RIP...Arthur Jones

[Vince B]

From reading various internet sites and posting on them I have to conclude that many have beliefs approaching religious zeal. When people get that passionate about methods they soon need rationalizations to sustain those beliefs. The scientist prefers to know the truth, whatever that may be. In my opinion, HIT and HST are not supported by either science or results. End of story. There is so much rubbish in bodybuilding beliefs that I don't know where to start. What cannot be denied is our sport has attracted more than its fair share of knuckleheads who wouldn't appreciate that they might be mistaken about basic phenomenon. All the words in the world cannot compensate for lack of muscle growth.  Instead of looking for 'what makes sense' go out and try to find what actually causes growth without drugs and crap like that.

The reason bodybuilding is like a religion is because gains are mysterious and often do not occur after concerted, intense efforts. Believers soon have all sorts of theories about why they are not growing. Next, they believe you need drugs. Is it any wonder our 'sport' is a disgrace to the human movement industry.

[D.L. 5]

when i said i'm not a bodybuilder, i meant that is not my priority and i don't compete.

i had the impression u dont lift weights from the statement the other day...now that is clear...good.

U still need to read Mentzer's work to realise it is TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO JONES.

[D.L. 5]

In my opinion, HIT and HST are not supported by either science or results. End of story. industry.

and what scientific basis do the other approaches have?

also, they are not 'specific'. they say 'different things' work for 'different people'.

This is impossible and illogical statement. The reality says there has to be 'one correct' way , what changes is the persons response to that stimulus ( genetics).

[Vince B]

Always the jargon and excuses instead of real explanations. If Larry Scott realized he had shitty 'genetics' he never would have persisted and become twice Mr Olympia. He came up with new training methods to make his muscles grow bigger. Even Arnold did the same thing. Sergio was the true natural and even he said one of his brothers was more gifted than he was!

When people use phrases like 'do what works for you' we know that is not science but trial and error. Bodybuilding is more or less an anecdotal enterprise. There is nothing approaching a science anywhere to do found. The scientists don't care about maximum hypertrophy and that is just about the end of the story. 'Muscle' still is a dirty word in modern societies and universities. If 'fat' is an even dirtier word, pray tell what is good about the human body? Nothing short of a paradigm shift is going to change our sport/hobby/activity. In the meantime, there is plenty of 'evidence' to support beliefs that we are, collectively, obsessed, crazy, stupid guys lifting weights in front of a mirror.

[D.L. 5]

on another note,

HOW MUCH WOULD U SELL THESE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT U MAKE:

A Hack Squat Machine?

A smith Machine?

Leg Press?

[Vince B]

Don't make anything for sale. I install everything I make in my gym.

[D.L. 5]

Don't make anything for sale. I install everything I make in my gym.

well I am in Melbourne. which brand would u recomend for each of those equipment i mentioned?

also ur opinion on the nautilus pullover machine?

[pumpster]

and what scientific basis do the other approaches have?

also, they are not 'specific'. they say 'different things' work for 'different people'.

This is impossible and illogical statement. The reality says there has to be 'one correct' way , what changes is the persons response to that stimulus ( genetics).

Agreed yet he persists with this one-dimensional dogma, in preachy fashion.

[Vince B]

Arthur Jones was an interesting and complex individual. He used his immense talent to come up with new ideas which led to new equipment. He was no scientist and actually despised them, at least those who disagreed with him. Arthur was a lucid thinker and he believed he was correct about muscles and growth. It made sense so that was all that was necessary. He set up a few experiments to demonstrate the truth of his theories. Unfortunately, those experiments were not good science and he didn't prove anything at all except a few highly motivated people could get exceptional results.

I prefer to know the truth and therefore reject false theories. Well, most theories re hypertrophy are false so I guess I reject the false parts of those theories. We have to test theories by trying them out. The problem here is that we can make mistakes in the application of theories. Anyone who has trained other people knows how easy it is for people not to do what we tell them. People use poor form, cheat and avoid putting sufficient mechanical tension on target muscles. They swear they are doing what the method says but it doesn't work! Who is right, then? Is the theory wrong or is the application inadequate? How would we know if the result is the same, namely no growth? Plainly we cannot know and that pretty well sums up the state of the art in most gyms. Guys blast away and remain the same size.

Mike Mentzer was a philosopher. He could analyze phenomena and make adjustments to improve outcomes. He believed there was one true explanation of any phenomenon. I doubt anyone disagrees with this belief. What is the true theory of making muscles bigger? That hardly seems like rocket science. Despite the apparent simplicity just about everyone has trouble getting really big. We find zillions of so-called bodybuilding experts who have 16 1/2 to 17 1/2 inch arms. These individuals cannot make their arms bigger than 18 inches cold. A few taller guys can but I am referring to men of average height.

I don't think it is fair to make too many statements about the veracity of theories that Mike or Arthur professed. Both men were highly intelligent and could debate anyone here on Getbig. There is no doubt about that at all.

I just find their theories lacking and I conclude that HIT is not the true theory re hypertrophy. That is my opinion. Others believe HIT is true. Well, until science establishes that it remains a guess and nothing more. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

[Vince B]

Pumpster, you must accept that Arthur Jones was the most dogmatic, preachy guy to ever write about muscles. I guess his disciples rally to defend him. Let science decide who was right.

[pumpster]

Pumpster, you must accept that Arthur Jones was the most dogmatic, preachy guy to ever write about muscles. I guess his disciples rally to defend him. Let science decide who was right.

Arrogance seeped down from the top from day one, a huge negative.

I'm not one of his disciples, not at all. Just like to see balanced, less emotional perspectives. Unsubstantiated, negative speculation as to the veracity of his methods at this time in particular strikes me as rather small.

Would love to know what Joe Weider thought when hearing of his passing; on one hand there were all those negative articles in the early 70s Muscle mags on the other hand Joe like Arnold's a huge BB fan himself and probably appreciated Arthur's unique approaches. I have a feeling there'll be something in an upcoming Weider mag about it, something like what was written about Vince when he passed.

[The Luke]

I agree with Vince... to a certain degree... HIT has it's faults. The requirement of incredible motivation and high discomfort tolerance being chief among them.

But where I think Vince is being a little unfair is with regard to the value of HIT. HIT shouldn't be lumped in with the umpteen other 5 sets of 5; 8 sets of 8 bullshit training protocals... HIT remains THE best option for natural bodybuilders and presumably also for steroid users (allowing for differing dosages).

Properly conducted HIT training has trounced all other theories where it counts... in the gym with drug-free genetically typical trainers.

Granted, the 18'' natural arm is rare... but that has more to do with the endocrinological requirements of metabolically supporting that much muscle (you need to juice to get above a certain size). Also, anyone willing to train with the dedication and determination required to incrementally amass a lot of muscle most probably overcomes their aversion to sticking a needle in their ass at some point.

Over the past 25 years Dr Ellington Darden (following on from Arthur Jones) has done more to develop and refine hypertrophy science than any academic... dismissing that because naturals aren't making the same progress as steroid users is facetious and self serving (no disrespect).


The Luke 

[Vince B]

Show me the scientific research that supports the superiority of HIT? I haven't seen any evidence. It is exactly because of the paucity of evidence that Arthur ascended to the heights that he did with his theories. To this day, there is hardly any hypertrophy research done using bodybuilders. 13 week studies done with university students proves virtually nothing at all.

I would have thought that the passing of Arthur Jones would be huge news because of what he achieved in his life. Most of us will leave this world without so much as a whisper.

[The Luke]

13 week studies done with university students proves virtually nothing at all.

Why not?

If you can't find research on muscle hypertrophy you probably just aren't looking...

If you are hoping to see a scientific study of how regular bodybuilders train you're going to be disappointed.

Knocking a training protocol is one thing Vince, but, and I say this with respect, what you do is completely counter productive... you rightly dismiss all the nonsense training protocols (high volume etc), but when it comes to something logical and structured (such as Heavy Duty) and even more reprehensibly something as productive and reliable as HIT... you find one flaw and use it as grounds to dismiss result producing theories.


This topic came up before and was discussed ad nauseum... no one managed to convince you Vince, but neither did anyone call into question the validity of your reasoning.

You dismiss HIT on the grounds that:
1) HIT doesn't reliably produce results for everyone all the time
2) HIT doesn't produce continuous muscle gains ad infinitum

Well I put it to you that such criticisms are baseless and reveal a lack of understanding on your part.

1) No training protocol can reliably produce results in drug free trainees each and every time. At any moment approx 70% of the general population are suffering some form of sub-clinical metabolic disorder... the daily stresses of life mean most of the population are regularly incapable of gaining muscle .

2) There is a limit to how much muscle can be carried... it's related to how much muscle the bodies androgen levels can support. Most bodybuilding enthusiasts are aware of this with regard to how much muscle mass a female can carry, somehow they refuse to apply the same principle to male trainees.


...No training protocol can produce universally reliable results. Similarly, no training protocol can produce natural muscle mass much in excess of the limits of the FFMI (Fat Free Mass Index).

Using such failings as a means of criticizing HIT is preposterous... using such failings as a means of completely DISMISSING HIT is disingenuous at best.


I'm not attacking Vince here, I respect his intelligence and depth of knowledge in this field. But if he can't properly articulate his reasoning he should hope that others don't judge his musings with the impossible standard he himself uses to dismiss Arthur Jones' theories.

Arthur Jones wasn't right... but he was righter than anyone has ever been either before or since.

Hoping you'll expand on this Vince, respectfully,

The Luke
PS- anyone tired of making no progress in the gym should toddle over to www.drdarden.com you won't regret it.

[Vince B]

I have no doubt I would have enjoyed discussing theories with Arthur. Mike and I had a chat and I had heaps of talks with Ray Mentzer. Sure I was impressed with what Ray said. He, obviously, was a huge guy and, muscle for muscle, one of the biggest to ever walk this planet.

Anyone who cares to read in the history of science discovers that almost all scientific theories were false. That comes as quite a shock. Eventually, many theories were improved and today we have technology that works based on those theories. Astronomy is mainly a theory laden discipline because we have to make guesses about the universe, especially areas that are beyond reach except through telescopes, etc. Up until the 20th century most astronomical theories were false. No one had a clue about galaxies and how prolific they are and how far away they are.

Getting back to exercise science we expect things to have advanced accordingly. However, there remains a huge gap in bodybuilding understanding because scientists are totally uninterested in maximum human hypertrophy. The result is the paucity of studies done on bodybuilders. They cannot even state with certainty what huge muscles are composed of re the number of fibres, etc. The question of hyperplasia remains mainly a mystery re humans.

Then we come to training methods. Good grief, is there any certainty here? If HIT is established as fact then individuals like myself who reject those principles must be dunces. How come HIT is not universally embraced by all bodybuilders? It isn't for a simple reason. It doesn't work beyond a certain point and is, in fact, the most dangerous way, ever, to train. Arthur concluded heaps of things and wrote about his findings in a lucid way. All the lucidity in the world doesn't make a theory right. When you go back to what he did with Sergio you have to accept that HIT is only partly responsible for Sergio's gains when supervised by Arthur. Sergio did volume type training. He mixed high intensity with volume and short rests. That formula comes closer to what produces extreme hypertrophy.

I must admit that HIT and 'intensity' are concepts that mean different things to different people. What a pity that 'intensity' was chosen as a concept in HIT. There are two kinds of intensity in HIT and both are central to that theory. One is intensity of effort and the other is percentage of maximum resistance capable of being lifted for one rep. Unfortunately, for HD and HIT, there is not enough volume to sustain growth. It will be shown that huge muscles are good for muscular endurance and not strength, although a threshold amount of resistance is needed to be met before growth with continue. Something like 75% of 1 RM is required for hypertrophy. Huge muscles are not weak but they are not the strongest because the training is not specific for strength.

Anyone who thinks I don't support volume training is mistaken. It may be possible to train 8 to 12 hours a day and grow exponentially. No one has tried this in any sustained fashion.

It is possible to grow at a maximum rate and sustain that rate. Why is this not possible? Oh, it may well be unlikely for most human beings, but, in principle it can be done. Well, all one needs to do is reverse engineer the growth and voila, continuous growth. It may be that different protocols have to be used. There might be some surprises. I think the requirements can be specified in general terms.

If there was existing research explaining all hypertrophy and how to sustain it we wouldn't be arguing ad infinitum on discussion boards. That much is certain.

[D.L. 5]

I have no doubt I would have enjoyed discussing theories with Arthur. Mike and I had a chat and I had heaps of talks with Ray Mentzer.

please transcribe these discussions.

please.

[The Luke]

It is possible to grow at a maximum rate and sustain that rate. Why is this not possible? 

This is a faulty premise... what makes you think this is possible when no other process in the body is capable of such? No tissue in the human body is capable of this, not even adipose tissue.


Vince, you state that HIT only works to a certain point... that may be true... but seeing as all the top natural bodybuilders in the world (real naturals) are pretty much the same size and all train with low volume two or three times a week with something akin to HIT (or with as high an intensity as is practical), couldn't it just be possible that perhaps HIT works and steroids have simply confused the matter? Couldn't it just be possible that HIT builds trainees up to their maximum quicker than any other method and this is it's only failing?

With regard to the continuous tension 10-12 hour training stimulus stuff... that's all irrelevant to human musculature... all those studies worked vestigial/compromised muscles in rats and chickens.


The Luke

[peteK]

Vince, you state that HIT only works to a certain point... that may be true... but seeing as all the top natural bodybuilders in the world (real naturals) are pretty much the same size and all train with low volume two or three times a week with something akin to HIT (or with as high an intensity as is practical), couldn't it just be possible that perhaps HIT works and steroids have simply confused the matter? Couldn't it just be possible that HIT builds trainees up to their maximum quicker than any other method and this is it's only failing?

Is this really true? Who are those natural bodybuilders? If it is indeed the case that the majority of steroid free succesful bodybuilders use HIT, then to me that is enough proof. Proof that at least for natural trainers, such as myself, HIT would be the best approach.

PS Do you consder Max OT to be HIT as well?

[D.L. 5]

H.I.T is in a league of its own.

Max OT (im assuming this is what skip la cour does) has some very similar premises eg- adaption and need to force the body to grow through an intense lift.

However H.I.T has 'the least' or more appropriately 'the exact' amount necessary to get the job done which is much less volume.

It is the most intense form of exercise and as 'the luke' so cleverly pointed out u need to posess a high tolerance of discomfort and pain (i would actually say AN EXTREME amount...this goes hand in hand with a required 'EXTREME DESIRE/ MOTIVATION' to go thru such training).

the other important issue is the slow rep speed 4 second positive, 2 second static, 4 second negative. this makes the sets even more grueling and painful (tension is always on the muscle with no momentum, also no injury as no force into joint - take note of that comment vince h.i.t is safest exercise style)

Of course I am speak of Mentzer's H.I.T which is the only comprehensive theory, which is A COMPLETE THEORY with NO CONTRADICTIONS.

Good Night to All and Thanks for your Attention.

[Vince B]

HIT is not the optimum method for naturals or anyone else and yes, steroids and drugs confuse everyone.

No one can state what is impossible re growth in human muscles. I doubt anyone has approached the fastest rate of growth possible without supplements or drugs.

[The Luke]

HIT is not the optimum method for naturals or anyone else and yes, steroids and drugs confuse everyone.

Why not??

No one can state what is impossible re growth in human muscles. I doubt anyone has approached the fastest rate of growth possible without supplements or drugs.[/color]

Why do you make such generalizations Vince? No offense, but it sounds as if you are pontificating... and worse than that you are plainly and patently wrong.

Impossible to quantify?
Allow me to attempt to do the impossible:
...growth exceeding excess calories consumed during that same period would be impossible obviously, but just how much muscle could be converted assuming a direct conversion of calorie intake into muscle mass (ignoring the metabolic cost of such a conversion)?

One pound of muscle requires 2,900 kcal to form... most 150 to 200 lb natural trainers will find it almost impossible to eat more than (a clean) 4,000 kcal per day and even that will quickly (two weeks) put strain on the digestive system. But a 150 to 200 lb natural trainer working hard at regular HIT training will require upwards of 3,000 kcal per day.

Assuming the 1,000 kcal are converted directly into muscle; that's 2.4 lbs of muscle per week.

See, that wasn't so difficult to do... this isn't mysticism, it's biochemistry.

To be less flippant, the most muscle anyone would ever realistically gain in a year would be somewhere around 25 lbs... that's 25 lb of new muscle EVEN using steroids!

Some steroid users gain more, but that's 20 lb of new muscle, recovery of 10 lbs of old muscle previously lost through overtraining and atrophy (few start a cycle when in top form), 15 lbs of fluid and a slight increase in bf % (overeating) another 6+ pounds... hence the "My buddy gained 50 lbs in a week on Dbol!" stories.

For a natural... I'd be surprised if anyone could gain more than 18 lbs of new muscle in a year. Why? Because no natural has ever really don better than that.


The Luke

[pumpster]

Why not??

Why do you make such generalizations Vince? No offense, but it sounds as if you are pontificating... and worse than that you are plainly and patently wrong.

Exactly; pontification with nothing solid to confirm just comes across as preachy in the same way Jones was, ironically.

[pumpster]

If there was existing research explaining all hypertrophy and how to sustain it we wouldn't be arguing ad infinitum on discussion boards. That much is certain.

The thing with Vince is that he talks at, not with others. On one hand he admits that there's nothing conclusive out there in terms of research, then he proceeds to contradict himself with unequivocal statements as to what is or isn't effective. Because he operates in a bubble launching statements here and elsewhere that show little desire for actual discourse with others.

Sorry Vince but it's better someone told you the truth while you're still with us, even if you're too old to adapt.

[pumpster]

on another note,

HOW MUCH WOULD U SELL THESE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT U MAKE:

A Hack Squat Machine?

A smith Machine?

Leg Press?

Excellent example in which Vince if he wanted to be friendly and/or promote himself better could discuss this here or via PM instead of the usual short, cryptic responses that basically say "go away it's all top-secret".

Really Vince, this is small time. And the guy's even in Australia.

[chris2489]

HIT is not the optimum method for naturals or anyone else and yes, steroids and drugs confuse everyone.

You state there is no cocnclusive research but then state HIT is not optimium as if you know what is. Please state what you beleive is the best method for hypertrophy. You need not to confuse your opinions with facts or atleast don't write them as facts. I have to agree with you on the fact that steroids and other hormones/drugs confuse people on proper training protocol.