Dec
11
2012

Communication Continuum

271 comments written by Joshua Trentine

Communication Continuum

By Joe Anderson

Eugen Sandow in 1904: “You may go through the list of exercises with dumb-bells [sic] a hundred times a day, but unless you fix your mind upon those muscles to which the work is applied, such exercise will bring but little, if any, benefit. If, upon the other hand, you concentrate your mind upon the muscles in use, then immediately development begins.”

Communication, the exchange of information, between mind and muscle is supremely important to exercise. As a matter of fact, this relationship is the crux of the activity, and developing it must be the ongoing intent.

As with any relationship, effective communication does not materialize out of thin air; it is a learned process, an ongoing journey of discovery and acquainting, understanding and harmonizing. Different from most relationships, the two communicating parties are under the direction and control of one and the same subject: you.

Blind Date

In the beginning, deliberate exercise is much like communicating with someone you just met (or more appropriately, someone you have been forced to meet, i.e. being set up on a blind date). The transfer of information is often slow and awkward, as the parties lack familiarity with one another. The mind and muscle are simply uncomfortable in the arrangement imposed upon them.

Acquaintance is a product of time and effort, so a decision to communicate frequently will foster the new relationship. Beginners should facilitate communication between the mind and muscle frequently—daily, and ideally, multiple times throughout the day.

This is similar to the call/ text/ be-around-each-other-all-the-time phase of a new friendship. This is a critical phase of learning and lays the foundation for more effective communication in the future.

BFF

Once the foundation of effective communication is laid, the high volume is no longer necessary (and often not desired). During this phase, the transfer of information is fluid and fast, as both parties recognize and respond to familiar cues.

Your best friends forever (BFF) don’t require providing the background of every topic discussed; both parties already know some of the history. This level of communication is more in depth and more intense—the more in depth and intense, the deeper the effect on the relationship.

Likewise, exercise can occur less frequently during this phase in order to offset the deeper impact the growing intensity has on the body.

Old Married Couple

Have you ever played the game, Taboo? The object is to get another person to guess a hidden phrase without using any of the obvious hints.

Have you ever played this game with an old married couple? Here’s a hint: You’re gonna lose. The husband will say, “Aunt Betty,” and the wife will shout, “Independence Day”… and all the young people will be stunned speechless!

At this point, the volume and frequency of your communication is probably pretty low. You know everything about one another and have heard every story. You don’t need words or purposeful communication; you pick up on cues, unintended external manifestations that tell you exactly what the other is thinking, feeling, or about to do.

Entire, elaborate conversations can take place without the use of any spoken or written words. Fewer words spoken lend greater meaning to the words that actually are voiced.

This is not unlike exercise at an advanced level. The synergy between mind and muscle is so pronounced that there is a need to further reduce the volume and frequency of these physical exploits. This is an ideal (intense, brief and infrequent exercise) that must be approached step-by-step in order to actualize.

Go Slow

A mistake most often made is attempting to mimic the behavior of another exerciser who is communicating (mind-muscle) in a different phase from the mime.

Steps cannot be skipped, and you must not allow yourself to become distracted by other relationships (weights moving up and down, load, reps, TUL, rep schemes, etc.).

You cannot improve communication between mind and muscle by focusing your attention on anything else, just as you can’t know what your blind date is thinking or feeling by observing their gestures or outfit. Eventually, these things may indicate something you are acutely in tune with, just not yet.

You cannot force communication by piling on load anymore than you can force a relationship by sending daily texts to a person you like.

Daily texting may be a product of a relationship, but the texts do not dictate (or even indicate) the relationship.

Exercise, the least common denominator of the activity, is a manifestation of a mind-body relationship. It is an ongoing journey of improvement, not just in the exercises performed, but fundamentally (and more importantly), in the ability to bridge the gap between mind and body.

You must seek to eliminate distraction, noise, interference, anything that does not serve to improve communication between your mind and your muscle. Then and only then can you unlock the full extent of your physical potential.

{ 271 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Scott Springston December 11, 2012 at 12:12 pm

In the beginning, deliberate exercise is much like communicating with someone you just met (or more appropriately, someone you have been forced to meet, i.e. being set up on a blind date). The transfer of information is often slow and awkward, as the parties lack familiarity with one another. The mind and muscle are simply uncomfortable in the arrangement imposed upon them.
==Scott==
I think this is one of many reasons why REN-/EX gets so much flack from other forums and many posters. At times you have very good stuff to say but the transfer of information is slow and awkward and the outsider is not at all familiar with your terminology. That coupled with the sometimes arrogant attitude fosters great frustration with your message. I think you have a good message, just polish the ways you deliver it and you’ll see great improvement of acceptance.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Scott,

Thanks for the feedback, I would be very curious which part of any article requires “polish” ?

Josh

Reply

avatar Mark Lloyd December 14, 2012 at 10:09 pm

Gurdjieff wrote that the greatest obstacle to achieving one’s goals is other people. We often confuse some quality in the messenger that we find objectional with the validity of the message itself. In modern language, his advice was: “Get over it”. A reader who questions the ‘polish’ of information he’s been given should remember that it’s HE who’s trying to learn something; and thus, is the one who should ‘polish’ his perception.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker December 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Scott,

I just don’t see that. I’ve naturally gravitated to this site because the other HIT sites are so toxic.

On the other hand, this site offers an actual interchange of ideas and dialogue. It’s also a source of encouragement. The spirit comes off as very positive (imho).
I never feel condescended to, rather, I’m always learning here.

Unless you’re referring to trolls, well… they get what they ask for.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm

This article is perfectly timed as the the information is exactly what was misunderstood by the the very persistent poster on the last thread.

We certainly welcome any critique of this article….Although I doubt there can be any.

A big thanks to Joe Anderson for sharing such a thoughtful piece.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Thomas December 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Very clever article. I suppose this is why some people do not make progress on HIT routines such as BBS or other consolidated routines.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Thomas,

It is a really great article and it may very well explain why people have these opinions.

Josh

Reply

avatar Joe A December 11, 2012 at 5:37 pm

@Thomas

The article was not intended as an indictment of HIT/BBS/consolidated training, but rather a recognition that any such ideal must be strived for and attained, not simply decided and imposed. No template for exercise (exercise selection, sets, reps, TUL, frequency, etc.) speaks to the end user’s ability to harmonize his mind’s intent with his body’s expression…assuming the intent is even the correct one in the first place.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Something I read on a HIT forum elsewhere……relates do this discussion and why we see so many different types of training working and not working for different folks.

“I think it was Dorian Yates (or Peter McGough?) who said that if you hit the nail on the head, you need to hit it fewer times. The trouble with doing a couple of sets (Yates was not as extreme as that though) is that most people never manage a direct hit and the only thing they breakdown is their thumb.”

RenEx never misses hitting the nail on the head 🙂

Reply

avatar jim December 11, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Nice soft science . ( It would be a mistake to call this , as is usually the case , the ” art ” of the process simply because there is no ” metric ” per se ) . ” Where you are ” internally is a function of two internal energies , in-tention and a-ttention .
The magic of Tai Chi Chuan , that which makes it the highest form of martial art , comes from understanding these two components at any given moment in a dynamic environment . And this understanding can be applied to real exercise = inroading….. and why not , its the same organism . But HOW to apply this is a secret that can only be transmitted through a ” qualified trainer ” . BTW , this knowledge is not available in the hard martial arts nor in Yoga .

Reply

avatar Trace Johnston December 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Simple and great. A very nice perspective for the layman client.

Reply

avatar Patrick December 11, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Eugen Sandow in 1904: “You may go through the list of exercises with dumb-bells [sic] a hundred times a day, but unless you fix your mind upon those muscles to which the work is applied, such exercise will bring but little, if any, benefit. If, upon the other hand, you concentrate your mind upon the muscles in use, then immediately development begins.”

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Patrick,

This is really great, I have never seen this quote before….the communication is the missing link and it’s nothing new….Sandaow….the old Maxic muscle control courses and fast forward to the link you posted about Kai Green.

All we’re trying to do is create a system of training by which this communication can be improved, a color by numbers approach that can be had by all.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 5:37 pm

The powerlifting approach on machines promoted by Hahn is a step in the wrong direction and one more reason why I see what we’re doing as being more similar to orthodox bodybuilding and less similar to the H.I.T community.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 5:40 pm

The “DUMPERS” approach is also another step taking us further away…..

Reply

avatar Joe A December 11, 2012 at 5:51 pm

“one more reason why I see what we’re doing as being more similar to orthodox bodybuilding and less similar to the H.I.T community”

Interestingly, this was probably the same reason that Brian Johnston’s stuff (Zone Training) was more easily embraced/understood by those with a bodybuilding mentality born from a more orthodox approach, and misunderstood or rejected by the HIT community at large.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm

Joe,

Exactly…if you remember Hahn got his panties in a bunch about that too.

avatar Craig December 12, 2012 at 9:34 am

Powerlifting does work – many guys that pile on the load do get big & strong. But they also get hurt a lot. That’s the real issue with those approaches. So I do appreciate your efforts on figuring out how to load muscle while sparing joints.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 9:57 am

Joshua –

You said:

“The powerlifting approach on machines promoted by Hahn is a step in the wrong direction and one more reason why I see what we’re doing as being more similar to orthodox bodybuilding and less similar to the H.I.T community.”

You misrepresent my training. Please don’t do that. I won’t freak out as you would, but I ask that you refrain from misrepresentation of my training.

We perform between 3-8 reps on most exercises with most clients. A 2-3 second start and then slow after that. That is hardly power lifting.

And if you think that that what you RenX guys do is “…more similar to orthodox bodybuilding…” then you really must be forgetting what traditional bodybuilding is – multiple sets of the same exercise, sloppy form, not even close to failure training, hours in the gym each session and at least 4 sessions a week.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 10:47 am

I think my representation is quite accurate by my eye and by your comments.

You wiggle, squirm, hold your breath, lunge and heave all in order to slip by maximum moment arm and get one more rep….I have appropriately coined this “powerlifting on machines”.

Yes, I believe there are more parallels between between Gironda, Green, Maxic and Sandaow than the HIT community and certainly you.

Your level of “communication” is sub-beginner.

…Curious about your thoughts on Joe’s article as all of your behaviors contradict.

avatar Joe A December 11, 2012 at 5:56 pm

WOW…great quote! Thanks, Patrick.

Josh, that should be in bold letters as an introduction to the article…with a hat tip to Patrick for the contribution…just saying.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Done!

Reply

avatar Patrick December 11, 2012 at 6:08 pm

A newer Kai Greene video that delves into the subject matter of this article. Kai doing his best to coach technique and help the guy develop a mind-muscle connection, both which are frankly quite lacking.

http://youtu.be/CdhTxo_pTZU

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 6:18 pm

Patrick,

I’ve seen this, it’s very good. Kai is the only IFBB pro I have been interested in in the last 15 years…Once upon time he was also the top Natural Pro BB too.

I like his opening quote:

“A lot of times people come to the gym, in the beginning, and get caught up in…this machine….that machine…how to make the machine ‘work’…they spend so much time focused on the machines and NOT enough attention to the MOST important machine…and that’s you…your body”-Kai Green-

Again very evident in the Hahn videos…very evident in the H.I.T community as a whole.

Also a place I have to give great credit to Brian Johnson and Andrew Shortt in the Zone training books…I think they expose some of the traditional HIT practices for this flawed (move the biggest weight at any cost) thinking.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Another Kai Green quote:

“This exercise is to bring my mind online…to make a connection to the muscles…and make it happen”-Kai Green-

What if I told you all that this is why we build the equipment, this is why we provide more detailed feedback… I’d like ti bring all of my client’s minds “online”.

Reply

avatar jim December 11, 2012 at 8:21 pm

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you told us this . Your TSC machine clearly implies this direction with its feedback in pretty good ” communication ” with the ideal Protocol . I wouldn’t be surprised if , form and function analysis is in best fit ” communication ” with inroad outcomes and thereby in ” communication ” with the big gold trophy = the definition of exercise .

Given all is in sync and under control where to go from here ? Measurement of internal energy brought into communication ( remember the term ” mobilized ” ) with the challenge = inroading . But how to stimulate and direct this energy in a way that increases inroad on the screen graph of the TSC ?

Its about the development of the trainers’ usefullness at the next level . Not surprising that this need has been forseen i.e. the need to validate a reliable ” inner protocol ” that also perhaps validates Kai Green’s understanding but now with real time feedback of its effectiveness.

When Kai says , ‘ now bring your attention right here ‘ and he points to the middle of the chest , it would be better ( and probably necessary ) that this “attention” registers as data e.g. increased micro-volts on a myogram ( ?) and is real time ” communicated ” to the client by the trainer .

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:48 am

great point Jim:

“Its about the development of the trainers’ usefulness at the next level . Not surprising that this need has been foreseen i.e. the need to validate a reliable ” inner protocol ” that also perhaps validates Kai Green’s understanding but now with real time feedback of its effectiveness.”

avatar Scott Springston December 12, 2012 at 9:20 am

===Scott==
I thought you stopped the earlier thread because it was veering off in the wrong direction ( Hahn’s posts etc) and now you keep bringing him up??

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:47 am

I stopped it because the formatting was getting screwed up and replies were going to the wrong part of the thread….couple that with the fact that most of the arguments were off topic and the thing just wasn’t making sense.

Also my guys are VERY busy and it was using way too much of their time.

I really thought I was doing Fred a favor, it didn’t seem like he could stop the bleeding yet continued to comment.

He or anyone else who disagrees is more than welcome to post here, but it would be nice if ANYONE actually argued content of the articles.

I welcome it, but I don’t believe it can be done.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 10:50 am

He cut it off because he didn’t want to address my posts directly. He never did answer my push ups challenge because he knows he’s dead wrong.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Well that is NOT HIT practice at all. No one I know who uses HIT thinks this way.

But this guy does:

http://vimeo.com/23647167

Now, you’ll all say “wow what crappy form! He’s even worse than Fred! You’ll never build muscle or strength that way!”

Well, this guy weighs 175 pounds and is 5’10” tall. Q: Can any of you lifts even half the weight this guy lifts? Check out his squat weights and other lifts. Go on and make fun. Be he is sure as hell stronger than any of you at his weight.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 4:25 pm

“Q: Can any of you lifts even half the weight this guy lifts? Check out his squat weights and other lifts?”-FH-

A: Yes I can and easily.-JT-
========================================================================
That being said it is totally unclear why you are posting this, I don’t follow…and his form is not worse than yours, it’s actually much more directed and at least tailored to the intent….powerlifting on machines with radical cam effect makes no sense.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm

You really crack me up Josh. I have to say. That knocked me off my chair in hysterics. Thanks!! You couldn’t BUDGE half the stuff this guy does.

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 5:10 pm
avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 5:37 pm

What is this supporting? Use of levers?

avatar Joe A December 12, 2012 at 4:55 pm

What does lifting weights have to do with exercise? Genuine question…

At any rate, here’s a video I shot 18 months ago…I weighed 167 lbs at the time…shot the video to support a discussion on Darden’s forum about barbell DLs…I never do them, ever. I loaded up 315 lbs and picked it up, easily. I didn’t convert his kgs to lbs, but I’d imagine I’m at least at half of his. http://youtu.be/gzr5arBwbV8

But, I’ll be honest Fred…I couldn’t care less how much weight I can lift or how many times I can lift it. My intention is exactly opposite of this mentality. Apparently, I’m a terrible writer, b/c that was one of the points I was trying to convey…

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm

“What does lifting weights have to do with exercise? Genuine question…”

I want to hear this answer…Fred even boasts of trying out Olympic Weightlifting in recent years….I don’t see the relationship either.

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 5:38 pm

hmmmmmmmmm…….

over 1000# then still over 900# when the end weights fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEE1_98tgco&list=UUyFsqyfKZfxRvnz5eESRwfQ&index=19

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 12:07 am

Avoided that one too …..

avatar John Tatore December 11, 2012 at 7:18 pm

“if you hit the nail on the head, you need to hit it fewer times.”

Great statement!!!

Reply

avatar Kenny O December 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm

As I read and re-read the words in this post, never will I allow the brevity nor the simplicity of its words to cause me to treat the message lightly. Thousands of grapes are pressed to fill one jar with wine, and the grapeskin and pulp are tossed to the birds. So it is with these grapes of wisdom from the ages. Much has been filtered and tossed to the wind. Only the pure truth lies distilled in the words to come. I will drink as instructed and spill not a drop. And the seed of success I will swallow.
Today my old skin has become as dust. I will walk tall among men and they will know me not, for today I am a new man, with a new life. – Og Mandino

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm

🙂

Reply

avatar Thomas December 11, 2012 at 10:45 pm

@Joe A,

Good to hear from you! On the contrary, I didn’t consider the article an indictment of HIT/BBS at all, but an indictment of improper performance/intent while using those systems, especially past the beginner stage of training (after the newbie gains have slowed down). If that mind muscle connection is still not being made, if the trainee is still simply “lifting weights”, don’t expect a one set per exercise, three to five exercise routine to deliver the goods.

I found these comments from the late Steve Michalik interesting:

“But a lot of what Mentzer said was very misleading. What he called 1 set wound up being more like 15 sets. But in reality, Intensity/Insanity isn’t that far off from Heavy Duty other than I don’t rely on heavy weights to contract muscle. I say contract the muscle using the weight. Do you see the difference?”

“In other words, when someone does barbell curls, they pick up a weight that causes them to fail at 8 or 10 repetitions. That’s backward thinking. You should have your muscles flex as hard as possible with whatever weight you can.”

“Let’s take a bench press for example. Sure, a 300-pound bench press will put pressure on your pecs, as well as your shoulders and triceps. But that’s inefficient. If you just load the heaviest weight, all the body wants to do is survive, so it will use whatever muscles, tendons, and joints it can to get the 300 pounds up.”

“I say put maximum pressure on the target muscle first with a weight that will allow that. You don’t let a piece of weight or barbell affect the muscle. You create the effect using the weight or barbell. It’s a subtle difference, but it completely changes the feel of the exercise. It’s like doing Charles Atlas dynamic tension with weights.”

He had the right idea, I think, but he used WAY too much volume that only a steroid LOADED bodybuilder could recover from.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm

OH WOW! This is great! exactly what we’ve have been saying!

Reply

avatar Scott Springston December 12, 2012 at 9:28 am

==Scott==
That’s why when I used to workout at gyms and using small poundages compared to others around me ( laterals for example) I was trying to isolate the intended delt muscle, not see how much I could throw up with loads of body english as was customary in the gym. I takes alot of will power to not be sucked into trying to show off how much you might lift ( to impress the girls) and to just lift the weight you feel is nessesary to work that muscle directly. Sometimes I would use just 5 pounds for laterals when I could easily throw up 30 pounders but I got much better feel with the 5 pounders. It does look wimpy though so you just gotta ignore the idiots and do what you feel is best.

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt December 12, 2012 at 9:54 pm

I’ve been in this boat a time or too, lol.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Though the load mentioned is arbitrary, I get the gist.

Q: How light should we go then? Let’s say 300 pounds is your 2 rep max in the bench with so-so form. What do you lower the weight too? Why not make the weight the lightest possible to maximize inroad? In inroad theory when you lower the load, upon reaching failure you have created a greater muscle building stimulus. Shouldn’t we then use the lightest weight possible to improve form and deepen the inroad?

Reply

avatar Mark Lloyd December 20, 2012 at 9:44 pm

How light should we go? In my experience w/weights that allowed failure @much>3 min), the initial considerable holding back of available strength became a challenge to mental focus, as did the considerable time elapsed. Weights that invoke faiure@3min or< allow me to focus purely on the effort itself.

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt December 12, 2012 at 10:43 pm

This whole comment is really good. I especially like, “If you just load the heaviest weight, all the body wants to do is survive,”

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 12:12 am

True Donnie….hence, outroading.

Reply

avatar Dan Graves December 11, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Josh,

Have you considered just wrtiting your columns and posting … as a book or manuscript. You certainly are at the top, and any disagreements ones may have with your protocol are minor in the overall scope. But to have Joe A!!
write an articel on your site … please give us the decoder ring to figure out what he’s typed … either he has hijacked another site or this site has jumped the shark.

DG

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 11:53 pm

Dan,

I’m not sure I follow…..what is “jumped the shark” ?

In my opinion Joe A is one of the sharpest minds I’ve ever met in this field, I’m honored to have him contribute and I find his writing to be clear and concise.

We have a couple books we’re working on, but we will continue to produce articles for this site as well.

There are some great articles coming up over the next few months.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joe A December 12, 2012 at 12:34 am

Josh,

I’m pretty sure he just called you Fonzie… 🙂

Seriously though, if a short article introducing an important topic using a simple analogy ends up being the downfall of RenEx…my apologies. DG, sorry that my writing doesn’t do it for you.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:34 am

Oh….OK, it was a compliment?

I’ll take it!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:36 am

Wait a minute….didn’t Fonzie jump cars o barrels?

Evel Knievel jumped the shark…..

ya, I guess I still don’t get it.

avatar Joe A December 12, 2012 at 9:42 am

Fonzie jumped a shark…in a leather jacket. That moment is considered the beginning of the end of that show…

Apparently RenEx is doomed if you have come to the point of throwing my shit up in a post?

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:51 am

oh…he did….on water skis!

stupid me…..

well he made it 🙂

I’ll be The Fonze any day

avatar Nathan Block December 12, 2012 at 1:10 pm

JoeA is a very smart man indeed.He can see things that few can see and his analysis is just phenomenal.Would like to see him go back to BBS website and contribute there again.Josh I think that JoeA should be on your RenX team.What do you think?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Nathan,

I’ve been trying to add him for sometime.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joe A December 12, 2012 at 3:24 pm

:$ (in case it doesn’t work, that was supposed to be a blushing emoticon)

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 5:34 pm

Oh ….I thought it meant “show me the $” lol

avatar Bill S. December 11, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Another one out of the park!

Polished? I’m not seeing this depth of thought and attention to detail anywhere else in the field.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 11, 2012 at 11:58 pm

Bill,

I really enjoyed this article too.

and I’ll be waiting to hear just one example of where polish needs applied…if it needs polish we don’t run it…simple.

Josh

Reply

avatar Scott Springston December 12, 2012 at 9:36 am

==Scott==
Like I’ve said before, you guys use words and language that many times only insiders in your group really understand. It would be greatly beneficial to the REN-EX cause to come down to laymens levels in your posts if you want more general acceptance of your messages. Whether that constitutes polish or just acccepting the fact that often times you guys talk over most peoples heads is another question.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:41 am

Scott,

If I had just one example perhaps I could help.

Josh

Reply

avatar John Parr December 14, 2012 at 12:17 am

Hey Scott, Instead of asking RenEx to come down to layman’s levels, maybe the idea is for us to learn new language and raise ourselves up to a higher level?

Reply

avatar Steven Turner December 12, 2012 at 5:02 am

Hi Josh,

Most commercial gyms, loud music, banging, clanging, distraction everywhere, not much focus on mind/muscle, but a lot of wasted time and effort.

Talk about wasted effort time and effort the documentary “The truth about exercise” I had to have a laugh at the show the so-called experts are about 40 years behind Arthur Jones, light years behind RenX there not even close. The only problem is they called the exercise HIT they did point out: responders and non responders, genetics, intensity of effort, the only problem is that they were using an exercise bike.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 12:14 am

Hi Steven,

Do you want to link the documentary for our viewers?

Reply

avatar Terry Condrasky December 12, 2012 at 7:16 am

Joe, great analogy with relationships, (I know, I;ve been married for 30 years).

Could this have been a main reason for the early super slow masters exodus? Could they not see that the slow protocol allows for one to stay in “constant communication” with the musculature “inch by inch”? Could they not see that numbers were secondary?……… Were they missing the nail? Just reflecting.
No Polish Required!
Be Well
Terry

Thanks
Terry

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm

posting for Ken Hutchins
================================================
Response to Terry Condrasky:

Contrary to what some of our detractors would like said, there was never a “mass exodus” of the SuperSlow masters. This is an imprecise characterization.

The SuperSlow Exercise Guild existed from its inception in 1992 until 2004 when I disbanded it.

During this span, there were a total of about 30 masters. The total number of active masters peaked at about 22. Individuals—as in any organization—came and went for various reasons.

I defrocked several of these over the Guild’s lifetime. The most common reason for masters being defrocked was an inability to conduct themselves civilly with one another and others. In fact, this became so bad that for the final five years of the Guild’s existence I warned all new masters that if I heard of any two masters in personal conflict that I would defrock both regardless of fault.

One master left due to conflict with a competing exercise philosophy.

Three left—the largest number at one time—due to a disagreement with my business decisions regarding the Guild—not due exercise philosophy or protocol direction.

Since disbanding, some former masters have remained true to the protocol. Some have strayed away. Others, I know nothing about.

Ken

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm

Terry,

Much perpetuated myth here…any of the former SuperSlow masters that I know are still doing the same things they were back then on specially modified machines and just calling it something else.

Ken is a brilliant man, but I’ve questioned his social barometer regarding some of his past associations. Ken tends to see the good in people and has given a lot, many have taken and stolen a lot ….no matter now as RenEx’s time has come. The past is in the past.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Jonas December 12, 2012 at 7:32 am

Also read from the brilliant Vince Gironda: Why do Champions muscle look different?

Awesome article Joe, Communication is The name of game in life. Every problem you have, lack of or bad communication, every solution, communicate more and better.

As simple as that.

//Jonas

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 9:39 am

Jonas,

I’m going to check that out…thanks!

Reply

avatar Tom Kalbfleisch December 12, 2012 at 9:35 am

Interesting feedback thus far on the article.

I for one enjoy the reiteration of the mind-muscle connection concept. It’s constructive to have a notion so fundamental to the methodology re-framed in new ways, especially for the novice such as myself. I’m a believer that repetition of fundamental concepts is an important part of on-going education and growth in any endeavor. Considering that this concept in particular has been somewhat of a revelation in my own training, I enjoyed the post, and am looking forward to once again attempting to properly apply the concept in practice to an actual training session.

To quote Bart Scott, “Can’t wait”!

Reply

avatar Joe A December 12, 2012 at 9:50 am

Thanks, Tom.

Finally understanding this point changed everything for me…it took me too long to get it and I see others spinning their wheels like I did…seemingly doing everything right but missing the elephant in the room. I thought the article might help some folks connect the dots…glad you enjoyed it.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 11:05 am

“I think my representation is quite accurate by my eye and by your comments. You wiggle, squirm, hold your breath, lunge and heave all in order to slip by maximum moment arm and get one more rep….I have appropriately coined this “powerlifting on machines”.

****Sounds to me like you don’t know what “moment arm” even means. Weights don’t go up and down by themselves. They move upwards due to the effort/force generated by the working muscles. If the weight is heavy, you simply cannot generate any appreciable momentum that would unload the muscles involved. That is SS dogma. It’s nonsense.

When I shift or adjust my body in an exercise it is for good reason. It is not unloading my muscles or doing anything in the least to lessen the stimulus. If you think it is, stop babbling Renx/SS platitudes and show me some hard scientific evidence.

“Yes, I believe there are more parallels between between Gironda, Green, Maxic and Sandaow than the HIT community and certainly you. Your level of “communication” is sub-beginner.”

****More infantile statements.

“…Curious about your thoughts on Joe’s article as all of your behaviors contradict.”

****Joe’s article is interesting. He makes some decent observations. But again, it’s the same old fictitious, made up, falsely concocted notions about building muscle. FE:

“You must seek to eliminate distraction, noise, interference, anything that does not serve to improve communication between your mind and your muscle. Then and only then can you unlock the full extent of your physical potential.”

***Really? Well, what if playing music helps a person make a stronger mind/muscle connection? What if taking your mind off the pain of the exercise by having a conversation with the client increases their level of effort? I find that for some people, mind OFF the muscle helps greatly. You guys are so stuck in your SS rut, in your RenX paradigm paralysis you cant see the forest for the trees.

Reply

avatar jim December 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm

” What if taking your mind off the pain of the exercise by having a conversation with the client increases their level of effort? ”

Potentially a useful point if it isn’t just contrarian .

We already have data as a sort of a stranded feedstock of loosely related research on the mind / body connection . That data suggests that deeper relaxation is followed by deeper contraction and my direct experience with that is subjectively confirmed . But that is only suggestive .

Inroad requires a mobilization of deeper levels of fast twitch fibers which as we know ( from direct experience )said goal is ” protected ” from realization by such signaling as injury on one end ( preceeded by pain (?) and by intention on the other . The protocol , equipment and genetics contains the intention ( exercise as inroad ) . The trainer ( whether human or technology ) contains / directs the attention . But you ask ( ? ) ” directs it where ” ? At the muscles , at the trainer ? at God ? a bio-feedback game on a screen ?

Which one serves the intention of your protocol and can be tested and applied ?

Reply

avatar Joe A December 12, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Fred said:

“Really? Well, what if playing music helps a person make a stronger mind/muscle connection? What if taking your mind off the pain of the exercise by having a conversation with the client increases their level of effort? I find that for some people, mind OFF the muscle helps greatly.”

Perhaps you took my words to literal when I said, “You must seek to eliminate distraction, noise, interference, anything that does not serve to improve communication between your mind and your muscle.”?

I was not specifically referring to audible distraction (music, conversations, etc), but rather ANY CONSTRAINT that disrupts the flow of information between mind and muscle. This could include mechanical flaws, improper cam effect, improper behaviors, excessive load, etc., etc.

The interesting thing is, the more in tune you become with the mind-muscle relationship (internal cues), the more amplified your awareness of this “noise” becomes…you start to see exactly what is in the way, exactly what’s preventing the exercise from feeling the way it should or producing the effect you intended to cause (acutely not referring to adaptation).

Fred said:
“I find that for some people, mind OFF the muscle helps greatly.”

If the goal is to efficiently fatigue a muscle group, then I couldn’t disagree more. If the goal is to sustain an effort to accomplish a task…then you hit the nail on the head. I have no interest in bringing one of those scenarios into my exercise experience…

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm

“I find that for some people, mind OFF the muscle helps greatly.” F.H.

REVEALING!

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm

Yes I agree. Very revealing. And it’s true. But from your closed view, you think it means I don’t know what mind the muscle is/means. Your statement is more revealing than you realize!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 4:45 pm

My reference your videos.

My counter our videos.

avatar Bradley Warlow December 12, 2012 at 11:14 am

I thought after reading this article initially: ‘its a wonder how any of us have grown muscle if it is indeed the “mind muscle connection” that we are supposed to aim for( how many of us, in the past, have honestly aimed for this connection?. but then, i realised after some thought, that we have all achieved some muscular development from our basic training and all actually improved our mind muscle connection without realising it! as is human nature we always put the blame on the least likely thing first.

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 12, 2012 at 11:50 am

It has dawned on me that the majority of trainees have developed their bodies to a certain extent without realising that they did so through improving their mind muscle connection. when an individual gets to a certain level of development and their strength plateus it seems that further improvement cannot be attained without taking the real reason into account. perhaps this explains why ken and other alike saw improvements when switching to superslow . without any changes in their training volume. it is very much what Steve michalik said-‘ they used a weight that allowed them to do this’

Reply

avatar JoshuaTrentine December 12, 2012 at 11:53 am

Posting for Ken Hutchins-

To Scott Springston:

Elevate yourself!

I refuse to insult everyone by following the recommendations of the Madison Avenue book publishers: Dumb everything down to a sixth grade education.

Enough time and print wasted there massaging dead brains…!

Granted, concepts must be expressed properly with clear writing. But I also require readers to reach… to reread passages, to consult the dictionary, to study the meanings, etc. Anything worthwhile requires effort and a degree of frustration. If you’re easily reading my or anyone’s stuff you’re being too easy on yourself!… Just as in exercise.

