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
X-Force and Muscle Gain
First | Prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
Author
Rating
Options

Mr. Strong

AShortt wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
AShortt wrote:
jitterbug wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
Yes, excellent post! :-)

Off to work on my materials... currently writing on the subject of cluster sets and implementing heavy loading with occlusion light loading. Interesting stuff that makes the muscles stand out like crazy. Bye for a while boys.




Yeah sounds great, but then what will you be doing next week? And the week after that? Maybe you don't have a long attention span? :)


Mr.Strong,

Of course he will be on to the next magic pill.

Ed

You mean like a new machine design, new add on techniques. Like reinventing isometrics by tracking with a load cell/force gauge system? You mean like better pulleys? These can all be considered new solutions and if scoffed at considered as...magic pills. You'd think after all the haters towards RenX you'd know better than this by now...

RenEx wasn't even mentioned.

Sure it was...I mentioned it ;n)



Why?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Mr. Strong wrote:
Why?


C'mon! Really?!?!

Why was Jittery Ed chiming in when the "innovations" of his puppeteers that Andrew listed are just their own version of the magic pill.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Mr. Strong wrote:
AShortt wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
AShortt wrote:
jitterbug wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
Yes, excellent post! :-)

Off to work on my materials... currently writing on the subject of cluster sets and implementing heavy loading with occlusion light loading. Interesting stuff that makes the muscles stand out like crazy. Bye for a while boys.




Yeah sounds great, but then what will you be doing next week? And the week after that? Maybe you don't have a long attention span? :)


Mr.Strong,

Of course he will be on to the next magic pill.

Ed

You mean like a new machine design, new add on techniques. Like reinventing isometrics by tracking with a load cell/force gauge system? You mean like better pulleys? These can all be considered new solutions and if scoffed at considered as...magic pills. You'd think after all the haters towards RenX you'd know better than this by now...

RenEx wasn't even mentioned.

Sure it was...I mentioned it ;n)


Why?


Because I was the one who supports the new RenX designs and was chastised for it. I explained clearly that the issue wasn't the great innovations it was that their system was closed and had to be closed to work. Thus the only thing ultimate about their approach is it will ultimately fail itself as it cannot adapt to the individual over time. It can accommodate short term but in time and when up against many conditions it will fail to create solutions...IMO. I don't think they are trying to build or sell magic but to say that anyone but they...by default...are off base or trying to con is a logical fallacy and spells their own demise.

"Specialization is for insects"

Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

simon-hecubus wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
Why?

C'mon! Really?!?!

Why was Jittery Ed chiming in when the "innovations" of his puppeteers that Andrew listed are just their own version of the magic pill.




He said "of course he will be on the next magic pill", that was in response to my post.

But, of course, you have a problem with certain posters, who aren't on your team.
Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
What do these machines cost Dr. Darden?

Ten to $12,000 for each one.

Ellington



****Gulp. They better build more muscle for those shekels!!

Another Q: Why aren't the XForce folks doing some placebo controlled studies using XForce vs. MedX or freeweights?

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Seriousstrength wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
What do these machines cost Dr. Darden?

Ten to $12,000 for each one.

Ellington



****Gulp. They better build more muscle for those shekels!!

Another Q: Why aren't the XForce folks doing some placebo controlled studies using XForce vs. MedX or freeweights?



That is a good question....

BTW

That question could be applied to RenEx
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Seriousstrength wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
What do these machines cost Dr. Darden?

Ten to $12,000 for each one.

Ellington



****Gulp. They better build more muscle for those shekels!!

Another Q: Why aren't the XForce folks doing some placebo controlled studies using XForce vs. MedX or freeweights?



Don't know. You'll have to ask the head man in Sweden your question.

Ellington

Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
What do these machines cost Dr. Darden?

Ten to $12,000 for each one.

Ellington



****Gulp. They better build more muscle for those shekels!!

Another Q: Why aren't the XForce folks doing some placebo controlled studies using XForce vs. MedX or freeweights?



Don't know. You'll have to ask the head man in Sweden your question.

Ellington



***Seems like it would be a pretty easy and important thing to do to garner support for the equipment.
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Seriousstrength wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
Ellington Darden wrote:
Seriousstrength wrote:
What do these machines cost Dr. Darden?

Ten to $12,000 for each one.

Ellington



****Gulp. They better build more muscle for those shekels!!

Another Q: Why aren't the XForce folks doing some placebo controlled studies using XForce vs. MedX or freeweights?



Don't know. You'll have to ask the head man in Sweden your question.

Ellington



***Seems like it would be a pretty easy and important thing to do to garner support for the equipment.


Applying the Chest Press machine, with the proper resistance -- after the 4th repetition -- made a believer out of me.

You've got to try it, Fred.

Ellington

Open User Options Menu

DSears

Fred,

Why not just have one of your trainers apply some extra force on the negative manually just to see what happens with negative upload? Forget X-Force per se, just use MedX or Nautilus to see if there is any difference. I think the question is more one of uploading the negative than X-Force. If the results are good there will be other companies that figure out how to upload the negative.

David
Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

DSears wrote:
Fred,

Why not just have one of your trainers apply some extra force on the negative manually just to see what happens with negative upload? Forget X-Force per se, just use MedX or Nautilus to see if there is any difference. I think the question is more one of uploading the negative than X-Force. If the results are good there will be other companies that figure out how to upload the negative.

David


****We do this all the time David. But it is different I think. However, Henneman's size principle rules the day. Does one REALLY recruit more MUs after a certain point or is it just rate coding of the fibers past a certain depth of fatigue?
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

DSears wrote:
Fred,

Why not just have one of your trainers apply some extra force on the negative manually just to see what happens with negative upload? Forget X-Force per se, just use MedX or Nautilus to see if there is any difference. I think the question is more one of uploading the negative than X-Force. If the results are good there will be other companies that figure out how to upload the negative.

David


David,

There's a significant difference between an X-Force rep and an assistant trying to supply extra resistance on the negative of a standard machine. The X-Force machine is smooth and consistent, something that you just can't get effectively with an assistant.

Ellington

Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

Seriousstrength wrote:
DSears wrote:
Fred,

Why not just have one of your trainers apply some extra force on the negative manually just to see what happens with negative upload? Forget X-Force per se, just use MedX or Nautilus to see if there is any difference. I think the question is more one of uploading the negative than X-Force. If the results are good there will be other companies that figure out how to upload the negative.

David

****We do this all the time David. But it is different I think. However, Henneman's size principle rules the day. Does one REALLY recruit more MUs after a certain point or is it just rate coding of the fibers past a certain depth of fatigue?


Once all the fibers have been recruited, then it is very likely rate coding. Also, recruiting all the fibers does not necessarily translate into stimulus.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/...rview#aw2aab6b2


Open User Options Menu

DSears

Ellington Darden wrote:
DSears wrote:
Fred,

Why not just have one of your trainers apply some extra force on the negative manually just to see what happens with negative upload? Forget X-Force per se, just use MedX or Nautilus to see if there is any difference. I think the question is more one of uploading the negative than X-Force. If the results are good there will be other companies that figure out how to upload the negative.

David

David,

There's a significant difference between an X-Force rep and an assistant trying to supply extra resistance on the negative of a standard machine. The X-Force machine is smooth and consistent, something that you just can't get effectively with an assistant.

Ellington



I'm sure there is a significant difference in the two but that doesn't mean you can't learn something regarding the value of negative upload using manual resistance. I have personal experience with manually uploading the negative on a homemade hip and back and my results were much better than anything I achieved with the Nautilus version.
Open User Options Menu

DSears

Seriousstrength wrote:
DSears wrote:
Fred,

Why not just have one of your trainers apply some extra force on the negative manually just to see what happens with negative upload? Forget X-Force per se, just use MedX or Nautilus to see if there is any difference. I think the question is more one of uploading the negative than X-Force. If the results are good there will be other companies that figure out how to upload the negative.

David

****We do this all the time David. But it is different I think. However, Henneman's size principle rules the day. Does one REALLY recruit more MUs after a certain point or is it just rate coding of the fibers past a certain depth of fatigue?


How is it different? I'm not talking about the last rep, I'm talking about every negative of every rep.

I think the point with X-force, and negative uploading in general, is that the fibers don't get any respite on the negative and the trainee gets to whatever level of inroad they are aiming for more quickly.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy