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
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
First | Previous | 1 | 2
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy