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
John Little Wrong on Cardio ?
First | Prev | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Chris H wrote:
entsminger wrote:
I know the HIT crowd get somewhat fanatical about wear and tear, but the concern is valid.

==Scott==
Let's just say the HIT crowd is fanatical, ha ha. I know the folks on here won't like this but I think all this arguing about not doing cardio is just a way to justify sitting around on their ass.Oh god, if I ran around the block my knees and joints would all wear out and I'd soon be in a wheel chair. You'll be in one anyway.

i'm not so sure its about justifying siting around on ones arse, but it is about justifying doing what is necessary and required for health rather than performance.


==Scott==
In another thread a bunch of guys here are raving about what Dr. Ken could squat.How many times have I heard that I squatted till I was lying on the carpet? If that's not about performance over health I don't know what is? Health takes a back seat to gains in strength and building muscle on most all these type sites.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Chris H wrote:
entsminger wrote:
I know the HIT crowd get somewhat fanatical about wear and tear, but the concern is valid.

==Scott==
Let's just say the HIT crowd is fanatical, ha ha. I know the folks on here won't like this but I think all this arguing about not doing cardio is just a way to justify sitting around on their ass.Oh god, if I ran around the block my knees and joints would all wear out and I'd soon be in a wheel chair. You'll be in one anyway.

i'm not so sure its about justifying siting around on ones arse, but it is about justifying doing what is necessary and required for health rather than performance.


Agreed. Some things you do for your health. Other things you do for your enjoyment or out of necessity. These we do at our own risk. I run races for now. I realize there may be wear and tear issues down the road that may force me to stop...hopefully not.
Open User Options Menu

ptcrusader

All good points. Joint health should not be risked by too much running or improper lifting etc.

But an important issue, as I perceive it, is whether one needs some rhythmic cardio exercise for 10-25 minutes at a time to preserve flexibility in the left ventricle. For the past 10 years, there are many of us who thought the answer was "no." However, many of us have changed our mind a bit based on some of the recent research. For me and anyone who sincerely asks, I do suggest adding to your strength training routine some type of weekly cardio (elliptical, exercise bike or moderate jogging if your joints don't hurt) for the reasons previously suggested. Is this recommendation right? Hindsight is always 20/20 but I know what I will be doing...
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

epdavis7 wrote:
In spite of all this I still think John Little (and Dr McGuff) have valid points. To be healthy, not much is needed from an exercise standpoint. To be an athlete or excel at an activity, much is needed...however this may also damage your long term health and longevity.


==Scott==

To be what is considered healthy no HIT training or any other form of exercise is necessary.Many people are very healthy who never did any exercise but that isn't to say their health might not be enhanced with a sane amount of weight training and aerobic exercise.I would venture to say that there are 10 times as many people who are crippled up and physically miserable who didn't do any real exercise in their life than those that participated in moderate forms of exercise. Now of course there are football players and other extreme athletes who pay the price for their bone crushing injuries and distance runners who grind their bones to saw dust by over doing it, etc etc but lets not confuse the extreme with safe and moderate exercise methods.
Open User Options Menu

Chris H

entsminger wrote:
Chris H wrote:
entsminger wrote:
I know the HIT crowd get somewhat fanatical about wear and tear, but the concern is valid.

==Scott==
Let's just say the HIT crowd is fanatical, ha ha. I know the folks on here won't like this but I think all this arguing about not doing cardio is just a way to justify sitting around on their ass.Oh god, if I ran around the block my knees and joints would all wear out and I'd soon be in a wheel chair. You'll be in one anyway.

i'm not so sure its about justifying siting around on ones arse, but it is about justifying doing what is necessary and required for health rather than performance.

==Scott==
In another thread a bunch of guys here are raving about what Dr. Ken could squat.How many times have I heard that I squatted till I was lying on the carpet? If that's not about performance over health I don't know what is? Health takes a back seat to gains in strength and building muscle on most all these type sites.


your right. Ken's 407 x 23 in itself is performance based and not healthy if repeated to frequently {even once a week}
One must remember health simply means, freedom from disease. Exercise may or may not factor here, particularly if the envelope is continually pushed in favour of performance or body composition changes.
In my opinion that does not mean that an individual cannot train train for physical improvement, if health is the main concern, but if the main driver is performance, then health will suffer sooner or later.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Chris H wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Chris H wrote:
entsminger wrote:
I know the HIT crowd get somewhat fanatical about wear and tear, but the concern is valid.

==Scott==
Let's just say the HIT crowd is fanatical, ha ha. I know the folks on here won't like this but I think all this arguing about not doing cardio is just a way to justify sitting around on their ass.Oh god, if I ran around the block my knees and joints would all wear out and I'd soon be in a wheel chair. You'll be in one anyway.

i'm not so sure its about justifying siting around on ones arse, but it is about justifying doing what is necessary and required for health rather than performance.

==Scott==
In another thread a bunch of guys here are raving about what Dr. Ken could squat.How many times have I heard that I squatted till I was lying on the carpet? If that's not about performance over health I don't know what is? Health takes a back seat to gains in strength and building muscle on most all these type sites.

your right. Ken's 407 x 23 in itself is performance based and not healthy if repeated to frequently {even once a week}
One must remember health simply means, freedom from disease. Exercise may or may not factor here, particularly if the envelope is continually pushed in favour of performance or body composition changes.
In my opinion that does not mean that an individual cannot train train for physical improvement, if health is the main concern, but if the main driver is performance, then health will suffer sooner or later.


Its amazing he did that at 53 years of age and 160ish lbs and that was only one exercise in a workout that was similarly crazy.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

ptcrusader wrote:
All good points. Joint health should not be risked by too much running or improper lifting etc.

But an important issue, as I perceive it, is whether one needs some rhythmic cardio exercise for 10-25 minutes at a time to preserve flexibility in the left ventricle. For the past 10 years, there are many of us who thought the answer was "no." However, many of us have changed our mind a bit based on some of the recent research. For me and anyone who sincerely asks, I do suggest adding to your strength training routine some type of weekly cardio (elliptical, exercise bike or moderate jogging if your joints don't hurt) for the reasons previously suggested. Is this recommendation right? Hindsight is always 20/20 but I know what I will be doing...


With regard to arterial stiffening: I've seen papers on this, but I'm not sure if it is a big deal or a minor curiosity. In medicine, and in general, if you can measure and quantify something, there will be a tendency to worry about what the numbers mean.

As I have gotten older, my blood pressure has started to creep upward a bit: it has gone from low normal to normal to slightly high of normal. This seems pretty typical of getting older: arteries lose some flexibility and blood pressure rises. But I do wonder if a life time of strength training has contributed to this, or if a lifetime of consistent cardio could have prevented it.

So I have added in a couple of easy sessions on the elliptical every week. The elliptical is easy on my knees and hips; it isn't like I'm going to tear myself apart doing it. The extra activity is probably good for me in general, and likely helps stabilize my blood sugar. I find those extra workouts to be somewhat refreshing. The intensity is low enough that I don't need to worry about the kind of heart damage that extreme duration endurance athletes seem to incur. If it helps my blood pressure, great. If not, it certainly won't hurt me.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Average Al wrote:

As I have gotten older, my blood pressure has started to creep upward a bit: it has gone from low normal to normal to slightly high of normal.


But what really is 'normal' ? I'd bet BP is more of an individual thing then what they want you to believe.

They lower the 'ideal' numbers every few years I think to get more people onto BP medication. I think the last numbers I heard was it's a $130 billion business.

Couple months ago I went for my annual sleep doctor exam. The tech came up with a crazy BP reading because she used the wrong size cuff.

How many errors like this happen everyday ? BP readings have to be done right and a lot of the time they aren't done carefully enough.




Open User Options Menu

Average Al

Crotalus wrote:
Average Al wrote:

As I have gotten older, my blood pressure has started to creep upward a bit: it has gone from low normal to normal to slightly high of normal.


But what really is 'normal' ? I'd bet BP is more of an individual thing then what they want you to believe.

They lower the 'ideal' numbers every few years I think to get more people onto BP medication. I think the last numbers I heard was it's a $130 billion business.

Couple months ago I went for my annual sleep doctor exam. The tech came up with a crazy BP reading because she used the wrong size cuff.

How many errors like this happen everyday ? BP readings have to be done right and a lot of the time they aren't done carefully enough.






Those are all valid points. But I am not talking about one or two isolated measurements, but rather a consistent shift upward over a longer span of time.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

My main goal is to be as healthy as I can for as long as I can so I can continue to embarrass my grandchildren. I'm always pulling practical jokes on them and saying things that embarrass them in public. The pull my finger thing never gets old lol.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

For those that have read John's new book. I am curious about a sample routine I have seen elsewhere online. I believe the routine is something like a chest press, a pulldown, and a leg press done with a short rest between exercises and the sequence is repeated three times I believe. After listening to a recent interview of his he sure made me think a lot about getting a deeper inroad in a short amount of time. Making want to try doing this more myself. Just curious if he goes into the reasoning of three repeated sequences of the routine I mentioned vs just doing it once?
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

tensionstrength wrote:
For those that have read John's new book. I am curious about sample routine I have seen elsewhere online. I believe the routine is something like a chest press, a pulldown, and a leg press done with a short rest between exercises and the sequence is repeated three times I believe. After listening to a recent interview of his he sure made me think a lot a deeper inroad in a short amount of time. Just curious if he goes into the reasoning of three repeated sequences of the routine I mentioned vs just doing it once?


The DeLorme and Watkins method...revolutionary, like 70 years ago!

What are the Body By Science folks saying now? 3 sets per exercise and a departure from Super Slow and McGuff endorses this book as the most time efficient way to get the body you want.

Incredible!

Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

tensionstrength wrote:
For those that have read John's new book. I am curious about sample routine I have seen elsewhere online. I believe the routine is something like a chest press, a pulldown, and a leg press done with a short rest between exercises and the sequence is repeated three times I believe. After listening to a recent interview of his he sure made me think a lot a deeper inroad in a short amount of time. Just curious if he goes into the reasoning of three repeated sequences of the routine I mentioned vs just doing it once?


They are basically just warmup sets. First set is about 50% of 10RM reps at approximately 1/2 cadence with about 30 seconds to one minute between sets. Second set is 75% of 10 RM (same as above). Third set is 100% effort of 10 reps. Rest a minute and move on to next exercise and repeat as above. I don't have the book in front of me, but its based on the Delormes and Watkins method and it is thought that the warmup prepares the body to give an all out effort on the last set. The exercises chosen (but can vary) are chest press, row, leg press. He states you will hit a wall and you will need to vary with different exercises or another protocol after about 6 weeks, you'll hit a new wall with the new protocol in about 6 weeks and will need to change to something different. Seems fairly straight forward.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.


Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Resultsbased wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
For those that have read John's new book. I am curious about sample routine I have seen elsewhere online. I believe the routine is something like a chest press, a pulldown, and a leg press done with a short rest between exercises and the sequence is repeated three times I believe. After listening to a recent interview of his he sure made me think a lot a deeper inroad in a short amount of time. Just curious if he goes into the reasoning of three repeated sequences of the routine I mentioned vs just doing it once?

The DeLorme and Watkins method...revolutionary, like 70 years ago!

What are the Body By Science folks saying now? 3 sets per exercise and a departure from Super Slow and McGuff endorses this book as the most time efficient way to get the body you want.

Incredible!



I appreciate you taking the time to comment. At least right now I'm sort of in the minimalist mindset with training. Or possibly seeing how much I can do in a short amount of time.

Did McGuff endorse Little's new book? From what I have read and heard about it sounds quite similar to Body By Science.

With regards to superslow, I've personally pretty much always preferred putting out a higher level of effort sooner in the given exercise than some of the longer/longish TUL I've heard of being used. I don't really know how fast I move doing an exercise either. My objective during an exercise is usually to contract with a high level of effort and maintain form and see how long I do this and endure the burning and elevated. I don't know how often I actually reach "failure". I do often do what I call lighter weight or feeler sets before doing what for me is a high effort set. Not that you asked to hear all this lol. I have actually been changing my diet for the better as of late which is huge step for me.
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

Equity wrote:
I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.




I have a slightly different view.

He stated that SuperSlow was "synthetic" and full-range exercise was unnecessary. Later, he authored body by science and what did they promote?? SuperSlow and a Big 5...no max contraction.

In his latest book, he's promoting several things along with 3 sets of 10 and he says that the Delorme method is pretty much the most tried and true system out there.

Maybe he really believes this stuff, but yes, I'd say it's to make a buck which I see nothing wrong with IF a person is selling something they truly believe.

McGuff wrote an entire book on a Big 5 workout and performing only one set, but from my understanding, he doesn't perform this routine himself...I wonder why?

Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
For those that have read John's new book. I am curious about sample routine I have seen elsewhere online. I believe the routine is something like a chest press, a pulldown, and a leg press done with a short rest between exercises and the sequence is repeated three times I believe. After listening to a recent interview of his he sure made me think a lot a deeper inroad in a short amount of time. Just curious if he goes into the reasoning of three repeated sequences of the routine I mentioned vs just doing it once?

They are basically just warmup sets. First set is about 50% of 10RM reps at approximately 1/2 cadence with about 30 seconds to one minute between sets. Second set is 75% of 10 RM (same as above). Third set is 100% effort of 10 reps. Rest a minute and move on to next exercise and repeat as above. I don't have the book in front of me, but its based on the Delormes and Watkins method and it is thought that the warmup prepares the body to give an all out effort on the last set. The exercises chosen (but can vary) are chest press, row, leg press. He states you will hit a wall and you will need to vary with different exercises or another protocol after about 6 weeks, you'll hit a new wall with the new protocol in about 6 weeks and will need to change to something different. Seems fairly straight forward.


Thank you for taking the time to post this. In an interview with Lawrence Neal done a few years age, Little made some really good points of what you say he advocates in the book of varying the routine. I can remember thinking at some point how some of the trainers that had given me a lot to think about had all seemed to gravitate to brief, varied training. As far as warm ups, I seem to feel better, especially with leg extensions and leg presses doing some warmups or feeler sets.

Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Equity wrote:
I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.




I know we all have to make a living. But yea I can remember thinking similar to what you say many years ago reading magazine articles by Mentzer and John. They often gave the nuts and bolts of what they were advocating right there! Sure the books had more detail but you could often get the gist from the articles, interviews, etc. So when somebody says they wanted you to buy thier system, well sure they did but I remember reading about Heavy Duty, Power Factor Training, Max Contraction, etc. and later owning some of those books lol. But they had sort of laid a lot of it out there in the articles.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:
I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.




I know we all have to make a living. But yea I can remember thinking similar to what you say many years ago reading magazine articles by Mentzer and John. They often gave the nuts and bolts of what they were advocating right there! Sure the books had more detail but you could often get the gist from the articles, interviews, etc. So when somebody says they wanted you to buy thier system, well sure they did but I remember reading about Heavy Duty, Power Factor Training, Max Contraction, etc. and later owning some of those books lol. But they had sort of laid a lot of it out there in the articles.


I do believe they believe what they are saying. I do not believe they are trying to be dishonest or deceive anyone.
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:
I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.




I know we all have to make a living. But yea I can remember thinking similar to what you say many years ago reading magazine articles by Mentzer and John. They often gave the nuts and bolts of what they were advocating right there! Sure the books had more detail but you could often get the gist from the articles, interviews, etc. So when somebody says they wanted you to buy thier system, well sure they did but I remember reading about Heavy Duty, Power Factor Training, Max Contraction, etc. and later owning some of those books lol. But they had sort of laid a lot of it out there in the articles.

I do believe they believe what they are saying. I do not believe they are trying to be dishonest or deceive anyone.


Yes, I believe they are likely sincere and mistaken. Quite often when people are mistaken, they do don't know it and their convictions are sincere.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Resultsbased wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:

Yes, I believe they are likely sincere and mistaken. Quite often when people are mistaken, they do don't know it and their convictions are sincere.


Wrong is still wrong. There is ample science and empirical evidence to clearly show the benefits of cardiovascular conditioning exercise. HIT is just wrong here, and so much so, that it is inexcusable to put forth literature insinuating that aerobics is useless and resistance training is a superior form of exercise.

The Jewish nation and Roman leaders were sincere in putting Jesus to death. The Crusades were conducted in sincerity to convert people. The German leaders were sincere in WW2 in killing many Jewish people. Joseph Stalin was sincere. Pol Pot was sincere in Cambodia. The South was sincere during the Civil War. America was sincere toward the American Native Indians. And last but not least, politicians are sincere in their desire to rule. How has it all worked out?

Sincere people can be very dangerous.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:
I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.




I know we all have to make a living. But yea I can remember thinking similar to what you say many years ago reading magazine articles by Mentzer and John. They often gave the nuts and bolts of what they were advocating right there! Sure the books had more detail but you could often get the gist from the articles, interviews, etc. So when somebody says they wanted you to buy thier system, well sure they did bu ont I remember reading about Heavy Duty, Power Factor Training, Max Contraction, etc. and later owning some of those books lol. But they had sort of laid a lot of it out there in the articles.

I do believe they believe what they are saying. I do not believe they are trying to be dishonest or deceive anyone.


Yea I think so as well. I always have been very motivated by their analytical style, even if I didn't agree or see things the same way as them. Sort of how I with most things.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

Resultsbased wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:
I will say one thing in regard to John Little (though I don't know him personally), he's honest in his training theories. I can't conceive that he is duplicitous in regard to his training protocols. He doesn't seem that way (dishonest) in a way to make a quick buck. Same with Mentzer. People claim Mike promoted the consolidation thing to make money only... no! I think he really believed it.

John Little and Mike Mentzer are/was intelligent honest guys who contributed to the morass that is the fitness/bodybuilding industry.




I know we all have to make a living. But yea I can remember thinking similar to what you say many years ago reading magazine articles by Mentzer and John. They often gave the nuts and bolts of what they were advocating right there! Sure the books had more detail but you could often get the gist from the articles, interviews, etc. So when somebody says they wanted you to buy thier system, well sure they did but I remember reading about Heavy Duty, Power Factor Training, Max Contraction, etc. and later owning some of those books lol. But they had sort of laid a lot of it out there in the articles.

I do believe they believe what they are saying. I do not believe they are trying to be dishonest or deceive anyone.

Yes, I believe they are likely sincere and mistaken. Quite often when people are mistaken, they do don't know it and their convictions are sincere.


Yes I definitely see what you're saying here. Have you had better results with higher volume and or just different exercise method in general? To be clear I'm just genuinely curious. This is the type of stuff that I really like about a forums/website like this.
Open User Options Menu

tensionstrength

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Resultsbased wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:

Yes, I believe they are likely sincere and mistaken. Quite often when people are mistaken, they do don't know it and their convictions are sincere.


Wrong is still wrong. There is ample science and empirical evidence to clearly show the benefits of cardiovascular conditioning exercise. HIT is just wrong here, and so much so, that it is inexcusable to put forth literature insinuating that aerobics is useless and resistance training is a superior form of exercise.

The Jewish nation and Roman leaders were sincere in putting Jesus to death. The Crusades were conducted in sincerity to convert people. The German leaders were sincere in WW2 in killing many Jewish people. Joseph Stalin was sincere. Pol Pot was sincere in Cambodia. The South was sincere during the Civil War. America was sincere toward the American Native Indians. And last but not least, politicians are sincere in their desire to rule. How has it all worked out?

Sincere people can be very dangerous.


Point well made.
Open User Options Menu

DuzHIT

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
Resultsbased wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
tensionstrength wrote:
Equity wrote:

Yes, I believe they are likely sincere and mistaken. Quite often when people are mistaken, they do don't know it and their convictions are sincere.


Wrong is still wrong. There is ample science and empirical evidence to clearly show the benefits of cardiovascular conditioning exercise. HIT is just wrong here, and so much so, that it is inexcusable to put forth literature insinuating that aerobics is useless and resistance training is a superior form of exercise.

The Jewish nation and Roman leaders were sincere in putting Jesus to death. The Crusades were conducted in sincerity to convert people. The German leaders were sincere in WW2 in killing many Jewish people. Joseph Stalin was sincere. Pol Pot was sincere in Cambodia. The South was sincere during the Civil War. America was sincere toward the American Native Indians. And last but not least, politicians are sincere in their desire to rule. How has it all worked out?

Sincere people can be very dangerous.


HUGE leap going from aerobics are not needed for general health to the Crusades, Nazi's, and the American Civil War. Lighten up, Francis.

Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy