Nelson Montana-I'm calling you out!

[jboldman]

here we go again! <GRIN>

Well, here we go again. What you are saying is simply not born out by the research. Sure, It can be your observation all night and day long but is it really a fact? Let see, regarding your quote below, at least according to a paper published in the journal of american medical association(you know well respected peer reviewed!) recently, you are dead wrong! Once again, it would have been nice to sort out the different types of weight training, and be able to massage the original data withour own variables but it is pretty clear at least to me that running(a form of aerobic training) had a significant impact on CVH. The other thing that impressed me in this study was the fact that it addressed weight training at all putting to rest that myth that folks who only weight train are not in better cardiac health. It is unlikely that we will ever have a study or studies that perfectly fit our questions but it is pretty foolish to just ignore them all!
=============================================
JAMA
Exercise Type and Intensity in Relation to Coronary Heart Disease in Men


Mihaela Tanasescu, MD; Michael F. Leitzmann, MD; Eric B. Rimm, ScD; Walter C. Willett, MD; Meir J. Stampfer, MD; Frank B. Hu, MD


Context Studies have shown an inverse relationship between exercise and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), but data on type and intensity are sparse.

Objective To assess the amount, type, and intensity of physical activity in relation to risk of CHD among men.

Design, Setting, and Participants A cohort of 44 452 US men enrolled in the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study, followed up at 2-year intervals from 1986 through January 31, 1998, to assess potential CHD risk factors, identify newly diagnosed cases of CHD, and assess levels of leisure-time physical activity.

Main Outcome Measure Incident nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD occurring during the follow-up period.

Results During 475 755 person-years, we documented 1700 new cases of CHD. Total physical activity, running, weight training, and rowing were each inversely associated with risk of CHD. The RRs (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) corresponding to quintiles of metabolic equivalent tasks (METs) for total physical activity adjusted for age, smoking, and other cardiovascular risk factors were 1.0, 0.90 (0.78-1.04), 0.87 (0.75-1.00), 0.83 (0.71-0.96), and 0.70 (0.59-0.82) (P<.001 for trend). Men who ran for an hour or more per week had a 42% risk reduction (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77) compared with men who did not run (P<.001 for trend). Men who trained with weights for 30 minutes or more per week had a 23% risk reduction (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98) compared with men who did not train with weights (P = .03 for trend). Rowing for 1 hour or more per week was associated with an 18% risk reduction (RR, 0.82; 05% CI, 0.68-0.99). Average exercise intensity was associated with reduced CHD risk independent of the total volume of physical activity. The RRs (95% CIs) corresponding to moderate (4-6 METs) and high (6-12 METs) activity intensities were 0.94 (0.83-1.04) and 0.83 (0.72-0.97) compared with low activity intensity (<4 METs) (P = .02 for trend). A half-hour per day or more of brisk walking was associated with an 18% risk reduction (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-1.00). Walking pace was associated with reduced CHD risk independent of the number of walking hours.

Conclusions Total physical activity, running, weight training, and walking were each associated with reduced CHD risk. Average exercise intensity was associated with reduced risk independent of the number of MET-hours spent in physical activity.






nelson montana: "...Aerobics are simply a less effective form of exercise than weight training. They have no magical fat burning power. They are no better at providing cardiovascular health than high rep, fast paced weight training.

Some people get it and some some people don't."

 

[Nelson Montana]

Chronic: Yes, it was running Cooper was referring to.

4ever: No problem.

Polfa: Thanks bro.

Miscief -- again: The irony was that the statement is short sighted IMO.

Concerning music and training: I like to concentrate on training. If you're working out and listening to music one activity or the other suffers. IMO

Your comparison to me and my clients and Dexter Jackson is convoluted and confused. The point is, what works --works! It doesn't mean it'll turn normal folk into Dexter Jackson. Stay on the same page alright?

I'll admit I'm surprised to read that about Dorian because I've read where he said the exact opposite thing. (Never spoke to him but spoke with people who know him and they verified he wasn't a cardio guy). Maybe the interview I read was a phoney. Maybe the one you read was. (FLEX?) At any rate, he is hardly the only reputable example I gave. And it also sounds like he's talking about contest preperation. To be honest, his statement that more training is catabolic and cardio isn't is kind of dumb. Then again, he did train H.I.T style which would be catabolic if voluminous. I feel there's much more credibilty to the tactics of the pre-cutting drugs era when guys like Serge Nubret would super set dozens of sets. He and many of the other old timers got pretty ripped that way. No clen. No DNP. NO diuretics. No GH. No T3. No ephedra.

This is just one of those things which some people will never see eye to eye on. I have nothing to gain by convincing you to change your beliefs. I just offer an alternative that is logical, cogent, safer, and more productive. If you absolutely love cardio, don't let me stop you. But if you haven't been getting the results you hoped for, try dropping the cardio, cutting calories a bit, and upping the volume of training. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

 

[Mischief]

Your comparison to me and my clients and Dexter Jackson is convoluted and confused. The point is, what works --works!...

This is just one of those things which some people will never see eye to eye on. I have nothing to gain by convincing you to change your beliefs. I just offer an alternative that is logical, cogent, safer, and more productive. If you absolutely love cardio, don't let me stop you. But if you haven't been getting the results you hoped for, try dropping the cardio, cutting calories a bit, and upping the volume of training. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.

This is my last post on this. The point is actually, what works for Dexter Jackson, is not the approach he uses, it is ONLY the fact that he is Dexter Jackson. And using his approach on anyone else, is silly, because Dex is a freak.

No, the article is not a fake, and it's not from Flex, which is usually BS. I've spoken with him personally and he admitted to going as high as an hour in the morning, and an hour at night, when dieting. It's about timing Nelson. Someone like Dorian, or anyone with a lot of muscle (that they intend to keep), needs the higher calories to maintain that. Simply outing the cardio and cutting calories is not feasable. Sure, it's elementry that Calories In vs. Calories Burned, must equal a deficeit for weight loss. But what isn't included in that overly simplistic equation is timing. See, after weight training, the more you can take in, the more your body can use and spare muscle with, at the time! Food doesn't just float around in your system for 24 hours, wait to see how much energy you use, and then decide how to dispose of it's self.

By seperating cardio and weight training, an athelete is able to eat high amounts of protein, (at the right times), not run flat by having no carbs, and still have room for healthy fats, which are essential when dieting down. Now to nix the cardio and lower calories, in order to allow a caloric defeceit, is to deprive the body of nutrients and calories it needs, at certain times. Normally this caloric requirement is higher than the dieting / defeceit caloric level, this is where the calorie burning cardio comes in. Done at the correct times, low to moderate intensity cardio, will burn those extra calories, with out being very catabloic to the muscle. There is a fine line to be walked, but it's fairly simple, and necessary. Simply increasing workout volume is unwise. Training should be heavy, and aimed to build muscle, always, that is it's primary purpose. Adding more resistance training, instead of cardio, impaires the body's ability to recooperate, (especially on your suggested lowered nutrition), and in such an environment, is detrimentally catabolic to muscle.

Dex doesn't use your higher the volume approach. He preps for contests solely with diet, he is lucky, and his body fights to hold on to muscle, unlike most. You have not discovered an "alternative that is logical, cogent, safer, and more productive", to the contrary, it denies an active athelete the calories and nutrition they need to be at their physical best. I'm VERY happy with my results, and I've never trained (or trained with) anyone who has ever placed out of the top 3 in an NPC contest. We know contest prep, and we know our bodies. If I were to suggest cutting cardio, we'd probably end up somewhere around 5th, and cry about a conspiracy. That's all, I'm done.

 

[BigAndy69]

Simply increasing workout volume is unwise. Training should be heavy, and aimed to build muscle, always, that is it's primary purpose. Adding more resistance training, instead of cardio, impaires the body's ability to recooperate, (especially on your suggested lowered nutrition), and in such an environment, is detrimentally catabolic to muscle.

I do agree that cardio is essential for fat loss but cardio does have very negative effects on the CNS in terms of recovery.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Warmachine: Not for nothin' bro but I think I give give quite a bit of explanation. But I can't be expected to give full detailed analysis to every post every time. As it is, I jump on the boards in my spare time and wind up having to explain myself several times over.

Mischief: We're just not connecting with the comparison to Dexter. His results aren't viable because he's a freak? But isn't Dorian a freak too? Maybe we shouldn't discuss genetic marvals on tons of gear.

One interesting thing about your post is it
flys smack in the face of the AM cardio myth that so many people defend to the death.

Also, you're wrong that food "doesn't hang around for 24 hours". You would have to fast for days before you were completely glycogen depleted, or run up to 15 miles.

As far as your comment about me placing 5th -- that's just low, and it's lame. Conspiricy? Who said that? You can make your point well, don't weaken it with lies and stupid accusations. I was just showing that if a little runt can place 5th at a national level contest with virually no gear, then anyone can -- IF, they do the right things.

As far as saying that more weight training would be catabolic, it's nonsense. There's no way to guage the intensity. Why is a concentraion curl catabolic, but repetive pounding of your weight on concrete isn't?

Like I said: Some people get it, and some people don't.

 

[Mischief]

Like I said: Some people get it, and some people don't.

No, we get it, we get top 2 in every show we enter (One 3rd, not me though).

And since it's off topic, Most pro's aren't on "tons of gear". That's a myth due to a few professional idiots who actually do (none of the top guys), and everyone else trying to explain why these guys are so much further than everyone else. It's 2 things, genetics, (a big one), and consistant hard work. I'd venture an acurate guess than the podium in a Nationals Open division, LHW and up, doses just as much or more than most pros. I know this for a fact, and that's as specific as I'm going to get. But I do know this for certain, and I'm not speculating / assuming the biggest guys are the heaviest juicers, it just doesn't work that way.

 

[jboldman]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Nelson is not so much interested in learning or sharing knowledge as he is in espousing his own irrevocable training philosophies and practices. If, at any point, these do not coincide with fact or if someone points out that there are perhaps good reasons to believe otherwise, the head goes deep into the sand. Just because something works for you and your trainees, does not mean that that is the only path to nirvana or even the best path. Who the hell am I to say all this, no one. But I am reasonably intelligent, easily swayed by a logical and cogent arguement and left absolutely cold by someone who when challenged with knowledge can only respond with inuendo or simply not respond at all. This is two threads in two days that mr montana when faced with contradictory information has not been able to respond with anything resembling an articulate arguement and i am not talking just about my portion of the thread. I find this disappointing but I guess i should not be surprised. Did you say you wrote a book, Nelson? Are there any references in it? I'm am guessing that the appendix and biblio are pretty small based on what I am seeing here. I am really beginning to understand your sig line:
>>Like I said: Some people get it, and some people don't.

Mischief: good job, enjoyable reading and points well made. Looking foreard to hearing more from you.

 

[Nelson Montana]

jbolderman: I've hid my head in the sand? I've addressed every point thrown at me. I'm sorry if it wasn't to your satisfaction. Then again, Dave Draper, Dennis Weis, Eric Serrano, Lou Schuler and Rick Collins all praised the book. I guess they don't know anything either. But wait...they actually read the book. So far, the biggest detractors are two guys who haven't.

That kinda says it all.

 

[Ulter]

Nelson Montana Age 40
"Come back to me when you're 40 and let's see what you look like."

Bill Pearl Age 56 VEGETARIAN
"Montana explains how the supposed benefits of Vegetarianism don't hold water. "

I am buying the book just to see how Bill Pearl was so misinformed.

 

[Nelson Montana]

Hey utter; Why not post the "before" picture of me? I put on 30 pounds of muscle in 2 years while lowering my bodyfat 100% drug free at age 40. Sorry if I'm not Bill Pearl.

And incidentally, Bill Pearl became a vegetarian later in life, and yes, I see no advantage to it and question the philosophy, but anyone is entitled to follow it if they choose to.