bmcgreggor

Members
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bmcgreggor

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0
  1. An Introduction to Progressive Exercise

    Here is a link. Its written by Bryan Haycock himself. His book is upcoming. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html This would be a starting point. The HST forums would be the next step. There are extremely knowledgable people on that board. I have read many "Iron Game" boards but only Lyle McDonald's forum and the Avant Lab's forum come close. The posters to pay attention to are "vicious", "blade", Bryan Haycock, "dkm1987", and "old and grey". In reading through the forums you will learn a ton of information. It may turn you towards HST and it may not. But you will have vastly more knowledge either way. And I hope you read through the "Why did I grow through HIT" thread. It will give you an idea why HIT works when it works; because it unkowingly incorporates the principles of muscle growth. The principles which Haycock built HST on.
  2. An Introduction to Progressive Exercise

    For some reason the links above don't work. These should: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bi...4865;hl=mentzer http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=1649
  3. An Introduction to Progressive Exercise

    All I can say is that if you go to the HST website or Lyle McDonald's Website or any of the science based websites that the above mentioned sites link to and *you* read the voluminous information there, you will see that the overwhelming bulk of studies on exercise physiology support the *principles* underlying HST and its methodology. I have been in this kind of debate before and IMO some Objectivists cling to HIT protocols despite the lack of evidence in their favor. Just because Mentzer frequently quoted Ayn Rand does not mean that he offered support for his training regimen. "Once a week" training protocols are *not* the most effective training styles for *most* people precisely beacause volume and frequency *do* matter. Intensity is not the crucial determinative factor for hypertrophy. In response to RayK who says that he doesn't want to do the research all over again because he's "been through it all before"; I used to say the same thing as a long time devotee of HIT in general and Mentzer's HD in particular (as well as other intensity systems such as DogCrap and Max-OT). But after three years of intensive reading and research on the subject it is *my* opinion that HIT is flawed. Here is a link to an excellent thread as to why HIT can work for *some* people. It puts Mentzer into proper perspective. http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bi...4865;hl=mentzer Specifically read all the posts by "vicious". His knowledge about biology and weight training is formidable. I've studied the subject and made my decision. Each person will have to do the same. Also, I'd like to link to another thread. http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.p...topic=1649&st=0 When you read this discussion and see it pan out, focus your attention on the arguments offered by "ex_bannana_eater" and on those offered by "black sabbath". I believe ex_bannana_eater makes the case for HST and its principles quite persuasively and answers all intensity based objections.
  4. An Introduction to Progressive Exercise

    I don't want to sound disrespectful to RayK as he has put allot of effort into his work and his intention here is to help people improve themselves and become healthy. However, I wish to state that in my opinion the intensity based system of training that he is advocating is highly flawed. Bryan Haycock's HST has been reccommended and I second that. H.I.T style training was based in large part around the work of Hans Selye who studied, among other things, the effects of various stresses to the body. But as great as Selye's work is, its application to strength training only paints half of the picture; and this is where H.I.T. and other intensity training systems fail. They focus largely on the central nervous system (CNS) and how long it takes to recover. But they don't focus on the actual biology of the muscle cell themselves. Bryan Haycock (and others like him such as Lyle Mcdonald) do. If you only investigate HIT you will be doing yourself a major injustice and you will be making gaining muscle both harder and more more painful than it should be. Training to failure constantly is a highly stressful and grueling activity; and completely unneccessary. The stress to the joints when the weights get heavy and the chronic fatigue are completely unwarranted. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in rational, intelligent hypertrophic oriented (as opposed to strength oriented - and there is a big difference) training go to the HST site linked to above and read everything there is to read. I would even recommend reading the forums extensively for a period of a few months to understand what a scientifically sound approach to weight training looks like. I'll also add here that there is a philosophic point to this. In my opinion, HIT (especially as it was advanced by Mentzer) approaches strength training rationalistically. It starts with broad principles, like Selye's adaptive principle, and builds a system around them without checking them against biological reality. But Haycock exhibits the far better epistemology. He studied the physiology of muscle cells, i.e. what can be demonstrably proven in a lab, and then checked that information with other biologically known facts and arrived at a set of *principless* for effective hypertrophic training (and not just a list of rules to be blindly followed which is a strong tendency for intensity based systems). He first studied man, then identified the facts and principle underlying man's muscles, and finally developed a training system which addresses those facts and principles. His approach was objective as oppose to rationalistic. Another benefit to HST is that Haycock understands the realities of training in a gym as well as the psychology of those who lift weights. He knows that constantly training to failure not only takes a physical toll but a mental one. His approach thus takes well grounded scientifically established principles of biology and builds a training approach around those principles which is easy to execute in a gym! In my opinion, his work is astounding and provides major values to all who seek health and fitness. He deserves tremendous praise. His work and thinking is far superior to Mentzer's, Darden's or Hutchin's. I can't recommend HST enough.
  5. Stealth (2005)

    I thought the same thing when I saw the preview. Its yet another anti-technology movie that, of course, is made with state of the art technology. ...Sigh... Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood...
  6. Clash of cultures

    Dismuke: I agree with everything you wrote. That was one of the best and most comprehensive discussions I have ever read on this subject. It should serve as a model answer for all those questioning the morality of the settling of America.
  7. Spybot

    I second that. Opera is the best browser I know of. IMO, better even then Firefox.
  8. Battlestar Galactica (2004)

    I really like this show, yet every review I read of it refers to it as "naturalistic". In fact, it is being heralded as the turning point of Sci-Fi away from the "unrealistic" heroism of the past and towards a "new paradigm" for the future in "the post 9/11 world". The Left is really embracing this show. Even the writers have said that they deliberately avoided a "star-blazing male" as that has been "done before". Also, it seems that critics are interpreting the series as one which "is not afraid to critisize our own culture". As I said, I really enjoy many aspects of the show but its a shame that its being applauded for all the reasons that I would condemn it for.
  9. Clash of cultures

    I find it amazing that anyone could side with the Indians or express sympathy for them. The settlers of the 18th and 19th centuries went on to build a country out of the wilderness. They deserve our gratitude. I'm not going to lose any sleep over Wounded Knee or the Trail Of Tears.
  10. Justice Scalia, and Originalism

    The implication of your well reasoned post is that at some point a new Constitution will have to be written that is far more explicit in its definition of rights and the governnment's role in protecting those rights. Our Constitution represents a great achievement by men that lived over two hundred years ago. They did the best they could with the philosophy they had. But, as we know, the philosophy they had was very flawed. Over time those flaws have spread like the proverbial cracks in the pavement where now they threaten to undermine the whole judicial system. At his Morality of War speech, Yaron Brook in the Q&A said that as great as the Founding Fathers were, ultimately they failed. Their philosophic flaws would eventually destroy all the good they created. That is unless the philosophical antidote could be spread in time. At the time I thought it was too negative, but I'm beginning to agree with it. I think the Constitution we were bequeathed has too many holes to be remedied. There is too much room for interpretation with the wording. Posts like this one make me feel that it can't be saved.
  11. Justice Scalia, and Originalism

    I see different viewpoints expressed by Free Capitalist and The Gerneral. I am not a legal scholar but from what I've read, I agree with The General's arguments. Why should a Constitutional amendment be neccessary for abortion when there is the 9th Amendment? If Free Capitalist and Scalia are right, then a new amendment would be needed for everything the Framers didn't specifically mention. But they told us that this was not the case by including the 9th. I think that even though the Constitution has a few flaws and could be more tightly written, if the philosophic climate of the nation was one in which reason and rights were embraced, interpreting the Constitution would not be the major issue it is today.
  12. Opinions of TIA

    Yaron Brook considers the "forward strategy of freedom" to be a self-sacrificial foreign policy. He showed in his talks "The Morality of War" that Bush's approach to the war is based on "Just War" Theory which is thoroughly altruistic. When I asked Brook during the Q&A what he thought of Tracinski's defense of Bush's strategy as basically sound but "a watered down version of a Colonial Solution", he answered that he thought it was wrong and that he felt that some altuistic premises of the neo-cons has slipped into Tracinski's thinking. He also said that it was not possible to spread Western Civilization into the Middle East via occupation and nation building. Similar sentiments have been expressed by Peikoff and by John Lewis. As I indicated in a post above, on HBL professor Lewis openly disagreed with Tracinski's TIA article the "Three Elections". In my opinion, Tracinski and Wakeland are far too pro-Bush and pro-Conservative in their commentary. This doesn't mean that they don't have many good insights to offer and that there is no value to their publications. But I am distrustful of the conclusions they reach especially with anything relating to the war.
  13. Why Is Oil So Expensive?

    Good questions. Post them in the appropriate thread in the Richard Salsman section of this forum.
  14. Why Is Oil So Expensive?

    Actually, according to Richard Salsman, we are all wrong: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=1506
  15. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

    1. Since when is buying the equivalent of a lottery ticket considered "ambition". Compare what Charlie did with what Mike Teavee did. Mike broke the code of the whole industrial distribution plan and confidently stated that he only had "to buy one bar" (as opposed to the English girl's dad who bought tens of thousands). And notice also how Charlie benefits from luck. This was another annoying cliche. Having big dreams does not make one ambitious. 2. Charlie's replica chocolate factory showed that he was just a regular kid. Again Mike and Veruca are portrayed as driven and brilliant. Charlie is playing with the equivalent of legos. He is ordinary compared to his competitors and yet the film associates him with virtue. An accident? I think not. 3. Shining shoes is honest work. And Charlie was an honest, decent, hard working kid. I'm not denying that. But he was an ordinary honest, decent kid. He did not symbolize ambition, intelligence or pride. He stood for humility and decency which in the proper contexts are good things to be sure. But they are not exceptional. If you were Willy Wonka, who would you have hired out of the five? I would have hired Mike Teavee in a second. He may have annoyed the hell out of me but he was brilliant. Comparatively Charlie had little to offer. I see that there are a few people in this thread that have embraced this movie and made it very near and dear to their soul. So be it. Relish it as much as you wish. But understand that many others do not see the great life affirming values that you have projected into this movie. As has become apparent, many see the film as ordinary at best. And that's my last bit of commentary on Charlie and his Chocolate factory.