Hi. I have a generation 1 static contraction machine for sale for $250.00. It is
in perfect condition. The readout meter needs to be reset only. I have both the
upper body and leg press. I also will throw in Sean's excellent workout DVD made
for this machine.
 
I live outside San Francisco, on the Peninsula, in San Bruno, CA right next to
San Francisco International Airport. This machine totally transformed my body
from a fat out of shape one into a lean muscular machine. For health reasons I
can't use it anymore. If interested email me back. Thanks, James

















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey Mark....


Here's a review of the new EF equipment.




http://www.thesculptist.com/fitness-training/explosive-fitness-training



Have no idea who the gentleman is I just recently received it through
email.
















--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "sct765" <sct765@...> wrote:
>
> Hello to everyone here!  I am a recent SCT convert, I've been PFT for a
> few years now.  Does anyone else here use free weights exclusively
> besides me?  I can't afford an EFS just yet besides I can't SCT w/ all
> the weights I have.  My plan is to save and buy one once I can SCT
> bench press 765lbs for 30 seconds.  I am 100% convinced that Pete Sisco
> has totally revolutionized bodybuilding with PFT/SCT.
>
> Mark
>

Hello and welcome to the forum Mark.


I too share your belief that Pete revolutionized weight training with
SCT/PFT.


I practiced SCT for well over a year and loved.



I would like to know a little about your background regarding strength
training.

And what made you the SCT enthusiast you are today!


All the best,

Dr MIT

Don't be a sucker...stick with your weights
--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "sct765" <sct765@...> wrote:
>
> Hello to everyone here!  I am a recent SCT convert, I've been PFT for
a
> few years now.  Does anyone else here use free weights exclusively
> besides me?  I can't afford an EFS just yet besides I can't SCT w/
all
> the weights I have.  My plan is to save and buy one once I can SCT
> bench press 765lbs for 30 seconds.  I am 100% convinced that Pete
Sisco
> has totally revolutionized bodybuilding with PFT/SCT.
>
> Mark
>

Mark,

Welcome.  I was using weights and some chains and homemade stuff before I got EF
machine.  Also, I believe that there is some pretty big benefits to the short
range eccentric contraction that you get when you lower the weight after doing
your static hold.  This is not availabale on any of the static machines, only
with weights.  So, if you have access to a lot of weights and can set yourself
up to do it safely, you may be getting the best of both worlds.

I have not found this type of training to be a panacea.  But, there is
definitely something to it, so I include it as one of my training variants.

I look forward to hearing what kind of results you get. 

Sincerely,

Ed

--- On Sun, 12/14/08, sct765 <sct765@...> wrote:
From: sct765 <sct765@...>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Hello!
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 12:58 PM











             Hello to everyone here!  I am a recent SCT convert, I've been PFT
for a

few years now.  Does anyone else here use free weights exclusively

besides me?  I can't afford an EFS just yet besides I can't SCT w/ all

the weights I have.  My plan is to save and buy one once I can SCT

bench press 765lbs for 30 seconds.  I am 100% convinced that Pete Sisco

has totally revolutionized bodybuilding with PFT/SCT.



Mark





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello to everyone here!  I am a recent SCT convert, I've been PFT for a
few years now.  Does anyone else here use free weights exclusively
besides me?  I can't afford an EFS just yet besides I can't SCT w/ all
the weights I have.  My plan is to save and buy one once I can SCT
bench press 765lbs for 30 seconds.  I am 100% convinced that Pete Sisco
has totally revolutionized bodybuilding with PFT/SCT.

Mark

Reduced shipping on 1RepGyms ordered before Jan15. Save approx $200.
Check the site  www.1RepGym.com

For a natural trainee,  "strength before size" seems, (to me), to be a
constantly alternating
process: Wouldn't strengthening  muscle to the point that more is needed  apply
to added
muscle as well? I increased my total workload every workout for two years, but
looked the
same for weeks at a time.  While it's logical to theorize that I added an
unnoticeable
amount of muscle each time, accumulating until it -was- noticeable, the
"beginners
phenomenon" rings truer to me. --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, Ed
White
<kitesurfer257@...> wrote:
>
> Objective measures of strength that eliminate gross motor learning are very
rare - and
that is a problem.
>
> This is nice and motivating - but is not the only thing that most of us are
after. 
> Most of us want to be truly stronger - not just be able to demonstrate
> more strength in a particular exercise. 
>
> When a trainee initially improves - often rapidly at first, a big part of that
improvement
is neuromuscular coordination.  Nothing has changed at the muscle and motor unit
level
in terms of fiber size, type, etc.
>
> Ed
>
> --- On Fri, 11/28/08, mrkllyd <lazur@...> wrote:
> From: mrkllyd <lazur@...>
> Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?
> To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 11:20 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Eccentrics are indeed what you say.
>
> I believe you mean it as the lowering of each rep, but there's another aspect:
>
> It's the greatest strength we have:
>
> We can control the lowering of more weight than we can hold static.
>
> It's the 'finisher' on the "Omega Set": Lowering  a weight that you can't hold
any longer.
>
> Too much of this can lengthen recuperation to the point that progress is
reversed,
>
> but for a set here and there, it's the ultimate "teardown to rebuild".
>
> The theory that eccentrics are best for muscle:
>
> From research on running up & down stairs:
>
> Down damages the knees, up doesn't.
>
> This research is usually hidden from us when the theory is invoked.
>
> Poor correlation to controlled lowering of a weighted bar.
>
> A more logical reason for eccentrics' muscle-building value:
>
> Eccentrics are simply 1/2 of of a full rep!
>
> The way to keep the muscle under tension while preparing to lift it again.
>
> Concentric-only gives the trainee a reoccurring rest period/reset.
>
> Thus working  CNS/skill more than  tissue.
>
> I  believe there's no measure of "true strength" unless we all agree what it
is.
>
> Which we don't.
>
> "Taking no skill" is a myth.
>
> One can  greatly enhance their skill at  the most "skill-less" of movements.
>
> Lastly: Perhaps I'm confused about isokinetics.
>
> I believe they're concentric-only, speed-related power-machines.
>
> All momentum .
>
> Hardly the way I'd  judge anything besides how I could do on the machine
itself.
>
> Please explain.
>
> Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@ ...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > In my experience for reasons I do not fully understand yet, eccentrics
(lowering the
>
> resistance or lengthening the muscle against the resistance) seems to be one
of the keys
>
> to muscle growth.  I think you can get stronger without it, but a lot of
research and
>
> feedback from bodybuilders seem to point to lowering as a key to growing
muscle.
>
> >
>
> > I think the best way to measure true strength gains is with something that
takes no
skill
>
> and does not all momentum or motor patterns to help.  For example an
isokinetic
>
> machine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

-My repsnses are within the text:-- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex
Pilosov"
<alex@...> wrote:
  : 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle
    2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle,
    3/You're a bodybuilder.
> Agreed, again, except for 3) - the fact that one can easily build
> muscle due to genetics or other factors (including steroids) - DOES
> NOT MAKE HIM A BODYBUILDER
  ///One who's ability -and intention- is to build muscle , as opposed to
enhancing athletic
prowess or increasing strength. this, to me, is the definition of a bodybuilder.
A more
elaborate definiton would include the aspects you mention, agreed.///
> > I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.
>
> Who has the Anti-Bodybuilder stance?
> Where did you get the information that MIT is anti-bodybuilder?
> Do you mean the MIT is anti-bodybuilder because Pete/Shawn stated that
> SCT/MIT will not build bodybuilder type of physique?
>
> If that's what you mean by the subject of your post - you are taking
> things out of context and talking about totally different things here.
> When Pete/Shawn stated that SCT doesn't build BB type of physique -
> they meant THE MAJORITY of trainees OF COURSE and THE REAL
> BODYBUILDING - not what you meant: "a person who is predisposed to
> build muscle mass easily".
> ///I didn't get that from Pete/Shawn's statements. You are stating what -any-
method
-should-  state; "Don't expect this form of exercise to make you something  you
don't
have the potential to be." I hope that's what they meant, but it isn't what they
said.///
> But in your example you YOURSELF are writing about THE MINORITY:
>
> > Granted, most don't have the potential & many who do aren't
> > interested in being huge.
>
> You SAID IT YOURSELF!!! So what's the issue here? That Pete and Shawn
> tried to be honest and talked about an average Joe type of trainee
> rather than someone who was inclined to build muscle and would build
> it on absolutely any routine (Casey Viator's "Colorado" experiment)???
>
> > Is it anti-drug?
> > There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be
> > more.
>
> There is a very limited number of physiques from "before there were
> drugs" era that could be called "bodybuilder type of physique" in true
> sense of MODERN meaning. Most of those RARE guys WERE GENETICALLY
> GIFTED (Steve Reeves) and I'm sure they were performing more of
> strength training type of routines (heavy weights, low reps,
> negatives) rather than BB type of routines (moderate to light weights,
> high reps). Even Arnold in his "Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding"
> mentioned the fact that exercising in gyms with no comfortable modern
> equipment visibly contributed to the density of their muscles DUE TO
> performing HEAVY, UNUSUAL AND NONE-REPETITIVE movements like taking
> the heavy loaded barbell on shoulders for squats or shoulder presses, etc.
>
> Also have you ever seen many modern BBs who PRESERVED much of their
> muscle mass AFTER they stopped competing? I've seen Dorian Yates in
> person at Mister Olympia content in Madison Square Garden in New York
> (1998) just 1 year after he retired from competition (due to
> repetitive muscle tears and injuries from ROM type of training with
> extreme weights - he was one of the early adopts of Mike Mentzer's HIT
> routine with heavy exercises in full range of motion) - Dorian looked
> SMALL, OLD and EXHAUSTED and I believe he wasn't even 40 years old
> then. YES, PARTLY BECAUSE THERE WERE DRUGS IN HIS COMPETITIVE PAST!
> And because ANYTHING taken to the extreme causes more harm than good.
> To tell you the truth I started turning away from Bodybuilding (in
> true sense of that term) after attending that Mr. Olympia contest and
> seeing the HUGE difference between competitive (juicing)
> pro-bodybuilders and their FORMER competitive counterparts (Rich
> Gaspari, Lee Labrada and bunch of other former pro-bodybuilders).
>
> So why anti-bodybuilding? I think I just gave you some of the reasons
> of my own. But in the context you are talking about it here
> (Bodybuilder as someone who can easily gain muscle mass) and (I'm
> guessing) asking why Pete/Shawn distanced their SCT/MIT from BB I
> don't think they ever made that statement regarding the MINORITY -
> they made that statement regarding the MAJORITY of the world.
>
> In true sense of the term "Bodybuilding" it doesn't only mean building
> muscle but also getting the incredible muscle definition, muscle
> shape/proportions and muscle pump. To get a BB type of physique you
> need to put A LOT more TIME and EFFORT into it - including dieting,
> working on lacking body parts (everyone, even genetically gifted, will
> have ones) and most importantly DEDICATING YOUR LIFE to ASCETIC
> lifestyle and CRUEL DISCIPLINE (I laugh when they put "no-animal
> cruelty" in the movie production credits - there is A LOT MORE CRUELTY
> in the Pro or Natural Bodybuilding world).
>
> If all above is what you are after MIT is DEFINITELY anti-bodybuilder
> - they have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT final goal in mind (in my
> understanding). If you didn't bother to see it between the lines I can
> try to share my point of view on it next time.
>
> > A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major
> > aspect of better gains.
> > Steroids are taken for better recuperation.
>
> Steroids are not taking for just better recuperation - they are taken
> for their incredible ANABOLIC or MUSCLE/TISSUE CELL BUILDING effect.
> Do not UNDERESTIMATE the potential of professional steroid, insulin
> and growth hormone stack especially taken in enormous doses - there is
> NOTHING comparable in NATURE.
> What you see on stages of MR. Olympia contents - IS nice and
> inspirational to look at for some people (not all) - but it's
> ARTIFICIAL and NOT what Mother Nature intended.
> It's not even close to the bodybuilders of the "pre-steroid" era.
>
> > Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better
> > method.
>
> No method/workout will EVER produce anything close to the results
> "supplemented" by juicing in terms of muscle mass - it's like
> comparing speed of bicycle with the fastest modern car. You might
> learn to drive bicycle faster with time but it will never go as fast
> as a car no matter how hard you try.
>
> > But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method,
> > a personal choice.
> > Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be
> > incredible?
>
> Again, nobody disagreed with the last statement - you are the only one
> STATING it in this post.
> One can be a genetic freak, take steroids and use MIT and that should
> grow him a huge amount of muscle mass (not due to MIT but due to
> steroids). But he will not become a Bodybuilder though in the true
> meaning of the word - see above regarding what makes one a bodybuilder
> and why MIT is not after reaching that goal.
> ///If Pete/Shawn said what you said, I'd never have argued with it. Perhaps
Shawn will
confirm what you've written here, and settle this matter.///
> Aren't you posting on a wrong forum :-)
>
> Best Regards,
> Alex
>

Alex

Check under data base. If your inclined you may also search though my
posts. Some summaries some questions some thoughts etc..

When I unpack wherever I wind up I will post all results as I start up
again.


John


--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Pilosov" <alex@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I didn't find anything in the Files section from you.
> When you said "documented" did you mean that you posted your workout
> logs on this forum so everyone could review your results???
>
> Alex
>
> --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Pilosov" <alex@> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Thanks for your positive feedback. Personally I have no doubts that
> > MIT is the most productive exercise protocol outthere if one can stick
> > to it and also provide for good rest and enough nutrients to make
> > progress.
> >
> > I think I saw your workout logs in Files section - just didn't have
> > time to review them yet.
> >
> > This forum is very informative and I'm glad we can share and discuss
> > ideas and opinions about productive training principles and routines.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alex
> >
> > On 11/28/08, clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > > Alex
> > > I'm John C in the database clarke5fl in postings. I
> > > have documented what MIT has donefor me. It is
> > > eficient beyond belief. Resulted in big strength and
> > > size gains for me. My sin is probably getting
> > > uncomfortable with managing times between
> > > exercises of greater then two weeks.When/if find
> > > myself moved, employed I will start again and take
> > > the dr up on his offer to help me. It is definaitly the
> > > best way FOR ME and I  highly recomend MIT
> > > specifically and high intensity limited motion exercise
> > > more generally.
> > >
> > > John Clarke othitist prosthetist
> > >
> > >  --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex
> > > Pilosov" <alex@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> JJ,
> > >>
> > >> I think the answer is obvious if we concentrate on
> > > simple facts about
> > >> SCT/MIT training:
> > >>
> > >> 1. What SCT/MIT is?
> > >>
> > >> - the FASTEST way to develop, increase and
> > > SUSTAIN in long-term
> > >> strength, muscles, tendons, ligaments and bone
> > > density.
> > >>
> > >> 2. What SCT/MIT uses to achieve what it
> > > promises?
> > >>
> > >> - developing MAXIMUM strength in the static
> > > position of full muscle
> > >> contraction.
> > >>
> > >> 3. What SCT/MIT is not?
> > >>
> > >> - it's not a SPECIALIZED strength or muscle
> > > increase program.
> > >>
> > >> SPECIALIZED means:
> > >>
> > >> - it's not FOCUSING on changing "bad" muscle
> > > shape - so the SCT/MIT
> > >> along might not be all in one solution to get in
> > > shape for competitive
> > >> bodybuilding for those who aren't gifted genetically
> > > with great muscle
> > >> shape and muscle proportions.
> > >>
> > >> - it's not FOCUSING on developing MAXIMUM
> > > strength in SPECIFIC static
> > >> angles or SPECIFIC range of motion or FULL
> > > range of motion - so the
> > >> SCT/MIT along might not be all in one solution for
> > > athletic
> > >> performances that require MAXIMUM strength in
> > > different angles
> > >> throughout range of motion.
> > >>
> > >> Please take a note of word "MAXIMUM" in the
> > > above paragraph.
> > >> Developing MAXIMUM strength in the position of
> > > full muscular
> > >> contraction WILL increase strength of the muscle
> > > throughout the range
> > >> of motion ONLY NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. For
> > > MAXIMUM strength in different
> > >> angles of muscle contraction one will need to use
> > > a SPECIALIZED program.
> > >>
> > >> So ...
> > >>
> > >> 4. Could SCT/MIT be considered a SPECIALIZED
> > > program
> > >>
> > >> - YES if specialization goal is to achieve
> > > MAXIMUM strength in full
> > >> muscle contraction position and compound types
> > > of force application;
> > >> - YES if specialization goal is to SUSTAIN all
> > > results achieved with
> > >> minimum time and energy expenditure;
> > >> - NO if specialization goal is to achieve MAXIMUM
> > > strength in
> > >> different and very specific angles of muscle
> > > contraction throughout
> > >> full ROM;
> > >> - NO if specialization goal is to develop optimum
> > > shape of the muscles
> > >> and optimum balance of different muscle groups.
> > >>
> > >> So in my opinion you should NOT expect to
> > > perform a one-arm pull-up by
> > >> using MIT only (unless you are willing to wait for it
> > > longer than
> > >> otherwise is possible with a specialized routine) - if
> > > your goal is to
> > >> perform a one-arm pull-up an additional
> > > specialized program IS REQUIRED.
> > >>
> > >> Now remember - the more SPECIALIZED your
> > > training protocol THE LONGER
> > >> TIME of exercising and THE MORE ENERGY
> > > EXPENDITURE it requires and THE
> > >> MORE RISK you have that you wouldn't be able to
> > > use that
> > >> specialization routine in a long-term - meaning
> > > that all the time you
> > >> dedicate to specialized program in order to
> > > achieve specialized
> > >> results (i.e. one-arm pull-up as in my example) will
> > > be lost in vain
> > >> shortly after stopping the specialized program or
> > > the specialized
> > >> activity (i.e. stopping regular training for one-arm
> > > pull-up and
> > >> performing one-arm pull-ups regularly).
> > >>
> > >> The shorter one routine is the more chances one
> > > will be able to stick
> > >> with it in a long-term and thus be able to SUSTAIN
> > > or IMPROVE on
> > >> his/her achieved and new goals indefinitely.
> > >>
> > >> So looking in all above the SCT/MIT is an
> > > INVALUABLE tool as it allows
> > >> not ONLY to develop MAXIMUM strength in
> > > position of full muscle
> > >> contraction and SOME strength (which is better
> > > than nothing)
> > >> throughout the full range of motion BUT also
> > > SUSTAIN and IMPROVE on it
> > >> indefinitely (as it's the shortest workout protocol
> > > EVER).
> > >>
> > >> Also considering that it's using the protocol that
> > > allows developing
> > >> MAXIMUM strength in position of full muscle
> > > contraction in my opinion
> > >> it's also the most effective and fastest
> > > SPECIALIZED routine for
> > >> developing MAXIMUM strength at angles of full
> > > muscle contraction.
> > >>
> > >> I'm surprised that most of the people actively
> > > participating on this
> > >> forum are FIXATED on implying and proving what
> > > SCT/MIT is NOT.
> > >> SCT/MIT is NOT "all in one" solution in strength
> > > training.
> > >> I believe NONE of the authors and originators of
> > > SCT/MIT have ever
> > >> claimed that.
> > >>
> > >> Is it rational for one to expect a routine that only
> > > takes 5 minutes
> > >> of your time in 1,2,3 or even 4 week timeframe to
> > > develop outstanding
> > >> results in all aspects of strength training?????
> > >>
> > >> OF COURSE NOT!
> > >>
> > >> BUT FOR ALL IT GIVES in those 5 minutes in 4
> > > weeks MIT indeed gives
> > >> light years more "in savings" than any other
> > > routine in existence if
> > >> ALL THAT MIT HAS PROMISED IN THE LAB
> > > AND ON PAPER IS ACHIEVABLE IN
> > >> REAL LIFE FOR REAL PEOPLE.
> > >>
> > >> So far NO ONE on this forum except for Mike
> > > (1RepGym), Shawn (MIT) and
> > >> Paul have provided any results that proved that
> > > MIT delivers on its
> > >> promise.
> > >>
> > >> It would be of much more BENEFIT to people on
> > > this forum if all of us
> > >> who got MIT training equipment get FIXATED on
> > > applying ALL principles
> > >> of MIT to prove that it delivers on its promise and
> > > provide
> > >> independently documented results instead of
> > > going in circles regarding
> > >> what SCT/MIT had NEVER promised.
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >> Alex
> > >>
> > >> --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com,
> > > "BIENN JJ" <jbienn@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > mrkllyd,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for all your recent postings.  They have
> > > been most helpful.
> > >> >
> > >> > In this latest post I am focusing on this
> > > statement: "Many static
> > >> > exercise-induced strength gains, (the most
> > > important ones, big compound
> > >> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full range strength."
> > >> >
> > >> > It sparked the following thought for me:  I
> > > remember reading an e-mail a
> > >> > long time ago from Pete Sisco.  I no longer have
> > > the original e-mail, so
> > >> > I am not quoting and am only going by memory.
> > > I can't remember if Pete
> > >> > agrees with the above statement concerning
> > > whether or not statics
> > >> > transfer to full range strength or not, but I
> > > remember him making the
> > >> > argument that people's stress on full range
> > > strength may be misplaced.
> > >> > He went on to give several "natural"/every day
> > > examples of people using
> > >> > strength in their strongest range.  The idea is
> > > that it is natural for
> > >> > us to push or pull in our strongest range with
> > > whatever activities we
> > >> > are doing.  So, worrying about getting stronger
> > > in our weaker ranges
> > >> > does not necessarily make sense.
> > >> >
> > >> > I buy this argument to a small degree.  I think
> > > one example that Pete
> > >> > gave was say that your car dies and you have to
> > > push it.  You are not
> > >> > going to place your arms in your weakest
> > > position to push that car.  You
> > >> > are going to put your arms in your strongest
> > > position.
> > >> >
> > >> > My counter argument is that while that may be
> > > true for some situations,
> > >> > there are other situations where you need to
> > > have strength in your
> > >> > weaker positions in order to get to your
> > > strongest positions.  For
> > >> > example, I like to rock climb.  I don't get a lot of
> > > choices on how my
> > >> > arms and legs are going to be placed.  In order
> > > to get to the next
> > >> > position, I often have to start in a weaker
> > > position.  I need strength
> > >> > in a relatively weaker position in order to move
> > > on.
> > >> >
> > >> > While I haven't given it much of any thought at
> > > all, the top of my head
> > >> > says that this second example of rock climbing
> > > is probably more typical
> > >> > of the types of strength needs that people have.
> > > How often do we get to
> > >> > position ourselves perfectly before using our
> > > muscles?
> > >> >
> > >> > Note to everyone: I'm *not* saying that I agree
> > > or disagree that "static
> > >> > exercise-induced strength gains ... won't transfer
> > > to full range
> > >> > strength."  I don't know enough either way to
> > > give an opinion.  The
> > >> > purpose of this post is to explore the importance
> > > or lack of importance
> > >> > of full range strength.  If it is not important, then
> > > who cares if
> > >> > statics transfer or not?
> > >> >
> > >> > Anyone who can politely add their opinions to
> > > this conversation would be
> > >> > welcome.  What are your thoughts?  Note that I
> > > will be gone on vacation
> > >> > for a while.  I may not get a chance to reply to
> > > any one else's
> > >> > thoughts.  But I'm sure everyone will appreciate
> > > the discussion.
> > >> >
> > >> > - JJ
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________
> > >> >
> > >> > From: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> > >> > [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com]
> > > On Behalf Of mrkllyd
> > >> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM
> > >> > To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> > >> > Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: An Article To
> > > Check Out
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Ok,ok, I read it, and guess what?: You're off by
> > > a mile again, Shawn:
> > >> > What does Drew say?
> > >> > 1/You -can- get stronger without adding muscle,
> > > but you -can't- add
> > >> > mucle without
> > >> > getting stronger. 2/Without the backpressure of
> > > weight-loaded style SC,
> > >> > most trainees will
> > >> > never give an honest full effort. and 3/ -If- one is
> > > using isometrics,
> > >> > and -if- one is limited
> > >> > to one position only, -then- the fully contracted
> > > position is by far the
> > >> > best -single-
> > >> > position to use...this hardly jumping on the SC
> > > bandwagon, and certainly
> > >> > lends zero
> > >> > support to MIT, with it's lack of backpressure.
> > > And what does Drew say
> > >> > on his own site?:
> > >> > Many static exercise-induced strength gains,
> > > (the most important ones,
> > >> > big compound
> > >> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full tange strength.
> > > Hmmm. --- In
> > >> > Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> > >> >
> > > <mailto:Explosive_Fitness%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > > "shawnaf12001"
> > >> > <shawn@> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Nice try....
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Your position would be much better served in
> > > the future to NOT speak
> > >> > > or assume for (ME)or lie and make claims or
> > > accuse me of particular
> > >> > > view. Not only is it deceitful on your behalf but
> > > it does nothing but
> > >> > > cause confusion for others.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I gave you a simple instruction that proved
> > > impossible for you to
> > >> > > follow. Doesn't surprise me.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The post I provided came straight form John
> > > Little's website from an
> > >> > > interview he conducted with Drew. If (YOU)
> > > have problems with it
> > >> > > contact Drew and ask him why he isn't
> > > consistent.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "IF" in your mind Drew making the statement
> > > that does regarding a
> > >> > > weight bearing or resistance load in a static
> > > contraction DOES NOT
> > >> > > coincide with my opinion......WOW I would
> > > have to say,,,well never
> > >> > > mind that wouldn't be very nice for me to say.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Uh....I held this opinion long before DREW
> > > and I NEVER budged while he
> > >> > > promoted and believed in SS. Aside from
> > > ethics he knows SS isn't as
> > >> > > sound as SCT.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I have no idea nor care what is on Drew's site.
> > > Drew is quite an
> > >> > > accomplished trainer and I have a lot of
> > > respect for him and what he
> > >> > > does (whatever it is he does). He would differ
> > > with me in that his
> > >> > > strength training program is inferior to mine.
> > > BFD!!!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To correct you....I didn't assume anything. I
> > > simply provided an
> > >> > > excerpt of an interview where Drew agreed
> > > with John Little in that a
> > >> > > static contraction allows for optimal
> > > recruitment hence cross bridge
> > >> > > connections to allow for increase in strength
> > > and growth etc.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > By the way I wrote this and provided a picture
> > > to depict actin/myosin
> > >> > > and how cross bridge operate within muscle
> > > tissue YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Long before the interview between Drew and
> > > John took place.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So...........get your s*&!t straight before
> > > attacking me, making
> > >> > > assumptions regarding me or my point of
> > > view, and or lying about me
> > >> > > and possibly together we can achieve
> > > something beneficial.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm not psychologist but I'm very good at
> > > reading people it's the
> > >> > > nature of my industry. And to me it appears
> > > you have some major hang
> > >> > > ups. That's not an assumption it's my
> > > observation.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I hope you can get it resolved because its
> > > quite evident it nearly
> > >> > > consumes your life. I will help you in any way I
> > > can if it is
> > >> > > something I did or didn't do or did or didn't say
> > > I would give you a
> > >> > > hug if it would help (trust me if people could
> > > get over hang ups and
> > >> > > hug the world would be a far greater place)!
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I certainly don't expect you to so so however I
> > > again am going to
> > >> > > "suggest" you go to the max contraction
> > > website and read what Drew's
> > >> > > opinions are or at least WERE at the time of
> > > his interview with John.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "IF" you see some facts not lining up with
> > > what is on Drew's site
> > >> > > please follow the rabbit and discuss with
> > > DREW not me :)
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "DR MIT"
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Ed,

My results did carry over to free weights/machines (and real life
lifting demands).  I have tracked body composition though the last
several years since I started SCT/MIT. I have gained muscle mass. my
body fat percentage has gone up and down and seems mostly tied to my
food issues (what I eat, stress/emotional eating etc) Body fat
percentage is my only remaining goal that needs some intensity focus.
What I mean by that is MIT I believe can easily let me achieve my
other health goals. I love the overall changes in my body such as
upper traps for the first time in my life. Calf muscles with
definition that I didn't have even in my most athletic days.
This is very specific training that is matching my goals. If I was
participating in any sport I would need more sport specific training.

