Peat + Old School Bodybuilding? An Experimental Quest

[OccamzRazer]

Thanks for sharing this. I'm going to try out some long walks!

No problem, enjoy!

 

[OccamzRazer]

he was in fat burning metabolism, not glucose metabolism

And yet he still experienced hormonal benefits...

 

[Nomane Euger]

@OccamzRazer hi boi,this winter from november to april i have been walking alot,while eating foods that give me great energy and exposing my self to some degree of cold,i had incredible hair and mustache density,volume,and resistance.walking feel great when i dont burden my self with certains foods prior.have you tryed training front lever?you probably have aproximatively the strengh to do it,and the feeling afterward is great.What are your eating in your only raw diet?

 

[Nomane Euger]

As for sexual transmutation, I am about to start a journey. I have had decent success in the past (over 90 days) but recently been slipping a bit. I am back on the cold showers as that helped me before. Also going to mediate daily. Do you have any dietary recommendations for things that have helped you? I feel like a lot of the eastern yogis and such try to suppress the sexual urges through eating a diet that is less than ideal. As I eat raw meat, milk, eggs, oysters, etc. My natural sex drive is strong and it can be a hard battle to control it, but on one hand I think that is a sign of health and I do not want to start eating a diet that will make the fight easier.

Hi boi,dietary recommandations to a reach asexual state,or a sexualised state with a controllable desire,perfectly ripe fruits low in purple/red pigments in high enough amounts,low meat/cheese and acessory low eggs intakes(low enough amount of these foods to not feel sexualised from it),not to high salt intake,concentrated fat sources like grass fed lamb fat dont increase sexuality,grass fed grass finished young lamb/veal liver is potent to reduce sexuality,lowering stress,working out less hard,eating as often as possible these foods to maintain the degree of sexuality you wish,and going to sleep well fed.

from my experience,a strong sex drive in it self is not a sign of optimal health,you can be asexual and be in better health that someone that has a strong sex drive.i have personally been abstaining from masturbation since 7 years with a fews rares masturbations once a year once every 2 years,when you reach a certain degree of relaxation and well being ,sex is either absent or totally controlable

 

[Jonathan Estis]

im doing natural bodybuilding and eating relatively "peaty" diet for bodybuilding ie lots of milk oj liver and geleatin and varius peaty supplemenets on top of the regular bodybuilding foods, eggs, tuna, chicken, steak.... i cut out rice and feel amazing in the gym, sweetened milk and OJ are truely top tier carbs.

 

[Jonathan Estis]

just want to mention that having a nice natural tan has great hormonal benefits and make you look much better especially if you have a pale skin color, my arms look ridiculously better in the gym lighting after getting a tan, i look probably 10% better just by sitting in the sun midday for 30-45 minutes. I like to use the d-minder app on my phone to see when the solar noon is and try to get my tan around that period, i lay on a pool lounge chair and do 10 minutes of sun shining on my frontside, 10 minutes on my back, 10 minutes on my right then 10 minutes on my left. If you read about old school days Arnold and his crew would always tan for 1-2 hours and run around on the beach in the hot Venice sun after working out. This is another reason why modern bodybuilders look wacky on stage even if they have great physiques because they don't take time so sit in the hot midday sun and get a nice natural tan. in my opinion the classic physique category should be required for bodybuilders to have a natural tan.

 

[Jonathan Estis]

also im curious if anybody here follows doug brignoles training methods? I'm seeing tremendous result following his split and exercises, i feel like im on steroids

stats: 21 y/o, 5'11", 230 lbs, 20% bf, 4 years of "training" but 1.5 years of actual solid bodybuilding training. I actually bought some testosterone enanthate a couple months ago but i didnt take it and i changed my mind and threw it away because after I got enough time this summer to seriously start sun tanning, eating right, and following a strict diet and doing doug brignoles training split, i feel like my test is through the roof, I have made the decision that I will not touch steroids until im 27 years old+ .

 

[Jonathan Estis]

This is Joel Kellett who claims to be natty (and i believe him) hes one of the better, if not best natty physiques on Instagram
He physique showcases the power of the natural tan for the natural bodybuilder, he wouldn't look nearly as good if he was pasty white

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[OccamzRazer]

So many parts of this thread are resonating with me. I haven't read every post so if something has already been covered sorry about that.

As for raw eggs, I also only eat the yolks because I don't like the slimy texture of the the clear/white raw. Everyday for breakfast I have 12 yolks with fresh squeezed orange or grapefruit juice and some honey. Been doing this for three plus years now and still not tired of it. Overall I feel really good on this and don't get tired after a huge meal. One weird thing is that my finger tips start cracking and this never happened before. Lately not so bad but I was curious if you had any experience like this. I assume this is somewhat biotin related...

As for sexual transmutation, I am about to start a journey. I have had decent success in the past (over 90 days) but recently been slipping a bit. I am back on the cold showers as that helped me before. Also going to mediate daily. Do you have any dietary recommendations for things that have helped you? I feel like a lot of the eastern yogis and such try to suppress the sexual urges through eating a diet that is less than ideal. As I eat raw meat, milk, eggs, oysters, etc. My natural sex drive is strong and it can be a hard battle to control it, but on one hand I think that is a sign of health and I do not want to start eating a diet that will make the fight easier.

I have been doing six mile walks lately. I will start going longer (probably two laps so 12 miles) and update. I love long walks.

Just for the record, I am 30 and 240 pounds, one rep maxed last weekend on bench at 275, just started squatting and trying to be able to do a pullup.

12 raw yolks, wow! I haven't had that experience but haven't been eating them for as long as you.

Dietary recommendations...yeah I also eat lots of foods that boost sex drive, which as you said is contrary to what the yogis do/did.

The only thing that's made this combo (SR + libido-boosting foods) possible for me is sexual transmutation work. More specifically, the 5 Tibetan Rites.

Best of luck with your journey, 275 isn't too bad!

 

[OccamzRazer]

just want to mention that having a nice natural tan has great hormonal benefits and make you look much better especially if you have a pale skin color, my arms look ridiculously better in the gym lighting after getting a tan, i look probably 10% better just by sitting in the sun midday for 30-45 minutes. I like to use the d-minder app on my phone to see when the solar noon is and try to get my tan around that period, i lay on a pool lounge chair and do 10 minutes of sun shining on my frontside, 10 minutes on my back, 10 minutes on my right then 10 minutes on my left. If you read about old school days Arnold and his crew would always tan for 1-2 hours and run around on the beach in the hot Venice sun after working out. This is another reason why modern bodybuilders look wacky on stage even if they have great physiques because they don't take time so sit in the hot midday sun and get a nice natural tan. in my opinion the classic physique category should be required for bodybuilders to have a natural tan.

Totally agree!

Why get noontime sun, though? IMO morning and evening sun are less aging.

 

[OccamzRazer]

Wasn't easy...

 

[Raw Egg Gnostic]

The only thing that's made this combo (SR + libido-boosting foods) possible for me is sexual transmutation work. More specifically, the 5 Tibetan Rites.

Thanks, I will look into this and give it a try.

 

[OccamzRazer]

Thanks, I will look into this and give it a try.

No prob! Here's some more info from The Eye of Revelation, the book that explains the 5 Tibetan Rites. It explains things better than I could. The whole PDF can be read here.

They found it hard to believe that one so youthful in appearance could have lived so long. Then they wanted to know why, inasmuch as they already felt half their former age, they, too, had not made more progress in youthful appearance. “In the first place, gentlemen, ” the Colonel informed them, “you have only been doing this wonderful work for ten weeks. When you have been at it two years you will see a much more pronounced change. Then again, I have not told you all there is to know. I have given you Five Rites which are for the express purpose of restoring one to manly vigor and vitality. These Five Rites also make one appear more youthful; but if you really want to look and be young in every respect there is a Sixth Rite that you must practice. I have said nothing about it until now because it would have been useless to you without first having obtained good results from the other five. ” The Colonel then informed them that in order to go further with the aid of this Sixth Rite it would be necessary for them to lead a more or less continent life.

He suggested that they take a week to think the matter over and decide whether or not they desired to do so for the rest of their lives. Then those who wished to go on would be given Rite Number Six. There were but five who came back the next week, although according to the Colonel this was a better showing than he had experienced with any of his classes in India. When he had first told them about the Sixth Rite, the Colonel had made it clear that the procreative energy would be lifted up, and that this liftingup process would cause not only the mind to be renewed but the entire body as well; but that it entailed certain restrictions with which the average man did not care to conform. Then he went on with this explanation. “In the average virile man, ” said the Colonel, “the life forces course downward, but in order to become a Superman they must be turned upward. This we call ‘The Newer Use of the Reproductive Energy.’ Turning these powerful forces upward is a very simple matter, yet man has attempted it in many ways for centuries and in almost every instance has failed. Whole religious orders in the Occidental World have tried this very thing, but they, too, have failed because they have tried to master the procreative energy by suppressing it. There is only one way to master this powerful urge, and that is not by dissipating or suppressing it, but by TRANSMUTING it — transmuting it and at the same time lifting it upward. In this way you really and truly have discovered not only the ‘Elixir of Life,’ as the ancients called it, but you have put it to use as well, which is something the ancients were seldom able to do. “Now this Rite Number Six is the simplest thing in the world to perform. It should only be practiced when one has an excess of procreative energy; when there is a natural desire for its expression. It can be done so easily that it can be performed anywhere at any time. When one feels the powerful reproductive urge, here is all that is necessary:

 

[Raw Egg Gnostic]

No prob! Here's some more info from The Eye of Revelation, the book that explains the 5 Tibetan Rites. It explains things better than I could. The whole PDF can be read here.

Thanks for this gem.

 

[Sapien]

hey all. below i am posting my response to the thread "exercise the ray peat way?" it seems applicable here.




This is a topic I have been pondering as of late, as a peaty young male looking to build muscle safely and effectively. Ray mentions that muscle mass is beneficial as it increases RMB, and also cited studies that show bodybuilders live longer. However, he has concerns with the eccentric stuff and lactic acid production.

So in summary- a good training routine is one that builds muscle, avoids eccentric movements, and minimizes muscle oxygen debt (i.e, "the pump) as it increases lactic acid.

He once said something along the lines of "brief, infrequent use of muscle is good" (probably butchered the quote but something along those line)

His advice reminded me of a famous bodybuilder in the 80's, Mike Mentzer, who postulated that all bodybuilders are overtraining, and the principals of muscle growth only required a brief and infrequent session to momentary muscular failure. Interestingly, in Synchronicity fashion, I discovered Ray's work just weeks after discovering Mentzer. I noticed great crossover between the two. Mentzer actually cited Hans Selyes "the stress of life" in one of his books about the harms of overtraining, which blew me away. Even Mikes nutritional advice was peaty, emphasizing the importance of (simple) carbohydrates and sugar, and dispelling the myth of the whey(ste product) protein industry that you needed to overload the body with protein to build muscle.

He has some great lectures on youtube on the topic of HIT, specifically, his audio tapes: The logical path to successful bodybuilding are a MUST watch for anyone interested in the topic of building muscle. He was a very intelligent man, many regarded him as a philosopher, and after watching these tapes you will realize why. His articulate speaking manner and use of logic is extremely impressive. He dispels much of the authoritarian dogma in the fitness industry, and like Peat, attempts to teach one about the science behind the topic rather than just giving a protocol. In other words, he was a proponent of "Perceive, Think, Act".

In my opinion, the theory of High Intensity Training is the most logical, science backed theory of effective exercise, and is the antithesis of the current state of bodybuilding- high volume "pump" style workouts popularized by Arnold (Mentzer's arch nemesis).

His training was based on the work of a man named Arthur jones, the inventor of Nautilus equipment proved that brief exercise to failure is the optimal way to build muscle

There is a book titled "body by science" that goes into this in more detail for anyone interested. Mentzer also has serval books of his own

As peaty as all of this sounds, minimizing the amount of stress to the organism and only doing the bare minimum required, there is still the concern of both eccentric movements and lactic acid, albeit to a DRASTICALLY lower degree.

Coauthor of body by science, John Little (a friend and disciple of Mentzer), has a program that implements these principals of brief, infrequent maximal effort training, AND eliminates these two issues. I present to you: Max contraction training (link). He talks about how a scientist in the 50s proved great results simply by a maximal muscular contraction of just 1-6 seconds.

I have applied this routine to a degree, simply contracting a muscle as hard as possible either on its own or against an immovable object (isometric), briefly and infrequently, and I honestly have had better results doing this the past 2 months than in years of traditional bodybuilding. Each day I wake up in amazement of my progress. I will see muscles that I never knew I had; a couple days after a single pull up I noticed new muscles in my upper back that I had never seen before; after a single rep of a chest contraction I grew my stubborn upper chest more in one workout that I never seemed to build with years of bench press (
"Why I never bench press and you shouldn't either" ) .

Some examples of exercises I will do are: flexing bicep in maximal contracted position as hard as possible by using a doorknob, doing the concentric part of a pull up and maximally contracting for a few seconds at the top then dropping, contracting hamstring by lying down placing heel against the ground, holding the contracted portion of a "mountain climber" pose or sit up for abs, simply contracting my rhomboids or rear delts super hard, doing a "lateral raise" against the bottom of my work desk to provide an immovable resistance, placing my forearm against the back of my (opposite) hamstring and contracting my chest across my body, etc etc. Pretty much anything that you feel a contraction will be effective, you can play around yourself. Using weights in a manner shown in the max contraction video is probably just as if not more viable, but I have seen great results even without going to the gym. The many forms of Isometrics I mentioned, contracting against an immovable object, will provide great stimulation as it will recruit ALL of the possible muscle fibers MAXIMALLY. This is a key principal of HIT (henemens size principal), fatiguing the fast twitch muscle fibers. It can be achieved in any rep range by simply training to failure, but isometrics allow you to do so with minimal/no lactic acid as only one contraction is required.

There was a wrestler named the great gama, who is famous for going 5000-0 in his bouts (yes you read that right) , who touted the benefits of maximal isometric contractions that inspired me to use immovable objects instead of the weights shown in the max contraction video. (that and I don't have a training partner crazy enough to train this way with me lol) Essentially it is the same concept, providing maximal resistance, stimulating the fast twitch muscle fibers ( henemens size principal).

'One day after defeating an opponent much larger than he, someone asked him how he was able to get so strong.' "
“It’s really quite simple,” the Indian said good-naturedly. “In the Punjab, where I lived there was a large tree behind my house. Each morning I would rise up early, tie my belt around it, and try to throw it down.” “A tree?” the boy marveled. “For twenty years.” “And you did it?” “No, little one,” Gama smiled, “but after a tree…a man is easy.” Great gama (link) .

^ This may sound like "bro science", but it actually is an example of "Heneman's size principal" in action. When contracting against an immovable object, you are using ALL of your possible effort, thus stimulating fast twitch muscle fibers.

This all may sound unbelievable, too good to be true; is it really not only possible but OPTIMAL to train this brief and infrequently?; but when one considers the biochemistry of the subject, it makes sense. Muscles are ANEROBIC, the opposite of AEROBIC exercise. This is why sprinters have very muscular legs, while a marathon runner is almost always frail. High intensity, short duration exercise such as sprinting uses predominantly fast twitch, carbohydrate burning fibers, while jogging uses slow twitch fibers that rely on fat. It is the fast twitch muscle fibers that are a lot more prone to growth

While the principals of HIT have been demonstrated scientifically ( View: https://youtu.be/ag5YMTcAudw, View: https://youtu.be/NndeNFVf9eU , View: https://youtu.be/wVYEjFZAERw ), and shown to work in practice by the success of Mentzer and Dorian Yates, these principals have been all but forgotten. It was only through an unrelenting, thorough search for a logical approach to building muscle that I discovered HIT. I have always been unconvinced of the science of traditional bodybuilding; I would follow routines and wonder WHY 3 sets of 10 ( View: https://youtu.be/hddsfYdaZ1k ), why 2 minutes of rest, why not 53 seconds of rest? All of these arbitrary decrees never sat right with me. In science, there is no room for the arbitrary, The principals of HIT initially defined by Arthur Jones and popularized by Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates use science and logic, rather than the arbitrary tradition based programs that are popular today.

As to why it's unknown and forgotten, I don't really have a good answer other than the fact that we live in a "dark age" to some degree, with sheeple believing whatever the popular opinion is, rather than using the logical principals created by Aristotle to cultivate knowledge. It is through the use of logic and reason that I was able to discover ray peat and the community, rather than believing whatever info the dietary guidelines told me, and these same principals of logic led me to discover HIT. As a group of logic based people who Perceive, Think, Act; rather than cultivating information simply because an authority figure told you something, I know you all will really appreciate the science based approach of HIT.

The implications of this are staggering. The entire fitness industry is following the high volume approach simply out of tradition, not logic or science. I wonder how many people's lives would be changed with a proper approach to building muscle, how many more people would take up the sport if only minutes a week were necessary. Hell, a gym membership isn't even required! If anyone decided to try these principals out for themselves (after thorough evaluation of the logic of the theory, not per my advice , {Perceive Think Act!}), please update us with your results!

(P.S , I probably did a poor job explaining the exact science behind HIT, Henemens size principal, fast twitch muscles etc., I recommend reading the works of Dr Doug mcguff, Mike mentzer, Arthur jones and the content of Jay Vincent. This post was a spur of the moment thing after seeing this forum on the home page, I just did my best based on my knowledge of the topic)

 

[Jonathan Estis]

hey all. below i am posting my response to the thread "exercise the ray peat way?" it seems applicable here.




This is a topic I have been pondering as of late, as a peaty young male looking to build muscle safely and effectively. Ray mentions that muscle mass is beneficial as it increases RMB, and also cited studies that show bodybuilders live longer. However, he has concerns with the eccentric stuff and lactic acid production.

So in summary- a good training routine is one that builds muscle, avoids eccentric movements, and minimizes muscle oxygen debt (i.e, "the pump) as it increases lactic acid.

He once said something along the lines of "brief, infrequent use of muscle is good" (probably butchered the quote but something along those line)

His advice reminded me of a famous bodybuilder in the 80's, Mike Mentzer, who postulated that all bodybuilders are overtraining, and the principals of muscle growth only required a brief and infrequent session to momentary muscular failure. Interestingly, in Synchronicity fashion, I discovered Ray's work just weeks after discovering Mentzer. I noticed great crossover between the two. Mentzer actually cited Hans Selyes "the stress of life" in one of his books about the harms of overtraining, which blew me away. Even Mikes nutritional advice was peaty, emphasizing the importance of (simple) carbohydrates and sugar, and dispelling the myth of the whey(ste product) protein industry that you needed to overload the body with protein to build muscle.

He has some great lectures on youtube on the topic of HIT, specifically, his audio tapes: The logical path to successful bodybuilding are a MUST watch for anyone interested in the topic of building muscle. He was a very intelligent man, many regarded him as a philosopher, and after watching these tapes you will realize why. His articulate speaking manner and use of logic is extremely impressive. He dispels much of the authoritarian dogma in the fitness industry, and like Peat, attempts to teach one about the science behind the topic rather than just giving a protocol. In other words, he was a proponent of "Perceive, Think, Act".

In my opinion, the theory of High Intensity Training is the most logical, science backed theory of effective exercise, and is the antithesis of the current state of bodybuilding- high volume "pump" style workouts popularized by Arnold (Mentzer's arch nemesis).

His training was based on the work of a man named Arthur jones, the inventor of Nautilus equipment proved that brief exercise to failure is the optimal way to build muscle

There is a book titled "body by science" that goes into this in more detail for anyone interested. Mentzer also has serval books of his own

As peaty as all of this sounds, minimizing the amount of stress to the organism and only doing the bare minimum required, there is still the concern of both eccentric movements and lactic acid, albeit to a DRASTICALLY lower degree.

Coauthor of body by science, John Little (a friend and disciple of Mentzer), has a program that implements these principals of brief, infrequent maximal effort training, AND eliminates these two issues. I present to you: Max contraction training (link). He talks about how a scientist in the 50s proved great results simply by a maximal muscular contraction of just 1-6 seconds.

I have applied this routine to a degree, simply contracting a muscle as hard as possible either on its own or against an immovable object (isometric), briefly and infrequently, and I honestly have had better results doing this the past 2 months than in years of traditional bodybuilding. Each day I wake up in amazement of my progress. I will see muscles that I never knew I had; a couple days after a single pull up I noticed new muscles in my upper back that I had never seen before; after a single rep of a chest contraction I grew my stubborn upper chest more in one workout that I never seemed to build with years of bench press (
"Why I never bench press and you shouldn't either" ) .

Some examples of exercises I will do are: flexing bicep in maximal contracted position as hard as possible by using a doorknob, doing the concentric part of a pull up and maximally contracting for a few seconds at the top then dropping, contracting hamstring by lying down placing heel against the ground, holding the contracted portion of a "mountain climber" pose or sit up for abs, simply contracting my rhomboids or rear delts super hard, doing a "lateral raise" against the bottom of my work desk to provide an immovable resistance, placing my forearm against the back of my (opposite) hamstring and contracting my chest across my body, etc etc. Pretty much anything that you feel a contraction will be effective, you can play around yourself. Using weights in a manner shown in the max contraction video is probably just as if not more viable, but I have seen great results even without going to the gym. The many forms of Isometrics I mentioned, contracting against an immovable object, will provide great stimulation as it will recruit ALL of the possible muscle fibers MAXIMALLY. This is a key principal of HIT (henemens size principal), fatiguing the fast twitch muscle fibers. It can be achieved in any rep range by simply training to failure, but isometrics allow you to do so with minimal/no lactic acid as only one contraction is required.

There was a wrestler named the great gama, who is famous for going 5000-0 in his bouts (yes you read that right) , who touted the benefits of maximal isometric contractions that inspired me to use immovable objects instead of the weights shown in the max contraction video. (that and I don't have a training partner crazy enough to train this way with me lol) Essentially it is the same concept, providing maximal resistance, stimulating the fast twitch muscle fibers ( henemens size principal).

'One day after defeating an opponent much larger than he, someone asked him how he was able to get so strong.' "
“It’s really quite simple,” the Indian said good-naturedly. “In the Punjab, where I lived there was a large tree behind my house. Each morning I would rise up early, tie my belt around it, and try to throw it down.” “A tree?” the boy marveled. “For twenty years.” “And you did it?” “No, little one,” Gama smiled, “but after a tree…a man is easy.” Great gama (link) .

^ This may sound like "bro science", but it actually is an example of "Heneman's size principal" in action. When contracting against an immovable object, you are using ALL of your possible effort, thus stimulating fast twitch muscle fibers.

This all may sound unbelievable, too good to be true; is it really not only possible but OPTIMAL to train this brief and infrequently?; but when one considers the biochemistry of the subject, it makes sense. Muscles are ANEROBIC, the opposite of AEROBIC exercise. This is why sprinters have very muscular legs, while a marathon runner is almost always frail. High intensity, short duration exercise such as sprinting uses predominantly fast twitch, carbohydrate burning fibers, while jogging uses slow twitch fibers that rely on fat. It is the fast twitch muscle fibers that are a lot more prone to growth

While the principals of HIT have been demonstrated scientifically ( View: https://youtu.be/ag5YMTcAudw, View: https://youtu.be/NndeNFVf9eU , View: https://youtu.be/wVYEjFZAERw ), and shown to work in practice by the success of Mentzer and Dorian Yates, these principals have been all but forgotten. It was only through an unrelenting, thorough search for a logical approach to building muscle that I discovered HIT. I have always been unconvinced of the science of traditional bodybuilding; I would follow routines and wonder WHY 3 sets of 10 ( View: https://youtu.be/hddsfYdaZ1k ), why 2 minutes of rest, why not 53 seconds of rest? All of these arbitrary decrees never sat right with me. In science, there is no room for the arbitrary, The principals of HIT initially defined by Arthur Jones and popularized by Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates use science and logic, rather than the arbitrary tradition based programs that are popular today.

As to why it's unknown and forgotten, I don't really have a good answer other than the fact that we live in a "dark age" to some degree, with sheeple believing whatever the popular opinion is, rather than using the logical principals created by Aristotle to cultivate knowledge. It is through the use of logic and reason that I was able to discover ray peat and the community, rather than believing whatever info the dietary guidelines told me, and these same principals of logic led me to discover HIT. As a group of logic based people who Perceive, Think, Act; rather than cultivating information simply because an authority figure told you something, I know you all will really appreciate the science based approach of HIT.

The implications of this are staggering. The entire fitness industry is following the high volume approach simply out of tradition, not logic or science. I wonder how many people's lives would be changed with a proper approach to building muscle, how many more people would take up the sport if only minutes a week were necessary. Hell, a gym membership isn't even required! If anyone decided to try these principals out for themselves (after thorough evaluation of the logic of the theory, not per my advice , {Perceive Think Act!}), please update us with your results!

(P.S , I probably did a poor job explaining the exact science behind HIT, Henemens size principal, fast twitch muscles etc., I recommend reading the works of Dr Doug mcguff, Mike mentzer, Arthur jones and the content of Jay Vincent. This post was a spur of the moment thing after seeing this forum on the home page, I just did my best based on my knowledge of the topic)

awesome post, HIT is great and lower sets and more training frequency is what i do, ive tried to focus doing less eccentrics after listening to peat and the isometric max contraction stuff seems interesting but a little brosciency
But I have two words for you: doug brignole
look him up
you seem to be really into the science of training so i think this guy will blow your freaking mind, check him out :)


https://www.youtube.com/user/ricdrasin/search?query=doug brignole
https://www.youtube.com/c/SmartTraining365Biomechanics
https://www.youtube.com/user/dpbrig1/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzIRJ_GQbhawmHRCecnqm2g/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/IzzyInvasion/videos
Home Page 3 - Doug Brignole
Brig-20: https://files.catbox.moe/1hgdif.pdf
Watch doug brignole workout: Doug Brignole

 

[Sapien]

awesome post, HIT is great and lower sets and more training frequency is what i do, ive tried to focus doing less eccentrics after listening to peat and the isometric max contraction stuff seems interesting but a little brosciency
But I have two words for you: doug brignole
look him up
you seem to be really into the science of training so i think this guy will blow your freaking mind, check him out :)


https://www.youtube.com/user/ricdrasin/search?query=doug brignole
https://www.youtube.com/c/SmartTraining365Biomechanics
https://www.youtube.com/user/dpbrig1/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzIRJ_GQbhawmHRCecnqm2g/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/IzzyInvasion/videos
Home Page 3 - Doug Brignole
Brig-20: https://files.catbox.moe/1hgdif.pdf
Watch doug brignole workout: Doug Brignole

thanks for the reply, ill check him out.

the isometric max contraction stuff seems interesting but a little brosciency

Yes, I can see your POV. I just now came across a quote from Arthur Jones book "natilus bullitin #1" (chapter 2) Arthur Jones, MedX, and Nautilus Exercise Principles that may help clarify the appeal of the max contraction protocol, aside from it's negation of the eccentric portion and negation of the build up of latic acid

"The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers perform work by contracting, by reducing their length – and that they are incapable of performing various degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all – and they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed, pulled, or moved about by the movement – but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being performed.

Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.

However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.

It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a position of full contraction – no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least, unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.

But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be called into play.

Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.

And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position – at the very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required, literally none is provided.

In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these muscles – in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full contraction, there is no resistance – in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.

In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption that most of our research work has been based upon."



Perhaps now you can see the appeal of this style of training. When in a maximal contraction, and against sufficient force, you are providing ALL of the muscle fibers a MAXIMAL stimulus.

This also explains the appeal/ success of nautilus equipment, they provide maximal stimulus at the maximum contracted portion of the exercise, while conventional barbell training provides literally 0

 

[Jonathan Estis]

thanks for the reply, ill check him out.

Yes, I can see your POV. I just now came across a quote from Arthur Jones book "natilus bullitin #1" (chapter 2) Arthur Jones, MedX, and Nautilus Exercise Principles that may help clarify the appeal of the max contraction protocol, aside from it's negation of the eccentric portion and negation of the build up of latic acid

"The well-known "all or nothing" principle of muscular-fiber function states that individual muscle-fibers perform work by contracting, by reducing their length – and that they are incapable of performing various degrees of work; that is to say, they are either working as hard as possible, or not at all. When a light movement is performed, it does not involve a slight effort on the part of a large number of muscular fibers; instead, only the exact number of fibers that are required to perform that particular movement will be involved at all – and they will be working to the limit of their momentary ability. The other, nonworking fibers may get pushed, pulled, or moved about by the movement – but they will contribute absolutely nothing to the work being performed.

Thus, as should be obvious, in order to involve all of the muscle fibers in the work, the resistance must be so heavy that all of the fibers are required to move it.

However, in practice, this is extremely difficult to do; because all of the individual muscle fibers cannot be involved in the work unless the muscle is in a position of full contraction.

It should be plain that the muscle could be in no position except its shortest, fully-contracted position if all of the muscle fibers were contracted at the same time; the individual fibers must grow shorter in order to perform work, and if all of the fibers were shortened at the same time, then the muscle as a whole would have to be in a position of full contraction – no other position is even possible with full muscular contraction. Not, at least, unless the muscle is torn loose from its attachments.

But it does not follow that even a position of full contraction will involve the working of all of the individual fibers; because only the actual number of fibers that are required to meet a momentarily imposed load will be called into play.

Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.

And in almost all conventional exercises, there is literally no resistance in the fully contracted position – at the very point in the exercise where the greatest amount of resistance is required, literally none is provided.

In the top position of the squat, when the leg muscles are fully contracted, there is no resistance on these muscles – in the top position of the curl, when the bending muscles of the arm are in a position of full contraction, there is no resistance – in the top position of the bench press, when the triceps are in a position of full contraction and the pectorals and deltoids are as close to a position of full contraction as they get in that movement, there is no resistance. Dozens of other examples could be given, but those three should be enough.

In spite of an almost complete lack of scientific studies of the effects of exercise, it is self-evidently true that exercise does produce increases in both muscular mass and strength; and if this is true in spite of the fact that only a small percentage of the actual total number of individual muscle fibers are performing any work at all in conventional exercises, then it logically follows that a form of exercise which involved working all of the fibers would produce an even greater degree of results. Or, at least, that has been the apparently logical assumption that most of our research work has been based upon."



Perhaps now you can see the appeal of this style of training. When in a maximal contraction, and against sufficient force, you are providing ALL of the muscle fibers a MAXIMAL stimulus.

This also explains the appeal/ success of nautilus equipment, they provide maximal stimulus at the maximum contracted portion of the exercise, while conventional barbell training provides literally 0

yeah that quotes made total sense, maximal contraction and constant contraction is important, im not sure if you advocating for isometric movements though? as science has shown that range of motion is one of the most important things for building muscle. anyways doug brignole talks about and expands on all of the mentzer/jones stuff. trust me doug brignole is the final boss of bodybuilding information.

these two aritcles will blow ur mind
16 Biomechanical Factors - Doug Brignole

Evaluating the Efficiency of a Resistance Exercise - Doug Brignole

Determining “exercise efficiency” requires an understanding of biomechanics — and also of your specific goal Doug Brignole January 2020 Exercise, by definition, is used as the “means to an end.” It is not meant to be the end unto itself. Exercise is typically done for the purpose of eliciting a...

dougbrignole.com

 

[Sapien]

im not sure if you advocating for isometric movements though

I see no need to do full ROM when Jones states that at max contraction, all muscle fibers are being worked

Thus, in order to involve 100% of the fibers in a particular movement, two conditions are prerequisites; the muscle (and its related body part) must be in a position of full contraction – and a load must be imposed in that position that is heavy enough to require the work of all of the individual fibers.

Key word, 100%^!

I realize that most of the studies on this topic show full range to be better than partial range, but none of compared it to max contraction training. Using partial reps is obviously not the same as max contraction, as the amount of weight would have to be much lower than the weight one would use in max contraction (which requires a workout partner as shown in the video) Open to changing my mind of course but I am not convinced full ROM is beneficial in any way.

 

[Sapien]

Evaluating the Efficiency of a Resistance Exercise - Doug Brignole

Determining “exercise efficiency” requires an understanding of biomechanics — and also of your specific goal Doug Brignole January 2020 Exercise, by definition, is used as the “means to an end.” It is not meant to be the end unto itself. Exercise is typically done for the purpose of eliciting a...

dougbrignole.com

10. "The exercise utilizes an optimally beneficial resistance curve—providing more resistance during the early part of the range of motion (when the muscle is more elongated and stronger), and less resistance during the latter part of the range of motion (when the muscle is more contracted and less strong). This allows the “resistance curve” of the exercise to match the “strength curve” of the skeletal muscle, which is optimally productive."

His statement here is just plain wrong and goes against the entire concept of nautilus equipment.

chapter 7 of "natilus bullitin one" 'cam action" states "muscles are weakest in their extended positions, and strongest in their fully contracted position; a muscle works by shortening, exerting a pulling force as it contracts –and its strength level increases as it changes position from an extended to a contracted position"

Hard to take this guy seriously when he does not understand this basic fact...