Weight Training Without Weights Please Help!!

Shenandoah said:
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.

You should learn to listen to that skeptical voice... In this case it was right. He hasn't figured out a way to trick the laws of physics.

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.

and this:

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 they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"
 
Right!

Whoa! I went through that whole pseudoscience thingy, and jp, you are absolutely right! We are lambasted by pseudoscience all the time and all the quacks out there are more than ready to take advantage of the gullible.

But, you know what? In that whole list of examples sited, I didn't see self-resistance exercise mentioned anywhere.

And John Peterson a quack? I know John, and not only is he the real deal, but he is one of the most decent people you'll ever want to meet.

I don't know what else I can do. I refer you to John's site, where everything on there tells you that he built himself up with self-resistance. Even as we speak, hundreds, if not thousands, are out there building muscle using his methods. Yet you simply write him off as being a quack. If you flat out don't believe him, then you must think he's a liar.

Free comes on here and shows you proof of the results of self-resistance, and he's a liar.

I refer you to two of my "Zenonites" who made verifiable gains within certain time frames, and you won't even mention that.

I mention all the letters I've received, but of course, according to you, they're all just anecdotal, anyway.

And, lastly, I stand here, look you right in the eye, and tell you that in the two years I was exercising exclusively with SR, I was able to maintain all of the size, and even added a bit, that I had obtained through lifting weights.

So, I'll ask again, why the f* would I totally waste two years of my life on something that doesn't work?

But I don't have to wait around for an answer to any of this, because I already know that you view us all as quacks and liars.

QUACKS AND LIARS, DO YOU HERE ME?! EVERYONE OF US!!

DAMN YOU, SHENANDOAH, FOR STARTING ALL OF THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

CURSE YOU, SHENANDOAH! CURSE YOU!!

Hey, Wait a minute. That's me.

So long, jp, it's been real.
 
Free said:
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.

Irrelevant? Did you even bother to read what I posted? The point to the psuedoscience post is that many people make claims about things which they conveniently have no need to scientifically validate. When you make claims like a person can achieve the same exact effect of doing a heavy deadlift by using their minds, you are descending into the abyss that is "quakery". A common reaction of people who dogmatically adhere to some quacky theory that doesn't appear in any legit scientific texts is that they "don't have an open mind." On the contrary, you show me evidence to prove your point, and I will change my opinion. Ideal critical thinking requires that when presented with qualified evidence, they can change their opinion on a given issue.

Come on guys... Don't fight this. Like Yoda says, "stretch out with your mind." You are trying to convince me to accept your theory for which you cannot validate, yet you are not willing to accept my theory which I can validate. How am I being closed minded? Oh kettle, thou art black!
 
Shen, I am not calling you a quack. That mostly emerged from Free's citing a dubious "study" by Mercola. You completely miss my point. You keep making this a personal thing, an emotional thing. It is neither. As Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

Peterson sounds like a decent guy. Decent people are capable of being dogmatic or ignorant of certain fields. I went to his forums. I see a lot of kooky workout routines, but I don't see any validation for his methods other than "it works for him" or "it works for his followers". Frankly, it smacks of "guru-ism".
 
That was thoroughly enjoyable from beginning to end. Too bad it flew over the heads of 99% of the people on here.

Very simply, in my opinion, working out without weights is better than doing nothing, hence results from some test subjects.........but there is no way it is better or even close to just as good as working out with weights.

This may sound completely superficial, and not saying that Shenandoah doesn't have some knowledge and at least good intentions, but I've seen pictures of both of you. Argument over.
 
One more thing to add. A few people have used your methods and made progress, which I acknowledged earlier can happen. My point isn't that the workout is worthless, only that it is not "optimal".
 
Study referenced by Free and debunked because the link was found on Mercola's website:



Cleveland Clinic. Yup...sorry, no quacks here. But oh wait...it doesn't agree with your "standard" for evidence does it? I'm sure this violates some sort of "rule of argumentation" that, by the way, is ridiculous how you bring up everytime you want to discount someone's argument.

DVR works. Bodyweight works. Weights work. Which is better? Depends on your goals, interests, ability, availability to equipment, etc.

Also, just because science doesn't currently recognize a theory or concept doesn't make it invalid. Just because there aren't a boatload of studies indicating something is true doesn't mean it isn't worth EXPLORING or experimenting with, especially if the downside is negligible.

Barry Marshall theorzied that bacteria cause some stomach ulcers. He was RIDICULED for years by the scientific "establishment" and eventually DRANK said bacteria, got the ulcer and cured himself with antibiotics to prove his point to his colleagues. At any rate, he was proven correct and the theory is accepted today (Rosenfeld, 1997).

