The Future of Exercise

By Gus Diamantopoulos

In the Dumpers series, we explored the history of negative hyperloading, examined speed of motion and its relationship to machine resistance profiles and investigated the problems associated with equipment designed to facilitate so-called high-intensity training principles. We maintain that these are misguided strength-training tactics and their philosophical foundations are in contempt for the Definition of Exercise.

The time and money spent in designing and developing dumpers is staggering, and it is a shame that so much energy has gone into projects that are founded on faulty premises.

Despite the best of intentions, dumpers violate exercise equipment design principles, poorly address the challenge of effective and efficient muscular loading, and are orthopedically unsafe, particularly for subjects who are weak, frail or debilitated.

But although dumpers machines and philosophy may be unsound, the notion of a truly revolutionary and superior method of exercise and rehabilitation is not!

Since the release of our critiques the big question has been, “If negative hyperloading, rest pause, and motorized machines aren’t the ideal means to more efficient and effective muscular loading, then what is?”

We have made exhilarating progress with the RenEx Equipment line. Our machines satisfy crucially important criteria that are required for praxis of the Renaissance Exercise dynamic protocol. But there is another protocol for human muscular strengthening that may well rival dynamic exercise regardless of whether it is performed on gravity-based systems, with motors, or in any other technology. In fact, this protocol challenges the very idea that movement is required at all to strengthen the human musculature.

ISOMETRICS: What’s Old Is New Again

Generally speaking, isometrics is a type of self-resistance exercise that—supposedly—involves muscular contractions without a corresponding variation in muscle length. As the terminology suggests, it is exercise without movement.

However, some slight movement does occur within the muscle as well as with the involved joints. And some bending of the bones occurs. Note that the term, “contraction” means “shortening,” hence “movement,” while the purest rendering of the terminology means “without shortening,” hence, “without movement.” Note these inconsistencies as we explore the word origins in the following.

Isometric exercise is also commonly referred to as static and both terms are derived from the Greek language. The word isometric combines two prefixes, isos meaning “same” and metron meaning “distance.” Hence, in isometric exercise, although contraction forces may vary, the length of the muscle and the angle of the joint supposedly do not change. The word static comes from the word statikos meaning “causing to stand” or “fixed.”

Perhaps the true static in the isometric picture is the object being pushed against. It really does not move, at least not on a macroscopic level.

In contrast, isotonic contractions require variations in muscle length and joint angle but with supposedly unchanging muscular contraction forces. These types of contractions occur with dynamic exercise (as opposed to static) and they occur with movement.

A relatively newer term is isokinetic contraction. It implies that movement occurs at a constant rate of muscular shortening. However, attempts to impose a constant angular speed to the involved joint actually imposes a varying linear contraction speed to the involved muscle. Pure isokinetic muscular contraction is a fantasy. Again, the word more describes the behavior of the equipment applied to the body than to the behavior of the body.

As we can appreciate, the technical terms do not accurately describe the muscular experience, but they do give us a rough idea of what to expect with our gross behavior.

The concept of isometric exercise (or self-resistance) is actually thousands of years old and has been practiced in one form or another since the earliest days of recorded history.

Static holds of varying types have been practiced in traditional Yoga and Chinese martial arts disciplines for centuries. In the west, the ancient Greeks, renowned for their superlative physical condition, employed isometrics in wrestling, gymnastics and even for demonstrations of strength.

Eugene Sandow

But it wasn’t until the latter half of the nineteenth century that isometric exercise began to be formally documented and published for the general public. Strongmen such as Eugene Sandow became the first muscular celebrities to achieve star status with the public. They not only entertained with their impressive physiques and their feats of strength, they also inspired by showing people how they too could learn the special techniques for physical improvement, thus opening the door to the first marketing of strength- training materials. Many strongmen made their livings publishing manuals, books, and how-to courses—some featuring isometric techniques that were highly sought-after.

Isometrics actually became one of the most saleable techniques because it required little or no special equipment, and there were innumerable exercises and strategies that could be described for the layperson. Moreover, isometrics was a legitimate and results-producing technique that many actually used as part of their program to genuinely develop their strength and skill.

It wasn’t long before scientists took an interest in the study of isometrics. In 1920, researchers at Springfield College in Massachusetts observed a fascinating phenomenon while studying the effects of muscular inactivity. The medical community had been inundated with large numbers of wounded soldiers who were poorly attended because of staff shortages. With so many soldiers lying motionless for so long, the fear was that severe atrophy would lead to disabling paralysis. The researchers needed to know how long this would take to occur so that they could prioritize who required attention first.

In a somewhat celebrated experiment, a group of frogs was studied. Each frog had one of its legs bound to a fixed object and completely immobilized while the other leg was allowed free movement. This simulated the paralyzed limbs of the wounded soldiers. The frogs were maintained in this state for two weeks.

The presumption of this frog study was that the restrained legs would become weaker over time because of immobility as compared to the freely moving legs. Then extrapolations could be made about the rate of atrophy to help the wounded soldiers.

To the astonishment of the researchers, however, precisely the opposite occurred! When the bindings were removed, it was revealed that the bound leg muscles were larger and stronger than the freely moving legs. Reportedly, so disproportionate was the strength in the bound legs that the frogs now jumped lopsided.

Unwittingly, the researchers had substantiated the concept of isometric exercise. The conclusion was that the restrained frogs struggled continuously throughout the test interval, thus contracting their muscles against the immovable bindings. And these contractions resulted in extraordinary muscle fiber stimulation, recruitment and, in the end, muscular development.

Incredibly, though the researchers published their findings, they determined that the results were inapplicable to human beings, and so the study was shelved. One possible explanation for this is that the researchers may have believed that it was necessary to experience immobility for protracted time periods just like the frogs, rendering the technique impractical for humans.

A few decades later, however, in 1953, a pair of young German physiologists at the Max Planck Institute revisited the Springfield study. The physiologists were Hettinger and Muller. They applied and measured the effects of isometric exercise to human subjects. But unlike the passive immobilization of the frogs’ limbs, Hettinger and Muller instructed their subjects to actively apply volitional effort to the isometric events.

What they found was that intense contraction of muscles against immovable objects increased strength by measurable values on a week-to-week basis. They claimed as much as a 5% increase in strength per week. Moreover, these strength increases occurred after an incredibly disproportionate brevity of activity. The contractions were applied for as little as five or six seconds, once each day.

Although many researchers later claimed similar results, others have failed to replicate the findings of the Germans.

We now know that the concept of measuring strength is not a simple one, and that almost all attempts to accurately and reliably measure strength have been hampered by difficulties. These include the problem of valid definitions for terms such as “strength” and “exercise,” as well as the challenges of dynamometry (equipment and measuring tools) that would support such measurement. The only workable tool developed to do this is the static MedX strength testing equipment. And the MedX was not available until the later 1980s.

Despite the interest of researchers and scientists in isometrics, it was the strongmen, again, who truly popularized isometrics for the public.

Bob Hoffman

Bob Hoffman, founder of the York Barbell Company, used isometrics when he coached Olympic record-breaking weightlifters Lou Riecke and Bill March. Unfortunately it was revealed that they also used anabolic steroids in addition to their isometric techniques. This prompted insinuations of deception against Hoffman and those who promoted isometrics as the protocol of choice for strength training.

Despite the bad rap, by the early 1960s isometrics application was widespread. Professional athletes like Mickey Mantle used isometrics, as did President Kennedy. Isometric training programs were adapted by coaches and used in high school athletic programs. Isometric how-to digests were found at grocery store check out stands, and mail order courses appeared in comic books and on the backs of cereal boxes.

Many readers might remember the famous (and successful) program of Charles Atlas, which taught a kind of isometric exercise that he called “dynamic tension.” In Atlas’s version, individual body parts were pitted against each other in a calisthenics-type of “self-resistance.”

Another influential proponent of isometrics—perhaps one of the most well known—was actor and martial artist, Bruce Lee. Lee’s physique was astounding in its muscularity, athleticism and strength. It is noteworthy that he wrote meticulously about his belief in brief and intense strength-building exercise as an adjunct to his martial arts training.

Bruce Lee

In particular, Lee was a fiercely devoted advocate of isometrics. Apparently, Lee discovered isometrics after a bad back injury sustained during traditional weight training. He applied Bob Hoffman’s eight-exercise, whole-body “Functional Isometric Contraction System” using a conventional power-rack and also employed routines using common training aids such as ropes, towels, belts and simply his own bodyweight. Lee recommended contractions and holds of 6-12 seconds at what he called “100-percent” effort. Interestingly, this is what remains as the most common approach to isometrics today.

Lee’s physique and charisma attracted many would-be martial artists and bodybuilders, but the isometric technique itself remained somewhat unrecognized. Compared to the kinetic fury of Bruce Lee’s vaunted martial arts skills, isometrics seemed an ascetic, lackluster technique at best.

Bullworker

By the mid 1970s, isometrics was a passing fad. Other than some basic bullworkers, rehashes of how-to manuals, pamphlets, and sideline physical therapy guidelines, isometrics just fizzled-out.

Mike Mentzer

In the 1990s isometrics enjoyed a mini revival when former Mr. Universe and Jonesian disciple Mike Mentzer wrote about his predilection for static holds. Initially, his program detailed a protocol that included the dynamic portion of the lift as well as the static, but later claimed that statics alone may be all that is necessary. His techniques were briefly popular with some bodybuilders, but for the most part, statics remained on the sidelines.

The trouble with sustaining interest in isometrics is that most people are much more interested in the familiarity of physical movement rather than in the potential results that could be achieved with a focused and disciplined approach.

Today, with the rapid proliferation of the modern commercial health club, the public is able to enjoy the pursuit of fitness in an environment that offers a level of stimulation equal to that of an amusement park.

In much the same way, the explosion of home exercise devices over the past 40 years has helped to crystallize the idea of exercise as entertainment.

With television marketing exploding in the 1980s, crafty advertisers and manufacturers of junky exercise gizmos quickly capitalized on a naïve public’s dream that exercise could actually be fun. Now the promise of success was ever more glamorous, inspiring and even hopeful. Who wants to hear about focus, discipline, effort and willpower when fun is all you need?

Amazingly, fitness advertising has worked beautifully. Despite the appalling failure rate of home exercise devices, people continue to waste their money for a piece of the promise of tight abs and sexy legs. In fact, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a successful fitness enterprise that does NOT include “fun” as a primary marketing feature. Fitness and fun have become more than just alliteration; today, they’re practically synonymous.

However, in spite of isometrics’ present lack of popularity, its effectiveness is undeniable. There are still concerns for safety with traditional isometrics; but as we will soon reveal, in the ideal environment, with an exacting protocol, proper instruction, and sophisticated equipment, isometrics can rival almost all other forms of exercise.

Types of Isometric Exercise:
Overcoming Isometrics vs. Yielding Isometrics

In any isometric exercise the muscle(s) can contract against an immovable object or force. This is called an “overcoming isometric contraction.” Alternatively, muscles can contract against a potentially moving resistance as the joints remain held in a static position. This is called a “yielding isometric contraction.”

Example:

In a RenEx Leg Press machine, a yielding isometric is achieved with a subject pushing the loaded movement arm (carriage) to the midrange position and holding it motionless in spite of the fact that the carriage can be moved positively or negatively. In this position, the subject contracts the involved muscles to keep the carriage (and his joints) motionless, although it and the weights are otherwise free to move positively or negatively.

In the same machine, an overcoming isometric is achieved by locking the carriage with the endpoint stop at the same midrange position described above. The carriage cannot move positively. The subject contracts his muscles as if he is trying to positively move the carriage.

In the first situation, with the yielding isometric, assuming he remains motionless, the subject is producing a force output that is precisely equal to the resistance that is selected. The force used to hold the aforementioned midrange position is exactly that necessary to remain motionless with the resistance, neither producing positive nor negative work. (This is what Mike Mentzer referred to as “static holds” in his book, Heavy Duty II: Mind and Body.)

In the second situation, with the overcoming isometric, the subject can and may produce any force output value from zero to whatever maximum limit is desired, and he will never be able to move the carriage because it is locked.

In the yielding isometric, muscular force output (not effort) remains the same, because the resistance never changes. The resistance remains constant as the subject increasingly struggles to balance between the positive and the negative phases in an attempt to remain motionless. Gravity acts upon the weights and therefore also upon the subject’s neurological and muscular systems. In this case, the subject can only produce more effort (due to fatigue as time passes), but not more or less force as either would result in movement.

In the overcoming isometric example, muscular force output can vary wildly because effort is generated entirely volitionally with no outside imperative from an imposed resistance. Resistance in this case is said to be self-generated. The subject must willfully choose to generate both effort and force, and both can be regulated to greater or lesser values. In other words, the subject may experience any of the following scenarios:

• He may produce less effort and decrease force output.
• He may produce more effort and increase force output.
• He may produce maximum effort but necessarily decrease force output because of fatigue over time.

It is even possible to face a yielding isometric while at the same time engaging in an overcoming isometric. In the example of the Leg Press, such a combined approach is to press a loaded carriage to the midrange position, but instead of simply randomly stopping at the midrange, set the endpoint stop. The subject is now stopped by an immovable endpoint stop that he can push harder against (overcoming) while still having to contend with the resistance of the weight stack acting upon him (yielding). In this case, the subject can produce greater or lesser effort with increased or decreased force into the endpoint stop, but he has no choice but to necessarily, simultaneously contract against the potentially moving resistance to remain at the end-point stop so as to disallow the negative phase.

Whether it is in an exercise with an endpoint stop (combined yielding/overcoming) or with no endpoint stop (yielding), this is what we do with the squeeze technique in RenEx dynamic protocol. The squeeze technique is essentially a graduated isometric technique (not a Timed Static Contraction) within the isotonic event. It is designed to more quickly fatigue the working musculature and deepen the inroad effect, thus satisfying the real objective of the exercise.

Note that momentary muscular failure is essentially an isometric event within the isotonic excursion. Only with muscular failure, the isometric portion is not intentional; it is a result of a conflict between the reduced force output capabilities of the subject and the resistance at the precise moment in the set where the subject’s strength is at or just below the value of the resistance.

Among and between yielding and overcoming isometrics lies the entire spectrum of the more traditional approaches to static exercise. But with these traditional approaches, a vital element has almost always been missing. Whether it’s Charles Atlas’ dynamic tension pitting biceps against triceps, Bob Hoffman’s whole body power-rack workout, or Mike Mentzer’s static holds, all of these approaches share the common element of relatively instantaneous, high-intensity contractions for extremely brief durations.

In almost all isometric exercise manuals, the general instruction is to produce maximum force output within a few seconds of time. In most cases, the time frame seems to be around 5-10 seconds. This is where the Renaissance Exercise approach to isometrics differs dramatically.

ISOMETRICS 2.0: Timed Static Contraction (TSC)

[Editor’s Note: Much of this section is from The Renaissance of Exercise by Ken Hutchins]

In the early 1990s, Stephen Maxwell alerted Ken Hutchins to John Little’s writings about static contractions. Little was the editor of Flex magazine at the time and he explained a protocol—Timed Static Contractions (TSC)—whereby an isometric effort is applied for a continuous duration of two minutes (overcoming isometrics). This duration is divided into four 30-second quarters.

• The first quarter is applied with an—albeit subjective—25% effort. (Read “minimal” effort.)
• The second quarter is applied with a 50% effort, sometimes referred to as a “moderate effort.”
• The third quarter is applied with a 75% effort, also termed “almost as hard as possible.”
• The fourth quarter is applied with a 100% effort.

Maxwell emphasized that these static contractions were very useful for subjects with special problems such as poor motor control or injuries.

Ken immediately recognized that such a different protocol of isometric exercise has a legitimate place in the Renaissance Exercise philosophy. This was certainly not the isometrics of Charles Atlas nor was it in any way associated with the dangerous application favored by the MedX testing procedure.

What distinguishes TSC protocol from almost all other types of isometrics is a comparatively protracted duration and progressively escalating stages of effort.

By extending the contraction force over a longer period of time, the subject can experience all of the muscular benefits of dynamic exercise. What’s more, for the first time, the exercise event can be considered truly uninterrupted. In fact, we believe that the entire musculature becomes involved—regardless of position—with a continuous loading of adequate duration. Ken surmised that with enough continuous contraction time, the nervous system appears to recruit any and all fibers in the targeted musculo-tendinous unit.. The effect serves to spread out the inroading along the entire length of the musculature.

We have always maintained that the most important aspect for muscular stimulation is continuous, uninterrupted loading of the structures carried to a point of momentary muscular fatigue. But even the most disciplined and devoted trainee is at the mercy of an instinctively efficient body that is always seeking respites and pauses in dynamic excursions.

With TSC however, because the joints do not move, and only the musculature contracts, there is nowhere to escape. If a subject loads gradually and remains loaded continuously over the intended duration, it is almost impossible to find respite, which guarantees more-thorough inroading.

We contend that TSC goes beyond the Renaissance Exercise dynamic protocol in several respects. Although Renaissance Exercise is the most conservative—with respect to safety—of all dynamic protocols, Timed Static Contraction is yet more conservative.

So if the RenEx protocol (10-seconds positive, 10-seconds negative) is safer than the subject walking from his car to the front door of Ken’s studio—and it is, due to a host of control factors, TSC is safer than the subject lying in bed. Most of the time, lying in bed is a passive, thoughtless event. The subject is not remaining thoughtfully protective. But with TSC, the subject is actively alert to internal sensations and is able to deliberately modulate effort to heed alarms, if any.

Since learning of TSC, Ken’s discussions with Dr. Doug McGuff led him to decrease the time under load to 90 seconds for most applications. The current verbiage for the three stages is now: “moderate effort,” “almost as hard as you dare,” and “as hard as you dare.” This is estimated as a subjective 50/75/100 percent effort.

And its usual 50/75/100 percent can be made yet more conservative. A therapist may prefer 25/50/75/75, 25/50/50/75, 25/50/50/75/75 or 50/75/75/100.

Also, the subject—since he is not needing to monitor his motion—can completely devote his attention to what he is contracting and how he is contracting it. And this attention includes keen awareness of pain and its threshold as he applies greater effort. Thus, the subject can volitionally remain just under any threshold of pain or fear.

TSC may also permit the subject better control and mastery of ventilation and extraneous musculature relaxation. It offers more control all around.

Until recently, the biggest drawback of TSC has been that the protocol is essentially “blind.” Neither the instructor nor the subject can know the forces being generated by the working subject. Surprisingly, staging effort even blindly has proven to be remarkably effective for us. But we must admit that we cannot quantify performance and progression with the blind application of TSC.

Closely linked to this is a common psychological aversion to static contraction. Many subjects refuse to be denied the sense of completion and accomplishment obtained from lifting a weight or making a movement arm move. Their truculence in this regard is also related to the fact that not only are they motionless, but they also have no external feedback to confirm or refute their static efforts.

Most people possess inadequate discipline to progressively internalize to satisfy advanced TSC efforts. This is perhaps one of the reasons why aficionados of isometrics like Mentzer favoured heavy-weight static holds (yielding isometrics) rather than a more pure overcoming strategy. The potentially moving weight in a yielding isometric has a kind of proprioceptive value that strangely provides a sense of feedback as well as satisfaction.

Regardless of all of the drawbacks mentioned, TSC is potentially the most physiologically demanding, effective, and efficient muscular loading and stimulation strategy known. This is not a statement to be taken lightly. We are submitting that TSC rivals not only other static protocols, but that it indeed rivals dynamic protocol for pure stimulation of the target structures.

Regardless of intensity, however, several seemingly disparate relationships must be understood regarding TSC exercise before it can be practiced.

First, in any TSC exercise, the subject must learn how to gradually apply force. As we have seen, isometric exercises are typically performed with abrupt or sudden loading to maximum intensity. TSC, on the other hand, requires a gradual increase of the subject’s force output.

Second, this gradually applied force must not immediately reach maximum effort. Gradually applying force to 100% effort is only a marginal improvement over abruptly applying force to 100%. To rephrase this for clarity, force must be gradually applied AND applied only up to the requisite effort level. Thus, in the first stage, force must be applied gradually, but only up to moderate effort… never beyond!

Third, it must be understood that force output is not necessarily the equivalent of effort. As time passes during a TSC, the subject’s force production capability precipitously decreases. In the early stage of a set, the more force that is produced, the greater the effort may be. But at some critical juncture during the set, effort and force output necessarily become inverse elements. By the end of the set, maximum effort may yield near non-existent force output.

As we will reveal, with load-sensing technology, we have the ability to precisely know the subject’s force output, but effort remains an uncertainty regardless of any technology. However, all we can know of effort is either 0%, which can be characterized as “no effort” AND 100% or “all-out effort.”

Suggesting that force does not equal effort is an intellectually obvious statement, but it is one that is actually very difficult to grasp viscerally. The inverse relationship that occurs between force and effort over time during a TSC is vexing to most subjects until they are made aware of it.

In a broader sense, this is also what most exercise equipment manufacturers fail to acknowledge when they are designing resistance curves for their machines. When you design a machine for exercising the human body you are designing a mechanism that will be driven by an ever-weakening organic engine. The moment the human subject (the “organic engine”) begins to drive the device (exercise on the machine), his capability for force production is immediately, necessarily, and exponentially decreasing as inroading takes place.

If you build the machine according to this understanding, then you can teach the subject that the goal of exercise is to inroad, to fatigue and to actually fail. If you do not, then the subject is left with but one simple recourse: perform in such a way to as get as many reps as possible, as quickly as possible, with the most weight as possible, thus, effectively violating the principles of the real objective of exercise.

It is for this reason that RenEx equipment is designed with the customized resistance variation profiles that initially appear so radical to the uninitiated. They are a manifestation of our acceptance and understanding of how our muscles produce force, how we fatigue, and how effort is the grand negotiator.

TSC represents the next step toward the evolution of this understanding. But since the inception of TSC, instructors and subjects alike have been at the mercy of conjecture when it comes to evaluating effort. The best we’ve been able to do is to rely on best-guess estimates within the limits of our equipment and our experiences as instructors.

With the staged TSC protocol we have had exceptional success in our own workouts and with many of our clients. For others, however, the blind approach was just too abstract. And we understand their complaints. The human need for measuring, quantifying and comparing (especially in exercise) is deeply ingrained in both our instincts and in our culture.

But in a twist of irony it would be this most basic need for measurement that would push one of Ken Hutchins’ students to a new development in TSC that would take Renaissance Exercise on a path straight to the future of exercise.

TSC Gets Eyes and the First “iMachine” Is Born

[Editor’s Note: In keeping with the conventions established in The Renaissance of Exercise by Ken Hutchins, names of machines begin with upper case. Names of exercises begin with lower case. This minimizes confusion when the name of a machine is the same name as the name of an exercise that may or may not be performed in said machine.]

I designed my exercise studio, The Strength Room, to best represent what Ken Hutchins describes in his Renaissance of Exercise as the ideal Renaissance Exercise facility. It is completely private, austere, climate-controlled, distraction-free and with a full complement of the most uncompromising equipment exclusively devoted to Renaissance Exercise protocol.

It has always been my mission to provide for my clients only equipment that facilitates mastery of the protocol. This is the main reason that I developed the prototype of what would become the RenEx Ultra Glide top-plate system used in all the RenEx equipment weight stacks.

For similar reasons, I was adamant that the TSC protocol could be significantly improved if there was some way to quantify the effects of the exercise. Ken had alluded to this possibility, but never took it this far. A feedback system eliminates the primary drawback of the protocol, thus enabling both instructor and subject to embark on a truly progressive exercise or rehabilitation program.

In 2005, I developed a system for computerized force measurement for the Static Pullover machine that Ken Hutchins had produced some years earlier. His SuperSlow® Static Pullover was a remarkably effective machine that virtually eliminated the numerous orthopaedic risks associated with the dynamic Pullover. Additionally, it provided for a highly productive upper body workout.

My design featured load cells that received force input from the machine’s arm pad. These load cells converted force into an electrical signal that was then interpolated through computer software to display a graphical relationship of force and time on a monitor.

When the system was activated and the subject pushed his arms onto the pad, a force line-graph was displayed in real time. As force was increased on the load sensors, the line travelled up and across the screen. The system was exceptionally responsive and displayed an instantaneous representation of loading with the amplitude of the force line. The periodicity of the peaks and valleys directly correlated to the subject’s force output. This immediacy of feedback has been critically important in creating the positive feedback loop phenomenon that subjects experience in all of the new iMachines by Renaissance Exercise Equipment, LTD.

For the first time, it is actually possible for both the instructor and the working subject to observe and measure the precise force output during a set of TSC, in effect providing the subject with the isometric equivalent of a weight stack going up and down. In fact, this is far superior to any dynamic exercise feedback because it is so much more precise.

Force measurement and feedback means no more guesswork. It provides the unique ability to perform visually progressive, staged, timed static exercise with a level of control and certainty never before possible. Most importantly, this system provides that we can finally “see” the most nebulous variable in all of exercise: effort.

Static Pullover Meets Static Pulldown

Classically, the Pullover machine was intended to be used as a pre-exhaust mate for pulldown exercise. In the 1970s and 80s, Nautilus produced a number of combination-type machines that permitted the subject to perform a dyad of exercises in pre-exhaust fashion within the same station.

In pre-exhaust, two different exercises are performed in a back-to-back sequence with as little rest as possible between. Most commonly, a simple (single-joint) exercise (such as a pullover) was performed first and then followed by a compound (multiple-joint) exercise such as a pulldown These “double” machines were elaborate mechanisms that were heavy, friction-laden, and expensive, but they did help to underscore how important it is to keep the rest time between the dyad exercises to an absolute minimum.

The old Jonesian dictum was that momentary muscular recovery from complete momentary muscular failure was in half-lives of three seconds. Whether accurate or not, this statement represented that once a subject completely failed in an exercise—to the point that the subject’s involved musculature was dysfunctional—it was functional enough to perform one repetition of the exercise after about three seconds of rest. And with another doubling or two of rest time, it was almost back to where the original inroading began.

Certainly, momentary muscular recovery is very fast. Therefore, the best effect from pre-exhaustion—assuming one deems pre-exhaustion efficacious to employ—requires a restricted unload between the two exercises. Merely rushing to the secondary exercise in another machine nearby renders the pre-exhaustion effect from the primary exercise slight-to-nothing. This allows too much rest.

Although the Static Pullover machine alone was very productive, we believed that mating a Static Pulldown to it could make it extraordinary.

In 2009, I collaborated with Ken to develop a vertically adjustable pulldown handle directly above the Static Pullover pad. With the new Pullover/Pulldown setup it was possible—from the same seated position—to go from static pullover exercise to static pulldown exercise with a transition time of less than one second! This level of expediency between exercises not only satisfied the Nautilus version of pre-exhaust, it created an entirely new benchmark for the term.

Josh Trentine and the Toronto Experiment

To understand the impact of the combination Static Pullover/Pulldown machine and to see it in the context of how deeply a subject can be inroaded, we can look to an informal experiment that I conducted with Josh Trentine.

In the summer of 2009, Josh visited The Strength Room to test the new Static Pullover/Pulldown prototype. Josh had experienced the Static Pullover with feedback system, but this pre-exhaust combination device would be something completely new for him.

We developed a strategy to examine the magnitude of the inroad effect of the Static Pullover/Pulldown. The static exercises were performed to thorough inroad (90 seconds each set) and then followed immediately by a set of dynamic pulldowns for repetitions on my low-friction retrofitted SuperSlow® Systems Pulldown machine.

The plan used 120 lbs on the dynamic Pulldown. Although seemingly random, this weight represented a load that Josh and I both appreciated as a completely manageable resistance for Josh. In the past he had performed dynamic pullovers as pre-exhaust exercise for the pulldown in his own studio and 140 lbs typified a moderate weight for the Pulldown machine. Since it was hypothesized that the combination Static Pullover/Pulldown would be more demanding than other similar pre-exhaust techniques, 120lbs seemed like a good starting point while still permitting a good number of repetitions on the dynamic exercise.

At 62 degrees Fahrenheit, the studio temperature was brisk, and I had many of the fans already turned on so that Josh did not overheat during the experiment.

The machines were set up, and Josh entered the Static Pullover/Pulldown. After a well-performed, gradual build-up in the first third of the pullover exercise, Josh reached a peak force output of 170 lbs. He was able to sustain this for almost 30 more seconds in the second phase before he began to display signs of serious fatigue. His breathing became more laboured, and, as his pelvic tilt exaggerated, his legs began to tremble. As difficulty intensified, Josh’s force output began to fall precipitously, and the trembling became worse. Eventually his breathing became extremely rapid and his face reddened. By the final 10 seconds, Josh was only capable of producing 70 lbs of force.

Though obviously exhausted, Josh managed to get his hands up to the Pulldown handle immediately after concluding his pullover set, thus commencing the static pulldown portion of the exercise dyad. Now, his fresh arm muscles (biceps) were driving his already fatigued shoulder, back and midsection muscles to even greater inroad.

After 30 seconds of gradual loading, Josh peaked to sustain approximately 130 lbs—50 lbs less than his peak pullover force. But because of the cumulative effects of the pullover, 130 lbs felt monstrously difficult. By this point, his arms and back had swollen vastly, and he was experiencing severe and irrepressible oxygen debt. At the one-minute mark, his body was shaking uncontrollably from head to toe. As he approached the final seconds of the set, Josh’s massive effort was accompanied by involuntary, guttural vocalizations. His force output had decreased to less than 50 lbs. When he finally released his grip, his arms literally fell to his sides in a lifeless heap.

Although Josh was extremely breathless at this point, I had to exit him from the Static Pullover/Pulldown and quickly get him to the dynamic Pulldown which waited just steps away. Time was of the essence. Fortunately, his lower body was mostly unaffected and he could walk with no difficulty.

I helped him enter the Pulldown machine and then facilitated the transfer of the handle. After a minute of  rest, Josh initiated the first rep. Incredibly however, after mere inches of weight stack travel, Josh was unable to move the 120-lb weight. In fact, despite his greatest motivation, he couldn’t even budge it!

We were both astonished that he could not perform even one repetition, but I had little time to dwell on this. I had to reduce the weight, thus incurring additional undesirable rest in this test. I selected 90 lbs, and for a moment I wondered if this was perhaps too light. But as Josh initiated the exercise for the second time, again he was unable to complete a single repetition. At this point he was gasping as he tried repeatedly to pull the bar down. No movement.

Our combined incredulity was palpable. It would take one final, absurd reduction to a comical 60 lbs that would finally permit Josh to perform a meagre two repetitions before all-out fatigue consumed him.

Joshua Trentine

It was almost unbelievable. After 90 seconds of static pullover and 90 seconds of static pulldown, Josh was reduced to a mere 60 lbs of weight for only two possible repetitions on the dynamic pulldown exercise.

To appreciate the significance of this, consider that Josh had previously worked on the dynamic Pulldown machine with weight in excess of 220 lbs for five-plus strict Renaissance Exercise protocol repetitions. That 60 lbs was so challenging to him following the static workout unquestionably supports Ken Hutchins’ Intensity vs. Work in Exercise argument (see Chapter 8 in the Renaissance of Exercise, Volume I). In fact, it gives rise to an entirely new paradigm for human muscle strengthening and officially opens the door to the future of exercise.

Note another little detail. The so called pump from Josh’s static dyad was beyond belief. In fact, the notion of pump assumes movement… right?… likened to the pumping action of movement in order to achieve such? Not so!

The Future of Exercise: Enter the iMachines

The Renaissance Exercise approach to Timed Static Contraction marks the exciting beginning of a revolutionary new era in exercise and rehabilitation. Our new iMachines represent the technological manifestation of Timed Static Contraction protocol. These machines facilitate ideal human biomechanics and feature sophisticated force measurement technology to amplify all of the advantages of TSC while at the same time eliminating virtually all of the drawbacks. Most of all, they offer a level of safety that has no equal and has never been approached before.

By far the most exciting application for the iMachines is in the field of research. Although strength training as an exercise discipline naturally lends itself to scientific investigation, it has actually been poorly studied.

For instance, NASA studied isometric exercise as a way to preserve bone density in weightless environments. NASA’s findings were disappointing. It is our suspicion that the researchers employed the traditional approach of brief, 5-15-second bouts of maximum effort. As already mentioned, we see such short intervals and such abrupt and high-effort levels to be dangerous and poorly stimulating to the muscular growth mechanism.

If our suspicion regarding NASA’s approach to isometrics is correct, we might ask why research in dynamic weight training does not exclusively employ one-repetition maximum lifts to serve as “weight training?” This appears to be the same incorrect line of thinking.

With TSC protocol we can effectively control variables such as speed and range of motion without the added complications of form discrepancies. Combining TSC protocol with the iMachines offers a completely new and refined method for quantifying, documenting and studying data. This provides the researcher with unprecedented precision and control for testing and verification of variables in exercise that, until recently, have been nearly impossible to standardize.

For instance, the RenEx protocol—10 seconds positive, 10 seconds negative—is the best dynamic protocol to teach and standardize. Nevertheless, obtaining subjects who perform the protocol consistently enough to standardize a research study may consume weeks from the limited time of the study. TSC on the iMachines still requires informed instruction, but the subject’s learning curve is greatly lessened in slope and length.

Note the graph below. Note that it is a depiction of what happens on the graphical feedback display of any of the RenEx iMachines. As you will see later, the actual force tracings oscillate in amplitude, but for ease of explanation, we are pretending these tracings to be smooth, dashed lines.

Force is displayed on the vertical axis at the far left. Time is displayed on the horizontal axis at the bottom.

The dashed green horizontal line is our chosen target force.

The dashed orange line is the subject’s potential strength curve when effort is slowly increased from the beginning of the exercise. The subject is capable of producing this tracing, but if he does produce it past the green target line, his risk of injury increases.

The dashed red line represents the force magnitude at which the muscle is injured. This can occur in several ways—singularly or in combination. One or more of the tendons can avulse off the bone, sometimes pulling bone fragments out with the avulsion. A tearing might occur at the musculo-tendonous junction—a place known for weakness in some musculatures.

Note that as the orange line moves on past the green line its distance to the red line decreases. This decrease represents a narrowing of the margin of safety. Therefore, we want the subject to hug the green line during the exercise, thus producing the blue trace.

Note the initial slope of the blue line. This is appropriate. A strictly vertical blue tracing here demonstrates a violent application of force that can shoot past the green target line directly to the red injury line. The feedback of this tracing serves to be highly instructional to novice subjects.

Note that once the blue tracing encounters the green target line, if within the subject’s ability, it appropriately hugs the target line for the duration of the exercise. In this situation, the target is set too low to achieve failure.

But in the case depicted above, it trails downward near completion of the 90-second set. It falls below the target line because the subject is failing. The target force selected in this case is perfect.

Note that failure attained or not, the subject’s strength inroads. The orange line eventually goes down. Where it actually resides for a particular subject at a particular load at any instant, we do not know, AND we don’t want to know!

These methods and machines are not for strength testing! A usually passive or backhanded statement style for saying this is the quintessential: “Strength testing is not recommended.” or “Strength testing is contraindicated.” We are more direct: “Strength testing with RenEx iMachines is dangerous, unethical, unnecessary, inaccurate, and crass!”

Nevertheless, the depiction shows that the yellow line eventually intersects the target line and hugs the blue line as the subject fails—going below the green line—before the completion of the 90-second set.

Assumably, as the blue line depicts falling force output, the subject’s effort is 100% AND the safety margin is increasing!

What’s more, observe the yellow line as it falls below the target force. Both before and after that point we have a negative-work effect that is far more profound than any dumper can provide! Providing a so-called hyperloaded negative dynamically is inefficient, clumsy, unnecessary, and dangerous. This completely replaces the dumpers!

What’s more, we have observed increases in range of motion in rehabilitation subjects who performed no dynamic exercise or stretching programs.

What’s more, we observe profound vascular effects! And this occurs without gross movement!

What’s more, the popular ballyhoo regarding the benefits of vibration plates evaporates when the internal vibration of the muscle is graphically displayed as in the performance graph below. Of course, this vibration occurs in dynamic exercise as well. It’s just that Feedback TSC isolates and exposes it!

This is extremely exciting!! At last, we can pose and perhaps answer some very important questions. For example:

• Where in the inroad process does the stimulus occur?
• With a novice does the stimulus point occur before failure?
• Does the stimulus move to a deeper inroad depth as the subject grows closer to his potential?
• What does this Feedback TSC portent for establishing the ideal frequency and duration of the routine?
• How might Feedback TSC be applied to circumvent obstacles to exercise involving a host of specific debilities and conditions?
• How effective is Feedback TSC for bone density maintenance and the allowance for exercise in extreme conditions such as weightless environments?
• Can we finally substantiate the inroad theory once and for all?
• Might we find that inroad can be too deep?
• Might we find that inroad depth must be balance against several other factors?
• And many others…

Another application is rehabilitation.

Pretend that you encounter a subject who has injured himself and he desires to know exactly how far he can safely push himself. With instruction, he begins to generate the blue line on a very conservative slope. As he just feels the hint of discomfort—no matter where its origin—we designate a red line at that force level.

We now know the cusp of his pain threshold!

In subsequent workouts, if the red line moves up, he is improving. If not, not. If moving downward, something is amiss—either with his exercise program or something else he is doing in his daily life.

This is what the physical medicine professionals have been searching for the last 100 years. We now have it!

Here is a picture of an actual graph just after completion of both exercises performed on the iPOPD:

Note that commencing the static pullover exercise, the subject gradually climbed to his target force of 65 lbs. Then he held it perfectly until his instructor said the cue word, “move,” to go to the static pulldown exercise. He then built almost to his pulldown target force of 70 lbs quickly but without spiking past the target force. Greater oscillation amplitude and frequency ensued as he fought valiantly to attain the target and maintain it. Eventually, his inroading overtook his will and his trace diminished before the completion of the 90-second set.

Judging from the first set (segment of the pullover), his target force needs increasing for the subsequent workout. Judging from the second set (segment of the pulldown), his target force is to remain the same at his next workout. Indeed, the second segment may show more and sooner inroad at its end due to the increased target force of the first segment. To our elated surprise, we have observed both segments to require target increases after just such an increase in the target force in one of the segments!

Meet the iMachines

Our iPOPD machine (Static Pullover/Pulldown) provides the purest interpretation of the influential Nautilus Pullover. It is also furnished with the means to perform the follow-up compound pulling exercise with virtually zero rest—a facet of the pre-exhaust concept that could never be ideally brought to fruition until now. And all of this is possible without a hint of danger to the integrity of the neck and shoulders.

On our RenEx Leg Press, the force measurement system allows for dynamic as well as static readings for leg press as well as heel raise exercise. With TSC protocol, leg press is now possible even for subjects with the most debilitated hips, knees and backs. As for the truly strong and muscular subject, Leg Press takes on a whole new meaning of intensity.

Other Feedback TSC machines are on the way! We will announce them as their photography becomes available.

The newest machine developed in our TSC line is the iMulti-Exercise. As its name suggests, this special device permits the performance of more than 12 Feedback TSC exercises, each equipped with the technology of computerized force measurement feedback. Go from delicate neck or shoulder rehabilitation to highly motivated “tank emptying” on static compound row within seconds on one of the most versatile pieces of exercise equipment ever available.

The iMachines represent the official Renaissance Exercise response to dumpers machines and their underlying philosophy. Unlike negative hyperloaders and motorized devices, the iMachines are fully consistent with the Definition of Exercise. Their use requires that the working subject understands and implements the real objective of exercise. On an iMachine, there is no mechanism moving in one direction or another and no extra resistance is added to any particular phase of the lift. An iMachine does not act upon you nor does it determine strength curves. In fact, it does absolutely nothing at all: In an iMachine, YOU are the machine.

The RenEx iMachines have a literally infinite capacity to serve the needs of the powerful and strong, but also the delicate and weak. Whether we are compassionately attending to the rehabilitation of a debilitated and feeble subject or assertively coaxing the most tenacious and aggressive bodybuilder, we can effectively service all types of clients with TSC protocol on the iMachines. This is conveniently possible whether in a stand-alone program of isometric exercise or in combination with dynamic protocol.

Some of our detractors have stated that dumpers are the only machines that can provide the extreme workout conditions required to satisfy their abilities. Many have explicitly stated that they want and need more— more weight, more power, more intensity. To this we ask a simple question:

“How much do you want?”

On an iMachine, the limit of intensity is as boundless as willpower itself.

185 comments