# The Colorado Experiment



## michael74737 (Jul 31, 2007)

What do all of you think about this article?:

The Colorado Experiment, Casey Viator's Workout, Arthur Jones Nautilus Bulletin 1 2 3

To me it seems that the gains are too good to be true.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jul 31, 2007)

It was real and legitimate.

AJ style HIT is without any doubt in my mind the most productive form of training ever developed.  Good luck duplicating it, though.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 31, 2007)

Duncan said it best.

The program and the gains it brings is real, but duplicating it is extremely difficult.


----------



## Witchblade (Jul 31, 2007)

I don't believe a word of it. Such gains are simply not possible without extreme amounts of juice and then still it's nigh impossible. If it would be true, everyone would be doing that program now and it would be the standard encyclopedia of bodybuilding.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jul 31, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> I don't believe a word of it. Such gains are simply not possible without extreme amounts of juice and then still it's nigh impossible. If it would be true, everyone would be doing that program now and it would be the standard encyclopedia of bodybuilding.



It's extremely well documented.  You have no foundation for skepticism.  There are other studies performed by Mr. Jones that were done at major universities that achieved almost unbelievable results, but the facts are pretty apparent despite their unbelievability.

The HIT routines espoused to by Mr. Jones are so difficult that they are almost unheard of and damn near impossible to duplicate.  I've read his entire collection of work (1600 + pages including the biography) at least 3 times from cover to cover, and I disagree with some of his points, but I don't doubt any of his sincerity or honesty.  He also discovered quite a few things as is a genius.  The Colorado Experiment was real and so were the results.

And the old school Nautilus machines were nothing short of brilliantly engineered tools, I hope to stock my personal studio with the classic ones.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 31, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> And the old school Nautilus machines were nothing short of brilliantly engineered tools, I hope to stock my personal studio with the classic ones.



Where would you go about finding them?


----------



## Arnold (Jul 31, 2007)

a result of muscle memory mostly.


----------



## michael74737 (Jul 31, 2007)

anyone know where I can find a workout routine similar or identical to the one that the articles discusses?

Also, where can I find information on the type of diet that was used in the experiment?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jul 31, 2007)

Prince said:


> a result of muscle memory mostly.



Yes but the Jones style of training also built him into what he was originally.

And before anyone starts shouting steroids, I don't think there's enough evidence to convict Casey on that point.  Jones was NOTORIOUSLY anti drug and a paranoid maniac in many regards (read one of his anti drug articles if you don't believe that he HATED steroids).  If any pro bodybuilder was not on drugs, it would likely be one of Jones students.

As if it matters, Viator had a ridiculously good physique and won the Mr. America at a very young age.


----------



## soxmuscle (Jul 31, 2007)

Prince said:


> a result of muscle memory mostly.



I don't think thats entirely fair...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 1, 2007)

If these results were indicative of anything other than muscle memory and possible steroid use, you would figure a single placebo controlled clinical research study would have come of it.  I think some of his principles are very good, but I am not a big Nautilus guy, although those machines were a good 15 years ahead of their time.

One major thing you need to look at, and which is often overlooked, is that every single one of these experiments that Jones undertook, was done with subjects who had either been in some form of an accident, or who had just completed a football season.  Obviously, after a full football season or a stressful shock to the body, a brief break followed by low volume/high intensity program would bring strength back quickly.

HIT is certainly part of the puzzle, but it is not the be all end all of training protocols.


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 1, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> One major thing you need to look at, and which is often overlooked, is that every single one of these experiments that Jones undertook, was done with subjects who had either been in some form of an accident, or who had just completed a football season.  Obviously, after a full football season or a stressful shock to the body, a brief break followed by low volume/high intensity program would bring strength back quickly.




That's not entirely true.  Jones took Sergio Oliva under his belt and did a "mini" Colorado Experiment with him because Sergio's arms were so over developed he had to do something to bring his legs up to par.  The routine Sergio did would have killed a horse, but his legs soon were comperable with his arms.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 1, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> One major thing you need to look at, and which is often overlooked, is that every single one of these experiments that Jones undertook, was done with subjects who had either been in some form of an accident, or who had just completed a football season.  Obviously, after a full football season or a stressful shock to the body, a brief break followed by low volume/high intensity program would bring strength back quickly.



His training was ahead of its time because it kept the body in a near state of shock during every workout, what I personally consider to be an adaptation stimulus that the body can't afford to adapt to.

My practical application of training is to modify any of the "acute variables" in varying degrees constantly to keep the body in a state of heterostasis.  Why don't I follow Jones' techniques if I have so much confidence in it?  Because it is hard in a new definition of the word, much harder than any of the Mentzer style HIT or DC stuff I've tried.  Me and my brother talk about trying it every week but never can muster up the courage to.

HIT is NOT the end all be all, but Jones didn't really coin the term HIT.  His series of workouts go far beyond our typical notions of "one set to failure" in that he puts the body in an ALARM stage and modifies the frequency as is necessary.  And Jones CONSTANTLY changed the acute variables in terms of exercises, exercise order, and even the rest intervals depending on the the day. After studying the workouts and the progress individuals on HIT (including overtrained bodybuilders, athletes, and so forth), I see a lot of  techniques of progress that current protocols utilize but done 20-30 years ago with arguably the best results ever documented.

Also, the analysis you made in the above quote is not true.  He worked with numerous bodybuilders, and you can argue that they were all overtrained at that point and simply adapted to the dramatic change.  But you are dismissing the results unfairly, even if these individuals were "overtrained" or "exhausted after a season of football" or "on steroids" - analysis that I would not agree with anyway, the results are at least as good as any "volume" training   regime of the day could accomplish, achieving things amazing even considering your assumptions.


----------



## Witchblade (Aug 1, 2007)

HIT Jedi alert.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 1, 2007)

lol

i don't use HIT in any reasonable definition of the term, I think Mentzer was nearly insane with his recommendations and most HIT programs leave muscles deflated and atrophying from disuse while neurological proficiency seems to increase steadily.  

I don't classify the jones style of training to be HIT, honestly, I've never seen someone perform a workout like he recommended ever.  Not in my entire life.  And I work at one of the 5 biggest (by membership and volume) 24 hour fitness clubs in the world.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 1, 2007)

And I hate Fred Hatfield, that short, fat, never done a full squat in his life jackass.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 1, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> lol
> 
> i don't use HIT in any reasonable definition of the term, I think Mentzer was nearly insane with his recommendations and most HIT programs leave muscles deflated and atrophying from disuse while neurological proficiency seems to increase steadily.
> 
> I don't classify the jones style of training to be HIT, honestly, I've never seen someone perform a workout like he recommended ever.  Not in my entire life.  And I work at one of the 5 biggest (by membership and volume) 24 hour fitness clubs in the world.



DD, do you have a link to an example workout?


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 1, 2007)

DOMS said:


> DD, do you have a link to an example workout?



 If he does, it won't do justice by words on the screen.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 1, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> If he does, it won't do justice by words on the screen.



True, but I've gotta have something to start learning about.

Some Viator:






YouTube Video


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 1, 2007)

He's my favorite bodybuilder of all time..


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 4, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> His training was ahead of its time because it kept the body in a near state of shock during every workout, what I personally consider to be an adaptation stimulus that the body can't afford to adapt to.
> 
> My practical application of training is to modify any of the "acute variables" in varying degrees constantly to keep the body in a state of heterostasis.  Why don't I follow Jones' techniques if I have so much confidence in it?  Because it is hard in a new definition of the word, much harder than any of the Mentzer style HIT or DC stuff I've tried.  Me and my brother talk about trying it every week but never can muster up the courage to.
> 
> ...



I am not saying Jones only worked with those people, only that his "experiments" only included people who would be excluded in a good clinical trial.  As with most, I find some of his info useful when you get through all of the bullshit propaganda-type stuff.

I think his "findings" were amazing, I also don't believe the numbers.  IMO, he has great concepts, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were fudged.  Who knows, maybe he didn't carry over the proper units and mistook ounces for pounds.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 4, 2007)

Well not believing the numbers is not enough, unless you have an actual reason for not believing the numbers.  He didn't mistake ounces for pounds I can assure you, he didn't single handedly conduct the study himself.  His most famous study was conducted at west point under the supervision of many, many people, for instance.  I'm curious where you are getting your information on his work.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 4, 2007)

I don't believe the numbers because I don't believe them to be possible.  I also know what "Under the Supervision of..." means with regard to clinical research, having worked in the field for 6 years.

Now, if I really wanted to, I could find any result I wanted with the proper study design.  I could prove the world to be flat if I set the experiment up to do so.  It would be shitty research, but I could do it.

What I am saying is that the protocols for the study are not known, the role of the Principal Investigator is lax at best, and there is no institutional review board mentioned that ensures that the "research" followed any of the rules of good clinical practice.  This preliminary report was never followed by an actual report.  My guess is there is a reason for that.  If I see a study like this I doubt it because it is garbage.  Now, had I been there and actually witnessed the results that would be a different story or had it been performed using GCP Standards.  I would, at the very least, expect to have some info on the study design.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 4, 2007)

I think research done today in most fields is utter trash, and publishing results that don't match the "status quo" is almost impossible. 

Having said this not out of ignorance but having a peer reviewed and published father and being well aware of the bullshit politics involved in any "new" discoveries being given equal time because they contradict someones "well established" bias.

in any case, i won't argue with your opinion, although to say i disagree with it entirely.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 4, 2007)

Today, several hundred colleges and universities in this country are performing what they call scientific research in the
field of exercise physiology, and many thousands of supposedly scientific articles are published each year in a large
number of supposedly scientific journals; but, with damned few exceptions, such research has usually been a complete
waste of time and money, and if any of these people have actually discovered anything of the slightest value then it has
not come to my attention. Ridiculous as they usually are, you can learn a lot more of value by reading current bodybuilding magazines than you can by reading everything published by the scientific community.


Yet these people, the scientists, are the supposed ???experts??? that the media, the medical community and the government
go to for advice on the subject of exercise; they would learn a lot more of value if they sought the advice of a typical
Gypsy fortune teller, because in that case they would not get their heads stuffed with a lot of pure bullshit based upon
utterly meaningless research performed by a group of near idiots.
More than twenty years ago, when we were conducting strength-training research at the West Point Military Academy,
I went to great lengths in my attempts to assure that the results of that research would not be ignored on the grounds that I was not a recognized member of the scientific community; so I refused to be involved with any of the testing procedures that were performed before and after the period of time during which the cadet subjects were exercised in order to determine the results of that exercise program. In effect, the cadet subjects were carefully tested before the exercise
program was started and then tested again after the program was completed, and the measured differences were clear
proof of the results of the program. Such so-called ???pre and post??? testing is always conducted in connection with such
research.


*But, of course, just ???how??? the testing is conducted, and ???who??? conducts the tests is also important; the testing tools
must be accurate, the tests must be conducted properly, and the people conducting the tests must be both knowledgeable
and honest. So, at my suggestion, the commanding officer of the Physical Education Department of West Point,
Colonel James Anderson, selected the people who conducted all of the tests, and he made sure that none of these people
had any association with either me or West Point; in effect, he and I both wanted all testing to be conducted by
???outsiders??? who could not be influenced by either me or him. In fact, I had never met, or even spoken to, any of the
people who were selected to conduct the tests; and, while they were there conducting the tests, I avoided them like the
plague in an attempt to assure that I could not later be accused of having influenced them in any way.
Most of the people who conducted these tests were sent to West Point by Dr. Kenneth Cooper, and were members of his
staff at his Aerobics Institute in Dallas. I paid for all of this, of course, but Cooper???s people were never aware that I was even involved in the program in any way.


So they conducted their pre and post tests and were literally stunned by the results, because we had produced far better
results in only six weeks than Cooper could have produced in six years, and they knew it. So then they returned to
Dallas and presented their results to Cooper, and he refused to even read them; when handed the test results by his own
people he glanced briefly at the first page and then threw the entire report across the room, declaring in a loud voice that the results were impossible. And they would have been impossible for him, because he did not know what he was
doing and thus assumed that nobody could produce better results than he could; which, unfortunately, is a typical
response from almost all of today???s crop of supposed ???experts??? in the scientific community.


We were interested, primarily, in producing strength increases, but also knew that the program we were using would
greatly increase aerobic capacity as well, even though we did no conventional aerobic training on any kind; while
Cooper was interested only in increases in aerobic capacity, and was also convinced that he was the sole expert on that
subject in the world. So, when he saw our results, as measured by his own people, he simply refused to believe them.


Compared to a so-called ???control group??? of subjects who were trained for the same length of time in a conventional
manner, our group did so much better that the comparison was simply ridiculous.


The control group reduced their average time for a two-mile run by an average of 20 seconds, while our group reduced
their time by an average of 88 seconds, 4.4 times as much as the control group.


In our group, the average increase in flexibility in one area was ten times as much as it was for the control group, eleven times as much in another area, and twenty-three times as much in a third area. While overall strength for our group
increased by 60 percent, with almost nothing in the way of a strength increase for the control group.
Additional aerobic testing was conducted by Cooper???s people using treadmills, stationary bicycles and other tools, and
such testing was conducted with both our group and the control group; and, in all cases, our results were, in Cooper???s
mind, simply too good to be true.*


And, in general, Cooper???s reaction is typical of the scientific community; but, here and there, once in a great while,
somebody comes along who is not quite as stupid, or as arrogant, as most scientists are. Such people are rare, but they
do exist.


Only last Friday, two days ago, I was shown the results produced at a university in Syracuse, New York, by Dr. Jay
Graves: he tested the isolated lower-back strength of a large group of oarsmen, elite athletes who row boats in competition.


These men practice two or three hours a day, six days a week, and would be expected to be far above average strength
in their lower-back muscles; but, in fact, their lower-back strength was only average for an untrained man, which is
actually quite low. So much for the benefit of rowing as an exercise for lower-back muscles.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 4, 2007)

http://www.coreconditioning.info/articles/documents/TOTALCONDITIONING.pdf


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 5, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> What I am saying is that the protocols for the study are not known,...



dammned shame.  The muscle fibre compositional predispositions and progress updates would have been quite handy indeed. lol   I might be .. less forthcoming myself.. maybe.

Good garden stroll. 

cheers..


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 5, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> My practical application of training is to modify any of the "acute variables" in varying degrees constantly to keep the body in a state of heterostasis. ...



The whuuhTStasis??!!??.. I dont even want to knOww which meaning to apply here .. so i'm not going to ask.
 .. uh huh.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 5, 2007)

and now that it's set in .. straight down the line, if you arre saying what I think you're saying..  firstly : there will be no crazy s.o.freaky.b. comment forthcoming.
secondly : I might guinea for something like that myself
and 3. .. wonder if the conditions can be reapplied otherwise..

Blooming tianshi lotus.

Oh.. and if you're not .. then forget allll the above..
That's some pretty ( edit - potentially)dangerous shit (shrug). . . who's going to do that to someone ??????!
yeh. no data.l-).


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 5, 2007)

It wouldn't surprise me if I get banned for these posts I'm making here.
We're talking some pretty heavy science.
I do believe I could re-create the experiment .. 
..however,.. for $50 - what is atlanta?
i can imagine if the goverment got hold of this and didn't release it to the public how it could be a samuri - ninja little japan all over but world wide.. that's quite a risk I for one wouldn't be prepared to carry.  .. especially if the conditions could be reapplied otherwise to other performance ends.. 
Shaolin isn't not releasing it's information for nothing. The goverment didn't kill monks for centuries and purpertrate Tiannamin Square masacres for no good reason. Shaolin has nO unseco heritage protection and as it stands right now, we wont even get a listing for a hearing for another 99 yrs. 
I doo see the potential world good - but because everything i do on those terms is for ( god bless my open mouth) parinirvana contributions - and patricularly at that level of thought, within what I like to believe is buddha nature guidelines .. i can't at this moment see how that would serve my current understanding.

Amitabah and thx for the reflection material.

Blooming tianshi lotus.

For those who would like more anecdotal information of incredible physical performance along the same potentialled calibre - google maay have something for you via  'falun gong' or ' the white lotus rebellion'. . . for those that do - good luck - keep your head on and enjoy your journey.


----------



## tucker01 (Aug 5, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if I get banned for these posts I'm making here.
> We're talking some pretty heavy science.
> I do believe I could re-create the experiment ..
> ..however,.. for $50 - what is atlanta?
> ...



What kind of drugs are you on?  And why the fuck aren't you sharing?


----------



## Witchblade (Aug 5, 2007)

Bodybuilding mags > science?

I'll leave it at this: our training philosophies are completely different


----------



## KelJu (Aug 5, 2007)

I posted about this a while back and everybody said it was total shit, but I have a friend who applied these principles and said it works. He looks better than I do, so I am going to say I believe it works, also. I don't understand why it works, but I plan to do a lot of research on this as soon as I get a break from one of my jobs.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 5, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> Bodybuilding mags > science?
> 
> I'll leave it at this: our training philosophies are completely different



You TOTALLY missed the point.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 6, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Today, several hundred colleges and universities in this country are performing what they call scientific research in the
> field of exercise physiology, and many thousands of supposedly scientific articles are published each year in a large
> number of supposedly scientific journals; but, with damned few exceptions, such research has usually been a complete
> waste of time and money, and if any of these people have actually discovered anything of the slightest value then it has
> ...



Cooper is not a University, obviously Cooper was looking to prove his way to be best.  The Cooper Institute is not a university, it is a hack organization that produces "Graduates" with personal training certs.  If you go to any of the many Universities that conduct any clinical research funded by the NIH, there is few, if any, bullshit politics involved.  Any, and I mean any research being conducted there, must follow NIH guidelines, even if the study is not NIH funded.  While I was at Penn, we did many privately funded studies, and even they were open for the FDA auditors to look at.  Besides, there is no financial advantage for a PI from an accredited University to do so, but there is a financial advantage for Arthur Jones to prove his methods of training with Nautilus machines 30+ years ago.  You can't even drop a subject without having the IRB up your ass for a reason and exit interview, let alone stop an entire experiment and not publish results, it would be a ridiculous waste of money and a sure way to get the FDA/NIH up your ass.  The general public's lack of knowledge as to what goes on in clinical research amazes me.


----------



## Witchblade (Aug 6, 2007)

Well you certainly seem to know your shit Dale.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 6, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> Well you certainly seem to know your shit Dale.



Yes, this is true.  

I still only see the argument as being that Arthur Jones had a financial motive, so his results were impossible.  Which is not a worthwhile argument in my evaluation.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 6, 2007)

Several yrs ago I read some collaborative medical encyclopedias and other publications along the same lines from some of the world's leading ph.d's in the field , and it's amazing to hear what will pass as informations fit for general availabilty / marketing and consumption. ..  .. maybe some things are kept internal for a reason ???


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 6, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> Several yrs ago I read some collaborative medical encyclopedias and other publications along the same lines from some of the world's leading ph.d's in the field , and it's amazing to hear what will pass as informations fit for general availabilty / marketing and consumption. ..  .. maybe some things are kept internal for a reason ???



So you're amazed that the Colorado Experiment has been passed as information fit for the general public?


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 6, 2007)

The protocol data are missing so it hasn't been released at all... Read the thread again.


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 6, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> The protocol data are missing so it hasn't been released at all... Read the thread again.



In english, please.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 6, 2007)

We have no "official" report accounts of the condition and criteria of the subjects being tested or how certain relevant things were monitored and catered to and specifically twd ( regarding seemingly random fluctuations )through the experiment. possibley ( and  clearly pivotal to others ) and poiniant informations.
Make sense?


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 6, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> Make sense?



No.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 6, 2007)

Exaactly.


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 6, 2007)

Let me take a crack at what is going through your head, pun intended.

Dale thinks the results were fiction.  Duncan thinks the results are real.  You agree with Dale and believe the experiment is imaginative.

Yes?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 6, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> We have no "official" report accounts of the condition and criteria of the subjects being tested or how certain relevant things were monitored and catered to and specifically twd ( regarding seemingly random fluctuations )through the experiment. possibley ( and  clearly pivotal to others ) and poiniant informations.
> Make sense?



The specific write ups for the research conducted is actually available, just hard to find.  I am waiting my order.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 6, 2007)

heh. i'll bet  

Sox - Dale says it was imaginative??.. lol.. that's cute. It sounds like something you might read on the back of a good story book, but No. I'm not sure i would say that. . 
  I  aam saying though, and you can quote me if you like, that i can see the science, I believe i could duplicate the experiement and understand the merit of scientific finding to be officially quantified as acceptable by the standards it is. .. even if it was a complete wishful thinking fabrication . 
.. i think you might've had to be there to get it though...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 6, 2007)

READ THE LINK.  It is CLEARLY not a fabricated report.  Jesus.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 6, 2007)




----------



## P-funk (Aug 6, 2007)




----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 6, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> READ THE LINK.  It is CLEARLY not a fabricated report.  Jesus.



She's got more experience than you, Duncan.  You got to realize that.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 6, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> She's got more experience than you, Duncan.  You got to realize that.



i have realized you, that under circumstance the report fabricated the and under superviseion of phd i re circumvented the intent!  still many duplications  i coulod acomplish...given parameters therefore to it.  still  maybe not or imagined as he said could, for not with.  or under the load of fairy books ... fortnight under duration  ... i am not sure...i would say it.  maybe though if i did.  

also should tuck under pelvis during squat..help with neutral spine stability under influence of buckling loads.  dunans...support is lacking imagination of queens...  under its surprise not withstanding.  i have much experience training master champions of the world and phds..could not believe my flexibilty.  dealign with so many provides insight much into work of hip flexor dynamic plywood regards...


----------



## P-funk (Aug 6, 2007)




----------



## Gazhole (Aug 6, 2007)




----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 7, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> i have realized you, that under circumstance the report fabricated the and under superviseion of phd i re circumvented the intent!  .



Say it isn't so   


YouTube - Evanescence - Bring Me To Life (Acoustic)


----------



## ALBOB (Aug 7, 2007)

KelJu said:


> He looks better than I do




That certainly wouldn't take much.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 7, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> i have realized you, that under circumstance the report fabricated the and under superviseion of phd i re circumvented the intent!  still many duplications  i coulod acomplish...given parameters therefore to it.  still  maybe not or imagined as he said could, for not with.  or under the load of fairy books ... fortnight under duration  ... i am not sure...i would say it.  maybe though if i did.
> 
> also should tuck under pelvis during squat..help with neutral spine stability under influence of buckling loads.  dunans...support is lacking imagination of queens...  under its surprise not withstanding.  i have much experience training master champions of the world and phds..could not believe my flexibilty.  dealign with so many provides insight much into work of hip flexor dynamic plywood regards...




 

You are pretty good. Your post reads just like hers.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 7, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Yes, this is true.
> 
> I still only see the argument as being that Arthur Jones had a financial motive, so his results were impossible.  Which is not a worthwhile argument in my evaluation.



I am saying he has shown nothing in the form of any form of experimental control, whether that was based on a financial motive or something else is irrelevant.  He published a preliminary report without any actual report showing what was done and the results.  It is akin to me saying...

I used my training protocols for 30 days and here are the results:

Starting weight-195 lbs
Lean mass gain-50.234 lbs
Fat loss-35.67 lbs

This is with a subject with 10 years of training experience but has had a 12 month layoff.

Oh, by the way, this was someone who had a bad reaction to antibiotics after a car crash and couldn't eat solid food for the 2 months leading up to the experiment.  Dr. John Farrar, MD, PhD was the supervising PI.

You have about as much info there as you have with the Jones report, believe my results?

My problem isn't with Jones' training protocols, I like a good deal of his stuff, it is this shitty experiment and his willingness to release something that probably never happened in the manner he wrote it.  Plus it was slanted so that the only result could  be a positive one.  I don't believe the results to be possible if strict control of all dependent and independent variables were controlled for, none of which occured, I assume since none of it was reported.  There is no mention of steroids eitehr way, and coming from a "sport" where steroid use is necessary for any manner of success, I doubt he did steroids for x years, stopped training for x years, and then picked training back up for 28 days and gained most of his weight gained through anabolic use back.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 7, 2007)

KelJu said:


> You are pretty good. Your post reads just like hers.



Every time that I _try_ to read one of her posts, I get the overwhelming urge to wipe my ass and apologize to myself.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 7, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> I am saying he has shown nothing in the form of any form of experimental control, whether that was based on a financial motive or something else is irrelevant.  He published a preliminary report without any actual report showing what was done and the results.  It is akin to me saying...
> 
> I used my training protocols for 30 days and here are the results:
> 
> ...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 7, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> I am saying he has shown nothing in the form of any form of experimental control, whether that was based on a financial motive or something else is irrelevant.  He published a preliminary report without any actual report showing what was done and the results.  It is akin to me saying...
> 
> I used my training protocols for 30 days and here are the results:
> 
> ...



http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/Athletic/Colorado.PDF

The primary function of the test was to gauge the value of negative only training.  He also stipulates VERY VERY directly that none of the subjects involved are "normal" and that Casey was rebuilding muscle loss.

From what I've read Jones has contributed 100 million dollars to personal funds to research, none of which he was personally involved with as to not "skew" the results.  I think the attacks on him are silly and the Colorado Experiment should be taken in context.  

And Jones was vehemently anti steroid, probably more so than any other individual in his time.  Whether Casey was or was not on steroids is impossible to know but they all claim he was not.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 7, 2007)

I don't think you understand.  I am looking for something by an independent source, not Arthur Jones.  Now, let's assume that everything Jones said was factual.  What would preclude him from administering a piss test to see if Viator used steroids?  At the very least, it would lend more credibility to his experiment.  It would be at least one instance of experimental control.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 7, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> I am saying he has shown nothing in the form of any form of experimental control, whether that was based on a financial motive or something else is irrelevant.  He published a preliminary report without any actual report showing what was done and the results.  It is akin to me saying...
> 
> I used my training protocols for 30 days and here are the results:
> 
> ...




What exactly do you mean by that?( highlighed above)..specifically?
Are you men saying that the findings are being sold ?.. as program for prescription?
Pending on what exactly you say about details of how your product works, registering can be pretty damming difficult. From what I can see here, I believe it's most likely that certain things have been with-held for other reasons entirely.  Possibley financial possibley otherwise.

I dont buy that steroids need been neccessary myself. I said Ii can see the science and dont even need to see the protocols to put it together myself , but unless it was a closed clinic assesed by predetermined criteria set by myself and was available to financially disadvantaged participants and supported by the govt. , then I wouldn't do it. 
Above board or nothing at all.

It's shame some ppl are such ignorant asses. It makes it really diffucult to talk to that.

Blooming tianshi lotus.


----------



## Yanick (Aug 7, 2007)

I've always thought of it more of a Bodybuilder story or myth than anything else. I can't believe people are actually taking this as true research.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 7, 2007)

I think you need certain competancies in areas that not so many do to figure it out.


----------



## Yanick (Aug 7, 2007)

Do not make assumptions regarding my competencies.

NB _I_ think you are an idiot but I'm not gonna say it....oops.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 7, 2007)

I'm only going on that you tried to medical inquistion me and didn't know what RNA was. Nice diatribe .


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 7, 2007)

Do you even know what diatribe means?


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 7, 2007)

Definition of diatribe - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

diatribe
One entry found for diatribe.


Main Entry: di·a·tribe 
Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub -- more at THROW
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironic or satirical criticism


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 7, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> I don't think you understand.  I am looking for something by an independent source, not Arthur Jones.  Now, let's assume that everything Jones said was factual.  What would preclude him from administering a piss test to see if Viator used steroids?  At the very least, it would lend more credibility to his experiment.  It would be at least one instance of experimental control.



Steroid testing was not as cutting edge as it is now 35 years ago.  Not even close, I don't know what tests even existed at the time.

It is not "true research", never was presented as such, was an experiment.  It is not a myth, I am tired of defending Mr. Jones except to say that he was so far ahead of his time that it is ridiculous.  I don't agree with a some of his stuff but can recognize the steps to innovation are easily looked by people 35 years later.  

And it is true that he has funded 100 million dollars of HIS OWN MONEY for research, with no return on it, no input into it, and didn't ever dispute the results (even when it contradicted his own beliefs).  

Read his volume of work if you'd like to gain more insight, it is a fascinating read.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 8, 2007)

So what are you both saying here? That you 'd like to see and participate in (and get paid for ) the recreation of the experiment with 2 test groups , 1 using steroids and 1 natural and with regulation standarding and more variable consistency data available??

That's alot of thought for something you have no personal stake in otherwise. 

..Do you know how much it would cost to record the variable progressions ?? 

What iis the good of being able to acheive the "same" successful result if the information can't be shared .. or bought ??..or shared.?..because of it's unofficial capacity? At the end of the day, even if it couuld be "replicated", .. unless the information was sanctioned by whomever would lend it it's cred, .. 


Intriguing. Probably thee single most intriguing piece of physiology I've ever seen from the westen world.

Blooming tianshi lotus.


----------



## Yanick (Aug 8, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> I'm only going on that you tried to medical inquistion me and didn't know what RNA was. Nice diatribe .



Don't give me that shit, you wrote rna, which on my screen looks like ma (rna...ma, pretty similar). Had you passed 2nd grade english you would know that such things should be capitalized, you can't mistake RNA for MA. Moron.

DD, your right of course. I've never read the official article or write up for the CE, but from the way people spoke of it, I thought it was true clinical research (or was supposed to be). I'll take it for what it is and sit down to read it when i get a chance.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 8, 2007)

Yanick said:


> Don't give me that shit, you wrote rna, which on my screen looks like ma (rna...ma, pretty similar). Had you passed 2nd grade english you would know that such things should be capitalized, you can't mistake RNA for MA. Moron.



I made the same mistake. I'm running linux, and my font isn't so hot, so I spent at least 3 minutes trying to figure out wtf the context of ma was.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 8, 2007)

Yeah, Times New Roman blows.


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 8, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Yeah, Times New Roman blows.



I never knew a font could have something in common with your mom.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2007)

Blooming Lotus said:


> What exactly do you mean by that?( highlighed above)..specifically?
> Are you men saying that the findings are being sold ?.. as program for prescription?
> Pending on what exactly you say about details of how your product works, registering can be pretty damming difficult. From what I can see here, I believe it's most likely that certain things have been with-held for other reasons entirely.  Possibley financial possibley otherwise.
> 
> ...



You are calling me ignorant, but you are in a grad program and don't know what independent and dependent variables are.  Here is a little schooling for you...

Independent variables=The input, or variables you are testing, typically defined in the hypotheses.  In other words, total sets, total reps, intensity, steroid use, etc.  In something like this, hard to define because there is no control group.

Dependent variables=The output, or what you are measuring, also typically defined in the hypotheses.  In other words, lean mass loss/gain, fat loss/gain, increase in strength.

Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2007)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Steroid testing was not as cutting edge as it is now 35 years ago.  Not even close, I don't know what tests even existed at the time.
> 
> It is not "true research", never was presented as such, was an experiment.  It is not a myth, I am tired of defending Mr. Jones except to say that he was so far ahead of his time that it is ridiculous.  I don't agree with a some of his stuff but can recognize the steps to innovation are easily looked by people 35 years later.
> 
> ...



DD, I don't think Jones passed it off as research, I think his disciples pass it off as research and the lithmus test that "proves" HIT to be the best method.  It is not, if you trained indefinitely with HIT and never switched stuff up, you would plateau.  I know you know that, just making sure everyone else does as well.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> I never knew a font could have something in common with your mom.



Ouch, man.  That's a bit out of left field and rather biting.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 9, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> DD, I don't think Jones passed it off as research, I think his disciples pass it off as research and the lithmus test that "proves" HIT to be the best method.  It is not, if you trained indefinitely with HIT and never switched stuff up, you would plateau.  I know you know that, just making sure everyone else does as well.



I think of it more as a case study.....without any info about the variables....training protocols, diet, supplementation, full back ground, etc.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 9, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are calling me ignorant, but you are in a grad program and don't know what independent and dependent variables are.  Here is a little schooling for you...
> 
> Independent variables=The input, or variables you are testing, typically defined in the hypotheses.  In other words, total sets, total reps, intensity, steroid use, etc.  In something like this, hard to define because there is no control group.
> 
> ...




Looks like you are off to a great start today!


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 9, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Ouch, man.  That's a bit out of left field and rather biting.



I hope you know I'm just playing with you.


----------



## DOMS (Aug 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> I hope you know I'm just playing with you.



It's all good, man.


----------



## tucker01 (Aug 9, 2007)

soxmuscle said:


> I hope you know I'm just playing with you.



Only fags clarify that they are joking.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 9, 2007)

P-funk said:


> Looks like you are off to a great start today!



I love tearing down people before noon, that way the rest of the day just coasts by.


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 9, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It's all good, man.



I really meant nothing by it.  My mom blows too, who gives a shit?


----------



## soxmuscle (Aug 9, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Only fags clarify that they are joking.



I try and act all heartless but deep down I have a heart.

In other words, I'm a fag.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 9, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are calling me ignorant, but you are in a grad program and don't know what independent and dependent variables are.  Here is a little schooling for you...
> 
> Independent variables=The input, or variables you are testing, typically defined in the hypotheses.  In other words, total sets, total reps, intensity, steroid use, etc.  In something like this, hard to define because there is no control group.
> 
> ...



I wasn't actually directing the ignorance comment at you Dale, but if you're calling  me stupid, then I guess it can stand.

As far as the variables go, what I was eluding to, and that i thought you would've just picked up by virtue of the math of the viabilty, being that I was wanting to believe in your devil's advocacy in regard to this as opposed to flat out academic and relative experiential deficit, that there would have to be a cross over between the dependant and independant variables.

That would be due, as anyone who has worked at an equal load or effort would know, as P-Funk was saying, that without knowing what was happening specifially with supplements and other chemical introductions and at what point in the enviroment of the subject those would be administered in what dose and what exercise and type or quantity would follow as those microcosmic environs changed, it would be hard to see the efficiacy or follow the scientific or bio-chemical and respective physiological sequitors and progressions or know what to do or was done next or what the envorinment was that those things were done to.

Because of the intensity requisits and the time frame en ratio to the enormity of the projected or reported outcome, it is potentially extremely 
dangerous to the subject without strict and constistent employment of those variable managements and without which would not likely produce a successful finding as they had apparently done.

If that was you tearing me down, despite the attempt to do that emotionally or of some other halllucinatory fantasy you might be having, then I guess I'll just consider myself in trouble? 

Blooming tianshi lotus.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Aug 11, 2007)

1)I apologize for making it personal

2)It is my opinion that you have no idea what you are talking about.  That is not a personal attack, that is just my opinion of you, which in the grand scheme of things means nothing.  But, when taken in context to essentially every other person on this board who has offered an opinion of you, seems to be a fairy consistent one.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 11, 2007)

No offence taken. Considering what other ppl have previously and arre acheiving en ration to world performance standards, in alll areas of academia and fitness and so on, that doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact the more I learn and acheive, the more I'm starting to believe that dynamic will reveal itself and exaccerbate further as my official recognisable cred solidifies itself facet to facet. 
Do you know the percentage of ppl in the recorded world who are of official 'success' acheivment ( translation - of understanding of the underlying principals and science behind success) as taught in yr 2 business management? 3 %!!  .. and I'd argue it would more accurately be closer to 1!. But I only got distinctions for that module. What would I really know. What to say huh( shrug). As long as everyone else is onto it, then none of us need to concern ourselves with how much I know and understand or not.  
There's just no getting through to some folks sometimes :/!.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Aug 11, 2007)

i have trouble understanding you


----------



## AKIRA (Aug 11, 2007)

I have trouble putting up with her.


----------



## Blooming Lotus (Aug 11, 2007)

heh. funny how it works really   .


----------

