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

Equity

Average Al wrote:
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.




First of all thank you for your lengthy response.

Regarding the motorised resistance I don't believe the negative and positive resistance is there in the same way gravity would provide (or elasticated resistance). I still think it's animated isometrics; to coin a phrase.

For example if the machine was pushing down at 200lbs of resistance at a 10 sec stroke the trainee might be resisting at 250lbs (not realising it). The machine goes up and down on it's own; nothing to do with what the person is exerting it dictates itself.

I understand and agree with your preference for more negative tension vs positive but I don't believe motorised resistance provides this.

Best Wishes.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Equity wrote:


Regarding the motorised resistance I don't believe the negative and positive resistance is there in the same way gravity would provide (or elasticated resistance). I still think it's animated isometrics; to coin a phrase.

For example if the machine was pushing down at 200lbs of resistance at a 10 sec stroke the trainee might be resisting at 250lbs (not realising it). The machine goes up and down on it's own; nothing to do with what the person is exerting it dictates itself.

I understand and agree with your preference for more negative tension vs positive but I don't believe motorised resistance provides this.

Best Wishes.


It probably feels very much like doing an isometric, with the additional element of forced movement. Because there is no mass to provide inertia, your brain can (probably) tell the difference; the feel should be different than using a moderate amount of weight. But for triggering strength or hypertrophy, it may not matter what your brain senses. The muscle is still experiencing contractions under tension. That might be enough to trigger the biochemical signaling cascade that controls this stuff at a molecular level.

While I have an interest in this stuff, it is mostly of an academic nature. Until someone puts one of these into a gym where I train, I'm more than happy to continue training with free weights and machines.

Open User Options Menu

Grant D

Illinois, USA

Correct..
These motors are an economic disaster and a biological deception despite the true intent to serve Mankind. Start with the basic premise that resistance MUST be applied via a Gravity Circuit. In 2019 Humanity does not yet understand the relationship between time, space, and gravity. So it is best to not try to bypass these "forces" ... in this case Gravity. No one will get (much) stronger with these moto-machinas, but they will certainly improve their performance in these seats. Notice the videOhs are all outroading disasters. Also, I must point out the crazed propensity for a few stalwarts to somehow turn their videOhs into home movies.
Cheers
Grant
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Grant D. wrote:
Correct..
These motors are an economic disaster and a biological deception despite the true intent to serve Mankind. Start with the basic premise that resistance MUST be applied via a Gravity Circuit. In 2019 Humanity dies not yet understand the relationship between time, space, and gravity. So it is best to not try to bypass these "forces" ... in this case Gravity. No one will get (much) stronger with these moto-machinas, but they will certainly improve their performance in these seats. Notice the videOhs are all outroading disasters. Also, I must point out the crazed propensity for a few stalwarts to somehow turn their videOhs into home movies.
Cheers
Geants


Ok lol...I agree with this. Not sure these machines are a step in the right direction. Novel, sure.
Open User Options Menu

ptcrusader

ARX could be a little more complicated than we theorize if the motor is strong enough. If you push in the same direction that the bar is moving, it is in essence similar to isometrics at many different positions. However, if you push against the direction the motor is moving the bar, it could constitute overcoming type of eccentric movement. (This assumes that the motor moving the bar is stronger than the trainee.)

My take on machines in general is perhaps a bit more generous than some of my peers. Personally, my opinion is that any machine that can get the average joe safely moving and doing some type of exercise has some benefit. The amount of the benefit, that is of course debatable. But nonetheless, it has some benefit.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Grant D. wrote:
Start with the basic premise that resistance MUST be applied via a Gravity Circuit. Mmm


No... Start by offering proof for this assertion.


No one will get (much) stronger with these moto-machinas, but they will certainly improve their performance in these seats.


How do you know this? Do you have data? Then show it, rather than make sweeping assertions without proof.

The principle of specificity should apply to all modes of strength training, including timed static holds at the position of maximum moment arm.



Open User Options Menu

Grant D

Illinois, USA

... as a student of the expert I am conceptually quoting Fred Hahn (a top 10er) ...

STRENGTH is a combination of all of these attributes

MUSCLE SIZE
IMPROVED CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM (muscles are the engine not the heart)
WEIGHT UTILIZED (under equal situations)

Increases in Strength will be verified by increase in Size and Weight. If one increases Weight without size then one is performing the exercise better (internally or externally).

Tim Ryan (another top 10er) once said. " ' somethings wrong since NONE of my clients exhibit any noticeable increase in size over many sessions and years' " (loose quote). He was a Super Slow Expert and one of the revolutionary advancers of the then S.O.A. Which led to Body by Science (McGuff/Little), Slow Burn (Hahn), and our current BEST PRACTICES of 303030 (Darden), Max Pyramid (Little), DoneInOne (Little), Advanced Power Factor (Sisco ... but more measurement than protocol). Recall that the current S.O.A as summarized above is for ADVANCED TRAINEES ... not the newbies or general population. However, any Human can get to a progressive requirement to continuously build strength (aka increase) in less than 30 minutes every two weeks (ABOUT), and then he/she MUST use the current S.O.A protocols.

The recent revolution of Hahn and Ryan set the Science of Resistance Exercise on a path of MORE WEIGHT, LESS VOLUME, MORE REST and eventually into Little/Sisco/Darden 2019 published evolution.

ALL Humans can safely and healthfully approach their genetic limits (Where on the hyperbolic curve are you?)

Cheers
Grant
Open User Options Menu

Grant D

Illinois, USA

I've repeatedly pointed out that Gravity and by extension Gravity Circuits are too mysterious in 2019 to adequately define their relationships with Humanity. HOWEVER, Gravity exists as a Divine force (along with Time and Space) and as such we are empirically affected by it. Please note, that any Human will initially improve with almost any form of movement resistance, but will QUICKLY adapt to it. The beauty of Motionless (near Motionless) Gravity is that all other facets can be isolated. This is CRUCIAL for advanced trainees. Today (2019) we can get most of Humanity into "advanced" mode, but we must move beyond the issues of "No Mas" that plaques trainees initially or eventually into a six to nine month protocol plateau. Recall INTENSITY will bring GROWTH which will require MORE WEIGHT which will soon require SAFE LOADING and MORE REST as progress ensues.

Cheers
Grant

Average Al wrote:
Grant D. wrote:
Start with the basic premise that resistance MUST be applied via a Gravity Circuit. Mmm


No... Start by offering proof for this assertion.


No one will get (much) stronger with these moto-machinas, but they will certainly improve their performance in these seats.

How do you know this? Do you have data? Then show it, rather than make sweeping assertions without proof.

The principle of specificity should apply to all modes of strength training, including timed static holds at the position of maximum moment arm.





Open User Options Menu

Average Al

There has been a recent development in the motorized resistance space: Randy Rindfleisch has announced a new machine, called the PHNX Pro, which will be sold through a new company, called PHNX.

If you look up the company's facebook page, they have a slick downloadable brochure available.

Of note:
- Price is 40% of the ARX machine.
- Machine design allows overhead presses and pulldowns, in addition to chest press, leg press, and row, so it is billed as a complete solution.

He also has involved a couple of HIT notables in the new company:

- Ken Norris (PaleoFx, Theory to Practice, Efficient Exercise Austin) is listed as the CEO.

- Dr. Ben Bocchicchio (S.Ma.R.T Ex) seems to be involved as a 'science advisor'.

I have no particular interest in resuming the discussion about the value of motorized resistance vs traditional modes. As a practical matter, I have no access to this kind of equipment, and the new machine is still too pricey for a home gym, so I'm going to be retaining my gym membership. :-) But since no one else has yet mentioned it, I thought I do an FYI.


Open User Options Menu

Equity

Average Al wrote:
There has been a recent development in the motorized resistance space: Randy Rindfleisch has announced a new machine, called the PHNX Pro, which will be sold through a new company, called PHNX.

If you look up the company's facebook page, they have a slick downloadable brochure available.

Of note:
- Price is 40% of the ARX machine.
- Machine design allows overhead presses and pulldowns, in addition to chest press, leg press, and row, so it is billed as a complete solution.

He also has involved a couple of HIT notables in the new company:

- Ken Norris (PaleoFx, Theory to Practice, Efficient Exercise Austin) is listed as the CEO.

- Dr. Ben Bocchicchio (S.Ma.R.T Ex) seems to be involved as a 'science advisor'.

I have no particular interest in resuming the discussion about the value of motorized resistance vs traditional modes. As a practical matter, I have no access to this kind of equipment, and the new machine is still too pricey for a home gym, so I'm going to be retaining my gym membership. :-) But since no one else has yet mentioned it, I thought I do an FYI.




Al,

Same as I said before. Dangerous bunkum.

Regards.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Equity wrote:

Al,

Same as I said before. Dangerous bunkum.

Regards.


You could be right.

But if a machine shows up in my area, I am going to sign up for demo, and see for myself what it feels like, just to satisfy my curiosity.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Average Al wrote:
Equity wrote:

Al,

Same as I said before. Dangerous bunkum.

Regards.

You could be right.

But if a machine shows up in my area, I am going to sign up for demo, and see for myself what it feels like, just to satisfy my curiosity.


I understand (as long as you don't pursue it long term).

Pushing against gears ,cogs and ratchets is not a good idea in my opinion.

Regards.

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Equity wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Equity wrote:

Al,

Same as I said before. Dangerous bunkum.

Regards.

You could be right.

But if a machine shows up in my area, I am going to sign up for demo, and see for myself what it feels like, just to satisfy my curiosity.

I understand (as long as you don't pursue it long term).

Pushing against gears ,cogs and ratchets is not a good idea in my opinion.

Regards.


==== Scott ====
Worse yet someone might use chains, sprockets and or cams!!
Open User Options Menu

Equity

ATP Vitality wrote:

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

I reread the thread and overlooked a particular post.

That's kinda what I was getting at in my previous posts on this subject. No feeling of load.

Thanks Marc.

Regards.

Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

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 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.


But Body by Science guru Dr. Doug McGuff does not like using resistance bands. That is what he told the pharmacist.
Open User Options Menu

DoricColumns

Speaking of McGuff, he is now training with a high frequency protocol -- a six-way split with one or two days between workouts:

https://www.youtube.com/...h?v=YBnqGcUaCPk

Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

DoricColumns wrote:
Speaking of McGuff, he is now training with a high frequency protocol -- a six-way split with one or two days between workouts:




Welcome D C!

It is amazing how the good Dr. is morphing. I suspect that in his spare time he will invent resistance bands done SuperSlow and approved by the head SS guru himself, none other than Ken Hutchins, who no doubt will expand his idea with no less than 10,000 well edited words.
Then will come a brand new Concept 2 rower done for 30 minutes of warming up purposes only which enhance these multiple weekly workouts combined with David Landau realizing how HIT was finally on the correct path to fitness. Even Baye will get off his parrot roost to approve this evolution of HIT, as his new book on warming up with aerobics will soon be added to his other stack of books. It just goes on and on, as someone once said, that all that is wrong with HiT is those people using it. Remember, the good Dr banned the pharmacist.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

DoricColumns wrote:
Speaking of McGuff, he is now training with a high frequency protocol -- a six-way split with one or two days between workouts:



Welcome DC

It is amazing how the good Dr. is morphing. I suspect that in his spare time he will invent resistance bands done SuperSlow and approved by the head SS guru himself, none other than Ken Hutchins, who no doubt will expand on resistance bands with no less than 10,000 well edited words.
Then will come a brand new Concept 2 rower done for 30 minutes of warming up purposes only which enhance these multiple weekly workouts combined with David Landau realizing how HIT was finally on the correct path to fitness. Even Baye will get off his parrot roost to approve this evolution of HIT, as his new book on warming up with aerobics will soon be added to his other stack of books. It just goes on and on, as someone once said, that all that is wrong with HiT is those people using it. Remember, the good Dr banned the pharmacist.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

DoricColumns wrote:
Speaking of McGuff, he is now training with a high frequency protocol -- a six-way split with one or two days between workouts:

https://www.youtube.com/...h?v=YBnqGcUaCPk



Also doing more than just one set.

What happened to "the one and only possible valid theory of exercise" that these guys claimed for decades?
Open User Options Menu

DoricColumns

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
DoricColumns wrote:
Speaking of McGuff, he is now training with a high frequency protocol -- a six-way split with one or two days between workouts:

https://www.youtube.com/...h?v=YBnqGcUaCPk



Also doing more than just one set.

What happened to "the one and only possible valid theory of exercise" that these guys claimed for decades?


Exactly. It seems odd that a number of so-called HIT "experts" market/sell one approach for others (e.g., McGuff with Body by Science, Trentine with RenEx, i.e., SuperSlow), yet train themselves in a very different manner. Brian Johnston seems to be one of the few who publishes material that is consistent with how he actually trains.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Watch the video please. He is doing a couple of exercises every few days during the hectic part of his ER schedule (he is an actual emergency room DR) and then taking 1-3 days off (longer with legs). This is more or less an experiment. Will he train this way forever? Probably not. Its like you are trying to find one i he did not dot or one t he did not cross to try and say the whole thing is invalid. We all try new things from time to time and absorb what is useful and discard what is not. Mike Mentzer was a lot more dogmatic in his approach...agreed. Setting up strawmen and knocking them down.
Open User Options Menu

DoricColumns

epdavis7 wrote:
Watch the video please. He is doing a couple of exercises every few days during the hectic part of his ER schedule (he is an actual emergency room DR) and then taking 1-3 days off (longer with legs). This is more or less an experiment. Will he train this way forever? Probably not. Its like you are trying to find one i he did not dot or one t he did not cross to try and say the whole thing is invalid. We all try new things from time to time and absorb what is useful and discard what is not. Mike Mentzer was a lot more dogmatic in his approach...agreed. Setting up strawmen and knocking them down.


Per the video, he is not doing just "a couple" of exercises per session and states that he is taking one or two days off per workout. Agreed that we should all experiment to determine what works best for us as individuals. The difference is that most of us (including, presumably, yourself) do not market and sell books that promote one approach for others while doing something entirely different when training ourselves.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

per the video, due to the changes in his work schedule in the ER....he revised his workouts to reduce the systemic overload vs direct muscle overload to reduce his fatigue in the ER...
first workout is chest and neck flexion
rest a day or two
second workout is back and neck ext...pulldown, pullover, compound row, neck ext...performed in superslow one set
rest a day or two
third workout is calf raise, leg adductor, leg abductor, leg ext, leg curl, ab crunch
rest a day or two
fourth workout is lateral raises
rest a day or two
fifth workout is arms
rest a day or two
...did not catch the sixth workout
rest a day or two then repeat the cycle
after the sixth workout

Open User Options Menu

Average Al

I don't think the criticism is warranted.

In the video, he says his normal approach is a 3-way split: he takes three workout sessions to cover the entire body, doing workouts every 4 to 5 days. That works out to a 12-15 day cycle to cover the entire muscular once. That isn't a big 5 routine once a week. But the BBS book has a later chapter on "tweaking the exercise stimulus" which describes the three way split approach that he currently uses. The book also talks about adjusting recovery time to fit your particular recovery abilities.

The video introduces a new idea, something he is experimenting with to cope with an unusual work schedule: he has gone from a 3-way to a 6-way split. He describes the 6-way split is essentially one major muscle group per workout, using 1 to 2 days rest between these. In practice, some of the workouts that he mentions do involve multiple exercise, but these tend to be combinations of smaller muscle groups so as to not excessively stress his recovery. (Adding neck work to a leg press day would be one example). So he is still taking 12-18 days to cover the entire muscular one time. Hardly high volume, and still very much in the spirit of his original recommendations.

The truly heretical idea in this video is the 25 rep thing: he now suspects that the number of contraction relaxation cycles (or reps) matters to some extent, regardless of the TUL. But he also says he can't prove it. Fair enough. This moves him closer to conventional thinking, and represents a significant break from the past. Does it surprise anyone that, 10 years after publishing a book, someone might change their mind about something? Give him credit for being open to new ideas, as opposed to just mindlessly flogging something, because it was what he wrote down 10 years ago, and he doesn't want to admit it might not be entirely accurate. That is the problem with writing a book: it captures your thinking forever at a particular point in time, for everyone to pick at. So don't write books unless you are infallible?

I have heard McGuff say that his biggest regret about BBS is that people took the big 5 routine as narrowly prescriptive, and started treating those 5 exercises as some sort of holy grail workout. In fact, in the book, he introduces the big 5 with this:

"The workout program in this chapter represents an ideal STARTING POINT (emphasis mine), as well as a foundation to which you can return from time to time should you eventually decide to experiment with various tweaking protocols."

I think the idea was that, once you understood the fundamental principles, you could experiment with essentially all aspect of the program, if you were interested in seeing just how far you could go it. Those who weren't that interested could just stick with a big 5, and get good-enough results.
Open User Options Menu

DoricColumns

Average Al wrote:
I don't think the criticism is warranted.

In the video, he says his normal approach is a 3-way split: he takes three workout sessions to cover the entire body, doing workouts every 4 to 5 days. That works out to a 12-15 day cycle to cover the entire muscular once. That isn't a big 5 routine once a week. But the BBS book has a later chapter on "tweaking the exercise stimulus" which describes the three way split approach that he currently uses. The book also talks about adjusting recovery time to fit your particular recovery abilities.

The video introduces a new idea, something he is experimenting with to cope with an unusual work schedule: he has gone from a 3-way to a 6-way split. He describes the 6-way split is essentially one major muscle group per workout, using 1 to 2 days rest between these. In practice, some of the workouts that he mentions do involve multiple exercise, but these tend to be combinations of smaller muscle groups so as to not excessively stress his recovery. (Adding neck work to a leg press day would be one example). So he is still taking 12-18 days to cover the entire muscular one time. Hardly high volume, and still very much in the spirit of his original recommendations.

The truly heretical idea in this video is the 25 rep thing: he now suspects that the number of contraction relaxation cycles (or reps) matters to some extent, regardless of the TUL. But he also says he can't prove it. Fair enough. This moves him closer to conventional thinking, and represents a significant break from the past. Does it surprise anyone that, 10 years after publishing a book, someone might change their mind about something? Give him credit for being open to new ideas, as opposed to just mindlessly flogging something, because it was what he wrote down 10 years ago, and he doesn't want to admit it might not be entirely accurate. That is the problem with writing a book: it captures your thinking forever at a particular point in time, for everyone to pick at. So don't write books unless you are infallible?

I have heard McGuff say that his biggest regret about BBS is that people took the big 5 routine as narrowly prescriptive, and started treating those 5 exercises as some sort of holy grail workout. In fact, in the book, he introduces the big 5 with this:

"The workout program in this chapter represents an ideal STARTING POINT (emphasis mine), as well as a foundation to which you can return from time to time should you eventually decide to experiment with various tweaking protocols."

I think the idea was that, once you understood the fundamental principles, you could experiment with essentially all aspect of the program, if you were interested in seeing just how far you could go it. Those who weren't that interested could just stick with a big 5, and get good-enough results.


High frequency training on a six-way bodypart split, rest pause, breakdowns, and "pumping" sets.

Perhaps the "science" has changed since he wrote and promoted his book.

LOL
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy