"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.
Back in the 1990s, I wrote an article in a style that was both tongue-in-cheek and in "a thought experiment" about how the exercise & diet patterns of gorillas matched to what experts were promoting for fitness; yet, the irony is that gorillas are not desirable for their figures.
Anyway, today, I came across the newly released final installment in the series on DUMPERS from RenX. The article had Hutchins name on it, as well as others. In the article, what gorillas can do in way of activity with a suitcase was brought-up, which was alluding to the link they supplied from the old commercial.
In one of the versions of my article of "GORILLAS ARE FAT AS HELL", I also was alluding to that commercial, but no one got it. Finally, someone gets that we need to start monkeying around more! Ha, but seriously, I recommend this series for people to read, especially anyone serious about understanding EQUIPMENT DESIGN PRINCPLES, although the title of DUMPERS is a bit much.
The artical is pathetic attempt to get one to ignore the obvious benefits that machines like XForce can have on inroad...
They are basically saying that only a fool would use a machine that "acts upon the subject" forgetting that the machine only acts in accordance with the subject, and can even be unplugged to further refine it's action in accordance with the subjects more refined goals.
So perhaps Renx machines - having no design capabilities to afford a subject the option of accentuating the negative - are the ones truly imposing rigid "acts upon the subject" due to their limited function...
DukeMatisse wrote:
The artical is pathetic attempt to get one to ignore the obvious benefits that machines like XForce can have on inroad...
They are basically saying that only a fool would use a machine that "acts upon the subject" forgetting that the machine only acts in accordance with the subject, and can even be unplugged to further refine it's action in accordance with the subjects more refined goals.
So perhaps Renx machines - having no design capabilities to afford a subject the option of accentuating the negative - are the ones truly imposing rigid "acts upon the subject" due to their limited function...
results matter. dr darden continues to conduct extensive research with a large pool of subjects.
these machines so far are proven to be result producing.
this is based on sound principals.
making the neg heavier allows one to get to failure with 100% effort in a shorter time.
brief-intense-efficient--through inroad in a shorter time--this is what has proven to be the formula to build muscle
I have never had to agree with writing to make it important writing. Case in point, "Bodybuilding: The Weider Approach" is an excellent book, although much of the advice is flawed; still, I recommend everyone to have that book on their shelf. As to RenX, I can see the annoyance factor with picking on an extremely small segment of the exercise-equipment world, but those articles do discuss subject-matter that is foundational, but foundations can have cracks in them. But, as to my opinion concerning equipment with negative-emphasized loading, Hutchins always looks at the lowest common denominator that are rehab. patients that are elderly, sickly, injured or a combination of two or three of those factors, albeit my phrasing of "lowest common denominator" itself is hint insulting to patients, and this type of generalization does cross paths with inidividualism whereby bodybuilders & strength-athletes probably could survive being struck with hammers, because so many of them are genetic-freaks to begin with.
If you have any doubts that Ken's writings aren't important, just ask him. Sorry Benny, but opinions masquerading as Absolute Facts should be required reading for no one.
The only thing one can learn from the Dumpers articles is some insight into Hutchins' various mental issues, such as his barely-disguised massive ego and persecution complex.
It may be interesting reading for students of abnormal psychology, but not students of exercise.
jitterbug wrote:
Landau wrote:
I almost puked my guts out reading that crap!
Mr.Landau,
When will you be writing your rebuttal?
Edward
Rebuttal to what? They have an opinion based on their preconceived definitions.
They say that X-Force "acts upon the subject," but seem to think that their cams strength curve(or lack thereof) does not... There has yet to be anything in any of the dumpers series of articles that states or shows that negitive accentuated training is not productive if done properly.
With each dumpers article we're told to stay tuned, and with each question i ask on the RenX site i'm told to wait for the next article.
I find it laughable that so many names are attached to the last article as it's the worst one yet.
I will address what I know from one of my Long Time Clients. After applying "dosage" of Negative Only applications, this woman has Meaningful structural improvement and enhancement of her leg and arm development. This is directly due to the addition of Negative Protocol. This is what she has expressed and with excitement at her age of 71.
In order to potentiate such benefits, one has to use the variety of protocols known. To limit one's self to one "protocol" has great limitations, and without going into unnecessary detail - this must be addressed with scrutiny of individual differences. So in summary, to exclude the potential upside benefits of Negative Training Applications can in some cases be a disservice.
The whole springboard of Renx's Anti-Dumpers campaign is that there is no benefit to emphasizing the negative portion of a movement. From that very faulty starting point, they build their whole argument.
It's like building a house of cards on a sand castle foundation.
As Curtis Mayfield once sang: "Eddie, you should know better."
simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole springboard of Renx's Anti-Dumpers campaign is that there is no benefit to emphasizing the negative portion of a movement. From that very faulty starting point, they build their whole argument.
It's like building a house of cards on a sand castle foundation.
As Curtis Mayfield once sang: "Eddie, you should know better."
Mr.simon-hecubus,
I haven't seen an argument that convinces me otherwise as a matter of fact of haven't seen any rebuttal from anyone.
simon-hecubus wrote:
The whole springboard of Renx's Anti-Dumpers campaign is that there is no benefit to emphasizing the negative portion of a movement. From that very faulty starting point, they build their whole argument.
It's like building a house of cards on a sand castle foundation.
As Curtis Mayfield once sang: "Eddie, you should know better."
there is a need for the "negative hyper loading" ie x-force machines if one is pushing with 100 % intensity [on the positive right out of the gate in a safe manner.
that means starting the rep from a dead stop [to minimize momentum] also, pulling as hard, and as fast, after that dead stop, and a brief, pause, at the end of the rep.you will be pulling as hard, and as fast, as humanly, possible. but, if the weight is set correctly, it will not be moving fast at all. if the weight is heavy enough for your rep range the weight will take everything that you have to complete each rep, and it will, in fact, be moving slowly.
observe the video that josh posted where he is using100% effort out of the gate on the medx chest press machine. josh is able to do this because he has added over 100lbs to that standard, medx, stack, with that standard, medx, cam, that was/is intended for rehab where the weight doesn't need to be extremely heavy.
the medx, like the superslow, or the renex, designed their cams after the medx rehab machines designs and they too would need to add a lot of weight to their stack [or change the cam ratio].actually probably more weight that the medx because the cam has an even more radical falloff.
the xforce has value for someone who wants to train with100% effort in his rep range in the most intense, and brief, manner. [you are 40% stronger in the negative]. the exercise will be more intense and briefer by using 100% intensity on both the neg and positive. this is just logical and the results speak for them selves--dr darden posted them and they were better than any other study that he has ever performed in his entire career..
the problem with people who practice superslow is that they are not pushing with 100% intensity.
this is easily proved if one were to go to a superslow, medx,or a renex machine and lift with 100% of your ability [with an un restricted speed].you will find that the weight is way too light.
this is why in josh's video where he is using a medx chest press. he had to add over 100lbs of plates to perform the exercise correctly [like he did do] with 100% intensity in his proper rep range.
i guarantee when they are performing the renex protocol on those machines, with those cams, that make the weight extremely light--> they are purposely slowing the weight--> rather than,pushing the weight with100% of their abilities. if they they are pushing with 100% the weight is moving slowly because the weight is heavy not because they are purposely slowing a light weight.
if they were to push actual, heavy, weight, with 100%
they will notice that not only is the positive too light but the negative needs an extra 40%. in order to fail completely, with 100% effort, in the most, intense, and briefest, manner. this is the best formula for maximum results
Where is the proof negative training doesn't work? You say show proof it does but obviously you have proof it doesn't. Please post that information.
d
dr darden recently listed a bunch of people who gained a tremendous amount of muscle.
he said, he had the best gains of any study he had ever done!!!
one guy gained 19lbs of muscle using the x-force in 6 weeks!!!
we already knew this would happen anyway. arthur jones conducted similar tests on negative stuff years ago and had spectacular results--most of casey stuff was negative only at some point.
whats nice about the x-force stuff [dumpers] is that you can do all your entire workout safely with these machines--you can do your whole body with 14 different movements!!!
I agree with you. Problem with Jittery Ed and all the RenEx monkeys is that they've drank the Kool-aid and their minds are darkened. It will take years of wasted time before they wise up.
Where is the proof negative training doesn't work? You say show proof it does but obviously you have proof it doesn't. Please post that information.
d
Mr.db144,
I don't think anyone has said it doesn't work to some degree or another. I believe the argument is that it's completely unnecessary, inferior to positive and negative exercise and dangerous.
Is that statement straight from the "new" SS/RenEx book or did you write it down as Hutchins/Josh told you what to post next?
The only thing dangerous is your inability to think for yourself. Negative weight training has proved a valuable tool similar to many other specialized lifting techniques that are part of a balanced routine.
If SS/RenEx doesn't believe in the use of negatives why are they using them daily as part of their protocol? Lowering a weight in 10 seconds is a negative and no matter the amount of bobbing and weaving the RenEx crew will do to avoid that fact, that is the bottom line. Should have thought that one through but I chalk that up to the great thinkers trying to rewrite definitions and basking in their own brilliance at RenEx.
Is that statement straight from the "new" SS/RenEx book or did you write it down as Hutchins/Josh told you what to post next?
The only thing dangerous is your inability to think for yourself. Negative weight training has proved a valuable tool similar to many other specialized lifting techniques that are part of a balanced routine.
If SS/RenEx doesn't believe in the use of negatives why are they using them daily as part of their protocol? Lowering a weight in 10 seconds is a negative and no matter the amount of bobbing and weaving the RenEx crew will do to avoid that fact, that is the bottom line. Should have thought that one through but I chalk that up to the great thinkers trying to rewrite definitions and basking in their own brilliance at RenEx.
d
Mr.db144,
Once again sir you misquote. In the articles they wrote that the negative and positive are component parts to a productive rep and there is no good reason to treat them different. I'll work on my independent thinking while you work on your reading comprehension.
Nice side step. Lowering any weight in 10 seconds is not normal. It is an exaggerated effort and is Negative training regardless of it not being done independently of the positive side of the rep. That is something that Josh insisted was not a proper way to weight train.
Do you understand now? I realize you're a RenEx shill and doing your best but you are falling short.
Keep trying Jit Ed, some day you'll convince yourself.
Nice side step. Lowering any weight in 10 seconds is not normal. It is an exaggerated effort and is Negative training regardless of it not being done independently of the positive side of the rep. That is something that Josh insisted was not a proper way to weight train.
Do you understand now? I realize you're a RenEx shill and doing your best but you are falling short.
Keep trying Jit Ed, some day you'll convince yourself.
Nice side step. Lowering any weight in 10 seconds is not normal. It is an exaggerated effort and is Negative training regardless of it not being done independently of the positive side of the rep. That is something that Josh insisted was not a proper way to weight train.
Do you understand now? I realize you're a RenEx shill and doing your best but you are falling short.
Keep trying Jit Ed, some day you'll convince yourself.
d
Jit Ed - Josh Trentine - To educate JT: Anytime one submits themselves to a "rep speed," they simply become better at that predetermined rep speed and nothing else period. Slowing "reps" to a 10 second cadence is short lived and a dead end road. You can use this your writings Ren X Team.
Nice side step. Lowering any weight in 10 seconds is not normal. It is an exaggerated effort and is Negative training regardless of it not being done independently of the positive side of the rep. That is something that Josh insisted was not a proper way to weight train.
Do you understand now? I realize you're a RenEx shill and doing your best but you are falling short.
Keep trying Jit Ed, some day you'll convince yourself.
d
Jit Ed - Josh Trentine - To educate JT: Anytime one submits themselves to a "rep speed," they simply become better at that predetermined rep speed and nothing else period. Slowing "reps" to a 10 second cadence is short lived and a dead end road. You can use this your writings Ren X Team.
Mr.Landau,
I thought I was Mr.Hutchins? I'm Mr.Trentini this week? What does this mean?
Nice side step. Lowering any weight in 10 seconds is not normal. It is an exaggerated effort and is Negative training regardless of it not being done independently of the positive side of the rep. That is something that Josh insisted was not a proper way to weight train.
Do you understand now? I realize you're a RenEx shill and doing your best but you are falling short.
Keep trying Jit Ed, some day you'll convince yourself.
d
Jit Ed - Josh Trentine - To educate JT: Anytime one submits themselves to a "rep speed," they simply become better at that predetermined rep speed and nothing else period. Slowing "reps" to a 10 second cadence is short lived and a dead end road. You can use this your writings Ren X Team.
Mr.Landau,
I thought I was Mr.Hutchins? I'm Mr.Trentini this week? What does this mean?
"You can use this your writings Ren X Team"
Edward
So I missed a word. I Merely exposed your "Protocol" (ie - DISASTER) as a USELESS/WORTHLESS and unnecessary Skill. What are you going to do now? Cry?
Nice side step. Lowering any weight in 10 seconds is not normal. It is an exaggerated effort and is Negative training regardless of it not being done independently of the positive side of the rep. That is something that Josh insisted was not a proper way to weight train.
Do you understand now? I realize you're a RenEx shill and doing your best but you are falling short.
Keep trying Jit Ed, some day you'll convince yourself.
d
Jit Ed - Josh Trentine - To educate JT: Anytime one submits themselves to a "rep speed," they simply become better at that predetermined rep speed and nothing else period. Slowing "reps" to a 10 second cadence is short lived and a dead end road. You can use this your writings Ren X Team.
Mr.Landau,
I thought I was Mr.Hutchins? I'm Mr.Trentini this week? What does this mean?
"You can use this your writings Ren X Team"
Edward
All it means is that you are a douche-bag that gets off on not telling people who you are. Do you really think you're 'messing' with people. You're just a sad insecure person. If you think you're clever I have news for you, you're alone in that thinking, just as you're alone in thinking that SS/Renex is a productive protocol. Ask any of your 'investors' in your next circle-jerk if your marketing strategy is sound.
