Announcement

**jaywooly** · 06-09-2004, 05:04 AM

In my opinion, if you are making strength gains, you are making progress.

How often are you weighing yourself? Perhaps you were retaining water when weighing in initially?

**Blade** · 06-09-2004, 07:35 AM

I definitly agree with Jay. Off-topic: damn the olsen twins are so damn hot and RICH

**homonunculus** · 06-09-2004, 07:57 AM

If I may?...

Assuming that training experience (and status), motivation, and all other things (e.g., "neural" adaptations) that contribute to muscular performance aside from *muscle mass* gains are equivalent, I'd say that only subject B actually made the most gains.

Using RM prediction equations, the 8 x 300 that both A and B originally lifted yields a 380 predicted 1RM. The 8 x 313 (subj. B) actually predicts about a 390 1RM, whereas the 6 x 322 of subject A only gives a 380 1RM.

Thus, A did not increase strength, but only preserved it, whereas B increased strength and presumably muscle mass (assuming the strength gains were from muscle mass).

This is a BIG assumption, though. Lifting is a very mental phenomenon, as we all know. You don't say how much time elapsed between workouts or how much they weigh (I'm assuming over 200lb), either, but I think we can presume that the 3.5 lb gain of B was likely at least partially muscle, thus supporting the notion that he made some muscular gains.

Given A's situation, I don't see how (unless he got stronger on other exercises or was loafing on the bench press), we could say he made "gains," as neither weight nor strength increased. Continue this trend with A and B and we see that A loses a lot of weight and B gains both strength and (more than likely) muscle.

I'd rather be B than A, unless of course I were getting ready for a show. ;^)

-R

**Divinity** · 06-10-2004, 01:04 AM

Jaywoody:: I`m weighing myself about once on three days...in the morning after go to toilet,I usually weighing myself after piss about 3X after wake up from bed [nobody teach me to do like this, but I think it will help me to get an accurate 'clean' weight]...

Thanks for reply, Jay and Blade...I also have thought like that [strength gain means great gain even when lose weight]...but one person on my gym say that I`m not making gain...I`m searching and searching on some books, some backed up my thinking, for example Arthur Jones articles entitled Exercise 1983... [I forget the complete title], he stated that on one of his experiment, Boyer Coe making gains because his strength is up, Boyer`s bodyweight is down, but Jones said that Boyer is making progress...

But I`m also hear that some others says that for bodybuilder, I`m not making progress, but for powerlifter, I`m making a progress...

Hmmm...I remember what Mike Mentzer stated that when he using Rest Pause, his strength up to >50%, that takes some weeks...but his bodyweight is still the same [217 lbs ?], but his muscle looks rounder and thicker...he says that he make a progress...hmmm...Mike`s bodyweight is still the same, but my bodyweight is down...so I think that his case is not the same as me...

So...am I making a progress??? that still make me wonder...

homonunculus::Thanks for reply, hom...but what about Colorado Experiment? you cans see at http://www.bodybuildingfanatic.com/c...experiment.htm

RESULTS . .
First subject (Casey Viator), 28 days
Increase in bodyweight........45.28 pounds
Loss of bodyfat..............17.93 pounds
Muscular gain.................63.21 pounds

Second subject (Arthur Jones),22 days
Increase in bodyweight .......13.62 pounds
Loss of bodyfat...............1.82 pounds
Muscular gain.................15.44 pounds

Dr. Elliott Plese 'indirectly' stated that loss of bodyfat is because of muscle gain...look at how he calculated the RESULTS above...

Please give me your opinion...

Thanks,hom...

**homonunculus** · 06-10-2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Divinity

homonunculus::Thanks for reply, hom...but what about Colorado Experiment? you cans see at http://www.bodybuildingfanatic.com/c...experiment.htm

RESULTS . .
First subject (Casey Viator), 28 days
Increase in bodyweight........45.28 pounds
Loss of bodyfat..............17.93 pounds
Muscular gain.................63.21 pounds

Second subject (Arthur Jones),22 days
Increase in bodyweight .......13.62 pounds
Loss of bodyfat...............1.82 pounds
Muscular gain.................15.44 pounds

Dr. Elliott Plese 'indirectly' stated that loss of bodyfat is because of muscle gain...look at how he calculated the RESULTS above...

Please give me your opinion...

Thanks,hom...

Divinity,

Could you show me where he implies this causality. (I didn't read the whole page, admittedly.) He simply makes those calculations of fat loss and muscle gain given the results of the body composition test.

Certainly having more muscle mass can help with fat loss, but I don't he's saying that the more muscle you gain, the more fat you'll lose simultaneously. (Wouldn't that be nice?!?!)

-Randy

**Divinity** · 06-10-2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by homonunculus
Divinity,

Could you show me where he implies this causality. (I didn't read the whole page, admittedly.) He simply makes those calculations of fat loss and muscle gain given the results of the body composition test.

Certainly having more muscle mass can help with fat loss, but I don't he's saying that the more muscle you gain, the more fat you'll lose simultaneously. (Wouldn't that be nice?!?!)

-Randy

Increase in bodyweight + Loss of bodyfat = Muscular gain

On Casey` case => 45.28 pounds + 17.93 pounds =63.21 pounds

On Jones` case => 13.62 pounds + 1.82 pounds =15.44 pounds

Mike Mentzer writhes about Colorado Experiment on his Heavy Duty chapter 1:

Casey trained only three times a week, with each workout lasting no more than 30 minutes. Since the duration of the experiment was a month, this meant that Casey trained 12 times, for a total of only six hours. The result was that Casey went from a starting bodyweight of 166 pounds to his previous highest bodyweight, in top muscular condition, of 212 pounds. The exercise physiologist who conducted the experiment, Dr. Eliot Plese, discovered (using a sophisticated radioisotope assay machine) that Casey lost 17 pounds of fat during that month. Casey's actual lean body-mass gain, therefore, was not merely the 46 pounds as evidenced on the scale, but a whopping 63 pounds -- and all from only six hours of training!

What do you think about it?

Mr. Doggcrapp, please help meeeeeeeee...

**In-Human** · 06-10-2004, 10:46 AM

Divinity, Now you know that when Jones got Casey to do this program experiment Casey was hospitalized weeks before that happened due to a bad shot of Lasix, and he did lose over 40 lbs form that time to when Jones took him on if I understand this story correctly...

**Divinity** · 06-10-2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by In-Human
Divinity, Now you know that when Jones got Casey to do this program experiment Casey was hospitalized weeks before that happened due to a bad shot of Lasix, and he did lose over 40 lbs form that time to when Jones took him on if I understand this story correctly...

No...not 40lbs...but only 33.63 pounds...

Read this...

For approximately four months, most of January through April of 1973, he did not train at all; and since his level of activity was low, his diet was reduced accordingly. During that period of four months, he lost approximately 33.63 pounds . . . but 18.75 pounds were lost as a direct result of the accident and the near-fatal injection. So his loss from nearly four months out of training was only 14.88 pounds ... less than a pound a week.

His 'outstanding gain' is because of muscle memory, Jones know clearly about this [I read that from Casey` own book, Casey Viator` total fitness], that`s his strategy for the propaganda on selling his Nautilus machines...except dips and chins,all of the exercises were performed on Nautilus machines...

**Divinity** · 06-10-2004, 11:07 AM

In-Human, I realize that your training experience is also vast... [not 'dick' like that fat dumbass [you-know-who] has said

]...so please give me your opinion about my case...

By the way, on musclemayhem forum you say that you`ve trained with Jonessian HIT, ...how is your rep speed on that time?

As I know...on his earlier years [1970-197...] ,Jones stated that the rep speed after the 4th or 5th reps must be very fast, but later, on his Athletic Journal articles, he says that slower is better, on his My First Half Century on the Iron Game he admitted his fault [ever stating that 'faster is better' on his early years]...but until now, Ken Leistner,etc still using Jones rep speed concept on his early years that the rep speed after the 4th or 5th reps must be very fast...

Please give me your feedback on your experience on Jonessian HIT...

Thanks, IH...

**In-Human** · 06-10-2004, 11:26 AM

Divinity, Thank you very much for clearing that up for me, it was a long time ago that I read that story and I did a lot of Aurthers programs with Nautilus back in the 80s.

Um I did train with HIT but not under Jonession, I did train under Trevor Smith for a while but that was BFT training, I think you might have me confused with someone else on that board.

When I was training using Nautilus I did the 10-4 and 2-4 program with 16 exercises per workout three times a week and gained some serious strength, when I did Hit I thought it was a very good program but I did come across a few injuries in that time so it was a short period with that program.

I really enjoy your threads, please keep them up...

**Divinity** · 06-10-2004, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by In-Human

Um I did train with HIT but not under Jonession, I did train under Trevor Smith for a while but that was BFT training, I think you might have me confused with someone else on that board.

Mmm...forgive me for asking this...you say this on musclemayhem board on http://www.musclemayhem.com/forum/cg...T;f=10;t=15876 :

Divinity, I would like to add one more thing here, I trained under Aurther Jones programs for 2 straight years and I di get strong with 10-4, 2-4, 16 exercises per workout and one set per bodypart, I did get strong but diet was lacking, still gave me a very good base to work with.
->You stated that you`ve trained under Jonessian HIT...

Then read your posts before this:

Divinity, Thank you very much for clearing that up for me, it was a long time ago that I read that story and I did a lot of Aurthers programs with Nautilus back in the 80s.

When I was training using Nautilus I did the 10-4 and 2-4 program with 16 exercises per workout three times a week and gained some serious strength, when I did Hit I thought it was a very good program but I did come across a few injuries in that time so it was a short period with that program.
->That means you train with Jonessian HIT doesn`t it?

Lots of injuries? why? because the lack of warm up or else? most of HIT-ers like Jones and Darden don`t recommend warm up sets...they use pre exhaustion and slow reps on the first 4 reps of a set thoroughly on their workout as 'warm up'...but I think that`s not good idea...I`m ever injured because of this concept [no warmup]...

I really enjoy your threads, please keep them up...

Thanks for posting too,IH...

IH...please give me your opinion about my case on the starting post of this thread...

**homonunculus** · 06-10-2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Divinity
Increase in bodyweight + Loss of bodyfat = Muscular gain

<snip>

What do you think about it?

I think this is obvious. It is simply the conclusion drawn from using a 2 component model of body composition. If you gain weight and lose body fat, you must have gained fat-free mass. In this case, it is obvious from muscle gain.

He does not imply that muscle hypertrophy is physiologically linked to fat loss in a manner such that when muscle cells grow, fat cells atrophy.

-Randy

**In-Human** · 06-10-2004, 09:32 PM

Divinity, Sorry I am the worst writer in the world, I would rather talk to someone then type sorry, I had a few injuries due to the weight of the heavy sets and no warm up sets, that was my problem, always been able to move decent weight and without warm ups I had some minor injuries. Even doing the first few reps slow, it took a lot of strength form my set so it became hard to increase weight every time I performed that exercise. I am not saying it did no good, but I did build a very good base from this program.

I feel as though in your question that subject A was the better gainer since he increased his strength while losing weight, now I would like to see body composition and I am sure if he dropped some weight some of it had to be muscle. So pound for pound subject A is the stronger guy. Even though we are only looking at a few pounds.

I think in your case that your intake of protein is high and so you lost BF while increasing strength, of course it is progress, what is better than losing BF in your case having more striations and getting stronger, is that not what we are here for?.

Damn you make me feel like I just had homework and no its time for lunch, my favorite period...

**Divinity** · 06-11-2004, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by homonunculus
I think this is obvious. It is simply the conclusion drawn from using a 2 component model of body composition. If you gain weight and lose body fat, you must have gained fat-free mass. In this case, it is obvious from muscle gain.

He does not imply that muscle hypertrophy is physiologically linked to fat loss in a manner such that when muscle cells grow, fat cells atrophy.

-Randy

Mmm...I remember that Mike Mentzer ever comment that the calories on food intake on Colorado Experiment is not enough to create 63 pounds of muscle gain...so our body 'stole' the calories from fat...

As I re-read again on this day from morning until noon on Arthur` & Casey`s writings [I have Arthur Jones Classic Collection from IART and Casey Viator`s Total Fitness the total pages for both are about 1300 pages to search and search about this subject...LOL :2guns: ] on Casey Viator`s book I found that he says that that subject [fat loss=muscle gain on Colorado Experiment] is still being debated...

Announcement

Mr. Doggcrapp, please help me to solve my case...

Mr. Doggcrapp, please help me to solve my case...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment