Yes , if you’re going to show before and after pictures and expect people to buy into their legitimacy the pictures better be pretty dang good with equal lighting and posing. The slightest difference can make a huge difference . Even the pictures of Tyler Darden left alot to be desired. One had heavy shadows and the other didn’t .
Nautilus is just another tool in the muscle building tool box , some better than others. Just like an old car or a Sears Craftsman wrench when you’ve used it for more than half you’re life you sort of get hooked on it , good or bad.
Scott
5 Likes
It’s what Captain Nemo piloted to get to 20,000 leagues under the sea!
Everybody knows that! 
4 Likes
I think his Nautilus was less complicated… 
1 Like
Unless I’m mistaken Nemo had the Nautilus outfitted with first Gen Nautilus machines! In the movie Curt Douglass is on the plate loading pullover when the octopus attacks, ha ha!
Scott
3 Likes
This is BS and you know it. You are being dishonest. It is obvious they are turning their arms out, flaring their lats, flexing abs and raising traps.
I think people forget that people like Michael Petrella are just people , not scientists in some kind of hermitically sealed lab where experiments are done with the utmost precision. Yes the pictures weren’t perfect and the experiment may have had its pitfalls but it’s probably the best they could do under the circumstances. They didn’t have to do this and I think what they did is really cool! Whether they actually built all the muscle they claimed isn’t as important as the effort they put into making this experiment . I give a big hand to Michael!
Scott
5 Likes
And also they didnt do it to sell anything. Just a few guys looking to have some intense workouts and try to make some progress
3 Likes
This may honestly be the most HIT thing I’ve read.
12 Likes
I bet Rick wishes he did not post this now.
Unfortunately despite the best intentions of the moderators, by moving it away from the Dr Darden forum (the re-creation of an experiment run by Nautilus , with whom Dr Darden spent so many years and with whom he made his name , would surely be a far closer fit to that forum than any other ?) we now have the thread hijacked and ruined by those who have nothing constructive to add to it.
Which is a great shame as Mike Petrella is a stand up guy with no agenda with a deep knowledge of bodybuilding history and some fascinating insights into training .
But why should he use any of his valuable time contributing positively to the site when all he gets are wisecracks and people questioning his integrity.
Mark
4 Likes
I’m honestly curious on the actual data collected before and after. Body measurement… such as circumference of certain body parts. Strength increase seen in given movement they used. Changes in actual body weight and body composition. . Are these items on the listed Facebook page.
2 Likes
He posted some information on strength gains:
Here are some of the more notable numbers. On my negative Pullover I went from 225x12 to 305x11. We were starting to worry about how much we could strap to the weight stack and if we would need a 3rd spotter to get the weight over. Marzanek on the Omni Chest went from 150x14 to 220x8. Spike using positive reps on the Duo-Squat had an incredible performance going from 427.5x20 (10 each leg) to 520x18 (9 each leg). That’s more then maxing out the super stack duo-squat for reps.
Also, from a response in the comments:
Yes. We started with lifetime bests on the 14 Nautilus machines used in the experiment. Went up from there. No coming back from extreme dieting like the original.
1 Like
As he’s done before, Ricky ignored the thread as soon as it was moved into a more appropriate forum. That’s his decision, and it’s counterproductive and self-sabotaging, but whatever.
Nope. Dr. Darden’s coaching forum is for Q&A about his programs and other topics directly related to his work. A program done by a guy based on a program done by other guys who Dr. Darden used to work with is very much the opposite of “directly related”. As I’ve said countless times, Dr. Darden’s coaching forum is not an All-Things-HIT forum.
Hijacked means taken off-topic. The comments are very much on-topic.
The constructive advice that should be taken from this is that accurate Before/After pics matter. That’s Personal Trainer 101 stuff. The overwhelming amount of criticism is based on the fact that there are six sets of pics and the guys are in significantly different poses in every one of them. If the pics had been taken accurately, that wouldn’t have needed to be a talking point.
However, the fact that on the FB link, he received 100+ comments and not a single person commented on the pic discrepancies or had anything negative to say would kinda tell you that he wasn’t getting constructive feedback there either. The closest thing even remotely negative on that FB page was one guy who seemed to be alleging that the before/after pics were a result of water/carb depletion.
He went nearly 10 years without contributing anything to the site. If he chooses to leave again because people gave their honest opinions about something he posted on the Internet, that’s his decision. But he’s an adult and a public figure on the web. I believe he can handle any criticism in stride and his comment in this thread certainly indicates that.
5 Likes
As a moderator it is your decision which I fully and respectfully accept , but disagree with.
Whilst it is valid to question the differences in stances etc between the before and after shots,
it is not those comments I find negative.
There have been a lot of wisecracks made (especially early in the thread ) along with ridiculous claims borne out of ignorance like Casey "sneaking out for extra workouts during the original experiment " which contribute nothing to the thread , plus insinuations about the results not being true .
That is MY view of the thread.
Regards
Mark
1 Like
I think they’re quoting the “Casey Comes Clean” article from Muscle and Fitness in the 90s, which Viator later said he only actually wrote about 30% of what was published and certainly didn’t go out and lift more weights. The steroids part might be true, but I do doubt he went out and lifted more weights. As demanding as those workouts were, it definitely would’ve been counterproductive and excruciating to lift more, especially as deconditioned as he was. I’ve always chalked up the Colorado Experiment to a genetic freak who was just regaining lost size (and didn’t even get back to his full peak size) through muscle memory and potentially drugs
5 Likes
Spot on .
Thats why i first brought it up over there! That was my point!
I disagree. Whether they built all the muscle they claimed is the most important part. If you can’t trust that results are going to be reported accurately, then whatever effort is put into the experiment is meaningless.
6 Likes
I didn’t see where the thread was hijacked. Are you referring to people disagreeing with the claimed results?
In past posts, Rick has indicated that he is somewhat conflict adverse. He just doesn’t enjoy the conflict that comes from arguing points on social media. That it somewhat self-limiting, because that is the nature of these forums. But I get it. Not everyone relishes that sort of thing. I do think there was some unnecessary snarkiness to some of the earlier responses, which would tend to discourage folks like Rick from engaging.
As far as physique photos go, even with perfect conditions, identical lighting and poses, the best I can usually say is whether or not someone looks better in a particular photo. Judging whether 10 lbs of weight gain is mostly muscle or fat? Pretty hard call, at least for me. Especially since it was full body training. I guess if you are training largely for appearance, then by all means debate the changes in the appearance and what they signify.
In any case, I am willing to write off the defects in the photography as due to lack of experience. This was a fun experiment by a group of guys in lock down, not some sinister plot by the HIT Illuminati.
What I wish Petrella had talked about more:
- Pretraining diet, weight, and strength levels. Was this after a long COVID layoff?
- Did they make intentional dietary changes to drive growth? What can he say about calorie intake?
- How novel was the stimulus? If you hadn’t done a pullover machine in a year, then I’d expect bigger strength gains than if you had been doing pullovers regularly, and then added the novelty of negative upload.
1 Like
All their data is supposedly going to be published in the near future
1 Like