performed by morons, the results are always severely skewed.



The main flaw with calipers is they only give you an approximate figure for the part measured, e.g. your arms. This doesn't take into account the rest of your body -- and as we all know, some people don't have typical physiques; some of us store fat in funny places. For these people in particular, one would be better off taking caliper readings in lots of places -- but even better, as per one of Dr Darden's very early books, the gold standard of body fat measurement is weighing oneself under water, or *hydrostatic weighing*. Fat is lighter than water. So one's true body fat percentage can be worked out by the difference between one's normal weight compared with one's weight on a special underwater scale.

This is true. However a lot of people are going to OCD about being as lean as they can the whole time yet always wonder why the size part is not happening, or at least not happening quickly.

I am not saying to get fat as hell or do anything your unhappy with, but generally the biggest guys go that route where they do add a good bit of fat and morph into like a linebacker in order to add a lot of size quickly.

Then you come back down and your 10-20 pounds heavier lean.

Contrast this with the guy who tried to stay ripped all the time. My guy above will put on 4x the muscle in the same time as this guy.


Out of the two groups who are healthier and fitter?

My guy is at the end of the day since he has more LBM and equal or less of a BF percentage.

If maxing out your potential for muscle size does not interest you, take up triathlons like Southbeach.



Tell me, do you thin yo-yo dieting like bulking and cutting ends up being is good for you? You may like getting fat then wasting time losing the fat and muscle, where has it got you?
Open User Options Menu

Trevor Newman

I believe Dr Darden has mentioned an experiment done with animals where they gained muscle in the particular body part being worked despite being on calorie restriction.

My experience from starting racing push bikes, losing +20 pounds and becoming quite lean but my legs still grew stronger and more muscular.

However, Dr Darden does recommend getting lean first and then eating to get bigger, as per his Hudlow case study.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
smanjh wrote:
serf wrote:
smanjh wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:

If the 10% number is based off an actual caliper, then most people do not ever get to 10% in the first place. If said caliper test is performed by morons, the results are always severely skewed.



The main flaw with calipers is they only give you an approximate figure for the part measured, e.g. your arms. This doesn't take into account the rest of your body -- and as we all know, some people don't have typical physiques; some of us store fat in funny places. For these people in particular, one would be better off taking caliper readings in lots of places -- but even better, as per one of Dr Darden's very early books, the gold standard of body fat measurement is weighing oneself under water, or *hydrostatic weighing*. Fat is lighter than water. So one's true body fat percentage can be worked out by the difference between one's normal weight compared with one's weight on a special underwater scale.

This is true. However a lot of people are going to OCD about being as lean as they can the whole time yet always wonder why the size part is not happening, or at least not happening quickly.

I am not saying to get fat as hell or do anything your unhappy with, but generally the biggest guys go that route where they do add a good bit of fat and morph into like a linebacker in order to add a lot of size quickly.

Then you come back down and your 10-20 pounds heavier lean.

Contrast this with the guy who tried to stay ripped all the time. My guy above will put on 4x the muscle in the same time as this guy.


Out of the two groups who are healthier and fitter?

My guy is at the end of the day since he has more LBM and equal or less of a BF percentage.

If maxing out your potential for muscle size does not interest you, take up triathlons like Southbeach.


Tell me, do you thin yo-yo dieting like bulking and cutting ends up being is good for you? You may like getting fat then wasting time losing the fat and muscle, where has it got you?


You may like trolling the boards, where has your training gotten you in general?

We are having a huge failure to communicate. I am not saying to get fat numb nuts, I am saying don't worry about a little fat so much. Hell, give yourself one jean size, ONE!

Now, with that, you should gain shit loads of strength and some added muscle.

Now then, go back to the previous size, but enjoy your new shirt size and find that the leg portion of your jeans appears to be painted on.

I am just making the point that people that have been hanging out at a certain size forever need to eat more and not worry about making the caliper say 5% all the time. No one has ever dieted down that low and then gained anything while maintaining it unless that was their natural bf level to begin with.

If your gaining anyway, disregard this altogether. If not, keep doing the same thing over and over and stop worrying about muscle size. Simple.
Open User Options Menu

serf

New Zealand

Turpin wrote:
Serf wrote;

An NTF workout is an excellent idea too, as the whole point of Darden himself eventually adopting NTF workouts is due to the inarguable fact that beyond 48 (?) hours of inactivity, muscles begin to atrophy.

................................

Turpin wrote;
Is this in your experience or something you read Serf ?
A muscle in no way begins to Atrophy beyond 48 hrs of inactivity/stimulus , in fact it most likely has only begun its recovery proceess at this stage.
& Im pretty sure Dr Darden has stated he is now advocating x 1 weekly workouts for his clients as he has witnessed ( first hand ) better response from such .

T


I recall a few years ago, just after Darden's New High Intensity Bodybuilding book came out, somebody asked Dr Darden why he had gone from recommending training only 3 times a week to four, (the fourth being an NTF session), that his justification was that studies had shown that a muscle would _begin_ to atrophy after being idle for what I recall was 48 hours -- only BEGIN to atrophy that is. This does not mean that overall each week you will not gain some size training only 2 or 3 times per week, but the point here is that if you DO do the NTF then you won't experience the slight catabolism and will therefore be more likely to gain more _with_ an NTF session than without. Before you ask, I don't know what particular study Dr Darden was referring to, and I'm not certain it was 48 hours (which is why I put a question mark in my original post after the '48', i.e. "48 (?) hours". I know it was not much more than 48 hours though.
Open User Options Menu

Turpin

Serf wrote;

An NTF workout is an excellent idea too, as the whole point of Darden himself eventually adopting NTF workouts is due to the inarguable fact that beyond 48 (?) hours of inactivity, muscles begin to atrophy.

................................

Turpin wrote;
Is this in your experience or something you read Serf ?
A muscle in no way begins to Atrophy beyond 48 hrs of inactivity/stimulus , in fact it most likely has only begun its recovery proceess at this stage.
& Im pretty sure Dr Darden has stated he is now advocating x 1 weekly workouts for his clients as he has witnessed ( first hand ) better response from such .

T

.....................................

Serf wrote;
I recall a few years ago, just after Darden's New High Intensity Bodybuilding book came out, somebody asked Dr Darden why he had gone from recommending training only 3 times a week to four, (the fourth being an NTF session), that his justification was that studies had shown that a muscle would _begin_ to atrophy after being idle for what I recall was 48 hours -- only BEGIN to atrophy that is. This does not mean that overall each week you will not gain some size training only 2 or 3 times per week, but the point here is that if you DO do the NTF then you won't experience the slight catabolism and will therefore be more likely to gain more _with_ an NTF session than without. Before you ask, I don't know what particular study Dr Darden was referring to, and I'm not certain it was 48 hours (which is why I put a question mark in my original post after the '48', i.e. "48 (?) hours". I know it was not much more than 48 hours though.


.....................................

Turpin wrote;
To save going into too much detail in regards to timescale for atrophy ( which is in no way 48hrs or even 7-14 days in my experience )
In my opinion , if more trainee`s concerned themselves more with total recuperation rather than fearing atrophy , many would experience more hypertrophy/strength increase as a result.
The body will not quickly/easily lose that for which it has made adaptation , muscle growth in particular.
Personally I think a lot of bodybuilders can be likened to these sunbed addicts whereby they imagine that the adaptative response ( a tan in this instance ) they have established is fading fast every hour they go without said stimuli , when such is simply not true.

T.
Open User Options Menu

Orlando1234977

smanjh wrote:

I would agree. Over on IntenseMuscle, Doggcrapp is always posting pictures of guys who do this and fly past the guys who stayed super lean all year.

Hell, even Darden puts like 4-5 pounds of fat on his guys, yet most of them are closer to the beginner stage when they start.


I'm sure that doesn't HURT their protein sales. I'd be skeptical of motive.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy