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 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Seriousstrength wrote:
"Would you prefer: "A favorite technique of passive-agressive people the world over!"

***Are you seriouisly asking this?


Here we go again with your pretend reading comprehension problems. Do YOU realize how this weakens any salient points you're trying to make?
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Tomislav wrote:
Scott,
X-Force is interesting and so are the ideas about it; why not discuss them instead of making less interesting posts?

Interesting Idea:

Does X-Force "rob the positive"?

Since more substrate is consumed on the heavier negative there are going to be less total reps so that is one way to look at it; yet more intense muscular contractions yield more growth (indeed that's what we are seeing) so is this factor a negative?

What if it were possible to calibrate the X-Force machine to lift the positive (no positive at all) in addition to providing a heavier negative - might we see even better results or a decrease?


Here's the problem with a machine that performs the positive for you: The time involved in the lifting allows the involved muscles a rest period to recover, at least to some degree.

By performing the positive, which X-Force supplies for example, prevents the recovery factor from occurring.

Therefore, X-Force makes it possible to get a deeper inroad faster.

Ellington

Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

This is a reason why I find forced negatives very effective, although you have to have someone willing to do the forcing (I do this with a handful of clients with osteoporosis, besides regular negative based stuff, Power Factor, etc... anything to emphasize added weight or more load than what is possible with traditional training).
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Tomislav wrote:
Scott,
X-Force is interesting and so are the ideas about it; why not discuss them instead of making less interesting posts?

Interesting Idea:

Does X-Force "rob the positive"?


You're right, Tomi. It is an interesting topic, but it got sidelined by Fred's whole 'Watchdog for the Truth' BS facade.

So his 'demands' weren't answered the way he wanted, so he stamped his feet (as it were) and demanded in a more persistent tone.

My apologies if this irked me more than just a little.
________

Does it "rob" the positive? Perhaps the more important question to ask is "Does it rob the overall picture?".

To which I would say, no. Hence, the great results people are getting.

Does Fred have a point when he says that the main reason XForce users are seeing good results is that much more weight is being used for the negative? Very probably so.

Does Fred's claim that his SlowBurn application would garner equal or better results in these same trainees have any weight? No, I don't believe it does --- not until he does a 'side-by-side taste test', as it were.

He makes totally unsubstantiated claims like these, but demands the 'whole truth' from Bill's experiences with XForce. Do you, Tomi, see how this appears very much a Pot-and-Kettle scenario here?

However, it's not even that:
1. On one hand, Bill knows his body AND knows his experiences with other protocols.

2. On the other hand, the only thing that Fred knows is he HAS to be right --- because the alternate answer must scare him more than just a little.
____________________________

Enough bitching and back to your question and a counter question: What if we (you or me or someone) tries an experiement in 'robbing the negative'?

1. Perform a slow (to VERY slow) positive.
2. Lower the weight fairly quickly, but under control --- just fast enough that you're not dropping it.
3. Stop at the bottom and begin your slow ascent again.

The main point to is to use as much of the overall TUL for positive efforts as possible.

Do you think it has merit to Accentuate the Positive?
(I didn't see the parallel to our current discussion/argument/war, until the very end)

Best Regards,
Scott
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

P.S. A third question, taking a BDJ-style stance on this:
Will the positive effects of the XForce protocol become diminished over time, as it becomes just another thing that the trainee's bodies get used to?
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

It has to. We get used to exercise by adapting... we adapt by way of getting stronger and building muscle. But at the same time, we adapt by REFUSING to produce any more strength or muscle. Adaptation is a two-way street... it means two things... if you are getting larger and stronger, then the body then becomes more reluctant to create more change (since more strength and muscle is a means to prevent further change). I'm not sure how people are not getting this and refusing to believe the value in change. This is exercise 101!
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Ellington Darden wrote:
Tomislav wrote:
Scott,
X-Force is interesting and so are the ideas about it; why not discuss them instead of making less interesting posts?

Interesting Idea:

Does X-Force "rob the positive"?

Since more substrate is consumed on the heavier negative there are going to be less total reps so that is one way to look at it; yet more intense muscular contractions yield more growth (indeed that's what we are seeing) so is this factor a negative?

What if it were possible to calibrate the X-Force machine to lift the positive (no positive at all) in addition to providing a heavier negative - might we see even better results or a decrease?


Here's the problem with a machine that performs the positive for you: The time involved in the lifting allows the involved muscles a rest period to recover, at least to some degree.

By performing the positive, which X-Force supplies for example, prevents the recovery factor from occurring.

Therefore, X-Force makes it possible to get a deeper inroad faster.

Ellington



Ellington,
excellent explanation; it makes sense the target musculature must remain under tension.

Scott,
very cool, you have two interesting ideas there:

Fred's SlowBurn application; agree it doesn't seem like it could match the results for lack of an overloaded negative, but what about if it were applied in conjunction via X-Force (and only on the negative portion of the rep) to milk the overloaded negative? Ellington has used an effective 30 second negative with chins and this is even slower than SlowBurn; could a 30 second overloaded 1 rep negative (no positive and no loss of tension/breaks) yield even greater results? It should be possible to use up all the substrate with a single overloaded negative of that duration.

Accentuated positives robbing the negative; there is a type of equipment that provides only positive resistance and it doesn't seem to provide much in the way of results.

This is also seen when athletes bounce the bar off of their ribcage on the bench but IMO that is misleading and the greater effect they get from it is powering through the bottom ROM without a CAM (and offset by the potential for injury).
Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

"Here we go again with your pretend reading comprehension problems. Do YOU realize how this weakens any salient points you're trying to make?"

****I just can't believe that a grown man could ask a question like that. Did your mother not teach you that calling people names is wrong?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Tomislav wrote:
...Accentuated positives robbing the negative; there is a type of equipment that provides only positive resistance and it doesn't seem to provide much in the way of results...


What equipment is that? Does it still provide tension throughout?

Of course the main problem with P-A training would be the inabaility to go to complete failure, unless one did an extremely slow negative on the last rep.
Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

"You're right, Tomi. It is an interesting topic, but it got sidelined by Fred's whole 'Watchdog for the Truth' BS facade."

****I simply asked how Bill, Dr. Darden and Roger knew they gained added muscle mass.

"So his 'demands' weren't answered the way he wanted, so he stamped his feet (as it were) and demanded in a more persistent tone."

***Roger answered me in a private text without any hurt feelings or cry-baby responses.

"My apologies if this irked me more than just a little. Does it "rob" the positive? Perhaps the more important question to ask is "Does it rob the overall picture? To which I would say, no. Hence, the great results people are getting."

****Those are two separate questions. DOES rob the positive? Yes, that's a fact. Does it make a difference? Maybe because if we are capable of using 50%-60% more load and due to the way XF built the machines you only get 40% more it MAY not be as good as it could be.

"Does Fred have a point when he says that the main reason XForce users are seeing good results is that much more weight is being used for the negative? Very probably so."

****What else could it be? I suppose it could force people to work harder than they ususally do but Dr. Darden and others know how to work hard already, so...

"Does Fred's claim that his SlowBurn application would garner equal or better results in these same trainees have any weight? No, I don't believe it does --- not until he does a 'side-by-side taste test', as it were."

****I NEVER said this so refrain from strawman arguments. I said this is why I like to keep rep # low in order to get the heaviest negative possible.

"He makes totally unsubstantiated claims like these, but demands the 'whole truth' from Bill's experiences with XForce. Do you, Tomi, see how this appears very much a Pot-and-Kettle scenario here?"

*****Except I never made those claims so there you go. I simple asked Bill how he knew he gained lean mass? How did he measure it? What's the problem?

"However, it's not even that:
1. On one hand, Bill knows his body AND knows his experiences with other protocols."

****That is not scientific. There are other factors involved like training less often perhaps?

"2. On the other hand, the only thing that Fred knows is he HAS to be right --- because the alternate answer must scare him more than just a little."

****What alternative answer? That XForce machines will produce greater results than using a SB protocol? Watching Roger train on Bill's blog, looks like SB to me - though I'd slow Rogers positives down a little.

"Enough bitching and back to your question and a counter question: What if we (you or me or someone) tries an experiement in 'robbing the negative'?

1. Perform a slow (to VERY slow) positive.
2. Lower the weight fairly quickly, but under control --- just fast enough that you're not dropping it.
3. Stop at the bottom and begin your slow ascent again.

The main point to is to use as much of the overall TUL for positive efforts as possible.

Do you think it has merit to Accentuate the Positive?
(I didn't see the parallel to our current discussion/argument/war, until the very end)

Best Regards,
Scott"

****This would be a less effective way to train then lowering the negative more slowly in my opinion.
Open User Options Menu

Seriousstrength

New York, USA

Brian Johnston wrote:
It has to. We get used to exercise by adapting... we adapt by way of getting stronger and building muscle. But at the same time, we adapt by REFUSING to produce any more strength or muscle. Adaptation is a two-way street... it means two things... if you are getting larger and stronger, then the body then becomes more reluctant to create more change (since more strength and muscle is a means to prevent further change). I'm not sure how people are not getting this and refusing to believe the value in change. This is exercise 101!


****Not true. If the exercise is sound, and you add load at each session there is no need or reason for the body to stop adapting. All that will happen is the adaptation will slow way down.

It takes my veteran clients at least 3 and usually more like 5+ sessions using the same load to adapt. This is why you can't squat 1000 pounds at a 170 pound body weight after just 10 years of training. Gains slow to a crawl after the first year or so.

But according to you Brian, one could get to a 1000 pound squat at 170 pounds just by varying the workout at each session or am I being obtuse again?

Dr. Darden - how much muscle do you think a typical man in his 30's can gain maximum after 3 years of training?
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Yes, you are being obtuse. I'm not talking about lifting Hurculean weights, or the ability to do so eventually... you're stuck in that machine powerlifting mentality. I talk about training muscle in a variety of environments or conditions, you talk about "how much can I lift for 'x' reps." Good luck to you.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Seriousstrength wrote:
But according to you Brian, one could get to a 1000 pound squat at 170 pounds just by varying the workout at each session or am I being obtuse again?



Wrong, wrong...wrong.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Brian Johnston wrote:
Yes, you are being obtuse. I'm not talking about lifting Hurculean weights, or the ability to do so eventually... you're stuck in that machine powerlifting mentality. I talk about training muscle in a variety of environments or conditions, you talk about "how much can I lift for 'x' reps." Good luck to you.






But would it be possible to squat 1.000lbs without seeing any increase in muscle size?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Scott wrote:
"Here we go again with your pretend reading comprehension problems. Do YOU realize how this weakens any salient points you're trying to make?"

Seriousstrength wrote:
****I just can't believe that a grown man could ask a question like that. Did your mother not teach you that calling people names is wrong?


Hmmm. I see no name calling. Just me pointing out your argument technique of pretending not to understand a question.

Now when someone sees name calling, when there is none --- they do have names for that...
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Scott wrote:
"Enough bitching and back to your question and a counter question: What if we (you or me or someone) tries an experiement in 'robbing the negative'?

1. Perform a slow (to VERY slow) positive.
2. Lower the weight fairly quickly, but under control --- just fast enough that you're not dropping it.
3. Stop at the bottom and begin your slow ascent again.

The main point to is to use as much of the overall TUL for positive efforts as possible.

Do you think it has merit to Accentuate the Positive?
(I didn't see the parallel to our current discussion/argument/war, until the very end)


Seriousstrength wrote:
****This would be a less effective way to train then lowering the negative more slowly in my opinion.


Yeah, I'm seeing more problems with it the more I think about it, just from a logistical standpoint if nothing else.

Then, of course, there is the proven muscle microtearing which has been scientifically demonstrated for negatives.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Fred is talking about adapting to the point that more weight is required... I'm talking about intra- and extra-muscular coordination when it comes to strength, and muscle simply not coming forth because of the 'routine' of the routine. Why should a muscle get larger when it simply needs to figure out ways intra- and extra-muscularly insofar as coordinating the nervous and muscular systems to become MORE PROFICIENT lifting loads in the same ways and with the same exercises? Or did Dr. Darden write all those books on program variations and methods of performance for the fun of it?
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Brian Johnston wrote:
Fred is talking about adapting to the point that more weight is required... I'm talking about intra- and extra-muscular coordination when it comes to strength, and muscle simply not coming forth because of the 'routine' of the routine. Why should a muscle get larger when it simply needs to figure out ways intra- and extra-muscularly insofar as coordinating the nervous and muscular systems to become MORE PROFICIENT lifting loads in the same ways and with the same exercises? Or did Dr. Darden write all those books on program variations and methods of performance for the fun of it?


Brian,

I appreciate your reasoning. Thanks.

Ellington

Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

Fred is going to ask again is: "What mechanism is responsible for making an improvement in hypertrophy when you vary an aspect of your exercise routine?"


Given Fred's knowledge and experience, I really don't understand why he cannot grasp the fact that bodybuilding is a different animal than power-lifting. It is not ALL about strength increases. I don't get it...

If one keeps getting stronger, month after month, without any changes in size and appearance, Fred's advice will be...eat more(fat & protein, no carbs!) and/or take more days off...You then will be a fatass working out once every 3 weeks. lol
Open User Options Menu

cmg

Brian Johnston wrote:
It has to. We get used to exercise by adapting... we adapt by way of getting stronger and building muscle. But at the same time, we adapt by REFUSING to produce any more strength or muscle. Adaptation is a two-way street... it means two things... if you are getting larger and stronger, then the body then becomes more reluctant to create more change (since more strength and muscle is a means to prevent further change). I'm not sure how people are not getting this and refusing to believe the value in change. This is exercise 101!



Makes perfectly logical sense. I have definitely seen stagnation when I just try to up the weight. This did work YEARS ago but no longer. When I change things around (even just slightly) I will be sore for many days. Once I get used to it then if I change again - more intense soreness. I wish I did this YEARS ago since I also now believe I did damage to my joints by following the same path with HEAVY resistance AND constantly forcing more weight.
Also, I was too into listening to some about the bad isolation exercises and how I must do compounds. Yes compounds are very useful and should be used - however isolation exercises are very good and will target muscles - in some cases/exercises much more effectively than compounds.

FYI - I have been using the protocol of 30-30-30 (or there about...) to see how it works. I like it, it's very hard, and I do have to reduce the weight some.

Sorry for the long winded message....

Best regards,


Ron
Open User Options Menu

jitterbug

Mr. Strong wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
Yes, you are being obtuse. I'm not talking about lifting Hurculean weights, or the ability to do so eventually... you're stuck in that machine powerlifting mentality. I talk about training muscle in a variety of environments or conditions, you talk about "how much can I lift for 'x' reps." Good luck to you.





But would it be possible to squat 1.000lbs without seeing any increase in muscle size?



Mr.Strong,

Great question!

Ed
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Ask Fred Hatfield and his turnup thighs. Here's an example of someone using his butt (extra-muscular coordination) to leverage up a super heavy load without developing the thighs much (take away all his fat, and those thighs are not very large).
Open User Options Menu

jitterbug

Brian Johnston wrote:
Ask Fred Hatfield and his turnup thighs. Here's an example of someone using his butt (extra-muscular coordination) to leverage up a super heavy load without developing the thighs much (take away all his fat, and those thighs are not very large).


Mr.Johnston,

That has more to do with the power lifting type squat. It's designed to allow you to use the most weight rather than being as effective as possible.

Ed
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Yes, I know (I've coached powerlifters in the past). But isn't that the point? Some people equate using the most weight as being the most effective way. I'm suggesting that is not the case... that it's how you use the weight and not how much you use. And Fred Hatfield is an example of someone with unimpressive thighs who broke the world squat record at one time. Sure he leveraged the load and used a lot of butt, but I bet a lot of people doing heavy squats (and trying to use more and more weight for more and more reps) are doing the exact same thing unintentionally. Extra-muscular coordination... right?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Brian Johnston wrote:
Ask Fred Hatfield and his turnup thighs. Here's an example of someone using his butt (extra-muscular coordination) to leverage up a super heavy load without developing the thighs much (take away all his fat, and those thighs are not very large).



Lets try this again, would it be possible to with perfect form build up to a 1,000lb squat without seeing any increase in muscle size?

You have said that the body can continue getting stronger without getting bigger. So a 1,000lb squat should be possible whilst staying the same weight, no?
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy