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 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

oldbutsteady

Grant will get on with his opinion after Little or Darden discuss the machines. Until then the parrot will remain quiet.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Appreciate the "added" pics.
However, while they (bands) may be able to be part of an initial force they will vary over time and cycles.
Not to beat a drum again, but they are not part of a gravitational circuit. We must have resistance applied via a gravity circuit (stuff that falls when dropped) PS: this is why the iso non-weight machines (i.e. air cylinder, springs, Apollo, Archx) never show mass/size increases (beyond newbie gains)
In my experience the constant weight acts as a dampening element to assure constant and consistent loading.
Also, Humans (including me) are not yet capable of truly understanding this Blessed "thing" known as gravity and the true impact/affects on our temporal and physical realm on Earth.

Cheers Grant
sirloin wrote:
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 technology 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

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Resistance Exercise MUST have a gravitational circuit to assure, attain, and develop increases in size and strength. Any notated increases in "load" are acquired through skill or short-term "newbie" break-in.

John Little has already laid out the protocol for advanced trainee/students which is basically motionless (or micro-motion). All that's needed is a simple machine that can get a load hoisted into a "holding" position preferably with self-assist. Additionally, machine designs MUST include enough weight WITH stacks/plates and/or relatively longer leverage arms. Since most machines cannot provide enough weight ... Dr Darden's 303030, Little's 6060, 120120, Omega, Din1 are excellent options.

Note that this SOA Best Practice is for Advanced Trainees. Recall many of us had no choice in previous decades but to adopt, adapt, and utilize the previous best in class protocols. Today we have a protocol that the best students can perform safely, healthfully, and progressively ... well into our middle ages ... and beyond.

Cheers Again from Grant ... but don't forget other healthful vital-links (run away from statins and glutens and carbs (very fast), no motion, no system overloading)
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

3 of 10 applies to non-advanced trainees, aka newbies aka general population with little knowledge.


Resultsbased wrote:
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

sirloin

Grant D. wrote:
Appreciate the "added" pics.
However, while they (bands) may be able to be part of an initial force they will vary over time and cycles.
Not to beat a drum again, but they are not part of a gravitational circuit. We must have resistance applied via a gravity circuit (stuff that falls when dropped) PS: this is why the iso non-weight machines (i.e. air cylinder, springs, Apollo, Archx) never show mass/size increases (beyond newbie gains)
In my experience the constant weight acts as a dampening element to assure constant and consistent loading.
Also, Humans (including me) are not yet capable of truly understanding this Blessed "thing" known as gravity and the true impact/affects on our temporal and physical realm on Earth.

Cheers Grant
sirloin wrote:
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 technology 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.



Its true, bands will lose some elasticity over time, so simply re-measure every once in a while or buy a new one. Theres no differance in my after 18 months.

Like i mentioned, the combination a of dead weight and (AND) resistance bands is greater than the dead weight alone, as the RB is a material thats actively trying to resume its compressed state. Moreover, the fact that they do vary tension when being stretched, makes getting into and out of the holding position much easier.

This is a cheap, effective, fast and simple way of getting around the problem out "running outta weight" on machines. Better than having to water down your effects (if absoulate strength is your thing).

Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Grant D. wrote:
Resistance Exercise MUST have a gravitational circuit to assure, attain, and develop increases in size and strength.


Nonsense.

NASA has developed devices which allow astronauts to strength train under zero-g or micro-g conditions. Then again, they are Rocket Scientists, while you are endlessly repetitive, a one trick pony.

Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

Grant D. wrote:
3 of 10 applies to non-advanced trainees, aka newbies aka general population with little knowledge.

____________

Not according to his latest book, where he describes the Delorme-Watkins method as the most proven system for building muscle in history or as he calls it "a bird in the hand."

I think it would work great for you Grant.
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

No, 3 of 10 when properly applied will lead to stagnation in less than a year ... when previously applied.
This the object of newbie, general population...

Resultsbased wrote:
Grant D. wrote:
3 of 10 applies to non-advanced trainees, aka newbies aka general population with little knowledge.

____________

Not according to his latest book, where he describes the Delorme-Watkins method as the most proven system for building muscle in history or as he calls it "a bird in the hand."

I think it would work great for you Grant.


Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

These designs are attempts to maintain strength or reduce strength losses.
Grant aka BS in Aerospace Engineering among other degrees ... WHICH is not relevant since my only claim is the best student.

Average Al wrote:
Grant D. wrote:
Resistance Exercise MUST have a gravitational circuit to assure, attain, and develop increases in size and strength.


Nonsense.

NASA has developed devices which allow astronauts to strength train under zero-g or micro-g conditions. Then again, they are Rocket Scientists, while you are endlessly repetitive, a one trick pony.



Open User Options Menu

Brian A Schamber

Texas, USA

There is a good interview on High Intensity Business w/ Jim Keen with ARX explaining things.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Grant D. wrote:
These designs are attempts to maintain strength or reduce strength losses.



The latest design is called ARED (advanced resistive exercise device).

NASA has conducted ground (earth) based studies where ARED was compared to the use of free weight barbell exercises. The results were identical (in science lingo - not statistically different).

Both modes of exercise improved muscle size, muscle strength, and bone density to a similar extent.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Average Al wrote:
Grant D. wrote:
These designs are attempts to maintain strength or reduce strength losses.



The latest design is called ARED (advanced resistive exercise device).

NASA has conducted ground (earth) based studies where ARED was compared to the use of free weight barbell exercises. The results were identical (in science lingo - not statistically different).

Both modes of exercise improved muscle size, muscle strength, and bone density to a similar extent.


Sounds interesting. Do you have any links to the info?
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

epdavis7 wrote:

Sounds interesting. Do you have any links to the info?


Here you go:

NASA handout for AP Physics classes, to illustrate how it works: https://www.nasa.gov/...T_Phys_ARED.pdf

Fact sheet on ARED (from Nasa technology transfer program):
https://technology.nasa.gov/...ent/MSC-TOPS-59

Research study comparing ARED to free weights:

https://www.researchgate.net/p ublication/44602408_Musculoskeletal_Adaptations_to_Training_with_the_Advanced_Resistive_Exercise_Device

Video of Astronaut working out in space:
https://youtu.be/gzynkaHuHwY

Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Average Al wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:

Sounds interesting. Do you have any links to the info?

Here you go:

NASA handout for AP Physics classes, to illustrate how it works: https://www.nasa.gov/...T_Phys_ARED.pdf

Fact sheet on ARED (from Nasa technology transfer program):
https://technology.nasa.gov/...ent/MSC-TOPS-59

Research study comparing ARED to free weights:

https://www.researchgate.net/p ublication/44602408_Musculoskeletal_Adaptations_to_Training_with_the_Advanced_Resistive_Exercise_Device

Video of Astronaut working out in space:
https://youtu.be/gzynkaHuHwY



Thank you for that. Will read in more depth when I get time. Interesting for sure.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Didn't Jones state that speed limited 'isokinetic' resistance was dangerous?

Push or pull too hard and you'll break something... and not the machine.
Open User Options Menu

Grant D.

Illinois, USA

Jones was correct on this. A gravity based resistance self regulates at zero to near zero speeds. Jones was revolutionary and advanced from the current level of knowledge. As wmost experts from the era in which they arose their erudite knowledge may be appropriate for their times, but may be abrogated as knowledge matures in a Civilization.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Equity wrote:
Didn't Jones state that speed limited 'isokinetic' resistance was dangerous?

Push or pull too hard and you'll break something... and not the machine.


I do not know. But if true, I would be interested in knowing why he thought that.

It seems like you could raise the same theoretical concern about isometrics: push or pull too hard and you will break something! Yet most do not view isometrics as terribly dangerous. No proliferation of injuries from isometric training that I have heard of.

Now CrossFit is a different story...
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Average Al wrote:
Equity wrote:
Didn't Jones state that speed limited 'isokinetic' resistance was dangerous?

Push or pull too hard and you'll break something... and not the machine.

I do not know. But if true, I would be interested in knowing why he thought that.

It seems like you could raise the same theoretical concern about isometrics: push or pull too hard and you will break something! Yet most do not view isometrics as terribly dangerous. No proliferation of injuries from isometric training that I have heard of.

Now CrossFit is a different story...


I think common sense is king here.

Which f***ng d'head thought it was good to test peoples maximal strength in a way that could injure them?!!!
Open User Options Menu

oldbutsteady

Grant just like Bill you have an unhealthy man crush on AJ.

Give it rest it is a bit tiresome.

OBS
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Equity wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Equity wrote:
Didn't Jones state that speed limited 'isokinetic' resistance was dangerous?

Push or pull too hard and you'll break something... and not the machine.

I do not know. But if true, I would be interested in knowing why he thought that.

It seems like you could raise the same theoretical concern about isometrics: push or pull too hard and you will break something! Yet most do not view isometrics as terribly dangerous. No proliferation of injuries from isometric training that I have heard of.

Now CrossFit is a different story...

I think common sense is king here.

Which f***ng d'head thought it was good to test peoples maximal strength in a way that could injure them?!!!


I might be wrong here. But the videos I've seen with the ARX machine's have the subject produce maximum force to gauge somekind of data. Like a person say a powerlifter performing a 1RM. But powerlifters are athletes and know the risks of max attenpts in competition. A lot from what I understand dont max out in the gym. A regular gym-goer wouldn't be aware of the risks. Even if it is a sophisticated machine with a computer screen.

Regards.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Average Al wrote:
Equity wrote:
Didn't Jones state that speed limited 'isokinetic' resistance was dangerous?

Push or pull too hard and you'll break something... and not the machine.

I do not know. But if true, I would be interested in knowing why he thought that.

It seems like you could raise the same theoretical concern about isometrics: push or pull too hard and you will break something! Yet most do not view isometrics as terribly dangerous. No proliferation of injuries from isometric training that I have heard of.

Now CrossFit is a different story...


Pushing or pulling against an immovable object can be dangerous. I don't want to mention him as he is a topic of disdain (mainly) in another thread but John Little did come up with a way of warming up/inroading prior to the maximal effort. Speaking of which, I tried this on doorway presses (15 sec-25%, 50%, 75% then 100%). Tried it on a few occasions got nothing but pains in the shoulder joint for days after. Never have I had this with bb or db presses.

Remember I'm speaking of 'overcoming isometrics' not 'yielding' which I think are a different kettle of fish. I think resisting the negative in the latter is what actually makes it safer.

Regards.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Jones was referring to Cybex's isokinetic machines mainly.

www.arthurjonesexercise.com ? ...PDF
Web results
My First Half-Century in the Iron Game - Arthur Jones Exercise

No love lost there lol!!!
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Equity wrote:
Jones was referring to Cybex's isokinetic machines mainly.

www.arthurjonesexercise.com ? ...PDF
Web results
My First Half-Century in the Iron Game - Arthur Jones Exercise

No love lost there lol!!!


Great point. Jones was doing battle against a competitor, and taking no prisoners. Yet his remarks are taken as a blanket condemnation of everything that can be described as isokinetic.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Average Al wrote:
Equity wrote:
Jones was referring to Cybex's isokinetic machines mainly.

www.arthurjonesexercise.com ? ...PDF
Web results
My First Half-Century in the Iron Game - Arthur Jones Exercise

No love lost there lol!!!

Great point. Jones was doing battle against a competitor, and taking no prisoners. Yet his remarks are taken as a blanket condemnation of everything that can be described as isokinetic.


https://www.youtube.com/...h?v=7FYoXoUQUwY

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or on the Drew Baye singing thread. The motorised resistance machine used here appears to only offer the trainee an opportunity (a choice) to push against it in a isometric fashion through a full range of motion. In other words no concentric or eccentric work. Is this correct?

If so then IMO the machine is limited in it's ability to stimulate hypertrophy, although I'm not saying strength (iso's not very good for that...size). And once again I think could be dangerous, especially when the trainee is instructed to 'push as hard as you can' etc as they could push too hard like against an immovable object.

Regards.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Equity wrote:

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or on the Drew Baye singing thread. The motorised resistance machine used here appears to only offer the trainee an opportunity (a choice) to push against it in a isometric fashion through a full range of motion. In other words no concentric or eccentric work. Is this correct?

If so then IMO the machine is limited in it's ability to stimulate hypertrophy, although I'm not saying strength (iso's not very good for that...size). And once again I think could be dangerous, especially when the trainee is instructed to 'push as hard as you can' etc as they could push too hard like against an immovable object.

Regards.


Interesting video. Thanks for posting.

As far as terminology goes, isometric means contraction with no movement. This typically involves willful contraction against a stationary object (or holding a weight stationary).

This video involves willful contraction against a moving resistance element. So the level of muscle tension achieved is controlled by the same mechanism, i.e., willful contraction. Except now it is against a moving element. Concentric and eccentric contractions are just contractions where the muscle is shortening or lengthening. So I think what they are doing here is correctly described as concentric and eccentric work for the muscles.

What the video highlights is that even though you don't have weights involved, you still have to pay attention to biomechanics and form. In particular, doing squats while trying to exert as much force as possible is quite risky because of the risk of breaking form and letting the low back round. But that is the same reason why I would not put a heavy weight on my back and try to do full range squats to absolute failure. Likewise, his range of motion on the dips was probably excessive, and would give many people shoulder issues, even if just done with body weight.

I'm thinking that if you want to do an all out set of an exercise on a motor driven machine, you are best off limiting yourself to the mid range of the movement, using an exercise where form breaks are less likely (e.g., hip belt squat or leg press), and doing a couple of warm-up reps at less than full effort before giving it an all out push.

The advantage of exercising with a fixed weight is that the resistance can never be more than what you put on the bar or machine. The disadvantage of exercising with a fixed weight is that the resistance can never be more than what you put on the bar or machine (so the negatives tend to be under-loaded relative to your potential strength).

With fixed weights, you can vary the tension throughout the movement via the use of a cam or lever arm. However, that profile is built into the machine and cannot be easily changed. Since muscles do not fatigue uniformly through their range of motion, the users strength curve changes shape as the muscle fatigues. So the strength profile that you have on any cammed machine will only be perfect for one rep, under the best of circumstance. With willful contraction, you can develop as much tension as the muscle can provide regardless of position or level of fatigue.

So different tools with different characteristics. Each has pros and cons, each has unique risks, which can be presumably be minimized by the use of proper training methods.

For me personally, the main attraction of a motorized machine is the possibility of working the eccentric more heavily than the concentric. That can also be done with weight based tools. But then you either have to have help (an assistant applying extra load on the eccentric) or a complex and difficult to maintain machine like XForce, or a movement where you can perform the concentric bilaterally, and then resist the eccentric unilaterally.


Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden, Mod Jump'n Jack
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy