Johnston Rep Method

Discussion in 'Basic Training Principles and Methods' started by shakeel, Dec 15, 2005.

  1. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    Could be. Now when I think of Johnston and his board I always flash to the German team in Dodgeball saying, "Hasselhoff!"
  2. mathey

    mathey New Member

    you know, I spent some time today surfing some other weight training, these guys really leave a trail...every single site went through the exact same thing with these guys that went on here...not much of a marketing plan to me...
    <sarcasm on>"hey, lets go on these sites, not tell them anything and piss everyone off, boy, we'll be rich from book sales" <sarcasm off>

    I just don't get it...funny thing, if they exampled something basic to try, such as outline a jrep workout for triceps, I would be really inclined to try it, and if it worked, I would even consider buying the book...

    maybe it is the best thing since sliced bread, but it really leaves a bad taste!
  3. robefc

    robefc New Member

    I would just like to let you all know that you can forget jreps...and you can forget HST too for that matter...

    why? Because I have invented ROBREPS!!!

    I have only been doing them for a day and a half but already my chest has doubled in size and I can deadlift 1,000kgs...this obviously proves that robreps work.

    Unfortunately I am not willing to tell you anything more about robreps (like how to actually do it and why it works) but if you send me £1,000 (in used twenties please and note this is english pounds not dollars!) then I might write a book and send you a copy with lots of photos.

    Please note if you should reproduce anything from this book which is not yet written or quote anything from this thread I will be forced to instigate legal action.

    Also if any of you dare criticise this technique that you can't yet read about I will throw my toys out the pram, spit out my dummy and in short get very upset. As for inferring that my results over the past day and half are not proof of how well this technique works...well all I can say is you're all geeks who like reasing scientific studies instead of getting down the gym!

    I will be starting a discussion board soon which you can all join for a small initial charge as long as you take the robreps oath of alliegance which states you must never criticise robreps on my board or anywhere else in the world on pain of death.

  4. xtreme

    xtreme New Member

  5. navigator

    navigator New Member


    That's the same thing I found, too.  All over the world, they use the same technique--even in the Asian boards.  Interesting thing, though ... all the threats of litigation were written in English.:dozing

    Well, xtreme, at least you smiled when you said that.
  6. shakeel

    shakeel New Member

    you state the stretch portion more important consider this
    Consider: The stretch portion of an exercise may be the most productive however what is more important?

    (a) The level of load at the point?
    (b) The amount of time spent working in this zone?
    © A combination of both, and if so what combination (50/50, 70/30)?
    (d) Working with high load in this zone when fresh?
    (e) Working in this zone when already pre fatigued in other zones?

    If you strated in the fully contracted position then would you be working harder in a way than had you started there fresh (and vice versa ;^).compare the stretch portion of a chin up, dip or bottom of a squat with, a pulldown, bench press or leg extension. In the first 3 you may find it best to go from stretch to fully contracted as the stretch is extreme. With the second 3 the other way around may be better as the stretch isn't dramatically harder than the fully contracted position. As well, all this will depend on equiptment choice.
  7. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    Well, technically, if you read my guidelines for BLOWreps, I noted you could do it in literally any order you wanted.

    That said, by default, I'd invest the most energy into what would theoretically give you the most payback, i.e. the stretch portion.

    I don't buy into the pre fatigue crap other than as a change of pace.

    Phrased differently, if it was your intention to grow, would you rather:

    * Pre-fatigue yourself with a bunch of high rep sets before doing a top, heavy set of squats
    * Warmup, do a top heavy set, and then maybe do some backoff high rep sets?

    I would say the latter choice is far more logical. The key to muscle growth = progressive tension overload. All else constant, it makes the most sense to be as fresh as possible to that which is giving you the most returns.

    By this same logic, why would you want to pre fatigue yourself before going into the stretch portion? All you're really doing is compromising the amount of load you can use for the possible benefit of some extra metabolic stress. Call me a dinosaur, but I don't buy that line of thinking.

    Not that there's anything WRONG with starting in the "pump" half or any other position (and as I vaguely alluded to, there's even research showing that it's possible that, for some muscles, a more contracted position could actually be better for hypertrophy), just that, as a rule of thumb, it makes more sense to me to start in the stretch half to do so as fresh as possible and with as much load as possible.
  8. shakeel

    shakeel New Member

    doing the most minireps in the stetched position will fatigue the muscle greatly thereby when going into the top position contracted there will no energy reserve and the minirep in the contracted position will diminish greatly.
    one thing is to start with a more heavier weights in the stetched position then reduce the weights a bit for contracted position .
  9. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    But if one simply recommended (as I did in BLOWreps) to "use a weight that allows 8 minireps in the stretch zone followed by 8 minireps in the pump zone," isn't this automatically taken care of?

    I.e. if you find yourself too fatigued after doing the stretch half to get all the mini reps in the pump half, what's to stop you from simply using less overall weight the next time you do it?

    To me, it'd sort of be like if you were aiming for 5-8 reps in a set, and then said 'this weight I picked is really heavy, and I can only do 3 reps in the set. So, should I do those three reps and then immediately drop the weight and do a few more reps to get in that target 5-8 rep zone?'

    To which I'd reply "why not just pick a weight that allowed you to do 5-8 reps in the first place?"

    Same deal here.
  10. Jester

    Jester Well-Known Member

    How is it not applicable?

    BDJ & associates failed to answer any qu's about how his method works physiologically. Likewise failed to defend their method using citable facts or hell, even theories. Continued to induce laughter by threatening to sue, and did so on 2 websites (that we know of) simultaneously.

    I've a good mind to buy the "method", then post it for free all over the it up everywhere, set up my own public forum and just play games with the infamous BDJ.
  11. shakeel

    shakeel New Member

    what i mean is to use a more heavy weights than usual to get 8 minireps in the stretched position as more conductive to growth then as you get in the contracted position reduce the weights a little so that you can a minimun of 8 reps .my rational is more weights in the stetched position more growth
  12. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    And I would argue you're probably right BUT we still have to worry about "balance" in terms of assuring strength throughout the entire ROM of an exercise.

    So, say you did chins or pullups in only the stretch half indefinitely BLOWreps style. Would that work well? Probably.

    However, the "pump" half will never get worked if you do that, and if I had to guess, I'd wager that your long term overall strength/performance gains might suffer by not training the other half of the ROM.

    Now, does the pump half need to be trained as much as the stretch half? Not necessarily. Do they even necessarily need to be trained together? Again, not necessarily.

    For example, you could do anything from, say, 8-16 mini reps in the stretch half and call that a set. And then, a few minutes later, do that for the pump half separately.

    Will that work as well, worse or better than doing it all at once?

    I don't know :p
  13. Actarus

    Actarus New Member

    HIT theory can explain the gains with Jreps !

    It's all about fibers fatigue and Jreps MAY allow deeper fatigue of muscles (especially with compounds lifts).
  14. xtreme

    xtreme New Member

  15. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    As I was trying to keep this JRep thread serious. That was what I meant. Due the attacks it has gotten - and continues to get - I thought that was the best way for me to show the validity of them.[/QUOTE]
    Few if any of us know what a JRep is, aside from some variation on 21s. The attacks are being leveled against Johnston himself, for his inability to debate the subject and offer any justification of his ideas, his ridiculous threats of copyright actions, and the rather ridiculous marketing method that he, and seemingly you are engaging in.
  16. intensum

    intensum New Member

    Xarhx, it's really nothing. I read the eBook.

    Jreps are nothing more than 12 quick mini-reps on the hardest half of the motion followed immediately by 12 more on the easier half of the motion. The other alternative Johnston gives is to divide the motion into 3x8 mini reps, with the progression being hardest third, second hardest third, easiest third.

    It's pretty much 21s without the final complete set, although Johnston offers that as an option if you "feel like you need the burn," or something along those lines. [​IMG]
  17. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    Watch out, you might get a lawsuit threat over that post...
  18. intensum

    intensum New Member

  19. Solvo Reputo

    Solvo Reputo New Member

  20. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    138 posts for overhyped 21's?

    Ridiculous. [​IMG]

Share This Page