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
RenEx New Blog
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins
Open User Options Menu

DukeMatisse

LOL!
Open User Options Menu

db144

Talk about an over the top comparison, tell her next time to use the Earth is flat vs. round discovery because RenEx is equally important for humanity.

d
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins


"Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation"

With all due respect, if that is true, then your whole foundation and exercise theory is invalid and therefore has to collapse.

This is how exercise is defined according to Ken Hutchins:
"Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time."

Ken Hutchin's so called 'definition' is not a definition qua definition. It is a recommendation on how exercise should be. His "definition" was refuted point by point by Brian Johnston all the way back in 2001. I am sure Ken is aware of the criticism. Knowing how intelligent Ken is, it boggles my mind that he has stuck to the above "definition."
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

To quote that learned street philospher Ike Turner: "Wimmens be thinking too much."
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
To quote that learned street philospher Ike Turner: "Wimmens be thinking too much."



Brenda is a pretty Brilliant lady, she worked for Nautilus and has seen more than most anyone on this forum.

That male chauvinist bullshit is about par for the mentality of this board.

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

farhad wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins


"Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation"

With all due respect, if that is true, then your whole foundation and exercise theory is invalid and therefore has to collapse.

This is how exercise is defined according to Ken Hutchins:
"Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time."

Ken Hutchin's so called 'definition' is not a definition qua definition. It is a recommendation on how exercise should be. His "definition" was refuted point by point by Brian Johnston all the way back in 2001. I am sure Ken is aware of the criticism. Knowing how intelligent Ken is, it boggles my mind that he has stuck to the above "definition."


BDJ did do an excellent job in that article. Although we have had differences ealry on, I am pretty much on board with his Philosophy.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

farhad wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins


"Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation"

With all due respect, if that is true, then your whole foundation and exercise theory is invalid and therefore has to collapse.

This is how exercise is defined according to Ken Hutchins:
"Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time."

Ken Hutchin's so called 'definition' is not a definition qua definition. It is a recommendation on how exercise should be. His "definition" was refuted point by point by Brian Johnston all the way back in 2001. I am sure Ken is aware of the criticism. Knowing how intelligent Ken is, it boggles my mind that he has stuck to the above "definition."



Farhad,

Many people will claim that the Definition is merely a 'description' or an indication of what we think exercise should be. To this I would submit that any Definition is at least partially a description so, so what?

The trouble is that these days almost everything can be considered exercise. The broadness of the current definition includes everything from walking (which is just human locomotion after all), to training for the Olympics, to yoga, to using the "shake weight". For many reasons, this is problematic and is part of the challenge of prescribing meaningful exercise to people to help improve their health.

The Definition is highly focused and intelligently crafted as a robust description of exercise that clearly articulates axioms as well providing a guide to successful human action. What may not be so obvious is that the Definition exists as part of a thorough continuum including the Exercise vs. Recreation argument. When the Definition is placed in the context of Exercise vs. Recreation, it is far less insular, more tolerant and surprisingly sympathetic to our modern day predilection to "be active".

When you put exercise in its place (by defining it a thoroughly as this) things really are a hell of a lot simpler and more enjoyable, in general.

RenEx Team
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

A definition takes into account all aspects of that entity under said definition. Thus, if I miss out on something (like not training in a climate controlled, clinical environment according to the Hutchins' definition), then I did not exercise... and neither have many on this board. If that is the case, how did I develop the muscle and strength that I did, and as did others?
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Landau wrote:
farhad wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins


"Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation"

With all due respect, if that is true, then your whole foundation and exercise theory is invalid and therefore has to collapse.

This is how exercise is defined according to Ken Hutchins:
"Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time."

Ken Hutchin's so called 'definition' is not a definition qua definition. It is a recommendation on how exercise should be. His "definition" was refuted point by point by Brian Johnston all the way back in 2001. I am sure Ken is aware of the criticism. Knowing how intelligent Ken is, it boggles my mind that he has stuck to the above "definition."

BDJ did do an excellent job in that article. Although we have had differences ealry on, I am pretty much on board with his Philosophy.



you have no position other than whatever is opposite Hutchins....mindless...

You've proven to have no process....only contrarian.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Brian Johnston wrote:
A definition takes into account all aspects of that entity under said definition. Thus, if I miss out on something (like not training in a climate controlled, clinical environment according to the Hutchins' definition), then I did not exercise... and neither have many on this board. If that is the case, how did I develop the muscle and strength that I did, and as did others?



can you attempt to exercise in 100 degree F air?...yes...is it a massive compromise? YES!....once the compromise is too great you now have an activity that no longer qualifies as exercise because it gets shut down before the stimuli is great enough.

