QUESTION:
I've read reviews of your book online and they are uniformly
positive. However, I've tried everything in the book and nothing has worked for me, so I'm
understandably skeptical about purchasing Natural Hormonal Enhancement. I am
willing to do what it takes to get in shape, but how can I be sure NHE will work for me
when nothing else has? I need to lose about 15 pounds of fat and I was hoping you could
tell me whether I am better off reducing my total food (calorie) intake or whether I
should focus on cutting carbs. Thanks.
|
ROB'S ANSWER:
You've tried "everything in the book" - but not in my
book. Generally, this type of letter, requesting my advice, is written by people who have
bought and read Natural Hormonal Enhancement. It is this act of faith in me that
triggers my felt duty and commitment to foster that person's success. Moreover, I have
long ago resigned myself to the fact that I can only help those individuals who are
willing to take action to help themselves. Buying and reading NHE is a concrete step that
"qualifies" a person as amenable to my assistance. Finally, from a practical
standpoint, for me to give you instruction and guidance on how to get in shape would
basically entail a chapter-and-verse recitation of Natural Hormonal Enhancement.
The very reason why I wrote NHE was so that I would not have to personally convey the same
information to each person individually, but rather I could reach millions with my
message.
The crux of your letter, as I see it, is that you want to know if
Natural
Hormonal Enhancement will work for you. That is a question that I cannot answer. What
I can say is that hormones undoubtedly influence body composition, health, energy levels,
and the rate at which you age. And Natural Hormonal Enhancement teaches you how to
improve your hormonal status. Many people - athletes and average folk alike - achieve
great success with this program. Others achieve a lesser degree of success, or no success.
Much depends on you. You seem committed, so you are highly likely to
be
successful.
When you consider how profoundly important is your health and
fitness; and you consider the reviews and testimonials of NHE; and you consider that the
book costs less than one evening at a restaurant - I don't see how you can justify not
giving NHE a try.
Return
to
Index
 |
Exclusive! |
 |
|
Your Devoted
Personal Trainer |
|
|
Evil Russian
Fitness Guru |
|
The following
letters represent a exchange between Rob Faigin and Pavel Tsatsouline,
in October of 2000. A former trainer for the Soviet Special
Forces, Pavel is one of the world's leading authorities on strength and
flexibility training. We thank Pavel for allowing us to publish this
private correspondence.
The first letter is
from Rob to John Du Cane, Pavel's publisher. This letter provoked a
rebuttal from Pavel and a counter-rebuttal from Rob. (Just when you
thought U.S.-Russian relations were warming!)
From: Rob Faigin
To: John Du Cane,
president, Dragon Door Publications
Dear John,
I commend you on helping to
educate the public with your excellent self-improvement products. Also,
I have read
Power to the People and enjoyed it thoroughly. You should be
proud of it, as I'm sure you are.
The prime impetus for this
letter, however, is to take exception to a representation made on your
website. In short, you have overstated the amount of common ground
shared by Pavel Tsatsouline and me, with your statement that,
"Although Faigin, like Pavel
Tsatsouline, advocates heavy weights
and low reps as part of his Natural Hormonal Enhancement program..." Due to space constraints in my 343-page book, it does not say
much about reps, so the reader is left speculating as to my position
regarding this matter until the Audio Personal Trainer comes out. But I
will advance you this information: I am not committed to heavy weights
and low reps in the absolute sense that Mr. Tsatsouline is committed to
it. On the surface, Mr. Tsatsouline and I appear to be intellectual
brothers because we both criticize conventional high-volume bodybuilding
regimens. However, both the reasoning underlying our objection to this
mode of training and our proposed alternatives, differ markedly.
|
To understand the
substantive differences between Mr. Tsatsouline's training program and
my own, one must first appreciate that our objectives are different. Mr.
Tsatsouline's program aims chiefly to build strength (with
physique/health improvement an associated benefit), whereas
hormonally-intelligent training aims chiefly to enhance hormonal status,
and, by extension, health and physique (with strength improvement an
associated benefit). "Strength training" is often used
interchangeably with "weight training" but the former is more
specific, as it describes not only the type of exercise but also the
objective to which it is directed. |
| "Strength
training" is often used interchangeably with "weight training" but the
former is more specific, as it describes not only the type of exercise but also the
objective to which it is directed. |
|
| The key implication of the neurological essence of
strength is that it does not bear a tight relationship to either health or hormones. In
other words, strong people are not necessarily healthy; and hormones are only modestly
involved in producing strength gains...
And whereas strength is a functional measure, hormonal status is
a quintessential biomarker of physical condition. |
|
Strength is largely a
neurological phenomenon. Mr. Tsatsouline explains this in his book, and
so do I in mine on p. 282. The key implication of the neurological
essence of strength is that it does not bear a tight relationship to
either health or hormones. In other words, strong people are not
necessarily healthy; and hormones are only modestly involved in
producing strength gains. The brain and nervous system, not the
endocrine system, are the primary agents in the strength-building
process. And whereas strength is a functional measure, hormonal status
is a quintessential biomarker of physical condition. I'm not saying that
strength training is not a valuable component of a
health-building/hormonal enhancement program; but it is not, itself, a
means to this end. I would, without hesitation, recommend Mr.
Tsatsouline's book, Power to the People, over Natural Hormonal Enhancement
to those individuals preoccupied with building strength. And with equal
alacrity, I would recommend Natural Hormonal Enhancement
over Power to the People to those individuals for whom combating
aging, optimizing health, and improving one's physique are preeminent
concerns. |
The central issue on which
Mr. Tsatsouline and I part company is training to failure. He denounces
it, whereas I endorse it (after a period of acclimatization). At a more
basic level, we differ in our definition of intensity. I define
intensity as the percentage of momentary muscular capability exerted at
a given moment, whereas Mr. Tsatsouline's definition of intensity is
calculated with reference to one's one-rep max. Because intensity is
crucial to hormonal enhancement, the question of its proper definition
is more than academic.
|
As explained in NHE,
endorphins and lactic acid are
GH-signaling factors. A training regimen
that prohibits pushing oneself to the point of momentary muscle failure
generates considerably less of these chemicals than does one of higher
intensity. Furthermore, even where the point of failure is reached, if
it is reached at fewer than 5 repetitions, "the burn"
associated with lactic acid build-up is avoided. I don't recommend
"going for the burn" on every set of every workout, but
completely eliminating higher-rep (higher than 5) training from one's
routine, as Mr. Tsatsouline
advocates,
is definitely not the
optimal path to hormonal enhancement. |
| I don't recommend
"going for the burn" on every set of every workout, but completely eliminating
higher-rep (higher than 5) training from one's routine... is definitely not the optimal
path to hormonal enhancement. |
|
To summarize, in addition
to the fact that Mr. Tsatsouline harbors a nostalgic affinity for the
erstwhile Soviet empire while I rejoice over its demise, Pavel
Tsatsouline and I espouse fundamentally divergent training philosophies.
However, I believe that our differences stem entirely from the different
objectives to which our respective programs are aimed. Until such time
as Comrade Tsatsouline claims that his strength-training program is
superior to the exercise principles set forth in NHE in terms of
hormonal/health enhancement, he and I have no disagreement. Even were he
to make such a claim, his disagreement would not be with me so much as
with the science that support my position.
Sincerely
yours,
Rob Faigin
From:
Pavel Tsatsouline
Dear
Rob:
I enjoyed your letter to John. You are correct, we cannot compare apples
and oranges. My program does not strive for morphological adaptations
and focuses on neurology. I disagree that Power to the People
has no effect on health, though. According to Mogendovich's
motor-visceral theory, there are feed back loops between muscle tonus
and the viscera and improving your muscle tone (not to the point of
hypertonicity) improves one's health. Besides, low volume/high intensity
strength training has a tonic effect on the nervous system. Naturally, I
refer to intensity in its Russian quantifiable definition: % 1RM.
Mendeleyev stated that there is no science until measurements can be
made and Arthur Jones' intensity definition does not fit this bill.
Sincerely,
Pavel
From: Rob Faigin
Pavel,
You make a good point that your definition of intensity is more
readily quantifiable than the one I employ. In this respect, your definition of intensity
is superior. However, the problem with your definition is that the only way someone can be
training at 100% intensity is if he/she is performing only one repetition. Therefore, it
has very limited utility outside the context of strength training. It works fine for you,
but it is largely inoperative for me and my readers - once again, apples and oranges.
Incidentally, beyond the fact the fact that Arthur Jones and I endorse a
substantially identical definition of intensity. there's not much common
ground between us.
Also, in your letter you
powerfully and effectively rebut a comment I never made. You write,
"I disagree that Power to the People has no effect on
health." I'm with you all the way in disagreeing that Power to the
People has no effect on health - which is why I state, "Mr.
Tsatsouline's program aims chiefly to build strength (with
physique/health improvement an associated benefit)." Lest there be
any doubt, I also state "I'm not saying that strength training is
not a valuable component of a health-building/hormonal enhancement
program…" No hard feelings - I take no offense to a little
good-natured Communist propaganda.
Best Wishes,
Rob
Rob,
Thank
you for your note. Re intensity, why are you under the impression that anything
less than maximal intensity is needed for desired adaptation? Overload is
described with more than one variable. Let us not forget about the
volume.
According to Matveyev, the father of periodization, high intensity training
leads to short term strength gains and is appropriate for peaking; volume
provides for lasting adaptation.
Sincerely,
Pavel
Dear
Pavel,
You
wrote: "why are you under the impression that anything less than maximal
intensity is needed for desired adaptation?" I'm not under that impression,
where my definition of intensity is used - rather my view is opposite to your
statement. As I noted in my earlier letter, our respective definitions of
intensity are very different. According to my definition of intensity, Natural
Hormonal Enhancement is much higher in intensity than
Power
to
the
People, and vice versa.
You
also wrote: "Overload is described with more than one variable. Let us not
forget about the volume. According to
Matveyev, the father of
periodization,
high intensity training leads to short term strength gains and is appropriate
for peaking; volume provides for lasting adaptation." You seem to be
suggesting here that volume is
more important than intensity. The
scientific evidence cited in NHE argues to the contrary, notwithstanding the
pronouncements of the esteemed Matveyev (whose work I can't claim to be terribly
familiar with). The relationship between intensity and volume is discussed
extensively in Chapter 21 of Natural Hormonal Enhancement.
I
sense from your questions that you have not read all of NHE, whereas I've read
your book cover-to-cover. This is understandable given that your publisher sent
me your book months ago, whereas you received my book only recently - and this
probably
accounts for why I'm more familiar with your philosophy than you
are with mine. Please do me the honor of reading my entire book (but especially
the exercise section).
I've enjoyed our dialogue, and I hope that there will
be more in the future.
Sincerely,
Rob
Return
to
Index
READ
MORE
