[ttwarrior1]

HIGH INTENSITY STRENGTH TRAINING:
MORE AEROBIC THAN "AEROBICS"


by Greg Anderson

The most common question asked by our new personal training clients at Ideal Exercise is: "Where are the treadmills and stationary bicycles?". Most have never heard that great benefits to the cardiovascular system, commonly referred to as "aerobic fitness", can be had through a program of high-intensity strength training with no additional steady-state activity. And while I do certainly spend a great deal of my time explaining why such benefits are certainly possible (and more desirable as it is much more efficient to achieve muscular and cardiovascular benefits in a single program) it usually takes a few workouts before the client understands the depth and magnitude of cardiovascular involvement possible from strength training. As one of my trainees remarked recently (after a set of squats to complete failure followed by 20 seconds of effort against the bar in the bottom position): "My God! (gasp, gasp...) this is more aerobic than aerobics..."
Although (as I shall explain) the statement that high-intensity strength training is "more aerobic than aerobics" is not entirely correct, such an observation on the trainee's part does underscore the profound effect of intense muscular contractions on the cardiovascular system. The current mania for "aerobics" in the fitness industry stems from a misunderstanding of two factors: The function of the cardiovascular system, and the identification of skeletal muscle as the window through which optimum loading of the entire metabolic system(s) --including the cardiovascular system--takes place.
Pictured at left, Mike Mentzer Supervising Mr. Olympia's High Intensity/Bodybuilding Training


A great deal of the misunderstanding of the function of the cardiovascular system arises from the use of the word "aerobics" to describe a particular exercise protocol. The term aerobic denotes a metabolic pathway within the body which yields energy through the oxidation of fat and carbohydrate. Literally, aerobic means: "with oxygen". Most of us have been taught that to exercise aerobically is to perform long duration steady-state activities which produce an elevated heart rate. Note that said participation of the heart and lungs is entirely dependent on muscular activity. Such low intensity activity is said to primarily stress the aerobic metabolic pathway and allow the body to use primarily fat as a fuel source. Additionally, "aerobics" is thought to provide an increase in endurance and provide a protective effect against coronary artery disease. While I will certainly agree that there are some marginal benefits to the cardiovascular system from a program of such activity, the reality is simply that these effects could be achieved in a safer and more efficient manner through the use of high-intensity strength training.
Many bodybuilders that I have spoken to believe that the inclusion of some type of "aerobic" activity in their program is necessary to achieve optimum leanness. ******* out to them that from a bodybuilding standpoint, the issues at hand are both the amount of fat that you don't have and the amount of muscle that you do. Since it is very easy to overtrain by including too many exercises or too much additional activity, it seems that any slight fat loss achieved through steady state activity could be more than offset by compromising the ability to build (or even maintain) muscle as a result of overtraining. In fact, research on fat loss performed by Ellington Darden Ph.D. (and duplicated by Ideal Exercise) showed best results with the combination of high-intensity strength training with a reduced calorie diet and the total exclusion of steady state activities. As Mike Mentzer has pointed out, the body only has a limited amount of adaptation energy. It is not as if you have 100 units of adaptation energy for building muscle and 100 units available for increasing endurance; you have 100 units, period!
The following is a reprint of an article which we hand out to all of our new clients at Ideal Exercise...

Why not aerobics...?

• "Aerobic" activity is not the most effective form of exercise for fat-loss. Steady state activities such as running, cycling, dancing, etc. do not burn a significant number of calories! One pound of fat can fuel the body for up to 10 hours of continuous activity. "Aerobic" activity is simply inefficient for this purpose!
• The most important contribution that exercise makes to a fat-loss program is the maintenance of muscle tissue while fat is lost. Strength training is the only reliable method of maintaining muscle tissue. Aerobics can actually cause you to lose muscle tissue!
• Some supposed "experts" have suggested that the important effect of aerobics is that of increasing metabolic rate. Our question is this: If "aerobic" activities burn few calories while you are doing them, then how many calories will they burn (calories burned = metabolic rate) when you are not doing them? The answer to that question is: very few...
• On the subject of metabolic rate: Every pound of muscle added to the body of an adult female will require an additional 75-100 calories per day just to keep it alive. The average person, through a program of proper strength training can add enough muscle to burn an additional 3500 calories per week (1 lb. of fat = 3500 calories). The amount of strength training required to effect such a change is less than one hour per week.
• "Aerobic" activities are dangerous! Running is an extremely high-force activity that is damaging to knees, hips, and back. Aerobic dance is probably worse. And so-called "low impact" classes or activities like stationary cycling are not necessarily low-force. Don't be fooled by the genetic exceptions who protest that they have never been injured-- overuse injuries are cumulative and we are often not aware that we have them until it is too late. In time, the enthusiastic aerobic-dance participant or jogger will probably pay the price for all that "healthy" activity. If that price is a decrease or loss of mobility in one's later years, then "aerobics" have effectively shortened the individual's life-span. Loss of mobility is often the first step toward loss of all biological competence.

Don't I need some form of aerobics to insure good health?
What about my heart?

• Remember: The function of the cardiovascular system is to support the muscular system--not the other way around. If the human body is logical (and we assume that it is) then increases in muscular strength (from a proper strength-training program) will correlate to improvements in cardiovascular function.
• You will notice that the word "aerobic" has been set off in quotation marks when it refers to an activity performed for exercise. There is a good reason for this emphasis: There is no such thing as aerobic exercise! We have all heard that activities such as jogging and cycling are "aerobic" while those such as weight training and sprinting are "anaerobic". These distinctions are not 100% correct. The words aerobic and anaerobic refer to metabolic pathways which operate continuously at all times and in all activities. You cannot "turn off" either of these pathways by merely increasing or decreasing the intensity of an activity.
• A word on intensity: Few of the "experts" who promote aerobics will debate our last statement. What they do say, however, is that gentle low-intensity activities use the aerobic pathway to a greater degree than they use the anaerobic pathway. We agree with this statement completely and feel that it should be taken to its logical conclusion: The most "aerobic" activity that a human being can engage in is sleeping!
• Consider this: Dr. Kenneth Cooper (author of Aerobics, The New Aerobics, Aerobics for Women), the US. Air Force Cardiologist who coined the term "aerobics" (meaning a form of exercise) and has promoted their use for over 25 years now admits that he was wrong! According to Dr. Cooper, further research has shown that there is no correlation between aerobic endurance performance and health, longevity, or protection against heart-disease. He will admit, however, that such activities do carry with them a great risk of injury. Further, he admits that gross-overuse activities such as running may be so damaging to the body as to be considered carcinogenic.
• Irving Dardik, MD, former vascular surgeon, contends that: "The basic concept of aerobics conditioning is wrong." He also contends that the best way to train the vascular system is to build flexibility into its response by using short bouts of elevation followed by sudden recovery, then demanding activity again.
• Elevated heart rate is not an indicator of exercise intensity, exercise effect, or exercise value. It is quite possible to experience an elevated pulse, labored breathing, and profuse sweating without achieving valuable exercise. Intense emotional experiences commonly cause these symptoms without a shred of exercise benefit.
• Even if an elevated pulse is necessary for cardiovascular conditioning (we do not doubt that pulse elevation may be necessary, but we do not believe that it should be the emphasis of a conditioning program) remember that some of the highest heart-rates on record were achieved during Nautilus research performed at West Point. The West Point cadets commonly experienced heart rates in excess of 220 beats per minute during Nautilus exercise. These pulse rates were maintained for periods of 20-35 minutes.
  

What about endurance? Won't my athletic performance suffer if I don't do aerobics?
Endurance for athletics and recreational activities is primarily a result of three factors: skill, muscular strength, and genetics. Heritable factors (genetics) are considered to be non-trainable or, in other words, you cannot do much about them. Increasing one's skill in an activity is a result of practicing that activity. For long-distance runners skills such as stride length and efficiency can be trained through practice (practice on a treadmill doesn't serve this purpose as it is not the same as road-running). Muscular strength is the single most trainable factor in endurance performance. It is the muscles that actually perform work. When strength increases, the relative intensity of any given task decreases.
Athletes often talk about training their "wind". Actually our bodies' ability to use oxygen is not as trainable as once believed. Consider that in a resting state the lungs can saturate with oxygen the blood moving through them during the first one-third of the total transit time. At maximal exertion, saturation speed might slow to one-half of the total transit time. Even with some compromise of pulmonary function (illness, injury, etc.) the lungs can usually perform their job quite adequately. It is the muscle's ability to use the nutrients delivered to it that needs training. This is most efficiently addressed by strength-training.
More on the subject of "wind": Most exercise physiologists refer to the phenomenon of "wind" as maximal oxygen uptake. One Canadian researcher has determined that maximal oxygen uptake is 95.9% genetically determined.
A 1991 study at the University of Maryland showed that strength training produced improvements in cycling endurance performance independent of changes in oxygen consumption.
Covert Bailey, author of Fit or Fat and advocate of "gentle aerobic exercise" now recommends wind sprints to those seeking to become maximally fit. Why wind sprints? Because sprinting is a much more intense muscular activity than jogging. Why not wind sprints? Because as with other running, the risk of injury is just too great! Pulled hamstrings, sprained ankles, and damaged knees are too high of a price for a marginal increase in fitness. Strength training greatly increases the intensity of muscular activity (much more so than sprinting) and greatly reduces the risk of injury!
Ideal Exercise possesses signed testimonials from members who have improved their endurance performance for running, skiing, and other activities while following a program of high-intensity strength training and following this policy

[ttwarrior1]

Dr. Kenneth Cooper says that chronic, overtraining may result in long-range medical problems, such as cancer. Cooper attributes the lymph cancer of Lemieux, a famous hockey player, and Marty Liqouri, the distance runner, to chronic overtraining. For people that don't know who cooper is. Kennet H. Cooper is a medical doctor whose 1968 book Aerobics introduced the first exercise program for cardiorespiratory improvement . He has since detracted almost everything he has wrote in his book. 90 percent or more of all trainers, aerobic, powerlifting, bodybuilding are not seeing results , not because they are not training enough. It's because they are training too much, especially when they are training and not allowing enough time inbetween workouts to recover. Overtraining isn't something sort of bad, with the exception of a major injury, its the worst training mistake you can possibly make.

[ttwarrior1]

CONTRACTION CONTROL
There is a vast difference between performing reps fast and performing them slowly. Movements that are initiated with a sudden jerk and then continued rapidly to completion apply resistance only at the start and at the end of the movement. Repetitions that leave the starting position in a slow and deliberate fashion apply resistance to the muscle through the entire movement, making them more productive. Once the speed of the movement exceeds a certain rate, the outside force of momentum comes into play and it, rather than the force exerted from muscular contraction, is responsible for the completion of the movement. It is imperative, therefore, that you perform all the exercises listed in this report in a deliberate and relatively slow manner. This is essential if you are to derive maximum benefit from the suggested routines. Having left the starting position in a deliberate fashion, with no sudden jerk or thrust of the weight, continue to the top or contracted position slowly, with no momentum aiding in the work. A momentary pause should be made at the top before lowering the weight back again. If you cannot hold it at the top without having the weight fall back to the starting position, then you didn’t lift it with muscular contraction alone. Any weight that you can lift with the force of muscular contraction you should be able to hold at any position in the exercise’s range of movement, because we have more strength in ‘holding’ weights, our static strength level, than we do in raising weights. The lowering of the weight back to the starting position should likewise be done in a slow and deliberate manner. The lowering should take at least as much time as the raising of the weight. The actual amount of time that it should take to both raise and lower the weight will be about four seconds each. This will insure that the work was done by the muscle and not outside forces.

Studies conducted with subjects performing exercises while standing on a device that measures change in force known as a force plate, have demonstrated the vast difference between fast reps and slow reps. Barbell and dumbbell exercises that are initiated with a sudden jerk and continued rapidly to completion apply the needed resistance only at the start and the end of the exercise. Exercises that are begun and completed in a relatively slow and deliberate fashion, on the other hand, provide resistance all the way through the movement, making it a much more productive style of performance, since it works the entire length of the muscle. It was found in these studies that once the speed of movement exceeds a certain rate, the force of momentum comes into play and it, rather than muscular contraction, is responsible for the work being done.

[C-Gold]

HIT training is intense. If you do it right you'll sleep like a baby.

[ttwarrior1]

Arthur jones

Aerobics: Myths, Lies and MisconceptionsFor three decades, ever since Kenneth Cooper, M.D., published his first book on the subject, the public has been force-fed the idea that aerobic fitness is the be-all and end-all of fitness and that highly repetitive, steady-state activities, such as jogging and bicycling, are the best means of achieving it. None of that is true. Aerobic conditioning is only one element of a broader concept—total fitness—which is made up of several components, including skeletal-muscle strength, skeletal density, flexibility, endurance, maintenance of lean body mass and, finally, a positive self-image. Only a properly conducted high-intensity weight-training program can achieve total fitness—and in a minimum of time.

If you’ve been engaged in a fitness program that includes some type of aerobic activity involving the mind-numbing, repetitive use of the legs or a few skeletal muscles, you’ve been wasting your time. Aerobic activity does nothing, absolutely zero, to provide for increased skeletal-muscle strength; in fact, by overworking a few muscles to the exclusion of others, aerobic activity creates certain dangerous imbalances in the musculoskeletal system, which increases the likelihood of injury. Furthermore, as Greg Anderson of Ideal Exercise in Seattle explains in a brochure he gives to all of his members, “Running is an extremely high-force activity that’s damaging to the knees, hips and back. Aerobic dancing is probably worse. And so-called low-impact activities, such as stationary bicycling, aren’t necessarily low force.”

Aerobic activity doesn’t improve flexibility, anaerobic endurance or lean body mass. In addition, owing to the gross overtraining that many aerobic obsessives engage in, it can actually cause them to sacrifice lean mass—known as overuse atrophy—and thus lose muscle tone. That’s what causes a deterioration of their physical appearance, which is responsible for the flabby look many of them have.

Aerobic exercise activates so few muscle fibers that it burns very few calories and is, therefore, a poor way to get rid of fat. Despite what you’ve heard over and over, steady-state activities such as jogging, cycling and dancing burn very few calories. In fact, one pound of fat will fuel at least 10 hours of continuous activity. Some alleged experts have suggested that aerobic activity is important, as it increases the resting metabolic rate. Since aerobic exercise burns so few calories while you’re doing it, how much can it increase the rate of calories burned when you’re not doing it?

It was never cast in stone that you must limit your exercise activity to repetitive movement of the legs to improve cardiorespiratory health and fitness. The cardinal principle for improving cardiorespiratory fitness is that you sustain an age-related elevated heart rate for 12 minutes or more. As a number of studies have demonstrated, that’s best accomplished with a program that works not merely the legs but all the major skeletal muscles with high-intensity weight training that limits the rest between sets so you can maintain an elevated pulse.

Many well-known aerobics advocates are finally admitting that the concept of aerobic training is erroneous. Former cardiovascular surgeon Irving Dardik, M.D., for instance, exclaimed a few years ago, “The basic concept behind aerobic conditioning is wrong.” Dr. Dardik also made the point that the best way to train is by using short bursts of elevated intensity followed by a brief rest, followed by another burst of demanding activity. Then there’s Covert Bailey, author of Fit or Fat and once the guru of so-called gentle aerobic activity, who now recommends high-intensity wind sprints to those seeking maximum fitness. Wind sprints, while high-intensity, are a dangerous high-force activity that will inevitably result in torn hamstrings, strained Achilles tendons and damaged knees. A properly conducted high-intensity weight-training regimen, on the other hand, in which the muscles are worked relatively slowly through a full range of motion for 10 to 15 reps to failure and the forces are low to moderate, is the ideal way to exercise, with practically zero risk of injury.

That’s how my associates and I train our fitness-oriented clients. To help them achieve a more productive, healthy and happy life, optimize the time they spend in the gym and achieve total fitness, we carefully supervise them through a series of high-intensity, low-force weight-training exercises. We accomplish that in two workouts a week averaging 20 to 30 minutes.

The major problem in the field of bodybuilding and fitness is the near-universal—but erroneous—belief that more is better. As children many people acquire the notion that more candy is better than less, then blindly misapply that notion to other areas. Past a very definite, limited point, candy makes you sick and fat and causes dental problems.

It’s a similar situation with exercise. Imposing just the right amount of exercise stress will cause a positive result, and anything beyond that will cause a negative result. As it turns out, the proper amount of exercise required to achieve optimal results isn’t nearly as much as you’ve been led to believe—hence your lack of satisfactory progress in the past.

If more is better, why train only two or three hours a day? Why not take a vacation from work and train 18 hours a day? Then you’re sure to succeed, right? By the way, those stories about movie stars training five hours a day to get in shape for films are bunk. No one except a slave under a whip can sustain the motivation to train that much day in and day out. Females, especially, with their naturally lower testosterone levels, simply can’t tolerate as much high-intensity-exercise stress as some are reported to be engaging in.

I’ve visited gyms in every corner of the world. Most people train at least three days a week for one hour per session. Why? It just so happens that in our culture the number three has a certain traditional magic. We have the Three Bears, the Three Stooges, the Holy Trinity, three square meals a day and the mystic concept that catastrophes happen in threes. Therefore, it’s only logical and scientific that we should train three times a week.

The lunatic fringe in the field of bodybuilding has turned exercise into a religion of sorts, spending hours every day of the week mindlessly pumping iron, stretching, jogging and so on. Those people don’t exercise as a means of achieving a single, albeit important, value with a hierarchy of numerous other life-affirming goals. For them going to the gym is a social ritual that helps them manage the anxiety that inevitably results from the refusal to learn how to think and judge as mature, independent adults.

While it may be laudable on one level to make it to the gym four to six times a week for two hours of training per session, on another it isn’t. The idea shouldn’t be to go to the gym to prove that you’re a good Puritan but to go conscientiously prepared to do what nature requires in the way of imposing the requisite training stress—and in the right amount.

Whether your goal is a more modest one—to build greater strength and lean mass, lose fat and improve overall conditioning—or a grand one—to build strength and muscle for high-level sports or bodybuilding competition—keep in mind that overtraining isn’t merely wasted effort, it’s counterproductive.

There’s no question that being in good physical condition is an absolute requirement for living a rewarding, happy and healthy life; however, it’s neither necessary nor desirable to spend an hour or two every day to achieve it. It’s not necessary, as optimal results—total fitness—can be achieved by doing well under two hours of resistance training a week. Any more than that and you’re spending more time pursuing a particular value than a normal life demands.

Even Kenneth Cooper—the man responsible for single-handedly launching the aerobics movement—recanted, stating that he was wrong all those years, that more exercise is not better than less. A while back Dr. Cooper and his associates at the Cooper Aerobics Center in Dallas became alarmed at the rising incidence of serious medical problems—heart disease and cancer—among clients who jogged six days a week, some of whom threw in three days a week of weight training for good measure. They were purists, people who exercised, didn’t smoke, drink alcohol or eat much in the way of fats. Cooper was stymied at first, but by the end of the investigation he determined that overtraining was the cause.

If you seriously doubt that overtraining may have long-term medical implications, bear in mind that exercise is a form of stress. While most think of a suntan or muscles as merely cosmetic, that’s not why they exist. Suntans and larger muscles are defensive barriers the body erects to protect itself from future assaults from the same stressors, but they can be overwhelmed. Someone who repeatedly overexposed himself to the intense August sunlight would soon die, as the sun’s rays would literally cook his skin and underlying tissues. By the same token, chronic overtraining could inordinately tax the overall physical system and possibly result in a breakdown somewhere, such as the glandular system. Cooper has gone so far as to attribute the Hodgkin’s disease of hockey great Mario Lemieux and distance runner Marty Liquori to chronic overtraining.

A widespread myth among fitness enthusiasts has it that one must train one way for increasing muscular size and strength and another way for improving cardiovascular condition: lift weights to build strength and jog to enhance aerobic condition. As Arthur Jones stated, “Half of that belief is true, since jogging will do nothing to build strength and size and will, in fact, if overdone, as it usually is, do quite a bit in the way of reducing both muscular strength and size. But it’s not true that proper strength-building exercises will do nothing for improving cardiovascular condition.” How did Jones arrive at that conclusion?

In 1975 Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries funded one of the most important studies in the history of exercise science. Project Total Conditioning was conducted at the United States Military Academy at West Point and was overseen by Colonel James Anderson. The purpose of the study was to pin down how to use Nautilus exercise equipment properly and identify the physiological consequences of a short-duration, high-intensity-training program. It asked such questions as, How much skeletal-muscle strength can be achieved from brief, intense workouts? and, How does strength training affect cardiovascular fitness, flexibility and overall body composition?

The subjects included 18 varsity football players who trained all of their major muscle groups with 10 different strength exercises three times a week for eight weeks. The workouts were brief but very intense, with each exercise performed for only one set to failure. An extensive battery of tests and measurements was administered to the subjects after two weeks of training and at the conclusion of the study. According to the study report, “The prestudy testing was not scheduled until after two weeks of workouts to minimize the influence of what is commonly referred to as the learning effect on individual performance.”

Results? After only six weeks of training, the 18 subjects had increased the amount of resistance they used in the 10 exercises by an average of 58.54 percent. What’s more, despite such a tremendous increase in their strength—and the associated increase in overall physiological stress they were exposed to—the duration of their training dropped by nine minutes.

As a measure of the functional application of intense, brief strength training, the exercising subjects and a control group—which didn’t train at all or did so on their own—were tested in three areas: a two-mile run, a 40-yard dash and a vertical jump. On the two-mile run the exercising subjects’ improvement was four to 32 times greater than the control group’s. On the 40-yard dash it was 4.57 times greater, and on the vertical jump it was close to two times greater.

What about cardiovascular improvement? While conventional strength-training practices preclude cardiovascular improvement, especially when trainees take long, arbitrary rest periods between sets—which keeps them from maintaining an elevated heart rate—at the end of the study the training subjects tested better than the control group in all 60 indices of training effects on cardiovascular function.

Those supervising Project Total Conditioning used four measures of flexibility in human performance: trunk flexion, trunk extension, shoulder flexion and shoulder extension. The training subjects achieved much greater improvement than the control group—an average of 11 percent vs .85 percent for the controls.

The public’s fear that weight-training exercise causes people to become muscle-bound—a condition of abnormally tight muscles that results in a profound loss of flexibility—is without foundation. With proper weight-training methods that emphasize working the muscles through a full range of motion, giving equal work to the agonist and antagonist muscles, trainees will maintain and in many cases improve flexibility.

Finally, with regard to body composition, the subjects performing 10 weight-resistance exercises three times a week for less than 30 minutes per session lost more bodyfat than the control group.

With Nautilus/Sports Medical Industries funding the entire project—with costs in excess of $1,000,000—doctors from the Cooper Aerobics Center were flown in to conduct the cardiovascular tests while doctors from West Point did the strength testing.

In the past I’ve alleged that the field of exercise science is a sham, with some of the most celebrated studies never having taken place. Since Project Total Conditioning in 1975—after millions more dollars were spent to develop the most precise testing devices possible—more than 60 other research projects have been conducted, all of which proved essentially the same thing: the overwhelming superiority of brief, high-intensity resistance training for enhancing total fitness. In addition, while most of the studies have been published in scientific journals, the results continue to be ignored, for the most part, by aerobics advocates because they contradict what they’ve been espousing for decades

Yes i did walk for 20 min today, and also weight trained and yes im eating doritos right now.

[Chandler]

what do you suggest for my 75 year old grandma?

[robmpink]

Is Greg Anderson the Balco guy injecting Bonds?

[ttwarrior1]

Something else i don't follow but agree with that will help people.

Superhydration
(From Classic X, March 17, 1999)
Note: This article is packed with pertinent guidelines on the importance of drinking a large amount of water each day and how doing so facilitates fat loss and muscle building. In fact, the material has been widely distributed (without my permission) throughout the Internet. The concept of ice-cold water supplying a positive, calorie-burning effect — which I’ve applied for more than 15 years — has been recently confirmed by German scientists (see Boschmann, Michael, et al, "Water-Induced Thermogenesis," Journal of Clinical Endocinology & Metabolism 88: 6015-6019, 2003).
by Ellington Darden, Ph.D.

Americans, not by the thousands — but by the millions — are getting fatter each year. If you vacationed in Florida this past summer, then you know what I’m talking about.
Have you ever seen so many overweight and extremely obese people at the beach? Or how about the profiles of all those family fun-seekers — who, with ice creams in one hand and hot dogs in the other, crowd the major theme parks? They seem to come in three sizes: fat, fatter, and, even fatter!

Oh sure, you do see a few lean individuals at the beach and at the theme parks. But I guarantee you 99 percent of these people are 18 years of age or younger. You have to walk, and walk, and walk some more — to find a single person in great shape, over the age of 40.
I’m not going to present my lengthy philosophy about why and how Americans should decrease their dietary calories to lose fat and intensify their exercise to build muscle. You’ve probably heard it several times already.
What I want to describe is something that is much simpler to apply than dieting and exercising. That something is Superhydration, or the drinking of at least one gallon of ice-cold water each day.
Superhydration, practiced properly, can make a valuable contribution toward combating and conquering obesity in the United States — and throughout the world.

THE ORIGINS OF SUPERHYDRATION
I didn’t invent the concept of drinking large amounts of cold water, but I was the first person to popularize it by connecting it to my fat-loss courses. Also, I was probably the first author to provide specific directions on why, how, and when to consume the fluid.
I did have a lot of help, however. Dr. Harold Schendel, my major nutrition professor at Florida State University, hammered me with the value of drinking lots of water in losing fat. Brenda Hutchins, who worked with me on many recipes in my early fat-loss studies, made major contributions. Connie May, who trained many research subjects at the Nautilus headquarters in Dallas, Texas, had several great ideas concerning water drinking. And so did Terry Duschinski, the owner of a personal training center in DeLand, Florida.
Superhydration began to formalize in 1985 as I supervised three large groups of subjects through the Nautilus diet program at Joe Cirulli’s fitness center in Gainesville, Florida. I instructed the groups to drink 64 ounces of water a day. Back then, I didn’t understand fully the ice-cold concept so the fluid could be consumed at any temperature. This research was published in a major book called The Nautilus Diet.
When Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries relocated the headquarters in 1987 to Dallas, Texas, I continued to research and refine these ideas. These findings were published in three books: The Six-Week Fat-to-Muscle Makeover, 32 Days to a 32-Inch Waist, and Hot Hips and Fabulous Thighs. By now, my water recommendations were up to 128 ounces a day and I was beginning to explore the advantages of consuming cold water.
After three years in Dallas, I returned to the Gainesville Health & Fitness Center, and from 1990 through 1997, I developed four more courses of action: Two Weeks to a Tighter Tummy, Living Longer Stronger, Body Defining, and A Flat Stomach ASAP. During these courses, I proved that chilled water was a significant boon to the fat-loss process. I actually had some of my subjects progress up to two gallons of fluid a day. Interestingly, the individuals in my programs who consistently drank the most cold water tended to lose the most fat.
Over the last dozen years, 549 women and 271 men have officially completed one of my routines that involved Superhydration. Not a single one of these participants ever suffered from any major medical problem as a result of drinking at least one gallon of ice-cold water each day for the duration of the course.
The reason I mention this fact is because Superhydration has been criticized as problematic or dangerous. "People can’t drink that much water without getting sick," noted a medical advisor, who vetoed a review of one of my books from being published in a large newspaper.
"They not only can drink that much water," I’ve discovered, "but they thrive on it."
Let’s take a closer look at why your body thrives on water.

WATER AND THE HUMAN BODY
The human body is from 50 to 65 percent water. But not all body components have the same water percentage. Your blood, for example, is 90 percent water, your brain is 85 percent, your muscle is 72 percent, your skin is 71 percent, your bone is 30 percent, and your fat is 15 percent.
As your body experiences dehydration, you feel it first in those systems that contain the most water. For example, you lose your mental alertness and you suffer from overall muscular weakness. The last component that dehydration affects is your fat. That’s why excessive sweating makes almost no dent in reducing your body-fat percentage.
Men have more water in their bodies than women, primarily because men have more muscle mass and less fat than women. A lean man with a body weight of 180 pounds may have 14 gallons of water in his system. A gallon of water (128 ounces) weighs approximately 8 pounds, so simple multiplication (8 x 14)
reveals that 112 pounds of this man’s body is water.
You may not think of water as food, but it’s the most critical nutrient in your daily life. You can only live a few days without it. Every process in your body requires water. For instance, it:

• Acts as a solvent for vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and glucose.
• Carries nutrients through the system.
• Makes food digestion possible.
• Lubricates the joints.
• Serves as a shock absorber inside the eyes and spinal cord.
• Maintains body temperature.
• Rids the body of waste products through the urine.
• Eliminates heat through the skin, lungs, and urine.
• Keeps the skin supple.
• Assists muscular contraction.

PARTIAL DEHYDRATION
Water contributes to so many functions that most people take it for granted. At the end of a long workday, maybe you have a headache. Plus, your eyes are irritated, your back hurts, and your entire body has a dull numbness. You blame it on stress and lack of sleep over the weekend.
Maybe you’re right. But more likely, you’re simply suffering from partial dehydration.
Perhaps you’ve had several cups of coffee for breakfast, a high-fat lunch with more coffee or maybe an alcoholic drink or two, and spent the rest of your time breathing air-conditioned or heated air at work — all of which has left your body, and most of its systems, dry and parched. Unless you’ve been drinking water throughout the day, dehydration is your problem.
If you are attuned and sensitive enough to your body’s signals, you should be able to recognize some of the early warnings of dehydration:

• Dizziness
• Headache
• Fatigue
• Thirst
• Flushed skin
• Blurred vision
• Muscle weakness

These warning signs merit your attention. Unfortunately, most people never realize that they spend most days in a state of partial dehydration.
Although thirst is an important warning sign, many people seem to be desensitized to the signal. Some people, especially adults over 40, may actually have a decreased sensation of thirst.

WATER AND FAT LOSS
Large amounts of water facilitate the fat-loss process in a number of ways:
Kidney-liver function: Your kidneys require abundant water to function properly. If your kidneys do not get enough water, your liver takes over and assumes some of the functions of the kidneys. This diverts your liver from its primary duty — to metabolize stored fat into usable energy.
If your liver is preoccupied with performing the chores of your water-depleted kidneys, it doesn’t efficiently convert the stored materials into usable chemicals. Thus, your fat loss stops, or at least, plateaus. Superhydration accelerates the metabolism of fat.
Appetite control: Lots of water flowing over your tongue keeps your taste buds cleansed of flavors that might otherwise trigger a craving. Furthermore, water keeps your stomach feeling full between meals, which can help take the edge off your appetite.
Urine production: Here’s a little-understood fact: As much as 85 percent of your daily heat loss emerges from your skin. Heat emerging from your skin is important because another word for heat is calories, and another word for calories is fat. That’s right, most of your fat is lost through your skin in the form of heat. Anyway, the remaining 15 percent of that heat loss is divided between warm air coming from your lungs and warm fluid being passed out through the normal urination process.
Superhydration can double, triple, or even quadruple your urine production. As a result, you’ll be able to eliminate more heat. Remember, inside your body, fat loss means heat loss. So get used to going to the bathroom more frequently than normal.
Cold-water connection: Have you ever wished for a food that supplies negative calories? Let’s say such a food exists and it contains a minus 100 calories per serving. Anytime you feel like a piece of chocolate cake or a donut, all you have to do to compensate is simply follow the sweet with two servings of the negative-calorie food. Presto — plus 200 calories and minus 200 calories yields 0 calories. While no negative-calorie food exists in science — ice-cold water has a similar, but smaller, effect inside your body.
When you drink chilled water, which is about 40-degrees Fahrenheit, your system has to heat the fluid to a core body temperature of 98.6 degrees. This process requires almost 1 calorie to warm each ounce of cold water to body temperature. Thus, an 8-ounce glass of cold water burns approximately 8 calories, or 7.69 to be exact. Extend that over 16 glasses, 128 ounces, or one gallon — and you’ve generated 123 calories of heat energy, which is significant. There’s real calorie-burning power in cold water.
A professor of biology from the University of Florida added to my understanding of the cold-water connection when he pointed out that melting ice and a burning candle both require the transfer of heat. They simply modify their forms. The ice changes from solid to liquid, and the candle from solid to gas. Both transfers, or changes, involve heat.
Constipation help: When deprived of water, your system pulls cellular fluid from your lower intestines and bowel creating hard, dry stools. One of the big roles of water is to flush waste from the body. This is a substantial task during fat metabolism because waste tends to accumulate quickly. Superhydration tends to make people more regular and consistent with their bowel movements, which is helpful to the overall fat-loss process.

WATER-DRINKING GUIDELINES
How do you drink a gallon of ice-cold water a day? "With great difficulty," you may reply. Although such a recommendation may sound difficult, in fact, it only presents a few minor problems — such as how, when, and where. Each of these problems can be solved with some intelligent planning.
How: One secret is to not drink the water, but to sip it. Get yourself one of those 32-ounce plastic bottles, the kind that has a long straw in the top. I’ve found that most people can consume water easier with a straw than trying to gulp it down the standard way with a glass. Also, while you’re checking out various bottles, select one that is insulated. The insulation will keep your fluid colder for a longer time.
When: Another tip is to spread your water drinking throughout the day. There’s a useful guide that I worked out for more than 100 men who went though my six-week, fat-loss plan in Living Longer Stronger on page 140.
You’ll notice on this plan that after Week 1, the men add 16 ounces of water each week to their starting level of 128 ounces per day. During Week 6, the recommendations are up to a daily consumption of 208 ounces, or 1 5/8 gallons. This schedule is just an example. Unless you’re involved in the other aspects of the Living-Longer-Stronger program, simply stick with the Week 1 guidelines.
It’s important to sip from 75 to 80 percent of the water before 5:00 P.M. The early drinking of most of the water eliminates the need to get out of bed during the night and visit the bathroom.
Where: You sip water everywhere you go during the day because you know how to plan ahead. Once again, you need a 32-ounce, insulated, plastic bottle. Okay. But what about refilling the bottle, the ice, and all that hassle of keeping count of the ounces?
The really motivated people invest in a two-gallon thermos jug. First thing in the morning, they fill the large jug with ice and water. Then, they draw off their initial 32-ounces of fluid into their insulated bottle and start sipping. As soon as the bottle is empty, it’s refilled from the thermos jug. When they leave home each day, they carry both the thermos jug and the smaller bottle with them. That way they always have access to their chilled water. When they return home that night, they wash the jug and the bottle and prepare for the next morning.
A great way to keep count of the bottles and ounces is to place rubber bands around the middle of the bottle equal to the number of bottles of water you are supposed to drink. Each time you finish 32 ounces, take off a rubber band and put it into your pocket.
Additives: There is a difference between plain water and other beverages that contain mostly water. Those mostly water fluids — such as soft drinks, coffee, tea, beer, and fruit juices — contain sugar, flavors, caffeine, and alcohol. Sugar and alcohol add calories. Caffeine — found in coffee, tea, and many soft drinks — stimulates the adrenal glands and acts as a diuretic. Rather than superhydrate the system, caffeine-containing beverages actually dehydrate the body. You should keep such beverages to a minimum.
The only recommended flavoring for water is a twist of lemon or lime. Even so, most of the people who like lemon or lime eventually get to the level where they prefer their water plain with nothing added.
Tap water or bottled water: In general, the United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world. Chances are high that your community’s tap water is fine for drinking. Furthermore, research shows that bottled water is not always higher quality water than tap water. The decision to consume bottled water or not is usually one of taste.
If you dislike the taste of your tap water, then drink your favorite bottled water. Just be sure to check the label carefully for unwanted additives. If you have no problems with your city’s water supply, then save some money and consume it.

TOO MUCH WATER
It’s possible to drink too much water, but it’s highly unlikely that you would ever do so. In the medical literature, drinking too much water leads to a condition know as hyponatremia. Hyponatremia most often occurs in athletes involved in triathlons and ultrmarathons. A few of these athletes consume many gallons of water during the course of these unusually long competitions, and because of the continuous activity they don’t or can’t stop to urinate. Thus, they impede their normal fluid-mineral balance and actually become intoxicated with too much water. Such a condition, however, is rare.
I’ve never observed anything close to intoxication happening with any of my participants, and some of them consume two gallons of water daily. Of course, they also have no trouble urinating frequently.
Note: Anyone with a kidney disorder or anyone who takes diuretics should consult a physician before making modifications of his or her water consumption.

GIVE SUPERHYDRATION A TRY
If you have more than 5 pounds of fat to lose, then I’d suggest that you get involved with Superhydration through one of my books. Both Living Longer Stronger and A Flat Stomach ASAP have all the latest recommendations incorporated into their week-by-week rules — which include eating and exercising plans.
On the other hand, if you only have a few pounds of fat to remove, or if your are already in lean condition, or if you just want to give Superhydration an informal trial for whatever reason, then here are the most efficient guidelines to utilize:

1. Purchase a 32-ounce, insulated, plastic bottle to sip your water from.
2. Start by sipping one gallon, or 128 ounces, of water a day. Do not go higher than 128 ounces per day for this informal trial period.
3. Drink most of the water before 5:00 P.M.
4. Keep the water ice cold. Remember, each ounce of 40-degree Fahrenheit water requires approximately 1 calorie to warm it to a core body temperature of 98.6 degrees.
5. Apply the above recommendations for at least 14 days.

WHAT TO EXPECT
Expect to feel more energetic, less fatigued, smoother skinned, and more satiated (from a nutritional standpoint) by the end of the first week. Anticipate being a little leaner by the end of the second week.
If you keep the Superhydration routine intact for a full month, you just may get healthily hooked for a long time.
During this brief process, you’ll experience some of your body’s quest, thirst, and fulfillment for water: large amounts of it. You’ll realize that, for years and years, what you’ve been calling hunger was really an inner cry for more water.
Listen closely to your body. It will reward you when it gets what it needs.

A FINAL TOAST
Superhydration has worked for thousands of people. It will work for you by improving your well being — both on the inside and the outside of your body.
It will definitely help you lose fat and live leaner longer.
Decide today to make Superhydration a salient aspect of your daily lifestyle.
Let’s drink to it.
WATER: on the rocks . . . straight up . . . and with a straw.
Make it a double!

[ttwarrior1]

what do you suggest for my 75 year old grandma?

walk, brain exercises, drink more water , take vitamins , and ginkgo biloba. Cayenne pepper with water and lemon a couple times a day. Be happy and enjoy life.

Super slow weight training a couple days a week with a few exercises. Warmup sets and one quality set

[Chandler]

why should you walk, if she does the super slow weight training?

[ttwarrior1]

she shouldnt be doing the weight training more then 3 times a week. She should be walking at least twice a week. Good for circulation and recovery

[Indecent]

A really good HIT workout

[YorkHunt]

Just take steriods!

[ttwarrior1]

bump

[SoV]

This is a gambling forum, you fat cvnt.

[ttwarrior1]

this is players talk where i can post whatever i want just like everyone else. If it gets moved to the saloon, so be it.

Crips

[JMobile]

TT, make a exclusive SBR Fitness Exercise Video for us degens.
What do you say?

[ttwarrior1]

bump, and yes id like too

[dngf]

Thanks a lot, I found this to be a pretty interesting read.

[ttwarrior1]

Quantity vs. Quality of Effort

Where does one launch an investigation aimed at discovering the type of effort responsible for stimulating growth? The most likely place to start is by looking at one of the more readily observed qualities of the things that exists in reality; namely, quantity. The growth stimulus cannot be directly related to quantity of exercise effort or bodybuilders would see better and better results for every additional hour they spent training.
Since it obviously is not the quantity of effort that's important, there is but one place left to look - the quality, or intensity, of the effort. If a person could curl a 100 pound barbell for 10 reps to failure which rep would be more productive in terms of stimulating an increase in strength and size, the first, the least intense, or the last, the most intense? Obviously it is the last. Do you see where it stands to reason that if the last rep is better than the first, it will be better than the second, third, fourth and so on? That is irrefutable proof that it is the quality of the effort, not the quantity, which is responsible for growth stimulation. Quantity of effort is important only for building endurance, not strength and muscle mass. Don't confuse training long with training hard. Training hard, intensely, is what is required to build muscle mass.


Reserve Ability

Executing that last, almost impossible, rep causes the body to dip into its reserve ability. Since it only has a small amount of this reserve to draw upon before depletion occurs, the body protects itself from future assaults upon its reserves by enlarging upon its existing ability through the compensatory build-up of more muscle mass.
Only high-intensity effort can force the body to resort to its reserve ability sufficiently to stimulate an adaptive response in the form of a muscle mass increase. Repeating tasks that are within your existing capacity do nothing to stimulate growth, there's no need. Ending a set before failure, just because an arbitrary number of reps have been completed simply will not induce growth.


A Second Set?

On occasion, I will have a phone client ask, "Mike, you make such a big deal about doing only one set per exercise. Would it really matter if I did a second set?" Having stimulated the growth mechanism by going to failure on the first set it is neither necessary nor desirable to do a second set; not just a waste of time, but counterproductive. Going from one set to two is not just a mistake: it is the biggest mistake possible because going from one set to two represents the biggest increase possible. It is not merely a linear increase of one unit; it represents a 100 percent increase in the volume of exercise; which is a negative factor.


Look Deeper--Posted 6/14/11
I find it curious that the great majority of bodybuilders, knowing that overtraining means something decidedly negative, never look into the issue more seriously. The term is always used in a negative context. In fact, try using the concept in a positive light, and you'll quickly realize it's impossible. By definition, overtraining means performing any more exercise than is required in terms of both volume and frequency than is minimally required to stimulate growth.
Mike Mentzer
Survival: The First Requisite
Nature does not allow living creatures to be inactive. In all levels of biology, inactivity means death. Life is growing. When not moving forward, it falls backward. We survive, then, only so long as we advance. Humankind evolved through continuous struggle and effort. Since man is distinguished from all other creatures because he has a mind - a conceptual faculty - he will only get the best out of himself when employing his rational/critical faculty to focus on the future, that is, to achieve goals. The individual who wants to evolve mentally and physically, therefore, must be willing to exert continuous effort.


Effort and Pride--

An individual's self-esteem stems from a sense of control over reality. Whenever we carry out a conscious effort, such as, completing a record Bench Press, an A+ in school or writing a book, we feel a specific power rising, a sense of will. The abundant self-esteem associated with successful people flows from their having achieved goals by exerting the proper effort - long range. People are not successful due to an accident of birth; they took the time and expended the necessary effort to develop their self-respect. They sufficiently value life and happiness to exert complete effort. As a result, they experience what Aristotle referred to as the "crown of all virtues": Pride.

[ttwarrior1]

Explaining the relationship between man's mind and art, Ayn Rand wrote, in an essay titled, The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, "While, in other areas of knowledge, men have outgrown the practice of seeking the guidance of mystic oracles, in the field of aesthetics this practice has remained in full force and is becoming more crudely obvious today." To my knowledge, Miss Rand had no interest in bodybuilding, but if she had, she would have observed a similar phenomenon. The bodybuilders I communicate with on a daily basis are agonizingly confused. The sole source of information for many of them is muscle magazines, which they read with almost religious zeal, regarding the words contained therein as if they were the revealed truth of Sacred Scripture, or as oracular pronouncements, not to be questioned, but passively accepted, on blind faith.
Most bodybuilders fail to recognize that muscle magazines are not science journals, but rather commercial catalogues whose primary reason for existence is to sell nutritional supplements and exercise equipment. (One simply can't be too careful in this time of philosophical default. Even science journals have become suspect recently, as the proliferation of cases involving fraudulent research data at the highest levels indicates.) While these publications do contain factually-based, well-reasoned articles, these are rarities so at odds with the reams of contradictory misinformation that they are rendered valueless to those with atrophied critical faculties and often overlooked by the more intelligent readers.
The notion that bodybuilding is a science has been written and talked about for decades by muscle magazine writers and certain exercise physiologist. To qualify as a legitimate, applied science, however, bodybuilding must have a consistent, rational theoretical base, something that none of the aforementioned -- aside from Arthur Jones and myself -- has ever provided. In fact, what passes today for the so-called "science of modern bodybuilding" is actually a pseudo-science. Propogated by the bodybuilding traditionalists, or orthodoxy, it is nothing more than a wanton assemblage of random, disconnected and contradictory ideas.
A number of the orthodoxy's self-styled "experts" have even alleged that there are no objective, universal principles of productive exercise. They claim that since each bodybuilder is unique, every individual bodybuilder requires a different training program. This implies that the issue of what is the best way to train to build muscle is a subjective one that can only be resolved by the random motions and blind urges of each bodybuilder.
Despite their belief that no universal principles exist, many of these same people advocate that all bodybuilders should perform 12-20 sets per bodypart, for up to two hours per session. For best gains, they recommend two and even three sessions per day six days a week, with the seventh day off -- for sabbath, I suppose. Very scientific!
The principle implicit in such thinking is "more is better." This is an ethico-economic principle: more money, more success, i.e., more values are better than less. (This principle does have a certain limited application to endurance training.) Taking a principle from one context, such as economics, and applying it uncritically and blindly to another, such as bodybuilding, is to commit the logical fallacy known as "context-switching." Some years ago, Mr. America Steve Michalik carried this erroneous notion to its logical conclusion by advocating 75-100 sets per bodypart! Michalik practiced what he preached and ended up almost literally in the grave!
So which is it: 12-20 sets or 75-100 sets? Actually, more fitting would be this line of questioning:

1. Why the contradiction? If each and every bodybuilder, being unique, requires a different training program, why advocate the same range of sets for everyone?
2. Why the equivocation? Whose word should we take -- and on what basis? Who is relating the truth: the advocates of 12-20 sets or the advocates of 75-100 sets? Or are they both unintentionally relating a falsehood?
3. Why the lack of exactitude? Will bodybuilders obtain equal results from 12 sets and 14 sets and 20 sets, or from 75 sets and 87 sets and 100 sets? Since science is an exact discipline, a proper science of bodybuilding should tell bodybuilders precisely what to do.
4. Why the evasion? Should all of the sets be performed with the same degree of intensity by the same individuals all of the time?

While the issues involved in the questions raised above represent only the tip of the iceberg, they do serve as telling testimony to some of the disastrous intellectual consequences that follow from lack of a sound, rational theoretical base.
A scientific theory is a set of principles that serves either as a correct description of reality or a guideline for man's actions. A farrago of unwarranted assumptions, false conclusions and irreconcilable contradictions does not constitute a valid theory and, thus, cannot serve as a guide to successful action.
(The orthodoxy commits other intellectual errors as well. A prime example is their capricious misuse of concepts. Aside from an occasional arbitrary, out-of-context reference to the "overload principle," they have never adequately identified the specific stimulus responsible for inducing muscular growth. As a result, they feel justified in stealing the concept of intensity and providing it with a rubber meaning, though never using it properly. Another is the concept of overtraining. Unwilling or unable to define the term, only dimly aware that it means something negative, they use it as a "floating abstraction," i.e., a concept with no ties to reality. As such, it is not so much misused, but barely used at all, and plays no significant role in their thinking.)
Where can a confused bodybuilder find the answer to these and other pressing questions? Rick Wayne, erstwhile editor of Flex magazine, answered that question a number of years ago, claiming, "Each bodybuilder has to be his own scientific agent, and find the routine that works for him." But what if a particular bodybuilder isn't a very good scientist? No answer has ever been given.
Others have responded by suggesting that confused bodybuilders resort to instinct. An acquaintance of mine responded to this notion humorously by suggesting that if bodybuilders resorted to the "instinctive principle" to guide them in their training efforts, many of them would probably defecate and urinate on a barbell rather than lift it. Man is not an instinctual creature whose knowledge is automatic, or "hard-wired" into his nervous system, but a conceptual being who must acquire and use knowledge by a volitional cognitive effort.
The most philosophically revealing response was made by a well-known authority, and I quote, "There is a realm of truth higher than that known to scientists, and only certain people have access to it." Since reality is the realm of truth, one can only wonder as to what other realm he was referring to, what it might have to do with bodybuilding in this one, who has access to it, and by what means. All of this points to the fact that bodybuilding has brought about its own Dark Ages -- and why, therefore, so many bodybuilders become cynical and give up.
The advocates of the orthodox approach, possessing no possible theoretical defense of their argument, are forced to cite some very shabby evidence to back up their position. Quite frequently, I get the question, "If 12-20 sets is not the best way to train, how do you account for the success of guys like Arnold and Lee Haney?" The answer is that, while their physiques are, in part, the result of such training, so are the physiques of all the failures, whose numbers are legion.
Furthermore, it is a mistake to point to the "apparent" success of a couple dozen top title winners as indubitable proof that a certain training approach is efficacious. If one were to look back through the course of their bodybuilding careers, and calculate the hours, months and years of wasted effort resulting from their blind, non-theoretical, volume approach, one would have to question whether their achievement could properly be termed success at all.
It should be understood also that genetic endowment is the prime determinant of bodybuilding success. Arnold and Lee, not to mention myself, Dorian Yates and all who have achieved extraordinary levels of muscular development, possess an abundance of the requisite genetic traits, including long muscle bellies, greater than average muscle fiber density, and superior recovery ability.
The best way, therefore, to compare the efficacy of the two training approaches is to examine the results obtained by a genetically superior practitioner from each camp. On May 1, 1973, Casey Viator entered into an experiment -- conducted at Colorado State University in Fort Collins -- for the purpose of discovering how much muscle he would gain on a high-intensity training program in one month.
Casey trained only three times a week, with each workout lasting no more than 30 minutes. Since the duration of the experiment was a month, this meant that Casey trained 12 times, for a total of only six hours. The result was that Casey went from a starting bodyweight of 166 pounds to his previous highest bodyweight, in top muscular condition, of 212 pounds. The exercise physiologist who conducted the experiment, Dr. Eliot Plese, discovered (using a sophisticated radioisotope assay machine) that Casey lost 17 pounds of fat during that month. Casey's actual lean body-mass gain, therefore, was not merely the 46 pounds as evidenced on the scale, but a whopping 63 pounds -- and all from only six hours of training!

	Casey Viator, one of the greatest bodybuilders ever and the man who introduced Mike Mentzer to Arthur Jones.

Now contrast Casey's achievement with what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to prepare for the 1975 Mr. Olympia contest. Arnold has gone to considerable lengths advertising the fact that, starting in July of that year, he trained twice a day for two hours each session, or four hours a day, six days a week, right up to the contest date in November. As a result of training that totalled 288 hours, Arnold put on approximately 25 pounds of lean mass, going from his starting weight of 200 pounds to 225. It is interesting to note that Arnold, in gaining back only 25 pounds of muscle, failed, in that four-month period, to reach his previous best muscular bodyweight of 237 pounds. Not only are Casey and Arnold genetically gifted, both were also regaining muscle mass, which happens more readily than gaining it in the first place. And since both were taking steroids during these periods of training, one is left to conclude that the factor accounting for Casey's vastly superior achievement was his use of high-intensity training principles. (When I asked Arnold, in 1979, why he had failed to attain the same 237 pounds for the 1975 Mr. Olympia that he competed at in the 1974 Mr. Olympia, he responded by saying that the four months he had to prepare wasn't enough time.)
To those who question the validity of the abbreviated high-intensity training approach, by noting the numerical superiority of those utilizing the "more is better" volume approach, I need only point out that statistical generalizations do not constitute valid proof in matters open to individual choice. A good historical example is that for thousands of years millions of people sincerely believed that the earth was flat, but that didn't make it so.
A mistake made by many muscle magazine readers is to assume that the routines currently ascribed to the top champs are of the same variety they've always used. In most cases, the champs started their bodybuilding careers, and developed the bulk of their muscle mass, with abbreviated routines performed two to three times a week, using basic exercises and heavy weights. As they progressed into the competitive ranks, they made the mistake -- as I did for a while -- of increasing the number of sets along with the number of workouts per week, which explains why many stagnate and even retrogress. Increasing the duration and frequency of their workouts was done in conjunction with the use of steroids, which help to prevent, or at least reduce, the loss of muscle mass that otherwise results from chronic marathon training.
Considering the fact that the self-proclaimed experts have neither provided a consistent, rational theory of training, nor addressed the issues raised here, it is little wonder that so many cynical bodybuilders remain painfully bewildered.
About 20 years ago I found myself in a situation similar to that experienced by many of the aspiring bodybuilders I now communicate with on a daily basis. I avidly read all the muscle magazines, and had memorized the training routines, dietary regimens, and even the personal habits of all the top champs. Following their lead, I utilized the "more is better" principle, performing up to 30 sets per bodypart, training three hours a day, six days a week. After months of training in this fashion with no progress, my motivation waned so much I began thinking seriously about ceasing my training efforts altogether. I reasoned that if training three hours a day wasn't sufficient to cause an increase in my muscle mass, then perhaps I would have to up my training to four hours a day. And it was difficult to justify spending even more time in the gym every day, as I was already tired from my 12-hour work days in the Air Force and the three-hour daily workouts. If developing a championship physique meant giving up all social life and spending one-fourth of my waking hours in some dank gymnasium, it just wasn't worth it.
Agonizing over the prospect of forsaking my dream of ever being a champion bodybuilder, I was fortunate, at that time, to meet Casey Viator at the 1971 Mr. America contest in York, Penn. Not only was Casey the youngest man, at 19 years of age, to win the coveted title, he was also being favorably compared to Arnold (who was in York that day to check out the upstart). What made Casey even more interesting was the type of training he was doing. While Arnold, Franco, Dave Draper et al were training up to five hours a day, Casey was training less than three hours a week!
Casey was impressed by my physical potential, and suggested that I call his mentor, Arthur Jones, the inventor of Nautilus machines. I placed a telephone call to Jones early one evening, but, as he wasn't in, I left a message that I had called. He called me back at 2 a.m. the next morning, something, I learned later, that was typical of the radically independent businessman. Before I could suggest that it might be more appropriate that we speak later that day when I had my wits about me, Jones launched into an impassioned disquisition concerning the actual nature of productive exercise, as opposed to that which was being promulgated in the muscle magazines.
So awe-inspiring was his fiery oratory that the leaden fumes of my somnambulistic stupor evaporated in short order. For well over an hour, I listened in rapt attention as Jones explained to me, in the most scrupulously objective language imaginable, the cause-and-effect relationship between intense exercise and muscular growth; and why, in light of the fact that the body's ability to tolerate such demanding exercise is limited, high-intensity training had to be brief and infrequent.
Before Jones finished, I realized that I was not the bodybuilding expert I had thought. In fact, I knew very little of value about exercise. Memorizing training routines from muscle magazines doesn't make one an expert. For the first time in my life, I had listened to someone who took the values of knowledge, reason, logic and science very, very seriously. Having clearly understood what Jones had to say about exercise that early morning over 20 years ago, I promptly switched to a high-intensity training program, and within only a year and a half, my mediocre physique underwent such a dramatic transformation that I was able to easily win the Mr. America contest.
Many bodybuilders sell themselves short. Erroneously attributing their lack of satisfactory progress to a poverty of the requisite genetic traits, instead of to their irrational training and dietary practices, they give up training. Don't make the same mistake. Don't make the mistake of granting validity to all training theories, and then waste precious time frantically trying one after the other in the hope that someday you'll find something that works.
There is no good reason why you should proceed with your bodybuilding career confused and uncertain any longer. Progress should not be an irregular, unpredictable or even nonexistent phenomenon. A rational approach to bodybuilding, one based on an understanding and implementation of the scientific principles of exercise and nutrition, will put you on a more satisfying path of regular progress.

Arthur Jones, the inventor of the Nautilus Machines, taught Mike Mentzer the theory of productive bodybuilding exercise.

[ttwarrior1]

MORE BAD SCIENCE: 0 + 0 = 1?


By Greg E. Bradley-Popovich, M.S.

---

"Force, if unassisted by judgment, collapses through its own mass."

• Horace, circa 45 B.C.

The field of anaerobic exercise science is without a doubt lacking quality, unbiased educational materials. While there is an abundance of sensational "fluff" books designed to sell despite little or no meaningful content, viz. mainstream books, there is a dearth of more serious works on the subject. Those of us truly interested in the facts of anaerobic exercise science must rely on either textbooks, which usually devote little space to anaerobic exercise let alone resistance training, or original studies. One must always keep in mind that in certain instances, when one craves to get the most detailed information possible, it is best to get it straight from the horse's mouth, or, in other words, the original study. Neither of said sources are always perfect or free from bias, but one must start somewhere in one's quest for knowledge. After all, the only real alternative to studying the work of others is to conduct you own research.
Because time is precious, most of us do not have the leisure to pour over original studies on every single topic related to the physiological, histological, biochemical, nutritional, or applied facets of resistance training. In the interest of time, we may opt to cautiously read research summaries that appear as chapters in reference books. Such books with multiple authors or "experts" for each chapter are supposed to be more accurate and inclusive than texts written by a single or a couple of authors. These multi-author books are also useful in that they place information in the context of other supposedly scientific studies on a given subject. But remember, just because something is written does not mean it's true.
Recently, when reading the well-respected and widely read professional reference Nutrition in Exercise and Sport, Third Edition edited by Ira Wolinski, I stumbled across a disturbing passage in this extensive but expensive ($149 American) work. Chapter 5, entitled "Amino Acid and Protein Metabolism During Recovery" and authored by Gregory L. Paul, Tracy A. Gautsch, and Donald K. Layman, presents several studies examining the effects of various forms of exercise on 3-methylhistidine (3-MH) excretion. 3-MH is a biochemical marker of contractile protein breakdown that is excreted unchanged in the urine. There was such an utter lapse of reason in this section that it pained me to have to analyze its content; I wasn't sure I wanted to invest that kind of time on just a few paragraphs.
The passage began innocently enough. On page 145, the authors reviewed studies which showed that infrequent (every four days) or isolated bouts of resistance exercise do not increase degradation of muscle contractile proteins. They then presented studies that showed that chronic daily bouts (up to 6 consecutive workouts) of resistance training tend to increase 3-MH excretion.
At this juncture, I had said to myself, "A-ha. These studies clearly show that six consecutive days of resistance exercise lead to overtraining as evidenced by a substantial increase in muscle protein breakdown." I was astounded, however, at the conclusion of the authors which was printed exactly as follows:
"Data from studies examining 3-MH changes in response to isolated bouts and chronic weightlifting exercise help to illustrate the importance of a regular training program for gaining muscle mass. Since muscle growth is associated with higher rates of protein turnover (degradation and synthesis), it makes sense that an isolated bout of resistance exercise does not elevate 3-MH excretion and hence, muscle protein turnover. Practical experience tells us that adding muscle by lifting weights sporadically is not possible. Only when a regular training program is followed do gains in muscle mass occur. Obviously, if muscle protein degradation is elevated during a resistance training program, skeletal muscle protein synthesis rates must also increase in order to support skeletal muscle repair, growth, and function. Indeed, recent evidence shows that weightlifting exercise increases skeletal muscle protein synthesis during the 24 hr period following exercise."
I'll wait right here while you read that again. A dissection of the argument will clearly show how irrational and contradictory it is. The paramount comment is "...it makes sense that an isolated bout of resistance exercise does not elevate 3-MH excretion and hence, muscle protein turnover. Practical experience tells us that adding muscle by lifting weights sporadically is not possible."
Essentially, the authors concluded that a single workout doesn't result in growth stimulation because it didn't significantly increase contractile protein catabolism! Now, if a single workout doesn't result in any hypertrophic stimulation, then how can multiple single workouts result in hypertrophy? In other words, if one workout is equal to zero stimulation, then how can zero plus zero equal anything greater than zero?
A second problem with this conclusion is that it implies it is superior to overtrain daily to the brink of significantly destroying contractile protein as opposed to training with appropriate rest days to prevent muscle catabolism. This conclusion is akin to saying that in order for one to increase bone mineral density, one must first overtrain to the point of developing stress fractures. Alternatively, it is as ludicrous as saying that if you want to develop a suntan, then you must first overexpose yourself to ultraviolet rays until you bake your skin to the point of developing blisters. The idea of resistance training should be to minimize -not to promote- muscle tissue breakdown while stimulating growth.
A third error is the contradictory nature of the last sentence: "Indeed, recent evidence shows that weightlifting exercise increases skeletal muscle protein synthesis during the 24 hr period following exercise." Didn't the authors just indicate that a single workout did not increase 3-MH, which, they contend, must happen for growth to occur? Next they've concluded with apparent certainty that a single workout HAS been shown to increase protein synthesis! You can't have it both ways; either one workout does or does not stimulate muscle growth. Considering the bulk of the final paragraph quoted verbatim above and the apparent stance of the authors, the last study demonstrating an increase in muscle protein synthesis with a single resistance training session should have been preceded by "in contrast," "paradoxically," or "surprisingly," but most certainly not "indeed" as it was.
I concede that I am not infallible, and perhaps my preceding interpretations are not exactly what was meant by the authors. However, the authors cannot be completely exonerated of all wrong doing. When one has the honor of authoring educational materials, there is a tremendous responsibility of presenting information with the greatest of clarity. Anything less, such as the above excerpt, only serves to contribute to the confusion that has already paralyzed so many enthusiasts in the sport and recreation of body building. In a field deserving of precision but plagued with ambiguity, as the old adage reminds us, "Either you're part of the problem or part of the solution."
Although I've completed half a dozen biochemistry courses, I am certainly not a biochemist nor a muscle physiologist. So, if you are intimately familiar with 3-methylhistidine data and feel I've misinterpreted the data, please let me know. But then again, I'm not sure that anyone yet knows how to accurately assess 3-MH data as there is disagreement within the scientific community. In addition, I read all of the original papers regarding the effects of resistance training on 3-MH that the authors cited. I discovered a number of things including the following: 1) some of the cited studies themselves refute the fact that significantly increasing 3-MH results in muscle growth, 2) the training methods employed were generally ill-conceived and would result in overtraining for the vast majority, and 3) despite the fact that 3-MH is a result of contractile protein breakdown, none of the authors mentioned the possibility that 3-MH is a sign of overtraining. For example, a study by Hickson and Hinkelmann was conducted in the following fashion. Subjects exercised 6 days per week for four weeks. They performed 3 sets of 6 weightlifting exercises for a total of 18 sets per day. Chest and arms were alternated with legs and back every-other-day to "allow targeted muscle groups to rest 48 hrs between sessions."
As far as the workout protocol is concerned, it is a methodological nightmare. First, 48 hrs is hardly sufficient time to recuperate from multiple sets per body part. Second, 24 hours is not enough rest to recover from the systemic demands of resistance exercise. Third, arms were trained one day and back was trained the following day. Thus, the biceps brachii were trained either directly or indirectly everyday except the rest day, which brings me to another point...Fourth, apparently the seventh day was taken off for Sabbath and for no other reason. Fifth, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the subjects, after 28 days, 24 workouts, 432 sets, and consuming three times the RDA of protein, showed NO significant increase in lean body mass! This progress can best be categorized as pitiful especially when many Heavy Duty practitioners make significant progress with a fraction of the total sets. And somehow this study was used to support the notion that elevated 3-MH is indicative of a productive routine?
Despite this mass of confusion that is intended to educate, I can confidently proclaim, as well as any first-grader, that 0+0 does not equal 1! If a single workout can't stimulate muscular growth, then how can a series of single workouts stimulate muscular growth? Under this assumption, they can't. But fear not, for anyone with a hint of EEG activity should know better.

---

About the author: Greg Bradley-Popovich holds a B.S. in Biology from Fairmont State College, an M.S. in Exercise Physiology from the School of Medicine at West Virginia University, and is currently completing an M.S. in Human Nutrition at WVU.

[bradthebloke]

see this is why i gave up the whole fitness routine. mens fitness advocated high intensity training to burn fat in several issues whereas the article above implies its worthless and the weight room is best.

[spankie]

Nice plagiarism tt.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Nice plagiarism tt.

Nothing better then a 400 lb Little Debbie Addict lecturing people on Aerobics

[King Mayan]

see this is why i gave up the whole fitness routine. mens fitness advocated high intensity training to burn fat in several issues whereas the article above implies its worthless and the weight room is best.

Everybody is different, working out, bodybuilding, powerlifting, fitness, etc is all TRIAL and ERROR... It takes years to develop mind and muscle connections.

I have learned my body doesn't respond to HIT or doggcrap training... I respond well to volume training.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Everybody is different, working out, bodybuilding, powerlifting, fitness, etc is all TRIAL and ERROR... It takes years to develop mind and muscle connections.

I have learned my body doesn't respond to HIT or doggcrap training... I respond well to volume training.

I hear ya King...my shirts are cutting off my circulation

[King Mayan]

I hear ya King...my shirts are cutting off my circulation

[8ArIvd5]

good thread, but not my style.

[ttwarrior1]

king u dont understand it, i doubt you even read it

Read the article

I guess michael jordan needs to be a head coach because he's the greatest ever or barry sanders needs to be rb coach or the guy with the biggest biceps needs to train all people with little biceps huh???

didn't think so little kid

[ttwarrior1]

everybody is not different, every person gains muscle and strength the exact same way as everyone else, only thing different is recovery ability and how much exercise some can tolerate

[InTheDrink]

tt do you consider yourself fit?

[jjgold]

Warrior how many fukkin cheeseburgers did you eat today??

I say fukkin 8

[Dirty Sanchez]

Warrior how many fukkin cheeseburgers did you eat today??

I say fukkin 8

Yeah but he's got a high metabolism It's Glandular I'm sure

[MartinBlank]

It also helps if you are not a fat fukin pork chop.

More fatties die of heart attacks than non-fatties.