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
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

ATP 4 Vitality

indexit wrote:
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...




Thanks. .... it seems intellectually honest persons are rare
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

indexit wrote:


patent number US8388499B1

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

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



I took a quick look at the patent. The descriptions seem to cover most of the elements that I see in ARX machines. So if the patent withstands a court challenge and can be enforced, ARX could potentially have a big problem.

That ARX filed the suit (and asked for a jury trial) presents all kind of intriguing possibilities. I'm sure there is an interesting back story.

If nothing else, will it will keep some lawyers employed for awhile.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:

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 still don't see any evidence in the quotes you provided. Your argument is largely an appeal to authority, combined with an ad hominem attack. Sorry, but I don't find that persuasive.



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



I likewise have seen no evidence which compares ARX to mass based resistance. Which means I do not know if ARX is inferior, equivalent, or superior to mass based resistance for any particular purpose. So I will neither promote ARX as the greatest thing ever, or dismiss it as worthless. I will just say that it has features which intrigue me and look promising.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, 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.


robinn3403 wrote:
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!


Equity wrote:
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.


Interesting that he actually admiitted that one is unlikely to obtain their best muscle growth, for most phenotypes, using a BBS routine.

Nothing too $trange about him taking so long for this Eureka! moment.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

simon-hecubus 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.


robinn3403 wrote:
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!


Equity wrote:
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.

Interesting that he actually admiitted that one is unlikely to obtain their best muscle growth, for most phenotypes, using a BBS routine.

Nothing too $trange about him taking so long for this Eureka! moment.


He blocked some posters on his old defunct web site BBS. Because it is always easiest to win an argument when you do not allow for differing opinions. That is standard guru operating procedure, just make any criticism you disagree with disappear.

Science (even Body by Science) is based on discussion and debate and progresses from such. If you can not address your critics with facts and logic, perhaps your science is not as strong as you think.
The true guru ignores criticism (aerobics), deflect, blur, block, and then attack them in a forum they can not defend themselves.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:

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 still don't see any evidence in the quotes you provided. Your argument is largely an appeal to authority, combined with an ad hominem attack. Sorry, but I don't find that persuasive.


An appeal to authority is perfectly acceptable in debate if the opinion is from a qualified expert such as Dr. Darden. Courtrooms are very familiar with an opinion from a qualified expert. Apparently you are close minded to such procedures. Furthermore, A derogatory reference is fine in debate if the incident is true ... as I factually related the turncoat nature of a certain Doctor. Finally, I still see no evidence that a motorized isokinetic exercise is as good as mass derived resistance. I could be wrong, and I would not be surprised if I was, that these types of exercise machines are superior. You see I once believed everything Arthur Jones said, but with time I found out he was not infallible. I will be looking for future isokinetic strength training research.



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



I likewise have seen no evidence which compares ARX to mass based resistance. Which means I do not know if ARX is inferior, equivalent, or superior to mass based resistance for any particular purpose. So I will neither promote ARX as the greatest thing ever, or dismiss it as worthless. I will just say that it has features which intrigue me and look promising.


True
https://www.linkedin.com/...ed-alan-maynard
Open User Options Menu

Equity

simon-hecubus 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.


robinn3403 wrote:
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!


Equity wrote:
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.

Interesting that he actually admiitted that one is unlikely to obtain their best muscle growth, for most phenotypes, using a BBS routine.

Nothing too $trange about him taking so long for this Eureka! moment.


I was unaware of this. So obviously I was speaking out ignorance. Thanks for the info.


Open User Options Menu

Equity

Equity wrote:
simon-hecubus 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.


robinn3403 wrote:
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!


Equity wrote:
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.

Interesting that he actually admiitted that one is unlikely to obtain their best muscle growth, for most phenotypes, using a BBS routine.

Nothing too $trange about him taking so long for this Eureka! moment.


I was unaware of this. So obviously I was speaking out ignorance. Thanks for the info.




Sorry I may have misunderstood your reply the first time of reading it.

Open User Options Menu

Mockingbird

Actually if view the case. You will clearly see that the reason for the lawsuit being filed isn't only pertaining to patent infringement. ARX seems to have proof that the Outstrip Equipment party reversed engineered the software that was on the ARX Machine and hired a third party company to utilize it, and build theirs using it. Which is also Copyright Infringement. It also seems that Randy no longer is in good relations with Outstrip Equipment. You can view a small sample below:

Source: https://drive.google.com/...gWE4tDm2ZFHYIv8

https://drive.google.com/...3Z1J2pFlWV03mE-



Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Mockingbird wrote:
Actually if view the case. You will clearly see that the reason for the lawsuit being filed isn't only pertaining to patent infringement. ARX seems to have proof that the Outstrip Equipment party reversed engineered the software that was on the ARX Machine and hired a third party company to utilize it, and build theirs using it. Which is also Copyright Infringement. It also seems that Randy no longer is in good relations with Outstrip Equipment. You can view a small sample below:

Source: https://drive.google.com/...gWE4tDm2ZFHYIv8

https://drive.google.com/...3Z1J2pFlWV03mE-





Thank you for posting that. I was curious as to the nature of the lawsuit, but unwilling to buy access to the legal sites that have the documents.

So it seems that ARX once licensed Rindfleisch's patents, and then cancelled the license agreement upon deciding that their machine didn't infringe on anything in there. If Rindfleisch disagrees, he has the option of filing an infringement claim of his own. But those tend to get very expensive very quickly, so unless he had deep pocket backers, he might not be able to afford that. ARX accuses Rindfleisch of telling potential customers that there is infringement (without having proved it in court), which they consider an unfair business practice. I'm not sure how easy it is to win unfair business practice lawsuits of that kind.

The more interesting claim is copyright infringement: If Outstrip outright copied someone else's software, then they have a problem. But reverse engineering usually implies something other that simply copying. If you write your own code from scratch and provide a similar functionality without actually using a line for line copy of the original code, that is not (as far as I know) a copyright infringement. The exception seems to be look and feel lawsuits. But decisively winning those tends to be hard, and probably very expensive.

ARX seems to be a much bigger business than the people they are suing. They may hope to prevail by burying their opponents in legal bills.

The more interesting player in this field right now is Tonal. They are targeting the high end home market with a much cheaper machine, and they have their own patents, and $90 Million in VC funding.

Open User Options Menu

Chris H

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
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



cannot one learn and evolve ideas over time ?

cannot one re - visit the past and see something missed or indeed dismissed in ones past, but know through evolving ones ideas, see it in a different and valid light ?

could not what was dismissed in the past {ARX}not also evolve over time, and become credible now ?

cannot any of the above not happen, without either or both parties being intellectually dishonest ?
Open User Options Menu

Brian A Schamber

Texas, USA

I wouldn't mind having the ARX in a business situation. I think some people want to quantify things. It would compliment 12 Nautilus machines in a small studio.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Chris H wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
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



cannot one learn and evolve ideas over time ?

cannot one re - visit the past and see something missed or indeed dismissed in ones past, but know through evolving ones ideas, see it in a different and valid light ?

could not what was dismissed in the past {ARX}not also evolve over time, and become credible now ?

cannot any of the above not happen, without either or both parties being intellectually dishonest ?


Agreed! Sometimes its not that something is completely misguided, but that one of the variables needed to be changed. I know I'm an anomaly on here and use superslow (not exclusively though. That's fine, this isn't religion. It did not work for me at first. I changed the TUL to something shorter and it worked better for me. I wholeheartedly agree if one is looking to become a bodybuilder or powerlifter they should do something else entirely, but for me and my purposes it works great and affords me time to do other things. In the same vein how many inventions were developed by looking at old problem sets from a different angle to come up with a workable solutiion.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Seems like would be very cool to try a motorized machine like ARX, etc. Makes me think of sort of the strength training equivalent to say a treadmill. The machine is going and I have to keep up it. Makes me think of timed static contractions with movement. Seems like it would be a very valuable and different feel to throw into the mix of bodyweight, free weight, cables machines, and selectorized machines.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

epdavis7 wrote:
I know I'm an anomaly on here and use superslow (not exclusively though. That's fine, this isn't religion. It did not work for me at first. I changed the TUL to something shorter and it worked better for me .....

but for me and my purposes it works great and affords me time to do other things. In the same vein how many inventions were developed by looking at old problem sets from a different angle to come up with a workable solutiion.


You have it right ... do what works for you. Don't be afraid to make changes to programs others feel shouldn't be done. I was stuck in that limiting frame of mind way too long in my training.
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Unlikely to make progress or maintain if one cannot assure isolation and adequate intensity. Difficult to measure with motion or momentum involved.
Even more difficult with forces.
Grant

Crotalus wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
I know I'm an anomaly on here and use superslow (not exclusively though. That's fine, this isn't religion. It did not work for me at first. I changed the TUL to something shorter and it worked better for me .....

but for me and my purposes it works great and affords me time to do other things. In the same vein how many inventions were developed by looking at old problem sets from a different angle to come up with a workable solutiion.

You have it right ... do what works for you. Don't be afraid to make changes to programs others feel shouldn't be done. I was stuck in that limiting frame of mind way too long in my training.


Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Incredible waste of money and time pursuing unnecessary technology.
If machines are free they are still futile. Unattainable economics, questionable legality and poor protocol.
Cheers
Grant...
Average Al wrote:
Mockingbird wrote:
Actually if view the case. You will clearly see that the reason for the lawsuit being filed isn't only pertaining to patent infringement. ARX seems to have proof that the Outstrip Equipment party reversed engineered the software that was on the ARX Machine and hired a third party company to utilize it, and build theirs using it. Which is also Copyright Infringement. It also seems that Randy no longer is in good relations with Outstrip Equipment. You can view a small sample below:

Source: https://drive.google.com/...gWE4tDm2ZFHYIv8

https://drive.google.com/...3Z1J2pFlWV03mE-





Thank you for posting that. I was curious as to the nature of the lawsuit, but unwilling to buy access to the legal sites that have the documents.

So it seems that ARX once licensed Rindfleisch's patents, and then cancelled the license agreement upon deciding that their machine didn't infringe on anything in there. If Rindfleisch disagrees, he has the option of filing an infringement claim of his own. But those tend to get very expensive very quickly, so unless he had deep pocket backers, he might not be able to afford that. ARX accuses Rindfleisch of telling potential customers that there is infringement (without having proved it in court), which they consider an unfair business practice. I'm not sure how easy it is to win unfair business practice lawsuits of that kind.

The more interesting claim is copyright infringement: If Outstrip outright copied someone else's software, then they have a problem. But reverse engineering usually implies something other that simply copying. If you write your own code from scratch and provide a similar functionality without actually using a line for line copy of the original code, that is not (as far as I know) a copyright infringement. The exception seems to be look and feel lawsuits. But decisively winning those tends to be hard, and probably very expensive.

ARX seems to be a much bigger business than the people they are suing. They may hope to prevail by burying their opponents in legal bills.

The more interesting player in this field right now is Tonal. They are targeting the high end home market with a much cheaper machine, and they have their own patents, and $90 Million in VC funding.



Open User Options Menu

Brian A Schamber

Texas, USA

Grant D,

What type of Apparatus would YOU use in your IDEAL facility?

Thanks
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

A machine to allow a weight to be safely hoisted into a position of holding, and then to safely lower the weight. Please read my previous posts based upon John Little's recent revelations. You are likely too inexperienced to post questions without studying the available tablets of today's era.
No more answers from me.

Good Success in your journey if you're resolute.
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

Grant D. wrote:
A machine to allow a weight to be safely hoisted into a position of holding, and then to safely lower the weight. Please read my posts based upon
John Littles recent revelations. You are likely too inexperienced to post questions without studying the available tablets. No more answers
Good Success in your journey if you're resolute.



Like his 3 sets of 10, where he states it's the most proven system for building muscle?
Open User Options Menu

Brian A Schamber

Texas, USA

Grant D. wrote:
A machine to allow a weight to be safely hoisted into a position of holding, and then to safely lower the weight. Please read my posts based upon
John Littles recent revelations. You are likely too inexperienced to post questions without studying the available tablets. No more answers
Good Success in your journey if you're resolute.



Thank You Jed I. Conoclast

Grant D's Nutz as usual
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Grant D. wrote:
Incredible waste of money and time pursuing unnecessary technology.
If machines are free they are still futile. Unattainable economics, questionable legality and poor protocol.
Cheers
Grant...



Grant D., the luddite minimalist!

You should definitely get off the internet: rays from the screen give you cancer and rot your brain. Too much typing = carpal tunnel syndrome.

Definitely too risky and completely unnecessary to be posting here.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Grant D. wrote:
A machine to allow a weight to be safely hoisted into a position of holding, and then to safely lower the weight. Please read my posts based upon
John Littles recent revelations. You are likely too inexperienced to post questions without studying the available tablets. No more answers
Good Success in your journey if you're resolute.


This tecchology already exists Grant, simply add a resistance band /s to a machine, makes getting in and out of the holding position easier and creates greater tension in the peak contraction position than dead weight alone.
Open User Options Menu

Brian A Schamber

Texas, USA

I used to put yoga blocks on top of a Nautilus Nitro weight stack to create an end stop. The Kevlar stretching and coming loose from the clamping will happen if done too early in a set.
Open User Options Menu

sirloin

Brian A Schamber wrote:
I used to put yoga blocks on top of a Nautilus Nitro weight stack to create an end stop. The Kevlar stretching and coming loose from the clamping will happen if done too early in a set.


Good idea, kinda like an overcoming isometric?

The other thing with the resistance band attached to the machine is, how do you know how much tension is it producing? Very simple, have someone measure the distance from the holding point to where its anchored. Then get a cheap luggage scale and pull to whatever the measured distance was for on a given machine.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy