Re: JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68. STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JO

[Guest guest]

I tend to agree with you.

Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:33 AM, kendaiganoneill <kayoneill@...>wrote:

>

>

> Thanks to recommendations from several friends, I reread the following

> article several times:

> JEPonline. 2004;7(6):52-68.

> STRENGTH TRAINING METHODS AND THE WORK OF ARTHUR JONES. D, Bruce-Low

> S.

>

> I had been advised the article vindicated Arthur and HIT training

> methods. Admittedly, my graduate education was in the humanities where

> textual analysis means everything, and where methods and analysis center

> around textual criticism (akin to archaeology applied to literature);

> nevertheless, 55 years of reading and analyzing peer reviewed scientific

> literature is well within my purview.

>

> The article makes claims of the superiority of ' methods, a noble

> endeavor, proceeding to do some with one of the most astonishing displays of

> garbled thinking ever witnessed in a peer-reviewed journal. I cannot believe

> the article did not precipitate a host of rejoinders; however, searches

> conducted thus far reveal utterly nothing. Was the speciously immature

> nature of the article such that the gentlemanly course of conduct was simply

> one of ignoring it in order to not dignify such peurility? Or were critical

> responses published elsewhere? Or within JEPonline under differing titles? I

> can't find a darn thing by way of reply, so am quizzing this erudite

> community in quest of information seriously sought.

>

> BTW - I'm not anti-HIT. Instead, I steadfastly remain pro-science. I can't

> believe such an idiotic piece of writing so published would not have

> elicited serious response - not to trash HIT, but rather to stand as

> corrective action in response to a major embarrassment to HIT.

>

> cheers,

>

> Ken O'Neill

> Wimberley, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good Morning Everyone:

 

I read the article and emails about Arthur with a twinge of nostalgia.

 

Years ago when I was a kid I started weight training at the Winter Park YMCA

(Winter Park Florida) in the " weight room " .  There was another room with a

combination lock on the door that housed the Nautilus equipment.

 

You needed a special orientation before using the equipment.

 

I met a guy training in the Nautilus Room who knew Ellington Darden and

Arthur.  He seemed nice enough and saw how interested I was in strength

training. Anything, I told him to keep my from becoming a fat opera singer.

 

The guy made arrangements for me to go to Deland and meet Arthur and Dr.

Darden.  I knew nothing of exercise except what I learned from my friends in

the gym.  I was smart enough, however, to realize that when dealing with Arthur

you were in the presence of someone who had an enormous amount of passion for

what he believed in. 

 

He proceeded to put me through three days of workouts (HIT Pre-Fatigue) which

left me so sore and weak that I thought I would never be able to do the simplest

tasks such as tying my shoes or brushing my teeth, let alone walk. Each workout

lasted 20-30 minutes.

 

It was a thrill when Mike Mentzer strolled in one day.  Interacting with him

was interesting. He and were cut from the same mold. Trying to have a

conversation about anything...trying to thread consistency in the discussions

was almost impossible. When I saw the comment about " garbled thinking " my

conversations with , and Mentzer for that matter, immediately came to

mind. 

 

My degree (I was working toward it at the time) was in Music/Opera

Performance.  Perhaps I wasn't astute enough to understand what was being said

or did not know enough to ask the proper questions. 

 

When I asked Mentzer about HIT and the typical volume bodybuilding I got an ear

full.  When I mentioned that he and Ray built their physiques the traditional

way of 9-20 sets per body part and that they were able to maintain or improve

slightly what they had I thought he was going to beat me to a bloody pulp. 

stepped in and explained it further. 

 

After the couple of weeks going up there I went back to the Y and employed the

HIT techniques with the Nautilus equipment.  After 8 weeks of training in that

fashion I noticed no change in my physique and a noticeable improvement in my

1RM in bench and squat (once stabilization was re-established).  Of course,

this is hardly scientific. But, it was nice to reminisce.  

 

Best,

Mark Cotton

East Brunswick, NJ, USA

[Guest guest]

Dear all

Telle -- Arthur was known to use chains before he

sophisticated!! his cams.

People who use chains that do not touch the ground are like a cowboy

with no bullets in his gun..

On Jan 22, 2011, at 12:33 AM, kendaiganoneill wrote:

> The article makes claims of the superiority of ' methods, a

> noble endeavor, proceeding to do some with one of the most

> astonishing displays of garbled thinking ever witnessed in a peer-

> reviewed journal. I cannot believe the article did not precipitate a

> host of rejoinders; however, searches conducted thus far reveal

> utterly nothing. Was the speciously immature nature of the article

> such that the gentlemanly course of conduct was simply one of

> ignoring it in order to not dignify such peurility? Or were critical

> responses published elsewhere? Or within JEPonline under differing

> titles? I can't find a darn thing by way of reply, so am quizzing

> this erudite community in quest of information seriously sought. "

Telle -- Accomodating resistance will " sort of " indicate a strength

profile though the lack of a dynamic flexible eccentric inertial cam

is a serious loss. Your erudite community never figured out a way to

measure what claimed -- which was typically backwards on his

early machine. I tried to tell them what it took to measure strength/

forces all for naught.

Jerry Telle

Lakewood CO USA