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 Killer?
Author
Rating
Options

indexit

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=0fLlC5LAaqA
Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

Could be.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

If they can ultimately provide the same idea with less moving parts and equip it to the already numerous gyms utilizing medx machines at a lower price then I can't see how X-Force could compete unless they start making machines in the US.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

indexit

Michael Petrella wrote:
If they can ultimately provide the same idea with less moving parts and equip it to the already numerous gyms utilizing medx machines at a lower price then I can't see how X-Force could compete unless they start making machines in the US.

Michael


Michael,

I agree.

In addition this system is adjustable, and appears to provide much faster turn arounds. Don't want to use a 40% kicker? one can adjust it to a 10% kicker or a 50% kicker.

jeff

Open User Options Menu

anab0lic

Why when designing these machines do people think its necersarry to still include concentric work? In all the testing I have done with negatives, you are better off just cutting out the concentric portion entirely and just overloading with controlled negative resistance for reps... it seems thats what AJ was doing with his omni machines too.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

anab0lic wrote:
Why when designing these machines do people think its necersarry to still include concentric work? In all the testing I have done with negatives, you are better off just cutting out the concentric portion entirely and just overloading with controlled negative resistance for reps... it seems thats what AJ was doing with his omni machines too.


When one set it up like this, one is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul at a given time under load --- unless they are just performing a single a single rep.

The negative can be set 40% heavier than the positive, but the selected positive weight has to be set lower than a normal machine for the same TUL (exception one rep max). When mixing the two one borrows from the positive to add weight to the negative for a given TUL.

The negative isn't 40% heavier than what one would use for dynamic exercise at a given TUL. It is 40% heavier than a positive weight which has to be set lower for the same reps/TUL to failure.

In comparison to regular dynamic exercise wild ass guess is the positive will about 20% lower at and the negative 20% heavier at a given TUL compared to normal dynamic exercise.

Saying things like the negative is 40% heavier is very misleading. 40% heavier than what? Then the positive that at a given time under load/rep count needs to be set lower than regular dynamic.

The only exception is the performance of a 1 rep max. In this case the positive will way both the same on a normal machine and an enhanced machine. The only difference will be that the negative will be 40% heavier.

The more reps one adds/TUL to the set the more one will be borrowing from the positive weight to add to the negative weight.

The only way to not borrow from Peter to pay Paul is doing 1 rep max or elimination of the positive.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

When one sets it up like this, one is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul at a given time under load --- unless they are just performing a one rep max.

The negative can be set 40% heavier than the positive, but the selected positive weight has to be set lower than a normal machine for the same TUL/reps (exception one rep max). When mixing the two one borrows from the positive to add weight to the negative for a given TUL.

The negative isn't 40% heavier than what one would use for dynamic exercise at a given TUL/reps. It is 40% heavier than a positive weight which has to be set lower for the same reps/TUL to failure than a normal machine.

In comparison to regular dynamic exercise wild ass guess the positive will about 20% lower at and the negative 20% heavier at a given TUL compared to normal dynamic exercise. These percentages change depending on the number of reps performed. The longer the TUL/reps the more one borrows from Peter.

Saying things like the negative is 40% heavier is very misleading. 40% heavier than what? Then the positive that at a given time under load/rep count needs to be set lower than regular dynamic.

The only exception is the performance of a 1 rep max. In this case the positive will way both the same on a normal machine and an enhanced machine. The only difference will be that the negative will be 40% heavier.

The more reps one adds/TUL to the set the more one will be borrowing from the positive weight to add to the negative weight.

The only way to not borrow from Peter to pay Paul is doing 1 rep max or elimination of the positive.
Open User Options Menu

anab0lic

indexit wrote:
When one sets it up like this, one is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul at a given time under load --- unless they are just performing a one rep max.

The negative can be set 40% heavier than the positive, but the selected positive weight has to be set lower than a normal machine for the same TUL/reps (exception one rep max). When mixing the two one borrows from the positive to add weight to the negative for a given TUL.

The negative isn't 40% heavier than what one would use for dynamic exercise at a given TUL/reps. It is 40% heavier than a positive weight which has to be set lower for the same reps/TUL to failure than a normal machine.

In comparison to regular dynamic exercise wild ass guess the positive will about 20% lower at and the negative 20% heavier at a given TUL compared to normal dynamic exercise. These percentages change depending on the number of reps performed. The longer the TUL/reps the more one borrows from Peter.

Saying things like the negative is 40% heavier is very misleading. 40% heavier than what? Then the positive that at a given time under load/rep count needs to be set lower than regular dynamic.

The only exception is the performance of a 1 rep max. In this case the positive will way both the same on a normal machine and an enhanced machine. The only difference will be that the negative will be 40% heavier.

The more reps one adds/TUL to the set the more one will be borrowing from the positive weight to add to the negative weight.

The only way to not borrow from Peter to pay Paul is doing 1 rep max or elimination of the positive.


Ok... So why not just come up with a machine/setup that eliminates all concentric resistance, so you can quickly do do negative rep... negative rep... negative rep... thats how I do them and the results have been far superior than whats being done here or with x force machines.
Open User Options Menu

AndyMitch

The barbell will always be the preferred tool used by most.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

anab0lic wrote:

Ok... So why not just come up with a machine/setup that eliminates all concentric resistance, so you can quickly do do negative rep... negative rep... negative rep... thats how I do them and the results have been far superior than whats being done here or with x force machines.


anabolic,

No one is stopping you from building your own line of negative only equipment. Or negative only modification.

The issue with building equipment is what is the return on investment? The market for equipment providing negative only would likely be small and the liability somewhat high.

Even if you designed and made a kit for negative only that could be used on a large number of different machines -- what is the potential market and the risk vs. reward?

jeff
Open User Options Menu

anab0lic

indexit wrote:
anab0lic wrote:

Ok... So why not just come up with a machine/setup that eliminates all concentric resistance, so you can quickly do do negative rep... negative rep... negative rep... thats how I do them and the results have been far superior than whats being done here or with x force machines.


anabolic,

No one is stopping you from building your own line of negative only equipment. Or negative only modification.

The issue with building equipment is what is the return on investment? The market for equipment providing negative only would likely be small and the liability somewhat high.

Even if you designed and made a kit for negative only that could be used on a large number of different machines -- what is the potential market risk vs. reward?

jeff


I think if it demonstrated superior results to other forms of machines the demand would be very high... I have no idea how you would go about putting together such a machine though... i mean AJ had the foot pedal solution to lift the weight stack, which could perhaps be done again I dont know. You can train a lot of bodyparts neg only without any specialized machines though simply by lifting with two limbs and lowering with one... its not the most time efficient way to train but it does work very well.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

anab0lic wrote:
indexit wrote:
anab0lic wrote:

Ok... So why not just come up with a machine/setup that eliminates all concentric resistance, so you can quickly do do negative rep... negative rep... negative rep... thats how I do them and the results have been far superior than whats being done here or with x force machines.


anabolic,

No one is stopping you from building your own line of negative only equipment. Or negative only modification.

The issue with building equipment is what is the return on investment? The market for equipment providing negative only would likely be small and the liability somewhat high.

Even if you designed and made a kit for negative only that could be used on a large number of different machines -- what is the potential market risk vs. reward?

jeff


I think if it demonstrated superior results to other forms of machines the demand would be very high... I have no idea how you would go about putting together such a machine though... i mean AJ had the foot pedal solution to lift the weight stack, which could perhaps be done again I dont know. You can train a lot of bodyparts neg only without any specialized machines though simply by lifting with two limbs and lowering with one... its not the most time efficient way to train but it does work very well.


On the MedX machine in the video here one can get at least a 50% lifting assist which is a similar protocol load wise as lifting with two limbs and lowering with one limb.

I don't know that much about the kit in the video -- maybe it can lift the entire stack also or a higher percentage.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

anab0lic wrote:
I think if it demonstrated superior results to other forms of machines the demand would be very high...


Unfortunately, I doubt there would be much demand even if did produce better results. What type of results?

But lets say demand did go through the roof. Someone would copy it, come up with a cheap design, and manufacture the units in China. The probability of getting a good return on investment from designed from scratch weight training equipment just isn't there.

How many lines of X-Force after all of this time are in the U.S.? Dr. Darden demonstrated better results. Why aren't there 200 lines already sold vs. 2.

The age of manufacturing/selling/designing machine based weight training equipment being a good business model is over. Most companies that are involved sell other items to carry the costs.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

anab0lic wrote:



Anabolic,

Consider about five year ago or so MedX was working on a whole new line of selectrized equipment. They had a very wealthy middle eastern investor throw millions of dollars at MedX during this time.

The end result, no line of exercise equipment and few really cool prototype machines that would be to expensive to manufacture and sell.

Professionally designing, engineering and manufacturing new equipment designs is a major undertaking and in the field of exercise there are no guarantees that even if one can complete a line of equipment that there will be buyers. Exercise is very faddish.

Further, if one does start such a process and happens to go after the right product -- there is still the risk that someone else will beat one to the finish line and one will be out there capital investment.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

indexit wrote:
anab0lic wrote:
I think if it demonstrated superior results to other forms of machines the demand would be very high...

Unfortunately, I doubt there would be much demand even if did produce better results. What type of results?

But lets say demand did go through the roof. Someone would copy it, come up with a cheap design, and manufacture the units in China. The probability of getting a good return on investment from designed from scratch weight training equipment just isn't there.

How many lines of X-Force after all of this time are in the U.S.? Dr. Darden demonstrated better results. Why aren't there 200 lines already sold vs. 2.

The age of manufacturing/selling/designing machine based weight training equipment being a good business model is over. Most companies that are involved sell other items to carry the costs.


Yep, it's cheaper to hype kettle bell training and charge more for personal trainers to show the clients the Russian secret of kettle bells .
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
It is fun to talk hypothetical machines and how this cam compares to that and how computer chip cross osmosis parallel dimension machines are the best ever( ha ha) and so forth and so on but in the end the difference between the results of brand X machines vrs the best ever will be minimal so long as you are training hard and smart.
Open User Options Menu

cokerat

Anabolic,

How much better were your results with negative-only? Strength and muscle-wise. What kind of protocol did you use ?
Open User Options Menu

indexit

A new video...

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=XWtF_dzKiRI

Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

indexit wrote:
A new video...

http://www.youtube.com/...h?v=XWtF_dzKiRI



Typical...great idea poor marketing.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy