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
Does SuperSlow Equal Super Strong?
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Ciccio

summaHIT wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
summaHIT wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
howard1976 wrote:
Can anyone answer me this question!!

Taking the SAME weight, how come you fail far quicker doing fast reps than with super slow reps??

That would point to summa saying, you use less motor units when doing super slow, so there fore it takes longer to hit failure!!

Surely hiting failure is less time, is more intense, and productive!!

This is why i am not buying into super slow. BUT if someone can answer this question. It might make things DIFFERENT!!

Actually, if you fail FASTER with FAST REPS with the SAME WEIGHT, it rather points that with those fast reps LESS motor units are used. Think about. It makes no sense that you fail faster because you use MORE motor units. It's like saying a strong experienced bodybuilder with muscular 18" guns will get less reps in a 100 lbs-curl then a marathoner who never touched a weight .






You do fail because you use less motor units but fail because you have performed much more work in much less time.

Does that mean you agree that you use less motor units with fast reps?
Work is irrelevant for muscles, they "know" only tension and time.




Can you read?


Can you write?

Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

howard1976 wrote:
Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.

BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time? or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

which is more effeient??


2nd option. In short: Slow reps cause a longer lasting inroad due to more "by-products of fatigue" (because MORE motor units were generating tension!).
That's why I feel with slow reps TUL should be equaled and not weight. With other words, for slow reps (7/7 and slower) use ~90% when you would use 80%RM with a "normal" 2/2.
Same fatigue with higher tension to boot.




Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))

I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony


Tony,

I think you can see that I am a great lover of being a devil's advocate.

Now then, let's review something here: Josh offended you in a PM, and you are out for blood. Once again, I admire the tendency.

I was a douche bag the very night you got those PM's, and guess what, I got some from Josh too. He was very respectful to me, wayyy more than I deserved that night. I don't know what he said to you. I would like to think this is all way too much blown out of context by both of you maybe understanding the context of written conversations (most do).

Josh could make great money probably doing anything else but SS or attaching himself to HIT in general. Do you know how much one could make locally if one just rearranged a Weider mag routine and sold it as the holy grail? When it doesn't work, point to your juiced up clients, and when it does make sure everyone understands the different discipline levels involved. (Mentzer had character too. Notice when even Viator sold out and allowed his 'routines' to be published, Mentzer was trying to get his own mag together and refusing to sell out his principles)

Once again, I wish you would be more understanding and possibly able to take a second look at things, even if the issue becomes personal.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Ciccio wrote:
howard1976 wrote:
Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.

BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time? or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

which is more effeient??

2nd option. In short: Slow reps cause a longer lasting inroad due to more "by-products of fatigue" (because MORE motor units were generating tension!).
That's why I feel with slow reps TUL should be equaled and not weight. With other words, for slow reps (7/7 and slower) use ~90% when you would use 80%RM with a "normal" 2/2.
Same fatigue with higher tension to boot.






Are you actually timing this or just counting?

When I timed it, I could not really progress well. I was also not eating enough.

But, when I am like "1..2..1..2..3..4' on a 2/4, the reality is probably faster possibly, but still brutally hard and much slower than what one would normally do, or what Arnold did.

It kind of goes like that with the cadences in reality if you are really pushing yourself IMO, unless your lucky enough to have someone train with you.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

smanjh wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
howard1976 wrote:
Right ok, take this example:

Taking 80% of 1RM go to failure. Both the fast reps and slow reps have made a 20% strength inroad.

But with the faster reps you have made a 20% inroad into strength in less time!!

If you used more weight on the super slow joseph, you would make less strength inroad!! More weight say 90% of 1RM only a 10% inroad into strength.

So it seems like faster reps you are doing more work in less time.

BUT... does more work with fast reps = longer recovery time? or is the longer time spent going to failure with slow reps = longer recovery time?

which is more effeient??

2nd option. In short: Slow reps cause a longer lasting inroad due to more "by-products of fatigue" (because MORE motor units were generating tension!).
That's why I feel with slow reps TUL should be equaled and not weight. With other words, for slow reps (7/7 and slower) use ~90% when you would use 80%RM with a "normal" 2/2.
Same fatigue with higher tension to boot.






Are you actually timing this or just counting?

When I timed it, I could not really progress well. I was also not eating enough.

But, when I am like "1..2..1..2..3..4' on a 2/4, the reality is probably faster possibly, but still brutally hard and much slower than what one would normally do, or what Arnold did.

It kind of goes like that with the cadences in reality if you are really pushing yourself IMO, unless your lucky enough to have someone train with you.


I'm not even training like that at the moment but it is in my opinion, one of the advantages of slow reps. The disadvantages (with standard equipment) are the huge sticking points in the ROM which are more difficult to overcome with slow reps when you are progressed to a certain weight then with fast reps (using a bit momentum).
When I did train like that, I used a deadstop at bottom (like bench from pins or with a machine- start with the positive), contract the target muscles before even moving for 1 second, moving the first inch very carefully in 1-2 second more and then pushing as fast as possible with 90%+ will result automatically in a concentric of 6-10 seconds. Essentially "Slowburn" as descriped by F.Hahn. The negative comes automatically for me. It's like a slow concentric causes a slow negative. No need to count.
And I count seconds after the fact (comparing reps which I do count with TUL for the set). Even counting the 2-4 reps is too much sometimes when exerting maximal effort. LOL




Open User Options Menu

howard1976

Thanks very much for the replys!!

I myself believe the INROAD THEROY.

So im still not sure that 90% of 1RM with slow reps will be the same inroad as 80% of 1RM with fast reps.

But like joseph said, maybe im failing for other reasons with the fast reps!!

And joseph said volume of work is the facter in overtraining! And fast reps you are doing more work = more volume!!

Mike mentzer said volume was a negative,even if you do one set! as you have to first recover from that one set.



Open User Options Menu

theHITman

WRT Superslow, TUT, and how it relates to bodybuilding, get hold of a copy of either BIG, BIGGER, or The NEW HIT.

When Darden applied Hutchins principles (you'll also read a great deal about Hutchins background, particularly in BIG) the rep range used with a 10/5 cadence was 4-6, which is a TUT of 60-90 seconds.

In fat loss books such as 32/32, the rep range is as high as 8, giving a TUT of as much as 120 seconds. The goal here is still a modest increase in muscle to accompany the fat loss.

None of this includes the extra time spent pushing into the weight at the end of the set to try to elicit more movement, which based on descriptions could be up to 30 seconds.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

howard1976 wrote:
And joseph said volume of work is the facter in overtraining! And fast reps you are doing more work = more volume!!


I meant, for me, that the totality of the workout has to be considered. But I don't avoid volume.

Mike mentzer said volume was a negative,even if you do one set! as you have to first recover from that one set.

I don't agree with this. Intensity, volume and frequency are all FACTORS but none are necessarily negative. They each can become negative depending on the context. Normally, we allow one of these factors to dictate the others. For instance, many people have a regimented workout schedule. They are using frequency to dictate the intensity and volume capable of using during the workouts. The problem is that many people are not great at balancing intensity and volume and get "not so great" results. In my experience, most people do better without a regimented frequency, but rather allow the the quality/quantity of each workout to determine when to perform the next.

But now I'm going off topic . . .
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))

I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony

Tony,

I think you can see that I am a great lover of being a devil's advocate.

Now then, let's review something here: Josh offended you in a PM, and you are out for blood. Once again, I admire the tendency.

I was a douche bag the very night you got those PM's, and guess what, I got some from Josh too. He was very respectful to me, wayyy more than I deserved that night. I don't know what he said to you. I would like to think this is all way too much blown out of context by both of you maybe understanding the context of written conversations (most do).

Josh could make great money probably doing anything else but SS or attaching himself to HIT in general. Do you know how much one could make locally if one just rearranged a Weider mag routine and sold it as the holy grail? When it doesn't work, point to your juiced up clients, and when it does make sure everyone understands the different discipline levels involved. (Mentzer had character too. Notice when even Viator sold out and allowed his 'routines' to be published, Mentzer was trying to get his own mag together and refusing to sell out his principles)

Once again, I wish you would be more understanding and possibly able to take a second look at things, even if the issue becomes personal.


smanjh,

What point are you making about how much money he could or could not make?

He has a vested interest in SS and Hutchins so his opinion is skewed ... at the least.

Last night, you mentioned that you weigh more than I do. You also mentioned numerous times that you are fat.

What any of that has to do with the debate is also beyond me.

Also, I you simply misread. I said he sent a number of unwanted PMs.

Sent two more last night. So what. He's childish.

Listen, if you want to jock sniff this guy ... have at it.

He's Joshua Trentine... The Man Who Never Was ... The Boy He Will Always Be.

Tony

Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Landau wrote:
I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit



Ya, i know!

supports LESS than nothing.

trends of these type of links followed by personal attacks. This forum is not a place to discuss anything progressive or technical.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Joseph Anderson wrote:
howard1976 wrote:
And joseph said volume of work is the facter in overtraining! And fast reps you are doing more work = more volume!!

I meant, for me, that the totality of the workout has to be considered. But I don't avoid volume.

Mike mentzer said volume was a negative,even if you do one set! as you have to first recover from that one set.

I don't agree with this. Intensity, volume and frequency are all FACTORS but none are necessarily negative. They each can become negative depending on the context. Normally, we allow one of these factors to dictate the others. For instance, many people have a regimented workout schedule. They are using frequency to dictate the intensity and volume capable of using during the workouts. The problem is that many people are not great at balancing intensity and volume and get "not so great" results. In my experience, most people do better without a regimented frequency, but rather allow the the quality/quantity of each workout to determine when to perform the next.


I totally agree about NOT following a regimented frequency protocol. I base it ENTIRELY on how I feel which can vary according to a number of factors (sleep quality, life stress, demands of previous workout, etc.). I no longer worry about "having" to train a muscle "X" times every "X" amount of days.

However, I do believe every set is a negative insofar that it takes time to recover from. If I were to do two sets of squats that is going to take much longer for me to recover from that if I were to just do one set of calf raises. I view the squat workout demands as a negative for recovery since that much more in the way of energy and resources were used up which will take time to recover from.
Open User Options Menu

Joseph Anderson

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
I do believe every set is a negative insofar that it takes time to recover from. If I were to do two sets of squats that is going to take much longer for me to recover from that if I were to just do one set of calf raises.


HH,

Well I guess any activity can be viewed as a negative (and therefor any more would be more negative). But to your point about sets, my experience differs I guess.

Two sets of an exercise does not necessarily take longer to recover from than one. It completely depends on what takes place during the sets (resistance, level of fatigue, etc). One set to failure, personally, takes longer to recover from than two sets NTF. If doing this this allows me to be a little more frequent with training, it can be a good thing IME, depending on other factors you mentioned- sleep, nutrition, etc.

I don't view volume as negative by default. But I understand it can quickly become a problem.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit


Ya, i know!

supports LESS than nothing.

trends of these type of links followed by personal attacks. This forum is not a place to discuss anything progressive or technical.


You started it.

You can end it.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))

I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony

Tony,

I think you can see that I am a great lover of being a devil's advocate.

Now then, let's review something here: Josh offended you in a PM, and you are out for blood. Once again, I admire the tendency.

I was a douche bag the very night you got those PM's, and guess what, I got some from Josh too. He was very respectful to me, wayyy more than I deserved that night. I don't know what he said to you. I would like to think this is all way too much blown out of context by both of you maybe understanding the context of written conversations (most do).

Josh could make great money probably doing anything else but SS or attaching himself to HIT in general. Do you know how much one could make locally if one just rearranged a Weider mag routine and sold it as the holy grail? When it doesn't work, point to your juiced up clients, and when it does make sure everyone understands the different discipline levels involved. (Mentzer had character too. Notice when even Viator sold out and allowed his 'routines' to be published, Mentzer was trying to get his own mag together and refusing to sell out his principles)

Once again, I wish you would be more understanding and possibly able to take a second look at things, even if the issue becomes personal.

smanjh,

What point are you making about how much money he could or could not make?

He has a vested interest in SS and Hutchins so his opinion is skewed ... at the least.

Last night, you mentioned that you weigh more than I do. You also mentioned numerous times that you are fat.

What any of that has to do with the debate is also beyond me.

Also, I you simply misread. I said he sent a number of unwanted PMs.

Sent two more last night. So what. He's childish.

Listen, if you want to jock sniff this guy ... have at it.

He's Joshua Trentine... The Man Who Never Was ... The Boy He Will Always Be.

Tony



I was fat, yes. Now I can almost promise you I can walk in to most gyms and be one of the best there all things considered. Hell, I could probably go on stage at over 200, which is hard to do.

You engaged in the pissing match Tony. You won't let it go.

I am merely pointing out what he HAS done with what you HAVE NOT done.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))

I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony

Tony,

I think you can see that I am a great lover of being a devil's advocate.

Now then, let's review something here: Josh offended you in a PM, and you are out for blood. Once again, I admire the tendency.

I was a douche bag the very night you got those PM's, and guess what, I got some from Josh too. He was very respectful to me, wayyy more than I deserved that night. I don't know what he said to you. I would like to think this is all way too much blown out of context by both of you maybe understanding the context of written conversations (most do).

Josh could make great money probably doing anything else but SS or attaching himself to HIT in general. Do you know how much one could make locally if one just rearranged a Weider mag routine and sold it as the holy grail? When it doesn't work, point to your juiced up clients, and when it does make sure everyone understands the different discipline levels involved. (Mentzer had character too. Notice when even Viator sold out and allowed his 'routines' to be published, Mentzer was trying to get his own mag together and refusing to sell out his principles)

Once again, I wish you would be more understanding and possibly able to take a second look at things, even if the issue becomes personal.

smanjh,

What point are you making about how much money he could or could not make?

He has a vested interest in SS and Hutchins so his opinion is skewed ... at the least.

Last night, you mentioned that you weigh more than I do. You also mentioned numerous times that you are fat.

What any of that has to do with the debate is also beyond me.

Also, I you simply misread. I said he sent a number of unwanted PMs.

Sent two more last night. So what. He's childish.

Listen, if you want to jock sniff this guy ... have at it.

He's Joshua Trentine... The Man Who Never Was ... The Boy He Will Always Be.

Tony



I was fat, yes. Now I can almost promise you I can walk in to most gyms and be one of the best there all things considered. Hell, I could probably go on stage at over 200, which is hard to do.

You engaged in the pissing match Tony. You won't let it go.

I am merely pointing out what he HAS done with what you HAVE NOT done.


Actually, you have NOT pointed out anything he has done specifically or generally if you will reread your posts.

Tony

Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit


Ya, i know!

supports LESS than nothing.

trends of these type of links followed by personal attacks. This forum is not a place to discuss anything progressive or technical.


That is why I am discussing this with him.

The article he brought to light was a hit job based off of like one recommendation. You have never said anything like what this article talks about, and you do a great job of correcting misconceptions like this.

Tony is that old guy reading the newspaper during is flies, he is 'getting back into it'. Meanwhile he is embarrassing himself with this nonsense for the plethora of reasons I explained throughout his threads.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Joseph Anderson wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
I do believe every set is a negative insofar that it takes time to recover from. If I were to do two sets of squats that is going to take much longer for me to recover from that if I were to just do one set of calf raises.

HH,

Well I guess any activity can be viewed as a negative (and therefor any more would be more negative). But to your point about sets, my experience differs I guess.

Two sets of an exercise does not necessarily take longer to recover from than one. It completely depends on what takes place during the sets (resistance, level of fatigue, etc). One set to failure, personally, takes longer to recover from than two sets NTF. If doing this this allows me to be a little more frequent with training, it can be a good thing IME, depending on other factors you mentioned- sleep, nutrition, etc.

I don't view volume as negative by default. But I understand it can quickly become a problem.


Oh, I totally agree about the 2 sets sub-failure being able to recover faster than one set to failure. All of my training these days is with 1-2 sets per exercise, not to failure. I gain just as well, recover and feel MUCH better as a result.
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))

I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony

Tony,

I think you can see that I am a great lover of being a devil's advocate.

Now then, let's review something here: Josh offended you in a PM, and you are out for blood. Once again, I admire the tendency.

I was a douche bag the very night you got those PM's, and guess what, I got some from Josh too. He was very respectful to me, wayyy more than I deserved that night. I don't know what he said to you. I would like to think this is all way too much blown out of context by both of you maybe understanding the context of written conversations (most do).

Josh could make great money probably doing anything else but SS or attaching himself to HIT in general. Do you know how much one could make locally if one just rearranged a Weider mag routine and sold it as the holy grail? When it doesn't work, point to your juiced up clients, and when it does make sure everyone understands the different discipline levels involved. (Mentzer had character too. Notice when even Viator sold out and allowed his 'routines' to be published, Mentzer was trying to get his own mag together and refusing to sell out his principles)

Once again, I wish you would be more understanding and possibly able to take a second look at things, even if the issue becomes personal.

smanjh,

What point are you making about how much money he could or could not make?

He has a vested interest in SS and Hutchins so his opinion is skewed ... at the least.

Last night, you mentioned that you weigh more than I do. You also mentioned numerous times that you are fat.

What any of that has to do with the debate is also beyond me.

Also, I you simply misread. I said he sent a number of unwanted PMs.

Sent two more last night. So what. He's childish.

Listen, if you want to jock sniff this guy ... have at it.

He's Joshua Trentine... The Man Who Never Was ... The Boy He Will Always Be.

Tony



I was fat, yes. Now I can almost promise you I can walk in to most gyms and be one of the best there all things considered. Hell, I could probably go on stage at over 200, which is hard to do.

You engaged in the pissing match Tony. You won't let it go.

I am merely pointing out what he HAS done with what you HAVE NOT done.


smanjh,

I only mentioned the fat because fat or skinny, tall or short .... etc., because none of it has anything to do with the merits of SuperSlow.

Tony
Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit


Ya, i know!

supports LESS than nothing.

trends of these type of links followed by personal attacks. This forum is not a place to discuss anything progressive or technical.

That is why I am discussing this with him.

The article he brought to light was a hit job based off of like one recommendation. You have never said anything like what this article talks about, and you do a great job of correcting misconceptions like this.

Tony is that old guy reading the newspaper during is flies, he is 'getting back into it'. Meanwhile he is embarrassing himself with this nonsense for the plethora of reasons I explained throughout his threads.


Always look forward to your posts, smanjh.

Tony

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

overloadfitness.com/...ners-staff.html

Ken Hutchins bio:

Ken Hutchins
In 1966, at the age of 15, Ken was introduced to strength training by family friend, Philip Alexander. Philip, now an internal medicine specialist in Bryan, Texas, built Ken his first weight bench and insisted that Ken required greater physical strength to enable him to play trumpet. Philip introduced Ken to Ellington Darden at his (Philip's) wedding in 1968, and through Darden in 1971, Ken learned of Arthur Jones and Nautilus Strength Training Principles.

Ken?s serious contributions, though, began in 1975. He served Ellington Darden, PhD as a proofreader and writer.

In 1977, Ken became formally employed at Nautilus as a surgery technician, writer, surgical photographer, and proofreader. From 1979 to 1982 he served as inside salesperson and traveling speaker, addressing scores of Nautilus clinics yearly.

In 1982, Ken and his technically talented wife Brenda were sent by Arthur Jones to Gainesville, Florida to supervise the exercise program for the Nautilus-sponsored Osteoporosis Study at the University of Florida Medical School. During this year, he wrote the SuperSlow Protocol article and then refined its application with over 8000 one-on-one workouts between 1982 and 1986.

Ken?s major accomplishments during the Nautilus Osteoporosis Project were:

Composed the Exercise vs. Recreation Philosophy.
Discovered the principle of the variable counterbalance applied to counterbalance human body torque.
Identified friction as a major issue in exercise equipment and motor control.
Identified the four major considerations for the first comprehensive definition of exercise
Evolved the first photographic standardization for comparing the results of exercise and diet programs.
Discovered that all human muscular functions are negative cam effects.
Identified the conflict between the assumed objective and the real objective as a major psychological challenge in exercise.
In 1986, Ken worked as an exercise equipment designer and prototypist, specializing in the application of coupled movement arms. In 1987, he compiled historical developments of Nautilus equipment and wrote video scripts for detailed Nautilus education. Ken is a self-taught mechanical engineer.

Ken and Brenda developed the Linear Spine? Machines for his company, SuperSlow? Systems, INC in the early 90s. This equipment provides crucial exercise for severely debilitated back and abdominal musculatures. Four patents have been acquired on two models, including two coveted methods patents.

In 1994, Ken and Brenda founded the SuperSlow Certification Program, the only exercise program that offers a true practical for students to prove that they can instruct exercise.

Although it may seem an unlikely association, Ken's interest in exercise is directly related to a lifelong career as a trumpet player. Ken's musical pastime focuses on baroque works by Telemann, Vivaldi, Handel, Michael Hayden, and J.S. Bach. He was featured as soloist with the Bel Canto Singers of Daytona Beach in 1982 and served for performances of Bach's Christmas Oratorio, The B-Minor Mass, as well as The Magnificat in the 1980-1982 seasons.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Tony Williams wrote:
overloadfitness.com/...ners-staff.html

Ken Hutchins bio:

Ken Hutchins
In 1966, at the age of 15, Ken was introduced to strength training by family friend, Philip Alexander. Philip, now an internal medicine specialist in Bryan, Texas, built Ken his first weight bench and insisted that Ken required greater physical strength to enable him to play trumpet. Philip introduced Ken to Ellington Darden at his (Philip's) wedding in 1968, and through Darden in 1971, Ken learned of Arthur Jones and Nautilus Strength Training Principles.

Ken?s serious contributions, though, began in 1975. He served Ellington Darden, PhD as a proofreader and writer.

In 1977, Ken became formally employed at Nautilus as a surgery technician, writer, surgical photographer, and proofreader. From 1979 to 1982 he served as inside salesperson and traveling speaker, addressing scores of Nautilus clinics yearly.

In 1982, Ken and his technically talented wife Brenda were sent by Arthur Jones to Gainesville, Florida to supervise the exercise program for the Nautilus-sponsored Osteoporosis Study at the University of Florida Medical School. During this year, he wrote the SuperSlow Protocol article and then refined its application with over 8000 one-on-one workouts between 1982 and 1986.

Ken?s major accomplishments during the Nautilus Osteoporosis Project were:

Composed the Exercise vs. Recreation Philosophy.
Discovered the principle of the variable counterbalance applied to counterbalance human body torque.
Identified friction as a major issue in exercise equipment and motor control.
Identified the four major considerations for the first comprehensive definition of exercise
Evolved the first photographic standardization for comparing the results of exercise and diet programs.
Discovered that all human muscular functions are negative cam effects.
Identified the conflict between the assumed objective and the real objective as a major psychological challenge in exercise.
In 1986, Ken worked as an exercise equipment designer and prototypist, specializing in the application of coupled movement arms. In 1987, he compiled historical developments of Nautilus equipment and wrote video scripts for detailed Nautilus education. Ken is a self-taught mechanical engineer.

Ken and Brenda developed the Linear Spine? Machines for his company, SuperSlow? Systems, INC in the early 90s. This equipment provides crucial exercise for severely debilitated back and abdominal musculatures. Four patents have been acquired on two models, including two coveted methods patents.

In 1994, Ken and Brenda founded the SuperSlow Certification Program, the only exercise program that offers a true practical for students to prove that they can instruct exercise.

Although it may seem an unlikely association, Ken's interest in exercise is directly related to a lifelong career as a trumpet player. Ken's musical pastime focuses on baroque works by Telemann, Vivaldi, Handel, Michael Hayden, and J.S. Bach. He was featured as soloist with the Bel Canto Singers of Daytona Beach in 1982 and served for performances of Bach's Christmas Oratorio, The B-Minor Mass, as well as The Magnificat in the 1980-1982 seasons.


there is much more we could say about Ken but on top of developing the Linear Spine machines ( which we have rehabilitated 1000's of back injuries with ) he has also designed 22 other unique machines, the most precise tools in the field of exercise, these also include his "Alligator Machines" that can re-time the cam so that it varies most appropriate for the user. The guy is a absolute genius.

again if you think the extent of superslow is constraining people's speed or trying to make them go 10/10, either you didn't look close enough or completely missed the boat. 10/10 is merely one of many guidelines, the Protocol runs deep. i consider it a completely new exercise paradigm.

it's no coincidence that this protocol has been used for over 2o years.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit


Ya, i know!

supports LESS than nothing.

trends of these type of links followed by personal attacks. This forum is not a place to discuss anything progressive or technical.

That is why I am discussing this with him.

The article he brought to light was a hit job based off of like one recommendation. You have never said anything like what this article talks about, and you do a great job of correcting misconceptions like this.

Tony is that old guy reading the newspaper during is flies, he is 'getting back into it'. Meanwhile he is embarrassing himself with this nonsense for the plethora of reasons I explained throughout his threads.

Always look forward to your posts, smanjh.

Tony



LOL.

Look, I did not mean to go there. I was actually on my way out the door when I posted that, and it was just knee jerk.

Since apparently a bunch of posts got deleted that I did not get to see earlier or possibly you did not get to see either (the Mentzer quote and something about a happy Tuesday, lol), I figure you should review my position based on what I know about this.

1. You got mad at Josh in the sun cancer thread.

2. You go on slowly and then outright talking about SS.

3. Maybe between the two, Josh sends you hateful PMs that you threaten to show the board, yet no one encourages that.

4. You say the PMs were not mean, just unwarranted.

5. Josh explains and expands on just what the hell he is talking about, lol.

6. Finally making the connection, I find that he is speaking about stuff I already agree with, sans the machine availability.

7. We get into it, at first debating, me talking about exercise, you continuing to just attack the people involved with the protocol.

8. I get pissed.

9. Apparently you begin to trash me in deleted posts (which were probably only deleted in connection with the Mentzer writing, you probably quoted it).

This is not in order, where you and I come in is supposed to be congruent.

Am I summing it up OK?

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Landau wrote:
I skimmed the article, but it contains the same idiocies in fitness buzz words - "metabolic boosting" rapid motions duh der good for sports? - Fat Burning and of course aerobic - typical DUM DUM DUMMY fitness Junk - Bull Shit


Ya, i know!

supports LESS than nothing.

trends of these type of links followed by personal attacks. This forum is not a place to discuss anything progressive or technical.

That is why I am discussing this with him.

The article he brought to light was a hit job based off of like one recommendation. You have never said anything like what this article talks about, and you do a great job of correcting misconceptions like this.

Tony is that old guy reading the newspaper during is flies, he is 'getting back into it'. Meanwhile he is embarrassing himself with this nonsense for the plethora of reasons I explained throughout his threads.

Always look forward to your posts, smanjh.

Tony



LOL.

Look, I did not mean to go there. I was actually on my way out the door when I posted that, and it was just knee jerk.

Since apparently a bunch of posts got deleted that I did not get to see earlier or possibly you did not get to see either (the Mentzer quote and something about a happy Tuesday, lol), I figure you should review my position based on what I know about this.

1. You got mad at Josh in the sun cancer thread.

2. You go on slowly and then outright talking about SS.

3. Maybe between the two, Josh sends you hateful PMs that you threaten to show the board, yet no one encourages that.

4. You say the PMs were not mean, just unwarranted.

5. Josh explains and expands on just what the hell he is talking about, lol.

6. Finally making the connection, I find that he is speaking about stuff I already agree with, sans the machine availability.

7. We get into it, at first debating, me talking about exercise, you continuing to just attack the people involved with the protocol.

8. I get pissed.

9. Apparently you begin to trash me in deleted posts (which were probably only deleted in connection with the Mentzer writing, you probably quoted it).

This is not in order, where you and I come in is supposed to be congruent.

Am I summing it up OK?



No.

Regards,
Tony

Open User Options Menu

Tony Williams

smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
i have limited time but a few quick points;


1)when discussing exercise, mechanical work
W=FxD

AND METABOLIC WORK must be considered.

2)just because one "fails" it does not indicate significant inroad ever occurred, it simply means there were sticking points that terminated the set.

3) you can't lift heavy weights "fast" if you don't learn to find your "low gear"... if you only try to apply force suddenly as opposed GRADUAL then you will NEVER reach your load potential. People who master this protocol literally become unstoppable. This i can prove.

4) the very first time Mr Williams posted that video of Ken i answered why he left the SSZ in that thread.


5) ooops one more, for those of you who have concerns about Ken's recommendations about rep range or TUL. just read any edition of the manual the guide for advanced subjects is 3 to 6 reps at 8sec to 12 sec on the positive and negative. That gives you TUL's of around 48 sec up to around 2minutes.

This is NOT my opinion or my recall of a conversation this is clearly stated in the text. Of course there is a context for different ranges but the guide i mention above is clearly stated and the recommendation since superslow systems machines have existed.

He does not recall the conversation because he was not there when Baye and Hutchins discusssed the matter.

Correct, Josh?

Tony



Were you there? Baye is all of the sudden infallible?

Your going at this courtroom style Tony, and believe me I admire your relentless pursuit.

But, unfortunately I have to pull a Trentine and say that you do not understand the argument or where to proceed forward, plus you lack the credentials.

(or maybe your the prosecutor and I am a defense attorney, who knows?:))

I don't know Baye, so it is impossible to judge him.

Do you know him?

I simply said that it would be impossible for Trentine to know what transpired between Baye and Hutchins if he was not in attendance.

He has never once indicated that he was and seems to indicate that Baye is making it up without any proof.

You think Hutchins' credentials are irrelevant.

Fine.

Do you believe Hutchins' routine is "ultimate"?

That is how he refers to it.

Josh denied it saying Hutchins NEVER said such a thing.

Then Josh erased his original post and corrected himself.

He is the one who started the PMs.

He is the one who goes nuts anytime someone criticizes SuperSlow.

Maybe you lack the credentials to judge, smanjh.

Does Josh stand to make some money from SuperSlow and Hutchins?

He does.

Therefore, as I stated before, it is impossible for to give even the appearance of impartiality.

Any judge who had a monetary interest in a case that he was hearing would disqualify himself or be disqualified if the conflict were revealed.

These questions are no different than those I posted to Dr. Darden, which he answered regarding his relationship with Bowflex.

Yet, when I ask the same questions to Trentine, you and he object while he bothers me with poor-written PMs with veiled threats.

But smanjh, if that is the kind of man you wish to defend, play Perry Mason (Google it.)

Tony

Tony,

I think you can see that I am a great lover of being a devil's advocate.

Now then, let's review something here: Josh offended you in a PM, and you are out for blood. Once again, I admire the tendency.

I was a douche bag the very night you got those PM's, and guess what, I got some from Josh too. He was very respectful to me, wayyy more than I deserved that night. I don't know what he said to you. I would like to think this is all way too much blown out of context by both of you maybe understanding the context of written conversations (most do).

Josh could make great money probably doing anything else but SS or attaching himself to HIT in general. Do you know how much one could make locally if one just rearranged a Weider mag routine and sold it as the holy grail? When it doesn't work, point to your juiced up clients, and when it does make sure everyone understands the different discipline levels involved. (Mentzer had character too. Notice when even Viator sold out and allowed his 'routines' to be published, Mentzer was trying to get his own mag together and refusing to sell out his principles)

Once again, I wish you would be more understanding and possibly able to take a second look at things, even if the issue becomes personal.


I don't think you were a douche bag, but if you think so ... well ... quit douching so often.

Regards,
Tony
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Ellington Darden
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy