Warning: Declaration of thesis_comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/renex/public_html/wp-content/themes/thesis_185/lib/classes/comments.php on line 137

Warning: Declaration of thesis_comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/renex/public_html/wp-content/themes/thesis_185/lib/classes/comments.php on line 142

Warning: Declaration of thesis_comment::start_el(&$output, $comment, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output, $data_object, $depth = 0, $args = Array, $current_object_id = 0) in /home/renex/public_html/wp-content/themes/thesis_185/lib/classes/comments.php on line 147

Warning: Declaration of thesis_comment::end_el(&$output, $comment, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output, $data_object, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/renex/public_html/wp-content/themes/thesis_185/lib/classes/comments.php on line 163
RenEx | High Intensity Training — High Intensity Training | Philosphy | Protocol | Education — Page 9
May
3
2012

Fair Play

120 comments written by Ken Hutchins

The Renaissance Exercise team has been very busy over the last few months training clients, prototyping and manufacturing the Renaissance line, certifying trainers, and planning a big event for fall of 2012. Unfortunately the blog page has fallen by the wayside as of late. We are currently completing Dumpers IV and getting ready to launch an introduction to four new pieces in the RenEx equipment line. In the meantime we decided to write a response to one of our viewer’s critiques.
– Joshua Trentine

Fair Play

An Opinion by Ken Hutchins

Some of our readers have asked why we criticize X-ForceTM exercise equipment so harshly especially when X-Force says nothing derogatory about RenEx®.

Note that to phrase the previous sentence as I did and others have done is an emotional charge. “Harsh” really has no place in the characterization of technical criticism. Criticism is criticism. Apparently, some people regard stark criticism as mean-spirited and unfair.

Also note that X-Force might not be openly critical of RenEx; however, they do make a statement… a big statement… by holding a presence in the marketplace. They are not merely a Ken Hutchins 20 years ago tinkering away in the privacy of his garage. When X-Force… or RenEx for that matter… takes action to garner huge financial resources to design and manufacture equipment and to promote it, they also expose themselves to all. And when they expose themselves they are tacitly assuming the risk of criticism in the marketplace. They make themselves fair game. They are not, metaphorically speaking, innocent bunnies that the Big Bad Wolf slaughters on Easter morning.

X-Force is not the only producer of the so-called Dumpers, and we do not single them out in our criticisms of the hyperloading mentality. However, X-Force does provide us with a somewhat unique and highly invaluable opportunity to study and to elucidate the principles therein that are abused and/or misapplied. Of the current genre of Dumpers, X-Force represents the only extant line that is weight-driven rather than robotically-driven.

Another attribute of X-Force is that it is more or less the progeny of the Jonesian Nautilus. Note that the Nautilus old guard swarmed around Arthur Jones for about 16 years—from about 1970 to 1986. The old guard was mostly comprised of young men who—as Eric Hoffer would put it—possessed “undifferentiated selves.” Their lives were empty and worthless. They had nothing else to attach themselves to, and required Arthur’s vision and machismo to develop their inner self-respect and confidence. Otherwise, they were doomed to aimlessly drift around searching for something—anything—to cling to that would provide their life meaning. (I state this with the realization that they might castigate me for this observation. Hopefully, they will seriously consider its truth if I also underscore that the characterization applies to me as well.) By the way, it was Arthur who bluntly pointed out these so-called true-believer traits in all of us. And he was correct.

Technically speaking, we of the Nautilus old guard considered ourselves able to speak a better understanding of exercise. In some ways we could, but also to a great extent we spoke only a different understanding.

Note that Arthur made a giant intellectual contribution with his Six Factors of Functional Ability. He also soared on the subject of work intensity versus work volume. And his stance on specificity in exercise was clear and courageous. In addition, we must acknowledge that Nautilus equipment pioneered proper tracking of muscle and joint function that no one else—SuperSlow® Systems, RenEx, and MedX® excepted—has managed to maintain, much less improve upon. However, Arthur was incorrect with much of the Nautilus Philosophy: The Ten Requirements of Full-Range Exercise, the proper speed of motion, the correct resistance curves, friction minimization, the position of full muscular contraction, unilateral loading, etc.

And Arthur was blatantly inconsistent in some areas. For example, Arthur’s design of the Leg Extension machine embodied a body attitude perfectly consistent with the principle of muscular sufficiency, but he was inept to explain why hip flexion was required in the body attitude for the Leg Curl (knee flexion)—the same principle at work with the same musculatures except in reverse.

And then he violated the sufficiency principle when he designed the Nautilus Compound Position Biceps and the Compound Position Triceps. Afterwards, the design crew at MedX—the MedX design crew was mostly comprised of the former Nautilus design crew—didn’t know any better than to copy the same body mechanics for the Compound Position Triceps. Instead of correcting the mistake with muscular sufficiency (they are/were truly ignorant of Arthur’s inconsistencies), they continue to proudly promote the constraint system in this machine.

My writings during the past 20 years have addressed all of the foregoing inaccuracies of Arthur Jones and early Nautilus. And I have also addressed his asinine assertions that Gregor Mendel faked his results in genetics, that lions run faster than cheetahs, and that the sound you hear in the woods emanating from a woodpecker as he pecks is due to the speed of his head breaking the sound barrier.

In retrospect, I see another important inconsistency with Arthur. With the backdrop that Arthur was strongly promoted to me as all-knowing and interested in all matters great and small, early in my Nautilus career Arthur rather put me off by one of his responses. It was cold, brusque and typical Arthur. I dismissed the offense in characteristically obedient fashion.

Before Nautilus I had taken a more-than-casual interest in breast cancer. I knew some of its history going back to Drs. George Crile senior and junior as well as Dr. William Stewart Halsted. With my father and others I had talked at length about the then-current policy of informed consent when approaching the possibility of surgical intervention. I had studied some of the studies involving isolated (walled-off) tissues as well as contact-cell inhibition (a la Hayflick). This background led me to believe that proper strength training might work as a prophylactic and/or treatment. I was forward thinking, though perhaps a bit naïve.

When I asked Arthur about the subject his response was: “Ken, I have no opinion regarding breast cancer or any other form of cancer. It serves no interest of mine to have an opinion; therefore I don’t have an opinion.”

So, he had no interest in cancer—even to a slight degree—but it did serve his interest to assert an opinion on supersonic woodpeckers?

We do, indeed, now have some usefulness for strength training in the rehabilitation following breast cancer surgery. What other applications it may have are very speculative. Nevertheless, we may have some articles posted on this subject in the near future.

In 1986, Arthur sold our little fantasy world out from under us (I speak as though he had no right to do whatever he wanted with his company—ha.) and some of us swarmed around him again at MedX. There, the Arthur Jones Institute was eventually formed—a virtual shrine to the man.

And within the last several years Arthur has passed and some of us remaining oldsters have swarmed to X-Force. I maintain that some of the old guard are emotionally needful of the good ol’ days with Arthur and X-Force supplies this to a great degree. Without this attachment they are empty selves again as they were before meeting Arthur. It is important to them that X-Force arises and survives. It is the phoenix of Nautilus in their psyches. And requisite here is a repeat of the original Nautilus rhetoric.

Note that if you first become inculcated with the vintage Nautilus literature and then read the new, beautifully printed X-Force brochures, you can imagine being at 1970s-era Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries again. X-Force is, ostensibly, vintage Nautilus repackaged and reincarnated to a great extent.

In essence, X-Force represents the Nautilus old guard, including the same quintessential folklore. I remain fond of the Jonesian war stories, but I’ve long since abandoned the head trash that serves to maintain the well-meaning but incorrect slant on the hyperloaded negative and several other important principles. It would be irresponsible to the extreme (for me, for RenEx, and even for the Nautilus old guard) to waste this opportunity to critically re-examine this information and perhaps correct the thinking of all.

At one time, all of us as a group were an influential force. And it can be again, but it must be reconstituted with updated information.

By the writing of the Dumpers series, we at RenEx learn as much as the readers. It fuels much productive discussion among us as well as with others. Of course, some readers don’t always appreciate our approach to criticism. They see us as unprovoked aggressors. This is expected and unavoidable.

Some have criticized, “Why can’t the RenEx boys just state the attributes of their equipment and let other companies state theirs? Why do they insist on attacking X-Force and other companies?”

No one gets a free pass on criticism—RenEx included. There are websites out there where we are royally roasted. This is good. It forces us to think and to reconsider what we say and how we say it. It reveals perspectives we might not have adequately explained.

Also note that RenEx equipment is merely the physical manifestation that best facilitates the application of RenEx exercise principles. (Please seriously study the foregoing sentence.) The tail does not wag the dog here. The equipment does not determine the principles. The principles are valid—or not—regardless of whether or not Ken Hutchins and/or the equipment exist. They are valid if there is no RenEx. They stand on their own. They must!

And if something is incorrect—especially if something is incorrect as well as dangerous—it is also wrong in a moral sense. And it needs to be exposed so that everyone can understand that it is wrong. Anything else is shirking responsibility.

There are many other issues out in the fitness industry that are as bad or worse—sometimes far worse—than the Dumpers. But as we move forward to take on these issues we must put our own house in order. I am referring here to the greater community we call High-Intensity Exercise.

120 comments  

Mar
19
2012

Reflections on The Definition of “Exercise”

65 comments written by Gus Diamantopoulos

Reflections on The Definition of “Exercise”

By Gus Diamantopoulos

“Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize
till you have tried to make it precise.”
– Bertrand Russell

Recently, there has been considerable interest and discussion on some internet forums regarding Ken Hutchins’ Definition of Exercise. Although many supporters have championed The Definition, numerous diatribes have been written that question its validity. Some have tried to make a case as to whether or not it qualifies as a definition by isolating each individual component and questioning its logic, while others have asked: Why bother to redefine exercise at all?

We are sincerely heartened by the active-minded interest of our critics to rigorously challenge our assertions and we believe that the further we delve into such matters the more likely we all are to arrive at deeper understandings about the nature of human physical improvement.

Everyone is free to accept or reject the concepts within our philosophy but we believe that The Definition has aptly helped to narrow the focus within the chaos that is commonly called fitness and rehabilitation. The idea of The Definition has illuminated and provided a foundation for technological innovations within Renaissance Exercise. It is by way of The Definition that we have been able to create an uncompromising system that includes a dedicated protocol, an educational program and sophisticated equipment all within a comprehensive philosophy.

Defining Terms

A definition by and large explains the meaning of something. One of the definitions of the word “definition” is: “An exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.”

Defining terms is a key step in establishing any new premise. Definitions help us when we want to discuss or debate a topic and they can help us to theorize and even apply practical behaviors. With a good definition, we can communicate more effectively and we can learn more about the world around us. A bad definition, on the other hand can impede understanding and create communication problems. Often, a bad definition is one that is too vague or ambiguous or diluted and, therefore, impotent. Regardless of if they are good or bad however, definitions are not always cut and dried.

For example, the word “bolt” can mean to jump away or to secure: The horse will bolt from the stable unless you bolt him to the stable. The word “overlook” can mean to inspect or to neglect: The window overlooks a garden, which is pleasant if you overlook the dead plants. These auto-antonyms are just the most basic examples of how definitions of highly accepted terms can be anything but concrete. In fact, common words like “set,” “run,” “go,” “take,” “stand,” “get,” and “put” can have literally hundreds of acceptable meanings.

Definition Types

Lexical

Fortunately there are different types of definitions to help with the task of formulating and clarifying word meanings. Lexical definitions (the kind we’re most familiar with) explain how words are used in practical terms. These are dictionary definitions and are most often stated very simply. They describe the genuine use of a word. However, lexical definitions can be vague or ambiguous and even some of the most basic words can have multiple meanings.

When entire philosophies are contained in the definition of a word, such as “capitalism” or “love,” basic lexical definitions can often fall short of providing the kind of depth that is required to establish true meaning. We believe the word “exercise” falls into this category. Here is a common lexical definition of exercise: “Activity requiring physical effort carried out, especially to sustain or improve physical fitness.”

This is a vague definition that, in essence, has democratized a myriad of human physical activities as exercise. Today, almost anything can be confidently termed “exercise” from basic human locomotion, to playing a video game, to sex, to board games and beyond, including climbing Mount Everest.

Stipulative

At the other end of the spectrum are stipulative definitions where meanings are readily applied to new or existing terms within a specific context, like an argument or the presentation of an idea. Such definitions are usually designed to differentiate the nature of terms from their original meaning.

Precising

When vagueness in terms is unacceptable, we can combine lexical and stipulative definitions to make terms more precise. Such precising definitions can narrow the focus and reduce vagueness by adding more information but still containing the essential lexical meaning. Such definitions are what you might encounter in legal circles where focused, unambiguous meanings are critical.

Theoretical

If, however, we want push the boundaries of ideas to greater limits and have more descriptive leeway, there is yet another class of definitions. Theoretical definitions attempt to establish the use of the original term within the paradigm of a much broader philosophical or intellectual framework. In the proper context, such definitions can impart information that can help clarify concepts by revealing more abstract philosophies and truths about words, ideas, and even behaviors.

Theoretical definitions may make use of lexical definitions, but they also tend to have a specific purpose to fulfill. Like stipulative definitions, because they aspire to the new understanding of a concept/theory, theoretical definitions cannot truly be judged as correct or incorrect though they may be deemed useful or not. As hypothetical constructs, theoretical definitions attempt to comprehend a concept in a completely novel way.

[Note that theoretical definitions are not persuasive definitions that tend to attach emotional meaning to the use of a term and thus distort the term for some ulterior motive or agenda. Such definitions are extremely vague and ambiguous and have no legitimate use anywhere except, perhaps, in propaganda.]

Theoretical definitions seek to extinguish vagueness and ambiguity by specifying how and when the particular term should be applied. This is why theoretical definitions prevail in science and philosophy. Having said this, theoretical definitions rarely merely describe a term. They most often present an opinion about it as well.

RenEx: Theoretical / Stipulative

It is within this broader context of trying to achieve a new and greater understanding that the Renaissance Exercise Definition exists. Technically, it is a theoretical, stipulative definition.

Ken Hutchins chose to appropriate the word “exercise” and to redirect its meaning precisely to shake things up and challenge the establishment. (He deliberately chose not to create a new term.) The purpose was to elevate the word “exercise” to a new standard so that it could represent the RenEx protocol and philosophy as a guide to successful human action in physical conditioning and rehabilitation. There is nothing tacit or self-effacing about The Definition. It is not meant to fit in as one of the many formal or informal definitions of “exercise,” lexical or otherwise. It is designed to reconstitute the entire premise of the word, “exercise.”

Perhaps this idea is too preposterous for our detractors to abide, and this is why there has been such fallout since The Definition was coined. Maybe there is fear or anxiety that the new Definition may actually have staying power and that it may usher a new era of understanding, not only for the layperson but also for the medical community and for future research.

Definition Detractors

The Definition has been rejected on grounds that it is not really a definition but rather merely a description of the way we’d prefer things to be. But we have already established that a theoretical definition can quite legally do exactly that. If our critics wish to falsify The Definition, then the theory that it supports (Renaissance Exercise protocol and philosophy) must first be invalidated.

Our critics have tried to do this with opprobrious line-by-line breakdowns of The Definition. Each section of The Definition has been tactically segmented in an attempt to reveal inconsistencies, circular opinions, and redundancies. Here are some examples:

  • Why must exercise be of a “demanding nature”?… Activity that is not demanding can produce results, too.
  • Why say “in accordance with muscle and joint function”?… Every human physical act is in such accordance.
  • A “clinically-controlled environment” is not necessary for exercise.

Rebuttal

Since each the above statements/conditions are necessary parts of the theory of Renaissance Exercise (protocol), they must be considered true and so the theory is not falsified. That is, each of The Definition’s defiens* fully supports the theory of Renaissance Exercise upon which The Definition is based. The Definition may be deemed not useful or it may be rejected, but it is not false. As such, these objections to The Definition remain obtuse.

[*Definitions are made up of two parts, the definiendum and the definiens. The definiendum is the word being defined. The defiens are the words used to do the defining.]

IF the Renaissance Exercise protocol produces the effects that we claim, in the manner that we suggest, and IF this pattern of events (protocol) consistently produces these effects in human physiology, THEN we have established the protocol’s validity. The theoretical Definition merely describes and standardizes the premises and concepts of the protocol. In other words, within this context, this is what we now stipulate as “exercise” and anything that is not this, is NOT exercise by our standards.

By redefining the word exercise, Hutchins has drawn a line in the sand. Some have said that this is pretentious but this is how professional fields build paradigms of agreed-upon theoretical definitions. (Creating a new word might truly have been pretentious.)

Conclusion

The Definition was not created in an intellectual vacuum. It exists within the context of Hutchins’ robust and thought-provoking Exercise vs. Recreation argument. When we can clearly distinguish exercise from recreation we can narrow the focus of what constitutes exercise and also recognize the physiological significance of non-exercise activities.

We acknowledge that recreational activity is at least as important as exercise (only for different reasons) but exercise stands alone from recreation, regardless of characteristics that they may share. Exercise is good; recreation is good. Renaissance Exercise protocol is “exercise” and everything else is not. Do not confuse the two. Use exercise to improve your body so that you may better perform and enjoy any recreational activity that you desire.

The Definition remains as the most valued edict within our philosophy. We stand by it. We staunchly believe that any activity outside of The Definition is NOT exercise. Further, if The Definition is accepted amongst researchers and the medical community, there may finally be hope in creating the kind of studies that can validate or perhaps refute the claims we have made about the nature of inroad, strength building, recovery ability, and every other aspect of human physiology that can be affected by exercise. In fact, we submit that without acceptance of The Definition, any hope for performing truly meaningful tests and research will remain lost to the miasmic mess that has, up to now, been called “exercise.”

65 comments  

Mar
12
2012

Dumpers: Part III

47 comments written by Joshua Trentine

Dumpers
Part III

By Ken Hutchins, Josh Trentine,
Gus Diamantopoulos, & Al Coleman

In Part I of our Dumpers series, we explored the history of negative hyperloading, starting with its emphasis by Arthur Jones as he used it to combat isokinetics philosophy in the early 1970s.

In Part II, we closely examined the issue of friction in exercise equipment, especially in the early Nautilus®, that gave rise and continued sustenance to the false need for negative hyperloading.

In Part III, we consider two factors simultaneously. They are: the speed of motion in an exercise and its resistance curve. Please note that the discussion herein is somewhat streamlined for the Dumpers series. The same material is discussed in much deeper detail and with greater argumentative support in The Renaissance of Exercise: Volume II.

Apparent Simultaneous Problems

The two factors—movement speed and the resistance curve—are integrally related. Referencing a standard of 10 seconds positive and 10 seconds negative, the resistance curve, to impart a challenging load, changes from repetition to repetition. In the early repetitions of, for instance, a Leg Extension exercise, a resistance curve perfect for random-range failure at 4-8 repetitions is not challenging at or near complete extension in the first and second repetitions.

And if we design the resistance curve to be truly challenging at or near complete extension during the early repetitions—assuming we choose to forego knee safety—then random-range failure will not occur. In other words, failure will almost always occur during the first half of positive extension, never at or near anatomical zero.

At this juncture, it is important to clarify that random-range failure is a highly desirable and somewhat elusive feature.

Another approach to offset this dilemma is to use speed variation as a means to effect a variable resistance curve of sorts. By moving progressively faster as the set progresses, the resistance curve that is challenging during the first repetitions is deliberately overwhelmed by momentum as speed increases, thus providing a random-range failure.

Of course, the variable speed issue introduces many other interrelated problems:

  • How quickly do we make the movement faster? Answer: A SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) of an answer. By feel(?): Feeling is highly subjective.
  • How do we account for this? Answer: We can’t.
  • To what degree does this becomes skill dependent? Answer: Highly.
  • How dangerous and uncontrolled do the forces become? Answer: Wildly.
  • How do we determine proper form? Answer: Another SWAG.
  • How do we keep reliable and repeatable records for resistance progression? Answer: We can’t.

This, as anyone should be able to see, is a morass.

So…we go back to keeping the speed at 10/10 and applying a resistance curve to effect the random-range failure in 4-8 repetitions.

As is exhaustively planted in The Renaissance of Exercise, the 10/10 protocol is the standard! Not 15:15. Not 5:5. Not 3:5 as the XForce people expect of the subject. Not 4:4 as the MedX® people have recommended. And certainly not the traditional 2:4 Nautilus® protocol.

To vary protocols is a disservice to the subject and provides no benefit. As is experienced by some subjects who travel and exercise in different facilities with different instructors, the performance of different protocols unnecessarily compromises their competence. In dynamic exercise, everyone should teach 10/10 and nothing else. Any deviation strongly implies several possible conclusions:

  • Inept instruction.
  • Poor equipment.
  • Inadequate focus.

And since they (speed, resistance curve) are so related, one factor must be held more-or-less constant in order to derive the other.

We staunchly proclaim the speed of motion to be the one held firm as the constant of the two and, thus this factor, speed, is also the independent factor. Once the speed is set, the other, the resistance curve, is roughly known and derivable. Until Ken Hutchins came along, this was never correctly done. His cams on the SuperSlow® Systems equipment were spot on because, he alone, did two things simultaneously: He controlled the speed and profiled the cam to effect a predetermined outcome. Exactly how Ken did this is explained in The Renaissance of Exercise: Volume II.

Vintage Nautilus Resistance Curves

Arthur Jones’ Nautilus resistance curves were grossly incorrect, often backwards to what we now know is required with the application of slow movement speed and minimal friction. Ken once observed Arthur testing a prototype Pullover cam for its correct resistance curve. Ken was surprised by two things. First, Ken was amazed that Arthur would allow Ken to observe as this was tightly controlled proprietary information. Second, Ken was shocked by Arthur’s speed of movement during the test. Arthur seemed to not know that he was exposing his greatest weakness to Ken.

Arthur’s excursion was very controlled by most standards of the day, however, was at a speed of between one and two seconds each—positive or negative. For so large a range of motion as the Pullover was, this was a fast speed—too fast to determine proper cam profiling.

This made Ken ponder several questions. Why did Arthur move so fast?

Did Arthur seriously believe that he was capable of sensing meaningful loading of the intended musculature at that speed? And if that answer was yes, did he believe that anyone else was able to sense the loading—with no flat spots—throughout the range?

Was Arthur deliberately trying to make the machine an acceleration device merely to overcome the friction? (At this point, Ken still believed that Arthur might be aware of the excessive friction in the equipment and was merely compensating for it. Ken was in great awe of Arthur and believed that Arthur knew best about all things.)

Now

We staunchly decree that the excursion speed is 10 seconds—an acceptable range of 8-12, but we strive for 10. Only by maintaining a 10-second positive, as well as a 10-second negative, can we control a myriad of other factors. Yes, the 10-second excursion requirement is merely the median of a range of acceptability, a median we use as the “central target,” but without it as the independent variable treated as a constant, we must endure chaos at every other turn in a host of dependent variables.

Knowing this, we have scant patience for our detractors who minimize the importance of the 10-second standard. To us, this merely proves their ineptitude and insensitivity to the inherent problems. With some exceptions, they are the intellectual untouchables that cannot be reached with reasoned arguments. And, by the way, this group includes some, if not many, of the Nautilus old guard as well as some of the original (pre-2004) SuperSlow community who have since fallen off their wagons. It even includes some of the former SuperSlow masters. These individuals demonstrate by their actions that they do not possess the ability to appreciate the supreme importance of the 10-second excursion.

It is possible—even probable—that the typical excursion, while not at uniform speed, clocks an average speed at 10-seconds. This is particularly important as the excursion approaches the upper turnaround and when a fall through occurs. Fall through denotes an inappropriate speed increase into the endpoint. This common discrepancy effects an excessive resistance decrease that leads the imprecise exercise buff to conclude that our properly-designed cam delivers an inappropriately radical falloff.

One former SuperSlow master displays this ignorance, not just in his statements and training habits, but also in his machine camming. Very conveniently, we possess some of his work—a tangible example of his intellectual defect toward proper cam design as well as the proper excursion speed.

The case in point regards the cam retrofit of a MedX Compound Row (Product name: “Row.”) machine. For starters, he incompetently copied an early, perfectly-functioning retrofit by SuperSlow Systems. Second, he changed the positive cam—as used in the original product—to a negative cam, a totally inappropriate cam type for any exercise machine. The end result is a resistance curve that is worse, not better, for the performance of SuperSlow exercise, although it did slightly improve the resistance curve compared to that provided in the original product.

Lower Turnaround (LT) Radius ~2.38

Mid-Range (M) Radius ~3.04

Upper Turnaround (UT) Radius ~3.79

Above are sequence photos of the retrofit cam by the mentioned former SuperSlow master. The net effect of this retrofit was to change the original MedX resistance curve—a curve that provided a slight (~5:4 ~ 20%) and inadequate falloff (ever-decreasing-faster toward the upper turnaround) and make it decrease an additional 60% (ever-decreasing-faster, but less faster than the MedX). In other words, when the falloff should have been corrected to effect a greater and much more ever-faster falloff, he made it fall off slightly more and not as fast. The machine’s net falloff with his cam is ~1.8:1.

In contrast, the correct (SuperSlow) cam for this MedX machine provides a total falloff at approximately 12:1. And—as it must—this falloff becomes progressively much faster as the endpoint is slowly approached. Note that this falloff exceeds the one illustrated by over six times! Its application truly allows the shoulder extension musculature to squeeze into itself.

So why would a former SuperSlow master, trained by Ken Hutchins and ostensibly devoted to the 10/10 protocol, lose his way? Sure, he has a difference of opinion regarding excursion speed, an opinion that we categorically reject and condemn. And we condemn this for the following reasons:

His cam profile and its portrayed resistance curve reflect his dedication to an excursion speed much faster than 10/10. In fact, he now recommends 5/5, a speed that, in practice, is always much faster than 5/5 and therefore not controllable. And this faster speed reflects his state of mind regarding those earlier-mentioned dependent variables.

It might be nigh impossible to completely list all of the dependent variables, but we can make a generalized attempt. The first regards safety that further regards control of forces, and this mostly regards control of speed. Once excursion speed exceeds 8 seconds (performed in less than 8 seconds), the start of the positive is likely abrupt and the upper turnaround is likely fallen through with attendant bouncing of the movement arm and jolting to the subject.

Also, with these faster excursions, subtle shifting and squirming by the subject—all apparently innocent and innocuous—are glossed over. These subtleties become obscured and ignored and, therefore, uncorrectable.

If the subject moves so fast—faster than approximately 8 seconds—then these subtle and sometimes injury-producing subtleties go unnoticed. If they go unnoticed, the instructor cannot identify them and inform the subject of them. And if the instructor is so inept, is uninformed, so unobservant, so reticent, and therefore so uninformative to advise the subject, then the subject is essentially without supervision.

Less important than safety, but still very important, many of these nuance subtleties are forms of ratcheting, a discrepancy that unloads the targeted musculature. The subject of ratcheting is thoroughly discussed in The Renaissance of Exercise: Volume I.

What’s more, the 10/10 speed is the required standard for determining the resistance curve and therefore the cam profile for any exercise machine. Anything else is sheer lunacy. Without this 10/10 speed standardization, correct camming is forever elusive.

We realize that Nautilus engineers don’t agree with this. We realize that MedX engineers don’t agree with this. Of course they don’t agree. As far as we are concerned, they do not possess the understanding in order to deserve an opinion. We have witnessed these engineers perform their own personal exercise on their own products and they are blatantly ignorant of proper excursion speed. In view of their reckless behavior (obscenely fast: one-second-or-less positive/one-second-or-less negative), how could anyone expect a cam/resistance curve for the proper 10/10 speed of motion? Their behavior reveals their bad thinking and attitudes regarding equipment design.

With the typical and improperly-fast speeds of excursion, momentum rules the resistance. It influences the design to include excessive loads at the upper turnaround of the compound pulling movements and the rotary movements. And the usual exorbitant attending friction fosters a decreasing resistance for the negative excursion.

Note that with the correct camming on a low-friction exercise machine—such as a Leg Extension—the positive resistance decreases progressively faster as full extension is attained. Once beyond the turnaround, the same experience occurs in reverse. If the cam provides a progressively faster falloff as positive excursion completes, it provides a progressively slower resistance increase as the negative excursion begins. Another way to express this is: If the final wrap of the cam during the positive—that position of the cam where the belt just flattens onto the flat of the cam (the position of least resistance)—provides the fastest resistance decrease, then the immediate unwrapping of the cam provides the fastest resistance increase.

Start of Cam Rotation (Positive Cam)

Complete Cam Wrapping: The belt flattens against the flat of the cam with minimum radius, precisely at endpoint.

Overwrapping of Cam: To precisely wrap the cam (and avoid overwrap) requires a timing crank.

In an unintended way—as this is a mechanical property and not deliberately designed—this relationship is highly fortuitous to provide negative loading just as is desired. At first, negative loading increases reasonably fast and continues to increase for most of the negative range in most cases although the increase grows progressively slower—exactly as needed. And none of this beauty operates properly if the speed is much, if any, faster than 8 seconds. Therefore, we strive for 10 seconds just to be sure.

Another fallacy of the wayward master mentioned earlier is his apparent quest to accommodate the first repetition. The goal is random failure after completion of the third or fourth repetition. The goal is not random injury before the third or fourth incomplete and defective repetitions.

Some of this discussion may seem unrelated to our Dumpers criticisms. We assure you that it is exactly this information deficit that makes instructors, exercise subjects, as well as exercise equipment design engineers vulnerable to the lure of the Dumpers insanity. We pledge to you that we will keep this scourge away from Renaissance Exercise.

Another former SuperSlow master is or was promoting ExerboticsTM. This is another example of a tremendous inconsistency between what he should know and his ostensible beliefs and behavior.

Our last major discussion point in this third part of the Dumpers series has already been mentioned in a comment by Josh Trentine, however, for continuity’s sake, we mention it again.

Using a SuperSlow Systems Leg Extension machine, a proficient and highly willful subject performs the exercise to deep failure. As he is just able to complete the fourth repetition, he performs the turnaround and then—due to the highly efficient inroading— immediately encounters negative loading that requires 100% of his will, effort, and strength to control the negative to the degree that he does not lose control and drop the weight. Therefore, what is the point of adding 40% to the resistance to the negative at this juncture? And what would be the point of adding 40% resistance (or any additional resistance) to the final repetition of this exercise performed by the typical housewife, a stroke victim, an osteoporosis patient, a rehab subject, or anyone else? To do so is nuts!

Note that this surprise negative is built in. It naturally occurs as a result of the combination of proper speed, proper camming, minimal friction, willful and disciplined effort without loading respite and with progressively-faster inroading at and after failure.

So you muse, what about a 40% increase to the negative of all those repetitions leading up to the final repetition so as to foster faster and deeper inroad all along the set of repetitions? In this way, the required weight for the set might be less and result in deeper and faster inroading.

Good question! This is, perhaps, the most difficult question for us to address, but as you will see in Dumpers IV, this is a clumsy affair at best and outrageously dangerous at worst. And although it seems a futuristic promise of benefit, in practice, so far, it has merely reinforced the bad training habits that we are trying to correct.

Nevertheless, we believe the surprise negative (not truly hyperloaded) at the last repetition is deserved and should be reserved for the last repetition. A gradual buildup to that last repetition is best for safety, particularly for progressive joint lubrication. Many marginal joint issues—like that often observed with the knees—are often far more sensitive during the negative excursion rather than the positive! Hence, hyperloading the negative merely makes for heightened irritation instead of the desired lubrication.

In Part IV of the Dumpers series, we will report our firsthand experiences on many of the dumpers products. They include the Life FitnessTM, the XForceTM, the MotivatorTM, ExerboticsTM, and CZTTM/ARXTM.

47 comments  

Mar
8
2012

So, You Were Sold MedX Equipment Designed for SuperSlow® Protocol?

So, You Were Sold MedX Equipment Designed for SuperSlow® Protocol?

By Ken Hutchins

For a while between late 2003 and mid-2006, I agreeably worked with the then regime at MedX (They are now under different ownership.) to modify some of the MedX machine models to SuperSlow standards. Once the relationship ended, they agreed not to offer these machines to the public again and to avoid the use of my federally-registered trademark, SuperSlow®. I am confident that they have not broken their promise as many of the new regime are old and ethical friends of mine.

However, it might be possible that there are distributors or rogue members of the sales force who are not so ethical. Also, I am sure that none of the MedX team knows the accurate story of those so-called SuperSlow modifications.

Our original agreement was that the machines we selected would be made to my specifications for performing SuperSlow protocol. There were several meetings at my shop as well as at MedX between me and the prototypists. It was agreed that the modifications would occur in stages.

First Stage: Leg Press

The SuperSlow Systems Leg Press was copied exactly, but fitted with a new weight stack to circumvent the exorbitant friction resident in the standard MedX. The MedX people accomplished this with perfection.

The only caveat regarding this machine is that its final version included an integral half pipe for the performance of heel raise (calf exercise). If you have this machine, an additional gusset bolt is required to brace the seatback more vertically. People have been badly injured (neck) due to slippage of the back pad. This occurred because the required additional gusset bolt was omitted in the manufacture.

Second Stage: Stop Gap

Some of the other machines (Compound Row, Pulldown, Seated Leg Curl, Leg Extension, Rotary Torso and Pullover) were partially modified and slated for a more-thorough redesign, like that done for the Leg Press, at a later time.

1. Compound Row. The Compound Row was fitted with a new cam that performs rather well. I allowed the incorporation of handles with a universal joint to replace the original swivel. This was a minor mistake (my fault entirely) that needs reversing.

By the way, the timing for the cam is performed by positioning the seat rearward until complete cam wrapping occurs at complete shoulder extension. Then, range of motion is set by gapping the weight stack. I would be surprised if anyone at MedX knows this procedure before reading this.

2. Pulldown. The Pulldown was slightly improved by moving the movement-arm axles slightly forward. I remain extremely dissatisfied with this machine.

3. Seated Leg Curl. The Seated Leg Curl seat was replaced with a “floating” seat to mimic the one made by SuperSlow Systems.

The seat track is friction laden and unstable, but often behaves better once you sit and get going in the exercise. It is somewhat better if its bearings below the seat are checked and periodically tightened. MedX tried to improve on my design and made it worse.

The movement arm couple is unnecessarily complex and difficult to manage.

The cam needs more fall-off as well as a timing crank. This was not immediately possible, because a timing crank requires a frame redesign to house a remote cam and crank mount. What came about was definitely makeshift.

4. Leg Extension. The MedX Leg Extension has a cam adjustment to make the resistance decrease slightly more at completion of the positive. This machine was not changed other that to set the already-existing cam adjustment in favor of the slightly greater fall-off. To be really up to SuperSlow standards, this machine requires a more radical cam and a cam-timing crank. As stated earlier regarding the Seated Leg Curl, a timing crank requires a frame redesign to house a remote cam and crank mount.

5. Pullover. The MedX Pullover frame was fitted with independent and lockable movement arms that were to be used only for Timed Static Contraction exercise. The weight stack and all associated linkages were removed.

6. Rotary Torso. MedX’s lead design engineer tried valiantly to modify the Rotary Torso’s cam-and-follower to provide a greater resistance fall-off. Due to fears of structural deficiency, he only improved it slightly and not near enough for SuperSlow protocol. A few months later, my sister, Kathy, attempted to use the machine and could not move the movement arm at the machine’s least resistance.

Stage Three: No Changes

The remaining machines were allowed to go into facilities with no more than new artwork on the plastic weight-stack guard and a special color of paint. Repeatedly, I complained about these inadequacies and repeatedly, I was promised they would be corrected as soon as possible.

Then things changed. I was informed that I had approved of everything, so why the complaints? I then remembered that I had signed off on a document to approve the names of the machines to be used in our ventures. Apparently, this document was used as though I had approved their designs!

The MedX exercise machines that received no modifications (other than the new artwork on the weight-stack guard and a special color of paint) include:

  • Triceps
  • Biceps
  • Cervical
  • Abdominal
  • Lumbar
  • Hip ABduction
  • Hip ADduction
  • Lateral Raise
  • Overhead Press
  • Chest Press

I rejected the Chest Fly and any other machines for use with SuperSlow, including all medical testing machines.

 

Post Script

After reading our last post, So, You Were Sold MedX Equipment Designed for SuperSlow® Protocol? by Ken Hutchins, Mike Stima phoned. Mike is the former Vice President of Manufacturing and Engineering at MedX Corporation. Mike told Ken, “I read your piece, and I support your statements. Don’t change a word of it. It is exactly correct, and anyone who wants my input on the subject is welcome to contact me at mikestima@hotmail.com.”

Be the first to comment  

Mar
5
2012

Voluntarily

15 comments written by Joshua Trentine

Voluntarily

by Travis Weigand

Last year my colleague, Al Coleman, shared something with me that I’ve been unable to get out of my head since. He explained that one of his more advanced subjects completed the last exercise of a session and then appeared troubled with something. The session was not performed to the standard that Al had come to expect from her, so he inquired as to what the problem was.

She replied, “Something about that workout just didn’t feel voluntary.” Al shared this with me, because it was something that no subject had ever articulated to him before. Her comment implied that her performance was inhibited by something internal that she was unable to overcome. Perhaps more important, the comment implied that she had acquired an ability to consciously improve the quality of an exercise in any given moment. Her temporary loss of that ability and the insight she provided proved to be a valuable lesson for me.

I have since used that word, voluntary, to help subjects understand how they must behave during each session in which they participate.

A strategy I’ve also adopted from Al is ensuring I place as much onus as possible on the subject. This creates a more mutually-beneficial relationship.

The subject understands that I have a job, but also that they have a job too. It is my job to instruct the subject regarding the proper performance of each exercise. It is also my job to interject when I know a subject’s instincts are taking control of a set of exercise. Recent entries in this blog discuss cheating, inroad, and the assumed vs. real objective in exercise. I must explain these topics to subjects so that I can better guide their thought process and intentions during an exercise. After a subject has been educated, he must apply this new found knowledge and voluntarily give himself over to the exercise. That phrasing may sound nebulous, but it is exactly as I intend it.

What is a set of Renaissance Exercise intended to do? Inroad.

If a subject is to voluntarily give himself over to an exercise, he allows the exercise to do exactly what it was intended to do. Subjects should (orthopedic or motor control issues notwithstanding) attempt to perform the exercise with the exact form I designate as appropriate.

Accompanying that proper form is the ultimate goal of inroading the involved musculature as deeply and efficiently as possible. Every time a subject reaches within their consciousness and uses their free will to perform an action that will lead to a quicker or greater degree of inroad, I identify them as behaving voluntarily. In practice however, the requirement to perform voluntarily is easier said than done. The extreme physical effort that accompanies Renaissance Exercise seemingly taunts this requirement. I find solace in the details, though.

Al Coleman has often stated that inroading is a skill. If we extrapolate that idea, then we can conclude that every action taken to elicit inroad is a skill in and of itself.

A subject who fixates on continually improving and refining said skills is one who does not dread the physical representation of inroad (i.e., the increased rate of respiration, the increased heart rate, and the tremendous degree of burning felt in the involved musculature). From a psychological perspective, most subjects find the increased level of self-awareness and discipline required to voluntarily perform an exercise to be empowering.

The way I see it, as of February 2012, the RenEx team has gone to tremendous lengths to remove mechanical, environmental, and instructional constraints that stand in the way of inroad. What does that leave us with? The subject. I contend the subject remains his own biggest roadblock. Let him know what it means to perform an exercise voluntarily and begin the process of removing that roadblock.

15 comments  

Feb
27
2012

Flying – Just A Theory!

29 comments written by Joshua Trentine

Flying – Just A Theory!

By Brenda Hutchins

While eagerly reading everyone’s comments to the “Inroad Theory Vs Whatever” post, I was struck by the similarity to the Wright brothers, who were simply dismissed while trying to solve the problems of flight. According to the extensive accounting on Wikipedia (indented, italicized  text), they endured mockery during fledgling attempts.

…even the “Dayton Journal” refused to publish their story, saying the flights were too short to be important. The lack of splashy eyewitness press coverage was a major reason for disbelief in Washington, D.C. and Europe and in journals like “Scientific American,” whose editors doubted the “alleged experiments” and asked how U.S. newspapers, “alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice.”

Science is fraught with those that argue against improvement, because they are anchored in the past, always protecting their phony baloney turf. Refusing to accept empirical observation because it is not performed in the laboratory in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study is pathetic. Every single one of us has people in mind who were not supposed to improve beyond their current status (as told by doctors and/or therapists). Quite frankly they were simply discarded by failed “scientific” healthcare therapy.

Nevertheless, they show up every day, because they are unwilling to accept the final verdict of unfulfilled results meted out by established run-of-the-mill therapy practices. It irks me that somehow eager graduates emerge as toe-the-boiler-plate converts, inoculated against thought to break with ineffective established practice, no matter how blatant. Instead they march to the beat, green-lighted to overlook lack of results. After all, their job is now simply parting the patient from their money (insurance benefits) until all sessions are exhausted according to their individual plan.

Perhaps we are in error for not taking time to formally document what we do. Why? Simply because we are heavily booked with appointments to actually help those slighted souls regain use of their bodies, one by one.

Much like our definition of exercise is our foundation,

…The Wrights—and Lilienthal—used the equation to calculate the amount of lift that wings of various sizes would produce. On the basis of measurements of lift and wind during the 1901 glider’s kite and free flights, Wilbur believed (correctly, as tests later showed) that the Smeaton number was very close to 0.0033, not the traditionally used 60 percent larger 0.0054, which would exaggerate predicted lift.

It seems to me that a perfect example of going against conventional “theories” is exemplified by the Wright brothers who worked at the problem of flight from a different angle.

…Although not the first to build and fly experimental aircraft, the Wright brothers were the first to invent aircraft controls that made fixed-wing powered flight possible.

…Their first U.S. patent, 821,393, did not claim invention of a flying machine, but rather, the invention of a system of aerodynamic control that manipulated a flying machine’s surfaces.

They gained the mechanical skills essential for their success by working for years in their shop with printing presses, bicycles, motors, and other machinery. Their work with bicycles in particular influenced their belief that an unstable vehicle like a flying machine could be controlled and balanced with practice.

… At the outset of their experiments they regarded control as the unsolved third part of “the flying problem”. They believed sufficiently promising knowledge of the other two issues—wings and engines—already existed. The Wright brothers thus differed sharply from more experienced practitioners of the day,… who built powerful engines, attached them to airframes equipped with unproven control devices, and expected to take to the air with no previous flying experience. Although agreeing with Lilienthal’s idea of practice, the Wrights saw that his method of balance and control—shifting his body weight—was fatally inadequate. They were determined to find something better.

A similar vein of reading, study, trial-and-error exploration, and observation laid the foundation for the Renaissance of Exercise. During the period—roughly mid-1979 to late 1982 – was Ken Hutchins’ most fertile opportunity for intellectual exploration and development. He credits this to the environment provided by Arthur Jones at his expense and creation. When time permitted, he was encouraged to read and write incessantly, explore photography, talk with colleagues, travel, or study past and present prototypes. He used every moment to develop his understanding for future advancement of equipment and educational materials. He remained busy, but without formal structure. He was afforded a truly self-paced education.

It was during the Nautilus Osteoporosis Study that he realized efficient muscular loading, as well as motor control, were severely compromised because of friction-laden equipment. Out of necessity, advances in conventional protocol culminated in what is recognized today as the ideal. However, only recently has the ideal equipment emerged to complete the manifestation of the philosophy and is no longer an illusive goal.

Equally unfettered by convention, and

…On the basis of observation, Wilbur Wright concluded that birds changed the angle of the ends of their wings to make their bodies roll right or left. The brothers decided this would also be a good way for a flying machine to turn—to “bank” or “lean” into the turn just like a bird—and just like a person riding a bicycle, an experience with which they were thoroughly familiar. Equally important, they hoped this method would enable recovery when the wind tilted the machine to one side (lateral balance). They puzzled over how to achieve the same effect with man-made wings and eventually discovered wing-warping when Wilbur idly twisted a long inner-tube box at the bicycle shop.

Other aeronautical investigators regarded flight as if it were not so different from surface locomotion, except the surface would be elevated. They thought in terms of a ship’s rudder for steering, while the flying machine remained essentially level in the air, as did a train or an automobile or a ship at the surface. The idea of deliberately leaning, or rolling, to one side seemed either undesirable or did not enter their thinking. Some of these other investigators, sought the elusive ideal of “inherent stability,” believing the pilot of a flying machine would not be able to react quickly enough to wind disturbances to use mechanical controls effectively. The Wright brothers, on the other hand, wanted the pilot to have absolute control.

Unlike the way the Wright brothers were able to “bank” or “lean” into the turn just like a bird or better yet—just like a person riding a bicycle, an experience to which most of us can relate—the surprise of just how good RenEx-corrected designs feel is unimaginable. You simply must experience it for yourself to begin to grasp the magnitude of possible personal results that follow.

29 comments  

Feb
15
2012

Inroad Theory Vs Whatever

57 comments written by Ken Hutchins

Inroad Theory
versus
Whatever

By Ken Hutchins

Yes, other approaches other than inroad have been shown to effect muscular growth. Or, more accurately, other forms and means of inroad, perhaps, have been shown to effect this.

In the Nautilus heyday we did battle against those promoting transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in physical therapy. Sure, low-level electrical pulses will have some adaptive response on the muscle. But beyond the resurrection of almost-dead tissue, electrical stimulation does not offer a continuous, progressive improvement beyond a slight initial one.

I would not be surprised that some muscular growth occurs from a near-miss lightning strike… or for that matter, from someone jumping out from behind a tree and saying “Boo!” to the unsuspecting.

The limitation with the Boo process is that the subject is unsuspecting only once. Perhaps if it is performed differently each time it is possible to keep the subject unsuspecting. I guess this would merely lead to chronic paranoia.

And the foregoing principle sometimes works even with the suspecting. When I was 14, we kept a grown bobcat (Actually we had two at different periods of time.) in a large cage at one of the rear outside corners of the house. I was always aware of its presence and braced myself to be jolted by its ferocious scream and lunge at the side of the cage whenever I came around the house. No matter how prepared I was to remain calm, it consistently caused every muscle in my body to seize as though I jumped out of my skin. It seemed to have the same effect on my dogs.

When I was 15, I practiced trumpet in a small building just outside our back door. I regularly practiced between 5 and 7 every morning and often late into the night. About once a week, Philip Alexander (before he went to medical school) delighted in sneaking around the house in the dark just to startle me. As I expected Philip to do this in the late evenings—as he was a night owl who studied all night—I remained particularly vigilant during that time. He knew how to wait until I was immersed in a particularly difficult passage to open the door and shock me out of my melodic trance. It worked. Perhaps I owe my surge in muscular strength in those days to Philip’s repeated fright games, and less to the barbell work on the bench he built me?

Also at Nautilus, we grappled with staunch advocates from the yoga and massage communities promoting the strengthening effects of stretching. Yes, there is muscle strengthening—with such poor efficacy and high risk of injury that one’s time and mobility must not be worth much.

For eons, the medical community has recognized walking as a way to strengthen the body, especially early on after bedridden states. This has great value to those patients who are so disposed, but it has no meaningful muscular strengthening effect past the minimum to enable walking.

There are amazing CAT scans contrasting the muscularity of triathletic and sedentary elder men. It is apparent that destroying your body in a triathlon can, at least, maintain your muscularity. Or, perhaps the difference is completely due to a genetic aberration whereby the above-average muscularity of the elder man merely enables him to destroy his body in the triathlon. Of course, it is also true that such activities are sarcopenic.

Also, in the late 90s, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article about a program whereby I, with a cane, beat the muscles of a subject named Joel Waldman while he was tied in a partly-suspended position in the middle of a large room. Although this was imaginary, I expect, without trying it (assuming Joel is still cooperative and agreeable to this), that the muscles will respond positively if the dose/response is controlled. However, even if the improvements surpass those possible from strength inroading, I don’t believe that this will catch on for the masses or pass the rigors of any internal review board for human research. I am surprised, however, that there is not a certification program for this by now.

I would not be surprised if muscular growth occurs from being injected with water, stuck with needles, branded with hot or cold irons, or by prayer inducement. In fact, some, if not many, readers are already aware of the story—told by Ellington Darden, PhD—wherein big John McWilliams revealed his secret to his massive arms… drinking large quantities of water and praying that the water go to his muscles. Truly, muscle is mostly water, you know.

And then there is the remark by Arthur Jones. He claimed he felt his muscles begin to grow merely by the anticipation of resuming his workouts after a long layoff.

As far as I am concerned all of the foregoing is wasteful drivel. It may be amusing drivel to some of us, but as far as the development of a methodical, practical process that can be ubiquitously applied for study, research, and beneficial application, it is still drivel.

And the only meaningful pathway to putting exercise on a scientific footing—so far—is the inroad theory. Renaissance Exercise is not going to waste our time—or yours—being distracted with any other head trash.

Almost all people are grossly confused about exercise. They need an easy-to-follow explanation and plan of what it is and how to implement it. The inroad theory accomplishes this. Yes, there are other ways—terribly stupid ways, inefficient ways, inaccessible ways, pie-in-the-sky ways, gym-rat ways, dangerous ways, and ways that don’t lend to research and practical education for the average man and woman concerned about their health.

A major part of our creed is the inroad theory. It is the fundamental operational basis of what we do. To discuss otherwise is a distraction that unnecessarily serves to confuse and slow our pace of progress in our analysis of protocol, equipment design and research implementation. And such discussion certainly does not help the confusion harbored by the general public.

When the path along the road diverges into several possible directions, resources demand that we must decide for one and forego the others. To choose all, we go nowhere.

We are committed to the inroad theory. We inroad on inroad tools. We design and sell inroad tools and teach inroad methodology.

I, for one, will not be bothered by so-called other possible stimulus possibilities until someone can show me something better—more practical, teachable, repeatable, researchable, safer, accessible, etc—than the inroad theory. To be clear, inroad might not be the stimulus, but it is probably the process of choice for the stimulus of choice—whatever that turns out to be ultrastructurally—for muscular growth. And within this constraint, inroad theory IS the only stimulus for muscular growth.

Note the diagram entitled, The Unified Theory of Exercise, by Renaissance Exercise. The inroad theory is a fundamental part of The Definition, the central nucleus around which the other fundamentals revolve. Also, it is the reasoning for the Real Objective as well as the support for the Ideal Environment and the Exercise vs. Recreation argument.

This diagram not only enables us to contemplate the vastness of these concepts, but also provides a rough impression of how they interrelate.

In addition, the mere fact that we take the trouble and time to render such a diagram staunchly implies that we are committed to the inroad theory. This is our future. This is the future of exercise, and for us, there will be no going back to the old ways of thinking!

57 comments  

Feb
9
2012

We Won’t Let You Cheat

19 comments written by Gus Diamantopoulos

We Won’t Let You Cheat

by Gus Diamantopoulos

Throughout the annals of HIT, there is an unspoken rule about what needs to happen to form at the end of a set. The implication is that as you near fatigue, you need to relax form just a tad to allow the body to really ‘get there’ in terms of failure. In some of the most popular HIT books, this is explained outright: Slightly cheat a bit to make sure you’ve really reached the true limit of fatigue.

At RenEx we remain positively emphatic that this must NOT occur… ever. In fact, the idea is to IMPROVE form as the set proceeds. This literally brings to life the essence of the real objective. As you fatigue and as you near that moment where your overwhelming compulsion is to loosen form, to find locomotive and mechanical advantage; we say, “Improve your form,” “Get better” at doing it correctly.

THIS is the exact moment when you must strive to improve your form. Correctly performing, you are positively NOT trying to get the rep, but in fact, TRYING to fail as well as you can. (Needless to say, if form is a primary goal from the very start of the set, then really what you are doing is ensuring that it remains so.)

When you perform the set this way (especially on the right equipment) the strength=strength equation makes significantly more sense. It feels as if positive and negative resistance differences don’t really exist anymore.

Of course, this is where the need for environment, equipment, and protocol all come together. Without this triad of support, the challenge of the correctly performed set is even more difficult (though not impossible).

These concepts—the Definition, Exercise vs. Recreation, the Real Objective of Exercise, and all of the other very finite ideas about exercise—all culminate in what essentially is a separation from HIT. In a future post, we will be further delineating the ongoing differences between what we are now calling High Intensity Exercise (HIE) vs. High Intensity Training.

19 comments  

Feb
2
2012

Inroad

25 comments written by Al Coleman

Inroad

While it may be true that there isn’t a single biological stimulus (That there is only one is just a theory. That there is not only one is also just a theory.), the objective of espousing inroad is not to use it as a descriptive theory of the biological process.

Inroad is actually far more practical than a mere theory. It is what we do in practice as a committed course of action to achieve health enhancements.

Inroad is a measure of a subject’s intent and engagement of the appropriate structures. It reveals what these muscles no longer possess in terms of momentary strength.

Therefore, inroad serves to qualitatively measure performance. The higher the quality we possess, the less the global expense. This permits greater and faster recovery in preparation for the next workout.

Most in the HIT community confuse inroad with global fatigue. Global fatigue (outroad) is one of many causes in mechanical failure, and its confusion often spawns the need for protracted recovery periods between workouts.

Inroad includes all of the multi-factorial ingredients of the yet-undefined biological stimulus. Our faithful study of inroad represents our quest to discover how quickly we can safely stimulate strengthening without wasting resources.

Can anyone offer what endeavor doesn’t improve qualitatively with more concentration?

25 comments  

Jan
30
2012

The Assumed Objective Versus The Real Objective In Exercise

21 comments written by Ken Hutchins

The Assumed Objective
Versus
The Real Objective
In Exercise

By Ken Hutchins

In Volume I of The Renaissance of Exercise, I detail the differences between the assumed objective and the real objective in exercise. This distinction is neither intuitive nor automatic. And its grasp by the instructor as well as by the exercise subject is as fundamental to the understanding of exercise as is the mastery of phonics for learning to read and write.

Those of us who can read and write, especially write, just do it—often in a haphazard, sloppy way. We certainly don’t think out the phonics of our actions, never mind the more-immediately-present imperatives of proper grammar, sentence construction, and spelling. The phonics are buried deep in our elementary-school brains—taken completely for granted—assumed. And this assumption is special to the daily function of reading and writing (not so much speech).

More distinctively, the phonics assumption is resident in us after years of practice. It is the successful and intended result of organized conditioning that usually occurs at an early, formative age.

With exercise as well, we observe a basic assumption. And this assumption is not special to exercise. It is not the intended result of organized conditioning, but rather it is the unintended result of disorganized conditioning.

Note the RenEx video and articles on the subject of inroad and inroad theory. In these discussions, inroad theory is contrasted against steady-state philosophy. As you might recall, inroad is a term for momentary fatigue. And the inroad theory indicates the process whereby inroading crosses a threshold to stimulate a muscular growth mechanism.

The real objective in exercise is operational in and exclusive to the inroad theory. The assumed objective is operational in and not exclusive to the steady-state philosophy.

The real objective in exercise is to inroad the momentary strength of the muscle to stimulate a growth mechanism.

Of course, if we find a way to stimulate the growth mechanism without the inroading process, the real objective might become reduced to “stimulate a growth mechanism.” Until that fantasy is fulfilled, however, the real objective includes the process of inroad.

The assumed objective is to effect work volume. In more tangible terms, it is to lift the weights, to keep the machine going, to perform with more repetitions and weight.

Note—very important!—the two objectives are in conflict! To accomplish the real objective, you necessarily obviate the assumed objective. And to accomplish the assumed objective, you necessarily obviate the real objective.

The assumed objective is rather ubiquitous in human activity. It is epitomized by the more-is-better mentality that permeates society on every level and in every domain. It is not just the underpinning of steady-state philosophy and the justification for daily marathon workouts where subjects pace themselves to avoid inroad and seemingly to avoid attaining muscular failure (volume philosophy). It reflects the imbalanced behavior to deliberately overeat food or to starve into anorexia. It reflects supposed superior benefits by overdosing medications. It reflects the mentality to practice piano 16 hours a day to achieve perfection. It reflects many venues of extremism that are too numerous to mention, including the natural inclination to justify recreation as exercise. This is why the assumed objective is also sometimes referred to as “the erroneous objective.”

The assumed objective, i.e., the more-is-better mentality, is practically hardwired into our attitudes, sometimes for the better. It often connotes a kind of diligence and perseverance on some levels in some applications. But it particularly becomes obstructive to learning the correct performance of any particular exercise.

In any exercise it is natural to externalize…to think and to behave to make the exercise equipment do something. Externalization is the incorrect approach to an exercise and is a symptom of the assumed object.

Extremely Important!: The correct approach is to internalize… to think and to behave to make the body perform the proper action. The machine is relegated to merely go along for the ride.

The most serious exigencies of the conflict between the assumed and the real objective occur at momentary muscular failure. It is at this instant when the subject pits his intellect against his instinct. It is at this instant when he grapples with the idea that exercise is not the fun that recreation should be. It is at this instant when his emotional side panics with his erroneous imperative to make movement occur. It is at this instant when his nervous system loses its sense of position and, hence, loses its sense that movement—change of position—might or might not be occurring. It is at this instant when the exercise is most painful, his pulse rate and breathing highest, and calm, controlled, intelligent communication and reasoning is unlikely. The intellect wins very few contests against the instincts! Hence, the distinction between the two objectives must be understood before this instant occurs, not in the heat of the moment!

We expect a subject who does not understand the real objective of the exercise to be difficult, if not impossible, to instruct. We expect him to break form at every opportunity in order to defeat the equipment and, hence, to avoid the inroad stimulation and its benefits. We expect him to lapse into babbling justification to perform more exercises, because he avoids doing the necessarily few in a deeply-enough-inroaded manner. We expect him to be combative and unreceptive to instructions due to his high frustration level—a frustration due to behavior consistent with the assumed objective when applied to the real objective. Like water and oil, the two do not blend.

In contrast, a subject who thoroughly internalizes the real objective often needs a minimum of instruction once taught the exercises. The proficiency of performance often directly reflects the degree of this understanding. This underscores the instructor’s responsibility to properly convey these concepts to his subjects.

In addition to these explanations, I tell subjects, “Bear in mind that proper strength training is the only endeavor that you will do in your life wherein the more proficient you become, the more difficult, not easier, it becomes. And as it becomes more difficult, you must remain emotionally stoical.”

21 comments  

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →