ProBodX by Marv Marinovich & Edythe M. Heus - published July 29, 2003 Marv Marinovich collaborated with Barry Sears on the first athletic tests validating the Zone. See Enter the Zone, 1995 ProBodX stands for Proper Body Exercise. It involves synergistic training techniques that make all the body's muscles work together. As opposed to isolating individual muscles or muscle groups. These training techniques introduce instability that causes the body to improve balance and quickness. The training tools include 2 balance disks used with 2 6-foot wooden dowels, some 4-inch diameter pvc pipes, a slanted board, a gymnastics ball, and ball-shaped weights that can be used with hands or feet. They also like a rowing machine and jump rope. For the "reprint" of an old interview with Marinovich, including photos of equipment, follow this link: http://www.sportslab.net/press.html The influence of old soviet training techniques ("kettles" or handweights) and plyometrics can be seen, as well as the influence of co-author Edythe Heus a rehabilitative chiropractor. The text mentions several well-known amateur and professional athletes by name - in fact some of them serve as models for training methods. The afterword cites a statistical study that they themselves conducted on unknown prospective baseball baseball players. I learned about this book from the Sears email newsletter last Tuesday night, ordered it right away, and have it my sweaty little paws on Saturday. It looks for real! See www.ProBodX.com for a few pictures. Charlie

Hi, I checked it out at Borders a few days ago, and almost bought the book except I thought that the amount of equipment needed (although I do own some of it already) and the fact you'd also need a partner to perform some of it seemed to make it a bit daunting. I have benefitted greatly from incorporating a large exercise ball into my strength training routines (three yrs ago, not just since I saw the book on Thurs!) and I'm still intrigued by this book. Please let us know if you try the program and how it goes for you. Sue

You can see photos of the equipment at: http://www.sportslab.net/equipment.html The mail-order cost of the equipment costs $250-$300, but there are ways to improvise with odds and ends. I just bought some 4-inch PVC pipe for $14.00. Empty gallon jugs of orange juice appear suitable for the hand/foot weights. Bamboo poles, though not very thick, can be picked up for cheap. Cane tips could be added to those. A slant board can be improvised from wood scraps and duct tape. I am still trying to figure out a way to make balance disks. It would involve attaching some kind of ball beneath - wood, rubber? duct tape, lag bolt? There are three versions of basic exercises, which you do solo. The basic exercises probably are much more difficult than they appear, and take a long time to adapt to. The advanced exercises, which involve a partner, should probably be saved for months later. Sue, where did you learn about using the exercise ball, and what has it taught you? Charlie

Don't be fooled... Marv Marinovich is a taking advantage of the latest exercise fad to sell "functional training" toys You don't need ANY of that stuff.

Hi Charlie, [quote="cduane". Sue, where did you learn about using the exercise ball, and what has it taught you?[/quote] I was initially introduced to it in a physical therapy setting where it was part of a routine I did to strengthen stabilizing muscles. I had suffered a hip/spine injury (PSI injury). I later was shown additional applications of the ball in a different PT setting with the focus on strengthening neck muscles, and I now use it in many different ways (a few of which are actually some of the "Pro Bod X" moves). I even like to do some of my upper body workouts with weights while seated on the ball. I have a couple workouts on tape, which use the ball, and have recently purchased info about incorporating the ball into Pilates (but haven't tried it yet). I wouldn't exactly say it has say it has "taught" me anything. What it has done is given me tremendous strength and control. I've made gains in strength, especially in my abdominal area that I had never been able to accomplish previously. In order to do any controlled movements on a ball you must also master the ability to balance on the ball, which targets many muscle groups at once. It's definilty something you have to begin at slowly and with proper form, but once you get used to using a ball and gain a bit of expertise on it, the results can be very satisfying. Sue

You don't need exercise balls to strengthen your stabilizer muscles, nor to develop abdominal strength. I have actually find them to be somewhat useful for the later purpose, but they definitely are not necessary. The main benefit that stability balls provide is that they improve your ability to do exercises on a stability ball. I'm actually so good with the stability ball that I can jump onto the ball and stand on it, but that really affords me no particarticular benefits elsewhere.

There are exercises on balance disks and 4-inch tubes, as well as on the ball. The point of Marinovich's training is very similar to the that of the Soviet techniques of the 70's and 80's, as documented by Yessis. The point being to develop ultimate fitness as a foundation for the rest of your sport-specific training. Marinovich's book should be required reading, whether you agree with him or not. What Marinovich exercise can be performed without this specific equipment? How can the athletic benefit be gained otherwise? [i:0acc81d913](Read the afterward with statistical data before answering!)[/i:0acc81d913] One might take the athletic benchmarks [i:0acc81d913]from that afterward [/i:0acc81d913] to gauge one's performance before and after ProBodX training. Then afterward, measure performance results following a period of other training. Charlie

[quote:02f65a35e1="cduane"]There are exercises on balance disks and 4-inch tubes, as well as on the ball. The point of Marinovich's training is very similar to the that of the Soviet techniques of the 70's and 80's, as documented by Yessis. The point being to develop ultimate fitness as a foundation for the rest of your sport-specific training.[/quote:02f65a35e1] 1. Even if the "point" of Marinovich's training is similar to that of the Soviet's, the actual techniques are quite dissimilar. The Soviets didn't fool around with stability balls and the like. 2. What on earth is "ultimate fitness"? [quote:02f65a35e1] Marinovich's book should be required reading, whether you agree with him or not. [/quote:02f65a35e1] Marinovich is not considered a real authority on strength training or athletic conditionig, so I don't think that his book should be required reading. Furthrmore, these techniqes are not new and they are not his own. Marinovich neither invented nor popularized the concepts of "functional training" and "training the body as a complete unit", rather he is merely the latest coach to jump on the bandwagon. This stuff has been around for a long time, and individuals like Paul Chek and Carlos Santana have produced way better material on the subject than Marinovich anyway. [quote:02f65a35e1] What Marinovich exercise can be performed without this specific equipment? How can the athletic benefit be gained otherwise? [/quote:02f65a35e1] My point is that these extreme stability exercises are not of vaule to athletes in most sports, as they do not address sport-specific demands in the first place. WHO CARES if you can do squats while standing on a stability ball? That isn't going to make you move any faster, jump any higher, produce any more force, swing your tennis raquet any harder, or improve your ability to do anything relevant to athletic performance. The stabilization demands of these exercises are not even sport-specific! [quote:02f65a35e1] [i:02f65a35e1](Read the afterward with statistical data before answering!)[/i:02f65a35e1] [/quote:02f65a35e1] Trust me, I've already read more than enough of this subject... in fact, years ago when I was less critical of what I read, I actually believed in it. Then I read the counterarguments, realized that there is no scientific foundation for any of it in the first place, and moved on to real training techniques. Brian http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining/

[quote:51673e4f47="BrianG"]You don't need exercise balls to strengthen your stabilizer muscles, nor to develop abdominal strength. I have actually find them to be somewhat useful for the later purpose, but they definitely are not necessary. The main benefit that stability balls provide is that they improve your ability to do exercises on a stability ball. I'm actually so good with the stability ball that I can jump onto the ball and stand on it, but that really affords me no particarticular benefits elsewhere.[/quote:51673e4f47] My previous post regarding my experience with the exercise ball was in reply to Charlie's question to me. I did not state that this piece of equipment is "necessary" to strengthen stabilizers or abs. :shock: Sue

I'd like to think that sharing information can be interesting and helpful. For example, in the article entitled, "Should Athletes Train Like Bodybuilders?" Paul Chek concludes, "In short, the best thing you can do is train predominantly with free weights, a Swiss Ball and some balance and proprioception training toys. You will not only improve performance and prevent injury but you will have fun!" (Webster's dictionary defines proprioceptive as "of, relating to, or being stimuli arising within the organism.") Sounds like Chek would recommend ProBodX. However, I'm way over my head on this subject and really cannot contribute much more. Marinovich does a good job of answering for himself (10-page interview) at: http://www.sportslab.net/press.html Best wishes, Charlie

Brian, You're such a font of knowledge. Hopefully Barry Sears has read your comments and will make sure he has nothing to do with the next reprint of the book. I mean, you are saying that he has been taken for a ride as well? Dear, oh dear, a shame he never spoke to you beforehand. Please thrill us with your next instalment of training science and how you hold the key to supreme well being.

[quote:63e3dfb838] Hopefully Barry Sears has read your comments and will make sure he has nothing to do with the next reprint of the book. I mean, you are saying that he has been taken for a ride as well? Dear, oh dear, a shame he never spoke to you beforehand. [/quote:63e3dfb838] I really doubt that just because Dr. Sears contributed a chapter on nutrition that he intends to endorse the training methods discussed by Marinovich in the rest of the book. I doubt that Sears really cares how Marinovich trains his athletes, and I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't even read the book Are you the same Darren who posted on the old forum? Aren't you a Ken Hutchins desciple? If so, aen't you supposed to be venomously opposed to, and completely intolerant of such methods as Marinovich's? Don't you cringe at the thought of jump squats and lifting weights on a stability ball?

Please read the book, and please base comments on the content of the book. If you have better ideas, that's fine. But please present positive alternatives, so the reader can learn something. Charlie

Oh boy, Brian. Firstly,... [quote:da90a050de]I really doubt that just because Dr. Sears contributed a chapter on nutrition that he intends to endorse the training methods discussed by Marinovich in the rest of the book. I doubt that Sears really cares how Marinovich trains his athletes, and I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't even read the book.[/quote:da90a050de] Sears has remained very general in his exercise recommendations. His contribution to this book should hardly be seen as an endorsement. Your antagonism continues: [quote:da90a050de]Are you the same Darren who posted on the old forum? Aren't you a Ken Hutchins desciple [sic]? If so, aen't [sic] you supposed to be venomously opposed to, and completely intolerant of such methods as Marinovich's? Don't you cringe at the thought of jump squats and lifting weights on a stability ball?[/quote:da90a050de] For one who has consistently criticized Hutchins' plan on this and on "the old forum", all your posts in this thread betray your proclivity for SuperSlow's basic philosophy.

[quote:89984b681f="adam_h"] Sears has remained very general in his exercise recommendations. His contribution to this book should hardly be seen as an endorsement. [/quote:89984b681f] That's exactly what I said.... I don't know why you thought I was implying otherwise. Reading comprehension! [quote:89984b681f] For one who has consistently criticized Hutchins' plan on this and on "the old forum", all your posts in this thread betray your proclivity for SuperSlow's basic philosophy.[/quote:89984b681f] I really haven't agreed with Hutchins on much. My posts in this threa are only a minor violation of my proclevity for the SuperSlow philosophy. I know Hutchins is against all forms of "functionality" training, but what isn't he against? If I have to take common ground with him on one minor issue, then so be it. The concept of "functional" training- emphasizing the training of whole-body movements as opposed to individual muscles- is noble enough. However, some of the methods that have become popular lately have simlpy lost touch with that premise. It's been thoroughly molested by the fitness culture. Now functional training is synonymous wtih stability balls, balance boards, foam rollers, etc. and so-called "core stability" training techniques that really are not specific to ANY sport or activity.

Brian, You are very sharp-eyed. Indeed that Darren you refer to and myself are one and the same. Actually, to be honest, Brian, I think you've been playing Cluedo a bit too much. You're investigative skills are on a par with Henry "the mild mannered janitor" aka Hong Kong Fooey. I've no idea who the other Darren is. It's a big world out there. Only yesterday I met someone called Brian. I don't think it was you. As for the attempts here at a spirited debate. What a joke. The moderators here do not even add anything to help or clarify. That gives this forum zero credibility as any idiot, like me, can post anything they feel like and some poor sucker could read it and either think it's true or not benefit from a balanced reply from the company that runs the forum. No real offence intended Brian, just a bit of fun. Regards Darren

[quote:55f66308ba] Are you the same Darren who posted on the old forum? Aren't you a Ken Hutchins desciple? If so, aen't you supposed to be venomously opposed to, and completely intolerant of such methods as Marinovich's? Don't you cringe at the thought of jump squats and lifting weights on a stability ball?[/quote:55f66308ba] That's probably me. I curse the day I ever argued superslow here. It's a load of psuedo-science voodoo crap! I talked alot of people in to trying it fo body building. I can only apologise. But I still think functional training is just as bad and useless as SS.

OK so what's wrong with SS now?

Yah, reading back my post, it came off a little heavy. I tend to look at weight training from a body building (bigger muscles) view. In this case SS/Heavy Duty etc. is on the wrong page. Their arguments are made from trying to logically/rationally explain growth and use principles of stress/fatigue. But science wrt hypertrophy has come a long way in the last few years (I am no expert on it) and just doesn't support SS theories. What it does support is frequent loading of the muscles (training each muscle at least 3 times a week) and rapid load progression (increasing weight every workout). Also, training to failure has nothing to do with growth or strength, as the muscles respond to mechanical strain more so than fatigue. The guys over at hypertrophy-specific.com go into the specifics. I post over there as Keebler Elf.

Three times a week? Are you talking about simply training for hypertrophy, or is this meant to apply to STRENGTH training too?