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
Shake Rattle & Roll!
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

marcrph

Portugal

http://journals.lww.com/...g_Stable.4.aspx

Just as Superslow and the Paleo diet are suspect scientifically speaking, so is training on unstable surfaces with light weights. Much like training Superslow, training with lighter weights on an unstable surface reduces muscle fiber recruitment.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Not sure about being 'unscientific.' Those using RenEx equipment and training in that fashion likely are building muscle and strength, whereas others are suggesting there are better ways. I think we're all like that to some extent... preferring the methods and philosophy we currently employ while thinking other applications are inferior. I'd rather a person train in a very controlled environment than in an unstable one, however.
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

As you mentioned about SuperSlow "reduces muscle fiber recruitment", that's not the problem, depending upon how the SuperSlow is employed on a set by set basis. The real problem is that it recruits the muscles way too intensely without increased blood-flow to the specific musculature being trained, while the neurological-system is overstressed.

Granted, trainees that keep their weights very light (too low) with SuperSlow Repetitions does "reduces muscle fiber recruitment". Also, how recruitment is reduced by trainees that were going through the motions (so to speak) without trying to stay in contact, mentally & physically, with the musculature that they were training during a particular set, which is to say that 10/10 or a 10/5 was adhered too strictly in the case of free-weights or the cams of the machine caused a drastic reduction in intensity at points during a set that needed intensity.

In any case, the overwhelming intensity of properly performed SuperSlow Repetitions become the problem, especially as the trainee becomes advanced and their numbers of total sets evolve into "consolidation workouts" due to the massive amount of fatigue.
Open User Options Menu

Nautilusforever

Illinois, USA

Stability balls, resistance bands and small hand weights are the staple of the personal training/physical therapist world. These can be easily transported for "in home" training. In most cases more supervision hence expertise is required to get the most out of the exercises safely. I've found that even in the case of rehab, machines can be more effective because of their design but it's obvious that they would be cost prohibitive and certainly not portable. I have rehabbed numerous injuries and post surgery patients on a standard set of Nautilus. Of course caution is the best course of action along with feedback from the client. I've met numerous trainers and PT's that continue to use the older method even though they have the equipment available. Fact is you don't need a degree to teach the equipment. Much is already built into the machines and the program. By following basic Nautilus training protocol one can easily guide a client through a full body routine with special attention to the body part or joint that needs such. In regards to the initial post I'm in agreement that in the exercise presented you are limited to the amount of weight you can apply to the movement, hence the proportionate recruitment of the target muscle fibers. I think it important to point out that in this particular exercise, almost all large muscle groups are involved to maintain stability. Even the neck muscles are involved. This is often touted as a benefit of this type of exercise. Yes, improved coordination can result but other than the prime mover the rest of the muscles involved are simply stabilizers and certainly don't work enough to improve strength or size. It has always been my belief that if you train all of the muscle groups with some degree of isolation their ability to stabilize in a similar situation would more than compensate for any improved coordination you might attain by training traditionally. There are many tools that can achieve good results but I believe that Nautilus equipment and some of the variations that are out there are superior. Not only for beginning trainees but rehab clients and advanced exercisers as well.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Paleo diet takes it on the chin, along with other high protein based diets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...60b9_story.html
Open User Options Menu

Hitit

marcrph wrote:
Paleo diet takes it on the chin, along with other high protein based diets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ry.html


That's interesting and I'm not for or against, but I didn't see it took into account those who exercise and or weight train while using higher protein.

Just an observation.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nautilusforever wrote:
...resistance bands and small hand weights are the staple of the personal training/physical therapist world. These can be easily transported for "in home" training. In most cases more supervision hence expertise is required to get the most out of the exercises safely. I've found that even in the case of rehab, machines can be more effective because of their design but it's obvious that they would be cost prohibitive and certainly not portable. I have rehabbed numerous injuries and post surgery patients on a standard set of Nautilus...


Aren't you coming back from some RC issues?

Resistance bands and small DBs are instrumental in rehabbing this area. I know. I've been there.

Yes, I realize there are machines that duplicate these movements, but there's better ways to spend your money.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Hitit wrote:

That's interesting and I'm not for or against, but I didn't see it took into account those who exercise and or weight train while using higher protein.

Just an observation.


------------------
Dr. Valter Longo is a world renowned expert in aging. He is worth listening to because he has spent his lifetime studying this area. He also recommends fasting. ER doctors and surgeons like Dr. Oz are good at what they do.....but....why listen to them on diet or exercise matters? Listen to experts. Dr.Darden is an expert on diet matters. Dr. Longo is an expert on aging.

http://www.bbc.com/...health-19112549
Open User Options Menu

duesingbc

Illinois, USA

A Washington Post article?? Seems pretty legit. I better start re-evaluating my training and diet based on the individual that wrote this. Oh wait...what did they look like again?
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Brian Johnston wrote:
Not sure about being 'unscientific.'


Superslow is unscientific. From a "gang" that calls themselves the "Ultimate Exercise Protocol," they have not even done force gauge studies on the various rep speeds. Not only that, but wild assumptions that Superslow speeds allows for more muscle crossbidges to form...which is pure hogwash. Furthermore, Superslow claims of increased safety, along with less trauma for the skeleton/joint tissues is utter falsehood. Light weight utilization in order to slow rep speeds down intentionally, and meanwhile allow for little acceleration at turnarounds all decreases the intensity and defeats the nervous system's inate ability, not to mention violating Behm & Sale's INTENT to move as fast as possible for maximum muscle fiber recruitment. Finally, long TUT sets exceeding the anaerobic performance window are idiotic. I can't even recommend Superslow at the very end of a set, as short range, J-Rep type movements, would be far more appropriate for further muscle fiber recruitment. Reliance on inroad/fatigue/effort sets prevents targeting fast twitch muscle fibers. In a few words, Superslow is dead. No wonder the members are deserting the "Ultimate Exercise Protocol."


Those using RenEx equipment and training in that fashion likely are building muscle and strength, whereas others are suggesting there are better ways. I think we're all like that to some extent


I'm for ideas that bring results....in other words....I'm open to something new

... preferring the methods and philosophy we currently employ while thinking other applications are inferior. I'd rather a person train in a very controlled environment than in an unstable one, however.


But Superslow is not more inherently stable or safer......and is less effective and efficient.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/...ght-training-44
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

I didn't look at the link, but I'm uncertain how balancing on a ball with freeweights is more stable or as stable as being secure in a machine and moving very slowly. Perhaps we're thinking of two different ideas.
Open User Options Menu

Nautilusforever

Illinois, USA

The science is the physics term called torque. We call it time under tension. As long as there is tension on the muscle then it is performing work. The greater the tension the more work the muscle is doing. The amount of work expressed in foot lbs. is determined by the weight you are lifting, the distance it travels and the time the muscle is under tension. If you slow down you increase the ft lbs moved. This is imperical. As far as muscle fiber involvement is concerned for each muscle fiber bundle it's all or nothing.

That said you will not involve all of the muscle fibers in the exercise unless you achieve full contraction under load. With few exceptions you simply cannot achieve full contraction under load unless you are using a machine specifically designed to do such. I.E. Nautilus single joint exercises. If you use a stability ball, none of the muscles involved will achieve full contraction under load. In fact other than the prime mover, the other muscles don't come close to doing enough work to affect them strength and growth wise. This understanding has been around for over 40 years yet for some reason people try and refute it. The previous stated is fact. You can try and put any spin on it you'd like. It will still be fact.
Open User Options Menu

Nautilusforever

Illinois, USA

Simon
I've been fortunate to have access to Nautilus all of my life. In 2000 the club I worked for changed hands and closed a facility that had like new 2st. They wanted to move it the club I worked at but had to get rid of the old Nautilus they had. I bought 17 pieces from them for a song and put it in my basement. The equipment was mostly 2nd generation with a few Next Generation pieces. I'm going to buy a couple of more pieces to round out my circuit. I have numerous saddle weights so I can move clients up in small increments. I'm just lucky to have what I consider some of the best post-rehab equipment around. Once someone is cleared for exercise I can usually bring them back as far as they can go. I'm just lucky to have what I have. Arthur, Ell and Wayne have always inspired me. How lucky can you get.
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Nautilusforever wrote:
The science is the physics term called torque. We call it time under tension. As long as there is tension on the muscle then it is performing work. The greater the tension the more work the muscle is doing. The amount of work expressed in foot lbs. is determined by the weight you are lifting, the distance it travels and the time the muscle is under tension. If you slow down you increase the ft lbs moved. This is imperical. As far as muscle fiber involvement is concerned for each muscle fiber bundle it's all or nothing.

That said you will not involve all of the muscle fibers in the exercise unless you achieve full contraction under load. With few exceptions you simply cannot achieve full contraction under load unless you are using a machine specifically designed to do such. I.E. Nautilus single joint exercises. If you use a stability ball, none of the muscles involved will achieve full contraction under load. In fact other than the prime mover, the other muscles don't come close to doing enough work to affect them strength and growth wise. This understanding has been around for over 40 years yet for some reason people try and refute it. The previous stated is fact. You can try and put any spin on it you'd like. It will still be fact.


Outdated information. You don't invoke all or the most fibers at full contraction. Different fibers along the muscle work at different times, depending on positioning, etc. Some fibers 'hand over' the load and others take over. It once was presumed that a few fibers work at the point of stretch, then as you contract a muscle more and more fibers join in. That's false. If that were the case, why is it that you can handle as much load at the bottom of a leg extension vs. the top (in fact, the MedX drops 20% of load in the top 1/3 of the movement to help 'even out' the feel and work).
Open User Options Menu

Nautilusforever

Illinois, USA

One, I have a cam driven leg extension. Two, you can handle more during the beginning of a leg extension. That's because the movement is travelling more horizontally at the beginning of the movement. I agree with your handing off idea, though, once a fiber bundle contracts, it stays in contraction and hands of to an uncontracted bundle until you reach the activation of the whole muscle if it contracts to the extent of it's potential range of motion.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nautilusforever wrote:
The science is the physics term called torque. We call it time under tension. As long as there is tension on the muscle then it is performing work. The greater the tension the more work the muscle is doing. The amount of work expressed in foot lbs. is determined by the weight you are lifting, the distance it travels and the time the muscle is under tension. If you slow down you increase the ft lbs moved...


You've actually mixed-up and skipped some terms there.

Torque is the weight x the length of the moment arm. Torque is a force.

Force x Distance = Work, in a physics sense.

From a physics sense, a weightlifting repetition is zero work, as you the positive work of the concentric part of the rep is negated by the negative work of the eccentric portion of the rep.
____________________________

I don't dispute that a muscle is 'working' whether it's a positive, negative, or static. However, the physics definition of "Work (W)" does NOT apply.

A muscle temporarily 'works' harder if you accelerate a weight, but then doesn't have to work at all as the weight decelerates at top of the rep.

A muscle 'works' longer if you extend the TUL, but then the Force applied by the muscle is less than an accelerated approach.

I really do wish people would stop trying to apply physics terms to weightlifting, as the terminologies tend to conflict and confuse, rather than improve understanding.

Best Regards,
Scott
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

Scott,this here I will have to disagree with

"From a physics sense, a weightlifting repetition is zero work, as you the positive work of the concentric part of the rep is negated by the negative work of the eccentric portion of the rep."

The above is the equivalent of thinking that driving in reverse will decrease the # of miles on your car!LOL

IMO, even during the negative, your muscles are generating force. If they did not, the weight would just collapse. And, the load is moving a certain distance, therefore, producing 'work'.Physics still applies.
Open User Options Menu

Nautilusforever

Illinois, USA

Thanks for the correction Simon.
T=Fxd Torque, force, distance
F=mxa Force,mass(weight),acceleration
a=delta V/time acceleration,velocity,tim
delta V=d/t velocity,distance,time

If you do the algebraic substitutions of all of the above formulas you end up with Torque as a function of time, distance and weight. If you change any of those variables you change the torque.(often represented in foot pounds.) This IS the science. If you slow down the movement under the same weight and distance you increase the amount of ft.lbs moved. Super slow, whether you consider it effective or not is based on physics.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nautilusforever wrote:
Thanks for the correction Simon.
T=Fxd Torque, force, distance...


Wrong-o, Mary Lou. Torque = FORCE x Moment Arm Length, NOT the Length something is moved.

And if you start with a faulty premise, then everything after that suffers as well.
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

farhad wrote:
Scott,this here I will have to disagree with

"From a physics sense, a weightlifting repetition is zero work, as you the positive work of the concentric part of the rep is negated by the negative work of the eccentric portion of the rep."

The above is the equivalent of thinking that driving in reverse will decrease the # of miles on your car!LOL


Laugh all you want, but do some thorough reading on the subject of how 'Work' is defined in physics and then laugh no more.

IMO, even during the negative, your muscles are generating force. If they did not, the weight would just collapse. And, the load is moving a certain distance, therefore, producing 'work'.Physics still applies.


Yes, but Force upwards, which still results in the Weight moving downward, is a negative Work number in a pure Physics context.

I don't dispute that lifting, lowering , and holding heavy weights is hard work. It is.

BUT, applying physics terms willie-nillie turns your thesis and declarations into mush.
Open User Options Menu

indexit

simon-hecubus wrote:

Yes, but Force upwards, which still results in the Weight moving downward, is a negative Work number in a pure Physics


Yes this is true. Funny part about lifting weights. No work is performed. Just by chance a mechanical engineer I work with commented on this fact last week.

If one performs more reps in the same time have they performed more work then moving slowly? No in a physics sense...

jeff


Open User Options Menu

Nautilusforever

Illinois, USA

I've Googled numerous websites to verify the formula for Torque which is T=Fxd. Where:
T=Torque
F=Force(mxa)
d=perpendicular distance of the force from the axis of rotation.(Intially this can be the lever length but as the movement articulates this perpendicular distance changes.)

In my substitution I substituted for F and not d since d is a variable I'm trying to prove. The distance measured to determine velocity is not the length of the arc created but the vertical distance of travel which is exactly the same thing as the d in the torque formula. Variables in my final formula are T,d,t and m. If you'd like I will send you my Algebra.
Also, you can call me Nautilusforever or Byrd, whichever you choose. Mary Lou is a friend of mine.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

The opening thread comment compared the unscientific training on unstable surfaces to the Paleo diet and Superslow rep speed. The initial reference clearly brings into question the "shaky" practice of many trainers who make it their business to incorporate training on unstable surfaces with light weights. In case no one read the report......training on these unstable surfaces, which necessitate lighter weights, hinders muscle fiber recruitment. Therefore, this practice is unscientific and should be shunned by the high intensity community. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the stability of an exercise machine has added intrinsic value.

In fact, a sitting stance may even decrease muscle fiber activity much the same way unstable surfaces do. I have always favored standing presses over seated presses....but I can not say for sure, and have NO scientific proof to validate my exercise performance preferences. Also, I don't have any proof for any machine advantages either. So....all those machine vs. free weights arguments seem childish.

When I studied in college the subject of physics....which seemed rather simple at the time.....torque was one of the 1st subjects studied. Torque has to do with lever lengths. Lever lengths can affect torque. BUT, we can't change lever lengths in weight lifting. Your bones won't grow any longer after a certain age. The machine...or free exercise...all have FIXED torque lengths.....therefore torque is a moot point. It is obvious some know less than nothing about physics. I do know F= M x A......where Force(F) can be manipulated by the weight chosen (M, mass, always less in the case of Superslow), and A (acceleration, which is somewhat related to speed of the movement). If you decrease either M or A, Force goes down. This resultant decreased Force will not be a sufficient stimulus for the body. The stimulus for muscular change is force (tension), muscle damage, and metabolic stress. Superslow obviously is the wrong way to go. As far as the Paleo diet, there is not near enough fossil evidence, zero historical written evidence, and precious little real scientific evidence for anyone to claim a basis of science. All these paradigms, Stability training, Superslow, and the Paleo diet should not be considered a protocol everyone should do. Experiment....Yes.....but not the...Ultimate Protocol....or....Body by Science.

This is an experiment everyone can do...
please do a Superslow set to failure.....then at failure....try to lift the weight at regular speed.....I have found through experimentation that I can always get a regular speed rep after a Superslow set to failure. Wonder why! In the end...results matter...and Superslow just never worked as good as heavy weights, lifting as fast as possible, even though this speed would be relatively slow, and multiple sets. I'm not alone with this opinion.
Open User Options Menu

FiremanBob

Turpin's log is pretty good evidence for me that a Paleo-style diet works.

Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nautilusforever wrote:
...d=perpendicular distance of the force from the axis of rotation.(Intially this can be the lever length but as the movement articulates this perpendicular distance changes...


Actually, a lot of those web sites SHOULD have shown you that it's not necessarily 'd' that varies, but the cosine of the angle that 'F' acts upon.

Same effect though.

Trying to show that 'd' changes would get you a "0" on your free body diagram, and thus lose you half your points on an engineering exam.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy