Lol. No, but simply completing a snatch is difficult. My Achilles was torn and my foot and calf reconstructed in my 20s. As a result, my snatch and squat PRs are well behind me.
I am doing the DEXA to compare to what I hd done in March to see progress. The gym has them periodically in a mobile bus for like $75 so I am going to see when I can get one done this summer.
Baron, you chose to ignore my question on rep pacing: But it wasn't a rhetorical question. You mentioned that one workout a week was okay if done in the "Jones/Darden HIT style" and then in a following post referred to a 30-30-30 rep cadence. I don't think this was a Jones thing, and I don't know when Darden adopted it. But on Ellington Darden's web site, there is a thread on rep speed: http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do?id=449738&pageNo=0 Have a look at the opening post, Drew Baye's response, and then Darden's comment on Baye's response. All three of these posts are on the first page of the thread. For convenience, I attached the Arthur Jones piece that was referred to in the opening post. (Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the OP referred to the wrong chapter of AJ's Bulletin #2.) Admittedly, this thread is about 11 years old, but I wonder what has changed Darden's mind since that time if he is now advocating a 30-30-30 cadence.
I guess the hardest thing for most people is losing weight, me included. Have been going to the Gym more regularly now, around 3 times a week but, want to work on my diet. Have been doing my utmost to add more vegetables and fruits. So far, trying to lose weight and stepping on the scale, I seem to have lost like 3 pounds in about 5 days. Do not know if it is the diet or the exercise or both that is responsible. Now at 160 pounds, want to try and hit 150 pounds. Think I am starting to build more muscle with the strength training plus cardio at the gym. Know I need to do more. So, have changed the time I eat between 10am-6pm now. Think I am on my 4th day now.
The 30-30-30 cadence is explained in great detail in Darden's latest book called The Bodyfat Breakthrough. It's his method of negative-accentuated high-intensity training which was derived from him working directly with Arthur Jones for over three decades. Specifically, the technique is geared towards those people that don't have access to specialized Nautilus or X-Force machines built specifically for HIT training. And if you want to get a quick taste of it, try a 30-30-30 pushup. Put your phone on the clock app and select the stopwatch feature. Hit the start button and put the phone on the floor in front of you so you can see the stopwatch counting. Then get in the top pushup position and lower yourself smoothly in 30 seconds making sure that your chest doesn't touch the floor, raising yourself back up in 30 seconds without your arms locking, and then lowering yourself again in 30 seconds. Use the stopwatch as your guide for the timing. When you complete that, you'll see what a high-intensity set feels like using this method. The burn is superior compared to a regular pushup set.
I have no doubt that the 30-30-30 pace is hard and uncomfortable. It is just not clear to me that it is superior in comparison to a more moderately paced set taken to full concentric failure, provided that momentum is taken out of the picture. As I noted earlier I start a few of my exercises with very slow reps before quickening the pace as I take them to failure. In fact I do this for the exercises that are bodyweight without added weight, so that I can finish the set without doing too many reps. So you have no argument from me that 30-30-30 is no picnic. But does that make it better? Consider the findings in the attached 2004 study: RECOMMENDATIONS What is really known about the science of resistance training is contrary to the opinions expressed in the Position Stand. That is, the preponderance of research strongly suggests that gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, and endurance are the result of the following simple guidelines: • Select a mode of exercise that feels comfortable throughout the range of motion. There is very little evidence to support the superiority of free weights or machines for increasing muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance. • Choose a repetition duration that will ensure the maintenance of consistent form throughout the set. One study showed a greater strength benefit from a shorter duration (2s/4s) and one study showed better strength gains as a result of a longer duration (10s/4s), but no study using conventional exercise equipment reports any significant difference in muscular hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of manipulating repetition duration. • Choose a range of repetitions between three and 15 (e.g., 3-5, 6-8, 8-10, etc.). There is very little evidence to suggest that a specific range of repetitions (e.g., 3-5 versus 8-10) or time-under-load (e.g., 30s versus 90s) significantly impacts the increase in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance. • Perform one set of each exercise. The preponderance of resistance-training studies shows no difference in the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance as a result of performing a greater number of sets. • After performing a combination of concentric and eccentric muscle actions, terminate each exercise at the point where the concentric phase of the exercise is becoming difficult, if not impossible, while maintaining good form. There is very little evidence to suggest that going beyond this level of intensity (e.g., supramaximal or accentuated eccentric muscle actions) will further enhance muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance. • Allow enough time between exercises to perform the next exercise in proper form. There is very little evidence to suggest that different rest periods between sets or exercises will significantly affect the gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance. • Depending on individual recovery and response, choose a frequency of 2-3 times/week to stimulate each targeted muscle group. One session a week has been shown to be just as effective as 2-3 times/week for some muscle groups. There is very little evidence to suggest that training a muscle more than 2-3 times/week or that split routines will produce greater gains in muscular strength, hypertrophy, power, or endurance. I know that in my case, when I started lowering my frequency, I felt compelled to increase the intensity to compensate. I'm just at a point where I wonder if it's necessary, and whether the additional discomfort adds to the results. As Doug McGuff wrote in his book, Body By Science, "It bears repeating that the arguments that have been made in high-intensity circles that high intensity is the common denominator of what is producing results, and therefore, the higher the intensity, the better the results, are fallacious. It doesn't follow that if something is true, then having even more of it is truer. You can't go down that slippery slope." Please understand that I'm not arguing with you. If anything, I'm voicing a debate that goes on in my own head from time to time. I just thought I'd put it out there in case it might have some value; at least enough to start a conversation with other folks who also take this stuff seriously.
Studies can look at things from different angles and research but it would not be helpful to determine "which is better". Also, one thing that has been proven is that everybody's muscle cells are different like snowflakes and how muscle develops from resistance training varies. That is why some can lift and bulk up and others cannot grow certain areas no matter how hard they train it. So I think you might be going in circles using studies to determine which method is best for muschle growth and development. It is a personal thing based on your own body so if Baron says "I do this method" I don't understand the battle on which is better based on your own personal anecdotes. A book author cannot determine for the masses the best method for muscle development and that is why there are hundreds of studies on different approaches...they all work but not for everyone. Some of these opinion discussions using studies shows how useless the roundabout can be. Find what works best for your body and muscle development. All that matters is that you put your muscles under tension for a period of time enough to cause growth.
Not everyone has the capacity to put on a lot of muscle naturally. Those on the left of the curve will have relatively modest results, while a relative few on the far right of the curve will be able to put on a fair amount of size. There is a genetic determinant, muscle fiber composition and so on. Well designed studies can help determine what is best, or close to it, for most people; average people (your term: "the masses"). If you are an outlier, then such results may not apply. Are you an outlier? Apart from that distinction, the biggest variable, for the most part, is recovery ability. Some people simply recover more quickly than others, all else being equal. Apart from some variation, you can't go claiming that everyone is so uniquely different (your term: "snowflake") that well-conducted studies are meaningless for the average person. If that were the case, then the field of medicine would also be meaningless.
Yes. It's better because it makes a deeper inroad into the muscle fibers than the other methods of training. With proper rest and nutrition, this will create more muscle growth than other methods that create a shallower inroad.