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
Dr. Darden: Static Contractions
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

ATP 4 Vitality

Ken Hutchins has moved back to Florida.

seriousexercise.com/

He has made some thought-provoking statements in one of his new articles, notably while writing on static contractions:

"For instance, I have 24 subjects in my clientele. I apply dynamics for the Leg Press for four of these subjects. Therefore, a dynamic leg press is used for 4 out of 24 subjects here."

"All other exercises here are performed statically. My guess is that the percentage for static application is 95% of the exercises performed across the clientele. And given the present state of our art and knowledge, this is now as it should be."

Dr. Darden: Can you comment on static contractions from your perspective and experience?

Marc






Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

The price list shows a leg press for over $30,000.00 and the certification program is $695.00 - $1,595.00
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Ken Hutchins has moved back to Florida.

www dot seriousexercise dot com



Interesting! It seems he is less retired than I thought.

Hutchins has a following, and some will pay up to gain access to his latest insights on statics. I won't be one of them.

As a guru, he seems prone to making assertions and declarations without providing much in the way of evidence. Also, I'm quite happy to move weight through a full range of motion, and intend to keep doing that as long as I can.

Of course, he still commits the cardinal sin of dissing aerobics...

:-)
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Marc,

I've recently talked with Ken on the phone several times and I've read the new article from him that you mentioned.

My plan is to visit soon with Ken in his gym and go over his static recommendations. I'll report back after that.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

So 2/4 was too fast and reckless .... then 10/5 was apparently too fast ... so now you don't move at all.

When that doesn't work, how would you move less than not at all ??

$30,000 for a machine with no moving parts ? I guess the big selling point is low maintenance.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Ellington Darden wrote:
Marc,

I've recently talked with Ken on the phone several times and I've read the new article from him that you mentioned.

My plan is to visit soon with Ken in his gym and go over his static recommendations. I'll report back after that.

Ellington


I am sure that many people including myself will be very interested in your reporting.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Crotalus wrote:
So 2/4 was too fast and reckless .... then 10/5 was apparently too fast ... so now you don't move at all.

When that doesn't work, how would you move less than not at all ??

$30,000 for a machine with no moving parts ? I guess the big selling point is low maintenance.


Those are some pretty impressive prices for machines with no weight stacks or moving parts. However, I think the $30K leg press was a dynamic unit; the static version is bargain priced at $10K.
Open User Options Menu

Brian A Schamber

Texas, USA

I have think that the benefits to TSC is that it can be done by almost anyone and that it allows you to go off the deep end once fatigue has occurred so you don't break something (aka, yourself). I would be curious on what Ken Hutchins thinks about Osteogenic Loading. and doing a TSC with a leg press. I think that maintaining a certain level of force production on that exercise is good (until it naturally starts to decline), but trying to get to the top of the mountain with a massive "squeeze" may not be the bet thing.

Any ideas?

Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Ken is a very detailed writer indeed. I love this kind of stuff. Even if I don't necessarily do it this way.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Average Al wrote:
Those are some pretty impressive prices for machines with no weight stacks or moving parts. However, I think the $30K leg press was a dynamic unit; the static version is bargain priced at $10K.


Oppps, missed that! I might consider that $10,000. unit now. Or should I just use a door way to do "No Movement" leg presses ???

But the $10,000. unit probably comes with a nice cushion for your back.

Just so funny how they keep trying to re-invent the wheel isn't it ? So after30+ years of Super Slow there is now is a new, improved version ... you don't move at all.

From 'Slo - Mo' to 'No - Mo'. So what comes after this when you adapt to no movement ? How would you move less than not at all ???

And while all this is going on in the 'laboratories' people are still building strength and muscle by lifting weights / using machines with leg presses, dead lifts, pull ups, presses , dips, rows, blah, blah, blah and all without stop watches;. WTF ???

How dumb the designers of X-Force must feel now , huh ? All those years of thought and genius engineering do magnify the negative part of a rep .... and now we find out you didn't have to move at all.

D'uhhhh, fuckin' dummies LOL.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Crotalus wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Those are some pretty impressive prices for machines with no weight stacks or moving parts. However, I think the $30K leg press was a dynamic unit; the static version is bargain priced at $10K.

Oppps, missed that! I might consider that $10,000. unit now. Or should I just use a door way to do "No Movement" leg presses ???

But the $10,000. unit probably comes with a nice cushion for your back.

Just so funny how they keep trying to re-invent the wheel isn't it ? So after30+ years of Super Slow there is now is a new, improved version ... you don't move at all.

From 'Slo - Mo' to 'No - Mo'. So what comes after this when you adapt to no movement ? How would you move less than not at all ???

And while all this is going on in the 'laboratories' people are still building strength and muscle by lifting weights / using machines with leg presses, dead lifts, pull ups, presses , dips, rows, blah, blah, blah and all without stop watches;. WTF ???

How dumb the designers of X-Force must feel now , huh ? All those years of thought and genius engineering do magnify the negative part of a rep .... and now we find out you didn't have to move at all.

D'uhhhh, fuckin' dummies LOL.


this is nothing new......Bruce Lee was using static contractions along with other training methods during his workouts and this was back in the 60s and I am sure he did not invent this method of training
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Crotalus wrote:


From 'Slo - Mo' to 'No - Mo'.


Love it! Lol!
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

One question:

What about negative work potential?

Open User Options Menu

Mostly Dead

Crotalus,

Spot on. X Force reminds me of the RenEx nonsense from several years back and what a shock...Ken was involved in that project as well.

Edited, original might have been a bit too harsh

MD
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Mostly Dead wrote:
Crotalus,

Spot on. X Force reminds me of the RenEx nonsense from several years back and what a shock...Ken was involved in that failure too.

MD


actually X-force is quite successful for individuals who own them in the states and also the members who belong to the x-force fitness centers
Open User Options Menu

extremeone

I think he was actually tongue in cheek complimenting X-Force?
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Mostly Dead wrote:
Crotalus,

Spot on. X Force reminds me of the RenEx nonsense from several years back and what a shock...Ken was involved in that failure too.

MD


Don't misunderstand ... I meant NO disrespect to X-Force at all ! Though I haven't used their machines and probably never will have the chance I think the idea is great.

I'm laughing at all the brains and technology that went into the development ... and then there's Hutchins marketing a machine for three times the price of an X-Force .... that has NO moving parts, LOL.

As Don King used to say " Only in America ".

The 'dummy'? remark was sarcasm.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Mostly Dead wrote:
Crotalus,

Spot on. X Force reminds me of the RenEx nonsense from several years back and what a shock...Ken was involved in that failure too.

MD


=== Scott===
I don?t think any of the afore mentioned exercise methods were a failure. Nautilus, REN-X , Cybex, Universal , X-Force ,30-30-30 or even dynamic tension didn?t start churning out champions from average joes . They are just another tool in the many cluttered exercise tool box to choose from. None of these machines ever turned out a champion that couldn?t have been a champ with a couple of barbells. It?s fun to talk about who is doing what but if you think you are suddenly going to find some new machine or method on this site or any other that propels you to far greater heights of building muscle than what you are doing now, assuming you actually train hard like Turpin, you are wasting your time. Used properly most all methods and machines can take you to your best potential regardless if it?s got aluminum cams or not.
Open User Options Menu

Mostly Dead

Hit4me,

I guess we differ on what is "successful" when discussing weight training and being popular is not proof of results.

I'm results driven and when I look at the average SuperSlow, X Force, or RenEx trainee, I'm hard pressed to notice any results (please don't don't post the exceptions as proof in response. I remember Trentine posting pictures of himself as proof of the RenEx concept).

The results I've seen remind me of the level of fitness I see from those training at a Planet Fitness, LA Fitness, etc.

What I find most interesting is Ken H. is constantly involved in these wildly hyped, revolutionary machines and training concepts even though his results have been barely average for all his "experience".

MD
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Mostly Dead wrote:
Hit4me,

I guess we differ on what is "successful" when discussing weight training and being popular is not proof of results.

I'm results driven and when I look at the average SuperSlow, X Force, or RenEx trainee, I'm hard pressed to notice any results (please don't don't post the exceptions as proof in response. I remember Trentine posting pictures of himself as proof of the RenEx concept).

The results I've seen remind me of the level of fitness I see from those training at a Planet Fitness, LA Fitness, etc.

What I find most interesting is Ken H. is constantly involved in these wildly hyped, revolutionary machines and training concepts even though his results have been barely average for all his "experience".

MD


results to me is not bodybuilding or powerlifting when it comes to the general public....I will agree that renex, xforce, curves, superslow and etc is not for bodybuilders, weight lifters, powerlifters, strongman or crossfitters
imo...results for the general public is increased strength, increased heart and lung capacity, increased flexibility and weight loss (fat loss)...I do not know if renex accomplishes this goal, but I have seen xforce accomplishing this goal and I have seen superslow helping rehab or seniors.....and of course free weights along with machines accomplish these goals too, but not everyone wants to do that

Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

This is the kind of stuff that gets my attention even if I don't agree with all of the content or what somebody says. All of the different training methods and eqiemtn reminds me of somebody having an interest in cars or hunting/fishing or something where somebody is always refining or making new gadgets/ products related to, etc. Granted this topic is human physiology or rather making our physiology stronger, hopefully better. I like the fact that we have the likes of Turpin and the we have the likes of Ken. I already know what I think and have experienced. I come here to hopefully get different idea and perspectives and experiences with all this. Even the arguing can create new ideas or make somebody think in a different direction.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Mostly Dead wrote:

I'm results driven and when I look at the average SuperSlow, X Force, or RenEx trainee, I'm hard pressed to notice any results (please don't don't post the exceptions as proof in response. I remember Trentine posting pictures of himself as proof of the RenEx concept).

The results I've seen remind me of the level of fitness I see from those training at a Planet Fitness, LA Fitness, etc.



There are also lots of people who train with barbells who don't have fantastic physiques. I see examples at the gym every week.

Granted - if you go to the right gym, you can find places where everyone is pretty big. But that is mostly the product of selection bias. Guys who struggle to gain muscle are less likely to stick around that kind of a facility. They are more likely to take up tennis, or running, or some other sport where size and strength don't matter so much.

IMO, what you look like after training is more dependent on your natural gifts than how you train, or what you know about training.

Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

I used to think that it was all genetics and while important, too often genetics are the scapegoat and used to excuse a lack of proper training.

I'll ask again, how on Earth does static training alone remotely coincide with HIT when there is no negative work?
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Average Al wrote
There are also lots of people who train with barbells who don't have fantastic physiques. I see examples at the gym every week.

IMO, what you look like after training is more dependent on your natural gifts than how you train, or what you know about training.


But most people aren't training very hard either.

IMO, the two biggest problems resulting in poor results ( by results I mean I'm talking strength and muscle ) are .....

1) not working hard enough

2) rotten form

I'm not saying genetics don't play a part, of course they do but 'bad genetics' is now is used too much as an excuse.

I remember a long time ago Dr. Ken saying in one of his Steel Tip newsletters, that most trainees just don't realize how hard they have to train to get the results they want.

One more problem I'd say with a lot of people would be consistency. A lot just can't be as consistent with their training as necessary to get the best results as they have other priorities. Not anyone's fault, it's just the way it is.

You have to train hard and be consistent with it.

Quoting Dr. Ken again ... " Very simple just hard to do".
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Resultsbased wrote:
I'll ask again, how on Earth does static training alone remotely coincide with HIT when there is no negative work?


I'm waiting to hear the answer on that one too, LOL
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy