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
Multi-Joint vs Single, but Slow
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

There were some side-discussion of slow reps on active threads today, so I thought that I would throw my two-cents in. While injured and/or elderly patients really have needed slower reps, I am NOT a fan of them (in the defined cadence sense) for multiple-joint exercises, which I admit is ironic because SuperSlow & RenEx both produce multiple-joint machines.

The crux of SuperSlow & RenEx is not to unload the intended muscle(s), but some of the recommended multiple-joint exercises do just that, especially the shoulder-PRESS that involves several other muscles outside of the shoulders that in some parts of the ROM the load is taken by those muscles more than the shoulders.

Keep in mind that I am NOT commenting on the machines designed by Hutchins, because most of them I have NOT tried since 1995. But, even back then, I wondered wasn't a pulldown & row (as prescribed in "THE GENERIC ROUTINE") tantamount to "a second set" for the lats, since the range-of-movement overlap?

In short, I still don't understand why single-joint exercises are not emphasized, because I like THE NAUTILUS CIRCUIT and it still has great merit, which I also don't subscribe to the argument of THE HIERARCHY OF LEARNING that places single-joint exercises as more difficult than multiple-joint exercises. Does this mean that I believe multiple-joint exercises are useless?

Of course multi-joints exercises are useful, except they must be trained by FEELING and because many of us, like myself, must use exercise-equipment that amounts to free-weights, and machines that are nowhere in the same league as much of the equipment owned by people on the DrDarden.com website. But, as the saying I heard to be Russian, PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF GOOD ENOUGH.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Here's my answer:

Question, why would anyone opt for the bench press if they could do instead these 3: 10 degree nautilus Flye, nautilus lat raise and triceps ext?

The bench press is as good as the weakest link in the "chain". There is no WEAK LINK in an ISOLATION machine. Each load is tailored to a specific torque curve about a specific joint action.

Every muscle in the bench press is worked and accounted for in those 3 isolation machines. better than the bench because its load is specific to that muscle and joint. the ONLY reason to do a bench press is if your looking to GAME that parlor trick
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

Southbeach: what you say is true. On the other hand, you did inspire me to think in favor of the bench-press. Lets say that heavier dumbelles are NOT available to the trainee, nor a chest-fly machine, then the bench-press might be the better option due to the trainee being able to access heavier weights.

Of course, some of the discussion of TRAINING BY FEEL becomes a must for the trainee, because the complete ROM (performed in a steady manner) of a bench-press isn't productive for someone merely trying to train thei chest. I think this is where Jreps & Zone Training by IART was being helpful.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Multi vs. Single: Anyone who chooses either/or exclusively, shall limit themselves in so many ways.

Rep Speed: Ditto
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

simon-hecubus wrote:
Multi vs. Single: Anyone who chooses either/or exclusively, shall limit themselves in so many ways.

Rep Speed: Ditto


I agree. I'd say double-ditto for Volume, but I know that's taboo around here.

Open User Options Menu

db144

SB:

Let's face the real issue, you're a pussy. Hard training is not within your capability and you have returned to your failed iso program that has not generated any growth in years but you continue on undaunted as you have no idea how to correct the problem.

d
Open User Options Menu

anab0lic

southbeach wrote:
Here's my answer:

Question, why would anyone opt for the bench press if they could do instead these 3: 10 degree nautilus Flye, nautilus lat raise and triceps ext?

The bench press is as good as the weakest link in the "chain". There is no WEAK LINK in an ISOLATION machine. Each load is tailored to a specific torque curve about a specific joint action.

Every muscle in the bench press is worked and accounted for in those 3 isolation machines. better than the bench because its load is specific to that muscle and joint. the ONLY reason to do a bench press is if your looking to GAME that parlor trick


Spot on.

Take Dorian Yates for example, best back in bodybuilding history... also one of the few pros who used a nautilus pullover HIT style for years and got brutally strong isolating his lats. Notice how prior to this he got beaten in bodybuilding shows when he relied on compound moves for his back... In contrast the body part he says he had the most trouble growing was his chest... which he relied heavily on pressing movements to build...go figure.

Arnold had better chest development than some of the pros you see today who use far more drugs... and you know what he says did more for his chest than anything else? Flye movements. Progressive overload on isolation movements is the key to maximizing growth in a specific area. I did compound movements for nearly a decade and had so many underdeveloped areas as a result...I also suffered a crap load of injurys doing so... i wish i could go back and do it all again knowing what i know know.
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

DNAHelix

New York, USA

southbeach wrote:

Question, why would anyone opt for the bench press if they could do instead these 3: 10 degree nautilus Flye, nautilus lat raise and triceps ext?



Answer:

Cause everyone is different.

Nautilus pec fly did give the kind of feeling in my chest I do not usually feel when pressing.
Another thing, one has to have an access to a pec fly machine where you are pulling with the insides of your elbows against the pads, rather than holding handles in your hands (which is in my opinion ineffective).

However I would not completely throw away the bench press, it is a very good movement when applied at a good angle [decline] and a [proper] volume 3-5 set by 3 reps each.
Open User Options Menu

DNAHelix

New York, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington


Dr.Darden,

Hence, neither MedX nor X-Force have 12 correctly designed machines, as per your statement above.
Did I get it right?

Albert
Open User Options Menu

garethit

Compound vs Isolation?

While it is an established "fact" that compounds will build far more muscle than any amount of iso's ever will I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why??

The only possible reason I can think why this would be true would be due to increased neural activity when muscles are used in conjunction with each other in natural movement patterns??
Open User Options Menu

anab0lic

garethit wrote:
Compound vs Isolation?

While it is an established "fact" that compounds will build far more muscle than any amount of iso's ever will I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why??

The only possible reason I can think why this would be true would be due to increased neural activity when muscles are used in conjunction with each other in natural movement patterns??


Absolutely was not true for me. Isolation has actually made me grow in all the right areas and put on considerably more muscle mass than years of dedication to compound movements ever did.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

Interesting, many research papers on muscle hypertrophy and resistance training have used leg extensions as the primary exercise. They have shown that this single joint exercise produces significant increases in CSA.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

garethit wrote:
Compound vs Isolation?

While it is an established "fact" that compounds will build far more muscle than any amount of iso's ever will I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why??

The only possible reason I can think why this would be true would be due to increased neural activity when muscles are used in conjunction with each other in natural movement patterns??


The CNS controls muscular action for unified movement. The muscles act much like a chorus of harmonious movement, not as a soloist. A chorus makes much more sound than the soloist.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

Responding to Ellington Darden:

"But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?"

Good point, as a collection of more than 12 machines was attempted to be idealized in your book of "THE NAUTILUS BODYBUILDING BOOK" that all had a purpose, designed from a ceertain philosophy, in unison with one another. I suppose the closest we could come to such idealism is to assemble the best used, and a few new, single-joint machines into a unified circuit, and beef-up their weight-stacks to provide more of a load that was always the stumbling-block for people doing Nautilus.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

Compound exercises uses more muscle groups, which:

1) allows you to use heavier weights and build more strength

2) builds better cardiovasular and metabolic conditioning

3) improves joint stability and muscle balance across a joint

4) improves coordination, reaction time, and balance better

5)is more time efficient (HIT biggest selling point)

6) simulates more "real world" activities

7) allows you to exercise longer with less muscle fatigue

8) burns more calories

The list is almost endless!
Open User Options Menu

garethit

anab0lic wrote:
garethit wrote:
Compound vs Isolation?

While it is an established "fact" that compounds will build far more muscle than any amount of iso's ever will I've yet to hear a convincing explanation as to why??

The only possible reason I can think why this would be true would be due to increased neural activity when muscles are used in conjunction with each other in natural movement patterns??

Absolutely was not true for me. Isolation has actually made me grow in all the right areas and put on considerably more muscle mass than years of dedication to compound movements ever did.


Great to here the isos are working well for you. I think your in a minority as far as trainees who have actually tried building their bodies through mainly isolation exercises and this is what makes comparisons so difficult.

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Ellington Darden wrote:
Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington


Interesting, but Jones did write in an Ironman magazine article around the mid 90s that one could get very close to their potential with squats, dips, chins, and calf raises. Maybe he said that because that collection of 12 iso don't exist?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Ellington Darden wrote:
Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington


Let's see what MACHINES we have now at our disposal today. Starting from ground up:

Calf Raise
Leg Extension
Thigh Curl
Hip Adductor
Hip Abductor
Hip Extension
Ab/Hip Flexion
Lumbar Extension
Lumbar Rotation
Nautilus 10 degree Chest
Nautilus 50 degree? Chest
Pullover
Nautilus Behind the Neck
Nautilus Rear Delt
Nautilus Lateral Raise
Nautilus Shrug
Bicep Curl
Tricep Extension
Cervical Extension
Cervical Flexion
Cervical Rotation
Cervical Lateral Flexion

All machines, all ISOLATION moves.

What is missing? What muscle group is not covered?? Why ever do a compound?

Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

fbcoach wrote:
Compound exercises uses more muscle groups, which:

1) allows you to use heavier weights and build more strength

2) builds better cardiovasular and metabolic conditioning

3) improves joint stability and muscle balance across a joint

4) improves coordination, reaction time, and balance better

5)is more time efficient (HIT biggest selling point)

6) simulates more "real world" activities

7) allows you to exercise longer with less muscle fatigue

8) burns more calories

The list is almost endless!


1)You are able to use heavier weights because of the inclusion of weak links. tension gets transferred. This does not necessarily mean that the primary muscle group is receiving adequate stimulus.

2)If all else equal, then this is true.

3)Can you produce evidence for this? How does a lat pull-down produce more joint stability and muscle balance than cable curls?

4)not true. some of these traits are genetically limited and cannot be much approved upon.

5)IF time is a constraint for an individual, then yes, this is ad advantage.

6)Not true. your claim violated the law of specificity. Also, how often in everyday life do people squats or dips or pull-downs??

7)not true. actually compound movements are systematically more fatiguing.how is triceps push-downs more draining than dips??

8)No argument here.

Both compound and single-joint movements have their proper place in training. It all depends on the individual's goals and abilities, schedule, etc. I don't believe you can achieve maximum muscle hypertrophy with ONLY compound movements at least not with the majority of the population.

Open User Options Menu

Mega-duty

southbeach wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington

Let's see what MACHINES we have now at our disposal today. Starting from ground up:

Calf Raise
Leg Extension
Thigh Curl
Hip Adductor
Hip Abductor
Hip Extension
Ab/Hip Flexion
Lumbar Extension
Lumbar Rotation
Nautilus 10 degree Chest
Nautilus 50 degree? Chest
Pullover
Nautilus Behind the Neck
Nautilus Rear Delt
Nautilus Lateral Raise
Nautilus Shrug
Bicep Curl
Tricep Extension
Cervical Extension
Cervical Flexion
Cervical Rotation
Cervical Lateral Flexion

All machines, all ISOLATION moves.

What is missing? What muscle group is not covered?? Why ever do a compound?



I agree,compounds are overrated.Even free weight isolations are effective with slight twists.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Mega-duty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington

Let's see what MACHINES we have now at our disposal today. Starting from ground up:

Calf Raise
Leg Extension
Thigh Curl
Hip Adductor
Hip Abductor
Hip Extension
Ab/Hip Flexion
Lumbar Extension
Lumbar Rotation
Nautilus 10 degree Chest
Nautilus 50 degree? Chest
Pullover
Nautilus Behind the Neck
Nautilus Rear Delt
Nautilus Lateral Raise
Nautilus Shrug
Bicep Curl
Tricep Extension
Cervical Extension
Cervical Flexion
Cervical Rotation
Cervical Lateral Flexion

All machines, all ISOLATION moves.

What is missing? What muscle group is not covered?? Why ever do a compound?



I agree,compounds are overrated.Even free weight isolations are effective with slight twists.



My focus is on the isolation exercises for the reasons I've stated but I do see a purpose to "minoring" in a compound exercise. A natural movement pattern that involves a bunch of muscles, a few of the more obscure that may not be worked very well due to the very specific path of the iso.

The focus is the key to me. I focus on fatiguing individual muscle or close related grouping with the iso's, then "clean-up" with a compound. I can see the potential usefulness of once in a while doing a set of bench presses b/w lots of workouts of 10 degree flyes, triceps exts, and lateral raises.

The bulk iso's, a few compounds thrown in once in awhile to insure anything is not excluded.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

I do, personally, have 12-14 MACHINE DESIGNS in my mind that I would love to see realized; and, they don't necessarily involve complicated weight-stacks, although I really admire what Jeff has done to his MedX LP, because I would just love to have a circuit of some very functional machines that improve upon VINTAGE NAUTILUS with heavier weight-stacks that go to wards of 1000-pounds on a few machines.

Wouldn't it be excellent to be able to train 6-reps with a 1000-pounds on a leg-extension?? :)
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

southbeach wrote:
Mega-duty wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Jones always said that if you had correctly designed single-joint movements, that's probably all you'd need for maximum development. That's it. Period.

But a collection of 12 or so correctly designed single-joint machines -- do they exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ellington

Let's see what MACHINES we have now at our disposal today. Starting from ground up:

Calf Raise
Leg Extension
Thigh Curl
Hip Adductor
Hip Abductor
Hip Extension
Ab/Hip Flexion
Lumbar Extension
Lumbar Rotation
Nautilus 10 degree Chest
Nautilus 50 degree? Chest
Pullover
Nautilus Behind the Neck
Nautilus Rear Delt
Nautilus Lateral Raise
Nautilus Shrug
Bicep Curl
Tricep Extension
Cervical Extension
Cervical Flexion
Cervical Rotation
Cervical Lateral Flexion

All machines, all ISOLATION moves.

What is missing? What muscle group is not covered?? Why ever do a compound?



I agree,compounds are overrated.Even free weight isolations are effective with slight twists.



My focus is on the isolation exercises for the reasons I've stated but I do see a purpose to "minoring" in a compound exercise. A natural movement pattern that involves a bunch of muscles, a few of the more obscure that may not be worked very well due to the very specific path of the iso.

The focus is the key to me. I focus on fatiguing individual muscle or close related grouping with the iso's, then "clean-up" with a compound. I can see the potential usefulness of once in a while doing a set of bench presses b/w lots of workouts of 10 degree flyes, triceps exts, and lateral raises.

The bulk iso's, a few compounds thrown in once in awhile to insure anything is not excluded.


Yea and just look how successful you've been.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

The thing with compounds is, things can be done to "isolate" a particular muscle group (as we know PURE isolation of any muscle is impossible). I mean, it's not 'all or nothing' with them. For example, I use a Powertec leverage machine for many upper body movements. I can perform the pulldown in such a way that it greatly minimizes biceps involvement and it becomes very much like a direct movement for lats. By changing hand spacing, elbow direction, palm direction, range of motion, etc. Same goes for row, chest press, leg press, etc. It's about making adjustments when/if needed. Now, I really don't have anything against single joint movements and do perform some from time to time, but I've always been of the belief (from sheer experience) they are secondary to compounds in terms of being productive in a general, overall routine. I have never seen ONE individual who has built an impressive physique from nothing but single joint movements; I have seen a number of people who built very impressive physiques using just compounds.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy