Weight Training Without Weights Please Help!!

Facts

Oh, good. We’re beginning to develop some common ground, here.

jpfitness said:
I guess I am not communicating very clearly.

Probably not. You might have to lower yourself a few more notches to my level.

You keep bringing up Charles Atlas. I have nothing to do with Charles Atlas, and however he may have developed his awesome physique doesn’t really matter to me. If “Dynamic Tension” is a term that could be applied to my system, then so be it.

jpfitness said:
There is a place for SR exercises, but by themselves it is like only golfing with an 9 iron. Sometimes you need a driver, sometimes a putter, etc. It is one of many tools to be used in a greater picture, but not a method that should stand alone. But then again, it all depends on your goals. If your goal is to have a well-balanced, muscular and lean body, then I would say that it is not optimal to use exclusively.

You’ve said one thing here that I can agree with, “But then again, it all depends on your goals.” Precisely. There are a lot of people out there who have no desire to build chests or arms that stretch from one side of a room to the other. They would just like to build a muscular, aesthetic physique. There are a lot of people who have neither the time nor the desire to enroll in a gym, or to devote time to grueling, iron-pumping exercises. My system provides a viable alternative to weights and will add muscle to a person’s frame. No, it will not build the kind of size produced by lifting weights. But, again, that, for a lot of people, isn’t their goal.

jpfitness said:
but not a method that should stand alone.

Self-Resistance exercise can stand alone as a method. You realize, I assume, since you read everything, that my system isn’t limited to Isometrics. I’ve made Isotonics the mainstay of my system. Surprisingly, my greatest priority is myself, and if this system of exercise wasn’t producing the kind of results I was looking for, I would have dropped it like a hot potato. To my great surprise, it worked better than I had expected it would. I was willing to compromise some size and muscularity in exchange for a system of exercise that wasn’t as taxing and time-consuming as weight lifting. But in the end, I didn’t compromise a thing. The only reason I am now lifting weights instead of using my system is because I enjoy lifting weights. Oh, right. This is all anecdotal.

jpfitness said:
To refer to a person to give your program validity is yet another logical syllogism. This one is called a "fallacious appeal to authority."

I gotta disagree with you on this one. Bob Lipinski is a well known and respected figure in the strength world, and to have him validate my system means a lot. Authoratative endorsement is appreciated and referred to in all endeavors – businesses, marketing, etc. I’ll assume you are relatively well known among certain circles. How’d you feel if someone stated that jpfitness has praised my flotsergizmo, and someone comes along and says, “Who? jpfitness? Well, that doesn’t mean squat.”

As a matter of fact, you consistently pooh-pooh self-resistance as an effective system of exercise. You do so as though your opinion is an indisputable fact, in conflict with the opinions of thousands of others who practice self-resistance, and therefore, you are speaking authoritatively. So, all that you’ve stated concerning "fallacious appeal to authority", can also apply to you.

BTW, to say that Bob Lipinski sat bolt upright and enthusiastically praised my system as the greatest thing since sliced bread would be misleading. We did, in fact, have some conversations about my site, he thought it was all pretty cool, and he gave me an exercise to add to it.

jpfitness said:
I would prefer that if we are to debate at all that we do it on a level playing field where we are all using fact and research to back our claims

What “fact and research”? I never conferred with Phd’s, and I didn’t study volumes of physiology. I have a working knowledge of exercise, and the only “fact” I can stand by is the fact that I, personally, benefited greatly from my system. The only other “facts” I have are all the letters I have received. What "facts and research" have you produced? I don't recall you referring anyone to Bob's Book of Irrefutable Facts, Vol. lll, where it clearly states that proponents of self resistance exercise are full of crap.

In fact, in the early stages of my website, I wanted to document the effectiveness of my program. I couldn’t use myself because I was already pretty maxed out in size when I started. I had gathered together about a half dozen volunteers who were going to keep an ongoing log on my site and submit photos. Unfortunately, not one of them stuck with the program. They were all students who decided they had greater priorities. Not only that, but they were starving students. At any rate, I did get a month or more out of each of them, so I can at least show what my system accomplished within certain time frames. Here are a couple of logs that I saved. Darn it! There was one kid in particular who made some great gains, but I must have deleted his log. Oops! That would probably be referred to in “logical syllogism” as the “Fish that got away.” Anyway……..





And where the hell is Siava?! He's the one who started all of this!
 
I didn’t study volumes of physiology. I have a working knowledge of exercise

This really gets to the heart of the matter. You dole out advice as one who has expertise. Have you even gone through the process of getting certified with an accredited certifying organization? Not that there aren't trainers who pass the tests who can't train their way out of a wet paper bag.

the only “fact” I can stand by is the fact that I, personally, benefited greatly from my system.

My primary rant is that by simply advising people to use a program since it "worked for you" is irresponsible. Not to worry... Thousands of trainers use this method every day... My big beef with the industry.

There are a lot of people out there who have no desire to build chests or arms that stretch from one side of a room to the other. They would just like to build a muscular, aesthetic physique.

You appear to assume that all weight lifting creates massive muscle-bound physiques that ressemble something human. If so, you are more a believer in Atlas's message than you realize. I have been lifting my entire adult life. As a natural athlete, I'm only 180 pounds at 5'9". Not all weight lifting produces that kind of body, and not everyone who desires to lift has that goal in mind.

That being said, self resistance is not going to build muscle by itself. If that is indeed the goal, I would never advise a client to use that by itself to achieve that goal. If someone has no other choice, it is better to use this method than to lie on a couch all day.

I gotta disagree with you on this one. Bob Lipinski is a well known and respected figure in the strength world, and to have him validate my system means a lot. Authoratative endorsement is appreciated and referred to in all endeavors – businesses, marketing, etc. I’ll assume you are relatively well known among certain circles. How’d you feel if someone stated that jpfitness has praised my flotsergizmo, and someone comes along and says, “Who? jpfitness? Well, that doesn’t mean squat.”

You miss the point to my statement about authority. It doesn't matter if the source is a legit authority or not... It is completely irrelavent. In fact, you did it again when you claimed that endorsements are used in marketing, etc. Doctors used to endorse filtered cigarettes as being healthy on TV commercials. Someone making a claim in a position of authority at all, whether legit or not, is not evidence. Your argument about how marketing people do it actually falls under a different version called "appeal to celebrity"... Celebrity C endorses Brand X (or Candidate Y, or Cause Z).
Therefore, Brand X (or Candidate Y, or Cause Z) is good.

Incidentally, I wouldn't care if someone did say, "who's JP and why does his opinion carry any weight (if you'll pardon the pun)?" There are many levels of authorities in this industry, and I consider myself to be a miniscule spec in a sea of greater minds. I hope no one would ever make an argument using as evidence that "jp says so."

Oops! That would probably be referred to in “logical syllogism” as the “Fish that got away.”

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor! :D
 
Last edited:
Didn't this thread start with someone asking for help w/ lifting without weights?

And he gave him a site to look at?

What's the problem here?

Yes, it's blind leading the blind (IE, non professionals) and 95% of the posts on here are going to be based on people with their own experience and not years of research and experience as a personal trainer. This is a forum on the internet, what exactly were you expecting the posts to be like?

Without the types of posts that you're bitching about, this forum would be empty. Get a grip.
 
Simple

Muck said:
Didn't this thread start with someone asking for help w/ lifting without weights?

And he gave him a site to look at?

What's the problem here?

You're absolutely right, Muck. The problem arose when I was accused of being a fraud and a liar.

jpfitness said:
self resistance is not going to build muscle by itself

ok. That's the end of it. From his "Tower in Little Rock" (Boy! Does that speak volumes!) jp will always believe this, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have provided links to two people who were making gains through self-resistance, which he has ignored, I have suggested he try some of the exercises on my site, which he has ignored. The only thing I can do now is to refer him to today's reigning guru of Self-Resistance exercise - The only person I know of who actually did build his magnificent physique exclusively through Self-Resistance, .

jp, you can continue your rant whenever the subject of self-resistance comes up, but if I'm involved, do not accuse me of making contradictory or fraudulent statements.
 
Right, Im goining in and Im tagging on to JP's side.
1 - JP is trained to train others, he didnt just make stuff up. so if he disagrees with something your saying, you can bet your bottom dollar that you are wrong.

2 - I am impressed with your results, personally, after reading your site, I dont believe that you dont lift any weights.

3 - The fact is that you lifted weights for 12yrs. So you know how the body works, you know what muscle do what. You know how a muscle feels when its being worked and you know whats angles to work the muscle.
Someone with no experiance in weightlifting wont have a clue whats going on when they try this at home.

I believe your system may have some uses, but there are much more effective way to train, and there is no way you can teach that crap to begginers.

On Zen...
"Anyone who shoots a good game of pool knows this heightened state of being"

Oh please!!! I have been a student of Karate for 13years and have had a good grasp of Zen Buddhism and meditation since I was 12. In your lil chapter on Zen, you speak as if you just Googled Zen and typed up what you found.
Zen is not about focus, its about not focusing. I think your ignorance toward the subject is insulting to many people and should be removed from your site, since nothing else on your site refers to it anyway, its just a waste.

"The only person I know of who actually did build his magnificent physique exclusively through Self-Resistance, John Peterson."

errr... no he didnt. just go to your own link.
 
Ha, on the abs section, you dont even have very very veyr basic exercises such as laying on your back with legs in the air, or shoulders up.

and I love the quote
"These can be done daily, if you want to"
how? how can they be done daily? your abs are just like any other muscle, they need to heal.

Why do you have to lean upside down to strech your triceps?


this is getting silly now, can't you just call it, how to get results slowly with a touch of spiritual misunderstanding.com
 
Muck, I disagree that "just because this is a forum" we should be satisfied with mediocrity. I run a forum on my own site as well (although it is down for the moment while I transfer servers), and there is a definite standard there. As a result, the average forumite in that forum knows more about fitness than 9 our of the last 10 trainers I have interviewed for a position in my health club. I kid you not. If any of them lived here, I would get them certified and put them to work! If you set a standard on basic training knowledge and moderate a forum with well thought-out arguments, then everyone wins. Why should bad advice be okay because it is coming from a forum? Do you know what happens when you follow a blind person? You get hit by a car or go over a cliff!

Shen, show me where I have ever accused you of being a fraud! Telling someone that their advice is irresponsible is a LOT different that blanketly labelling them as being a fraud. I did say that Atlas was fraudulent, mostly because he was deliberately misleading as to how he attained his own physique, and he made false claims about weight lifting.

John Peterson does have a good physique on the front page of his site. If he is indeed completely self-resisted, then he has done a good job (although my tell tale sign of someone who doesn't use weights is skinny legs and I couldn't see his). From his bio:
Introduced to the Charles Atlas course, he took to the Atlas exercises with a vengeance. It wasn’t long before he was packing on some serious muscle. By the time he was fifteen, he was the strongest and fittest kid in his class, doing 500 push-ups a day in sets of 100. From there he took up an intense interest in the martial arts and a lifetime passion for developing the ultimate body naturally and without the use of weights.
Yeah, but how much could he deadlift? I wonder how any of these folks would do if they had to lift something really heavy off the floor without help.

I need to say (AGAIN) that SR is not a bad form of exercise. The [non-anecdotal] evidence is just not there to support claims that one can attain a MUSCULAR physique by doing this and this alone. As I mentioned several times, I use many bodyweight exercises, and isometric holds. I am not criticising anyone for using this if this is all they have available. I don't care where you work out, whether at home or in a gym. You just need to move heavy things to recruit enough motor units sufficient to stimulate significant gains (hypertrophy) or increase in strength.

Hell, my favorite workouts have nothing to do with the gym. I like to use rings (like the kind gymnasts use) for a variety of upper body exercises, and sometimes my workout partner and I will simply go out to an empty parking lot and push his car around till we collapse. Talk about full body! I like doing things like push-ups with my hands on their own swiss ball. I can bench press 225 pretty comfortably for reps, but I can barely do 15 of these. That doesn't mean that they will make my chest significantly larger. My support muscles fatigue and I never target the type II motor units.

I personally even wrote a workout for Mens Health over 10 years ago that was how to work out if you didn't have a gym available. Ian King has a well-known workout called, "Death by Bodyweight" which I'm sure uses exercises that you are quite familiar with.

Here's the deal... Show me how I can use SR to simulate a deadlift. The only thing I see people doing for quads/glutes on the sites you have provided so far is "hindu squats." Those are okay, but you can't recruit type II fiber doing bodyweight squats. Your lower threshold fibers will exhaust before you can even get to that point. Besides that fact that for mass/strength gains, you need to get immediate recruitment of type II fibers, which means something that is heavy. Using bodyweight you even use a different energy system to reach fatigue. You are using metabolic oxidation as opposed to anaerobic glycolisis. Guess which one results in greater strength and muscular size?

How can I simulate Powercleans? Romanian Dead Lifts? Push Press Complex? Bent over Row? Those are fundamental exercises. Our bodies are designed to perform 6 basic movement patterns (as discussed in Schuler and Cosgrove's new book, New Rules of Lifting)... Squat, Deadlift, Lunge, Push, Pull, and Twist. If you are trying to increase motor unit performance and size, these or their hundreds of varaiations are the areas that you need to focus on. Isometric programs lead to NO improvement in motor performance (Clarke 1973, Exercise and Sport Science Reviews 1:73-102; Fleck and Schutt 1985, Clinics in Sports Medicine 4:150-69), so from a performance standpoint, they have no application.

You claim you don't want any more size, and I can understand that. If you are happy at your size then that is great. I personally think that you should drop a little bodyfat to get an accurate idea of your actual muscle mass. If I were training you, I would have you doing some heavy weight for fat loss (yes, that is correct... Something like Chad Waterbury's 10 X 3 for fatloss). I would also have you on a good food plan.

I can appreciate that you have spent a long time to develop your site, but if you are going to be intellectually honest then you have to acknowledge the limitations of your program. Don't take this as criticism on you as a person. I am debating your point of view. I am asking you, as well as others reading this thread to employ critical thinking skills and argue this issue logically, not emotionally.

You may intend to insult me with your comment about my "tower"... I am sorry that it has gotten to this point of sniping. I don't take your comment personally though. Maybe I am a little overbearing, but I have spent my entire adult lift in studies of how to teach people how to achieve their goals, and I try to take everything into account. You will notice that I didn't completely dismiss your method... I use many aspects of it in my training. What I am trying to do (at this point - the intent of this thread has shifted a little since our debate started) is to expand your horizons a little. Ultimately, that is why we are all here, right? To learn? To teach if we can, but also to be perpetual students. When I am confronted by someone who challenges my training ideas (which happens often), I have to turn off my emotion and assess their comments. It has resulted in me shifting my position on training on many occassions. It is healthy to have your paradigm challenged every now and then.

So let's just smoke a peace pipe together and put this argument behind us, and potentially learn from eachother. I am sorry if my argument style made you feel insulted. My initial response on this thread was a bit aggressive, and I should have approached it much more diplomatically.
 
I just wanted to throw in my support for Shen's position. I have been training without weights for a couple of years now, and, although my genetics do not allow me to be a big guy, I am as big as I was 25 years ago, when I was heavy into weight lifting, but I am leaner now as well. I also don't have the joint pain that I had when I was working out with weights.

Here is a link to some before and after pictures I took along with my experience of working out without weights:



There are extra pictures in the thread, if you read all the way through it.

Now I realize that I am not the body type that most here aspire to be, but I realized long ago, that my genetic potential was more of a Bruce Lee type of physique than an Arnold Schwarzenegger. No matter if I work with weights, or without, I can only maximize my genetic potential. I also, due to a digestive disorder, am only able to eat between 1500-2000 calories a day, so that definately limits my size as well.

As for performing Deadlifts and other standard weightlifting exercises, they can be performed using, Dynamic Visualized Resistance (DVR) a technique that John Peterson teaches in his books and on his forum. This technique can be used with absolutely any exercise you can imagine. The only downside to this technique, is a rather large "learning Curve" due to the dificulty of getting away from the mind set that you need to push around weight in order to contract your muscles enough to stimulate type 2 fibers. You can stimulate those fibers by adding DVR to a bodyweight squat, you just need to develop the ability to contract the muscles intensely while performing the movement.

The ability to contract your muscles intensely, without weights, takes a fair amount of time to master, so just trying it out once, will not suffice, it is definately a skill that you develop over time. Once you develop this ability, there is no limit to what you can do. It is easier to just mindlessly throw around weights, and achieve the muscle fiber stimulation you are after, to do it without weights requires an extreme amount of concentration, and discipline. Unless you are willing to put that extra amount of effort into the practice, you might as well stick with weights.
 
1 - yes you do have muscle, but it only shows because of you low body fat%. your not big.
2 - to further my point from my last post. you have weight trained in the past. I dont believe that everyday joes could get big or even strong on that crazy zen program. It can be used to gain "some" muscle if you have had experiance with weights in the past.

It just doesnt work for newbies, and even if it did, the results are minimal compared to useing weight. And when I say weight, I mean anything heavy.

You dont have to spend any money if you dont want to and you can still have a great home gym.

Free said
"It is easier to just mindlessly throw around weights."

bench 250lbs then, see how easy that is.

Free said -
"As for performing Deadlifts and other standard weightlifting exercises, they can be performed using, Dynamic Visualized Resistance (DVR) a technique that John Peterson teaches in his books and on his forum."

Dynamic Visualised Resistance - dont you mean "make believe"
so your pretending to pick something up?
GET OUT OF TOWN!!!!!!! YOUR TALKING RUBBISH!!!!!

why bother pretending to pick something up when you could just do it??

If it really was true, dont you think that some studies would have been done? It would be all over the news.

EXTRA EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT! SCIENTISTS DISCOVER YOU CAN GET BIG MUSCLES BY PRETENDING TO MOVE STUFF!!! FAT GUYS YOUR IN LUCK!!!

This john peterson sound like a con man, its just a fad like the atkins diet and tai bo. It works, but compaired to the real thing its just lame.
 
To respond to your points:

1. Yes I am not big, I said that in my post, you are apparently just repeating it. Of course, I did not get big training for many years with weights either, it is just not my genetic potential.

2. You contradict yourself. Either this program can help you to gain muscle, or not. Now you say it can work, if you have trained with weights before. Why would that make a difference?? Why would it not work for Newbies, but would work for someone who has already used weights?

3. My max bench is 225, not quite up to your level, but decent anyway, especially at a bodyweight of 140lbs, so I do know what it is like to "throw around weights". You missed my point. My point was that you don't have to think about contracting the muscle when lifting weights. You can listen to music, talk to your training partner, watch tv if you want while lifting weights it doesn't require concentration to contract the muscle. DVR does.

4. DVR is not about just imagining that you are lifting weights

(although there have been studies performed that there is an actual strength increase from doing so)


it is about actually learning to contract your muscles, as intensely as you would when lifting weights. This takes tremendous discipline, and concentration, and is not imaginary.

5. Why bother pretending to pick something up when you could just do it??

Because, as I stated above, it is more than just pretending to pick something up, you have to intensely contract your muscles AS IF you were picking something up. There are several benefits to doing so:

1. You can workout anywhere, anytime, you don't need to go to the gym.

2. You don't need any equipment at all.

3. It costs nothing, it is FREE, which is largely why you don't hear much about it, because there is no money to be made by promoting it. No equipment or gym memberships to sell.

4. There is virtually zero chance of injury. Many people I know, who have lifted weights, over time develop "busted up weightlifter syndrome". I myself, have had muscle and joint injuries from lifting weights, and in fact, didn't think I would ever be able to workout again, until I discovered this method.

5. Finally, John Peterson, is one of the most honerable people I know. His books are reasonably priced, in an area where many over charge for their publications, and they contain a wealth of useful information.
 
Response

Can’t spend a lot of time on this, but as quickly as possible……….

Manofkent,

manofkent said:
1 - JP is trained to train others, he didnt just make stuff up. so if he disagrees with something your saying, you can bet your bottom dollar that you are wrong.

You are breaking jpfitness's law of logic:
jpfitness said:
This one is called a "fallacious appeal to authority."
Authority A believes that P is true. Therefore, P is true. (That's assuming a lot about who is considered to be an "authority."


manofkent said:
2 - I am impressed with your results, personally, after reading your site, I dont believe that you dont lift any weights

I do lift weights. Take a look at the brief history I posted for jp’s benefit.



.

manofkent said:
3 - The fact is that you lifted weights for 12yrs. So you know how the body works, you know what muscle do what. You know how a muscle feels when its being worked and you know whats angles to work the muscle.
Someone with no experiance in weightlifting wont have a clue whats going on when they try this at home.

I believe your system may have some uses, but there are much more effective way to train, and there is no way you can teach that crap to begginers.

Untrue. Again, I receive letters from people who have never worked out telling me of gains they are making. Also, again, take a look at the links to the two logs I posted.

manofkent said:
On Zen...
"Anyone who shoots a good game of pool knows this heightened state of being"

Oh please!!! I have been a student of Karate for 13years and have had a good grasp of Zen Buddhism and meditation since I was 12. In your lil chapter on Zen, you speak as if you just Googled Zen and typed up what you found.
Zen is not about focus, its about not focusing. I think your ignorance toward the subject is insulting to many people and should be removed from your site, since nothing else on your site refers to it anyway, its just a waste.

No, I didn’t “Google Zen”. I could see a correlation between self-resistance exercise and Zen from having read, Zen in the Art of Archery. I used to shoot a lot of pool, and there were times when I controlled that table. Couldn’t miss. I knew where that ball was going even as I shot, effortlessly. That frame of mind, I believe is about as close to Zen as I’ve ever gotten. And I can see where that same frame of mind comes into play while doing the self-resistance exercises. The resistance limb can become heavy on it’s own, sometimes without my consciously willing it to do so. As Free says, this takes practice.

manofkent said:
"The only person I know of who actually did build his magnificent physique exclusively through Self-Resistance, John Peterson."

errr... no he didnt. just go to your own link.

What are you talking about? I know John. I know he never lifted weights.

manofkent said:
Ha, on the abs section, you dont even have very very veyr basic exercises such as laying on your back with legs in the air, or shoulders up.

You have to look on the “Additional Exercises and Routines” page


manofkent said:
and I love the quote
"These can be done daily, if you want to"
how? how can they be done daily? your abs are just like any other muscle, they need to heal.

These are all isometric or contraction exercises which can be performed everyday.


manofkent said:
Why do you have to lean upside down to strech your triceps?

Because it’s a good all ‘round stretch and it feels good.


manofkent said:
this is getting silly now, can't you just call it, how to get results slowly with a touch of spiritual misunderstanding.com

I had originally thought of calling it just that, but then I decided on “Zen in the Art of Self-Resistance”


Jpfitness,

ok. You sound like a nice guy, so no more sniping. Sorry ‘bout the last cheap shot (couldn’t resist it). I apologize.

Later.


Free,

Wow! Great stuff!
 
Last edited:
Free,
Although his style is a little less diplomatic, Manofkent's comment about your deadlift using DVR is pretty accurate. There is NO WAY you can simulate all the motor units that have to be recruited in the full chain of muscles required to perform a deadlift. I have read extensively on the "power of thought" and for the most part, I find most of the work completely unsupported by science, and feel-good new-agey kind of stuff.

In the "study" that Mercola sited on his site to support his cock-a-mamy theory, he conveniently left out any medical journal references, so there is no way I can look them up on pub-med to confirm those results, or to study their research model to assess its validity. Would you happen to have any references?

I'm not unfamiliar with Mercola. If I'm not mistaken, he's an Osteopathic doc, not a real physician (all the DO's I know have tended to fluff up their resumes because they were insecure about only getting a DO). He's a bit of a snake-oil salesman (or fish oil in his case). The old "medical industry is out to get you" conspiracy theorists like him really put a sour taste in my mouth. I don't discount everything he says. I have read a few of his articles that I have liked, but he's not consistent.

BTW, it takes an extreme amount of discipline to train your body with resistance and learn to actually move heavy weight while maintaining perfect form.

I am the first person to tell someone that they need to lay off from lifting for a while, or that they don't love lifting enough to make it a habit so they should find a new form of recreation to get their exercise. I'm not a "weights-only Nazi". What I react to is people who make claims about amazing "weights-like" gains made without using them. If you want to gain muscle, you're just going to have to lift weight, unless you are just genetically gifted. You guys don't possess some great secret, and the rest of the world is not out of the loop. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.
 
JPfitness, I agree with you about Mercola, and regret every time I take the lazy route, and post a link to something on his site, even though this was not his theory, and he was just posting about a study in Annual Meeting of Society for Neuroscience conference in San Diego, California in November 2001. I suppose, if you are bored you can do the leg work and look it up, but it is unimportant, because I didn't post it to prove my main point, which has little to do with mental exercise (although you seem to want to steer this discussion in that direction to make your points more acceptable).

What I am talking about is the stimulation of muscle fibers by contracting the muscle in question. This can be done, with practice, as effectively as when lifting weights. In fact, you can even contract the biceps muscle, so hard, you can tear it from its attachment. Few will ever push past their thresholds to do this, but I know someone who did this. Now you really can't tell me that a contraction of this intensity, or near this intensity, will not stimulate type two muscle fibers, and encourage hypertrophy.

By the way, I still dissagree with the assertion that you can not "simulate all the motor units that have to be recruited in the full chain of muscles required to perform a deadlift" or Stimulate them. I have done it, and I know others who have done so as well. It does take practice, and dicipline, so just giving it a quick try, and concluding that it can't be done, is pointless.

I agree that it does take dicipline to maintain proper form while weightlifting, and avoid injury. That is why many are injured in the process. Few take the time to make sure their form is perfect. In my opinion the time would be better spent in learning to activate muscle fibers without running the risk of injuring yourself with weights.
 
Free,
From one of my previous posts...

Isometric programs lead to NO improvement in motor performance (Clarke 1973, Exercise and Sport Science Reviews 1:73-102; Fleck and Schutt 1985, Clinics in Sports Medicine 4:150-69), so from a performance standpoint, they have no application.

You are saying that by concentrating on flexion (isometric tension) that you can affect motor performance, yet two studies clearly indicate that they cannot.

I am going to dig up some more studies on this subject. I agree that concentration and kinesthetic awareness is highly important, but you will never convince me that you can stimulate the exact fibers in the same way as a loaded exercise without actually loading them. It goes against everything we learn in exercise phys. Simply flexing a muscle does not stimulate it in the same way as a loaded movement. First of all, it isn't simply damage to the muscle cell that increases size/strength. More importantly, it is movement under a load that "educates" the CNS, which tells the spindle fiber incased in each muscle fiber exactly how much it can shorten and lengthen. What you are suggesting is physiologically impossible.

If you are moving and you enjoy your exericse, more power to you... Ultimately you will be more successful because you can do something physically challenging with consistency. A bigger problem than doing the perfect workout is just getting people to do something physical at all. Being someone who exercises regularly makes you healthy and preferably fit, not a fitness expert.

I feel like I am debating the validity of intelligent design vs evolution here. One has veritable oceans of published research to support its theory, the other is simply pseudoscience, or "belief", but those who believe in it think that since it is a "theory" as well, that it stands on equal ground with evolution. The only problem is that the latter doesn't have to scientifically research anything because their premise is completely different. Rather, they look for flaws in the theory and try to legally exploit them. I can't debate with circular logic or dogmatic beliefs. I can only debate legitimate research. There are hundreds - no - THOUSANDS of quacks out there who manipulate facts to fit their belief to convince (manipulate) people, and all they have to do is attack things like the medical industry with conspiracy theories to dupe people who don't have well-developed bull**** detectors.
 
The following should probably be a topic all by itself and made "sticky", but for now I will just post it in this thread in the interest of seperating self-appointed gurus (like Peterson) from legit experts.

This is from quackwatch.org (emphasis from me in red)

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when Joe Blow's headache went away—the moon was full, a bird flew overhead, the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc.—and his headache would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves—and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away. Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1 of a book on dowsing says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can channel and focus the "earth-radiation" that makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all dowsers use metal or plastic rods.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details. The "Bermuda Triangle" books are classic examples of this tactic.

Pseudoscience does not progress.
There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered. New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed, pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to scientists, but little known to the general public—so that the public will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover, Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings contradicted.

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.
The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.
A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields. A movie star swears it's true, so it must be. A physicist says a "psychic" couldn't possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common. ("If it makes you feel good, it must be true." "In your heart you know it's right.") Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies. ("There's plenty of evidence for flying saucers, but the government keeps it secret." [and this one, "The entire medical industry is trying to keep you sick so they can make more money" a la Mercola]) And they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying saucers have to come from somewhere—so the earth is hollow, and they come from inside." "This electric spark I'm making with this electrical apparatus is actually not a spark at all, but rather a supernatural manifestation of psycho-spiritual energy." "Every human is surrounded by an impalpable aura of electromagnetic energy, the auric egg of the ancient Hindu seers, which mirrors the human's every mood and condition.")

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.

Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct, while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work are ignored. The fact that someone got away with simple magic tricks in one scientific lab is "proof" that he is a psychic superman, while the fact that he was caught cheating in several other labs is ignored.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
The phenomena appear only under certain vaguely specified but vital conditions (such as when no doubters or skeptics are present; when no experts are present; when nobody is watching; when the "vibes" are right; or only once in human history.) Science holds that genuine phenomena must be capable of study by anyone with the proper equipment and that all procedurally valid studies must give consistent results. No genuine phenomenon is "jealous" in this way. There is no way to construct a TV set or a radio that will function only when no skeptics are present! A man who claims to be a concert-class violinist, but does not appear to have ever owned a violin and who refuses to play when anyone is around who might hear him, is most likely lying about his ability to play the violin.

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description of any possible physical process. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the laws of physics rule out the process as impossible. That is, the approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to flip. If Velikovsky had discovered some way that a planet could flip another's spin axis, he would presumably have described the mechanism by which it can happen. The bald statement itself, without the underlying mechanism, conveys no information at all. Velikovsky said that Venus was once a comet, and this comet was spewed out of a volcano on Jupiter. Since planets do not resemble comets (which are rock/ice snowball-like debris with connection whatsoever to volcanoes) and since Jupiter is not known to have volcanoes anyway (or even a solid surface!), no actual physical process could underlie Velikovsky's assertions. He gave us words, related to one another within a sentence, but the relationships were alien to the universe we actually live in, and he gave no explanation for how these could exist. He provided stories, not genuine theories.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.
Magic, sorcery, witchcraft—these are based on spurious similarity, false analogy, false cause-and-effect connections, etc. That is, inexplicable influences and connections between things are assumed from the beginning—not found by investigation. (If you step on a crack in the sidewalk without saying a magic word, your mother will crack a bone in her body; eating heart-shaped leaves is good for heart ailments; shining red light on the body increases blood production; rams are aggressive so someone born in the sign of the ram is aggressive; fish are "brain food" because the meat of the fish resembles brain tissue, etc.)

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience—it's the wisdom of the ancients!—especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science [like Charles Atlas' theories]. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one!
 
The King of VRT

I'd like to dredge up "Deltoid" for this discussion. If there's one expert in the world on the subject of VRT, he's it. Sometime ago, he appeared on my forum amidst a discussion of VRT. This was the first time I had ever heard about it, and my initial reaction was extreme skepticism. Anyway, Deltoid's been doing this all his life and he's even older than I am. He was at it even before anyone gave it a name. We had some long discussions on the subject, and Deltoid swears by it. He says it all started when he was a young boy and his father told him to pick up a brick and pretend that it weighs 50 lbs., and the Deltmeister's been at it ever since.

I gave it a shot, but just couldn't make a go of it. I have to feel actual resistance, although I do have a couple of VRT exercises on my site, and these I can do.
 
Wow! Since there is no way to respond to that incredible rant of irrelevant information, I won't even try.

As to the Isometric reference, I was not referring to Isometrics. With DVR's there is movement, so that does not apply. However, since your mind is made up, and anything that challenges your world view is automatically going to be lumped into your long rant about pseudoscience, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

At any rate, I think this thread has served its purpose, since the original poster, has been given a resource that he was looking for, and since he has an open mind, will be able to explore it for himself.

Best of luck to all on this forum, with what ever training methods you choose to use.
 
Shenandoah said:
That's it? With all the sh!t that's flying on this thread, that is your one and only contribution?! THAT'S IT?!!


LOL yeah, it's not my place to jump in on this. Over my head, and no one is getting away with any obscene fallacies, so wuh ev.
 
Back
Top