I have had so little time lately. Up to my eyeballs in lawyers and garbage.. and yet, still getting the workouts in.. It’s my sanity.
I decided to go back to the Nautilus and weighted exercises for a week or so just to see how it feels. I am getting stronger and have been actually gaining some weight. After years of struggling to recover from the damage caused by my celiac disease it is encouraging to keep turning health corners. I think one of the amazing things is that there has been profound recovery of joint function after I was told I had irreversible joint damage from rheumatoid arthritis. Now, all drug free, my hands, which were basically claws a few years ago, are almost back to normal. I was used to pointing this out but excusing the index and middle finger as they would not fully close when I would try to demonstrate that I could almost make a fist. It used to be I couldn’t close the hand to grip a tennis ball. Well, I was telling someone about this and, lo and behold, the index finger closed almost completely and the middle finger was perfectly OK. The source of all this starts with the right diet. Just because you can tolerate foods that are not optimal doesn’t mean that there won’t be ramifications on down the road. Diet is everything to recovery. That and a good healthy gut flora.
Anyway, I am focusing on the big three:
Duo Squats
Pull Downs
and a Ventral Torso type chest movement.
I may stick with this for a bit. I don’t know. I go a lot by feel anymore. Not going to make the “only one way to exercise (and it better be my way”) crowd very happy but, hey, it’s all bonus for me now as it is.
CS
Category: Uncategorized
After a two day layoff I am back to my three week rotation.
I keep experimenting with combining weight bearing exercise with some sort of infimetric and or static upload.
Today I was doing static upload squats along with some duo squat on the Nautilus unit. My mid range max on the infimetric unit had never gone above 330 KG. Today I was quite surprised to hit 380.
I was tweaking things a bit when doing the static mid range upload. In the past, when doing a set, I would only offload about 20 percent between “repetitions” during a set. Today, just because.. and for no other good reason, I decided to do each repetition as a maximum upload followed by a complete de-load to zero. It was an interesting variation, especially on bicep curls.
Maximum load is severely compromised when only offloading the said 20 percent. When I completely zeroed out, but without rest between reps, I was able to do as many as eight repetitions at what I thought had been my maximum. It was quite effective.
A note also on the effects of this split routine.
It humors me when I read of the time that it is supposed to take. I am no where close to this. Spreading the splits out over many days I was expecting it to take hours weekly. To the contrary. I do rest between sets when doing multiple sets per part but no more than thirty to sixty seconds. As a result a typical workout doesn’t last very long. In some ways I am barely spending any more time than when I was doing full body routines. It seems that by spreading this out through the week I recover much better and have actually gained weight over the last three weeks. This seems to coincide with the strength increases I am seeing.
And not enough time to write recently.
I have been working out and have been experimenting all along. I have been using weighted exercises and have also been mixing in some static upload as well.
I have benefited from a revisiting of traditional weight based exercise.
I have been trying to sort out the potential shortcomings of infimetrics. This is one reason I was exploring different speeds of movement before going back to weight based exercise.
I can’t sit still and have a hard time sticking to one mode only. That is one of my downfalls, I suppose.
So, in the midst of a new workout schedule working with splits (which is working out quite nicely) I decided to try a different variation on the equipment.
Because of the way I have the feedback mechanisms set up on the infimetric equipment there is an element of movement through a small range of motion when doing any sort of static upload.
I decided to use this and the pacing from weighted exercise as the basis for my repetitions using this semi static upload.
I was doing something similar before with rapid static upload but was focused more on speed than load and, as a result, the repetition pulse numbers were quite high, often in the 80 to 100 range.
I decided to make each static upload an all out effort each and every repetition. This extended each repetition to something much more akin to a regular weighted repetition as far as duration.
Each working set ends up being much more in the normal range of anywhere between 10 to 20 repetitions depending on the muscle group.
By making a hybrid combination of different reps schemes and modes (infimetric static upload and weighted traditional exercises) I am making some reasonable gains.
I plan on fine tuning this over the next three weeks of going through the same essential schedule.
I find that I like to surprise myself by changing things up. Not great for those who like to workout by the accounting method of strict record keeping and analysis of progress by comparison. Thus, it won’t make much sense to those who seek to define response by such record keeping.
CS
As I have been pondering the elegant concept of muscle plasticity, both situational and longitudinal, I begin to realize that most studies attempting to measure some element of strength training are likely only measuring some aspect of muscle plasticity. I wonder if it would be at all possible to truly design a study that would actually be capable of measuring that which a researcher really intended to measure?
Just throwing this out there to stir the pot.
Another thing to be considered is that unless you are testing/studying subjects who are at baseline optimal health, no study is going to reflect the positive impact (or negative) of a given strength training protocol. I base this on personal anecdotal information but I have strong reason to believe I am correct in this. I was having a discussion with a lead researcher of a study involving exercise and its potential positive impact on autoimmune spectrum disease. I implored the researcher to change tack and look at the positive impact on proper dietary intervention that would eventually allow restoration of the ability to exercise. My basis for this was that as a lifelong exerciser eventually crippled by rheumatoid arthritis, once I healed the gut and began to eat a clean unprocessed diet, my body regained strength without the need for any strength training. In fact, when I trained during the healing process (which was when my body was in much better shape than when I was severely ill.. which is where they are advocating to introduce training in their study subjects) I set my healing back a number of times because the attempts at strength training were too much of a stressor for a healing body. Once the body reached a level of reasonable health, strength and function returned and it took very little exercise to evoke a fairly positive response in this post fifty year old body. I must add here that this return to health included a reversal of previously pronounced permanent joint damage. Dietary baseline and optimal health should be the starting point of attempting to study the impact of any exercise in any subject. Otherwise we really have no idea what is truly being measured.
There is a critical difference between the imposition of force and the generation of force in muscle systems.
When looking at the demonstration video of the chin ups with the scale,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxxVsvHVIqQ
you can see that the needle bounces to a level that is almost double my body weight. This is the imposition of force wth a weighted object. That the object happens to be my own body is irrelevent. It is a gravity induced imposition of a force that is substantially higher than the weighted object. The same can hold true for a barbell or a weight stack based implement.
When watching this video of the leg press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoIY-TTmVEc
you can see that as I begin to upload in the static mid range the dial gives a reading of force I am generating.
When I attempted to generate force on the seated dip machine (this was a while ago on another piece of equipment) by forcefully moving as fast as I could to punch the number high I was able to generate a peak force of one hundred and eighty pounds. When I did a slow upload as in the leg press video I was able to generate a force load of two hundred and forty pounds. This is lower than the prior day’s peak of two hundred and seventy pounds and is indicative of a post workout effect I have always found to be consistent when I have had access to measuring devices.
So, when I tried to generate peak force by slamming into the machine as fast and as hard as I could I was unable to generate near as much peak force as when I slowly uploaded to peak force in a controlled manner. The peak load of the fast movement was only seventy five percent of the slow movement.
I can speak from personal anecdotal experience in observing that even the few trials I ran of the fast movement ( I was sure I hadn’t given an honest effort when the first time I tried only reached one hundred and sixty five pounds so I tried several more times) were sufficient to cause a considerable amount of joint distress which may, in fact, have hindered the slow movement peak upload that I did after. I won’t be demonstrating this phenomenon too frequently.
When you create something that has a novel element to it, don’t try to make the novel element conform to prior standard procedures and assumptions. Pursue the novelty to its logical conclusion.
Imposed force versus generated force.
The closer you get to imposed force perfectly mirroring generated force, the better the strength stimulus potential.
This can be accomplished with many different tools, and many different operative protocols:
Body weight based exercises
Barbells
Selectorized weight stack machines
Other mechanically generated sources of force such as electric motors or active pneumatic or hydraulic systems
Manual resistance as applied by a trainer
Repetition schemes
Speed generated deficiency gap closure strategies
Static hold exercises
Generated imposed force:
Infimetric
Static generated upload exercises
Hybrid:
Akinetic: Imposed force plus Generated Force with the imposed force assuring that the subject works no lower than a set point.
Passive hydraulic or pneumatic piston eccentric only machines which allow for Maximum force generation as long as the subject is working with an honest effort. May be limited as to speed factors though.
Dead Stop mechanisms at which point the stop allows for a crossover into supra imposed force into the realm of Transient Maximum Potential Force Generation above the selected Imposed force as generated by the weight/resistance source.
Imposed force: anything external to the muscles that creates a stimulus for muscle contraction.
Generated force: the muscle’s momentary capability to create and sustain force.
Imposed force equipment has several potential drawbacks:
Momentum that creates load deficiencies
Momentum that creates overload situations above and beyond structural integrity
Friction that reduces imposed force
Movement that is out of phase either mechanically or potentially with force generating capabilities of muscle systems.
Force generation potentiality profile:
Needs to take into account:
MU recruitment potential
Anaerobic peak potential/sustainability
Slope of fatigue: anaerobic
Aerobically sustainable post peak supra-minimum threshold
Slope of fatigue: aerobic
Mechanical leverage factors cross referenced to metabolic capacity and neurological function profiles
Energy partitioning?
Duration post peak capacitance depletion versus gross recovery ability creating forced metabolic pathways that influence hormone response to post stimulus metabolic/recovery environment (here I begin to question the assumption of days rest and recovery required from a ancestral point of view. Did our forerunners really sit around and say to the Sabre Tooth Tiger.. ah, wait a second. Wait a few more days until I have had a chance to recover from wrasslin that bad ass Kodiak bear two days ago. Dude, don’t harsh my recovery…?) How much of recovery, extended recovery, is necessitated by over training some element of the whole metabolic matrix?
Training to eliminate gaps between imposed force and generated force potential.
Read/Response
When preparing to perform an exercise with any implement the user will instinctively read the deficiencies inherent and prepare to overcome them with any number of strategies. When a user has become successful in doing this with one particular implement through study, practice or intuition, it may become even more difficult to release from the conditioned read/response pattern already ingrained through the mastery of a particular tool. This becomes especially problematic when trying to move from free weights to machine based training or even from one particular line or brand of equipment to another or from one suggested rep protocol/speed to another. .
Transient Maximum Force Generation Potential:
When having access to equipment that allows for the realtime measuring of maximum force generation it becomes apparent that the nature of maximum force generation is transient and subject to significant change over the course of time. Whereas there might be a slight uptick after several seconds of non compensated effort (ie: no ValSalva synch) there will be a measurable decline as the test proceeds. The significance of this when transferring the knowledge of Maximum Force Generation Potential to an imposed force tool such as a barbell or a cammed, selectorized machine is that it will only be able to match the peak potential at a single point of intersection and will be that moment of momentary muscle failure whether it be sticking point failure in a severely deficient design or runaway failure in a less deficient design.
In a bilaterally paired and linked matched force generation/imposition hybrid machine the Transient Maximum Force Generation Potential has the benefit of immediate adjustment to the present peak maximum force generation potential without having to mechanically intervene by stripping weights or adding as the need arises from second to second through the working set.
Dangers of imposed force mechanisms:
Potential to exceed structural integrity of muscle, joint, connective tissue resulting in damage.
Hit or miss profile matching even with strict adherence to protocol.
Benefits of imposed force mechanisms:
Ability to load beyond limits of body weight based imposed force through controlled uploading.
Externally measurable and observable.
Able to be analyzed through standard mechanical analysis.
Progression can be measured to a degree but is skewed by small variables in execution.
Imposed load training will always be deficient at some point or another. When the cam is right the load deficiencies will be off early in the set as they will be under the muscle’s Transient Maximum Potential Force capacity. When momentum is used to overcome load deficiencies the non peak portions of the moevment will be exaggerated thus creating even larger deficiencies.
It strikes me that the reason free weight based negative exercise is so problematic is precisely because negatives are really an imposed load strategy best suited to overcome machine frictions. Free weight exercises do not have any friction. Basing upload on forty percent of a maximum on free weights will dangerously overload thus putting the user in a situation where bracing strategies become obligatory. The closer to zero friction, the less need for negative upload strategies to negate machine based friction deficiencies. Negatives are, in a sense, a strategy in which the user closes the gap and gets much closer to peak potential force generation capabilities instead of waiting for fatigue to bring those levels down to the preselected imposed force level of the standard ten reps to failure (or whatever scheme) used. It is also a countermeasure to overcome machine friction deficiencies. I am not saying it is not useful, I am saying the equipment can be made better thus negating the need for such a strategy in the first place.
Continuing to re-post some of my essays written and posted elsewhere in the last year while I seek inspiration to finish my latest essay Sorry about the old content for those who have read this already.
The elephants… in the room.
(Or matters I can no longer avoid dealing with as I struggle to understand what I think I might now understand.)
As long as any mechanically measurable positive movement is possible, any form of weight bearing, imposed load exercise with a concentric contractive element is intentionally slowed down. Strangely enough, it is only when positive movement is impossible that it is no longer intentionally being slowed down so long as a truly honest all out effort is being made to try to continue to move it in a positive direction.
Even the very fastest of thrown repetitions is slowed down, even if only to the slightest degree. The faster the speed, the greater the underload relative to total momentary strength potential. If movement is at all possible, it means that the artifact is not being moved at its maximum speed relative to momentary muscle capacity, as the muscle is not fully loaded. If the muscle were fully loaded to its momentary potential capacity, no movement would be possible. It is only the deficiency, however small, of the imposed load that allows for any movement in the first place.
Were the imposed load precisely matched to momentary muscle capacity, maximum volitional metabolic expenditure would not result in any positive movement. At that moment there would also be no eccentric movement. Once eccentric or negative movement occurs, due to diminishing metabolic capacity of the muscle in question, the imposed load is now in the situation of creating overload, not failure. Were the imposed load instantaneously adjusted to the present metabolic capacity of the muscle to allow cross bridging, eccentric movement could again be momentarily halted until muscle capacity decreased below the imposed load which would once again be creating overload and, thus, eccentric movement once again. Were instantaneous adjustment possible again, this cycle could repeat many times until the imposed load was virtually zero. I am not suggesting that this would be optimal, only possible.
The elapsed time for this to go from peak reading to zero would vary from individual to individual dependent on a number of crucial factors and would be very telling. Further, there would be detectable zones of load capabilities that would begin to establish a certain profile of peak and decrease over time that would further clarify these elements. If understood properly these elements might sufficiently act as a virtual biopsy thus allowing for non invasive muscle fiber typing.
The greater the need to intentionally slow the movement down, the greater the deficiency of the load relative to a muscle’s potential capacity for generating strength (tension) from the outset. Depending upon the individual’s genetic profile this may be a liability or it may not. It is only when the gap between muscle potential and load closes due to fatigue over time that it becomes possible to feel the attempted act of speeding up actually result in slowing down. The more efficient the machine and well matched the protocol the more quickly this will occur. This usually happens later in a working set of an exercise with most tools, however. Prior to this point of occurrence, all slowed movement is purely a result of intentional under loading as well as the act of willingly going slower.
This, by the way, applies to static holds as well as active movement. A static hold is the ultimate expression of intentionally slowing a deficient load down to zero mechanical movement speed while waiting for fatigue to reduce the metabolic capacity of the muscle to a failure slope intersect where volitional movement is ostensibly no longer possible. This may, depending on the circumstances of the genetic profile of the trainee, happen relatively quickly within, say, a fifteen second window, or it may not happen at all within a given time frame. Volitionally holding something in place is not the same as the inability to move in spite of attempting to speed up and should never be mistaken as such.
A dead stop mechanism is actually a corrective step in the right direction on imposed load implements as it helps to overcome this non-optimal muscle loading situation by allowing for a maximum, albeit momentary, upload. It fails, however, in that it also allows a release back to the insufficiency of load when the movement is released from the dead stop mechanism, at least until the momentary muscle failure intersection is reached at some other point in the movement. Further, this dead stop mechanism is, in most cases, not truly in the optimal position to create the fullest benefit it is capable of providing. The fully contracted position is not the best place to invoke a dead stop upload in most muscles. But it is better than nothing when compared to the rest of the conventional imposed load exercise being performed.
There is a bias that claims that this intentional non maximum loading is a necessary occurrence to keep the exercise safe, to avoid stressing the connective tissue and joint structures. In imposed load exercises this is probably true, except in the instance where a dead stop mechanism is used in a safe manner by doing a slow up load and not by slamming into it.
Properly understood, a dead stop mechanism does not allow for a hold, per se. It is imperative that the user attempt a continuous active upload while engaged to the dead stop mechanism. It is an active event, not a static hold. In this case it is the muscle that is generating upload to its maximum capacity and not the load imposing a possibly dangerous overload. Unless the active upload against the dead stop mechanism exhausts the immediate metabolic capacity of the muscle thus making the imposed load transition to overload. In this case it does become a potential liability to muscle and connective tissue. This is transient overload and not muscle failure but it does signal the end of the working set unless there is some way to readjust the imposed load to or below present internal metabolic potential to ustilize the remaining stored potential not fully exhausted. the efficacy of this is dependent on the genetic profile of the individual, though and may or may not be desirable when it comes to set extension.
Without this dead stop mechanism it is otherwise quite possible to either misjudge and overload or, outright, intentionally attempt too much load on imposed load equipment in an attempt to create the desired stimulus response of greater strength through adaptive recovery. This failure to accurately guess can lead to catastrophic injury on any imposed load equipment not properly used. This is further complicated when the machine or implement is often not able to accommodate the strength curve of the muscle and lever system in accordance with its potential. Oftentimes the tool will be enough out of phase through simple mechanics or mistaken design so that dangerous loads will be forced on the muscle and lever system at some point. At the least this will cause sticking point overload. At its worst, injury. This has all been amplified by the fictitiously conceived need for “full range exercise.” There is probably no such need for this as a condition for full metabolic muscle engagement leading to stimulus response and adaptive compensatory recovery. Attempts at full range exercise may, in fact, be counterproductive to optimal stimulus and even outright preventing some subjects from getting any results.
The more that the externally imposed resistance down regulates the metabolic capacity of the muscle being worked toward a level of fatigue, be it substrate fatigue, neural fatigue, occlusional fatigue or some other factor, the closer you get to the intersection where movement becomes impossible at any speed. This is the first (And in most cases, the only) moment the exercise movement is not being intentionally slowed down. Some refer to this as momentary muscle failure and pursue it as the desired end to a set in a given exercise. This is not truly muscle failure. It is transient momentary overload but is not muscle failure.
For some this singular stimulus moment may sufficiently result in a stimulus response that evokes an increase in strength and possibly size. In light of what I have learned recently I would suggest that this is actually where the substantive work of imposed load failure training should actually begin. Once this “failure” point is reached, the typical trainee usually makes a few noises indicative of something akin to code for “hey look, I have reached failure as evidenced by my grunts of agony” and then proceeds to offload thus finishing the exercise at the precise point that it begins to be more than moderately effective. It is at this moment that maximum effort should be sustained for as long as fifteen seconds or more, if possible, regardless of where in the range it occurs. This is, properly, where the attempt to speed up should now be at its maximum. There might be a few surprised subjects when they find they can slightly reverse the movement with a few extra seconds of effort. If any positive movement occurs during this attempt to speed up, the set should then be continued until there is a legitimate non mechanically induced dead stop followed by an attempt, once again, to try to move it as fast as possible for another ten to fifteen seconds. Only then should the exercise be slowly disengaged from. Don’t be surprised if this causes a sense of what some call runaway failure. In doing this you might find that it becomes impossible to control the speed of setting the weight down. It will do it for you. Care should be taken should this runaway failure be experienced under imposed load situations, especially if the equipment used puts an excessive stretch on the joint in question. However, this one change in protocol alone might then actually create the strength stimulus desired.
For others, though, this mode of single set to failure might seem like an exercise in futility creating fatigue but no compensatory strength increase over time. If the repetition range and load is not appropriate to the subject’s genetic profile it will be wasted effort, at least, and counterproductive at worst. As it is, I would suppose that at least ninety percent or more of any workout work done in a standard positive/negative fashion is toil rather than stimulus. It is also likely that the toil component is absolutely unnecessary for training purposes. The addition of a dead stop mechanism may greatly decrease the unnecessary toil component while increasing the stimulus potential of an exercise only to have it wasted by moving back into the cycle of deloaded toil and recovery.
So, after being failed by the improper application of or less that optimal protocol, some subjects
turn to alternative workout protocols searching for something that works for their genetic profile. This often puts the two camps at odds with one another creating the need to defend the honor of one’s protocol, often by insulting adherents to the other side. This is ultimately useless in moving the process of understanding forward. There are many possible salient factors that may explain a number of differences to the manifestations of response to stimulus and protocol from person to person.
When you build a piece of equipment unlike any other, the worst mistake you can make is to try to use it like any other.
And, no, I do not include Ren Ex in the “unlike any other” category. It is, in fact, quite like all the others. Yes, less friction.. great. Accurate biomechanics? Yes, as far as can presently be discerned, relative to the requirement of artificially needing to slow the movement down. But, it is still a machine with a weight source. Imposed load. It is a highly refined imposed load implement. Therein lies the restriction and thus the need for a very specific protocol. I am not saying it is not effective or efficient. It is what it is and those who have made it, market it and train others on it know what it is. That is key. They know what they have and how to use it. Hence the insistence on strict protocol to get the most out of the limits of yet another imposed load apparatus that happens to be very effective. Perhaps the most effective of any imposed load tool yet built.
Protocols?
All the rep schemes and cadences and speed of movement that have evolved over the millennia have been attempts to overcome deficiencies in the imposed load implements thus far used to evoke a strength stimulus response. But why, under natural circumstances, would we need to have such a stimulus response? What encounters would have evoked this in a more natural setting? Before you think I am about to go in the direction of climbing trees and finding your inner ape man, I am not. I am just looking for clues and cues to our potential biological response. What, in our environment would create such a situation?
A fight to the death.
That’s right. In situations where the biology is not sufficient to defeat a foe in close combat, providing that escape is possible, the fight to near death is most likely the primal trigger for stimulus response. Is this response long term? Is it short term? How many encounters are necessary before the temporary becomes permanent? How does it affect the hormonal environment? How does that drive physical adaptations? What role does the nutritional environment play in this? There are so many factors that enmesh to create the whole picture that it is nearly impossible to isolate and test even one factor, let alone how they truly interact. So we are left with the physical stimulus for this discussion.
Contrived fights.
In the absence of true threats there has been a tendency to create contrived sport. I know that I am on shaky ground here with some as there are plenty of papers elucidating the difference between sport and training. Yes, I get all that. But, where did the contrived circumstances of sport come from in the first place? Certainly it seems there is merit in the idea that it somehow helped prepare for real situations of threat. Prepare for the looming possibility of the need to fight to the death that might be lurking in the shadows or around the corner. The more successful you are, the greater the likelihood of survival when the chips really are down. A secondary consequence could possibly be the increase in strength as a result of matching blows with an opponent in a relatively safe environment. These sporting activities probably played a vital role in preparation, only secondarily becoming entertainment or ritual as they are now. I also think they mirror the natural wrestle-like play often seen in primates and other animals.
The most profound form of this regularly practiced by us humans would seem to be sport that falls into martial arts, wrestling or pugilistic categories. In these pursuits there is real danger of physical harm. There is a risk involved in participating in these activities. Do I mean to imply that these pursuits are thus the optimal way to the stimulus response pathway? Certainly not. But, there is something potentially to be understood about why they have been a part of civilized behavior for such a long time. What elements are to be found in these activities that might benefit the participants, aside from qualities of “mental toughness” and the like?
In a sport like wrestling there is an attempt to handicap the event. Weight classes put those of relatively similar size, as determined by weight class, against each other to make for the appearance of a fair fight. There are extreme examples of weight loss strategies that belong in another discussion more befitting of a psychology forum. For my purposes I am only interested in the fair fight of relatively close physical match ups. Close both in size and proximity.
In a match there will be factors above and beyond conditioning that will influence the outcome. Certainly skill will play a large factor. But, let’s take two equally skilled opponents and match them up. Now let’s say one is genetically more gifted in endurance and the other for strength. Should the stronger one gain the upper hand and be able to put the opponent in a near death situation with one shoulder down on the mat early on, the end (a pin) might come fairly quickly. If the weaker opponent can ride out and bridge for a long enough length of time, his endurance may put him in a position of equalizing the strength as the stronger athlete hits the fatigue slope.
There are advantages and disadvantages to either genetic profile as with any other profile one can think of. Each will also respond to conditioning demands in a slightly different but not necessarily insignificant way. If the discrepancy in profile is too profound, the match will end quickly and there will be very little in the way of beneficial strength stimulus for either party. If the two opponents are more closely matched in profile those two or three minute periods can feel like an eternity. If one can make it through the match or the tournament and then eat and rest properly they might just find themselves to be stronger in a few days provided they are not so prone to the overkill/overtraining so prevalent in modern wrestling conditioning. There are elements of this overtraining rooted in the right training regimen for one genetic profile being miss-applied to a subtly different profile to deleterious effect.
There is no “One size fits all” training strategy, especially when dealing with imposed load tools. Trying to work the internal environment with an external tool can be a tricky proposition. As much as we would like to think that it can all be reduced down to a simple formula, it is still pretty much guesswork. As a result, those who are favorably predisposed to respond to a given training regimen will thrive on it while others, not so favorably matched, will burn out or receive inadequate stimulus. The latter two are not good options.
Granted, some guesswork is more intelligent or informed than other but it still comes down to trying to ascertain the hidden, the partially known, the physical interior milieu. This partially known is fickle. Just when you think you have it figured out along comes something that gums up the works. Response slows down or even stops or reverses and a change in routine seems necessary to kick start things again. Then, with a change of routine, things may pick up again, at least for a little while before also stagnating. Then there is the non responder who seems to get absolutely nothing despite the best of efforts in any protocol.
WHY?
Why do some routines and protocols work so well for one person and not for another? Why do some routines and protocols seem to work well, but only to a limit? As always, I am speculating with the caveat that we are dealing with natural trainees with no artificial drug interventions.
Genetic profiles are flexible within a certain limit. Certainly, there are extreme examples at either end of the spectrum. The marathoner, the strong man. But, it is evolutionarily beneficial to have some measure of adaptability outside of these extremes for survival. Most live in the middle of the distribution curve. Environments and circumstances are subject to change over time in the bigger picture and those who are only suitably adapted to the exact present situation are not in a position of advantage when or if environment changes. Flexibility rules the day for long term survival.
What does this have to do with strength training?
Everything.
I am going to make up the hypothetical average subject. In Mendelian fashion I am going to make up the numbers to suit the intended outcome of the discussion simply for discussion’s sake, knowing that this should be close enough for illustration. The scientists can work out the particulars and either prove or disprove my reasoning. I work with anecdote because this is what I observe as I work with subjects.
So, our average subject is going to have a certain distribution of muscle fibers as averaged throughout the body. I am going to infer that this particular person has a homogenous distribution through out his whole body. This is not necessarily the case, in reality, as there is variation from muscle group to muscle group quite possible within an individual.
If we simplify and look at three very basic fiber types, we have fast glycolytic, intermediate and slow oxidative. There are optimal metabolic pathways for each to function and there may also be bundle sizes of motor units that match up to the different fiber types. This may give the illusion of what has been called, in the past, neurological efficiency. There may be correlates to strength and endurance functions to fiber type that create the illusion of neurological efficiency profiles. I suspect there is much variation to this, though.
So, we take our very fictional average subject, Joe Bellcurve, and we analyze fiber type distribution to discover that he has 20 percent slow, 60 percent intermediate and 20 percent fast fibers. All well and good. Not extraordinarily strong but not weak. Not able to run like a Kenyan, but not too easily winded by a long walk.
This is in his untrained state.
He watches the Tour d’France and becomes inspired, buys a bike and starts to train (hopefully he hasn’t purchased the bike shorts as he would probably be caught riding to Starbucks to purchase his post training Java in bike shorts and a short sleeved dress shirt, only half tucked in, which does not work well together.) He may find that over time his endurance improves and that he can ride increasingly further and faster after several months of training.
Those adaptable intermediate muscle fibers are beginning to behave more like the slow twitch fibers even though they will never become completely like them. As a result he is adapting to the demands of the training milieu. His friend, Jim Freakazoid, takes up riding as well and in short order can outdistance Joe Bellcurve. Little does Joe know that Jim has eighty five percent slow twitch and very few fast twitch fibers. And while Joe’s fiber distribution is still 20/60/20, those intermediate muscle fibers are helping to create the illusion of a different profile more heavily weighted towards a slow twitch dominant profile. This still doesn’t quite put him in Jim’s 85 percent profile and as a result Joe is discouraged by being constantly outdistanced by his friend. He starts watching reruns of “World’s Strongest Man” competitions on ESPN2 and decides that he can show up Jim Freakazoid by switching to strength training.
He joins Planet Fitness at ten bucks a month and thirty bucks off the start up fee plus the yearly enrollment fee of twenty nine bucks and a trainer sets him up with a safe program. The switch is invigorating, at first. Those intermediate muscle fibers start to behave more like the fast twitch fibers which are being awakened by the demands of those medium to sort of heavy non grunting lifted weights that aren’t being crashed around or sweated upon. All in a judgment free zone as well. It sure feels good. And they don’t kiss his butt!
He gets stronger in short order and invites Jim Freakazoid to join him at Planet Fitness. Jim can barely manage the plastic coated pink dumbbells and is soon off doing the cardio stuff as well as spotting the girls on balance balls while doing squats instead of paying much attention to the weights as he has to grunt just spotting his buddy Joe and has been threatened with being thrown out of the place if he can’t quiet down because even though it’s supposed to be all about him it isn’t supposed to be that much about him. (isn’t that sort of like a judgment? Oops!)
In the meantime, Joe gets another friend to be his training partner. Bull Testerossa is a natural when it comes to weightlifting and quickly maxes out the with all weights available to load on the barbells at Planet Fitness. And that’s without having to grunt! Bull soon starts scoping out a new place like a Powerhouse Gym or some other club where they have enough weight to accommodate the fact that he has eighty five percent fast twitch fibers and an impeccable diet as he dines on a lot of raw foods. He seems to merely think about touching the weights and “BOOM” gains galore. He has grown out of his old clothes and gives them to his friend Joe who is pretty much stuck. Joe has gotten a bit stronger but not really much bigger. Those intermediate muscle fibers did help shift Joe’s profile to the appearance of a more fast twitch dominant profile. But he will never quite match the genetic profile of Bull Testerossa. Plus he has now found out he has what are called short muscle bellies while his buddy Bull has very long ones. Belly envy?
Joe, being discouraged by his average response to two different types of training routines, gives it all up and develops, for once, a larger than average beer belly now that he is not doing all that extra caloric expenditure activity. He eats a lot of soy and grains, very low fat and watches soap operas as well to suit his newfound need to cry in his beer. At last, something at which he can easily become an overachiever. He hates those Planet Fitness commercials, though, and cries even more when they come on as he still owes them ten bucks a month and he hasn’t been there in ages.
All joking aside, there are several factors playing out here. Genetic extremes will set someone up for better potential response when they pursue that activity which best suits the inherent makeup of the individual. The average person will show some response to any training regimen. They are in the sweet spot of adaptability. But adaptability has its price in that it won’t generally respond in the extreme to either pursuit. When does a subject reach the limits of their potential? That is yet to be determined. There are those who are operating outside of their ideal profile pursuits who, through discipline and determination, outperform someone with superior genetic potential. Happens all the time. Knowing the facts isn’t meant to create easy excuses.
This fleshes out the very simplistic idea of genetic profile. What it really doesn’t address is the potential approach to strength stimulus training that can be most adaptive to profile regardless of genetic makeup. Note also that our very middle of the road average subject was highly adaptive in the mean, not the extremes and was able to evoke a shift in what might have been perceived as his profile to the outside observer. Had we met Joe Bellcurve when he was strength training we might have mistakenly assumed he would have great and further potential for more strength were he only to work harder. The same might be observed for the endurance scenario as well when, in fact, he might have reached fairly close to the zenith of adaptability in either. Maintenance with slight challenges every so often might have been the order of the day for him to then stay at a level of optimal conditioning for a long period of time. Instead, many attempt the impossible by gradually overtraining, burning out and then giving up.
Back to the tools.
Imposed load training requires a certain level of skill regardless of the equipment used. Some equipment requires more physical skill. Learning the necessary balance and coordination of barbells will definitely improve the amount of weight one can handle while using them. If one really understands the limitations of the tool, a barbell can provide revolutionary results.
Machine training, at first glance, can appear to be somehow easier. I would contend that it is easier… to misunderstand and abuse. The very presence of a “machine” often conveys to the uninitiated that it is the machine that will somehow produce the results. This may result in less than honest effort on the part of the trainee. Perhaps there is more deep seated acculturation to a barbell being associated with hard work while “machines” are seen as labor saving devices. For those who are able to get past these erroneous notions, machine based training is able to either supplement traditional barbell training or replace it as a safe alternative all together. Again, if someone really understands the inherent limitations of the tool, machine training can provide revolutionary results.
Body weight exercises are also a form of imposed load training. Again, if properly understood and executed, these can also provide incredible strength stimulus and results.
Avoidance.
Oddly enough, when working with an elderly gentleman in the middle stages of senile dementia, I have discovered the phenomenon of the path of least resistance and work avoidance all over again. Energy is expensive for the body, even in this day and age of apparent plenty. I will go off the editorial deep end here for just a moment and say the appearance of plenty is not the same as actual plenty when we really need gold standard quality food and the industry feeds us pot metal pseudo foods. We have to work hard to make intelligent choices in light of the aggressive marketing that is out there encouraging us to take the cheap easy path. Back to the whole concept of expensive energy, though. The body and our whole mien is generally not prone to wasting energy. When given a difficult physical task we generally look for the easiest or most efficient way to accomplish it. That’s why we invent tools. As I take this particular subject through twice weekly workouts, there is little or no retention of how to do the exercises even though he has been doing some form of them for the last thirty years or more and has a thorough college training in applied kinesiology, among other things. As a result, I am able to watch as he struggles with the concept of having to intentionally make the exercise as difficult as safely possible. He automatically tries to sneak in the little cheats to make things easier. He knows he is being asked to do a certain number of repetitions and tries to do them quickly and efficiently. We have the same exchange several times during a set in which I have to coach him to slow down, to come to a complete stop in the contracted position, not to let the weight stack rest on itself between repetitions but to focus on a smooth turnaround. He will literally forget this from repetition to repetition. His physiology then seeks the path of least resistance. But, with adequate cues he ultimately does the work and at age eighty eight has regained considerable muscle mass.
It goes against our general nature to seek out dangerous and energy expensive situations. Yes, I know there are thrill seekers amongst us but as a general rule it is in our best interest to conserve energy and seek safety. Working out is, in some ways, an odd pursuit. We have to be convinced at some level that it is going to give us some sort of survival advantage.
Weight as the new adversary.
Whether the source of imposed load is a large tire, a barbell, a weight stack on a machine or a truck pulled down a course, it has become the defacto opponent in the wrestling match that substituted for the fight to the death. Regardless of how clinical we make the setting, how many clipboards we carry and how sophisticated our language of instruction is, the imposed load is still something to be wrestled against. We substitute. Sometimes we are successful in matching the opponent to the capabilities of the subject. Sometimes we miss. Incredible energies have been poured into the conceptualization and realization of these surrogate foe implements. Attempts have been made to sidestep the inherently frightening psychological implications of what they actually represent. All of this deflection away from the original function of these artifacts has moved us on the wrong path. We focus far too much on the machine instead of the individual. It really is supposed to be all about you after all. Tools are merely an adjunct to us. All of them. No machine is revolutionary. We are evolutionary, though.
Instruction has evolved to become more complex the more we have distanced ourselves from the basic premise of the primordial stimulus response trigger. It necessarily becomes complex when using sophisticated but less than optimal tools and protocols as well. We expand on little fragments of the big idea. We expand our knowledge base away from the initial gut reaction understanding until you need a PhD just to be able to talk to anyone about the whole thing. We argue over meaningless studies that fail to truly grasp what it is we are trying to understand, measure or evoke. When suspect studies are then cited in further suspect studies I sometimes get the feeling that someone should at least flush so we can start over with clean water, please!
I often wonder how we managed to evolve to this point in light of how dumb we think our ancestors were in book knowledge. “Oog. Oog! Where’s the hunting manual? I’m being attacked by this sabre tooth tiger and it isn’t letting me use a full range of motion with proper strength curve accommodations and zero friction. The movement plane it expects me to use isn’t proper and there is just no feeling of balance in this whatsoever.. can you have a talk with the big cat? Please? I need more kinetic chain involvement.” Of course this historical encounter was never passed down through the generations because that poor dude was toast. No gene pool contributions from him. He should have memorized that manual. Unfortunately for him he had only gotten page one painted on the cave wall. So, it took millennia to finally reach this point again and now we are surrounded by it. Only there are no predators now…
I have been addressing all of this assuming the use of imposed load equipment. That is the norm for the majority of strength training athletes. It is somewhat the norm in the rehabilitation community. Even Richard Simmons uses imposed load when he encourages his followers to sweat to the oldies imposing a sometimes very imposing load on the joints.
There’s only one problem. Imposed load equipment does not accurately interface with our biological metabolic muscle capabilities very well. That is why there has been so much variation in training approaches throughout the centuries. Everyone keeps trying to guess at getting it right but the tools don’t allow for it to ever get that close. Single points of optimal intersection to an ever changing metabolic landscape is not near as close as some would have us believe. Compromise rules the day, even on the very best equipment.
We keep looking for more and more complex solutions to a very simple problem. Were we to have wrestled with our muscles as much as we have wrestled with the problem mentally, we might have found ourselves much further down the road of progress. Instead, we just make them toil in various combinations of contrived labor, constantly exhausting them but seldom triggering that growth stimulus we desire.
I think there is something sage about the tales that have passed down through history about someone being strengthened and ennobled by trying the impossible.
With all of our mechanical work analysis we keep moving in the directing of doing the possible. Searching for the correct number of sets. With the correct amount of weight. With the correct cadence. In the correct environment. The only thing is, mechanical analysis is not the correct way to understand our physiology. It is an easily observable way to see what our physiology can accomplish in one particular form of observable movement. But, that is where it fails us most. We might accomplish far more if we attempt the constant effort of the momentarily impossible.
Sustaining the attempt of the impossible. Generating lots of heat.
The most effective workout I have ever had involved almost no mechanically apparent work.
It appeared as if I was accomplishing very little.
It triggered the greatest increase of strength from a single workout I have ever encountered.
The manual for the above workout won’t work for imposed load equipment, though.
(Well, there is a way… but you won’t like it. Seems too crazy.)
What if?
What if an exercise tool needed little or no instruction?
What if it didn’t impose a load?
What if the machine set you up with the perfect opponent for the fight of your life?
What if that opponent had the exact same genetics as you?
What if that opponent was your equal in strength?
What if that opponent was your equal in endurance?
What if that opponent had the exact same fiber type distribution as you have?
What if it met you and matched you at every single step along the way?
What if it was safer than any present state of the art imposed load equipment?
What if it could provide pure inroad with no dangerous overload?
What if it could provide you with a map of your genetic muscle make up?
Here’s my new instruction manual:
1. Simplify
2. Load like there’s no tomorrow.
3. Fight to the finish
That’s the most effective way to use my equipment. Whatever schemes are necessary to extrapolate that to a whole body workout are pretty simple. If you haven’t used it, do an exercise for it. If you have, move on to another one.
Certainly, there are some subtleties. I would rather they reveal themselves to the curious. When in doubt, attempt to find them by reviewing the above manual in greater detail. We rarely understand the deeper implications of the obvious, let alone the shallowest meanings of mysteries. The answers are usually found by closer examination of the obvious and why they are obvious.
You can’t load like there’s no tomorrow with imposed load equipment. You have to under load like there’s no tomorrow. And then you have to slow down intentionally. And then you have to isolate and stabilize and be careful and not hold your breath and workout in the right environment and squeeze but not squeeze and the list goes on and on. My brain hurts.
Breaking the rules.
I had the first piece of this equipment in hand thirty years ago. I built my first infimetric leg extension prototype and I logically did what I thought was right. I tried to use it like a conventional piece of imposed load exercise equipment. It sort of worked. It was novel enough to make me curious about it for the next thirty years until I was finally able to begin to understand a little about how to use it to its fullest potential.
I had to travel a number of difficult roads to get there, though. Usually the epiphanies appeared when I was least expecting them. They tend to be like that. The process usually involves dumping all preconceived notions. It usually means becoming a non conformist of sorts. Hard for someone with mild hippie roots.. talk about your consummate conformity! Yes, I really do mean that last statement to read that way.
Infimetrics has a way of challenging you. The more you try to make it conform to the protocols of imposed load tools, the more it will let you down. You can keep returning to it convinced you just haven’t been disciplined enough to truly get to its real potential. But as long as you keep trying to make it conform to your preconceived ideas it will tell you nothing.