I'm not using that argument to say that we can just believe anything, but in the case of DVR and other body weight exercise systems (ie Zen and the Art of Self Resistance), there is certainly enough ANECDOTAL evidence (and remember, most scientific theories start out being INSPIRED by anecdotal evidence or observation, which is then TESTED scientifically) to warrant further study/experimentation by those who are interested.

-markoola
 
Aha!

jpfitness said:
One more thing to add. A few people have used your methods and made progress, which I acknowledged earlier can happen. My point isn't that the workout is worthless, only that it is not "optimal".

AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA! AHA!

At last! We agree!

Yes! Yes! You are absolutely right! It is effective but it is not "optimal"!

Lifting weights is the surest way to build the ultimate in strength and size. Olympic lifters certainly didn't obtain there great strength from SR or DVR. Yes, weight lifting is OPTIMAL!

But are you aware of how many people out there don't need "optimal"? They don't care about "optimal"? Do you know how many people sit at a desk all day, putting in overtime, not enough time in the day to make it to a gym, wishing they had some way of getting into shape?

Those are people who can benefit from my program. If you were to go to the "Additional Exercises and Routines" page on my site, and scroll down, you'll see that I incorporated my routine throughout the day at work.

And the kid who started this gawd awful thread (and never showed back up). All he was asking for was a program of weightless exercise, which I just happen to have and am only too happy to pass out to anyone who wants it.

What do you think of people who judge a program by the physiques of their promoters. i.e., OMG! Look at Charles Atlas! Or, look at Arnold! I want to look like that, too, so if I follow that system, I will! Ooooooh, look at Shen. Not to good, there, even for being FIFTY SIX FREAKING YEARS OLD! And no, I don't live every waking moment of my life in the glowing, golden aura of physical fitness. I don't make my living by maintaining the 'goods' for others to want to emulate. I eat way to much and I drink beer by the gallons. But at least I had the balls to put my pics up there.

Catch my drift, guy who posted before me?
 
Free said
"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?"

I wish you had read my posts -
I said
"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 aslo said, that I believe that its possible to make small gains, but nothing worthy, and nothing comparable with weightlifting. Im still waiting for some one to post a before and after picture for somw guys thats totally 100% SR.

Shenandoah - Dude do you know what you sound like?
"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"

I wouldnt have thort you'd be so stupid. You have had a good job and education, you really should know that you cant learn about Zen Bhuddism/meditation from 1 book. Plus thats not even a good book. Eugen Herrigel who wrote the book was German, he didnt even fully understand it himself. Same as you, he was interested, did a bit of reading, and poped out a book.

If I had an army i'd rule the world... why? ... Cos I read the art of war.

and the crap about pool, Thats not Zen, thats just being good at pool. You had some level of focus, just like any body who gets up for work, and sports person, any one eating dinner. Next you'll be saying...
"I use zen when Im eating my dinner, I can put food in my mouth without thinking about it."

Im glad we have this thread, as I didnt bring my book today.
 
ok

manofkent said:
I wouldnt have thort you'd be so stupid. You have had a good job and education

Sorry to have to be the one to shatter your image of me.

And if you want to call being the personal masseuse to Hollywood starlets having a good job, then so be it.

At any rate, I went back through my e-mail to find a few particular letters. I found this which is similar to a couple others I remember getting, but I don't feel like spending the rest of the night digging, so here's one of, I think three, in a similar vein:

"Darling,

You can't imagine how I cry out in the middle of the nights, longing for your massive, broad............."

Oops. Wrong letter. Here it is:

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:52:25 -0500

Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for putting together your Zen
Self-Resistance website. I have been studying Buddhism (Zen as of late)
for about 2 years and I stumbled upon your site while searching for
Zen
related pages. I had actually also been looking for an easy way of
working out and something I could stick to. Your site is just what I
needed! Thanks, man.

Name witheld
 
Wow im sorry. It must be amazing cos this guy said so. That is great evidance that its wonderfull. Sorry I every doubted you. That letter proves everything.

There are much easyer ways of getting in shape that pressing againsts your own body and pretending to dead lift. There is no substitute for IRON.


Just to go back to something I think is important if your gonna promote this junk to others.
You say that you can do it everyday? why do you think that? do your muscles have magic-one day-healing powers? mine dont and nobody else has them.
If you train every day, you will not make gains near to if you rest properly. This is not something you can argue with, its science fact.


Free - how do you know you can bench 220lbs? I thort you were all in to SR and DVR, or did you just pretend to lift 220lbs?
 
Static contraction

Isometrics, dynamic-tension, or Zen, or whatever you call it, does make for impressive strength gains. If you think about it, armwrestling and wristwrestling are isometric sports for the most part, because arms are locked without movement in most contests. I became VERY strong competing in such tournaments, to the point that my right arm was at least 1" bigger than my left. I have since tried to "even out" the arm sizes, but my right arm is still slightly bigger.

I couldn't do more than 24 chin-ups, even with supplements, before I rediscovered this simple method of exercise. And walla, within a few weeks, I was pumping out 31 chin-ups. Nobody can tell me that isometrics is worthless. I had enough confidence in it to make the technique more versatile by designing a machine for it. And even if nobody else wants it, I'm building a prototype of it for myself.

That being said, I still regard isometrics as an exercise to enhance other exercises. I still race by bike, do chin-ups, dips, push-ups, sit-ups, squats, and other exercises. The isometrics just gives me the extra edge to beat out the competition, the competition being the results from my last workout.
 
Yes arm wrestling is isometric, but you dont train isometric for it, you do regular weighted exercise as for most sports.

If you still do other compound exercises, then how do you know if isometrics are any good on there own. Thats my argument. I dont belive that you can get gains as fast, strong or big with isometrics as any other type of training with the same amount of money time any effort.

This guy is saying that his program is great for people with no time or money, but I dont dig that. I think bodyweight, or "things you find in the house" workouts are much more practical and beneficial.

one of the most important things is the mind. You cant lift 300lbs from the floor unless you know how its gonna feel, you gotta know how heavy 300lbs is or you'd think its stuck to the floor. It seams impossible when you 1st try, and the only reason you think you can do it, is cos you can lift 290lbs.
 
Everyday?

manofkent said:
Just to go back to something I think is important if your gonna promote this junk to others.
You say that you can do it everyday? why do you think that? do your muscles have magic-one day-healing powers? mine dont and nobody else has them.
If you train every day, you will not make gains near to if you rest properly. This is not something you can argue with, its science fact.

You have not read what I have written. From my site:

"Because of the intense nature of these exercises - forcing your muscles to work at maximum performance - each exercise needs to be performed only once a day for three days a week with a day's rest in between. I do the upper body exercises on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and then the leg exercises on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. One set of ten repetitions is all that is needed for the self-resistance exercises. For the body weight exercises, do one set of as many repetitions as you feel you can handle. The deep breathing and stretching exercises can be done daily if you choose to do so. If the mood strikes, it certainly won’t hurt to do some or all of the stretching exercises a couple more times in a day. You can pick and choose. I find myself doing most of the stretching exercises a few times a day, simply because I feel an urge to do so."

Aside from stretching, the only exercises that I suggest that can be done daily if you want to, are the abdominal exercises, which are isometric.

The purpose of my posting that letter was to show you that a guy who is actually studying Zen Bhuddism doesn't seem to think that my Zen approach is bogus. And, like I said, I've received a couple of other letters from Bhuddists who like my Zen approach. And I kinda like my pool-shooting analogy. For those who know nothing about Zen (and I realize I'm opening myself up here for a head-on barrage), it presents a reference people can relate to.
 
markoola said:
Study referenced by Free and debunked because the link was found on Mercola's website:



Cleveland Clinic. Yup...sorry, no quacks here. But oh wait...it doesn't agree with your "standard" for evidence does it? I'm sure this violates some sort of "rule of argumentation" that, by the way, is ridiculous how you bring up everytime you want to discount someone's argument.

DVR works. Bodyweight works. Weights work. Which is better? Depends on your goals, interests, ability, availability to equipment, etc.

Also, just because science doesn't currently recognize a theory or concept doesn't make it invalid. Just because there aren't a boatload of studies indicating something is true doesn't mean it isn't worth EXPLORING or experimenting with, especially if the downside is negligible.

Barry Marshall theorzied that bacteria cause some stomach ulcers. He was RIDICULED for years by the scientific "establishment" and eventually DRANK said bacteria, got the ulcer and cured himself with antibiotics to prove his point to his colleagues. At any rate, he was proven correct and the theory is accepted today (Rosenfeld, 1997).

I'm not using that argument to say that we can just believe anything, but in the case of DVR and other body weight exercise systems (ie Zen and the Art of Self Resistance), there is certainly enough ANECDOTAL evidence (and remember, most scientific theories start out being INSPIRED by anecdotal evidence or observation, which is then TESTED scientifically) to warrant further study/experimentation by those who are interested.

-markoola

Good points Markoola. Incidentally, I didn't "debunk" free's argument, I merely pointed out that his "reference" provided no references, just claims.

The following will delve a little into my own anecdotal support for that theory, but also look at it from the perspective I have taken from the argument.

I am aware of the power of the mind. I fully believe that we can become stronger through intense visualization, but probably not for the same reasons that are being touted in this thread. My unsupported theory is that people can't lift certain weights because they believe that they can't. Visualization can help you by allowing you to lift to your potential.

For example, on heavy squats I used to have a "block" for doing anything over 315, yet I could rep out with 315, so I knew I was capable of more. My goal at the time was to break the 405 barrier. I used a combination of actual training and some "tricks" to remove my fear of heavier weight. I would load the bar with 500 pounds and just unrack the weight. I wouldn't squat with it... Just held it for a minute. When I racked it and stripped weight down to 405, it mentally felt lighter, and eventually I reached a point that I just knew that I could go down into a squat with that weight and come back up. I know that my boundary to cross was mental, not physical.

The study you cited only looked at single joint flexion by the way, and did not speak to my argument that you cannot possibly load all the muscles in the chain required to perform a complex movement. And I am still not convinced that by doing mental exercises ALONE that one can actually strengthen in the same way as they can with actual weight. First of all, if you have never loaded your body, how can you have a mental frame of reference to even know if you are working the muscles in the same way?

I think that visualization can have a positive impact for people who train on weights, but replacing actual lifting with "mental lifting" is gobbly gook (to use a really technical term"). Your study actually supports my comment in its very title: A Potential Supplement to Your Normal Exercise Routine.

Not a replacement, but a supplement
Although healthy people can use mental contractions, it will never replace a regimen of daily vigorous exercise, including conventional resistance training. Combining mental and physical exercises, however, may produce the best results, says Dr. Yue. Adds Dr. Sahgal
It is not suggesting, as others in this thread have, that you can do this exclusively for strength/mass gain. I would also have liked to examine their published work, but there were no references to a peer-reviewed journal, which raises a red flag for me. Not to discount their findings, but that would speak volumes for their research if they did. I did notice that there was a phone number at the bottom, so I plan to call them later today to see if they can provide me with references (yes, I am that fanatical). [edit, I just called and spoke to them. They are going to have the researcher who conducted that study contact me directly, so stay tuned... I will let you know what he said.]

Probably the greatest problem I have with replacing traditional squats, deads, cleans, with DVR is that even if you could concentrate hard enough to flex all the right muscles, you could never contract them in the same way, i.e. QUICKLY. Power is developed by learning how to contract a muscle at maximum velocity. The faster the contraction, the higher one can jump, the faster one can run, ect. Granted, I am focused on function and performance, where you guys seem mainly focused on physical appearance.

Addressing your last comments, they are spoken like a true apologist for bad science. I hate to pull this back up, but it is a classic "non sequiter"... What you are doing is using their success - in spite of their non-traditional journey to the truth - as justification for your theory, which is completely unrelated to boot. I personally find that technique to be manipulative.

there is certainly enough ANECDOTAL evidence (and remember, most scientific theories start out being INSPIRED by anecdotal evidence or observation, which is then TESTED scientifically) to warrant further study/experimentation by those who are interested.

The key to your sentence is that through observation, scientists will set up studies to test the validity. That doesn't by itself make all unproven anecdotes true. That is particularly why I don't like people using bad evidence or dubious authorities to validate doing something that will not yield results. Why do they work on so many people? People want to believe that some special tea grown in a secret grove in the Alps will cure their cancer, and they are so desperate that they will try everything. They are particularly vulnerable to "quacks."

Sometimes you can use an anecdote in a discussion, but the proper way to do that is to ACKNOWLEDGE that it is anecdotal, and QUALIFY your statement. Everyone cites anecdotes... We all "know someone who knows someone who..." As long as the person using anecdotes is objective with their presentation of the evidence and also plays the devil's advocate to their own claims, they are using them properly. If they do not, then they are doing a great disservice to their readers as it is ethically wrong to capitalize on their ignorance.

I'm sorry you don't like my argument style. To me, logic and critical thinking provides an excellent filter for all the crap I have to read on any subject.
 
Last edited:
Shen, for the record, I have no beef with your Zen approach. I've studied quite a bit of Eastern philosophy actually, and have written quite a bit about it in my own goal to persue spiritual wholeness (along with many other schools of thought). I'm not a practicing anything... I just admire the mental discipline and perspective of Zen.
 
At any rate, I went back through my e-mail to find a few particular letters. I found this which is similar to a couple others I remember getting, but I don't feel like spending the rest of the night digging, so here's one of, I think three, in a similar vein:

"Darling,

You can't imagine how I cry out in the middle of the nights, longing for your massive, broad............."

Oops. Wrong letter. Here it is:

HA! That put me on the floor!

Good one. :p :p
 
Not to open a new can of worms, Shen, but I'm not much of an advocate for static stretching either. If we open this for discussion we ought to start a new thread though.
 
Back
Top