The definition is inclusive of any variable that might compromise your ability to apply said (defined) exercise.

Without the definition there is no standard.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Brian Johnston wrote:
A definition takes into account all aspects of that entity under said definition. Thus, if I miss out on something (like not training in a climate controlled, clinical environment according to the Hutchins' definition), then I did not exercise... and neither have many on this board. If that is the case, how did I develop the muscle and strength that I did, and as did others?


Thank you
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
This is so typical on here, people splitting hairs and arguing over what a definition is of all things. The ever present insanity to argue for the sake of just arguing. If one person says it's pink someone's gonna say it's red and the arguing goes on forever..........
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Josh, I ask you to open a dictionary and look up the term 'definition.' You are speaking about an optimal (what you think is optimal) situation for exercise, and that's a good thing. Why not have something that is as optimal as possible for people to train.

But a definition does not take into account compromises. It's irrelevant to the definition of a definition. That's my point. A definition involves the 'essence' of a thing, like describing a table, but excluding how many legs it has (e.g., pedastal vs. many legs), or it's material (e.g., wood vs. steel vs. plastic, etc.).

Exercise is the same, in that it is activity done with intent to improve, maintain, or reduce the loss of some physical attribute, whether strength, muscle, aerobic capacity, etc. Once you start integrating how it should be done, you are not speaking of a definition, but preferences and philosophy. A person's philosophy about a 'thing' is not the same as a definition of that 'thing.'
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
farhad wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins


"Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation"

With all due respect, if that is true, then your whole foundation and exercise theory is invalid and therefore has to collapse.

This is how exercise is defined according to Ken Hutchins:
"Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time."

Ken Hutchin's so called 'definition' is not a definition qua definition. It is a recommendation on how exercise should be. His "definition" was refuted point by point by Brian Johnston all the way back in 2001. I am sure Ken is aware of the criticism. Knowing how intelligent Ken is, it boggles my mind that he has stuck to the above "definition."

BDJ did do an excellent job in that article. Although we have had differences ealry on, I am pretty much on board with his Philosophy.


you have no position other than whatever is opposite Hutchins....mindless...

You've proven to have no process....only contrarian.


I resent you calling Landau "contrarian." I have been consistent in my contrarian views here. I am most certainly contrarian.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
This is so typical on here, people splitting hairs and arguing over what a definition is of all things. The ever present insanity to argue for the sake of just arguing. If one person says it's pink someone's gonna say it's red and the arguing goes on forever..........


Coming from someone who claims to be involved in the educational process......but refuses to understand anything presented from a scientific standpoint......who are you.....Fred Flintstone?
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

marcrph wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
This is so typical on here, people splitting hairs and arguing over what a definition is of all things. The ever present insanity to argue for the sake of just arguing. If one person says it's pink someone's gonna say it's red and the arguing goes on forever..........

Coming from someone who claims to be involved in the educational process......but refuses to understand anything presented from a scientific standpoint......who are you.....Fred Flintstone?


==Scott==
Actually I'm Barney Rubble...
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
A definition takes into account all aspects of that entity under said definition. Thus, if I miss out on something (like not training in a climate controlled, clinical environment according to the Hutchins' definition), then I did not exercise... and neither have many on this board. If that is the case, how did I develop the muscle and strength that I did, and as did others?


can you exercise in 100 degree F air?...yes


By your own mouth.....you invalidate your definition

...is it a massive compromise? YES!

The definition is inclusive of any variable that might compromise your ability to apply said (defined) exercise.

Without the definition there is no standard.


elitist view.....comparing your "gang" to the Wright brothers and airplanes is.....well...silly!

I've been to the monument of flight at Kitty Hawk and the Wright brothers. Perhaps, it would be advised that Mrs. Hutchins go to Kitty Hawk. The monument site is a humbling experience.....which is what her article so desperately needs.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

entsminger wrote:
marcrph wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
This is so typical on here, people splitting hairs and arguing over what a definition is of all things. The ever present insanity to argue for the sake of just arguing. If one person says it's pink someone's gonna say it's red and the arguing goes on forever..........

Coming from someone who claims to be involved in the educational process......but refuses to understand anything presented from a scientific standpoint......who are you.....Fred Flintstone?

==Scott==
Actually I'm Barney Rubble...


Ok...."Barney".....and your remarks......"Rubble"....too?
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

marcrph wrote:
entsminger wrote:
marcrph wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
This is so typical on here, people splitting hairs and arguing over what a definition is of all things. The ever present insanity to argue for the sake of just arguing. If one person says it's pink someone's gonna say it's red and the arguing goes on forever..........

Coming from someone who claims to be involved in the educational process......but refuses to understand anything presented from a scientific standpoint......who are you.....Fred Flintstone?

==Scott==
Actually I'm Barney Rubble...

Ok...."Barney".....and your remarks......"Rubble"....too?


==Scott==
Bam Bam to you!! ha ha...
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
A definition takes into account all aspects of that entity under said definition. Thus, if I miss out on something (like not training in a climate controlled, clinical environment according to the Hutchins' definition), then I did not exercise... and neither have many on this board. If that is the case, how did I develop the muscle and strength that I did, and as did others?


can you exercise in 100 degree F air?...yes...is it a massive compromise? YES!

The definition is inclusive of any variable that might compromise your ability to apply said (defined) exercise.

Without the definition there is no standard.


Josh,
I find the opposite is true; I train mostly outdoors and I get a fantastic workout in 100 degree F air.

When it's cool and comfortable I literally don't have the strength to complete all of my training moves - it takes a lot of grip strength to climb a 3" thick rope hand over hand and unless it's warm I have to heat my hands and forearms in really hot water for a couple of minutes or I can't contract the muscles hard enough.

How would you explain what is happening here - if heat is a requirement for optimal muscular expression isn't it a compromise to keep yourself cool and comfortable?
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

Simple and common definition of 'Investing': The act of committing money or capital to an endeavor with the expectation of obtaining an additional income or profit"

Ken Hutchin's would-be version of the its definition: "committing money or capital in accordance with current laws in existence, in a free-market system, with the constraints of said laws, in order to maximize returns in minimum time frame"


Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

entsminger wrote:
marcrph wrote:
entsminger wrote:
marcrph wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
This is so typical on here, people splitting hairs and arguing over what a definition is of all things. The ever present insanity to argue for the sake of just arguing. If one person says it's pink someone's gonna say it's red and the arguing goes on forever..........

Coming from someone who claims to be involved in the educational process......but refuses to understand anything presented from a scientific standpoint......who are you.....Fred Flintstone?

==Scott==
Actually I'm Barney Rubble...

Ok...."Barney".....and your remarks......"Rubble"....too?

==Scott==
Bam Bam to you!! ha ha...


LOL
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Brian Johnston wrote:
Josh, I ask you to open a dictionary and look up the term 'definition.' You are speaking about an optimal (what you think is optimal) situation for exercise, and that's a good thing. Why not have something that is as optimal as possible for people to train.

But a definition does not take into account compromises. It's irrelevant to the definition of a definition. That's my point. A definition involves the 'essence' of a thing, like describing a table, but excluding how many legs it has (e.g., pedastal vs. many legs), or it's material (e.g., wood vs. steel vs. plastic, etc.).

Exercise is the same, in that it is activity done with intent to improve, maintain, or reduce the loss of some physical attribute, whether strength, muscle, aerobic capacity, etc. Once you start integrating how it should be done, you are not speaking of a definition, but preferences and philosophy. A person's philosophy about a 'thing' is not the same as a definition of that 'thing.'



The issue becomes that "the thing" cannot exist outside of certain parameters, therefore if we don't include those parameters then we can not have "the thing"(exercise).

These parameters narrow even further with subjects who have CP or MS or perhaps those heavily muscled...we believe the inclusion of environment is crucial to have the 'thing'...yes it narrows the scope of what qualifies but is this not the point of having a definition and using precise language?

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
farhad wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Flying... Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins


"Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation"

With all due respect, if that is true, then your whole foundation and exercise theory is invalid and therefore has to collapse.

This is how exercise is defined according to Ken Hutchins:
"Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time."

Ken Hutchin's so called 'definition' is not a definition qua definition. It is a recommendation on how exercise should be. His "definition" was refuted point by point by Brian Johnston all the way back in 2001. I am sure Ken is aware of the criticism. Knowing how intelligent Ken is, it boggles my mind that he has stuck to the above "definition."

BDJ did do an excellent job in that article. Although we have had differences ealry on, I am pretty much on board with his Philosophy.


you have no position other than whatever is opposite Hutchins....mindless...

You've proven to have no process....only contrarian.


No, actually Mr Hutchins said something recently of note that I heard I agreed was correct, so I gave credit where credit was due. Also - His arguments against "recreational based exercise" are of value foundation wise, but are after the fact - taken a bit too far.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy