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
Just Got Medx Chest Press
Author
Rating
Options

Tridentine

just picked this up


incredibly smooth

https://offerup.com/...tail/816619544/
Open User Options Menu

MikaelPR

Nice pick up, my favorite selectorized MedX piece.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

==Scott==
I don't know, do you think that 600 pound weight stack will be enough, ha ha.
Open User Options Menu

Tridentine

400lb is the most I can do for 5 reps right now
Open User Options Menu

1958

Texas, USA

Good purchase! Congratulations.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Tridentine wrote:
400lb is the most I can do for 5 reps right now


==Scott==
Interesting, I wonder what weight you could do for 5 reps with a barbell? I'm better than average in strength but on some of my machines I'm still using only a small portion of the weight stack.Some of these machines must have been made with the hulk in mind or they are weighted a way to make you think you're really strong.
Open User Options Menu

Tridentine

the most I ever did [when I was 30] now I am 53, with freeweight was one good form rep of 375 lbs
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Tridentine wrote:
the most I ever did [when I was 30] now I am 53, with freeweight was one good form rep of 375 lbs


==Scott==
That's a hell of alot of weight. You must have been some stud. In high school only the biggest and strongest guys could come close to 375 and there were some tough guys and some on steroids. My best ever was a piddling 275.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

When comparing the strength of one person to another there are so many variables it is meaningless.
For instance everything else being equal a man with short arms will always bench more than a man with long arms simply because the man with short arms doesn't have to move the resistance as far as the man with long arms.
The only meaningful comparisons are those of an individual to himself at different points in time.

The same goes for comparing resistance with barbells and dumbbells to machine resistance and the resistance of one machine to another.
For instance the MedX medical neck machines only moves the resistance an inch vertically even though the rom for the machines is much greater.
Some Cybex machines have a stroke of several feet thus making 100 lbs of resistance in plates 200 foot lbs of resistance.
While other machines performing the same exercise with the same rom may only move the resistance a foot making 100 lbs of resistance 100 ft lbs.
So on the Cybex you can only move 100 lbs which equals 200 foot lbs and on the same Nautilus machine you can move 200 lbs it equals the exact same as the Cybex even though you are using more APPARENT resistance.
Other factors that come into play when comparing machine resistance from one brand to another is machine friction.
A MedX machine has almost no friction so when moving 100 lbs a foot you are moving 100 lbs a foot but older Nautilus machine friction may have added as much as 40% to the concentric resistance and consequently deducted 40% from the eccentric resistance.
So on those machines lifting 100 lbs was actually lifting 140lbs while lowering 100 lbs on that machine was the equivalent of lowering 60 lbs !
This was an enormous problem with all of the early machines with the exception of the very first Nautilus machines that were relatively low friction as even though they used bushings they were plate loaded and didn't have the guide rods or redirectional sprockets etc that selectorized weight stacks require.
So Arthur's first impression of Bill Pearl's " improvements " to Nautilus machines was correct , Pearl had indeed " ruined " them.
Yes, adding selectorized plates are probably what made Nautilus the commercial success it became but ,no-one understanding the enormous problem of machine friction at the time ,or even guessing of it's existence, it was this " innovation " that ruined Nautilus productivity as a bodybuilding machine.
Yes Arthur's innovation of negative exercise was the way around the problem but the solution wiped out the " innovation " of the ease of use provided by selectorized weight stacks. Additionally negative exercise usually required at least one ,if not,two helpers to raise the resistance.
Chew on that.
Then Arthur's next solution was negative accentuated ,NA, exercise. Take 70% of what you could normally lift then raise the weight with both limbs and lower with one alternating left and right when lowering the weight until you could no longer lift the weight.
Elegant solution to the helper problem.
However the friction problem was still there and it was still unrecognized.
Also NA requires a machine it cannot be utilized with barbells and dumbbells.
However as most machine manufacturers have tried to reduce or eliminate friction NA in my opinion is the best way to train.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

When comparing the strength of one person to another there are so many variables it is meaningless.

==Scott==
You might think so but when you have a bunch or wrestlers who are in the same weight class, are about the same height and build, same arm lengths etc yet one is clearly stronger than the others it really makes you wonder why. More than likely it's something you can't see like tendon strength or attachments but it can be very disconcerting. There was this kid on our team who I resembled physically to a T but he was literally twice as strong as I was.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

Bill Sekerak wrote:
A MedX machine has almost no friction so when moving 100 lbs a foot you are moving 100 lbs a foot but older Nautilus machine friction may have added as much as 40% to the concentric resistance and consequently deducted 40% from the eccentric resistance.


Hi Bill,

What do you define as almost no friction?

The frictional effect on a MedX LP with a user in the machine is around 6%. The actual device has about a 5% frictional effect. When a person trains in this machine the weight of their legs and lower body helps them. That effect has to be counter balanced by the machine which will gear up the actual level of friction the user will experience while training in the machine.

Do you think that having the negative 6% lighter than the positive has an insignificant exercise effect?

It may or may not matter. But personally I wouldn't call these levels of frictional effect almost no friction.

Frictional effect here is being defined as the difference between the positive force level and negative force level.


Open User Options Menu

Bastion

Very nice and solid looking piece!.
It looks to have a slight decline angle, as any good chest press should imo.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

indexit wrote:
Bill Sekerak wrote:
A MedX machine has almost no friction so when moving 100 lbs a foot you are moving 100 lbs a foot but older Nautilus machine friction may have added as much as 40% to the concentric resistance and consequently deducted 40% from the eccentric resistance.

Hi Bill,

What do you define as almost no friction?

The frictional effect on a MedX LP with a user in the machine is around 6%. The actual device has about a 5% frictional effect. When a person trains in this machine the weight of their legs and lower body helps them. That effect has to be counter balanced by the machine which will gear up the actual level of friction the user will experience while training in the machine.

Do you think that having the negative 6% lighter than the positive has an insignificant exercise effect?

It may or may not matter. But personally I wouldn't call these levels of frictional effect almost no friction.

Frictional effect here is being defined as the difference between the positive force level and negative force level.




Always nice to have actual data!

6% is a lot less than 40%. It probably affects the feel of the exercise. But unless you are a purist in search of the perfect super slow rep, it probably is not a concern.

And to be honest, it seems like the machine design must have been pretty bad to have 40% friction levels.
Open User Options Menu

1958

Texas, USA

entsminger wrote:
When comparing the strength of one person to another there are so many variables it is meaningless.

==Scott==
You might think so but when you have a bunch or wrestlers who are in the same weight class, are about the same height and build, same arm lengths etc yet one is clearly stronger than the others it really makes you wonder why. More than likely it's something you can't see like tendon strength or attachments but it can be very disconcerting. There was this kid on our team who I resembled physically to a T but he was literally twice as strong as I was.

Perhaps he was twice as strong as you because he had a stronger mind.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

1958 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
When comparing the strength of one person to another there are so many variables it is meaningless.

==Scott==
You might think so but when you have a bunch or wrestlers who are in the same weight class, are about the same height and build, same arm lengths etc yet one is clearly stronger than the others it really makes you wonder why. More than likely it's something you can't see like tendon strength or attachments but it can be very disconcerting. There was this kid on our team who I resembled physically to a T but he was literally twice as strong as I was.
Perhaps he was twice as strong as you because he had a stronger mind.


== Scott==
Oh yes, I?m sure that?s the reason !!
Open User Options Menu

ron33

entsminger wrote:
1958 wrote:
entsminger wrote:
When comparing the strength of one person to another there are so many variables it is meaningless.

==Scott==
You might think so but when you have a bunch or wrestlers who are in the same weight class, are about the same height and build, same arm lengths etc yet one is clearly stronger than the others it really makes you wonder why. More than likely it's something you can't see like tendon strength or attachments but it can be very disconcerting. There was this kid on our team who I resembled physically to a T but he was literally twice as strong as I was.
Perhaps he was twice as strong as you because he had a stronger mind.


== Scott==
Oh yes, I?m sure that?s the reason !!

watched a recent program about Neanderthal dna being found in modern man , they said would help with extra strength and speed at short distance . maybe that was involved in this case ,little extra Neanderthal dna .
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy