HighIntensity.net View Mike Mentzer Bodybuilding Topic


– or –


All Forums

Total Members: 2037

Forums moderator – Forum Admin

[email protected]

The Message from Forum Admin (moderator)

 Search Topics:  
General Forum:
Started By Analyzer (CDA, id, U.S.A.)

Started on: 11/22/2005 7:29:29 PM, viewed 598 times
Arthur Jones PDF from Journal of Applied Science

I haven′t read this yet, but hope it′s good. Thought I′d post the link on here.



This Topic has 11 Replies: Displaying out of 11 Replies:

Bayan (los angeles, 90024, U.S.A.) on 11/23/2005 2:35:33 AM

A very interesting read Az, thanks!

i like the power of dense objectivity as demonstrated by the vast review of research in this paper! provides such strong evidence in support of HD.

I marvel at jones′ genius in the field of BB. How did he know to postulate such things?

A summary of the article:

research overwhelmingly supports "one set to failure per muscle group per week with 8-12 reps of a slow controlled and non-explosive modality" is the most effective BB method.



afrdmd (Bala Cynwyd, PA, U.S.A.) on 11/23/2005 7:13:46 AM

Interesting article, but didn′t find any mention backing the supposed superiority of multi-joint exercises over single-joint movements in building overall muscle mass. I suppose AJ just missed this one.


dafortae (a, a, U.S.A.) on 11/23/2005 9:23:43 AM

Hey, thanks a lot for that article. I really enjoyed it.

I liked this:


n a review published in 1998, Carpinelli and Otto (35) concluded that the research to date strongly

supports the idea that single sets can produce optimal results. This was the case in 33 out of the 35 studies

they reviewed. Carpinelli (36) pointed out that many exercise physiology textbooks cite a 1962 study by

Berger (37) as supporting multiple-set training. This study found a small advantage from performing

multiple sets on bench press one-repetition maximum (1 RM; 22.3 % increase from 1 set versus a 25.5 %

increase from 3 sets, a 3 % difference in strength from 300 % more training)."

That′s what I was seeing from my blitz. For any increase I did get, it was WAY out of proportion. It′s definately not worth it at all to me, even if it is slightly better, because of the tremendous waste of time (and increasing your chance of getting sick and run down). 3% increase from 300% more training. That′s just horrible. If you read more, it even points out that study was flawed, because of not being controlled properly. So not only do the results show crappy results, the study ITSELF was crappy. So in reality, I can′t even SUPPORT the results. LOL.

Another funny thing related to that is, neurological efficiency (or skill) increases. You would THINK doing more volume would increase neuro strength a LOT more, because you′d get much more skillful at it. So, if you increase in strength by 3% ONLY from 300% more exercise, you′d think MAYBE the CNS improved by 5%, therefore, a net LOSS of 2% of strength from LOSS OF MUSCLE MASS. I just made up the numbers, but you catch my drift (I hope). It points out neuro efficiency either cannot improve as much as some claim, or there was actually a LOSS in muscle mass that offset the neuro gains. All of this is assumptions, so don′t take it to heart. But I find it pretty funny.


dafortae (a, a, U.S.A.) on 11/23/2005 9:36:26 AM

"Again, this shows that fast movements do not

provide as much muscle tension as slow movements through most of the ROM, suggesting that faster

Strength Training and Arthur Jones


repetitions may not produce optimal strength increases through a muscle’s full ROM. This appears to be

strongly supported by a study by Westcott et al. (85), in which 147 previously untrained subjects were

assigned to either a ‘super-slow’ condition (4-6 repetitions/set, 10 s concentric contraction, 4 s eccentric) or

a ‘traditional’ (8-12 repetitions/set, 2 s concentric, 1 s isometric and 4 s eccentric) condition. Both groups

performed 1 set of 13 exercises 2-3 times/week for 8-10 weeks. The super-slow group increased their

strength to a significantly greater degree than the traditional group, suggesting that not only are faster

repetitions no more effective, but also that even slower movements than Jones advocated may be best.

Better results from slower repetitions were also found by Jones et al. (86), who found significantly greater

increases in 1 RM squat resulting from slower repetitions than from faster ones (though precise movement

cadence was not reported in this study)."

Man, I always have a hard time believing super-slow could be more effective than faster reps.


Page: | | – Next

To Post Your Reply:
Please Login :
Remember me next time
or, Register Now
and enjoy FREE Membership

with Highintensity Fan Club!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.