Thread: The Colorado Experiment

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.

Duncan said it best.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Witchblade

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.

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

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?

a result of muscle memory mostly.

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?

Originally Posted by Prince

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.

Originally Posted by Prince

a result of muscle memory mostly.

I don't think thats entirely fair...

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.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

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.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

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.

HIT Jedi alert.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

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?

Originally Posted by DOMS

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

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

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

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:

He's my favorite bodybuilder of all time..

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.coreconditioning.info/art...NDITIONING.pdf

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

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..

Originally Posted by Duncans Donuts

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.

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-).