PWDIR-DrewBaye.pdf

High Intensity: The Annotated, Uncensored Post-Workout Delirium-Induced Ramblings

by Drew Baye

High Intensity: The Annotated, Uncensored Post-Workout Delirium-Induced Ramblings

by Drew Baye

Copyright 2012 by Drew Baye

E-mail: [email protected]

Cover Design Copyright 2012 by Drew Baye

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any other information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of the author, except brief quotations embodied in articles or reviews.

This book is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of the guidelines herein is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

All web addresses and phone numbers were accurate at the time of publication. Please send notification of changes to [email protected]. Any changes will be posted on www.baye.com and corrected in a future edition of this book.

Table of Contents

Prologue ................................................................................ 1 Too Much Caffeine? .............................................................. 3 Bashing Aerobics ................................................................. 21 Fast Versus Slow Reps ....................................................... 39 Fitness Media Bullshit .......................................................... 49 Precision .............................................................................. 65 Real Exercise Is Not Fun ..................................................... 81 Get A Life ............................................................................. 99 All Natural .......................................................................... 109 Train Harder But Train Less .............................................. 123 HIT Works .......................................................................... 139 Punching Throats & Gouging Eyes ................................... 147 Compound Versus Simple ................................................. 155 Epilogue ............................................................................. 167

Prologue 1

Prologue

From April to August of 1998 I wrote a regular feature for Cyberpump! called Post-Workout Delirium Induced Ramblings (or PWDIR for short). At the time I worked as a personal trainer for SuperSlow founder Ken Hutchins studio The Exercise Specialist in Altamonte Springs, FL and had an office there which made writing after workouts convenient. As soon as I finished a workout Id drag myself into my office and write whatever came to mind. PWDIR turned out to be a popular feature and the positive feedback I received from readers was one of the reasons I started my own web site, baye.com.

Although I generally stuck to exercise and nutrition, the topics I wrote about were all over the board. My writing was more eclectic and unrestrained, and I was prone to ranting about the utter stupidity and bullshit so prevalent in fitness and bodybuilding.

While I now try to be more restrained in my writing Ive left all the insults and profanity of the original entries intact. The only changes have been minor grammar and spelling corrections, formatting of paragraphs and lists, and updating links. I have also added descriptive titles to each of the entries, which originally appeared only as Ramble #1, 2, 3, etc.

Each of the entries has also been annotated with my current thoughts on the topics, related information, and relevant anecdotes.

2 Post-Workout Delirium-Induced Ramblings

All annotations have been placed inside gray boxes like this one to separate them from the original text.

It has been over fourteen years since I wrote the last PWDIR for Cyberpump! A lot has happened in that time. Ive trained hundreds of people through thousands of workouts, done hundreds of phone consultations, and spent countless hours studying and discussing the art and science of exercise with some of the most brilliant and experienced people in the field including Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones, Mr. Olympia competitor Mike Mentzer, Ken Hutchins, Ellington Darden PhD, Jim Flanagan, Doug McGuff MD, John Little, Ryan Hall, Fred Hahn, Robert Francis, Joe Mullen and many more.

Over the years Ive learned and experienced a lot and Ive found it interesting to look back at the PWDIR and see how much I would currently do or say differently, as well as remembering how belligerent I was. For the most part I got things right, but Im always working to learn and improve and hope you find both the original ramblings and my annotations informative and helpful in accomplishing your training goals safely, effectively and efficiently.

Too Much Caffeine? 3

Too Much Caffeine?

Friday, April 17, 1998

I've just barely managed to get to my chair from the training room. My legs haven't quite recovered from the brutally intense set of SuperSlow stiff-legged deadlifts I performed only a few minutes ago, and I'm not completely coherent yet either. SuperSlow stiff-legged dead-lifts are killers. If you don't believe me, try a set to start out your next workout.

Ive been experimenting recently with a variation on the popular ephedrine/caffeine/aspirin "stack". For my last three workouts, I've taken two Aleve's (400mg naproxen sodium: pain reliever) and one NoDoz (200mg caffeine) a half-hour before the workout with a 20oz Mountain Dew or Surge (about 75 grams of carbs, mostly fructose, and even more caffeine).

By the time I'm ready to train, I'm absolutely wired. An adrenaline rush, ice-in-my-veins, restless and hyper kind of wired. Between the increased blood sugar levels and caffeine, I feel as though I'm capable of training even more intensely on every exercise. Also, the Aleve seems to have taken the edge off of the muscular fatigue/burning sensation, which has allowed me to concentrate more on the task at hand, and less on how painful the exercise is. The whole combination only costs me about $2.00, and is a hell of a lot more effective than any other pre-workout drink I've ever tried, most of which cost about twice as much.


At the time I was taking the caffeine and Aleve before workouts for the stimulant effect and to reduce the muscular burning, and it worked well for that purpose. The combination of ephedrine and caffeine is most commonly used for fat loss, however, and I have used it for that periodically along with a Zone/Paleo style diet with good results. It is usually taken with aspirin to prevent blood clotting, although some people use 2 to 3g fish oil instead. The ECA stack:

Ephedrine 20mg Caffeine 200mg Aspirin (I recommend baby aspirin 80mg)

If you use this start with only one dose daily, or half if youre smaller or unsure how your body will respond to stimulants. Gradually build up to three doses per day, but no more. I also strongly caution you against using this or any product containing ephedrine simultaneously with Yohimbe and other stimulants. Unfortunately, a bunch of idiots who figured if a little ephedrine was good a lot would be better developed adverse effects or died, resulting in restriction of sales, so the only way to purchase ephedrine now is in products like Bronkaid (25mg ephedrine, 400mg guaifenesin). In the dosages used for the ECA stack the guaifenesin should have very little effect but some people might be sensitive to it (nauseated), which is


another good reason to start with only one dose daily.

Unlike the majority of fat loss supplements the ECA stack is relatively inexpensive and actually works. Of course, it wont make much of a difference unless youre also eating and training properly, but if you have your diet and workouts in line it can help.

Tonight's workout:

1. Neck Extension and Flexion (Nautilus 2nd Generation 4-way Neck machine with the SuperSlow cam and low-friction retrofit)

2. Barbell stiff-legged deadlift (yes, I also use free weights)

3. Chest Press (MedX)

All exercises performed using SuperSlow protocol, to static failure, with an average time under load (TUL) of 1:30 per exercise. Total workout time, approximately ten minutes.

Next workout is:

1. Leg Press (MedX)

2. Front-Grip Pull-Down (SuperSlow Systems),

3. Calf Raise (using the MedX Leg Press).


Once in a while I substitute Arthur Jones' "Arm Routine from Hell":

1. Chins (Nautilus Omni-Multi-Exercise)

2. Biceps (1st Generation Nautilus Plateloader with SuperSlow cam and low-friction retrofit)

3. Dips (Nautilus Omni-Multi-Exercise)

4. Triceps (1st Generation Nautilus Plateloader with SuperSlow cam and low-friction retrofit).

Over the years Ive experimented with almost every high intensity training repetition method and cadence. Ive used and trained people with variations of rest-pause, negative-only, negative and positive emphasized reps, static contractions, etc. While all of them are capable of producing good results when done hard and progressively with reasonably good form and a bit of common sense, some are safer and more efficient than others, and Ive settled on a relatively straight-forward set of repetition performance guidelines. I recommend moving at least slowly enough to maintain a 4/4 cadence over the full range of motion of most exercises, with a three second pause or squeeze at the end point on simple and compound pulling exercises. This is slow enough for most people to be able to perform reasonably smooth, controlled turnarounds, maintain proper body position and movement, and focus on intensely contracting the


target muscles. Depending on skill, motor ability, and other factors some people might need to move more slowly to be able to do this. If youre not sure, youre better off moving more slowly than more quickly. With a 4/4 cadence a repetition range of 6 to 10 on compound pushing exercises and 5 to 8 on compound pulling and simple exercises results in a time under load of around 50 to 90 seconds. This is a good starting point for most people. Individual response varies, however, and you may find you get better results with either a higher or lower repetition range. I still favor relatively brief routines for some very advanced trainees, but recommend a few more exercises for most people starting out. A good starting point is a basic, full-body workout consisting of mostly compound movements working all the major muscle groups and a few simple movements to work the smaller muscle groups like the neck, forearms, and calves. With Free Weights and Body Weight:

1. Barbell or Hip-Belt Squat 2. Chin Up (Regular or Static Hold) 3. Bench Press or Weighted Dip 4. Bent Over Row 5. Overhead Press 6. Stiff-Legged Deadlift 7. Heel Raise 8. TSC Neck Extension or Wrist Extension 9. TSC Neck Flexion or Wrist Flexion


With Machines:

1. Leg Press 2. Close, Underhand-Grip Pulldown 3. Chest Press or Seated Dip 4. Compound Row 5. Overhead Press 6. Trunk Extension 7. Heel Raise 8. TSC Neck Extension or Wrist Extension 9. TSC Neck Flexion or Wrist Flexion

I prefer to alternate between working the neck and the forearm and grip at the end of these workouts, but if you have the time you arent going to overtrain doing both since the muscle groups involved are relatively small. I dont include a direct abdominal exercise because the abs get a lot of indirect work in the others, especially chin ups and close underhand grip pulldowns when done correctly. Consider it optional. Once someone has their form down on these exercises and has learned to train more intensely I would divide these into two or more workouts, reducing the number of compound exercises and adding simple ones to round out the muscles worked or to emphasize specific muscle groups. There are a lot of ways to do this depending on individual goals and capabilities and the equipment available, and the following are just a few examples.


With Free Weights and Body Weight: Workout A:

1. Barbell or Hip-Belt Squat 2. Bench Press or Weighted Dip 3. Bent-Over Row 4. Lateral Raise 5. Barbell Wrist Extension or Reverse Curl 6. Barbell Wrist Curl or Gripping 7. Heel Raise

Workout B:

1. Deadlift 2. Overhead Press 3. Chin Up (Regular or Static Hold) 4. Triceps Extension 5. Barbell Curl 6. Isometric Neck Extension (90 second TSC) 7. Isometric Neck Flexion (90 second TSC)

With Machines: Workout A:

1. Leg Press 2. Chest Press 3. Compound Row 4. Lateral Raise 5. Cable Wrist Extension or Reverse Curl 6. Cable Wrist Curl or Gripping 7. Heel Raise


Workout B:

1. Trunk Extension 2. Leg Extension 3. Overhead Press 4. Close, Underhand-Grip Pulldown 5. Triceps Extension 6. Arm Curl 7. Isometric Neck Extension (90 second TSC) 8. Isometric Neck Flexion (90 second TSC)

It amazes me how many people neglect to train their necks. Neck training should be a priority for everyone; not just athletes like football and rugby players, boxers, wrestlers, and martial artists.

Over the past three years I've been in three separate car accidents where I was either the driver or passenger in a car which was struck from the back or side with enough force to cause my head to be whipped violently in one direction or another. I can happily say that outside of some slight stiffness in the neck for the first few days immediately following one of those incidents no injury resulted.

Makes me wonder how many neck injuries could be prevented or greatly reduced in severity by proper strengthening of the area. Not to mention, a well-built neck looks impressive, and gives one a powerful appearance. Especially if you're a professional with a suit-and-tie job, in which case it's the only body part you really get to display most of the time.


One reason for neglecting neck training may be the unfortunate fact that many people don't consider the neck to be as much of a "show" muscle as the biceps or chest, as I believe Matt Brzycki pointed out in one of his articles.

When was the last time you saw someone flex his or her sternocleidomastoids when asked to "make a muscle"?

When was the last time a neck-pose was called for during the pre-judging at a bodybuilding contest, or included in a posing routine?

When was the last time someone at the gym asked you how much weight you use on the Nautilus or Hammer neck machine, instead of how much you bench press?

Does your gym even have any neck training apparatus?

If yes, when was the last time you saw anyone using it?

If not, when was the last time you saw anyone perform manually resisted neck exercises at your gym?

Speaking of muscular necks, if anyone in the Belmar, New Jersey area wants to see a frighteningly huge neck, go visit Belmar Intelligent Fitness at 803 Ocean Ave. and ask to see instructor Joel Waldman. This guy's neck is more heavily muscled than most people's thighs.


The photo above is of Joel Waldman at 62 and 270 pounds with a 21 neck, pictured here pumped up to an incredible 22-1/4 I still train my neck regularly and have all my gym and phone clients perform neck exercises. I use and teach Ken Hutchins 90 second timed static contraction protocol for all neck exercises as it is easy to learn, requires no equipment, is highly effective, and probably the safest way to train the neck. If you have no equipment you can perform TSC neck extension with manual resistance: Interlace your fingers and place your hands on the back of your head.


With only a moderate effort, begin to extend your neck pressing your head back against your hands, while using your arms to prevent your head from moving. After 30 seconds increase your effort, contracting almost as hard as you can. After another 30 seconds increase your effort, contracting as hard as you feel you can safely. After another 30 seconds gradually ease off. To perform TSC neck flexion, place your palms on your forehead with the heels of your palms over your eyebrows. To perform TSC neck lateral flexion, place the palm of your hand on the side of your head with the heel of your palm just above your ear. This can be performed on a selectorized neck machine by pinning up the weight stack so your head is in a neutral position when contracting against the movement arm.

Even if you're the type that likes to keep the volume of your workouts to the absolute minimal, utilizing just the heavy, basic compound movements, it doesn't take that much extra time or utilize that much extra recovery ability to perform a few extra exercises for the neck.


Well, the post-workout fatigue, nausea and dizziness have almost completely passed, and I'm starting to feel wired again. I usually train in the afternoon, in which case this isn't a problem, but I probably won't be able to sleep until 2:00 am. Maybe I need to drop the NoDoz and try just the Surge/Mt. Dew and Aleve next time I train this late.

Is it just me, or does everyone have some kind of pre-workout ritual they go through? I have found myself always going through the same routine before my workouts.

About one to one and one-half hours before I plan to work out, I tend to become somewhat anxious and tense, and have to try to get my mind off of it. If I don't have any clients scheduled at that time, I either sit on the couch in our lobby or in my office and try to "zone-out" and relax.

As happy as I am with the results, I must admit I dread the workout. It's brutally intense, as it should be, and the associated sensations are anything but pleasant. Proper exercise is a message to your body that its current physical capacity or functional ability is inadequate for the demands that the environment is going to place upon it, and that an increase in that capacity/ability is an absolute requirement for survival.

You have to push your body to its absolute limit, and then try to go even further if you're going to convince it that an increase in that limit is absolutely necessary. If exercise effective, it is because it is extremely demanding, and if it is extremely demanding, it is not going to be fun.


Contrary to popular opinion, exercise should not be fun. It is not entertainment. Some people will argue that if an exercise program is not fun that people will not adhere to it. Well, if people are exercising to amuse themselves, then they need to get their priorities straight. They should be exercising to produce results, and if their program is producing results, then that should be motivation enough to continue training.

The only people who need to be entertained by or during their workouts to be motivated to adhere to their programs are the people following programs that don't provide any meaningful results to motivate them.

If a person wants to have fun or be entertained, I can think of thousands of activities which serve this purpose far better than exercise. If you truly enjoy working out, either you aren't training anywhere near hard enough, or you are a masochist of the highest order.

After trying to relax and clear my head for about a half-hour to an hour, I'll change into my workout clothes.

No, I don't wear workout clothes when training people. While working with clients I always wear dress pants, a long-sleeved dress shirt, and a tie. If you dress like a dumb jock, people will think of you that way, no matter how intelligent or educated you are. I'll save the review of John Molloy's Dress For Success for another day though.


I dont like wearing dress clothes. I would much rather just train people in a T-shirt, shorts, and sandals or Vibram Five Fingers, but right or wrong some people will take you more seriously when youre wearing a dress shirt and tie and it does help to dispel the dumb jock image most personal trainers project.

The act of changing from my work clothes to workout clothes seems to help put me in the proper mind-set for the workout. Almost like the change in state-of-mind athletes experience as they change from their street clothes into their uniform just before competition.

About a half-hour before the workout I always have to use the lavatory, whether I've drunk a considerable amount of water or not. Most likely the result of pre-workout anxiety. After this, I'll take the two Aleve's and one NoDoz and wash them down with a 20oz Surge or Mt. Dew, which I'll drink over the duration of the next half-hour preceding the workout.

I try schedule my workouts during times when no other instructors have clients scheduled, so that I can set up all of my machines or load up the barbell for deadlifts ahead of time, and so that I'm not in anyone's way.

I then turn all the fans on high and aim them in the direction of the machines I'll be using during the workout.

We keep the temperature in the training area in the


mid to high 60's (Fahrenheit), but you can still heat up quite a bit without the fans. Staying as cool as possible during the workout makes a huge improvement in your ability to go all out. Like any engine, the body doesn't function optimally if it's overheated. If you train at home or own a personal training facility, invest in a couple of standing floor fans to position by all the major machines or exercise stations. You'll be surprised at the difference it makes.

Right before I start the workout, I remind myself that my goal is to inroad as deeply as possible, that although it's going to be brutally intense, it's only going to last a few minutes, and that I must not hold anything back, that anything less than 100% effort is unacceptable.

With practice Ive been able to reduce this whole thing to a few minutes. I spend a couple minutes sitting comfortably, focusing on my breathing to try and quiet my mind. Then I visualize performing each exercise in perfect form, like a machine. Finally, I remind myself to focus on the muscles, that the burning is my cue to work even harder, and that the harder the exercise becomes the stricter my form. It only takes a few extra minutes and will help improve your focus considerably so I recommend giving it a try.

Once I've started, I simply concentrate as hard as


possible on using perfect form and contracting the target muscles during each exercise, making sure not to allow myself to be distracted.

Fortunately, I don't have to work out in the circus atmosphere of a typical gym. Our facility is set up to be as distraction-free as possible. The training area has no music, no mirrors, nothing on the walls or doors, and wherever possible machines are positioned facing towards the walls with the walkways behind them so that nobody has to walk in front of you while you are performing an exercise.

No pagers, cell phones, grunting, screaming, shouting or plate-banging is allowed, and since workouts are by appointment only, and nobody is allowed in the training area without an instructor, you don't have a bunch of people running around getting in your way.

After my last exercise, I either drag myself to my office or lay down on the floor right where I am and zone-out or sleep for a half-hour to an hour or so. Then, as soon as I'm both mentally and physically functional again, I get something to eat.

Which reminds me, I'm starving.


Over the years Ive worked out and trained people in a variety of environments from high end private training studios to noisy, crowded gyms to our home gym in a screen in back porch. While its nice to have a distraction-free environment to train in it isnt an absolute requirement for a safe or effective workout, and youd be surprised how much you can learn to block out with practice. The pre-workout meditation mentioned earlier helps a lot with staying focused when your only option is to train in a busy gym. I dont recommend listening to music during workouts but wearing headphones or earphones is an effective way to reduce sound while also sending the message you dont want to be bothered. You can play white noise to help further block out sound.


I do recommend maintaining a low profile both to avoid inviting socializing and other distractions and interruptions and to avoid distracting or interrupting others. Be invisible. Get in, get it done, and get out. Youre there to work out, not to be a spectacle. A note to trainers: If you train in an open, non-private setting it is part of your job to run interference for your clients and prevent others from distracting them. It is also your job to control your clients behavior so they do not become a distraction to others.

Bashing Aerobics 21

Bashing Aerobics

Sunday, April 26, 1998

Had a great workout today. Nauseous, dizzy and my heart is pounding. Usually, I couldn't care less what my heart rate (HR) is. It's not that important. Resting HR is not an indication of one's state of health, and HR elevation during exercise is a secondary consideration, and not something one should use as an indication of an effective workout. But, as hard as it's beating, it's certainly got my attention. My average resting HR is in the low 50's, so the approximately 120 BPM I'm experiencing right now (roughly five minutes after my workout) is over twice normal.

I spoke with Arthur Jones regarding the subject this morning. He stated, and I agree, "six weeks of proper strength training can improve one's cardiovascular fitness to a degree that is impossible with any number of years of aerobics."

Jim Flanagan introduced me to Arthur Jones at a MedX seminar at the Sheraton Hotel in Maitland, FL in 1997. I spoke with Arthur by phone and visited him at his house in Ocala with David Landau numerous times between then and his death in August of 2007. I learned a lot from these discussions and regret not taking notes since the examples and stories Arthur told to illustrate his points were insightful and entertaining.


This reminds me of something Arthur said during an interview with Stephen Langer, MD on the show Medicine Man in the early 1980's,

"the lifting of weights is so much superior for the purpose of improving the cardiovascular condition of a human being that whatever is in second place is not even in the running, no pun intended. That is to say, running is a very poor, a very dangerous, a very slow, a very inefficient, a very nonproductive method for eventually producing a very limited, low order of cardiovascular benefit. Any, ANY, result that can be produced by any amount of running can be duplicated and surpassed by the proper use of weight lifting for cardiovascular benefits. Now I realize that there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people in this country who don't understand that, who don't believe that, who will not admit that. Now these people are simply uninformed. Certainly, it's possible to run with no benefit, it's possible to lift weights with no benefit. I'm talking about the proper use of weight lifting; and properly applied, weight lifting will improve your cardiovascular benefit to a degree that is impossible to attain with any amount of running."

When properly performed, strength training meets all the requirements for cardiovascular conditioning. Assuming that one trains intensely enough and allows no rest between exercises, HR can be elevated to a tremendous degree and maintained throughout the workout. Some of the highest HR's on record were achieved by subjects performing high intensity strength training during Nautilus Project: Total Conditioning at West Point Military Academy. Cadet's maintained HR's

Bashing Aerobics 23

of 205-225 BPM for periods of 35 to 40 minutes during the workouts.

Your heart has no idea what you're using your muscles for, whether it is running, cycling, swimming, strength training, etc. If the muscles are working harder, the cardiovascular system must also work harder to supply the working muscles with oxygen and remove the metabolic-by products of intense muscular work. Some supposed "experts" claim that for an activity to qualify as "aerobic," or to be effective for cardiovascular conditioning, it must involve continuous, or "steady-state" work of the muscles in the lower body, such as is the case in running or cycling. This simply is not true. I can understand how they would come to this conclusion though. Since most people have much more muscle mass in their legs than in any other part of the body, it is easy to achieve a significant degree of HR elevation by performing only moderate intensity activity using those muscles. Most upper body exercises, however, do not involve enough muscle mass to place a significant demand on the cardiovascular system if only performed with a moderate degree of intensity.

Realize that the majority of these so-called "experts" have never properly performed a single set of a high intensity exercise in their lives, much less an entire high intensity workout. And, if they strength train at all, they do so using such fast movements that meaningful muscular loading is almost entirely non-existent, and probably rest so long between exercises that any degree of HR elevation achieved quickly subsides.


In recent years several studies on sprint interval training suggests as long as the work performed is of sufficiently high intensity rushing between exercises is not necessary. One study* showed considerable cardiovascular and metabolic improvements (time to complete cycling time trials, increases in muscle oxidative capacity, etc.) with only four to six 30 second sprints with four minutes of active rest in between (cycling at a low intensity). When performed with a high enough level of effort a workout consisting of a few big, compound movements performed for a TUL of around 60 to 90 seconds can produce a tremendous metabolic and cardiovascular demand even if you dont rush between exercises. If youre doing this a few times a week there is no need for additional cardio. That being said, there are other reasons to move quickly between exercises and you should still try to do so, just dont worry that youre not getting adequate metabolic or cardiovascular work if youre not. As a general rule move very slowly during exercises but very quickly between them. *Gibala MJ, Little JP, van Essen M, Wilkin GP, Burgomaster KA, Safdar A, Raha S, Tarnopolsky MA J Physiol (Lond) 2006 Sep 15; Pt 3(575):901-11

These people have no experience with high intensity training, absolutely no idea what truly intense

Bashing Aerobics 25

muscular work is, and absolutely no idea what kind of demand proper exercise places on the cardiovascular system.

It is not uncommon for endurance athletes, who typically consider themselves to be in superior cardiovascular condition and who have performed what they believed to be proper strength training in the past, to comment on how much of a demand SuperSlow high intensity strength training places on their cardiovascular system. Even marathon runners and triathletes, athletes that many consider to be the picture of cardiovascular fitness, have asked to be allowed to pause and rest in the middle of their workouts, claiming they needed to "catch their breath."

Over the years Ive trained a lot of athletes who thought they were in great condition, including professional and college football players, who were shocked at the cardiovascular demands of a properly performed high intensity training workout. Anyone who doesnt think HIT is effective for cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning simply isnt doing it right.

As long as one is working some significant part of their body at a high degree of intensity, there will be a demand on the cardiovascular system, and as long as one does not allow a significant degree of rest between exercises, the HR will remain elevated for the duration of the workout.


Properly performed, strength training does everything aerobics is supposed to do, more safely, more efficiently, and more effectively. Why destroy your musculoskeletal system for the sake of your cardiovascular system doing aerobics, when you can improve both with properly performed high intensity strength training?

This reminds me of something else Arthur said today,

"rather than be remembered as the man who saved America's hearts, Cooper [Kenneth Cooper, MD, the "Father of Aerobics"] will more likely be remembered as the man who ruined America's knees."

A large percentage of the improvements in physical or athletic performance and physiological changes such as a decrease in resting heart rate (RHR) that many people assume to be caused by improvements in cardiovascular efficiency, are actually due to increases in muscular strength and endurance and improvements in metabolic conditioning.

Realize that there is no correlation between resting heart rate (RHR) and physical fitness. RHR alone is not an indication of one's level of physical fitness. It is simply a clinical measurement, and must be considered within the context of various other factors.

While a RHR in the low 40's is often considered to be a sign of superior physical condition, within the context of other symptoms such as sweating, chills, abnormally low body temperature and a pale complexion it would be an indication of a serious medical emergency. However, a change in one's average RHR may be an

Bashing Aerobics 27

indication of an improvement or decrease in one's level of fitness.

A decrease in one's RHR is usually attributed to an improvement in cardiovascular fitness, and is assumed to be an indication of an increase in stroke volume and ejection fraction. However, a decrease in RHR is more likely the result of an improvement in metabolic conditioning. It is not so much a matter of an increase in cardiac output as it is an improvement in the muscles' ability to utilize what's being sent to them, which decreases the demand placed on the heart, both at rest and during intense physical activity. Not to mention the degree to which cardiac output can be increased is very limited, and very quickly achieved by proper training.

Past a certain point, increases in the size of myocardia would begin to actually decrease the volume of the left ventricle and obstruct outflow through the aorta, which would decrease cardiac output. This is common in athletes who abuse cocaine.

Improvements in metabolic condition probably contribute much more to decreases in RHR and in HR elevation during intense physical activity than increases in cardiac output. Such metabolic conditioning can be achieved through proper strength training. It's the muscles ability to use what's being sent to them, more than the heart's ability to send it that's important.

What amazes me is that despite the fact that the Surgeon General has basically stated that any activity slightly more demanding than watching TV when performed regularly will help improve and maintain


cardiovascular fitness, there are people who will say that high intensity strength training, which is the most brutally demanding form of physical activity ever devised, will do nothing for the heart. That this is nonsense should go without saying. And, if all that is necessary for cardiovascular fitness is going for a short walk or working in the yard, or performing some other light activity for a few minutes every day, then why do hundreds of thousands of people insist on destroying their joints and spines by jogging? Because they believe it will help them lose fat?

More nonsense.

Aerobics does not burn enough calories to be worth performing for that purpose. If a person does something for the sole purpose of burning calories, their time is not worth much. A 150-pound man running at a 7mph pace will burn, at most, about 8 kcals per minute, or 480 calories per hour. He would probably burn about 100 of those kcals if he sat and did nothing for an hour, so the actual extra kcals expended as a result of the activity would amount to only 400 or so.

If he did this every night for a week, he wouldn't burn enough calories to equal the amount stored in one pound of fat. Such a high volume and frequency of running probably would cause a significant loss of muscle though. Since a muscle yields only 600 kcals, compared to the 3,500 kcals in a pound of fat, it would be possible to lose over four pounds of week in such a manner if one was losing muscle weight.

Note that most habitual joggers, marathon and ultra-

Bashing Aerobics 29

distance runners, and other obsessive/compulsive aerobics addicts often have the sickly skeletal appearance of Nazi death-camp refugees and AIDS victims. This is hardly a healthy appearance.

The only effective way to create a negative net-calorie balance is to follow a reduced calorie diet. It's much easier and far more time efficient to simply eat less, than to spend hours a day, several days a week pounding your joints on the pavement or slaving away on some oversized hamster-wheel. And when you're not wasting hours a week on the stepper or treadmill, you're going to get much better results from your strength training. If one truly desires to increase their caloric expenditure, then it is strength training they should focus on.

Calories still count, but it is equally important to eat foods which create a hormonal environment conducive to fat loss. If you eat fewer calories but most of it is junk youre going to have a harder time losing fat and youll probably lose a bit of muscle and your overall health will suffer. Although your weight might go down youll just end up being a smaller fat person and feeling like crap most of the time. If you focus on eating healthier foods and especially getting adequate protein you will probably end up unintentionally eating fewer calories even if you arent trying (a higher protein intake increases satiety and non-starchy vegetables have a very high volume


relative to the calories they contain). However, even if you eat a diet that produces a hormonal environment conducive to fat loss you wont lose much unless there is an energy deficit. After years of experimenting with different methods Ive settled on the following simple guidelines as a starting point for most people wanting to lose fat:

Consume 10 to 12 calories per pound of bodyweight per day. Adjust over time until you are consistently losing at least 1 to 2 pounds of fat per week.

Consume at least 1 gram of protein per pound of estimated lean body mass daily.

Consume less than 1 gram of carbohydrate per pound of estimated lean body mass daily.

Eat mostly beef, fish, eggs, non-starchy vegetables, fruit, and nuts and cook with healthy fats like coconut oil, lard, and butter.

Strictly limit or eliminate grains, legumes, refined sugars, vegetable oils, and alcohol.

Perform one or two full-body high intensity strength training workouts weekly.

Minimize stress (meditate, walk, read, improve your organizational skills, etc.)

Get at least 7 to 8 hours of sleep every night. These may be adjusted or changed depending on different factors such as a very high or low starting body fat percentage, health or digestive system issues, a demanding work or athletic training schedule, etc.

Bashing Aerobics 31

and in some cases I will also recommend the ECA stack or ephedrine and caffeine with fish oil as mentioned earlier. I base the calorie intake on total bodyweight rather than lean body mass now for a slightly more conservative starting point and to account for the calories burned by the fat (which is low, but can be significant depending on how much fat someone has).

Aerobics only burns calories while you're doing it, and damn few at that. Some people will point out that the metabolism is also elevated for several hours afterwards, but this increase is negligible, and hardly worth it. Aerobics can cause you to burn fewer calories the rest of the time though, since when taken too far it can cause a loss of muscle, and can prevent your body from producing the increases in muscular strength and size stimulated during strength training.

Over the years Ive had a few clients who continued to jog or do group aerobics classes despite being told not to. They consistently performed worse during their workouts and had slower fat loss than those who did their high intensity training workouts only, and frequently complained of foot, knee, hip, and/or back problems.

Once they dropped their jogging and/or extra cardio they had better workouts, faster fat loss, and less joint pain.


Im not saying you shouldnt go out and engage in a physical recreational activity if you enjoy it, but you dont need to do it for exercise or fat loss and youll have more fun if youre not trying to turn it into a workout.

Strength training, on the other hand, increases the amount of calories your body burns all the time, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Research from Tufts has indicated that every pound of muscle added to the body of an adult human increases caloric expenditure by an average of 50 calories per day. If one gains five pounds of muscle, which most previously untrained subjects can achieve in a matter of weeks, one's average daily caloric expenditure is increased by 250, for an increase in weekly caloric expenditure of 1750, the amount of calories in half a pound of body fat.

A more realistic estimate of the increase in calorie expenditure is around 6 to 10 calories per pound of muscle per day. However, due to an increase in protein turnover in all of the muscles worked during strength training workouts the effect is probably closer to 25 to 35 calories. This just about halves the increase in expenditures I wrote about before, but when you add this to the other benefits of strength training for fat loss (maintenance of lean body mass, improved insulin sensitivity and glucose metabolism, glycogen

Bashing Aerobics 33

depletion, etc.) strength training is still obviously the way to go. I also think the combination of increased protein turnover and glycogen depletion in the muscles trained is a good reason to perform full-body workouts instead of split routines and to train as frequently as your recovery ability allows when fat loss is your primary goal.

More importantly though, is that proper strength training is absolutely necessary to ensure discriminate weight loss while dieting. If one diets, or does aerobics, or both, but does no strength training, the weight lost will come from a combination of fat, muscle, and organ tissue.

Muscle is a very highly metabolically active tissue, and when your body perceives a reduction in caloric intake, it's going to try to adapt by reducing its caloric expenditure. One of the most effective means of accomplishing this is to decrease the amount of metabolically expensive tissue, one of the most expensive being muscle. Strength training is necessary to ensure that the body maintains, and hopefully increases muscle mass while fat is lost.

And no, combining aerobics and strength training won't produce better results. Adding aerobics will make things worse. It will prevent much of the improvements stimulated by the strength training workouts, and keep you chronically fatigued and hungry.


People who attempt to lose fat by increasing physical activity or doing cardio often end up eating more if they are not also monitoring and controlling their food intake. The result is often a positive energy balance more calories in than out since you can easily eat far more calories in seconds than you can burn in hours. You cant out-exercise a poor diet.

Research by Westcott and Darden have demonstrated that strength training and diet produce greater improvements in body composition when not performed in conjunction with aerobics.

So, what is a moderately reduced calorie diet? Just that: a moderate reduction in caloric intake.

There are several ways to determine the amount of calories one should consume while trying to lose fat. Mike Mentzer recommends recording your average daily caloric intake over a period of five days to and comparing it to changes in bodyweight to estimate average daily caloric expenditure. If your weight stays the same, your intake equals your expenditure, if you lose, your intake is less than your expenditure, if you gain, your intake exceeds your expenditure. Once you determine your average daily caloric expenditure, subtracting 500 from this amount will give you the number of calories you must consume in a day to produce a rate of fat loss of approximately one pound per week.

Bashing Aerobics 35

Another means of estimating caloric intake for fat loss is to multiply your lean body mass in pounds by 10, (absolute minimal number being 1,000) and then adding 200 to this number. The result is your daily caloric intake for the first two weeks of a six-week dieting cycle. During weeks three and four you would consume 100 less calories per day, and during weeks five and six, 200 less calories per day. If after the end of the six weeks you have more fat to lose, repeat the cycle.

For example:

A 140-pound woman, with 25% body fat would have 35 pounds of fat and 105 pounds of lean tissue. 105 multiplied by 10 would give us a minimal average daily caloric intake of 1050 calories. Her six-week cycle would be as follows:

Weeks 1-2: 1,250 cals/day



A 250-pound man, with 25% body fat would have 62.5 pounds of fat and 187.5 pounds of lean tissue. 187.5 multiplied by 10 would give us a minimal average daily caloric intake of 1875 calories. His six-week cycle would be as follows:





Once you achieve the degree of leanness you want, simply gradually increase your average daily caloric intake by 100 kcals every week until you stop losing fat to determine your maintenance level.

Realize that even though total caloric intake is reduced while on a diet, your average daily protein intake in grams should remain the same. The reduction in calories should come from carbohydrate and fat intake. For more detailed information on this, read Lyle McDonald's NutriMuscle column.

Lyle also used to write for Cyberpump. He can currently be found online at bodyrecomposition.com

Aerobics is simply not necessary for fat loss, and makes no meaningful contribution to a fat loss program. I've supervised enough diet programs, and trained enough people whose goal was weight loss to state with absolute certainty that one can dramatically improve their body composition in a matter of weeks with a proper diet and strength training program alone.

Ellington Darden, PhD has issued a challenge to anyone to produce documentation (measurements and standardized before/after photographs) of better results from a fat loss program than those he has produced during his research for his diet and exercise books, and so far, nobody has produced anything even close.

All this talk about dieting is making me hungry. I'm out of here.

Bashing Aerobics 37

Compare the previous examples with the updated, simplified guidelines I posted in the annotation above.

The 140 pound woman would now start at 1,400 to 1,680 calories, at least 105 grams of protein, and less than 105 grams of carbs per day. The 250 pound man would now start at 2,500 to 3,000 calories, at least 187 grams of protein, and less than 187 grams of carbs per day.

Starting from this more conservative deficit I would adjust their daily calorie intake based on bi-weekly weight measurements aiming for a consistent loss of at least one to two pounds per week. Depending on workout performance, energy levels, appetite, etc. other adjustments to their diet and workouts might also be made.

For example, if the man lost six pounds over a two week period (three pounds per week) and performed well during his workouts, Id only reduce his daily calorie intake to 2,440 to 2,928 based on his new weight.

If he only lost one pound over a two week period (only half a pound per week) after first making sure the rest of his diet was in line I would reduce his daily calorie intake based on his new weight and subtracting an additional 500 calories per day to get his rate of fat loss up to between one and two pounds per week (based on the approximate 3,500 calories stored in a pound of fat). This would bring it down to 1,990 to 2,488.

I usually round these numbers to the nearest multiple


of 50 to keep it simple.

If someone starts performing poorly during their workouts or experiences a reduction in energy levels or mood I might have them increase calories slightly, consume additional calories on workout days pre and post workout, or modify their diet or workouts depending on the type and degree of change. Once they reach their goal the process is reversed; their daily calorie intake is gradually increased over time until they are no longer losing weight to determine maintenance calorie intake. If at this point they want to focus on building as much muscle as possible I would have them continue increasing calories while tracking both weight and skinfold measurements to determine how much they need to eat to support an increase in muscle mass without putting on too much fat in the process.

Fast Versus Slow Reps 39

Fast Versus Slow Reps

Wednesday, May 6, 1998

Damn.

Neck, deadlifts, and chest press again today. Improved on every exercise, either in weight or reps. I reduced the caffeine from 300mg to about 250, but I still feel just as wired. This time I worked out at 6:15pm though, and I don't have any early morning appointments tomorrow, so, no big deal if I can't get to sleep until midnight.

The median lethal dose of caffeine is approximately 70 to 90 mg per pound of bodyweight (150 to 200 mg per kg), but it only takes around 250 to 300 mg per day to cause varying degrees of insomnia in some people. If you plan to experiment with the ECA/ECF stack mentioned earlier this is another reason to start with only one dose per day.

Just as I managed to get off the floor and drag myself in here I got a call from Dave Landau, an exercise historian and SuperSlow instructor down in Miami. An article by Bill Kraemer was recently mentioned in Allure magazine (May 1998, page 122) which claims that "performing slow repetitions during weight training may build bulk and strength - but not as effectively as


working out at normal speed," that SuperSlow training doesn't "produce the kind of molecular change that improves the muscles ability to generate power," and that "slow reps do not create enough pressure on bones to stimulate bone growth." He then goes on to say, "there is simply no data to suggest that SuperSlow movements build a muscle better than weight training at normal speed, so why make workouts harder than they already are?"

These statements are not true.

First, what the hell does Kraemer mean by "normal speeds"? If he's talking about the type of ballistic, jerky movements you see most people performing, then he couldn't be more wrong in saying that they're more effective than slower repetitions. And there IS data that demonstrates that slower repetition speeds stimulate greater strength increases. Both Westcott and Darden have performed research comparing the effectiveness of training at various speeds, and in every case, the slower the movements, the better the results.

Kraemer's claim that "SuperSlow training doesn't "produce the kind of molecular change that improves the muscles ability to generate power" is idiotic. Muscles don't produce power, they produce force. Power is a measure of work performed per time, which has nothing to do with muscular force production. By moving more quickly during exercise, one can produce more power although their muscles are actually producing less force due to the effects of increased momentum. Increases in muscular strength are mentioned in terms of muscular force output,


not power.

This whole "train fast to be fast" mentality is utter stupidity. Anyone who recommends performing fast movements during exercise is a fool, and has no business advising anyone on any exercise related subject. If they're stupid enough to recommend fast movement speeds during exercise, then it is probably very safe to assume that they apply the same lack of common sense to other areas.

Explosiveness, the ability to produce a high degree of power or rate of force development (RFD), is largely a matter of skill. Understand that skills are very highly specific. Improving an athlete's explosiveness in the performance of one movement will do nothing to improve it in different movements.

To improve one's "explosiveness" in a specific set of movements, it is necessary to practice the performance of those exact movements. If you want to improve your explosiveness in throwing a punch, jumping, blocking, or any other movement, you must practice those specific movements. Performing an exercise in an explosive manner will improve your ability to perform that specific exercise in an explosive manner, but will do nothing to improve your explosiveness in the performance of other movements.

Moving slowly during exercise will not increase your speed or "explosiveness" in other activities, and neither will training explosively. Moving slowly during exercise will not make you slower either. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.


High intensity training instructor, Nautilus aficionado, and exercise historian David Landau on stage at a natural bodybuilding competition.

The purpose of exercise is to improve various factors of physical conditioning (muscular strength and endurance, cardiovascular efficiency, bone and


connective tissue strength, and flexibility) not skill. To accomplish this in the safest, most effective manner, it is necessary to use a slow speed of movement. There is absolutely no valid research that shows that one must move quickly during exercise to improve any one of these factors of physical condition, or that moving faster will produce better results, and there never will be, because it simply is not true.

Kraemer's statement about faster movements being necessary to stimulate increases in bone density is also utterly false. It has been documented by Dexascan at the University of Florida static testing on the MedX Lumbar machine effects increases in bone density of 1% per week. Static testing, which involves no movement at all, is obviously much slower than SuperSlow. In light of this, it is obvious that Kraemer's claim that fast movement during exercise is necessary to stimulate increases in bone density is unfounded.

Moving faster during exercise will increase one thing. It will increase one's risk of injury. To recommend to a person that they move quickly during exercise is an act of gross negligence, and should be considered malpractice. Any person or magazine that promotes such notions is doing people a great disservice.

To claim that one must move quickly for the sake of stimulating increases in bone density is especially irresponsible. The people who most desperately need to strength train for the sake of increasing bone density are those suffering from osteoporosis. To tell someone with osteoporosis to move quickly during exercise is the act of either a complete idiot or a sadist.


Osteoporosis is a serious condition that affects the lives of millions of people. Most of you who are reading this are probably young, male, athletes, bodybuilders, or strength training enthusiasts, and osteoporosis is not an issue at this time in your lives, so it may be difficult to imagine the effect this has on a person. Think of all the recreational and sports activities you enjoy. Now imagine not being able to do any of them because if you do you will most certainly end up with several broken bones, most likely your hips or spine.

Think about what it's like for all those elderly people to whom activities we take for granted are extremely dangerous, because of the fragility of their bones. Tens of thousands of those people will fall and break their backs or hips this year, simply trying to walk through their homes. Almost half of them will die within six months afterwards due to complications resulting from the break. Think about that.

Realize that the quality of these people's lives can be dramatically improved by proper strength training, and that if the increase in bone density that it affects saves them from a serious injury, it could mean the difference between life and death.

Before you continue reading, stop and think about that for a while. Think about your parents or grandparents, or other elderly people you know. Would you tell them to move quickly during exercise?

I would like to take every person who recommends plyometrics and explosive training and teach them a lesson about force and injury. I'd break their backs with a sledgehammer.


The sledgehammer comment was unnecessary and I would not physically assault people just because theyre idiots (if I did Id have no time for anything else) but they really have no business training people if they believe that nonsense. Since writing this Ive trained several women with osteopenia and osteoporosis. All of them performed basic, full-body high intensity training workouts with slow repetition speeds once or twice a week and all had significant improvements in bone density and bone mineral content.

Some people will argue that while such training is obviously inappropriate for osteoporitics, that it is perfectly safe for a young, well-conditioned athlete.

This is also complete insanity.

Injury results when a material or tissue is exposed to a level of force, which exceeds its structural integrity. The faster an object moves, the greater the amount of force.

Even if a person does not experience a major injury such as a break, tear or avulsion, if they routinely perform explosive movements, they are going to gradually ruin their joints. And although the results of such stupidity may not be immediately obvious, it will eventually develop into some type of painful, degenerative joint condition that will have a profound effect on a person's functional ability later on in life.


Don't be fooled by the people who jog or train explosively and claim that they've never injured themselves or know anyone who has. They're injuring themselves all right, only in a very gradual way.

In addition to the damage to the musculoskeletal system a high volume and frequency of jogging or other endurance activities can lead to a variety of other health problems like heart, liver, kidney, and gall bladder damage, reduced testosterone, and an increased risk of brain cancer.

An athlete who participates in sports of a ballistic or high-force nature must expose themselves to such a risk in practicing the skills of and participating in their sport. This is an unavoidable part of certain sports, and each individual must decide whether the risk is worth it to them. An athlete does not need to exercise in a ballistic or "explosive" fashion, however, and will gain absolutely nothing of value from doing so.

Arguments over the safety and effectiveness of fast vs. slow movement speeds in exercise are nothing new. It's been going on for well over twenty years. All of the arguments pro-fast movements are based on either misunderstanding of motor learning principles, misunderstanding of principles of efficient muscular loading, the nonsense that people are passing off as "scientific" research, or plain stupidity.

To put it as simply as possible, if you want to make an exercise more effective, you have to make it harder.


Exercise with slower repetition speeds is harder. If you want to make an exercise safer, you need to reduce the amount of force the body is exposed to. Exercise with slower repetition speeds exposes the body to less force.

As Arthur Jones would say, "anyone who doesn't understand this is too fucking stupid for me to argue with."

Moving more slowly only actually makes exercise harder up to a point, beyond which a further reduction in speed doesnt make a significant difference in the variation in force due to acceleration. It is necessary, however, for some people to move very slowly to be able to minimize acceleration during the turnarounds depending on their motor ability and skill in the exercises performed.

Fitness Media Bullshit 49

Fitness Media Bullshit

Saturday, May 16, 1998

Although I took the same amount of caffeine today as I did prior to the last workout, 250mg, I didn't feel any effect at all. Probably because I've consumed a slightly higher amount of caffeine on a daily basis over the past week than usual, and have adapted to it somewhat.

I am beginning to suspect that the effects may be largely psychological. Although there is research which indicates that caffeine improves endurance performance somewhat, my workouts are hardly more than ten minutes long, and could hardly be considered "endurance" events. For the next few workouts, I'm going to drop the caffeine entirely and see if there's any noticeable difference.

If anyone else tries this little experiment, don't go overboard with the caffeine, especially if you train at night. The most common dosage I've seen used in the research was around 5mg per kg bodyweight. Far less than that would probably due the trick, and any more than that will probably cause some difficulty sleeping.

As for the Aleve, don't take more than two, and like the bottle says, never take more than three in a 24-hour period unless directed by your doctor.

Speaking of doctors, I've got to thank Doug McGuff, MD for the idea, as well as providing some of the insight into the effects of HIT on the cardiovascular


system I mentioned in a previous installment of this column.

Had an excellent workout today:

1. MedX leg press

2. SuperSlow Systems front-grip pull down

3. Calf raise on the MedX leg press

The leg press and calf raise were both ten pounds heavier, and the pull down was five pounds heavier. Even with the weight increase, I was able to perform each exercise for the same reps/TUL as last time on all the exercises, which surprises me since I haven't slept as much as usual this week. I've been assisting my girlfriend with the preparation for a photography exhibit she's having this weekend, which has taken a bit more time than I'd expected.

All sorts of nonsense in the media recently. First, Dr. Willie Kraemer told Allure magazine that SuperSlow doesn't improve bone density, which is an outright lie. Now, Arthur Jones is ranting about Ken Hutchins in the Heavy Duty Bulletin.

The Heavy Duty Bulletin was published by Brian Johnston who had a business relationship with Mike Mentzer at the time. Mike eventually ended the partnership over various disagreements with Johnston. Speaking of Mike Mentzer, those of you who remember his books Heavy Duty and Heavy Duty II:


Mind And Body might recognize his influence in these consolidation routines. At the time I was alternating between three workouts, two very brief ones and an occasional arm specialization workout. Workout A:

1. Leg Press 2. Close Underhand Grip Pull Down 3. Heel Raise

Workout B:

1. Neck Extension 2. Neck Flexion 3. Stiff Legged Deadlift 4. Chest Press

Arm Specialization Workout:

1. Chin Up 2. Arm Curl 3. Dips 4. Triceps Extension 5. Leg Press

Recently, the Heavy Duty Bulletin published an article an article by Arthur Jones entitled SuperSlow: The Gospel According to Ken Hutchins. The article was nothing more than a profane rant consisting of vulgar insults and threats of physical violence towards several individuals.


In the article, Arthur repeatedly insults Ken's intelligence and calls him an "arrogant, stupid liar", yet nowhere, not once in the article, does Arthur state exactly what it is he believes Ken has lied about, or what statements or actions of Ken's he believes to be "stupid". Arthur simply rants on and on, without explaining or providing arguments in support of his statements, which leads me to believe that there are no rational explanations or arguments to support them. The following are only a few examples of the kind of statements Arthur made in the article

about a lawsuit filed against him by Dr. Morris Notolevitz, who screwed up one of the most expensive exercise research projects ever

"For anybody out there who chooses to doubt me, all I will say is roll the dice, but be clearly aware in advance that the stakes are your ass. Just short of jumping off the top of the Empire State building with neither a parachute or a bungee cord, about the most dangerous thing you can do is to win an outrageous lawsuit against me. At best, you will get nothing, and at worst you may get killed."

about Gideon Ariel, who has also filed a lawsuit against Arthur in the past

"he is a fucking liar about that subject and everything else he says. So far I have neither killed him nor had him killed, but I would not advise him to try fucking with me any more in the future."

about Ken Hutchins


"Being clearly aware of the fact that I am now living in an almost utterly insane society, and having already lived through a list of outrages that would drive most people up the wall, I am no longer surprised by anything; disgusted and pissed off, yes, but surprised, no. So I am not surprised by anything that Ken Hutchins has to say; but also being aware of the fact that there are still a few, damned few as it happens, at least semi-sane people still alive, these few people being the only ones remaining who have either any interest in the truth or enough sense to understand it when they encounter it, my articles are directed toward that few among the many. The rest could do everybody a big favor by dropping dead, and if that would require something in the way of a push then I'm for it."

about exercise "scientists"

"I have as much respect for such people as I do for the lawyers who helped O.J. Simpson get away with murder, so it is utterly ridiculous to accuse me of sucking up to such people; in general, I would not be willing to piss on them if they were on fire, would be far more inclined to throw some gasoline on the flames."

Although I strongly agree that the overwhelming majority of people claiming to be exercise "scientists" or exercise "physiologists" today know absolutely nothing of value about the subject of exercise, I do not believe that their ignorance or stupidity is grounds for their being burned to death.

Arthur goes on like this for the entire article. Although the title would lead one to believe that the article is a critique of SuperSlow training, the only place in the


article where Arthur even mentions it is to state, incorrectly, that Ken Hutchins claims to have been the first person to suggest using slow movements during exercise, despite the fact that Arthur has been telling people to move slowly during exercise since before Ken was born.

I know Ken Hutchins personally, have worked with him for over two years, have read almost everything he has ever written on the subject of exercise, and know for a fact he has never claimed to be the first person to recommend moving slowly during exercise, either verbally or in print. As a matter of fact, Ken has credited Arthur with promoting a slow speed of movement during exercise, although not adequately slow by our standards. In the SuperSlow technical manual, SuperSlow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol, Ken credits Vince Bocchicchio with suggesting the ten second positive movement. What Ken Hutchins did was develop and refine the slow protocol into what is now referred to as SuperSlow.

I do not know exactly what all of Arthur's problems with Ken are. I do know that Arthur believes Ken claims to have first developed the variable bodytorque counterbalance, which Arthur believes he invented first. As I understand it, both of them discovered it independently of each other. However, this is a moot point, because a Dr. Gustav Zander from Sweden first developed exercise machines possessing a variable bodytorque counterbalance in the late 1,800's, long before either of them.

Both of them may have come up with the idea


independent of each other, but neither was first, and, being aware of this, Ken doesn't claim to have been.

When I asked him about the subject, Arthur stated that Ken has "gotten carried away with this slow thing" and "taken it too far", and that although people should move slowly during exercise SuperSlow is "too slow."

Realize that Arthur has stated and written elsewhere that "it is probably impossible to move too slowly during exercise" and "when in doubt of the proper speed of movement, it is better to move too slowly than too quickly." So which is it Arthur?

While Arthur may have been right, he never explained why he thought SuperSlow is too slow. I dont know whether this is because he did not have specific reasons or simply didnt care to discuss them. Although I prefer a slightly more moderate speed Ive had very good results training people with SuperSlow. I can say with absolute certainty it is an effective way to train when done right. The worst you might be able to say about going too slowly is inroad appears to be slightly less efficient beyond some point when using a longer negative duration, possibly due to the lower metabolic cost of negative work or when using equipment with a high level of friction.

While Arthur is certainly entitled to his opinions, I strongly resent his implication that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. Although he has


probably contributed more to the field of exercise than any other person who's ever lived, or ever will, he is certainly not infallible, and has occasionally made some pretty stupid statements himself. Woodpecker's heads do not move faster than the speed of sound.

Arthur actually made this statement at the MedX seminar I met him at. He claimed the audience never heard a woodpecker striking a tree, and that what they actually heard was the sonic boom resulting from how quickly the woodpeckers head moved. This is not true. A woodpeckers head only travels around 6 to 7 m/s when pecking, while the speed of sound is over 340 m/s.

Just started reading the book Losing It: False Hopes and Fat Profits in the Diet Industry, by Laura Fraser. The back of the book reads

"Going undercover, Fraser infiltrated doctor's offices, marketing seminars, weight-loss spas, and medical conferences - undergoing injections, hypnosis, and fat diets along the way. What she uncovered was an industry that has created, exploited, and profited from our obsession with weight, inch by inch, pound for pound."

I'm only half way through it, but so far it's been very interesting. It's amazing how much nonsense the diet industry is passing off as science, and how many people buy into it.


If youre a personal trainer I highly recommend reading Frasers book, as well as The Adonis Complex by Harrison Pope, Katharine Phillips, and Roberto Olivardia for their discussions of the psychology of body image and weight loss.

Speaking of nonsense, the fitness industry is even worse. Although a large number of people sincerely believe that the field of exercise has advanced tremendously over the last few decades, this is not the case. In reality, the field has become worse, much worse, and is up to its neck in superstition, lies, and outright stupidity.

Most of today's crop of self proclaimed experts and "gurus" know something less than nothing about the subject, and all of today's popular exercise myths are based on so many well accepted, although completely false premises that I doubt the misinformation can ever be completely dispelled.

Periodization, explosive training, speed training, aerobics, plyometrics, and a large number of equally unfounded, ridiculous and even dangerous ideas have achieved a degree of popularity that is absolutely frightening. Frightening, because if these trends are any indication of the intellectual state of society in general and the direction it is headed in, then we are in serious trouble.


Unfortunately, I was right. It has been over fourteen years since I wrote that and the situation has gotten much worse. In addition to the persistence of the old nonsense we now have crap like P90X, Zumba, Pilates, and fitness boot camps and worst of all, the utter stupidity known as CrossFit.

A large part of the problem is the fitness media. Everybody wants instant and effortless success, and to sell magazines or advertising space on television programs, the media has to give the consumers what they want, every month, a new super routine, nutritional supplement, or training theory which promises them instant and effortless success.

The problem with this is there is no such thing as instant and effortless success, and anyone who says otherwise is either a complete idiot or trying to sell you something, and usually both. The truth that exercise is not very exciting, that it's hard work, and that even at best, results do not come overnight is not headline material.

The overweight person who is depressed and frustrated with their physical condition doesn't want to hear that it is going to take a lot of hard work and discipline and that it's going to take some time to lose a significant amount of fat.


This is one that continues to piss me off. Overweight and obese people have it bad enough already without being lied to, ripped off, and let down over and over by unscrupulous hucksters. What they need is the truth that losing a large amount of fat takes discipline, effort, and time and straight-forward practical advice on what to do and how to do it.

All of the would-be bodybuilders out there don't want to hear that there is no special training routine or supplement that will increase their muscle mass by twenty pounds in a month, or worse yet that their muscular potential is limited by genetics, and that they may not be capable of developing a body of Olympian proportions.

While some incredible muscular gains have been claimed by people using high intensity training, a more realistic goal for the average, drug-free trainee is around ten to twenty pounds their first year. After that, the closer you get to the limits of your genetic potential the slower your progress becomes. The fastest muscle gains I have ever personally witnessed were by Joe Ross, a recreational cyclist I trained in the spring of 2006. He was planning a cycling trip in a very hilly area and came to me to improve his leg strength and overall conditioning for the trip.


I put him on a very basic A/B routine consisting of mostly compound movements, and had him eating as much quality food as he could stand since he was very lean and wanted to also put on some size (I estimated his body fat at only 6% from skin fold measurements) and he was also doing a lot of cycling in preparation for the trip. Joe put on a noticeable amount of size after just three weeks of training so I weighed and measured him again, and although his skin fold measurements had not changed his weight had increased by eight pounds, from 165 to 173. He alternated between the following two workouts, performed using a combination of Nautilus Nitro machines and free weights. All exercises were performed at about a 4/4 cadence using a target rep range of 6 to 10. I underestimated both his starting weight requirements and the increases so he routinely ended up performing between 10 and 15 repetitions on many of the exercises. Workout A:

1. Leg Press 2. Seated Leg Curl 3. Chest Press 4. Compound Row 5. Overhead Press 6. Barbell Reverse Curl 7. Barbell Wrist Curl


Workout B:

1. Shrug Bar Deadlift 2. Leg Extension 3. Close Underhand-Grip Pulldown 4. Arm Curl 5. Seated Dip Machine 6. Triceps Extensions 7. Heel Raise

Joe came back and trained with me at the house again a few years ago. After his trip he did not train consistently and lost most of the size he gained. He regained all of it within a few weeks on a more basic program similar to the free weight workout described in chapter 1.

Joe performing wrist curls on the old Nautilus OME


All of the women out there who weren't born with supermodel genetics don't want to hear that no matter what kind of training routine or diet they go on, no matter what cosmetics they use, and no matter who's designer clothing they wear, they will never look like the models in the magazine ads.

Strong is the new skinny, ladies. Focus on becoming as strong, fit, and healthy as possible and you will have the most attractive physique for your frame.

People want to believe that they can be a supermodel or a Mr. Olympia, if only they could find out the secret, and that they can achieve it in a short amount of time with little effort expended. The fitness media knows this, and takes full advantage of it, and people eat it up.

Every time I pick up a muscle magazine, or walk through the check out aisle at the grocery store, I see headlines promising all sorts of ridiculous things, by ridiculous means:

"New Scientific Breakthrough! Lose 30 Pounds in 30 Days Without Diet or Exercise!!!"

"New Supplement Packs on Freakish Mass Almost Overnight!!! More Powerful Than Steroids!!!"

"New Super Periodized, Explosive, Olympic Arm Blasting Routine Will Add 10 Inches To Your Arms In 10 Days!!!!"


Bullshit.

Complete and utter bullshit.

And the so-called scientific journals aren't any better.

If it wasn't bad enough that the television and magazine publishers were pumping the public full of nonsense, now, the internet has allowed every idiot out there with a subscription to the muscle comics or the NSCAs journal to propagate their version of the nonsense online, multiplying the bullshit at a frightening rate.

Is there anything that can be done about it?

Very little, I'm afraid.

I'm strongly opposed to any kind of censorship, and although people like Charles Poliquin haven't a clue as to what proper exercise is, they have the right to write whatever they want about it. So long as they're not going around physically forcing people to perform ballistic exercises, they're not violating anyone's rights.

The most that I hope to accomplish is to provide people with some common sense training advice, and try to steer their thinking in a logical direction. Ultimately though, this depends on whether you, the readers, are going to exercise a little logic and critical thinking. I'll just finish by saying that whatever people choose, whether they decide to use their intellect or not, they usually get exactly what they deserve.


The internet was relatively new when I wrote this, having only been commercialized around 1995. Since then the bodybuilding and fitness media have spread to the internet along with countless ignorant bodybuilding, fitness, and fat loss bloggers increasing the amount of outright bullshit on exercise and nutrition exponentially. High volume, multi-set workouts, silly exercises, and page after page of advertisements for overpriced supplements still dominate the bodybuilding media. Idiotic trends like functional training persist in personal training and while sprint interval training is all the rage for fat loss and metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning due to recent studies most of the industry continues to ignore real high intensity training which was firmly established as the best way to accomplish those things decades ago. I have very little hope that sensible, science-based exercise recommendations will ever become mainstream and replace the tradition and fad driven nonsense that has dominated for so long. However, as long as people like you keep reading and putting it into practice and helping me spread the word I will keep writing about it.

Precision 65

Precision

Monday, May 25, 1998

Neck, Deadlifts, and Chest Press today.

Dropped the Mt. Dew and No-Doz today, so I wasn't quite as wired starting out the workout, but I still progressed on everything. Although I used more resistance on both neck extension and flexion, I also performed one more repetition on each than last time.

Since I've dropped from a four to eight rep range (60 to 120 sec. TUL) to a three to six rep range (45 to 90 sec. TUL), I've noticed a considerable increase in the thickness of my neck. I've found that an even lower range works well for me on the chest press. I have difficulty performing more than four SuperSlow reps (approximately 60 sec. TUL) on the MedX Chest Press with a reasonably heavy weight, but I can go up ten pounds at a time and still get it:

On 4/17/98 I performed four reps with 300.

On 5/6/98 I performed four reps with 310.

Today I performed four reps with 320.

Next time I perform this workout I'll be using 330. I'll let you know how it goes, of course.

More arguments about repetition speed. While precision is extremely important in strength training, as


in any science, there are practical limits to how precise one can be. Recently, Brian Johnston of the IART wrote an article in the Heavy Duty Bulletin, criticizing SuperSlow for not being precise enough. He argues that rather than prescribe one repetition cadence to cover a variety of exercise movements each of which cover various ranges and degrees of motion, that there should be a particular repetition cadence, or angular velocity for each exercise. There are several problems with this.

If we take this to its logical conclusion, then not only should we have a particular repetition speed for each exercise, we should also have a particular repetition speed for every possible variation of every exercise for every possible variation in individual bodily dimensions, since variations in individuals musculoskeletal structures have a significant effect on acceleration and momentum during exercise.

For example if two people perform a full-range barbell curl using the exact same weight at the exact same angular velocity, but one person has a longer forearm, the barbell being used by the person with the longer forearms will travel a greater distance per unit of time, accelerating to a greater degree, and have more momentum. So people with 12-inch forearms would have to perform barbell curls at a slower angular velocity than people with 10-inch forearms to accelerate the barbell at the same rate. If two people with different limb lengths perform the exact same exercise at the exact same repetition speed the acceleration, force, and momentum will be different.

Precision 67

During simple exercises (or single-joint, rotary, full-range, whatever you want to call it) on a machine, the resistance is typically positioned a fixed distance from the axis of rotation, but, even if the distance of the movement arm from the axis of rotation is adjustable, if one is properly aligned in the machine, the lever they are working against (distance from joint to point of contact with movement arm) always equals the moment arm of the machine (distance from point of contact with movement arm to movement arm's axis of rotation) so limb length is not a factor. However, since the distance of tendon insertions from the joint varies from person to person, the moment or leverage the muscle is working with changes at a different rate for different individuals from position to position throughout the range of movement.

If two individuals with different tendon insertions perform an exercise at the exact same angular velocity, depending on differences in tendon insertions and the resulting angles from position to position throughout the movement, muscular contraction would accelerate at different rates and thus their tendons would be exposed to different levels of force.

Consider also that flexibility varies from individual to individual. A full range of motion in a particular exercise for one individual may significantly exceed or fall short of that of another. If two individuals with different ranges of motion in an exercise perform that exercise with the exact same repetition speed, the acceleration, force, and momentum will be different.

Even if two individuals have the exact same skeletal


dimensions, tendon insertions and flexibility, they may possess significant differences in bone density, muscle mass, or other factors affecting the total mass of their limbs, which would result in differences in body torque and different amounts of force and momentum produced during a particular exercise.

If I wanted to get really picky about it, I could point out how lubrication of the joint, changes in inter and intra-muscular friction, changes in tendon insertion angles due to muscle edema, and all sorts of other variables have a very slight effect on muscular loading, not only differing between individuals, but changing from repetit

Documents

PWDIR-DrewBaye.pdf