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
Transitional Training
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
It's none of your business if I charge for it... no one is asking you to buy it... no one is forcing you to buy it. Please, tell us a unique idea that we can apply or want to apply...

Only two outcomes are possible if I do this.

Either you will like it, in which case you may potentially try to profit from it. Or not, but either way there's no win here.

Or

You will not like it, in which case I will be stuck trying to defend something and present it as viable or even superior when it was only ever intended to be unique and interesting. Which I still maintain is easy.

It's a loose loose.


Cop out. Why be on this board if not to be constructive and share information... to be destructive and antagonizing? Wow, what a philosophy of life.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Dan_The_man wrote:
I suppose the big question is - Does traditional HIT one set to failure 8-12 exercises of 8-12 reps performed 2-3 times per week still have a place?

After-all it's been written by Jones and Darden many times, that a basic formula of high intensity exercise is all that's needed...

And the answer to those who fail to get results has usually been answered by saying words to the effect...the individual isn't training hard enough or are overtraining...

If variety for variety sake is a new found formula then that must include the volume, frequency and intensity of an exercise regime not just the exercises themselves? Should this be the case... a move away from traditional HIT is the logical conclusion?


This is just another can of worms... no one seems to even agree on the definition of HIT. If we can conclude that every book Dr. Darden has written is HIT-based, then simply consider all the VARIATION that he proposes within those books. It's not just one program or one group of exercises, right? If that's all a person needs in order to OPTIMIZE MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT AND/OR STRENGTH, then why do we continue to try new equipment... buy new equipment or training gadgets... try new applications or methods? The fact that we ALL alter things at some point (whether every workout or once a year) suggests something.
Open User Options Menu

NewYorker

New York, USA

Dan -
There is no such thing as "traditional HIT". The protocol you describe 2-3 days a week ... etc. works for most people most of the time.
No one every said variation is a bad thing. Actually, some of the original HIT stuff advocate "change of pace" and variation.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Brian Johnston wrote:
Dan_The_man wrote:
I suppose the big question is - Does traditional HIT one set to failure 8-12 exercises of 8-12 reps performed 2-3 times per week still have a place?

After-all it's been written by Jones and Darden many times, that a basic formula of high intensity exercise is all that's needed...

And the answer to those who fail to get results has usually been answered by saying words to the effect...the individual isn't training hard enough or are overtraining...

If variety for variety sake is a new found formula then that must include the volume, frequency and intensity of an exercise regime not just the exercises themselves? Should this be the case... a move away from traditional HIT is the logical conclusion?

This is just another can of worms... no one seems to even agree on the definition of HIT. If we can conclude that every book Dr. Darden has written is HIT-based, then simply consider all the VARIATION that he proposes within those books. It's not just one program or one group of exercises, right? If that's all a person needs in order to OPTIMIZE MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT AND/OR STRENGTH, then why do we continue to try new equipment... buy new equipment or training gadgets... try new applications or methods? The fact that we ALL alter things at some point (whether every workout or once a year) suggests something.


First off, we must keep in mind 'variety is tough to apply with any practical usefulness'. It is very easy to just mix things up and get lost.

Second, this is more about keeping it fresh over the years and slowly adding a bit more symmetry and mass over the years. Years that is past the point when you were making your initial bulk of gains.

I think if more HITters got into this type of thing at least after their first year of learning form and intensity they would be far more satisfied with things and less would give up, turn to drugs or get fat.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Brian Johnston wrote:
Cop out. Why be on this board if not to be constructive and share information... to be destructive and antagonizing? Wow, what a philosophy of life.


There is a difference between sharing and selling. Don't demand that I do something you aren't prepared to do yourself.

PS: I don't know if you've noticed but this is not a good place to share information and be constructive. You can wish otherwise, or hope that changes. But if you actually believe otherwise having read the threads... This shows your intelligence.

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Oh by the way I'm saying "this shows your intelligence" because it's Brian's catch phrase. Not because I actually think it's possible to evaluate a persons intelligence based on such details but because Brian apparently does.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:
Cop out. Why be on this board if not to be constructive and share information... to be destructive and antagonizing? Wow, what a philosophy of life.

There is a difference between sharing and selling. Don't demand that I do something you aren't prepared to do yourself.

PS: I don't know if you've noticed but this is not a good place to share information and be constructive. You can wish otherwise, or hope that changes. But if you actually believe otherwise having read the threads... This shows your intelligence.



Brian has always 'shared' plenty of great info here over the years. Furthermore, isn't it better to get a first hand sense of what info is available for purchase...before you spend hard earned money?
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
...I do think J-Reps is built on the methodology of POF...


simon-hecubus wrote:
This one I know is total bullshit, having read and performed extensively on both. Unless you have the full materials, then you're just theorizing based on what you 'imagine' these methods are about.


Acerimmer1 wrote:
POF states that you should choose three exercises which address three specific parts of the ROM.

The method states that you should chose a peak contraction exercrise something for full range usually a compound as I recall and something that loads the stretch heavily like a fly.


The basic method is 1) a compound (or other) exercise that has mid-range focus, then 2) a stretch-focus exercise, and 3) a contraction-focus exercise.

Of course, Holman later went on to recommend many variations on that theme.

Glad you admitted "...as I recall", which is my whole beef with your ASS-U-mptive arguments.


...But it begs the question. If I am doing this exercise to work a specific section of the ROM then why bother doing the entire ROM 3 times?

Which leads to bottom 3rd of flys
Middle 3rd of bench press
final third of cables.

IMO this is an improvement on J-Reps.


What you just described IS J-Reps, numbnuts. Or at least one small portion of it.

This is also where you're really showing your ASS. J-Reps included variations that covered what you just said above and much more, including:

1) The different ROM portions could be done on 1 exercise.
OR
2) Split up among 2, 3, or more* exercises.

3) *JReps NOT limited to 1/3s, but also covers 1/2s, 1/4s, 1/5s, etc.


You're like a detective, trying to solve a crime without ever actually visiting the crime scene --- or even having access to the evidence.

A blind man throwing darts would have a better chance of hitting the mark.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

One thing that was often overlooked but I think helped spawn a lot of the new stuff past zone training was the JRep reverse.

So many concluded this method was a work around for poor machines and poor force curves. Right from the beginning this was wrong. One of the early suggestions was simply to stop and adjust weight to 'keep going' zone to zone so you could do exercise ROM's in any order you like...simple. Works great to cluster as in break and exercise ROM into 4th's or 5th's. This makes it a bit tough to gauge load and rep count unless the force curve is super obvious and dramatic (easy to hard or reverse)

So just cluster it. Aim for about 6 good reps in each zone (because there are breaks when switching load). Now don't worry about nailing it just do you first zone then stop and guess. Hit a couple of reps in the new zone and if too light or heavy stop and adjust again. Just keep going until you cover the full ROM in any pattern you like. This clusters up nicely.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Simon

Do you own a copy of J-Reps? I do.

So let me ask you.

1) Can you blame me for skim reading the book? Considering that it takes Brian several A4 pages to describe splitting a dumbell fly into thirds (and thats after he talks about the neuromuscular system for some time and at no points succeeds in tying the information into J-Reps in any way) I don't see how you can?

2) Is this information even in J-reps or was it split into another volume? If so when was that volume released?

3) On reflection of what you have suggested above I may have ended up looking silly. But if I could go back in time and had a choice of a do over all that I would do differently is.

I wouldn't have read the book at all.

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Brian Johnston wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
But it begs the question. If I am doing this exercise to work a specific section of the ROM then why bother doing the entire ROM 3 times?

Which leads to bottom 3rd of flys
Middle 3rd of bench press
final third of cables.

IMO this is an improvement on J-Reps.



If you read the Zone books, we make that as ONE possible recommendation/variation of the method (one of dozens). It only took you about 5-6 years to catch up, but we're on the same page.


In that case it kinda looks to me like I beat you to it by 6 months.

http://www.drdarden.com/...39145&pageNo=13

"IMO X-Reps beat the living sh"t out of J-Reps and the J-Reps concept of 3rds is anyway "self evident" after reading the X-Reps/POF material.
And furthermore they strive for direct resistance in each imortant part of the ROM whereas Johnson does not seem to do."


Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Oh by the way. It was a better idea, never was it a great idea.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Brian Johnston wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
But it begs the question. If I am doing this exercise to work a specific section of the ROM then why bother doing the entire ROM 3 times?

Which leads to bottom 3rd of flys
Middle 3rd of bench press
final third of cables.

IMO this is an improvement on J-Reps.



If you read the Zone books, we make that as ONE possible recommendation/variation of the method (one of dozens). It only took you about 5-6 years to catch up, but we're on the same page.


PS: Maybe it was the case that you published this 8 years ago or whatever and not 5-6 years as you say. Maybe somebody is going to call me an idiot for not knowing. Well I'm just going by what you told me which was that it was 5-6 years ago.

I'm also pretty sure that means that at some point J-Reps didn't include this method and so all thats happened is I don't know what J-Reps is because it's no longer what it was when the book that I own was published.

NOT MY FAULT!
---------------------------------------
My quotes from 6 and a half years ago. Read them and then tell me that you really think I hadn't already thought of this? The thread link is at the bottom.





"If the rationale behind his method is correct then J-Reps represent a hopelessly primative attempt to exploit it. If they do work it proves that there are other ways and means which work far better, which frankly he should've thought of.

Or else he is simply mistaken."
05/18/07
09:35 AM



"In any case if there exists some benefit to spliting up an ROM then doing so anyway necessitates missed opportunities. "

05/18/07
11:55 AM

"JReps? is a training method that incorporates any potential combination of movement patterns to 'tax' an exercise's entire range of motion by means of optimizing the muscular inroad of various zones that constitute said range. The directive is to leave no aspect of the full range untapped"

And it is indeed just as daft as I thought. The reason it is daft is because if you combine a pronated grip pulldown (not to the chest or neck)with a pronated grip dumbell Row the result is a complete and more effecient training effect for the lats from the fullest practically possible stretch to the fullest practically possible extension.

However if you break down the ROM of either single exercise as Mr Johnson suggests you do into whatever number of zones you still don't work the muscle through it's full ROM. Hence the missed opportunity is that you did not do the smart thing and combine two exercises or different halves of two exercises.

So ultimately you would be better taking the pulldown only to the point where dumbell row resistance starts to kick in, and then do dumbell rows. Rather than doing these J-Reps. "
05/18/07
04:09 PM

http://www.drdarden.com/...439145&pageNo=7
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Simon

Do you own a copy of J-Reps? I do.

So let me ask you.

1) Can you blame me for skim reading the book? Considering that it takes Brian several A4 pages to describe splitting a dumbell fly into thirds (and thats after he talks about the neuromuscular system for some time and at no points succeeds in tying the information into J-Reps in any way) I don't see how you can?...


Ok on that. I will concede skimming, or flatout jumping, over some sections to get to the 'meat' myself.

IMO, those set-up pages were to convince the skeptical or bring the uninitiated 'up-to-speed'. I was neither one of those, so I skipped ahead.

I'm not sure about the first criteria I listed in the last paragraph, but I know you fit the second, so I can see why you skipped parts too.

To me, the book served as a launching point for ideas. That's all I needed --- not a step-by-step manual.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Brian Johnston wrote:


If you read the Zone books, we make that as ONE possible recommendation/variation of the method (one of dozens).


Specifically who came up with it?

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Brian Johnston wrote:


If you read the Zone books, we make that as ONE possible recommendation/variation of the method (one of dozens).

Specifically who came up with it?



There are three total books detailing how the fundamental method affects things when practiced and played out. Those who never grasped the fundamental methodology (reasoning etc) never got much from the books.

I and obviously Brian have gotten into far more since back then. As it stands those books are just a jump off point to be released from the pathetic mechanistic approach many take to reps, sets, workout scheduling, muscle targeting and so forth and so on.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

simon-hecubus wrote:

Ok on that. I will concede skimming, or flatout jumping, over some sections to get to the 'meat' myself.

Scott


I don't remember there being much meat as it goes. Which I suppose, combined with the amount of text in the book, has left me somewhat annoyed with Brian ever since. I mean I did not expect to find anything in it that was going to bring me better results.

But the large part of the book was like I described as if Brian was trying to mentally beat the reader into submission before finally presenting his viewpoint once He was sure the reader was either subdued, or had just given up.

But I don't want to get stuck in this loop so I'll leave you all in peace. Probably should of never involved myself in this.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Acerimmer1 wrote:
simon-hecubus wrote:

Ok on that. I will concede skimming, or flatout jumping, over some sections to get to the 'meat' myself.

Scott

I don't remember there being much meat as it goes. Which I suppose, combined with the amount of text in the book, has left me somewhat annoyed with Brian ever since. I mean I did not expect to find anything in it that was going to bring me better results.

But the large part of the book was like I described as if Brian was trying to mentally beat the reader into submission before finally presenting his viewpoint once He was sure the reader was either subdued, or had just given up.

But I don't want to get stuck in this loop so I'll leave you all in peace. Probably should of never involved myself in this.


It doesn't sound like you were ever in the loop. The name of the second book contained 'Exploded View' for a reason. While over the course of the 500 plus pages between books we did elaborate a lot and it was for two reasons. One we were inundated with naysayers who were stuck on this being partials, 21's, stage reps etc. Second the real useful part IS getting tuned in to why one would want to change the fundamental way they looked at ROM. If you got that then the examples...the fun stuff...really isn't needed except to spur on creativity.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

AShortt wrote:

those books are just a jump off point to be released from the pathetic mechanistic approach many take.

Regards,
Andrew


So you admit the very existence of the book itself is a patronization? An insult to the readers intelligence?

A book aimed at idiots?

"Whomsoever purchases this book shall have the right to think for himself" something like that?

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

AShortt wrote:

Those who never grasped the fundamental methodology (reasoning etc) never got much from the books.

Regards,
Andrew


If anybody had grasped any rationale then surely a more specific application of the method would've been reached and everybody who understood it in the same way would've arrived at the same one or at least a similar one.

Instead you've expanded the number of applications. It seems that either the rationale is saying "make your own kind of music". Again simply giving permission to think (who needs this?). Or that nobody has grasped the rationale.
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Acerimmer1 wrote:
AShortt wrote:

those books are just a jump off point to be released from the pathetic mechanistic approach many take.

Regards,
Andrew


So you admit the very existence of the book itself is a patronization? An insult to the readers intelligence?

A book aimed at idiots?

"Whomsoever purchases this book shall have the right to think for himself" something like that?



Hehe thats a crazy argument...luv it.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

Acerimmer1 wrote:
AShortt wrote:

Those who never grasped the fundamental methodology (reasoning etc) never got much from the books.

Regards,
Andrew


If anybody had grasped any rationale then surely a more specific application of the method would've been reached and everybody who understood it in the same way would've arrived at the same one or at least a similar one.

Instead you've expanded the number of applications. It seems that either the rationale is saying "make your own kind of music". Again simply giving permission to think (who needs this?). Or that nobody has grasped the rationale.


Yes...I mean fundamentally the trilogy was scales and chords...you write your own music.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Acerimmer1 wrote:
...But the large part of the book was like I described as if Brian was trying to mentally beat the reader into submission before finally presenting his viewpoint once He was sure the reader was either subdued, or had just given up...


Have you read or tried reading the SS Manual? Brian's book was a short story or pamphlet compared to that tome.

Better insomnia cure than James Taylor music.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

AShortt wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
AShortt wrote:

those books are just a jump off point to be released from the pathetic mechanistic approach many take.

Regards,
Andrew


So you admit the very existence of the book itself is a patronization? An insult to the readers intelligence?

A book aimed at idiots?

"Whomsoever purchases this book shall have the right to think for himself" something like that?



Hehe thats a crazy argument...luv it.

Regards,
Andrew


Yes and no. Coming up with ideas is fun, testing them is hard and can potentially result in lost gains.

It seems to me like JReps did the fun part and delegated the hard/risky part.
Because the reality is every exercise choice carries an opportunity cost.

Experimentation tends to be especially expensive in terms of opportunity cost. That is why people might cling to the tried and tested. Not because they literally cannot think of anything else to do.

PS: How about this for a unique approach to negative accentuated training for an example?

Go out onto the roof of your gym with a loaded barbell and jump off. Then attempt your landing on a single leg.

Maybe you'd like to test it for me?





Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

simon-hecubus wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
...But the large part of the book was like I described as if Brian was trying to mentally beat the reader into submission before finally presenting his viewpoint once He was sure the reader was either subdued, or had just given up...

Have you read or tried reading the SS Manual? Brian's book was a short story or pamphlet compared to that tome.

Better insomnia cure than James Taylor music.


Unfortunately I read too much already. I'm trying to cut down.


Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy