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
ARX & Dr. McGuff
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

robinn3403

https://m.facebook.com/...180018195378221
What say you Dr. Darden?
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
If I understand this correctly we all respond to certain stimuli differently. What works for one might not work for you until you find the right program that fits your body type.There is no one program that will work for all.
Open User Options Menu

robinn3403

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
If I understand this correctly we all respond to certain stimuli differently. What works for one might not work for you until you find the right program that fits your body type.There is no one program that will work for all.


Looks like hes/they may be continuing the research Jones did in 86. Trying to determine how each individual should train. Using these machines. He also mentioned something about genetic testing in Germany. Very interesting!
Open User Options Menu

Equity

robinn3403 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
If I understand this correctly we all respond to certain stimuli differently. What works for one might not work for you until you find the right program that fits your body type.There is no one program that will work for all.

Looks like hes/they may be continuing the research Jones did in 86. Trying to determine how each individual should train. Using these machines. He also mentioned something about genetic testing in Germany. Very interesting!


I think McGuff is a nice guy and very intelligent.

It seems strange to me though that he's now figured out individualism applies to exercise protocols, after all these years.

Bottom line genetics (muscle fiber distribution) and SAID principle (what changes via exercise are you trying to achieve). In regards to the last bracket it's obviously 'bodybuilding' results and the concomitant strength gains.


Open User Options Menu

Average Al

robinn3403 wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/...180018195378221
What say you Dr. Darden?


I imagine you could program the ARX to do a pretty intense 30-10-30 rep scheme, with true negative overload. Could be the basis for another book!

I have the impression that John Little might have been experimenting with this kind of machinery (from an ARX competitor). I wonder if his latest book will say anything about motorized resistance? Would seem to be a pretty good fit for Little, given his previous interests in isometrics and maximum contraction exercise.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
From day one of exercise routines it seems that who ever came up with the first protocol ( Grog the Neanderthals cave gym on the upper West Side) it was promoted that everyone could reap the same benefits using that protocol if they trained hard and we've known long ago that some methods work for some people and some don't depending on your genetics etc. Hardly a revelation.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Bio-force wrote this on 3/26/2009

It is called "proprioceptive feedback".

The body has evolved to produce force on anything we wish, but the command and control center has sensing feedback mechanisms that are sensitive to mass based loads, and that is why, non-mass based loads never make it for serious long term training.

While Dennis Kaiser has machines that can do very unique things, and at a very attractive price point, they lack the proprioceptive alignment to compete with mass based loadings.

The most valuable property of the motor controlled, pneumatic, and hydraulic machines to date is the ability to introduce a more accurate eccentric loading. But as a full rep (con/ecc) they do not have the load "feel", to make them singular or long term valuable to serious training.

Short term or highly controlled environments (such as rehab, or as supplemental uses, they will work fine.

X-FORCE obviously also have limitations, but it is a nice step to make available these capabilities to serious trainees.

And I might offer, that even "fitness" trainees who don't care particularly about greater strength benefits, or senior citizens who might not be concerned with using HUGE weights can benefit from these machines, since even a lower load levels the properly loaded eccentric will stimulate an improved adaptation if implemented in a progressive program.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Ellington Darden wrote this on 3/26/2009

Bio-Force is correct. The motor, pneumatic, and hydraulic machines do NOT have the load "feel" that is necessary for serious training.

X-Force, however, does a masterful job with its tilting weight stack and load feel.

You really have to try them to understand and experience what Bio is referring to. Too bad the X-Force machines won't be back in the USA for at least six months.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

entsminger wrote:
==Scott==
If I understand this correctly we all respond to certain stimuli differently. What works for one might not work for you until you find the right program that fits your body type.There is no one program that will work for all.


I've heard this over and over usually though it's phrased differently like this "after all one size doesn't fit all " .
I just want to make it clear that the underlying PRINCIPLES of strength training apply equally to every human.
For instance, exercise too much and you will not progress and if you don't exercise enough you will not progress either.
So how do you determine what too little exercise is ? You can start with a guess and then begin reducing the amount of resistance and the frequency of exercise you use until you begin to experience muscular atrophy,then ,at least you will have determined the minimum amount of exercise necessary to maintain what strength and size you actually started out with.
Conversely you can try and find out how much exercise you can stand before you find yourself exhausted while losing muscular size and strength. This is easily done simply by methodically and gradually increasing the resistance, the number of exercises and the frequency of the exercise performed.
Both methods consist of trial and error and both methods would require further trial and error that might eventually indicate how much exercise you as an individual should use or maybe not.
Fortunately, Arthur Jones developed medical devices that can produce the results of tests that indicate what your current strength level is,how much resistance to utilize, how many repetitions to use and how frequently to train.
The devices can do this for the neck, the quadriceps, the lumbar muscles and the muscles required to rotate the torso.
It wouldn't be too difficult,using Arthur's methodologies and what he had already discovered to create devices that could work in a similar manner for many other important muscles of the body.
If you are open to ideas ,especially new ideas ,seek out the MedX computerized take the plunge have yourself tested with as many of the machines as you can and find out for yourself if science beats the hell out of myths, bs, traditions,habit and all of the lies in magazines and on line that in the end are only designed to part you with your money in exchange for worthless,at best, or dangerous as hell adulterated dietary supplements.




Open User Options Menu

Dan_The_man

I gave up reading his material when he wrote we could live off skittles.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Both methods consist of trial and error and both methods would require further trial and error that might eventually indicate how much exercise you as an individual should use or maybe not.

==Scott==
And that's just it, you don't need to have your muscle fibers tested ,read studies or magazine articles or listen to one trainer or another and their magic routine or use fancy new machines, just try things and eventually you'll figure out what works for you and what doesn't.Trial and error. We all respond to certain stimuli differently, some respond better to low reps some better to high reps etc, there's no one exercise mode that works equally for everyone , you just gotta get out and do it and stop reading all the BS that tries to convince you that this or that way is the best.
In schools it's called differentiated learning. Kids learn in many different ways. Here it would be called differentiated muscle building, muscles can be built in many different ways and each person may have a different requirement to optimally build muscle.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Dan_The_man wrote:
I gave up reading his material when he wrote we could live off skittles.


==Scott==
Yea, I was thinking more like Gummy Bears! ha ha
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Dan_The_man wrote:
I gave up reading his material when he wrote we could live off skittles.


Who wrote that?
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Bio-force wrote this on 3/26/2009

It is called "proprioceptive feedback".

The body has evolved to produce force on anything we wish, but the command and control center has sensing feedback mechanisms that are sensitive to mass based loads, and that is why, non-mass based loads never make it for serious long term training.



Isn't proprioception mostly related to motor skill development? What about the notion that you are supposed to train for strength and muscle size using the safest and most effective training methods available, and then practice the sport or activity of interest in order to acquire the necessary motor skills (which would including proprioceptive feel)?
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:


Isn't proprioception mostly related to motor skill development?



No



What about the notion that you are supposed to train for strength and muscle size using the safest and most effective training methods available, and then practice the sport or activity of interest in order to acquire the necessary motor skills (which would including proprioceptive feel)?

Yes
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:


Isn't proprioception mostly related to motor skill development?

No



Interesting. When I google the term, I find a lot of material which talks about proprioception and motor skills development. I see that strength training can improve proprioception (as can a lot of other kinds of activities).

I've not found any references which demonstrate that proprioceptive feedback from an inertial mass is essential to produce hypertrophy or strength adaptations in muscle. Can to point me to some references?
Open User Options Menu

Dan_The_man

hit4me wrote:
Dan_The_man wrote:
I gave up reading his material when he wrote we could live off skittles.

Who wrote that?


Some nerd apparently...
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

hit4me wrote:
Dan_The_man wrote:
I gave up reading his material when he wrote we could live off skittles.

Who wrote that?


==Scott==
Since this is about McGuff I'm just guessing he said that but at the same time I could see Jones saying that in an effort to show you didn't need all the protein powders etc that so many consume. Besides, if I remember correctly for a while Jones pretty much lived on cigarettes,coffee and chocolate milk.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:


Isn't proprioception mostly related to motor skill development?

No



Interesting. When I google the term, I find a lot of material which talks about proprioception and motor skills development. I see that strength training can improve proprioception (as can a lot of other kinds of activities).

I've not found any references which demonstrate that proprioceptive feedback from an inertial mass is essential to produce hypertrophy or strength adaptations in muscle. Can to point me to some references?


Al,

No

There are numerous studies on proprioception.
There is likely few applicable to answer your question. To be honest, I am not terribly interested in ARX. To be sure, ARX will not address this issue. Furthermore, these types of resistance exercise machines have been around for a while, without top athlete success. Where are the studies of ARX? Dr McGuff saying it works should not be your standard of excellence. His track record is full of errors. It is nice to hear him basically state BBS is not optimal. At least he got something right. I smell a book by Little and McGuff on ARX training.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

ATP 4 Vitality,

John Little now as has and OutStrip machine.

Randy Rindfleisch designed both the ARX machines and more recently the OutStrip machines. The OutStrip machines have a much improved drive mechanism over the ARX machines.

Personally, I don't like isokinetics and using them to do hyper as ARX promotes. As a measuring tool of strength ARX has too many issues to review here. Point is, it really doesn't have value as a research tool in terms of measuring strength or designing exercise programs and determining frequency based on the force output of the user.

The ARX guys now claim that ARX proves out BBS and I just don't see how it has done that, or can do that.

Wouldn't surprise me if McGuff and Little write a new book. But Little has already claimed to be able to gets incredible results with his static method.. So why would he have the need for a new OutStrip machine...


Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:


Isn't proprioception mostly related to motor skill development?

No



Interesting. When I google the term, I find a lot of material which talks about proprioception and motor skills development. I see that strength training can improve proprioception (as can a lot of other kinds of activities).

I've not found any references which demonstrate that proprioceptive feedback from an inertial mass is essential to produce hypertrophy or strength adaptations in muscle. Can to point me to some references?

Al,

No

There are numerous studies on proprioception.
There is likely few applicable to answer your question. To be honest, I am not terribly interested in ARX. To be sure, ARX will not address this issue. Furthermore, these types of resistance exercise machines have been around for a while, without top athlete success. Where are the studies of ARX? Dr McGuff saying it works should not be your standard of excellence. His track record is full of errors. It is nice to hear him basically state BBS is not optimal. At least he got something right. I smell a book by Little and McGuff on ARX training.


Maybe opinions offered up without evidence 9 years ago by Dr Darden and Bioforce shouldn't be your standard of excellence either.

I think it is perfectly valid to speculate that the absence of proprioceptive feedback may have an influence on the applicability of ARX for strength training, depending on what your training objectives are. It is not fair to dismiss the equipment out of hand, based on such speculation.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

indexit wrote:
Dr. Darden

John Little now as has and OutStrip machine.

Randy Rindfleisch designed both the ARX machines and more recently the OutStrip machines. The OutStrip machines have a much improved drive mechanism over the ARX machines.

Personally, I don't like isokinetics and using them to do hyper as ARX promotes. As a measuring tool of strength ARX has too many issues to review here. Point is, it really doesn't have value as a research tool in terms of measuring strength or designing exercise programs and determining frequency based on the force output of the user.

The ARX guys now claim that ARX proves out BBS and I just don't see how it has done that, or can do that.

Wouldn't surprise me if McGuff and Little write a new book. But Little has already claimed to be able to gets incredible results with his static method.. So why would he have the need for a new OutStrip machine...





Just an FYI: ARX is suing Rindfliesch and Outstrip, probably for patent infringement.

https://dockets.justia.com/...8cv00848/975768

Open User Options Menu

indexit

Average Al,

As far as I know Randy Rindfleisch holds the patent on ARX like/style machines inside of his company Crazy Train.

patent number US8388499B1

https://patentimages.storage.g...

https://patents.google.com/...%2c388%2c499+B1

The dispute between the parties involves ARX infringing on Randy's patent from my understanding.



Open User Options Menu

Average Al

indexit wrote:
Average Al,

As far as I know Randy Rindfleisch holds the patent on ARX like/style machines inside of his company Crazy Train.

patent number US8388499B1

https://patentimages.storage.g...

https://patents.google.com/...%2c388%2c499+B1

The dispute between the parties involves ARX infringing on Randy's patent from my understanding.





Thanks for the clarification. None of the documents are accessible to the general pubic as far as I can tell. ARX filed the lawsuit, and it has some connection with patents, which is all I can tell from the filing. Usually, patent holders are the ones filing claims of infringement, so I assumed that is what was happening here. I guess not.



Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Average Al wrote:


Isn't proprioception mostly related to motor skill development?

No



Interesting. When I google the term, I find a lot of material which talks about proprioception and motor skills development. I see that strength training can improve proprioception (as can a lot of other kinds of activities).

I've not found any references which demonstrate that proprioceptive feedback from an inertial mass is essential to produce hypertrophy or strength adaptations in muscle. Can to point me to some references?

Al,

No

There are numerous studies on proprioception.
There is likely few applicable to answer your question. To be honest, I am not terribly interested in ARX. To be sure, ARX will not address this issue. Furthermore, these types of resistance exercise machines have been around for a while, without top athlete success. Where are the studies of ARX? Dr McGuff saying it works should not be your standard of excellence. His track record is full of errors. It is nice to hear him basically state BBS is not optimal. At least he got something right. I smell a book by Little and McGuff on ARX training.

Maybe opinions offered up without evidence 9 years ago by Dr Darden and Bioforce shouldn't be your standard of excellence either.


They were not offered up without evidence. Both men have years of actual experience. Both men are intellectually honest. You can discount such but I do not.
Can the same be said for McGuff? He once kissed the seat of Ren-Ex trousers, who by the way trashed ARX. Now he is the ally of whom he once trashed. Sorry..... but Dr. Darden and Bio-Force do pass the test for excellence, McGuff does not.


I think it is perfectly valid to speculate that the absence of proprioceptive feedback may have an influence on the applicability of ARX for strength training, depending on what your training objectives are. It is not fair to dismiss the equipment out of hand, based on such speculation.

This I can agree with. However at this time there is no data or facts nor logic to convince me of any superior results or even equivalent results that can be had with ARX vs. mass based resistance

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy