Well, who ever said being a few thousand miles from home would stop me from having a productive workout with high quality equipment?
Heck, these machines are in better condition and more abundant than the ones I have access to back in Orlando!
The workout went as so.
5/17/10 (Stockholm Sweden)
- Nautilus Nitro Leg Press- 495 lbs/ 113 second TUL (time under load) 15 reps
- Nautilus Nitro Chest Press- 185 lbs/ 68 second TUL 6 reps
- Nautilus Nitro Lat Pulldown- 200 lbs/68 second TUL 6 reps
- Nautilus Nitro Overhead Press- 140 lbs/59 second TUL 4 reps
- Nautilus Nitro Mid Row- 155 lbs/48 second TUL 4 reps
- Single Leg Dumbbell heel raises – ~45 lb dumbbell Left=10 reps Right= 10 reps
- Lower Back Work a la Doug Mcguff
Improvements
- Leg press (up)- 39 second TUL increase, 4 repetition increase
- Chest Press (stable)- 5 lb increase, 5 second TUL decrease, 1 repetition decrease
- Nautilus Lat Pulldown (up)- 12 second TUL increase, 1 repetition increase
I haven’t performed the Nautilus Overhead press in some time (in fact I only recently switched back to the Nautilus Chest Press), so nothing to report in there.
Today was the first time ever I’ve had the opportunity to use the Nautilus Mid Row. I liked it, but wasn’t especially impressed, and don’t feel like I’m missing a whole not by not performing a row.
The heel raises were about “stable”. It’s such a tiny movement however that I care more about inroading them than I do seeing the repetition count tick up 1 notch every so often – especially now that I am back to the leg press.
Speaking of the leg press, that time is a bit high. As such, next workout that includes the Nautilus Leg Press, I may do some sort of leg work before hand – even something as simple as sitting against a wall.
What about range of motion?
This wasn’t a picture perfect workout, but if you look closely, I avoid the extreme ranges of motion. As limited as I once was? Not necessarily, but I’m also on better quality equipment - as compared to run down rickety machines and rusty barbells.
What about repetition cadence?
I’m not throwing weights around like the standard gym buffoon – that’s about 95% of the ‘game’ in my opinion. Would a bit slower in this particular workout be better? Probably. Am I concerned that I’m missing out on something, be it safety, results, or otherwise? Nope. Just happy to have access to a nice facility and equipment in a far away country.
What about heel raises?
Check this out if you haven’t seen it yet. Excellent video. (And for the record, my demonstration is not official, please see Bill’s video).
What about the lower back work?
Awesome! Second time I’ve done it (first time was about 2.5 weeks ago). Very simple, very easy to do, no special equipment required. Lower back pain or not, I highly recommend giving a shot. See below and read more here (comments especially).
Anything else of interest?
Of course. Currently I weigh 186 pounds. I am just over 5 feet 9 inches tall. 6 weeks ago I weighed 196 pounds – and have since become stronger.
This was surprisingly easy to pull off. How? My hunch is that my insulin levels are chronically low from eating mostly animals (and some days, just animal products). Even the plant products I eat (super dark chocolate, coconut oil, etc), are rich in saturated fat, and as such, very little carbohydrate is in my diet consistently.
Considering all of this, when I cut my calorie intake from 2,500-3,000 per day, to 1,200-2,000 per day, weight dropped off pretty quickly – the “settings” were right so to speak.
Did I eat more protein?
Nope. My diet is mostly fat (and mostly saturated). Most days of the week I probably eat around 100 grams of protein, sometimes less, rarely much more.
Why? Well, people only need so much protein. Considering this, why eat more than my body requires, and instictively wants me to eat? Doing so would unecessarily spike insulin levels. Fat, basically doesn’t.
Was I starving myself?
Hardly. I was shocked at how easy it was to eat as little as 1,200 calories some days of the week. Literally, in shock. I never thought it would be that simple, even as a fat burner =).
Fasting?
I eat once or twice a day. I’ve done this for a very long time now. Leading up to this workout I had not eaten in nearly 24 hours, and felt great. By the time I did eat, it was over 24 hours between meals. Here’s what I had for my only meal of the day (night time).
- Little bit of moose
- 4 slices of full fat cheese
- Some steak and pork chops fried in butter and coconut oil (only salt and pepper as seasoning)
- 1/3 of a bar of 90% Lindt Dark Chocolate (about 5 grams of carbohydrate)
- 1 medium cup of coffee
- Maybe 300 calories worth of heavy cream in the coffee (about 98% fat)
Tomorrow I might have more meat, as I think the friend I’m staying with brought home some high quality grass fed meat that was very inexpensive here in Stockholm. If not, probably a ton of coffee/cream in the morning, and maybe 8-10 eggs in the afternoon, fried in butter/coconut oil with some cheese/ham thrown in.
Yum.
Hope this has proved useful.
-Anthony/Dream
ps- You can now order my 2009 speech on “Proper Exercise & Nutrition” on DVD, as well as Drew Baye’s 2009 presentation at The 21 Convention. Check this post out for full details.
What a beast! Just out of curiosity, why is your tempo so slow bro? HIT training is about explosive movements, which work fast-twitch muscles. This was actually not HIT but more of an aerobic paced workout, (slow-twitch muscles). I’m sure you realize this though ( =
I think Arthur Jones just rolled over in his grave =)
Interesting, I didn’t realize this is actually “HIT”. I always assumed HIT was an explosive, anaerobic workout. I’m not saying it’s bad, it will definitely get results, but it is by all means aerobic (about 70% of maximum, all-out intensity). I think HIT should be renamed ‘moderately intense training’! ( =
JEFF:
Few, if any, things we do are purely aerobic or anaerobic. Human metabolism isn’t that simplistic. So, what’s your point? Don’t think he’s working hard enough? Be great if you could post a video of yourself performing a HIT workout. Ya know, show us how it’s done.
Joe
Joe, the difference between the two is a jog, compared to a sprint. One is moderate (70% of max heart rate), one is intense (95-100% max heart rate). That’s how I define intensity.
If Anthony were a jogger or marathon runner, his workout would be ideal. For those of us looking for cosmetic results or who compete in anaerobic sports, an explosive workout is faster and more efficient.
With that said, I will film my version of an “HIT” workout in the next week or so and post it on youtube for you guys
OK, so you are defining intensity based on HR. Well, how in the world do you know what his HR was in the video to claim that it is 70% of max? OR, are you suggesting that slow movements cannot elevate HR above 70%??
Just curious, do you train people (other than yourself) on a regular basis? You are claiming to know what is ideal for a broad range of goals. Just trying to qualify your position. How many people have you helped with marathon training, physique enhancement, etc.??
I will NOT qualify myself. I am not here to steal Anthony/Dream’s thunder. Just to correct him on his BS.
P.S. It is obvious his heartrate is no higher than 70-75% of max just by how slow he is moving. No where near an explosive, sprinting pace.
Jeff Yost
“It is obvious his heartrate is no higher than 70-75% of max just by how slow he is moving.”
Aright, not gonna lie, this one was a little painful to read.
It was blunt. I apologize.
No dude! lol
Ah, never mind. You’ll get it if and when you try a workout like this.
LOL Dream trust me when I say, I’ve done more than enough workouts like ‘this’, and it is far too moderate. I’m well beyond that level of simplicity. INTENSITY is the key factor as Drew Bayes says. This is by NO MEANS an intense workout.
You get what you train for. I’m not looking to be a half-speed robot ( =
BE EXPLOSIVE!
Didn’t think so. The only thing obvious is that you are uninformed or misinformed about this particular subject. Not a huge deal . . . keep your head in the game and continue learning.
Joe,
I am a NASM certified trainer with an extensive background working with a wide range of clients, from triathletes, to weekend warriors (like yourself, I presume), to cagefighters, to senior citizens just looking to get back in shape.
In addition, I am a professional athlete who competes in serious, high-level events. Though my credentials are beside the point. My FACTS speak for themselves. I am telling you Anthony’s workout should be more intense. It is fine for you, and other average guys, but for myself, let’s just say I would not get far in my career with that simple of a workout. Take care
You are not stating facts, they are opinions. Your experience is relevant, in that your experiences help shape your opinions. Without the privilege of a broader scope (in this case training more than just yourself), your opinions can become skewed . . . only reason I brought it up. Thanks for clarifying.
Now, I don’t disagree that intensity should be high. Watching Anthony’s video, I cannot tell what amount of effort he is exerting. Is he going all-out? There’s just no way to quantify intensity by watching a video.
Explosive movements are not required to achieve 90% MaxHR (this is how you defined high intensity).
Further, you cannot judge the effectiveness of a routine based on one workout. Intensity is not the only consideration. Progression, nutrition, genetics and more factor into that equation. A moderately intense workout routine can yield better results than a balls to the wall routine if nutrition is lacking, or if progression is hindered by inadequate recovery, etc.
It’s not a simple as you are trying to make it. High level athletes tend to make the mistake of thinking that whatever works for them must be what everyone else needs. If Anthony’s routine is working, why does he need more intensity (yet), or explosive movements, or anyything else?
Hi Joe, I reviewed my notes and the anaerobic threshold actually begins to occur between 85-90% of max heart rate. What this means is, it takes really fast, vigorous movements to reach this rate.
Another way of looking at it is Type I and Type II muscle fibers. Type I (slow-twitch) are active below the anaerobic threshold. Type II (fast-twitch) fibers are activated once the anaerobic threshold is reached.
So it’s just a matter of which type of muscle we are looking to build. Dream is definitely working until muscle failure, but only of Type I fibers. (so it can be argued his workout is of max inntensity– of Type I).
He would benefit if he alternated his next workout to work Type II fibers, in order to be well-rounded. (Strength Endurance, compared to Strength Power). Hope that clears it up! ( =
Jeff, you seem completely uninformed on “high intensity training”. Have you read Body by Science? Also, check this site out for mountains of free writing.
http://arthurjonesexercise.com/
As for the intensity of this workout… uh, you should try it sometime =D.
No, I haven’t read it.
Dude it’s like required Dream kool-aid reading. Get with the program man! =)
I don’t drink koolaid, but I will look into it bro.
No offense but if you are so well educated as you claim you should have a solid grasp of what HIT is. Considering that HIT is promoted in some form by ACSM, ACE, YMCA of the USA, and many other training and certification organizations. A good trainer should never just assume anything, they should do the research and if they are unsure of a topic they probably shouldn’t comment.
In regards to your comment about the anaerobic threshold below, this is true if we are discussing exercise specific to the “aerobic” category. However, weight training is anaerobic and relies on the phosphagen systems (ATP-CP & anaerobic glycolysis) first. Of course you are aware that these system cover the activity for the first 3 minutes. After that time the aerobic system takes over. I would suggest you review your notes on that if you are unsure. As long as the muscles are fatigued within the 3 minute time-frame they are working in the anaerobic zone regardless of the rep speed. That being said, an anaerobic workout can easily create aerobic effects by us simply increasing the intensity of work performed and performing that work in a continuous fashion such as moving from one exercise to the next with little or no rest.
Intensity in HIT circles is defined by the amount of stimulus that is provided to the muscles during each set. This is generally demonstrated by using proper form, controlled rep speeds, and going to momentary muscular failure. it’s not about explosively throwing a weight around or moving weight as fast as possible. While this could be considered an increase in intensity by some it doesn’t guarantee a proper stimulus for the muscle, since momentum generally results in less time under tension and an increase of force to the joints and connective tissue.
“Of course you are aware that these system cover the activity for the first 3 minutes. After that time the aerobic system takes over.”
Wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong. Anaerobic threshold is deemed by heartrate, which is deemed by energy requirements, as Nicky explains.
“I would suggest you review your notes on that if you are unsure.”
It sounds like you are unsure of yourself, find someone else to project your insecurities on to.
“Wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong. Anaerobic threshold is deemed by heartrate, which is deemed by energy requirements, as Nicky explains.”
Actually far from it…
You are describing “anaerobic threshold” which pertains to “aerobic” exercise. Here is a direct quote from the ACE certification textbook-
“the anaerobic threshold corresponds to the upper limit of sustainable AEROBIC exercise and it generally occurs in the range of 50-80% of maximum effort.”
Again you might need to refer to your notes to catch up. Here is a link that I quickly found with a simple search-
http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/anaerobic.threshold.html
A good trainer doesn’t confuse aerobic and anaerobic exercise. I hope people don’t pay you for your services.
You win. I know nothing ( =.
Honestly though if this is what they teach you in ‘body by science’ I will pass. I will post MY workout online, so you can see how a champ trains.
MAXIMUM HEART RATE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED IN SLOW MOTION.
Dream is basically at a jog speed in this workout. THAT, is how I assessed his HR. Sprinting trumps jogging any day.
( =
Speed of movement is not the only thing that determines muscle fiber recruitment . . . the order of muscle fiber recruitment is determined by load. If Anthony is using a heavy enough resistance, the fast twitch fibers will be recruited at some point during the set. Speed of movement is also not the only thing that determines HR elevation. HR elevates in response to work performed, need for oxygen in peripheral musculature, anxiety, even popping ephedrine can elevate HR. Slow movements and in fact no movement (isometrics) can elevate HR greatly (near maximally). This would be self-evident if attempted.
And even if your made-up muscle physiology “facts” were true, Anthony and most non-elite strength and power athletes, are Type I dominant or at best an even mix. So, a style of exercise that “targeted” only the Type II fibers would be ridiculous, as it would ignore the majority of available MUs.
“So, a style of exercise that “targeted” only the Type II fibers would be ridiculous, as it would ignore the majority of available MUs.”
You’re basically saying sprinting is ridiculous and at this point, have lost all credibility.
Jeff
First, you took the comment out of context. Second, sprinting alone would not lead to full leg development (at least for the majority of people, who are not type II dominant). Even Olympic sprinters do more than just sprint. So, my point remains, if all one ever does is target the fast twitch fibers, they would be neglecting a lot of MUs.
Stop with the credibility BS . . . you have effectively flip flopped your position, made up definitions, tried to re-invent muscle physiology and even put some of the most backward statements in ALL CAPS (fully exposing your ‘knowledge’ of this subject). . . and I’ve lost credibility? You’re funny!
“You’re funny!”
Thanks ( =.
My new definition of intensity:
Working until muscle failure no matter the type of muscle stressed.
I think even Dream will agree on this one ( 8
—Jeff Yost
Intensity = Maximum Force.
I wish someone would take the time to write down the definition to every word . . . maybe they could put them all in a book, in alphabetical order so it would be real easy to reference. I bet they’d sell like a million copies . . .
Jeff, as a general comment regarding the discussion of this thread, I agree with Joe’s ideas and not your ideas. From my viewpoint, you’re just regurgitating mainstream exercise views, which are misguided at best and at worst (and more commonly) detrimental to best results, safety, and so on.
I suggest you re-read Drew’s blog at http://baye.com
Also
“I’ve done more than enough workouts like ‘this’, and it is far too moderate.”
If you truly had performed a workout “like this”, the last thing you would be criticizing is the intensity of it, not even, but especially as is seen in the video from: NOT grimacing, NOT breath holding, and NOT flailing about “explosively” as you like to call it.
Performing those things is a sign of someone that is either practicing a sport, or has no idea how to exercise properly – or worse yet, a Frankenstein combination of the two.
Anthony, for Joggers and other aerobic athletes (soccer players, triathletes, etc.) and those looking for simply cosmetic results like enhanced definition, your workout is sufficient. However, for Cagefighters, Olympic Sprinters, Football/Rugby players and Men, it is completely inadequate, too slow paced. And boring
No, it’s not dude, and like nutrition, repeating it over and over isn’t going to make it so. The principles of proper exercise are universal. I’ve discussed this before
http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/08/12/strength-training-superior-to-p90x-cardio-crossfit-functional-group-exercise-fitness-classes/
You’re confusing (and attempting to combine) skill training with exercise. That’s always a bad idea. And why does it matter if a workout is exciting, boring, or somewhere in between? Have you ever tried the workout?
“Hence, there is no “one ultimate way” to exercise- in the field of the first 3 principles of brief, intense, and infrequent.”
You are contradicting yourself. By mistake, I presume.
By the way, your jumprope skill is impressive! You would make a good boxer. On a side note, it was funny you were doing that like hardcore ape movement, then the hot blonde in the red shirt walks in, and you just start jumping regularly. Hahahaha, good shit! ( =
That’s what you got from the article? Way to change the subject entirely.
BTW, were you joking about the boxing comment? What possible correlation did that video have with being a good boxer?
Soccer is not an aerobic sport.
Strength and size are built in the gym, the rest must be accomplished on the field. Athletes spend a considerable amount of time and energy translating their strength into athletic movements and conditioning their bodies for their specific endeavor. This doesn’t happen under a bench press bar. Football players are made on the field; sprinters on the track, etc. Actually, exercise isn’t required at all, though most athletes could benefit from increased strength. Whether the style of exercise is slow or not is irrelevant, so long as the athlete is practicing their sport dynamically and precisely.
BTW, I checked my notes and muscles don’t get bored.
“Anthony, for Joggers and other aerobic athletes (soccer players, triathletes, etc.) and those looking for simply cosmetic results like enhanced definition, your workout is sufficient. However, for Cagefighters, Olympic Sprinters, Football/Rugby players and Men, it is completely inadequate, too slow paced. And boring”
Considering that over the years many NFL teams have used HIT as well as many other athletes I guess they would beg to differ. Do a search for Steve Preston. He is a HIT proponent that trains grappling athletes at various levels from high school to MMA athletes. And in regards to HIT being “boring” I think you are confusing exercise with recreation. Exercise is about adaptive responses / results not about having a good time. Recreation is something that people do for fun or to avoid boredom. Again, a good trainer knows the difference.
I love this blog =)
Me too
Hey folks, been awhile since I commented but thought I’d chime in:
First, on the Speed vs. Weight discussion, I think it is important to remember that
1) Ultimately, muscles do one thing only: generate *force* to move a body at rest. (Newton’s First Law of Motion) When we say High-intensity in relationship to muscles, we ought to mean high-force, physically speaking.
and that
2) F = m * a (Newton’s Second Law of Motion) – Force = Mass (More weight) * Acceleration (Faster exercises). If we want to workout at a high-level of intensity (force) we can therefore increase EITHER mass or acceleration of the workout.
The conversation is going in circles here because BOTH are valid.
The reason why McGuff, and I believe Dream, prefer increasing weight rather than speed is because this keeps momentum of the exercise under control which means it is much safer for our bodies (especially joints) in the short and long-term.
To go further, the only reason that your heart rate goes up when running is because, via f=ma, you have increased the force produced by your muscles. Jogging does so more than walking, running more than jogging, sprinting more than running. This is why sprinting is “high-intensity”, it provides the maximum force on muscles via acceleration.
When one suggests that there is this unequivocal, unparalleled link between speed/endurance training and heart rate, I often wonder what they think is actually happening in the body. What do they think is the *cause* of that increased heart rate at a physiological level?
Heart rate does not go up as a result of speed.
Heart rate goes up as a result of *energy requirements*. Energy used by muscles to produce force. In order to harvest this energy from our reserves, we need oxygen so we breathe harder. And in order for the oxygen to get to our muscles, it has to be transported on hemoglobin through the bloodstream, so our heart rate has to go up.
More energy requirements = Higher heart rate. It does not care about speed, just energy.
It’s important to realize, then, that “fast-twitch”, “slow-twitch”, etc is a misnomer and over-simplified in most discussions. “Fast” twitch fibers (of which there are classifications within) exert more *force* and are quick to fatigue and slower to recover.
This is the premise of Body by Science. Do exercises that use enough force (in a safe way: slowly) to recruit your fast-twitch muscles, fatigue them and then *give them adequate time to recover*. This seems physically and physiologically sound to me.
Discussions and disagreements are great, but the best ones would be on those terms.
Jeff, I have a ton of respect for personal experience and obviously if what you do seems to be working with you and your guys, that’s great.
However, the fact that the group you work with, cagefighters, olympic athletes, etc, is genetically predisposed to extremely high-performance means that your personal experience is skewed.
This is why open-mindedness, discussion and objective science is so important.
Nicky,
This is a great post, although I disagree with this statement:
“The conversation is going in circles here because BOTH are valid.”
The conversation is not going in circles BECAUSE both are valid, it’s going in circles BECAUSE one individual will not accept the fact that both are valid. There was never a dispute that acceleration plays a role in muscle fiber recruitment . . . only that slow movements could also recruit fast twitch fibers, via increased load.
Hey Nicky, thanks for the clarification. That info on physics was exactly what I was looking for and you explained it flawlessly ( =.
As far as my credentials, though I have worked with quite a few of the elite athletes you mentioned, I made it clear I have worked with many standard everyday clients as well. In fact, the majority of my clients are non-athletes, and can’t be pushed to the limit quite yet. (Soon!)
Just one point I want to cover–
Newtons’s Second Law of Motion (Force = Mass x Acceleration). Thanks again for stating this by the way, as this basically clears it all up.
Nicky clarified intensity is predominantly determined by (force). I agree, Newton agrees. He then stated force is increased by increasing either mass OR acceleration, which is true, but he failed to mention THE key aspect.
In order to reach the HIGHEST level of force [power], mass AND acceleration must BOTH be pushed to the absolute limit. Mass AND acceleration. That means only doing one or the other is only unlocking half of our potentials. Can’t argue with Newton’s Law ( =.
Thanks, Nicky. I learned a lot form your post.
If I ate corn, I’d be grabbing my popcorn right now.
With extra dairy-fat butter. Mmmmm
I would have a hard time resisting home-made kettle corn right now. Something about sugar-encrusted corn…
Which gets me thinking, could you make kettle corn with HFCS?
Kind of incestuous when you think about it.
Jeff,
Thanks for the kind words! It’s helpful to know you deal with a range of clients, I hadn’t really caught that. That being said, then general point may stand. Bias comes in infinite forms – I am as biased of any, of course.
I’ve found your comments to be pretty damn insightful myself, even if I at times disagree here and there. I especially recall an interesting discussion related to fighting on Dream’s post about his reading list, haha.
–
“In order to reach the HIGHEST level of force [power], mass AND acceleration must BOTH be pushed to the absolute limit. Mass AND acceleration.”
I see how one would come to this conclusion, but I see things a bit differently:
The level of force is not bound by the m * a side of the equation, but by my own muscle’s maximum F on the left of the equation.
If this weren’t the case, I would lift the same amount of weight but faster. Fuck it, I’d lift twice that weight, twice as fast. No, I’d lift a 747 at 1000 m/s^2!
You see what I’m saying? The limit is the force I’m capable of producing.
The goal, as I see it, is to find an amount of force, ‘F’, that I can move but has completely fatigued my fast-twitch muscles within 90-120 seconds (such that I experience failure).
Now I need a workout that provides that amount force on my muscle in a safe way. A component of safe, in my opinion, means slow, deliberate, controlled motion. So that helps me define my ‘a’ as pretty low.
That means that my ‘m’ needs to be pretty high.
Say I figure all that out and double ‘a’ to make it tougher? That’s fine, but the additional force just means I will fatigue earlier than my goal – perhaps before my fast-twitch muscles are fully recruited.
This is what makes sense to me, at least – interested to hear what others think!
-Nicky
Well said, Nicky.
Makes me think of another point regarding safety. Many proponents of slow exercise tout the method as a high intensity, low force method. I disagree. Low force is not the objective, nor necessarily desirable. Controlled force is what I’m after. As you pointed out above, I need a certain amount of force in order to achieve a max (or near max) effort within a given timeframe. A benefit of slowing down a little is ensuring the ability to align peak resistance torque with the position of peak muscle torque (ala MAeX). There’s simply no way to control all the elements if you are accelerating ‘explosively’. The force then may be mis-applied and injuries are more likely to occur.
Additionally, some exercises present the possibilty of impact forces factoring into the equation. Again, if movements are slowed down a little, there’s a greater chance of avoiding or limiting the added (unnecessary) force.
I think everything is being over-simplified here.
F=ma is too simple of an equation to explain exercise intensity, just like E=cals in – cals out doesn’t explain obesity (ref: Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes). As normal humans, we look for simplistic answers to complicated problems, which is an extremely dangerous, and unfortunately common, fallacy (ref: The Black Swan by @nntaleb).
You also have to take into account the physiological processes your body goes through and the neuromuscular skill that increases over time specific to a certain exercise. For example, when a is increased, momentum comes into play, which could affect the quality of inroading and other fatigue into the muscles. Also, from Supertraining p.26, “Training with barbell squats for 8 weeks increased 1 RM squatting strength markedly, but caused a much smaller improvement in seated isometric leg press (Thorstensson et al, 1976).”
A very specific example of a affecting fatigue, which I recently found in Supertraining by Mel Siff, is the idea that concentric contractions are less efficient in producing fatigue than isometric contractions because concentric movement allows blood vessels to dilate, thus flushing out lactic acid and delivering oxygen, however minuscule the amount, to the muscle. However, isometric training seems to only produce strength increases at the joint angle being trained (p.27). Protocols such as SuperSlow and Body By Science circumvent this conundrum by advocating slow and controlled movements, thus simultaneously increasing muscle inroading and strength at different joint movements. This could be termed isokinetically quasi-isometric, respectively meaning “constant velocity of motion” and “constant load [aka isotonic] only over a very small range under very slow… conditions of movement for a limited time (since fatigue rapidly decreases tension)” (p.50).
Supertraining is a pretty fucking amazing book that’s organized like a physiology textbook, includes ideas from physics & biomechanics, and condenses everything that pertains only to athletic training. Absolutely phenomenal. It includes unbiased evidence for and against both extensive (low intensity, high volume; JEFF’s camp) and intensive (high intensity, low volume; Dream’s camp) training methods. Of course, it was recommended by Tim Ferriss. In any case, read it if you find yourself becoming confused about the intricacies of exercise. I know I’m confused like ALL THE TIME.
* * *
Interesting evidence for extended rest time, from Supertraining, p. 34 (emphasis not mine):
“Moreover, muscle tissue adapts to increased loading within several days, whereas the connective tissues (such as tendons, ligaments and joint capsules) or systems which contain a high proportion of connective tissue (such as bone and cartilage) only display significant adaptation and hypertrophy after several weeks or months of progressive loading (McDonagh & Davies, 1984). It is vital that the prescription of training takes into account the different rates of all the systems involved and avoids overtraining the systems with the slowest rates of adaption.”
And, directly succeeding that comment, is very logical reasoning for slow-movement protocols (emphasis mine):
“Gradual increase in training load and avoidance of impulsive or explosive methods is essential for minimizing the occurrence of connective tissue soreness and injury, particularly during the general physical preparation phase (GPP) and by relative novices to strength training”
* * *
To each his own, but to me, high intensity strength training.
Ben, intensity IS very difficult to define. And you only made it worse (=.
Over-complication is by far NOT the answer, and it sounds like you have just spewed out several random source’s opinions rather than creating your own, unique opinion on the matter.
Obviously doing squats will not improve a seated leg press, because you get what you train for. I’m not sure you are even aware of what an “isometric” contraction is, but muscles perform 3 types of contractions:
Concentric (moving against the weight), Eccentric (moving with the weight), and isometric (no movement). In my opinion it is best to contract each muscle in all three ways for optimal growth. Nothing else even makes sense.
I don’t know where you defined my ‘camp’ from, but it is completely inaccurate. My beliefs are HIGH INTENSITY, HIGHEST-POSSIBLE VOLUME before death by exhaustion. Obviously, I’m a professional fighter. Anything less is amateur-level training. That said, I lift once per day, working a different muscle group on a three-day split. Fourth day is recovery, but I fight, wrestle, and sprint/run every day as well.
For the record, My ‘camp’ and Dream’s ‘camp’ are arguably one in the same, even if we don’t see eye to eye on “Health & Fitness” with different levels of ‘intensity’.
I suggest you stop spitting out others theories, and begin to get in-field experience of what actually WORKS FOR YOU. In turn, create your own, indivudual opinion to share based on your results. Arguing about theory won’t make you physically stronger, especially arguing others theories in which you admitted you don’t even understand.
The most logical way to lift weights is by constantly mixing it up and contracting muscles in all three ways, and in every plane of motion (frontal, lateral, transverse), while working towards ifting heavier weights each time.
1) Read The Black Swan. This is not over-complicating, it’s stating facts. The problem is oversimplification. I’m sure we can both agree that cals in – cals out is not how our bodies work with regard to nutrition — its not that simple. Neither is proper exercise.
2) I know what an isometric contraction is. BBS uses it in a way to extend TUL and increase inroading. Arthur Jones used it in the Colorado Experiment in a similar fashion. I never advocated using only one type of muscle contraction, I was just stating some facts about each. In fact, BBS uses the 3 you mentioned to a very high degree of efficiency.
3) If it is high volume, it is low intensity. If you try to combine the two you end up with moderate volume and moderate intensity. This isn’t opinion, its the laws of physics, as Nicky explained above.
3.5) Let’s remember that we are talking about proper health and fitness, not sport specific conditioning. You are a fighter, and fighters are extremely fit and could easily kick the shit out of me (and have, I’ve fought guys with ten years of training and obviously lost), but just because something worked for you doesn’t mean it’s best for everyone. Again, read The Black Swan; it will improve your critical thinking and logic skills to superhuman levels.
4) I’ve been tracking every workout for the past 2 years, have tried Rippetoe, Stronglifts, Smolov (which was way too advanced for me, I’ll admit), CrossFit, and Pavel’s Kettlebell training. Stronglifts actually worked the best for me in terms of strength gained, but BBS is the most efficient, most scientifically and logically sound, and yields the greatest ROI for my time.
I don’t want to spend hours in the gym. I just want to be lean, healthy, and strong enough that I won’t be held back from doing something because I’m too weak. I want to live long enough to play baseball in the yard with my grandchildren, travel in my sixties, climb a mountain in Italy and spend an afternoon painting the landscape. From what science I’ve found, putting my body under constant stress and raising stress hormones, whether induced by exercise, sleep deprivation, spiked insulin from carbohydrate, or all-nighters finishing that damn report, is a sure-fire way to cut my life short. (Sidenote: insulin sensitivity is a common trait amongst centenarians.)
5) I never gave opinions, just straight facts.
6) The logical thing to do is to produce positive physiological adaptation by working the muscle (or rather, the entire body) in the most efficient way possible. BBS investigates this.
Jeff, I have great respect for fighters, but don’t fall into the logical fallacy of thinking that what works for you is best for the general health and fitness of everyone. I know you have trained many clients, but you’re still operating under the Narrative Fallacy.
That said, one of my goals for my 4 years of college is to learn BJJ and Mauy Thai, mainly for self-defense purposes for when I travel. And also for the body control and presence that martial artists have. I find it absolutely extraordinary that they can react that quickly and still make sense of what’s going on.
* * *
Okay, I’ve stated my views and defended myself. I am now done with these stupid internet flame wars.
I’m staying out of this one, sounds like a good debate with a physics expert ( =.
They didn’t let me into AP Physics in High School. Wasn’t “good enough at tests.”
That’s a whole nuther topic!
Well now that everyone’s put their dicks away…
Great video, hilarious commentary, and damn you have fine legs!
Interesting workout, i thought lately you have just been using freeweights using MAE style and BBS concepts, i haven’t used machines in a long time, my workouts for a long time have been at home, might try eating less and would probably help with fat loss.
I’ll have to check out the lower back workout, as i have back pain from time to time, ive been getting steady albeit slow progress on my weights, increased reps, but am focusing more and more on intensity as well as form, with a slow cadence and tempo. Might try posting a video or few of my workouts lately, still doing HIT just not posting results for past several months. So do you think freeweights or machines are better, or it just mainly depend on how they are used?
Would be great to train or get consultation from Drew Baye or the gym that Doug Mcguff uses in Seattle, since thats only a few hours north, but thats when I get some more money coming in.
I had for a long while but have been gradually shifting back to machines for a few weeks now.
“So do you think freeweights or machines are better, or it just mainly depend on how they are used?”
They are just tools, depends on how they are used.
Did our paleo caveman ancestors workout with man made machines? Fuck no. Fuck no. Almost as lame as p90x! To each his/her own.
Dumbells, Barbells, Medicine/Stability balls– Far Superior.
Our ancestors didn’t practice a whole lot of abortion either. Morals/politics aside, maybe we should just start throwing babies off cliffs 300 style. Please think before you post Jeff.
I think that exercise in any form is likely beneficial if done correctly.
Maybe, but probably not.
http://baye.com/something-is-not-always-better-than-nothing/
Guy in the speedo– first red flag ( =.
I don’t like how drew tries to frame “exercise” as lifting weights.
“Did our paleo caveman ancestors workout with man made machines? Fuck no. Fuck no. Almost as lame as p90x! To each his/her own.
Dumbells, Barbells, Medicine/Stability balls– Far Superior.”
You are correct…but they didn’t “exercise” either. Since their everyday life was about survival the necessary stimulus for strength and fitness was part of life. However, society today is a totally different story. Because of conveniences of modern life exercise is mandatory. With that said, as long as a person uses common sense exercise principles it doesn’t matter what modality is used as long as that modality doesn’t violate basic safety procedures. Example- attempting barbell squats on a stability ball doesn’t fit the bill.
“Example- attempting barbell squats on a stability ball doesn’t fit the bill.”
Not for you. For myself, a World Champion, I will train for this. ( “
Jeff,
I see where you are coming from, and maybe a better way to put it would be the “best kind of exercise” is strength training.
If you were to take all forms of physical activity and subtract everything that isn’t exercise, what are you left with? Take out recreational activities, manual labor work, rehabilitation, sports/competition, training (athletic, combat, etc), eliminate them all from the equation. You are left with activities performed with ONLY the intent to improve health and fitness (with no other reason to perform them). Now pick the most effective, the safest and the least time-consuming form (assuming a normal, healthy body). What do you have? It would be hard to make a case for something other than strength training.
It just sounds like you need someone to argue with, Joe A, as I haven’t even discussed this topic. There are far better ways to get validation, and it begins with lowering your ego. Take care.
Jeff,
Argue? I was agreeing with you when you said:
“I don’t like how drew tries to frame “exercise” as lifting weights.”
Not sure where the validation and ego statements came from? I was just adding to the discussion . . . sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Now you got me all self conscious. Hope I don’t come across like an a-hole…
I’ve been using Tim’s HIT method of 5/5 sec cadence, aiming for 8-12 reps and a 5min rest period between each exercise. I’m using Tim’s model mainly because I workout by myself in my basement with a squat rack and barbells, thus I need the rest period to reload the plates and I can’t easily measure TUL myself.
I really wanna get into hardcore BBS training, but the gyms around me don’t have very nice machines and I don’t even have the money to pay for membership. That brings me to my question: is the rest period between exercises that important? How long do you allow for rest (seeing as you cut it out of the video)?
Thanks man. Have fun in sweden.
See here for ideas on ‘cardio’ and rest time between exercises (short version: I do not believe it matters too much, but it “could” be beneficial)
http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/15/the-down-low-on-cardio-and-latest-thoughts/
Free weights are excellent when performed in a correct, congruent fashion
This is your man for the job
http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/11/05/interview-with-bill-de-simone-author-of-moment-arm-exercise/
I just did the lower back exercise and felt amazing, its a bit similar to what is done in alexander technique (i got the exercise from stylelife, though its more for posture) and in yoga. I first started losing weight or getting serious about losing weight when my weight ballooned and my lower back started hurting more and more, it does from time to time now but not too often.
I saw on some of the new body by science, and they have a new protocol called max pyramid i believe, what do you think of that and have you heard much of that? You been able to check out the body by science question and answer book yet?
Will be ordering and reviewing it asap once Im back state side.
Hey Dream,
Haven’t posted anything here for awhile. Hope you are doing well. Looking forward to seeing what Drew, Bill, and Dr. McGuff had to say at the 21convention. Have you had a chance to try John Little’s Max Pyramid protocol?
Good to see you on TDL donnie. I too am excited to re-watch the speeches =). I’ll have access to them this Monday.
As for the Max Pyramid, no, I have not had a chance to try it yet. At some point in time I may read further into it and give it a shot, but, perhaps not as well. This year is packed with non stop travel and as a result it will be difficult to try anything like that over a meaningful period of time.