John


--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@...>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I reviewed your training logs and clearly you made progress as
measured on your static machine.  What kinds of body composition and
measurement changes did you make?
>
> Did you attempt to see if your static strength improvements carried
over to weights or full-range exercise?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed
>
> --- On Fri, 11/28/08, clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> From: clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Don't forget me
> To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 8:15 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Alex
>
> I'm John C in the database clarke5fl in postings. I
>
> have documented what MIT has donefor me. It is
>
> eficient beyond belief. Resulted in big strength and
>
> size gains for me. My sin is probably getting
>
> uncomfortable with managing times between
>
> exercises of greater then two weeks.When/if find
>
> myself moved, employed I will start again and take
>
> the dr up on his offer to help me. It is definaitly the
>
> best way FOR ME and I  highly recomend MIT
>
> specifically and high intensity limited motion exercise
>
> more generally.
>
>
>
> John Clarke othitist prosthetist
>
>
>
> --- In Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com, "Alex
>
> Pilosov" <alex@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > JJ,
>
> >
>
> > I think the answer is obvious if we concentrate on
>
> simple facts about
>
> > SCT/MIT training:
>
> >
>
> > 1. What SCT/MIT is?
>
> >
>
> > - the FASTEST way to develop, increase and
>
> SUSTAIN in long-term
>
> > strength, muscles, tendons, ligaments and bone
>
> density.
>
> >
>
> > 2. What SCT/MIT uses to achieve what it
>
> promises?
>
> >
>
> > - developing MAXIMUM strength in the static
>
> position of full muscle
>
> > contraction.
>
> >
>
> > 3. What SCT/MIT is not?
>
> >
>
> > - it's not a SPECIALIZED strength or muscle
>
> increase program.
>
> >
>
> > SPECIALIZED means:
>
> >
>
> > - it's not FOCUSING on changing "bad" muscle
>
> shape - so the SCT/MIT
>
> > along might not be all in one solution to get in
>
> shape for competitive
>
> > bodybuilding for those who aren't gifted genetically
>
> with great muscle
>
> > shape and muscle proportions.
>
> >
>
> > - it's not FOCUSING on developing MAXIMUM
>
> strength in SPECIFIC static
>
> > angles or SPECIFIC range of motion or FULL
>
> range of motion - so the
>
> > SCT/MIT along might not be all in one solution for
>
> athletic
>
> > performances that require MAXIMUM strength in
>
> different angles
>
> > throughout range of motion.
>
> >
>
> > Please take a note of word "MAXIMUM" in the
>
> above paragraph.
>
> > Developing MAXIMUM strength in the position of
>
> full muscular
>
> > contraction WILL increase strength of the muscle
>
> throughout the range
>
> > of motion ONLY NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. For
>
> MAXIMUM strength in different
>
> > angles of muscle contraction one will need to use
>
> a SPECIALIZED program.
>
> >
>
> > So ...
>
> >
>
> > 4. Could SCT/MIT be considered a SPECIALIZED
>
> program
>
> >
>
> > - YES if specialization goal is to achieve
>
> MAXIMUM strength in full
>
> > muscle contraction position and compound types
>
> of force application;
>
> > - YES if specialization goal is to SUSTAIN all
>
> results achieved with
>
> > minimum time and energy expenditure;
>
> > - NO if specialization goal is to achieve MAXIMUM
>
> strength in
>
> > different and very specific angles of muscle
>
> contraction throughout
>
> > full ROM;
>
> > - NO if specialization goal is to develop optimum
>
> shape of the muscles
>
> > and optimum balance of different muscle groups.
>
> >
>
> > So in my opinion you should NOT expect to
>
> perform a one-arm pull-up by
>
> > using MIT only (unless you are willing to wait for it
>
> longer than
>
> > otherwise is possible with a specialized routine) - if
>
> your goal is to
>
> > perform a one-arm pull-up an additional
>
> specialized program IS REQUIRED.
>
> >
>
> > Now remember - the more SPECIALIZED your
>
> training protocol THE LONGER
>
> > TIME of exercising and THE MORE ENERGY
>
> EXPENDITURE it requires and THE
>
> > MORE RISK you have that you wouldn't be able to
>
> use that
>
> > specialization routine in a long-term - meaning
>
> that all the time you
>
> > dedicate to specialized program in order to
>
> achieve specialized
>
> > results (i.e. one-arm pull-up as in my example) will
>
> be lost in vain
>
> > shortly after stopping the specialized program or
>
> the specialized
>
> > activity (i.e. stopping regular training for one-arm
>
> pull-up and
>
> > performing one-arm pull-ups regularly).
>
> >
>
> > The shorter one routine is the more chances one
>
> will be able to stick
>
> > with it in a long-term and thus be able to SUSTAIN
>
> or IMPROVE on
>
> > his/her achieved and new goals indefinitely.
>
> >
>
> > So looking in all above the SCT/MIT is an
>
> INVALUABLE tool as it allows
>
> > not ONLY to develop MAXIMUM strength in
>
> position of full muscle
>
> > contraction and SOME strength (which is better
>
> than nothing)
>
> > throughout the full range of motion BUT also
>
> SUSTAIN and IMPROVE on it
>
> > indefinitely (as it's the shortest workout protocol
>
> EVER).
>
> >
>
> > Also considering that it's using the protocol that
>
> allows developing
>
> > MAXIMUM strength in position of full muscle
>
> contraction in my opinion
>
> > it's also the most effective and fastest
>
> SPECIALIZED routine for
>
> > developing MAXIMUM strength at angles of full
>
> muscle contraction.
>
> >
>
> > I'm surprised that most of the people actively
>
> participating on this
>
> > forum are FIXATED on implying and proving what
>
> SCT/MIT is NOT.
>
> > SCT/MIT is NOT "all in one" solution in strength
>
> training.
>
> > I believe NONE of the authors and originators of
>
> SCT/MIT have ever
>
> > claimed that.
>
> >
>
> > Is it rational for one to expect a routine that only
>
> takes 5 minutes
>
> > of your time in 1,2,3 or even 4 week timeframe to
>
> develop outstanding
>
> > results in all aspects of strength training???? ?
>
> >
>
> > OF COURSE NOT!
>
> >
>
> > BUT FOR ALL IT GIVES in those 5 minutes in 4
>
> weeks MIT indeed gives
>
> > light years more "in savings" than any other
>
> routine in existence if
>
> > ALL THAT MIT HAS PROMISED IN THE LAB
>
> AND ON PAPER IS ACHIEVABLE IN
>
> > REAL LIFE FOR REAL PEOPLE.
>
> >
>
> > So far NO ONE on this forum except for Mike
>
> (1RepGym), Shawn (MIT) and
>
> > Paul have provided any results that proved that
>
> MIT delivers on its
>
> > promise.
>
> >
>
> > It would be of much more BENEFIT to people on
>
> this forum if all of us
>
> > who got MIT training equipment get FIXATED on
>
> applying ALL principles
>
> > of MIT to prove that it delivers on its promise and
>
> provide
>
> > independently documented results instead of
>
> going in circles regarding
>
> > what SCT/MIT had NEVER promised.
>
> >
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Alex
>
> >
>
> > --- In Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com,
>
> "BIENN JJ" <jbienn@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > mrkllyd,
>
> > >
>
> > > Thanks for all your recent postings.  They have
>
> been most helpful.
>
> > >
>
> > > In this latest post I am focusing on this
>
> statement: "Many static
>
> > > exercise-induced strength gains, (the most
>
> important ones, big compound
>
> > > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full range strength."
>
> > >
>
> > > It sparked the following thought for me:  I
>
> remember reading an e-mail a
>
> > > long time ago from Pete Sisco.  I no longer have
>
> the original e-mail, so
>
> > > I am not quoting and am only going by memory.
>
> I can't remember if Pete
>
> > > agrees with the above statement concerning
>
> whether or not statics
>
> > > transfer to full range strength or not, but I
>
> remember him making the
>
> > > argument that people's stress on full range
>
> strength may be misplaced.
>
> > > He went on to give several "natural"/every day
>
> examples of people using
>
> > > strength in their strongest range.  The idea is
>
> that it is natural for
>
> > > us to push or pull in our strongest range with
>
> whatever activities we
>
> > > are doing.  So, worrying about getting stronger
>
> in our weaker ranges
>
> > > does not necessarily make sense.
>
> > >
>
> > > I buy this argument to a small degree.  I think
>
> one example that Pete
>
> > > gave was say that your car dies and you have to
>
> push it.  You are not
>
> > > going to place your arms in your weakest
>
> position to push that car.  You
>
> > > are going to put your arms in your strongest
>
> position.
>
> > >
>
> > > My counter argument is that while that may be
>
> true for some situations,
>
> > > there are other situations where you need to
>
> have strength in your
>
> > > weaker positions in order to get to your
>
> strongest positions.  For
>
> > > example, I like to rock climb.  I don't get a lot of
>
> choices on how my
>
> > > arms and legs are going to be placed.  In order
>
> to get to the next
>
> > > position, I often have to start in a weaker
>
> position.  I need strength
>
> > > in a relatively weaker position in order to move
>
> on.
>
> > >
>
> > > While I haven't given it much of any thought at
>
> all, the top of my head
>
> > > says that this second example of rock climbing
>
> is probably more typical
>
> > > of the types of strength needs that people have.
>
> How often do we get to
>
> > > position ourselves perfectly before using our
>
> muscles?
>
> > >
>
> > > Note to everyone: I'm *not* saying that I agree
>
> or disagree that "static
>
> > > exercise-induced strength gains ... won't transfer
>
> to full range
>
> > > strength."  I don't know enough either way to
>
> give an opinion.  The
>
> > > purpose of this post is to explore the importance
>
> or lack of importance
>
> > > of full range strength.  If it is not important, then
>
> who cares if
>
> > > statics transfer or not?
>
> > >
>
> > > Anyone who can politely add their opinions to
>
> this conversation would be
>
> > > welcome.  What are your thoughts?  Note that I
>
> will be gone on vacation
>
> > > for a while.  I may not get a chance to reply to
>
> any one else's
>
> > > thoughts.  But I'm sure everyone will appreciate
>
> the discussion.
>
> > >
>
> > > - JJ
>
> > >
>
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
>
> > >
>
> > > From: Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > > [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com]
>
> On Behalf Of mrkllyd
>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM
>
> > > To: Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > > Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: An Article To
>
> Check Out
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > Ok,ok, I read it, and guess what?: You're off by
>
> a mile again, Shawn:
>
> > > What does Drew say?
>
> > > 1/You -can- get stronger without adding muscle,
>
> but you -can't- add
>
> > > mucle without
>
> > > getting stronger. 2/Without the backpressure of
>
> weight-loaded style SC,
>
> > > most trainees will
>
> > > never give an honest full effort. and 3/ -If- one is
>
> using isometrics,
>
> > > and -if- one is limited
>
> > > to one position only, -then- the fully contracted
>
> position is by far the
>
> > > best -single-
>
> > > position to use...this hardly jumping on the SC
>
> bandwagon, and certainly
>
> > > lends zero
>
> > > support to MIT, with it's lack of backpressure.
>
> And what does Drew say
>
> > > on his own site?:
>
> > > Many static exercise-induced strength gains,
>
> (the most important ones,
>
> > > big compound
>
> > > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full tange strength.
>
> Hmmm. --- In
>
> > > Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com
>
> > >
>
> <mailto:Explosive_ Fitness%40yahoog roups.com> ,
>
> "shawnaf12001"
>
> > > <shawn@> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Nice try....
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Your position would be much better served in
>
> the future to NOT speak
>
> > > > or assume for (ME)or lie and make claims or
>
> accuse me of particular
>
> > > > view. Not only is it deceitful on your behalf but
>
> it does nothing but
>
> > > > cause confusion for others.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I gave you a simple instruction that proved
>
> impossible for you to
>
> > > > follow. Doesn't surprise me.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > The post I provided came straight form John
>
> Little's website from an
>
> > > > interview he conducted with Drew. If (YOU)
>
> have problems with it
>
> > > > contact Drew and ask him why he isn't
>
> consistent.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > "IF" in your mind Drew making the statement
>
> that does regarding a
>
> > > > weight bearing or resistance load in a static
>
> contraction DOES NOT
>
> > > > coincide with my opinion..... .WOW I would
>
> have to say,,,well never
>
> > > > mind that wouldn't be very nice for me to say.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Uh....I held this opinion long before DREW
>
> and I NEVER budged while he
>
> > > > promoted and believed in SS. Aside from
>
> ethics he knows SS isn't as
>
> > > > sound as SCT.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I have no idea nor care what is on Drew's site.
>
> Drew is quite an
>
> > > > accomplished trainer and I have a lot of
>
> respect for him and what he
>
> > > > does (whatever it is he does). He would differ
>
> with me in that his
>
> > > > strength training program is inferior to mine.
>
> BFD!!!
>
> > > >
>
> > > > To correct you....I didn't assume anything. I
>
> simply provided an
>
> > > > excerpt of an interview where Drew agreed
>
> with John Little in that a
>
> > > > static contraction allows for optimal
>
> recruitment hence cross bridge
>
> > > > connections to allow for increase in strength
>
> and growth etc.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > By the way I wrote this and provided a picture
>
> to depict actin/myosin
>
> > > > and how cross bridge operate within muscle
>
> tissue YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!! !!
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Long before the interview between Drew and
>
> John took place.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > So.......... .get your s*&!t straight before
>
> attacking me, making
>
> > > > assumptions regarding me or my point of
>
> view, and or lying about me
>
> > > > and possibly together we can achieve
>
> something beneficial.
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I'm not psychologist but I'm very good at
>
> reading people it's the
>
> > > > nature of my industry. And to me it appears
>
> you have some major hang
>
> > > > ups. That's not an assumption it's my
>
> observation.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I hope you can get it resolved because its
>
> quite evident it nearly
>
> > > > consumes your life. I will help you in any way I
>
> can if it is
>
> > > > something I did or didn't do or did or didn't say
>
> I would give you a
>
> > > > hug if it would help (trust me if people could
>
> get over hang ups and
>
> > > > hug the world would be a far greater place)!
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I certainly don't expect you to so so however I
>
> again am going to
>
> > > > "suggest" you go to the max contraction
>
> website and read what Drew's
>
> > > > opinions are or at least WERE at the time of
>
> his interview with John.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > "IF" you see some facts not lining up with
>
> what is on Drew's site
>
> > > > please follow the rabbit and discuss with
>
> DREW not me :)
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > "DR MIT"
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

JJ,

I hate to see you go.  You asked great questions and were an awesome
contributor. 

Not to stir stuff up, but what are your training plans?

Ed

--- On Wed, 12/3/08, jj_muscle_lady <jbienn@...> wrote:
From: jj_muscle_lady <jbienn@...>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Good Bye
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 5:47 PM











             Explosive Fitness Folks:



I'm leaving this group.  I wish you all great success with your muscle

building goals (for those who care about building muscle).



- JJ





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Explosive Fitness Folks:

I'm leaving this group.  I wish you all great success with your muscle
building goals (for those who care about building muscle).

- JJ

Paul,

I finally got around to reading the study.  Your results with this client are
impressive.  And her new abs are perfect.  Feminine and sexy, yet very fit and
athletic.

Do you have any before pix of her abs?

What was her training or fitness level before starting your program?

What was her program?  How often did she exercise?  How did her strength levels
improve?

Thanks,

Ed

--- On Sun, 11/16/08, jmilton_666 <ehunt3_14@...> wrote:
From: jmilton_666 <ehunt3_14@...>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Case Study added to Paul's Case Studies Folder in
the Files section
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 1:38 PM











             Hi Folks,



Following on from my reply to JJ re the Nautilus sutdy I've published

a summary of one of my female clients progress over a 12 week period.



In summary she produce over 8lbs of new muscle tissue and lost over

10% body fat during a 12 week period using my protocols. Also attached

in that document are some pictures of the abdominal definition

produced, whcih I have also added to the photos section of the site.



Again, this is just one of many example's of the progress achieveable.

I've already posted some of the men's details and of course my own

training progress here perviously, but I'll start complining them in

to short summaries like this one to make it easier to read.



All the best and any questions just ask,



Yours,



Paul





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

I reviewed your training logs and clearly you made progress as measured on your
static machine.  What kinds of body composition and measurement changes did you
make?

Did you attempt to see if your static strength improvements carried over to
weights or full-range exercise?

Cheers,

Ed

--- On Fri, 11/28/08, clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
From: clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Don't forget me
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 8:15 PM











             Alex

I'm John C in the database clarke5fl in postings. I

have documented what MIT has donefor me. It is

eficient beyond belief. Resulted in big strength and

size gains for me. My sin is probably getting

uncomfortable with managing times between

exercises of greater then two weeks.When/if find

myself moved, employed I will start again and take

the dr up on his offer to help me. It is definaitly the

best way FOR ME and I  highly recomend MIT

specifically and high intensity limited motion exercise

more generally.



John Clarke othitist prosthetist



--- In Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com, "Alex

Pilosov" <alex@...> wrote:

>

> JJ,

>

> I think the answer is obvious if we concentrate on

simple facts about

> SCT/MIT training:

>

> 1. What SCT/MIT is?

>

> - the FASTEST way to develop, increase and

SUSTAIN in long-term

> strength, muscles, tendons, ligaments and bone

density.

>

> 2. What SCT/MIT uses to achieve what it

promises?

>

> - developing MAXIMUM strength in the static

position of full muscle

> contraction.

>

> 3. What SCT/MIT is not?

>

> - it's not a SPECIALIZED strength or muscle

increase program.

>

> SPECIALIZED means:

>

> - it's not FOCUSING on changing "bad" muscle

shape - so the SCT/MIT

> along might not be all in one solution to get in

shape for competitive

> bodybuilding for those who aren't gifted genetically

with great muscle

> shape and muscle proportions.

>

> - it's not FOCUSING on developing MAXIMUM

strength in SPECIFIC static

> angles or SPECIFIC range of motion or FULL

range of motion - so the

> SCT/MIT along might not be all in one solution for

athletic

> performances that require MAXIMUM strength in

different angles

> throughout range of motion.

>

> Please take a note of word "MAXIMUM" in the

above paragraph.

> Developing MAXIMUM strength in the position of

full muscular

> contraction WILL increase strength of the muscle

throughout the range

> of motion ONLY NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. For

MAXIMUM strength in different

> angles of muscle contraction one will need to use

a SPECIALIZED program.

>

> So ...

>

> 4. Could SCT/MIT be considered a SPECIALIZED

program

>

> - YES if specialization goal is to achieve

MAXIMUM strength in full

> muscle contraction position and compound types

of force application;

> - YES if specialization goal is to SUSTAIN all

results achieved with

> minimum time and energy expenditure;

> - NO if specialization goal is to achieve MAXIMUM

strength in

> different and very specific angles of muscle

contraction throughout

> full ROM;

> - NO if specialization goal is to develop optimum

shape of the muscles

> and optimum balance of different muscle groups.

>

> So in my opinion you should NOT expect to

perform a one-arm pull-up by

> using MIT only (unless you are willing to wait for it

longer than

> otherwise is possible with a specialized routine) - if

your goal is to

> perform a one-arm pull-up an additional

specialized program IS REQUIRED.

>

> Now remember - the more SPECIALIZED your

training protocol THE LONGER

> TIME of exercising and THE MORE ENERGY

EXPENDITURE it requires and THE

> MORE RISK you have that you wouldn't be able to

use that

> specialization routine in a long-term - meaning

that all the time you

> dedicate to specialized program in order to

achieve specialized

> results (i.e. one-arm pull-up as in my example) will

be lost in vain

> shortly after stopping the specialized program or

the specialized

> activity (i.e. stopping regular training for one-arm

pull-up and

> performing one-arm pull-ups regularly).

>

> The shorter one routine is the more chances one

will be able to stick

> with it in a long-term and thus be able to SUSTAIN

or IMPROVE on

> his/her achieved and new goals indefinitely.

>

> So looking in all above the SCT/MIT is an

INVALUABLE tool as it allows

> not ONLY to develop MAXIMUM strength in

position of full muscle

> contraction and SOME strength (which is better

than nothing)

> throughout the full range of motion BUT also

SUSTAIN and IMPROVE on it

> indefinitely (as it's the shortest workout protocol

EVER).

>

> Also considering that it's using the protocol that

allows developing

> MAXIMUM strength in position of full muscle

contraction in my opinion

> it's also the most effective and fastest

SPECIALIZED routine for

> developing MAXIMUM strength at angles of full

muscle contraction.

>

> I'm surprised that most of the people actively

participating on this

> forum are FIXATED on implying and proving what

SCT/MIT is NOT.

> SCT/MIT is NOT "all in one" solution in strength

training.

> I believe NONE of the authors and originators of

SCT/MIT have ever

> claimed that.

>

> Is it rational for one to expect a routine that only

takes 5 minutes

> of your time in 1,2,3 or even 4 week timeframe to

develop outstanding

> results in all aspects of strength training???? ?

>

> OF COURSE NOT!

>

> BUT FOR ALL IT GIVES in those 5 minutes in 4

weeks MIT indeed gives

> light years more "in savings" than any other

routine in existence if

> ALL THAT MIT HAS PROMISED IN THE LAB

AND ON PAPER IS ACHIEVABLE IN

> REAL LIFE FOR REAL PEOPLE.

>

> So far NO ONE on this forum except for Mike

(1RepGym), Shawn (MIT) and

> Paul have provided any results that proved that

MIT delivers on its

> promise.

>

> It would be of much more BENEFIT to people on

this forum if all of us

> who got MIT training equipment get FIXATED on

applying ALL principles

> of MIT to prove that it delivers on its promise and

provide

> independently documented results instead of

going in circles regarding

> what SCT/MIT had NEVER promised.

>

> Best Regards,

> Alex

>

> --- In Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com,

"BIENN JJ" <jbienn@> wrote:

> >

> > mrkllyd,

> >

> > Thanks for all your recent postings.  They have

been most helpful.

> >

> > In this latest post I am focusing on this

statement: "Many static

> > exercise-induced strength gains, (the most

important ones, big compound

> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full range strength."

> >

> > It sparked the following thought for me:  I

remember reading an e-mail a

> > long time ago from Pete Sisco.  I no longer have

the original e-mail, so

> > I am not quoting and am only going by memory.

I can't remember if Pete

> > agrees with the above statement concerning

whether or not statics

> > transfer to full range strength or not, but I

remember him making the

> > argument that people's stress on full range

strength may be misplaced.

> > He went on to give several "natural"/every day

examples of people using

> > strength in their strongest range.  The idea is

that it is natural for

> > us to push or pull in our strongest range with

whatever activities we

> > are doing.  So, worrying about getting stronger

in our weaker ranges

> > does not necessarily make sense.

> >

> > I buy this argument to a small degree.  I think

one example that Pete

> > gave was say that your car dies and you have to

push it.  You are not

> > going to place your arms in your weakest

position to push that car.  You

> > are going to put your arms in your strongest

position.

> >

> > My counter argument is that while that may be

true for some situations,

> > there are other situations where you need to

have strength in your

> > weaker positions in order to get to your

strongest positions.  For

> > example, I like to rock climb.  I don't get a lot of

choices on how my

> > arms and legs are going to be placed.  In order

to get to the next

> > position, I often have to start in a weaker

position.  I need strength

> > in a relatively weaker position in order to move

on.

> >

> > While I haven't given it much of any thought at

all, the top of my head

> > says that this second example of rock climbing

is probably more typical

> > of the types of strength needs that people have.

How often do we get to

> > position ourselves perfectly before using our

muscles?

> >

> > Note to everyone: I'm *not* saying that I agree

or disagree that "static

> > exercise-induced strength gains ... won't transfer

to full range

> > strength."  I don't know enough either way to

give an opinion.  The

> > purpose of this post is to explore the importance

or lack of importance

> > of full range strength.  If it is not important, then

who cares if

> > statics transfer or not?

> >

> > Anyone who can politely add their opinions to

this conversation would be

> > welcome.  What are your thoughts?  Note that I

will be gone on vacation

> > for a while.  I may not get a chance to reply to

any one else's

> > thoughts.  But I'm sure everyone will appreciate

the discussion.

> >

> > - JJ

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> >

> > From: Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com

> > [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com]

On Behalf Of mrkllyd

> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM

> > To: Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com

> > Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: An Article To

Check Out

> >

> >

> >

> > Ok,ok, I read it, and guess what?: You're off by

a mile again, Shawn:

> > What does Drew say?

> > 1/You -can- get stronger without adding muscle,

but you -can't- add

> > mucle without

> > getting stronger. 2/Without the backpressure of

weight-loaded style SC,

> > most trainees will

> > never give an honest full effort. and 3/ -If- one is

using isometrics,

> > and -if- one is limited

> > to one position only, -then- the fully contracted

position is by far the

> > best -single-

> > position to use...this hardly jumping on the SC

bandwagon, and certainly

> > lends zero

> > support to MIT, with it's lack of backpressure.

And what does Drew say

> > on his own site?:

> > Many static exercise-induced strength gains,

(the most important ones,

> > big compound

> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full tange strength.

Hmmm. --- In

> > Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com

> >

<mailto:Explosive_ Fitness%40yahoog roups.com> ,

"shawnaf12001"

> > <shawn@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nice try....

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Your position would be much better served in

the future to NOT speak

> > > or assume for (ME)or lie and make claims or

accuse me of particular

> > > view. Not only is it deceitful on your behalf but

it does nothing but

> > > cause confusion for others.

> > >

> > >

> > > I gave you a simple instruction that proved

impossible for you to

> > > follow. Doesn't surprise me.

> > >

> > >

> > > The post I provided came straight form John

Little's website from an

> > > interview he conducted with Drew. If (YOU)

have problems with it

> > > contact Drew and ask him why he isn't

consistent.

> > >

> > >

> > > "IF" in your mind Drew making the statement

that does regarding a

> > > weight bearing or resistance load in a static

contraction DOES NOT

> > > coincide with my opinion..... .WOW I would

have to say,,,well never

> > > mind that wouldn't be very nice for me to say.

> > >

> > >

> > > Uh....I held this opinion long before DREW

and I NEVER budged while he

> > > promoted and believed in SS. Aside from

ethics he knows SS isn't as

> > > sound as SCT.

> > >

> > > I have no idea nor care what is on Drew's site.

Drew is quite an

> > > accomplished trainer and I have a lot of

respect for him and what he

> > > does (whatever it is he does). He would differ

with me in that his

> > > strength training program is inferior to mine.

BFD!!!

> > >

> > > To correct you....I didn't assume anything. I

simply provided an

> > > excerpt of an interview where Drew agreed

with John Little in that a

> > > static contraction allows for optimal

recruitment hence cross bridge

> > > connections to allow for increase in strength

and growth etc.

> > >

> > > By the way I wrote this and provided a picture

to depict actin/myosin

> > > and how cross bridge operate within muscle

tissue YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!! !!

> > >

> > > Long before the interview between Drew and

John took place.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > So.......... .get your s*&!t straight before

attacking me, making

> > > assumptions regarding me or my point of

view, and or lying about me

> > > and possibly together we can achieve

something beneficial.

> > >

> > >

> > > I'm not psychologist but I'm very good at

reading people it's the

> > > nature of my industry. And to me it appears

you have some major hang

> > > ups. That's not an assumption it's my

observation.

> > >

> > > I hope you can get it resolved because its

quite evident it nearly

> > > consumes your life. I will help you in any way I

can if it is

> > > something I did or didn't do or did or didn't say

I would give you a

> > > hug if it would help (trust me if people could

get over hang ups and

> > > hug the world would be a far greater place)!

> > >

> > >

> > > I certainly don't expect you to so so however I

again am going to

> > > "suggest" you go to the max contraction

website and read what Drew's

> > > opinions are or at least WERE at the time of

his interview with John.

> > >

> > > "IF" you see some facts not lining up with

what is on Drew's site

> > > please follow the rabbit and discuss with

DREW not me :)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > "DR MIT"

> > >

> >

>





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Objective measures of strength that eliminate gross motor learning are very rare
- and that is a problem.

This is nice and motivating - but is not the only thing that most of us are
after. 
Most of us want to be truly stronger - not just be able to demonstrate
more strength in a particular exercise. 

When a trainee initially improves - often rapidly at first, a big part of that
improvement is neuromuscular coordination.  Nothing has changed at the muscle
and motor unit level in terms of fiber size, type, etc.

Ed

--- On Fri, 11/28/08, mrkllyd <lazur@...> wrote:
From: mrkllyd <lazur@...>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 11:20 AM











             Eccentrics are indeed what you say.

I believe you mean it as the lowering of each rep, but there's another aspect:

It's the greatest strength we have:

We can control the lowering of more weight than we can hold static.

It's the 'finisher' on the "Omega Set": Lowering  a weight that you can't hold
any longer.

Too much of this can lengthen recuperation to the point that progress is
reversed,

but for a set here and there, it's the ultimate "teardown to rebuild".

The theory that eccentrics are best for muscle:

From research on running up & down stairs:

Down damages the knees, up doesn't.

This research is usually hidden from us when the theory is invoked.

Poor correlation to controlled lowering of a weighted bar.

A more logical reason for eccentrics' muscle-building value:

Eccentrics are simply 1/2 of of a full rep!

The way to keep the muscle under tension while preparing to lift it again.

Concentric-only gives the trainee a reoccurring rest period/reset.

Thus working  CNS/skill more than  tissue.

I  believe there's no measure of "true strength" unless we all agree what it is.

Which we don't.

"Taking no skill" is a myth.

One can  greatly enhance their skill at  the most "skill-less" of movements.

Lastly: Perhaps I'm confused about isokinetics.

I believe they're concentric-only, speed-related power-machines.

All momentum .

Hardly the way I'd  judge anything besides how I could do on the machine itself.

Please explain.

Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@ ...> wrote:

>

> In my experience for reasons I do not fully understand yet, eccentrics
(lowering the

resistance or lengthening the muscle against the resistance) seems to be one of
the keys

to muscle growth.  I think you can get stronger without it, but a lot of
research and

feedback from bodybuilders seem to point to lowering as a key to growing muscle.

>

> I think the best way to measure true strength gains is with something that
takes no skill

and does not all momentum or motor patterns to help.  For example an isokinetic

machine.





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John,

I didn't find anything in the Files section from you.
When you said "documented" did you mean that you posted your workout
logs on this forum so everyone could review your results???

Alex

--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Pilosov" <alex@...> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for your positive feedback. Personally I have no doubts that
> MIT is the most productive exercise protocol outthere if one can stick
> to it and also provide for good rest and enough nutrients to make
> progress.
>
> I think I saw your workout logs in Files section - just didn't have
> time to review them yet.
>
> This forum is very informative and I'm glad we can share and discuss
> ideas and opinions about productive training principles and routines.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
> On 11/28/08, clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> > Alex
> > I'm John C in the database clarke5fl in postings. I
> > have documented what MIT has donefor me. It is
> > eficient beyond belief. Resulted in big strength and
> > size gains for me. My sin is probably getting
> > uncomfortable with managing times between
> > exercises of greater then two weeks.When/if find
> > myself moved, employed I will start again and take
> > the dr up on his offer to help me. It is definaitly the
> > best way FOR ME and I  highly recomend MIT
> > specifically and high intensity limited motion exercise
> > more generally.
> >
> > John Clarke othitist prosthetist
> >
> >  --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex
> > Pilosov" <alex@> wrote:
> >>
> >> JJ,
> >>
> >> I think the answer is obvious if we concentrate on
> > simple facts about
> >> SCT/MIT training:
> >>
> >> 1. What SCT/MIT is?
> >>
> >> - the FASTEST way to develop, increase and
> > SUSTAIN in long-term
> >> strength, muscles, tendons, ligaments and bone
> > density.
> >>
> >> 2. What SCT/MIT uses to achieve what it
> > promises?
> >>
> >> - developing MAXIMUM strength in the static
> > position of full muscle
> >> contraction.
> >>
> >> 3. What SCT/MIT is not?
> >>
> >> - it's not a SPECIALIZED strength or muscle
> > increase program.
> >>
> >> SPECIALIZED means:
> >>
> >> - it's not FOCUSING on changing "bad" muscle
> > shape - so the SCT/MIT
> >> along might not be all in one solution to get in
> > shape for competitive
> >> bodybuilding for those who aren't gifted genetically
> > with great muscle
> >> shape and muscle proportions.
> >>
> >> - it's not FOCUSING on developing MAXIMUM
> > strength in SPECIFIC static
> >> angles or SPECIFIC range of motion or FULL
> > range of motion - so the
> >> SCT/MIT along might not be all in one solution for
> > athletic
> >> performances that require MAXIMUM strength in
> > different angles
> >> throughout range of motion.
> >>
> >> Please take a note of word "MAXIMUM" in the
> > above paragraph.
> >> Developing MAXIMUM strength in the position of
> > full muscular
> >> contraction WILL increase strength of the muscle
> > throughout the range
> >> of motion ONLY NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. For
> > MAXIMUM strength in different
> >> angles of muscle contraction one will need to use
> > a SPECIALIZED program.
> >>
> >> So ...
> >>
> >> 4. Could SCT/MIT be considered a SPECIALIZED
> > program
> >>
> >> - YES if specialization goal is to achieve
> > MAXIMUM strength in full
> >> muscle contraction position and compound types
> > of force application;
> >> - YES if specialization goal is to SUSTAIN all
> > results achieved with
> >> minimum time and energy expenditure;
> >> - NO if specialization goal is to achieve MAXIMUM
> > strength in
> >> different and very specific angles of muscle
> > contraction throughout
> >> full ROM;
> >> - NO if specialization goal is to develop optimum
> > shape of the muscles
> >> and optimum balance of different muscle groups.
> >>
> >> So in my opinion you should NOT expect to
> > perform a one-arm pull-up by
> >> using MIT only (unless you are willing to wait for it
> > longer than
> >> otherwise is possible with a specialized routine) - if
> > your goal is to
> >> perform a one-arm pull-up an additional
> > specialized program IS REQUIRED.
> >>
> >> Now remember - the more SPECIALIZED your
> > training protocol THE LONGER
> >> TIME of exercising and THE MORE ENERGY
> > EXPENDITURE it requires and THE
> >> MORE RISK you have that you wouldn't be able to
> > use that
> >> specialization routine in a long-term - meaning
> > that all the time you
> >> dedicate to specialized program in order to
> > achieve specialized
> >> results (i.e. one-arm pull-up as in my example) will
> > be lost in vain
> >> shortly after stopping the specialized program or
> > the specialized
> >> activity (i.e. stopping regular training for one-arm
> > pull-up and
> >> performing one-arm pull-ups regularly).
> >>
> >> The shorter one routine is the more chances one
> > will be able to stick
> >> with it in a long-term and thus be able to SUSTAIN
> > or IMPROVE on
> >> his/her achieved and new goals indefinitely.
> >>
> >> So looking in all above the SCT/MIT is an
> > INVALUABLE tool as it allows
> >> not ONLY to develop MAXIMUM strength in
> > position of full muscle
> >> contraction and SOME strength (which is better
> > than nothing)
> >> throughout the full range of motion BUT also
> > SUSTAIN and IMPROVE on it
> >> indefinitely (as it's the shortest workout protocol
> > EVER).
> >>
> >> Also considering that it's using the protocol that
> > allows developing
> >> MAXIMUM strength in position of full muscle
> > contraction in my opinion
> >> it's also the most effective and fastest
> > SPECIALIZED routine for
> >> developing MAXIMUM strength at angles of full
> > muscle contraction.
> >>
> >> I'm surprised that most of the people actively
> > participating on this
> >> forum are FIXATED on implying and proving what
> > SCT/MIT is NOT.
> >> SCT/MIT is NOT "all in one" solution in strength
> > training.
> >> I believe NONE of the authors and originators of
> > SCT/MIT have ever
> >> claimed that.
> >>
> >> Is it rational for one to expect a routine that only
> > takes 5 minutes
> >> of your time in 1,2,3 or even 4 week timeframe to
> > develop outstanding
> >> results in all aspects of strength training?????
> >>
> >> OF COURSE NOT!
> >>
> >> BUT FOR ALL IT GIVES in those 5 minutes in 4
> > weeks MIT indeed gives
> >> light years more "in savings" than any other
> > routine in existence if
> >> ALL THAT MIT HAS PROMISED IN THE LAB
> > AND ON PAPER IS ACHIEVABLE IN
> >> REAL LIFE FOR REAL PEOPLE.
> >>
> >> So far NO ONE on this forum except for Mike
> > (1RepGym), Shawn (MIT) and
> >> Paul have provided any results that proved that
> > MIT delivers on its
> >> promise.
> >>
> >> It would be of much more BENEFIT to people on
> > this forum if all of us
> >> who got MIT training equipment get FIXATED on
> > applying ALL principles
> >> of MIT to prove that it delivers on its promise and
> > provide
> >> independently documented results instead of
> > going in circles regarding
> >> what SCT/MIT had NEVER promised.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Alex
> >>
> >> --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com,
> > "BIENN JJ" <jbienn@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > mrkllyd,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for all your recent postings.  They have
> > been most helpful.
> >> >
> >> > In this latest post I am focusing on this
> > statement: "Many static
> >> > exercise-induced strength gains, (the most
> > important ones, big compound
> >> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full range strength."
> >> >
> >> > It sparked the following thought for me:  I
> > remember reading an e-mail a
> >> > long time ago from Pete Sisco.  I no longer have
> > the original e-mail, so
> >> > I am not quoting and am only going by memory.
> > I can't remember if Pete
> >> > agrees with the above statement concerning
> > whether or not statics
> >> > transfer to full range strength or not, but I
> > remember him making the
> >> > argument that people's stress on full range
> > strength may be misplaced.
> >> > He went on to give several "natural"/every day
> > examples of people using
> >> > strength in their strongest range.  The idea is
> > that it is natural for
> >> > us to push or pull in our strongest range with
> > whatever activities we
> >> > are doing.  So, worrying about getting stronger
> > in our weaker ranges
> >> > does not necessarily make sense.
> >> >
> >> > I buy this argument to a small degree.  I think
> > one example that Pete
> >> > gave was say that your car dies and you have to
> > push it.  You are not
> >> > going to place your arms in your weakest
> > position to push that car.  You
> >> > are going to put your arms in your strongest
> > position.
> >> >
> >> > My counter argument is that while that may be
> > true for some situations,
> >> > there are other situations where you need to
> > have strength in your
> >> > weaker positions in order to get to your
> > strongest positions.  For
> >> > example, I like to rock climb.  I don't get a lot of
> > choices on how my
> >> > arms and legs are going to be placed.  In order
> > to get to the next
> >> > position, I often have to start in a weaker
> > position.  I need strength
> >> > in a relatively weaker position in order to move
> > on.
> >> >
> >> > While I haven't given it much of any thought at
> > all, the top of my head
> >> > says that this second example of rock climbing
> > is probably more typical
> >> > of the types of strength needs that people have.
> > How often do we get to
> >> > position ourselves perfectly before using our
> > muscles?
> >> >
> >> > Note to everyone: I'm *not* saying that I agree
> > or disagree that "static
> >> > exercise-induced strength gains ... won't transfer
> > to full range
> >> > strength."  I don't know enough either way to
> > give an opinion.  The
> >> > purpose of this post is to explore the importance
> > or lack of importance
> >> > of full range strength.  If it is not important, then
> > who cares if
> >> > statics transfer or not?
> >> >
> >> > Anyone who can politely add their opinions to
> > this conversation would be
> >> > welcome.  What are your thoughts?  Note that I
> > will be gone on vacation
> >> > for a while.  I may not get a chance to reply to
> > any one else's
> >> > thoughts.  But I'm sure everyone will appreciate
> > the discussion.
> >> >
> >> > - JJ
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> >
> >> > From: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> >> > [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of mrkllyd
> >> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM
> >> > To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> >> > Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: An Article To
> > Check Out
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ok,ok, I read it, and guess what?: You're off by
> > a mile again, Shawn:
> >> > What does Drew say?
> >> > 1/You -can- get stronger without adding muscle,
> > but you -can't- add
> >> > mucle without
> >> > getting stronger. 2/Without the backpressure of
> > weight-loaded style SC,
> >> > most trainees will
> >> > never give an honest full effort. and 3/ -If- one is
> > using isometrics,
> >> > and -if- one is limited
> >> > to one position only, -then- the fully contracted
> > position is by far the
> >> > best -single-
> >> > position to use...this hardly jumping on the SC
> > bandwagon, and certainly
> >> > lends zero
> >> > support to MIT, with it's lack of backpressure.
> > And what does Drew say
> >> > on his own site?:
> >> > Many static exercise-induced strength gains,
> > (the most important ones,
> >> > big compound
> >> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full tange strength.
> > Hmmm. --- In
> >> > Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> >> >
> > <mailto:Explosive_Fitness%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> > "shawnaf12001"
> >> > <shawn@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Nice try....
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Your position would be much better served in
> > the future to NOT speak
> >> > > or assume for (ME)or lie and make claims or
> > accuse me of particular
> >> > > view. Not only is it deceitful on your behalf but
> > it does nothing but
> >> > > cause confusion for others.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I gave you a simple instruction that proved
> > impossible for you to
> >> > > follow. Doesn't surprise me.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The post I provided came straight form John
> > Little's website from an
> >> > > interview he conducted with Drew. If (YOU)
> > have problems with it
> >> > > contact Drew and ask him why he isn't
> > consistent.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "IF" in your mind Drew making the statement
> > that does regarding a
> >> > > weight bearing or resistance load in a static
> > contraction DOES NOT
> >> > > coincide with my opinion......WOW I would
> > have to say,,,well never
> >> > > mind that wouldn't be very nice for me to say.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Uh....I held this opinion long before DREW
> > and I NEVER budged while he
> >> > > promoted and believed in SS. Aside from
> > ethics he knows SS isn't as
> >> > > sound as SCT.
> >> > >
> >> > > I have no idea nor care what is on Drew's site.
> > Drew is quite an
> >> > > accomplished trainer and I have a lot of
> > respect for him and what he
> >> > > does (whatever it is he does). He would differ
> > with me in that his
> >> > > strength training program is inferior to mine.
> > BFD!!!
> >> > >
> >> > > To correct you....I didn't assume anything. I
> > simply provided an
> >> > > excerpt of an interview where Drew agreed
> > with John Little in that a
> >> > > static contraction allows for optimal
> > recruitment hence cross bridge
> >> > > connections to allow for increase in strength
> > and growth etc.
> >> > >
> >> > > By the way I wrote this and provided a picture
> > to depict actin/myosin
> >> > > and how cross bridge operate within muscle
> > tissue YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!
> >> > >
> >> > > Long before the interview between Drew and
> > John took place.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So...........get your s*&!t straight before
> > attacking me, making
> >> > > assumptions regarding me or my point of
> > view, and or lying about me
> >> > > and possibly together we can achieve
> > something beneficial.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm not psychologist but I'm very good at
> > reading people it's the
> >> > > nature of my industry. And to me it appears
> > you have some major hang
> >> > > ups. That's not an assumption it's my
> > observation.
> >> > >
> >> > > I hope you can get it resolved because its
> > quite evident it nearly
> >> > > consumes your life. I will help you in any way I
> > can if it is
> >> > > something I did or didn't do or did or didn't say
> > I would give you a
> >> > > hug if it would help (trust me if people could
> > get over hang ups and
> >> > > hug the world would be a far greater place)!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I certainly don't expect you to so so however I
> > again am going to
> >> > > "suggest" you go to the max contraction
> > website and read what Drew's
> >> > > opinions are or at least WERE at the time of
> > his interview with John.
> >> > >
> >> > > "IF" you see some facts not lining up with
> > what is on Drew's site
> >> > > please follow the rabbit and discuss with
> > DREW not me :)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > "DR MIT"
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

> Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the
> first sentence):
> If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest,
> practices a valid progressive strength training program, and avoids
> overdoing catabolic activities such as distance running, they will
> eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular weight.

Yes, agreed.

> This limited only by genetic potential.
> If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.
> This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is
> built to incite added muscle.

> If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle
> &
> ....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle,
> then
> ....3/You're a bodybuilder,and:
> ....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly
> superior strength builder.

Agreed, again, except for 3) - the fact that one can easily build
muscle due to genetics or other factors (including steroids) - DOES
NOT MAKE HIM A BODYBUILDER - more about it below.
From what you wrote so far I can only assume that when you say
"bodybuilder" - you mean a person who's predisposed to build muscle
mass easier than an average Joe.

> I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.

Who has the Anti-Bodybuilder stance?
Where did you get the information that MIT is anti-bodybuilder?
Do you mean the MIT is anti-bodybuilder because Pete/Shawn stated that
SCT/MIT will not build bodybuilder type of physique?

If that's what you mean by the subject of your post - you are taking
things out of context and talking about totally different things here.
When Pete/Shawn stated that SCT doesn't build BB type of physique -
they meant THE MAJORITY of trainees OF COURSE and THE REAL
BODYBUILDING - not what you meant: "a person who is predisposed to
build muscle mass easily".

But in your example you YOURSELF are writing about THE MINORITY:

> Granted, most don't have the potential & many who do aren't
> interested in being huge.

You SAID IT YOURSELF!!! So what's the issue here? That Pete and Shawn
tried to be honest and talked about an average Joe type of trainee
rather than someone who was inclined to build muscle and would build
it on absolutely any routine (Casey Viator's "Colorado" experiment)???

> Is it anti-drug?
> There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be
> more.

There is a very limited number of physiques from "before there were
drugs" era that could be called "bodybuilder type of physique" in true
sense of MODERN meaning. Most of those RARE guys WERE GENETICALLY
GIFTED (Steve Reeves) and I'm sure they were performing more of
strength training type of routines (heavy weights, low reps,
negatives) rather than BB type of routines (moderate to light weights,
high reps). Even Arnold in his "Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding"
mentioned the fact that exercising in gyms with no comfortable modern
equipment visibly contributed to the density of their muscles DUE TO
performing HEAVY, UNUSUAL AND NONE-REPETITIVE movements like taking
the heavy loaded barbell on shoulders for squats or shoulder presses, etc.

Also have you ever seen many modern BBs who PRESERVED much of their
muscle mass AFTER they stopped competing? I've seen Dorian Yates in
person at Mister Olympia content in Madison Square Garden in New York
(1998) just 1 year after he retired from competition (due to
repetitive muscle tears and injuries from ROM type of training with
extreme weights - he was one of the early adopts of Mike Mentzer's HIT
routine with heavy exercises in full range of motion) - Dorian looked
SMALL, OLD and EXHAUSTED and I believe he wasn't even 40 years old
then. YES, PARTLY BECAUSE THERE WERE DRUGS IN HIS COMPETITIVE PAST!
And because ANYTHING taken to the extreme causes more harm than good.
To tell you the truth I started turning away from Bodybuilding (in
true sense of that term) after attending that Mr. Olympia contest and
seeing the HUGE difference between competitive (juicing)
pro-bodybuilders and their FORMER competitive counterparts (Rich
Gaspari, Lee Labrada and bunch of other former pro-bodybuilders).

So why anti-bodybuilding? I think I just gave you some of the reasons
of my own. But in the context you are talking about it here
(Bodybuilder as someone who can easily gain muscle mass) and (I'm
guessing) asking why Pete/Shawn distanced their SCT/MIT from BB I
don't think they ever made that statement regarding the MINORITY -
they made that statement regarding the MAJORITY of the world.

In true sense of the term "Bodybuilding" it doesn't only mean building
muscle but also getting the incredible muscle definition, muscle
shape/proportions and muscle pump. To get a BB type of physique you
need to put A LOT more TIME and EFFORT into it - including dieting,
working on lacking body parts (everyone, even genetically gifted, will
have ones) and most importantly DEDICATING YOUR LIFE to ASCETIC
lifestyle and CRUEL DISCIPLINE (I laugh when they put "no-animal
cruelty" in the movie production credits - there is A LOT MORE CRUELTY
in the Pro or Natural Bodybuilding world).

If all above is what you are after MIT is DEFINITELY anti-bodybuilder
- they have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT final goal in mind (in my
understanding). If you didn't bother to see it between the lines I can
try to share my point of view on it next time.

> A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major
> aspect of better gains.
> Steroids are taken for better recuperation.

Steroids are not taking for just better recuperation - they are taken
for their incredible ANABOLIC or MUSCLE/TISSUE CELL BUILDING effect.
Do not UNDERESTIMATE the potential of professional steroid, insulin
and growth hormone stack especially taken in enormous doses - there is
NOTHING comparable in NATURE.
What you see on stages of MR. Olympia contents - IS nice and
inspirational to look at for some people (not all) - but it's
ARTIFICIAL and NOT what Mother Nature intended.
It's not even close to the bodybuilders of the "pre-steroid" era.

> Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better
> method.

No method/workout will EVER produce anything close to the results
"supplemented" by juicing in terms of muscle mass - it's like
comparing speed of bicycle with the fastest modern car. You might
learn to drive bicycle faster with time but it will never go as fast
as a car no matter how hard you try.

> But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method,
> a personal choice.
> Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be
> incredible?

Again, nobody disagreed with the last statement - you are the only one
STATING it in this post.
One can be a genetic freak, take steroids and use MIT and that should
grow him a huge amount of muscle mass (not due to MIT but due to
steroids). But he will not become a Bodybuilder though in the true
meaning of the word - see above regarding what makes one a bodybuilder
and why MIT is not after reaching that goal.

Aren't you posting on a wrong forum :-)

Best Regards,
Alex

John,

Thanks for your positive feedback. Personally I have no doubts that
MIT is the most productive exercise protocol outthere if one can stick
to it and also provide for good rest and enough nutrients to make
progress.

I think I saw your workout logs in Files section - just didn't have
time to review them yet.

This forum is very informative and I'm glad we can share and discuss
ideas and opinions about productive training principles and routines.

Best,
Alex

On 11/28/08, clarke5fl <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> Alex
> I'm John C in the database clarke5fl in postings. I
> have documented what MIT has donefor me. It is
> eficient beyond belief. Resulted in big strength and
> size gains for me. My sin is probably getting
> uncomfortable with managing times between
> exercises of greater then two weeks.When/if find
> myself moved, employed I will start again and take
> the dr up on his offer to help me. It is definaitly the
> best way FOR ME and I  highly recomend MIT
> specifically and high intensity limited motion exercise
> more generally.
>
> John Clarke othitist prosthetist
>
>  --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex
> Pilosov" <alex@...> wrote:
>>
>> JJ,
>>
>> I think the answer is obvious if we concentrate on
> simple facts about
>> SCT/MIT training:
>>
>> 1. What SCT/MIT is?
>>
>> - the FASTEST way to develop, increase and
> SUSTAIN in long-term
>> strength, muscles, tendons, ligaments and bone
> density.
>>
>> 2. What SCT/MIT uses to achieve what it
> promises?
>>
>> - developing MAXIMUM strength in the static
> position of full muscle
>> contraction.
>>
>> 3. What SCT/MIT is not?
>>
>> - it's not a SPECIALIZED strength or muscle
> increase program.
>>
>> SPECIALIZED means:
>>
>> - it's not FOCUSING on changing "bad" muscle
> shape - so the SCT/MIT
>> along might not be all in one solution to get in
> shape for competitive
>> bodybuilding for those who aren't gifted genetically
> with great muscle
>> shape and muscle proportions.
>>
>> - it's not FOCUSING on developing MAXIMUM
> strength in SPECIFIC static
>> angles or SPECIFIC range of motion or FULL
> range of motion - so the
>> SCT/MIT along might not be all in one solution for
> athletic
>> performances that require MAXIMUM strength in
> different angles
>> throughout range of motion.
>>
>> Please take a note of word "MAXIMUM" in the
> above paragraph.
>> Developing MAXIMUM strength in the position of
> full muscular
>> contraction WILL increase strength of the muscle
> throughout the range
>> of motion ONLY NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. For
> MAXIMUM strength in different
>> angles of muscle contraction one will need to use
> a SPECIALIZED program.
>>
>> So ...
>>
>> 4. Could SCT/MIT be considered a SPECIALIZED
> program
>>
>> - YES if specialization goal is to achieve
> MAXIMUM strength in full
>> muscle contraction position and compound types
> of force application;
>> - YES if specialization goal is to SUSTAIN all
> results achieved with
>> minimum time and energy expenditure;
>> - NO if specialization goal is to achieve MAXIMUM
> strength in
>> different and very specific angles of muscle
> contraction throughout
>> full ROM;
>> - NO if specialization goal is to develop optimum
> shape of the muscles
>> and optimum balance of different muscle groups.
>>
>> So in my opinion you should NOT expect to
> perform a one-arm pull-up by
>> using MIT only (unless you are willing to wait for it
> longer than
>> otherwise is possible with a specialized routine) - if
> your goal is to
>> perform a one-arm pull-up an additional
> specialized program IS REQUIRED.
>>
>> Now remember - the more SPECIALIZED your
> training protocol THE LONGER
>> TIME of exercising and THE MORE ENERGY
> EXPENDITURE it requires and THE
>> MORE RISK you have that you wouldn't be able to
> use that
>> specialization routine in a long-term - meaning
> that all the time you
>> dedicate to specialized program in order to
> achieve specialized
>> results (i.e. one-arm pull-up as in my example) will
> be lost in vain
>> shortly after stopping the specialized program or
> the specialized
>> activity (i.e. stopping regular training for one-arm
> pull-up and
>> performing one-arm pull-ups regularly).
>>
>> The shorter one routine is the more chances one
> will be able to stick
>> with it in a long-term and thus be able to SUSTAIN
> or IMPROVE on
>> his/her achieved and new goals indefinitely.
>>
>> So looking in all above the SCT/MIT is an
> INVALUABLE tool as it allows
>> not ONLY to develop MAXIMUM strength in
> position of full muscle
>> contraction and SOME strength (which is better
> than nothing)
>> throughout the full range of motion BUT also
> SUSTAIN and IMPROVE on it
>> indefinitely (as it's the shortest workout protocol
> EVER).
>>
>> Also considering that it's using the protocol that
> allows developing
>> MAXIMUM strength in position of full muscle
> contraction in my opinion
>> it's also the most effective and fastest
> SPECIALIZED routine for
>> developing MAXIMUM strength at angles of full
> muscle contraction.
>>
>> I'm surprised that most of the people actively
> participating on this
>> forum are FIXATED on implying and proving what
> SCT/MIT is NOT.
>> SCT/MIT is NOT "all in one" solution in strength
> training.
>> I believe NONE of the authors and originators of
> SCT/MIT have ever
>> claimed that.
>>
>> Is it rational for one to expect a routine that only
> takes 5 minutes
>> of your time in 1,2,3 or even 4 week timeframe to
> develop outstanding
>> results in all aspects of strength training?????
>>
>> OF COURSE NOT!
>>
>> BUT FOR ALL IT GIVES in those 5 minutes in 4
> weeks MIT indeed gives
>> light years more "in savings" than any other
> routine in existence if
>> ALL THAT MIT HAS PROMISED IN THE LAB
> AND ON PAPER IS ACHIEVABLE IN
>> REAL LIFE FOR REAL PEOPLE.
>>
>> So far NO ONE on this forum except for Mike
> (1RepGym), Shawn (MIT) and
>> Paul have provided any results that proved that
> MIT delivers on its
>> promise.
>>
>> It would be of much more BENEFIT to people on
> this forum if all of us
>> who got MIT training equipment get FIXATED on
> applying ALL principles
>> of MIT to prove that it delivers on its promise and
> provide
>> independently documented results instead of
> going in circles regarding
>> what SCT/MIT had NEVER promised.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Alex
>>
>> --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com,
> "BIENN JJ" <jbienn@> wrote:
>> >
>> > mrkllyd,
>> >
>> > Thanks for all your recent postings.  They have
> been most helpful.
>> >
>> > In this latest post I am focusing on this
> statement: "Many static
>> > exercise-induced strength gains, (the most
> important ones, big compound
>> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full range strength."
>> >
>> > It sparked the following thought for me:  I
> remember reading an e-mail a
>> > long time ago from Pete Sisco.  I no longer have
> the original e-mail, so
>> > I am not quoting and am only going by memory.
> I can't remember if Pete
>> > agrees with the above statement concerning
> whether or not statics
>> > transfer to full range strength or not, but I
> remember him making the
>> > argument that people's stress on full range
> strength may be misplaced.
>> > He went on to give several "natural"/every day
> examples of people using
>> > strength in their strongest range.  The idea is
> that it is natural for
>> > us to push or pull in our strongest range with
> whatever activities we
>> > are doing.  So, worrying about getting stronger
> in our weaker ranges
>> > does not necessarily make sense.
>> >
>> > I buy this argument to a small degree.  I think
> one example that Pete
>> > gave was say that your car dies and you have to
> push it.  You are not
>> > going to place your arms in your weakest
> position to push that car.  You
>> > are going to put your arms in your strongest
> position.
>> >
>> > My counter argument is that while that may be
> true for some situations,
>> > there are other situations where you need to
> have strength in your
>> > weaker positions in order to get to your
> strongest positions.  For
>> > example, I like to rock climb.  I don't get a lot of
> choices on how my
>> > arms and legs are going to be placed.  In order
> to get to the next
>> > position, I often have to start in a weaker
> position.  I need strength
>> > in a relatively weaker position in order to move
> on.
>> >
>> > While I haven't given it much of any thought at
> all, the top of my head
>> > says that this second example of rock climbing
> is probably more typical
>> > of the types of strength needs that people have.
> How often do we get to
>> > position ourselves perfectly before using our
> muscles?
>> >
>> > Note to everyone: I'm *not* saying that I agree
> or disagree that "static
>> > exercise-induced strength gains ... won't transfer
> to full range
>> > strength."  I don't know enough either way to
> give an opinion.  The
>> > purpose of this post is to explore the importance
> or lack of importance
>> > of full range strength.  If it is not important, then
> who cares if
>> > statics transfer or not?
>> >
>> > Anyone who can politely add their opinions to
> this conversation would be
>> > welcome.  What are your thoughts?  Note that I
> will be gone on vacation
>> > for a while.  I may not get a chance to reply to
> any one else's
>> > thoughts.  But I'm sure everyone will appreciate
> the discussion.
>> >
>> > - JJ
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> >
>> > From: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
>> > [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of mrkllyd
>> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM
>> > To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
>> > Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: An Article To
> Check Out
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok,ok, I read it, and guess what?: You're off by
> a mile again, Shawn:
>> > What does Drew say?
>> > 1/You -can- get stronger without adding muscle,
> but you -can't- add
>> > mucle without
>> > getting stronger. 2/Without the backpressure of
> weight-loaded style SC,
>> > most trainees will
>> > never give an honest full effort. and 3/ -If- one is
> using isometrics,
>> > and -if- one is limited
>> > to one position only, -then- the fully contracted
> position is by far the
>> > best -single-
>> > position to use...this hardly jumping on the SC
> bandwagon, and certainly
>> > lends zero
>> > support to MIT, with it's lack of backpressure.
> And what does Drew say
>> > on his own site?:
>> > Many static exercise-induced strength gains,
> (the most important ones,
>> > big compound
>> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full tange strength.
> Hmmm. --- In
>> > Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
>> >
> <mailto:Explosive_Fitness%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "shawnaf12001"
>> > <shawn@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Nice try....
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Your position would be much better served in
> the future to NOT speak
>> > > or assume for (ME)or lie and make claims or
> accuse me of particular
>> > > view. Not only is it deceitful on your behalf but
> it does nothing but
>> > > cause confusion for others.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I gave you a simple instruction that proved
> impossible for you to
>> > > follow. Doesn't surprise me.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The post I provided came straight form John
> Little's website from an
>> > > interview he conducted with Drew. If (YOU)
> have problems with it
>> > > contact Drew and ask him why he isn't
> consistent.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "IF" in your mind Drew making the statement
> that does regarding a
>> > > weight bearing or resistance load in a static
> contraction DOES NOT
>> > > coincide with my opinion......WOW I would
> have to say,,,well never
>> > > mind that wouldn't be very nice for me to say.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Uh....I held this opinion long before DREW
> and I NEVER budged while he
>> > > promoted and believed in SS. Aside from
> ethics he knows SS isn't as
>> > > sound as SCT.
>> > >
>> > > I have no idea nor care what is on Drew's site.
> Drew is quite an
>> > > accomplished trainer and I have a lot of
> respect for him and what he
>> > > does (whatever it is he does). He would differ
> with me in that his
>> > > strength training program is inferior to mine.
> BFD!!!
>> > >
>> > > To correct you....I didn't assume anything. I
> simply provided an
>> > > excerpt of an interview where Drew agreed
> with John Little in that a
>> > > static contraction allows for optimal
> recruitment hence cross bridge
>> > > connections to allow for increase in strength
> and growth etc.
>> > >
>> > > By the way I wrote this and provided a picture
> to depict actin/myosin
>> > > and how cross bridge operate within muscle
> tissue YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > >
>> > > Long before the interview between Drew and
> John took place.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > So...........get your s*&!t straight before
> attacking me, making
>> > > assumptions regarding me or my point of
> view, and or lying about me
>> > > and possibly together we can achieve
> something beneficial.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I'm not psychologist but I'm very good at
> reading people it's the
>> > > nature of my industry. And to me it appears
> you have some major hang
>> > > ups. That's not an assumption it's my
> observation.
>> > >
>> > > I hope you can get it resolved because its
> quite evident it nearly
>> > > consumes your life. I will help you in any way I
> can if it is
>> > > something I did or didn't do or did or didn't say
> I would give you a
>> > > hug if it would help (trust me if people could
> get over hang ups and
>> > > hug the world would be a far greater place)!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I certainly don't expect you to so so however I
> again am going to
>> > > "suggest" you go to the max contraction
> website and read what Drew's
>> > > opinions are or at least WERE at the time of
> his interview with John.
>> > >
>> > > "IF" you see some facts not lining up with
> what is on Drew's site
>> > > please follow the rabbit and discuss with
> DREW not me :)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > "DR MIT"
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>

Alex
I'm John C in the database clarke5fl in postings. I
have documented what MIT has donefor me. It is
eficient beyond belief. Resulted in big strength and
size gains for me. My sin is probably getting
uncomfortable with managing times between
exercises of greater then two weeks.When/if find
myself moved, employed I will start again and take
the dr up on his offer to help me. It is definaitly the
best way FOR ME and I  highly recomend MIT
specifically and high intensity limited motion exercise
more generally.

John Clarke othitist prosthetist

  --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Alex
Pilosov" <alex@...> wrote:
>
> JJ,
>
> I think the answer is obvious if we concentrate on
simple facts about
> SCT/MIT training:
>
> 1. What SCT/MIT is?
>
> - the FASTEST way to develop, increase and
SUSTAIN in long-term
> strength, muscles, tendons, ligaments and bone
density.
>
> 2. What SCT/MIT uses to achieve what it
promises?
>
> - developing MAXIMUM strength in the static
position of full muscle
> contraction.
>
> 3. What SCT/MIT is not?
>
> - it's not a SPECIALIZED strength or muscle
increase program.
>
> SPECIALIZED means:
>
> - it's not FOCUSING on changing "bad" muscle
shape - so the SCT/MIT
> along might not be all in one solution to get in
shape for competitive
> bodybuilding for those who aren't gifted genetically
with great muscle
> shape and muscle proportions.
>
> - it's not FOCUSING on developing MAXIMUM
strength in SPECIFIC static
> angles or SPECIFIC range of motion or FULL
range of motion - so the
> SCT/MIT along might not be all in one solution for
athletic
> performances that require MAXIMUM strength in
different angles
> throughout range of motion.
>
> Please take a note of word "MAXIMUM" in the
above paragraph.
> Developing MAXIMUM strength in the position of
full muscular
> contraction WILL increase strength of the muscle
throughout the range
> of motion ONLY NOT TO THE MAXIMUM. For
MAXIMUM strength in different
> angles of muscle contraction one will need to use
a SPECIALIZED program.
>
> So ...
>
> 4. Could SCT/MIT be considered a SPECIALIZED
program
>
> - YES if specialization goal is to achieve
MAXIMUM strength in full
> muscle contraction position and compound types
of force application;
> - YES if specialization goal is to SUSTAIN all
results achieved with
> minimum time and energy expenditure;
> - NO if specialization goal is to achieve MAXIMUM
strength in
> different and very specific angles of muscle
contraction throughout
> full ROM;
> - NO if specialization goal is to develop optimum
shape of the muscles
> and optimum balance of different muscle groups.
>
> So in my opinion you should NOT expect to
perform a one-arm pull-up by
> using MIT only (unless you are willing to wait for it
longer than
> otherwise is possible with a specialized routine) - if
your goal is to
> perform a one-arm pull-up an additional
specialized program IS REQUIRED.
>
> Now remember - the more SPECIALIZED your
training protocol THE LONGER
> TIME of exercising and THE MORE ENERGY
EXPENDITURE it requires and THE
> MORE RISK you have that you wouldn't be able to
use that
> specialization routine in a long-term - meaning
that all the time you
> dedicate to specialized program in order to
achieve specialized
> results (i.e. one-arm pull-up as in my example) will
be lost in vain
> shortly after stopping the specialized program or
the specialized
> activity (i.e. stopping regular training for one-arm
pull-up and
> performing one-arm pull-ups regularly).
>
> The shorter one routine is the more chances one
will be able to stick
> with it in a long-term and thus be able to SUSTAIN
or IMPROVE on
> his/her achieved and new goals indefinitely.
>
> So looking in all above the SCT/MIT is an
INVALUABLE tool as it allows
> not ONLY to develop MAXIMUM strength in
position of full muscle
> contraction and SOME strength (which is better
than nothing)
> throughout the full range of motion BUT also
SUSTAIN and IMPROVE on it
> indefinitely (as it's the shortest workout protocol
EVER).
>
> Also considering that it's using the protocol that
allows developing
> MAXIMUM strength in position of full muscle
contraction in my opinion
> it's also the most effective and fastest
SPECIALIZED routine for
> developing MAXIMUM strength at angles of full
muscle contraction.
>
> I'm surprised that most of the people actively
participating on this
> forum are FIXATED on implying and proving what
SCT/MIT is NOT.
> SCT/MIT is NOT "all in one" solution in strength
training.
> I believe NONE of the authors and originators of
SCT/MIT have ever
> claimed that.
>
> Is it rational for one to expect a routine that only
takes 5 minutes
> of your time in 1,2,3 or even 4 week timeframe to
develop outstanding
> results in all aspects of strength training?????
>
> OF COURSE NOT!
>
> BUT FOR ALL IT GIVES in those 5 minutes in 4
weeks MIT indeed gives
> light years more "in savings" than any other
routine in existence if
> ALL THAT MIT HAS PROMISED IN THE LAB
AND ON PAPER IS ACHIEVABLE IN
> REAL LIFE FOR REAL PEOPLE.
>
> So far NO ONE on this forum except for Mike
(1RepGym), Shawn (MIT) and
> Paul have provided any results that proved that
MIT delivers on its
> promise.
>
> It would be of much more BENEFIT to people on
this forum if all of us
> who got MIT training equipment get FIXATED on
applying ALL principles
> of MIT to prove that it delivers on its promise and
provide
> independently documented results instead of
going in circles regarding
> what SCT/MIT had NEVER promised.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alex
>
> --- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com,
"BIENN JJ" <jbienn@> wrote:
> >
> > mrkllyd,
> >
> > Thanks for all your recent postings.  They have
been most helpful.
> >
> > In this latest post I am focusing on this
statement: "Many static
> > exercise-induced strength gains, (the most
important ones, big compound
> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full range strength."
> >
> > It sparked the following thought for me:  I
remember reading an e-mail a
> > long time ago from Pete Sisco.  I no longer have
the original e-mail, so
> > I am not quoting and am only going by memory.
I can't remember if Pete
> > agrees with the above statement concerning
whether or not statics
> > transfer to full range strength or not, but I
remember him making the
> > argument that people's stress on full range
strength may be misplaced.
> > He went on to give several "natural"/every day
examples of people using
> > strength in their strongest range.  The idea is
that it is natural for
> > us to push or pull in our strongest range with
whatever activities we
> > are doing.  So, worrying about getting stronger
in our weaker ranges
> > does not necessarily make sense.
> >
> > I buy this argument to a small degree.  I think
one example that Pete
> > gave was say that your car dies and you have to
push it.  You are not
> > going to place your arms in your weakest
position to push that car.  You
> > are going to put your arms in your strongest
position.
> >
> > My counter argument is that while that may be
true for some situations,
> > there are other situations where you need to
have strength in your
> > weaker positions in order to get to your
strongest positions.  For
> > example, I like to rock climb.  I don't get a lot of
choices on how my
> > arms and legs are going to be placed.  In order
to get to the next
> > position, I often have to start in a weaker
position.  I need strength
> > in a relatively weaker position in order to move
on.
> >
> > While I haven't given it much of any thought at
all, the top of my head
> > says that this second example of rock climbing
is probably more typical
> > of the types of strength needs that people have.
How often do we get to
> > position ourselves perfectly before using our
muscles?
> >
> > Note to everyone: I'm *not* saying that I agree
or disagree that "static
> > exercise-induced strength gains ... won't transfer
to full range
> > strength."  I don't know enough either way to
give an opinion.  The
> > purpose of this post is to explore the importance
or lack of importance
> > of full range strength.  If it is not important, then
who cares if
> > statics transfer or not?
> >
> > Anyone who can politely add their opinions to
this conversation would be
> > welcome.  What are your thoughts?  Note that I
will be gone on vacation
> > for a while.  I may not get a chance to reply to
any one else's
> > thoughts.  But I'm sure everyone will appreciate
the discussion.
> >
> > - JJ
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of mrkllyd
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:06 AM
> > To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: An Article To
Check Out
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok,ok, I read it, and guess what?: You're off by
a mile again, Shawn:
> > What does Drew say?
> > 1/You -can- get stronger without adding muscle,
but you -can't- add
> > mucle without
> > getting stronger. 2/Without the backpressure of
weight-loaded style SC,
> > most trainees will
> > never give an honest full effort. and 3/ -If- one is
using isometrics,
> > and -if- one is limited
> > to one position only, -then- the fully contracted
position is by far the
> > best -single-
> > position to use...this hardly jumping on the SC
bandwagon, and certainly
> > lends zero
> > support to MIT, with it's lack of backpressure.
And what does Drew say
> > on his own site?:
> > Many static exercise-induced strength gains,
(the most important ones,
> > big compound
> > "moves"), -won't- transfer to full tange strength.
Hmmm. --- In
> > Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> >
<mailto:Explosive_Fitness%40yahoogroups.com> ,
"shawnaf12001"
> > <shawn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nice try....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your position would be much better served in
the future to NOT speak
> > > or assume for (ME)or lie and make claims or
accuse me of particular
> > > view. Not only is it deceitful on your behalf but
it does nothing but
> > > cause confusion for others.
> > >
> > >
> > > I gave you a simple instruction that proved
impossible for you to
> > > follow. Doesn't surprise me.
> > >
> > >
> > > The post I provided came straight form John
Little's website from an
> > > interview he conducted with Drew. If (YOU)
have problems with it
> > > contact Drew and ask him why he isn't
consistent.
> > >
> > >
> > > "IF" in your mind Drew making the statement
that does regarding a
> > > weight bearing or resistance load in a static
contraction DOES NOT
> > > coincide with my opinion......WOW I would
have to say,,,well never
> > > mind that wouldn't be very nice for me to say.
> > >
> > >
> > > Uh....I held this opinion long before DREW
and I NEVER budged while he
> > > promoted and believed in SS. Aside from
ethics he knows SS isn't as
> > > sound as SCT.
> > >
> > > I have no idea nor care what is on Drew's site.
Drew is quite an
> > > accomplished trainer and I have a lot of
respect for him and what he
> > > does (whatever it is he does). He would differ
with me in that his
> > > strength training program is inferior to mine.
BFD!!!
> > >
> > > To correct you....I didn't assume anything. I
simply provided an
> > > excerpt of an interview where Drew agreed
with John Little in that a
> > > static contraction allows for optimal
recruitment hence cross bridge
> > > connections to allow for increase in strength
and growth etc.
> > >
> > > By the way I wrote this and provided a picture
to depict actin/myosin
> > > and how cross bridge operate within muscle
tissue YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > Long before the interview between Drew and
John took place.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So...........get your s*&!t straight before
attacking me, making
> > > assumptions regarding me or my point of
view, and or lying about me
> > > and possibly together we can achieve
something beneficial.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not psychologist but I'm very good at
reading people it's the
> > > nature of my industry. And to me it appears
you have some major hang
> > > ups. That's not an assumption it's my
observation.
> > >
> > > I hope you can get it resolved because its
quite evident it nearly
> > > consumes your life. I will help you in any way I
can if it is
> > > something I did or didn't do or did or didn't say
I would give you a
> > > hug if it would help (trust me if people could
get over hang ups and
> > > hug the world would be a far greater place)!
> > >
> > >
> > > I certainly don't expect you to so so however I
again am going to
> > > "suggest" you go to the max contraction
website and read what Drew's
> > > opinions are or at least WERE at the time of
his interview with John.
> > >
> > > "IF" you see some facts not lining up with
what is on Drew's site
> > > please follow the rabbit and discuss with
DREW not me :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "DR MIT"
> > >
> >
>

At least of equal importance is genetic:
Where you put your fat on.
If I'm five lbs off of perfect, it goes in between my abs and my skin;
no more abs.
When a genetically blessed BBer gains five lbs, it may thicken his waist a bit,
but the definition is still there.
The fat went under the muscle or in the muscle.
Heck, if he's not holding water, he may look better!
My favorite example is the late "Dick the Bruiser", who was -fat-, but still
showed abs.  ---
In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "eddfitness" <eddfitness@...> wrote:
>
> Legendary body building mogul Joe Weider once said that the true secret
> to body building success what found in the proper body building diet.
> What Weider meant was that people who over eat and pack their body with
> fat ultimately harm all the benefits of body building because the lean,
> ripped look becomes impossible to attain. Hence, if you eat the proper
> body building diet of low fat, high protein and decent carbs you will do
> ok. Now, while a body building diet will consume more calories than a
> common diet, there are certain considerations that also must be
> understood as well.
>
> Read Body Building The Art of Diet <http://www.1st-fitness.blogspot.com>
> News To Day !
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Eccentrics are indeed what you say.
I believe you mean it as the lowering of each rep, but there's another aspect:
It's the greatest strength we have:
We can control the lowering of more weight than we can hold static.
It's the 'finisher' on the "Omega Set": Lowering  a weight that you can't hold
any longer.
Too much of this can lengthen recuperation to the point that progress is
reversed,
but for a set here and there, it's the ultimate "teardown to rebuild".
The theory that eccentrics are best for muscle:
From research on running up & down stairs:
Down damages the knees, up doesn't.
This research is usually hidden from us when the theory is invoked.
Poor correlation to controlled lowering of a weighted bar.
A more logical reason for eccentrics' muscle-building value:
Eccentrics are simply 1/2 of of a full rep!
The way to keep the muscle under tension while preparing to lift it again.
Concentric-only gives the trainee a reoccurring rest period/reset.
Thus working  CNS/skill more than  tissue.
I  believe there's no measure of "true strength" unless we all agree what it is.
Which we don't.
"Taking no skill" is a myth.
One can  greatly enhance their skill at  the most "skill-less" of movements.
Lastly: Perhaps I'm confused about isokinetics.
I believe they're concentric-only, speed-related power-machines.
All momentum .
Hardly the way I'd  judge anything besides how I could do on the machine itself.
Please explain.
Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@...> wrote:
>
> In my experience for reasons I do not fully understand yet, eccentrics
(lowering the
resistance or lengthening the muscle against the resistance) seems to be one of
the keys
to muscle growth.  I think you can get stronger without it, but a lot of
research and
feedback from bodybuilders seem to point to lowering as a key to growing muscle.
>
> I think the best way to measure true strength gains is with something that
takes no skill
and does not all momentum or motor patterns to help.  For example an isokinetic
machine.

In my experience for reasons I do not fully understand yet, eccentrics (lowering
the resistance or lengthening the muscle against the resistance) seems to be one
of the keys to muscle growth.  I think you can get stronger without it, but a
lot of research and feedback from bodybuilders seem to point to lowering as a
key to growing muscle.

I think the best way to measure true strength gains is with something that takes
no skill and does not all momentum or motor patterns to help.  For example an
isokinetic machine.

Ed

--- On Fri, 11/28/08, mrkllyd <lazur@...> wrote:
From: mrkllyd <lazur@...>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Re: Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 28, 2008, 1:13 AM













We may agree more than you think:

1/When I said "valid", I purposely meant this to be non-specific, so that we can
at least

agree that -results- are what make the program valid.

Results for motivated, genetically blessed individuals: big, "bodybuilder" ,
-muscles-.

If this individual can't get big muscles with any given method, it is a not a
valid program,

no matter how much stronger some housewife got,

& certainly not a superior method.

2/ I said "...why can't..MIT.. .?":

I  think  there IS a reason "why can't".

Many of my  possible reasons "why can't", have been in this forum already.

I'll rehash them if I need to.

Here's 1: A likelihood that stretch position triggers growth in a way unlike
other positions.

The leverage is disadvantaged, the numbers on the monitor won't impress you.

Too bad.

Why blow off stretch position research? :

(Steve Holman/Jonathan Lawson's "X-Reps" .. Brian Johnson/IART' s "Zone
Training",etc) ,

Why embrace only full contraction?

(By the way,some of Shawn's videos document distinctly NON-fully-contracte d
positions.)

You can have BOTH!

  In Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@ ...> wrote:

>

> I generally agree with the proposition, but the devil is in the details of how
it is

accomplished.

>

> Choice of exercises, sequence of exercises, resistance, reps, sets, speed of
rep, rest

between sets, recovery, how much protein, periodization, ... lots of variables
to get right.

>

> I have still not seen a well-built person who got that way from EF/MIT  A
person who

has become well-built using EF/MIT is as rare as Bigfoot.  Several unconfirmed
sitings, but

none ever verified.  Why?

>

> Ed

>

> ps  I work with a blown up (natural) body builder and he is pretty dam strong
despite

doing volume training.

>

>

>

> --- On Thu, 11/27/08, mrkllyd <lazur@...> wrote:

> From: mrkllyd <lazur@...>

> Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?

> To: Explosive_Fitness@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 4:05 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>             Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the
first sentence):

>

> If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest, practices a
valid

>

> progressive strength training program, and avoids overdoing catabolic
activities such as

>

> distance running, they will eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular
weight.

>

> This limited only by genetic potential.

>

> If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.

>

> This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is built to
incite added

muscle.

>

> Though sarcoplasm, associated w/highrep/lightweig ht/multiset work, is not as
directly

>

> connected to strength gains, myofibrils are growing at the same time, albeit
more

slowly.

>

> The majority of  permanent  muscular gain is myofibril, even w/a blown up
BBer.

>

> Attested to by the incredible strength feats of Johnny Jackson,Ron Coleman,etc

>

> If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle &

>

> ....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle, then

>

> ....3/You're a bodybuilder, and:

>

> ....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly superior
strength builder.

>

> Granted, most  don't have the potential & many who do aren't interested in
being huge.

>

> This is irrelevant,( see the first sentence).

>

> I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.

>

> Is it anti-drug?

>

> There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be more.

>

> A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major aspect of
better gains.

>

> Steroids are taken for better recuperation.

>

> Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better method.

>

> But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method, a personal
choice.

>

> Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be incredible?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We may agree more than you think:
1/When I said "valid", I purposely meant this to be non-specific, so that we can
at least
agree that -results- are what make the program valid.
Results for motivated, genetically blessed individuals: big, "bodybuilder",
-muscles-.
If this individual can't get big muscles with any given method, it is a not a
valid program,
no matter how much stronger some housewife got,
& certainly not a superior method.
2/ I said "...why can't..MIT...?":
I  think  there IS a reason "why can't".
Many of my  possible reasons "why can't", have been in this forum already.
I'll rehash them if I need to.
Here's 1: A likelihood that stretch position triggers growth in a way unlike
other positions.
The leverage is disadvantaged, the numbers on the monitor won't impress you.
Too bad.
Why blow off stretch position research? :
(Steve Holman/Jonathan Lawson's "X-Reps" .. Brian Johnson/IART's "Zone
Training",etc),
Why embrace only full contraction?
(By the way,some of Shawn's videos document distinctly NON-fully-contracted
positions.)
You can have BOTH!
  In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@...> wrote:
>
> I generally agree with the proposition, but the devil is in the details of how
it is
accomplished.
>
> Choice of exercises, sequence of exercises, resistance, reps, sets, speed of
rep, rest
between sets, recovery, how much protein, periodization, ... lots of variables
to get right.
>
> I have still not seen a well-built person who got that way from EF/MIT  A
person who
has become well-built using EF/MIT is as rare as Bigfoot.  Several unconfirmed
sitings, but
none ever verified.  Why?
>
> Ed
>
> ps  I work with a blown up (natural) body builder and he is pretty dam strong
despite
doing volume training.
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 11/27/08, mrkllyd <lazur@...> wrote:
> From: mrkllyd <lazur@...>
> Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?
> To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 4:05 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the
first sentence):
>
> If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest, practices a
valid
>
> progressive strength training program, and avoids overdoing catabolic
activities such as
>
> distance running, they will eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular
weight.
>
> This limited only by genetic potential.
>
> If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.
>
> This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is built to
incite added
muscle.
>
> Though sarcoplasm, associated w/highrep/lightweig ht/multiset work, is not as
directly
>
> connected to strength gains, myofibrils are growing at the same time, albeit
more
slowly.
>
> The majority of  permanent  muscular gain is myofibril, even w/a blown up
BBer.
>
> Attested to by the incredible strength feats of Johnny Jackson,Ron Coleman,etc
>
> If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle &
>
> ....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle, then
>
> ....3/You're a bodybuilder, and:
>
> ....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly superior
strength builder.
>
> Granted, most  don't have the potential & many who do aren't interested in
being huge.
>
> This is irrelevant,( see the first sentence).
>
> I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.
>
> Is it anti-drug?
>
> There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be more.
>
> A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major aspect of
better gains.
>
> Steroids are taken for better recuperation.
>
> Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better method.
>
> But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method, a personal
choice.
>
> Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be incredible?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Legendary body building mogul Joe Weider once said that the true secret
to body building success what found in the proper body building diet.
What Weider meant was that people who over eat and pack their body with
fat ultimately harm all the benefits of body building because the lean,
ripped look becomes impossible to attain. Hence, if you eat the proper
body building diet of low fat, high protein and decent carbs you will do
ok. Now, while a body building diet will consume more calories than a
common diet, there are certain considerations that also must be
understood as well.

Read Body Building The Art of Diet <http://www.1st-fitness.blogspot.com>
News To Day !


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I generally agree with the proposition, but the devil is in the details of how
it is accomplished.

Choice of exercises, sequence of exercises, resistance, reps, sets, speed of
rep, rest between sets, recovery, how much protein, periodization, ... lots of
variables to get right.

I have still not seen a well-built person who got that way from EF/MIT  A person
who has become well-built using EF/MIT is as rare as Bigfoot.  Several
unconfirmed sitings, but none ever verified.  Why?

Ed

ps  I work with a blown up (natural) body builder and he is pretty dam strong
despite doing volume training.



--- On Thu, 11/27/08, mrkllyd <lazur@...> wrote:
From: mrkllyd <lazur@...>
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 4:05 PM











             Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the
first sentence):

If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest, practices a
valid

progressive strength training program, and avoids overdoing catabolic activities
such as

distance running, they will eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular
weight.

This limited only by genetic potential.

If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.

This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is built to incite
added muscle.

Though sarcoplasm, associated w/highrep/lightweig ht/multiset work, is not as
directly

connected to strength gains, myofibrils are growing at the same time, albeit
more slowly.

The majority of  permanent  muscular gain is myofibril, even w/a blown up BBer.

Attested to by the incredible strength feats of Johnny Jackson,Ron Coleman,etc

If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle &

....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle, then

....3/You're a bodybuilder, and:

....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly superior strength
builder.

Granted, most  don't have the potential & many who do aren't interested in being
huge.

This is irrelevant,( see the first sentence).

I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.

Is it anti-drug?

There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be more.

A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major aspect of better
gains.

Steroids are taken for better recuperation.

Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better method.

But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method, a personal
choice.

Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be incredible?





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Distance running's effect  on  muscle mass would have be  judged -by- the effect
itself.
Benefits that  may come from running could trump max-efficient growth.
(There's the irony that those who are most suited to long distances often  put
on muscle
more slowly than others, whether running or not. It's be a shame to give up
one's chosen
activity and not get all that much in return.)
I know a personal trainer who lifts heavy and runs marathons; while he's by far
the most
muscular of marathoners, he's quite a bit more muscular  when he doesn't run.
/// I don't know, perhaps -any- long, slow running  slows muscular growth
somewhat.///
--- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Andrus" <bmandrus@...> wrote:
>
> What do you consider distance running 4 to 5 miles 2 to 3 miles per week? Or
> more than that?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrkllyd
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:05 PM
> To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
> anti-bodybuilder?
>
>
>
> Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the first
> sentence):
> If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest, practices
> a valid
> progressive strength training program, and avoids overdoing catabolic
> activities such as
> distance running, they will eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular
> weight.
> This limited only by genetic potential.
> If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.
> This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is built to
> incite added muscle.
> Though sarcoplasm, associated w/highrep/lightweight/multiset work, is not as
> directly
> connected to strength gains, myofibrils are growing at the same time, albeit
> more slowly.
> The majority of permanent muscular gain is myofibril, even w/a blown up
> BBer.
> Attested to by the incredible strength feats of Johnny Jackson,Ron
> Coleman,etc
> If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle &
> ....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle, then
> ....3/You're a bodybuilder,and:
> ....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly superior
> strength builder.
> Granted, most don't have the potential & many who do aren't interested in
> being huge.
> This is irrelevant,(see the first sentence).
> I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.
> Is it anti-drug?
> There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be more.
> A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major aspect of
> better gains.
> Steroids are taken for better recuperation.
> Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better method.
> But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method, a personal
> choice.
> Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be
> incredible?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

What do you consider distance running 4 to 5 miles 2 to 3 miles per week? Or
more than that?



-----Original Message-----
From: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mrkllyd
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:05 PM
To: Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Explosive_Fitness] Sorry to repeat myself: Why is MIT
anti-bodybuilder?



Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the first
sentence):
If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest, practices
a valid
progressive strength training program, and avoids overdoing catabolic
activities such as
distance running, they will eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular
weight.
This limited only by genetic potential.
If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.
This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is built to
incite added muscle.
Though sarcoplasm, associated w/highrep/lightweight/multiset work, is not as
directly
connected to strength gains, myofibrils are growing at the same time, albeit
more slowly.
The majority of permanent muscular gain is myofibril, even w/a blown up
BBer.
Attested to by the incredible strength feats of Johnny Jackson,Ron
Coleman,etc
If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle &
....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle, then
....3/You're a bodybuilder,and:
....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly superior
strength builder.
Granted, most don't have the potential & many who do aren't interested in
being huge.
This is irrelevant,(see the first sentence).
I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.
Is it anti-drug?
There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be more.
A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major aspect of
better gains.
Steroids are taken for better recuperation.
Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better method.
But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method, a personal
choice.
Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be
incredible?





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Biodensity" doesn't show  prices online. A high-end/commercial/therapeutic look
& a
need for 3 pieces, make it appear to be an expense businesses get bank loans to
pay: No
competiton for 1RG. I've  investigated many assisted living facilities in the
northern
suburbs of Chicago, & biodensity looks like a good replacement for the
lowest-level
Keiser, (read: "crap"), machines I almost always found there.--- In
Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, "shawnaf12001" <shawn@...> wrote:
>
> Also something scary.....
>
>
> What they have as incredible as it is, IS NOT MIT and what it will become.
>
> One of the individuals from and organization that nominated me for
> Innovator of The Year introduced me to biodensity months ago.
>
> I detailed the differences.
>
>
> The GREATEST thing is what they have can be used to validate my
> training system.
>
> I'm not trying to be arrogant rather hoping to shed light on
> specifically why I DON'T share my information.
>
>
> I've been around at least as long as their company, have shown much
> greater increases in strength in short time and long periods.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have the resources to have gathered quite that
> amount of data.
>
>
> Ironically I have a really close friend who "may" invest in our
> company whose sister actually invested in biodensity.
>
>
>
> We've been working on some great stuff....it's been an uphill battle
> for a long time!!!!!
>
>
>
>
> But since the release of the Nov.. 12 article from SCIFIT  things may
> really get interesting VERY SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> It's just the thing to tip over some serious investors.
>
>
>
>
> Lots of activity lately through 1RG site.  Next batch under way
> there may even be a discount in shipping for the holidays due to the
> recent new kid on the block (biodensity) so to speak.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Have a wonderful Thanksgiving
>
>
>
>
> -- In Explosive_Fitness@yahoogroups.com, Ed White <kitesurfer257@>
> wrote:
> >
> > These look like heavy duty machines, but they don't seem to do
> anything that Mike or Tony's machines do.
> >
> > Also, these guys are saying the same things that Shawn says (scary).
> >
> > http://www.biodensity.com/V2/FAQs.html
> >
> > Ed
>

Are we, or we not, all agreed on this proposition? (At least the first
sentence):
If one consumes adequate calories/protein, gets enough sleep/rest, practices a
valid
progressive strength training program, and avoids overdoing catabolic activities
such as
distance running, they will eventually have a meaningful gain in muscular
weight.
This limited only by genetic potential.
If their potential's to be huge, they will get huge.
This is the case no matter how strength's built, if -enough- is built to incite
added muscle.
Though sarcoplasm, associated w/highrep/lightweight/multiset work, is not as
directly
connected to strength gains, myofibrils are growing at the same time, albeit
more slowly.
The majority of  permanent  muscular gain is myofibril, even w/a blown up BBer.
Attested to by the incredible strength feats of Johnny Jackson,Ron Coleman,etc
If: 1/Your intention's to add a lot of muscle &
....2/Your potential's to grow a lot of muscle, then
....3/You're a bodybuilder,and:
....4/ MIT should build all the muscle you need, if it's truly superior strength
builder.
Granted, most  don't have the potential & many who do aren't interested in being
huge.
This is irrelevant,(see the first sentence).
I don't understand the anti-bodybulder stance.
Is it anti-drug?
There were great BBers before there were drugs. Let there be more.
A better method presumably invokes better recupertion, a major aspect of better
gains.
Steroids are taken for better recuperation.
Perhaps steroids would be no longer be needed w/a better method.
But even if they -were- used, it's beyond control of the method, a personal
choice.
Why can't a genetic freak who uses steroids, also use MIT, and be incredible?