Breaking free from the rules of engagement is a scary task when you invest so much in becoming proficient at communicating the rules to others. I took pride in being a good teacher and trainer at fitness facilities.
I had a few encounters that shook up my thought process about a number of elements. Many of my dialogs with Josh Trentine and Al Coleman were crucial to my letting go of old in the box thinking. Oddly enough it has, in some ways, now put me at odds with what they are doing at their facility. It has served to help me break the rules with my old prototypes enough to begin to see not only what they are capable of doing but also how to get to better places with them. I began to listen to what my body was saying along the way, I mean really paying attention.
Infimetrics is not a new idea. Arthur Jones was building infimetric machines and talking about them in the mid to late 1970′s. He made them sound as if they were the wave of the future. His talk at West Point in 1979 was formative in driving my curiosity. As a result I have been chasing infimetrics in some form ever since. There was a time where I trained on my prototypes exclusively for a few years and had great results. But, since I was not moving big weight stacks up and down I really began to doubt the modality and its long term worth. I switched back over to negative assist training and then just kind of gave up altogether as my health deteriorated. That story has been told other places and doesn’t need repeated here.
Mistakes along the way.
I am amazed that Arthur Jones so aggressively pursued infimetrics based exercise and then just let it drop off the screen completely. There are some theories as to why this might have happened. I think he was intelligent enough to see the writing on the wall. As long as you try to use it in a manner consistent with imposed load equipment the machines will give average results at best. I am not sure he was willing to suggest breaking the rules he helped create. I think there was also a problem with the cam relative to optimal infimetric protocol. The cams present on the multi bicep, tricep, hip and back and duo squat actually function to make the infimetric execution of these exercises worse, not biomechanically better. In the case of the Duo squat it makes things much, much worse. That was an “aha” moment for me on my journey back to infimetrics.
I wonder if, in fact, Arthur might have come to the realize the infimetrics we know is not the optimal way to train the interior milieu any more than any imposed load training system. For someone who has invested so much time and effort in the form, this is the hardest thing I have written in a long, long time.
Even infimetrics is too complex.
But, it contains within it the seeds of understanding. There are elements of it that are correct. They are hard to see when approaching infimetrics through the lens of a lifetime of hoisting weights with barbells and weight stacks. For thirty years I never could see it.
The solution is so much simpler but at the same time harder. I have a lot of doubts about what I am experiencing and relating to everyone here. And yet, nothing has ever seemed this simple or this correct. Breaking the rules, even if they were arbitrarily developed over time to make deficient tools safe, is a very hard thing to do on so many levels.
Fortunately the equipment I have been building does allow for enough flexibility to permit me to experiment and take this in a slightly different direction. Or rather, to pursue the infimetric paradigm to its logical end and application. It little resembles what you would expect to see in a workout. Unless, of course, you were taking stills and not video. It’s as exciting as watching paint dry but more like really trying to see paint dry molecule by molecule. In this new approach I have never been less aware of my surroundings during a workout. It seems as if the body shuts out an awareness of everything else. The act itself demands its own focus. This is something I have never been able to evoke in all my years of training.
So what really happens in the fight to the death?
Close in struggle.
Seeking out leverage advantage.
Holding on for dear life.
Struggling to break free.
Trying to wear your opponent down.
Very limited movement.
Trying to stay in your strength advantage zone.
Hyper awareness. Being in a zone.
Notes from a workout.
I find the whole concept of general versus specific range response to be of interest. When I attempt to use so called full range exercises, whether compound or isolation, I generally have a difficult time involving the total target musculature. Ironically, it is only when I am doing a maximum upload midrange test durational fatigue slope set (believe me, I am trying to come up with a simpler label for that!) that I begin to feel the muscle get extremely warm from origin to insertion. I am also able to feel multiple heads “come on line” for lack of a better description as well. This whole phenomenon is much more likely to occur when I find a mid range sweet spot that allows for absolute maximum uploading. This also seems to include every stabilizer and peripheral muscle at either or both ends of the target muscle. This depends on whether I am working double or single joint muscles. This tells me I am in the right spot to get the maximum inroad for the exercise. The set will usually end when I can no longer control the violent resonant vibration occuring in the working limbs. This usually coincides with a 25 percent fall off from post peak sustainable level which is usually a substantial falloff from absolute peak initial load which is even higher. This is the closest I am willing to get to a feeling of total failure at this point. I want to see how my recovery is at this level before I dig too much deeper as I am feeling a very aggressive, fast and active recovery at this point as long as I continue to eat well.
If I were to speculate as to why this heat generating inroad might occur I would suspect that a muscle able to move, which is inherently underloaded, would cycle through muscle fibers in such a way as to allow as much duration as possible relative to the imposed load demand. When generated load forces a situation where all of the resources are brought online in an attempt to accomplish the impossible, this cycling is now not possible as all muscle fibers are forced to be in constant metabolic engagement from much earlier on in the set. As close to immediately as safely possible if the upload is done properly. But if you are not centered in such a way that you are having to use peripheral muscles at the ends of the target musculature, this undesired cycling in and out is most likely to happen. When you eliminate the cycling, it is now possible to fully upload the muscle for an extended period of time… relentlessly so, from one end of the muscle to the other. I think that this may account for the palpable heat I feel in the muscle after such a working set. This has been followed by what can best described as delayed onset pump.
I was struck by a particular thought in the midst of wrestling with my understanding of this. I think I have a small idea as to why Mike Mentzer might have been moving towards what he was moving toward as his ideas on training evolved late in his life. I don’t pretend that this is anything more than a hunch, though, as I am no student of his writings other than casual notice of it here and there.
I am not so sure I can give any better description, at this time, of what I am doing. I still have much to think about and process and I also feel I have left too much unsaid in this attempt to share my early findings. The real proof will be in the results. I have a feeling they may surprise even me. If they do, and in the direction I suspect they might, I think I already have a reasonable understanding of why what I feel starting to happen is going to happen.
I’ll save that for chapter two…
copyright 2011 Charles Spencer