Ken

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm

This is profound:

“Anything worthwhile requires effort and a degree of frustration. If you’re easily reading my or anyone’s stuff you’re being too easy on yourself!… Just as in exercise.”-K.H.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Nathan Block December 12, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Ken is amazing like always.He is the total opposite of an anti-intellectual.(Fred Hahn??)

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm

🙂

Ken really is awesome, I just got back from spending 5 days with him….on EVERY trip I continue to learn….some really great things going on in the lab down in Florida.

Josh

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Neither Ken nor I could be considered what is commonly referred to as an “intellectual.” Of course, being human, we both have intelligence.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 3:55 pm

This is only true if what you are reading is actually true. If it’s concocted nonsense that has no basis in reality (like the hypothesis of inroad), then it’s just wasted hard mental effort and time.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Ok I’ll play along….I prefer the inroad theory to guide me, my study of 100’s of Pro natural bodybuilders makes me believe their efforts are directed in the same vein.

Let’s pretend for a minute that inroad is too nebulous or perhaps even “has no basis in reality”….if this is true you are only left with Total Tonnage Theory or Steady State Theory…..which one are you hitching your cart to and why?

Joshua

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 12, 2012 at 7:42 pm

“Ok I’ll play along….I prefer the inroad theory to guide me, my study of 100′s of Pro natural bodybuilders makes me believe their efforts are directed in the same vein.”

****You’ll “play along?” Are you always so trite? Your “study” of hundreds of pro natural bodybuilders? What study? Did you conducts an observational research study on pro amateur body builders? If so, I’d love to read it!

“Let’s pretend for a minute that inroad is too nebulous or perhaps even “has no basis in reality”….if this is true you are only left with Total Tonnage Theory or Steady State Theory…..which one are you hitching your cart to and why?”

****That’s ALL I have left? Do you think that there are only three hypothesis of muscular growth stimulation? And even if what you say about it was true, it is totally beside the point. Just because there are only two other theories or hypothesis to choose from (and there most certainly is not), it doesn’t mean if the other two you mention aren’t valid, you just “hitch your cart” to inroad. That’s ridiculous.

To argue that lowering your weight loads and moving purposefully slower so that when you reach failure in an exercise with a lighter load you have “inroaded” more deeply thus creating a superior stimulus is not true. Research at McMaster University have shown that loads that range from 30% 1RM to 80% 1RM show virtually identical outcomes. I realize there are problems with the research.

But Henneman’s size principle remains. Failure is failure. That’s why 3 reps to failure works just as well as 10.

When you RenX people get some actual proof that what you espouse is a superior muscle building stimulus, I’d be thrilled.

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 12:16 am

Fred,

At some point you have to actually answer a question…I’ve watched you run from Al & Gus and Me.

If Inroad doesn’t guide your intent, if total tonnage doesn’t guide your intent, if steady state duration doesn’t guide your intent… then what does?

What is left?

When you state something is nonsense and outright wrong you are also stating you have the answer as to what is right….

So what do you subscribe to?

And yes, I’ve studied and interviewed natural bodybuilders for the last 22 years, I have a knack for asking as many questions as I’m given opportunity to and the most common theme is their intent when they begin the exercise…..they do not use the same word , but they are trying to do the exact same thing.

What is it that you are trying to do during your set? please tell….

Joshua

avatar Donnie Hunt December 12, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Well put.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 12:10 am

Donnie ,

Curious….what is well put?

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt December 13, 2012 at 8:53 pm

Joshua, I was referring to Ken’s response to Scott.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 9:06 pm

I thought so too!

Your comment had first come up after a post from Fred that made no sense at all…I was confused.

This format stinks for a high volume of comments.

thanks!

avatar Scott Springston December 13, 2012 at 8:42 am

==Scott==
Hey, I’m just trying to help you guys reach a broader audience than just the few cult like members that you have. This also illustrates how unwilling you are to take any criticism good or bad. It doesn’t matter a fig to me if you guys make it big or die out like Hostess. I just figure you have a good product and advise to offer but you’re miserable at conveying your message to the public in an easy to understand and friendly non condecending way.

Reply

avatar Trace Johnston December 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm

Scott,
You really underestimate the number of followers. There are many more, including clients, than can be counted here.

Reply

avatar Scott Springston December 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm

==Scott==
That doesn’t change the fact that REN-EX needs to work on it’s communication ( the topic of this thread ) more than they would like to admit to if they want to be successful like Nautilus was. Maybe they don’t? Maybe they only want to attract a small following?? Jones knew how to communicate well with the people he wanted to reach. I can’t say the same for the REN-EX guys unless they only want to communicate with those few in the in crowd.
I really don’t know why I waste my time with you guys? Even when given advice that can possibly help REN-EX the REN-EX team and it’s cult followers respond like everything they do is perfect and the folks raising questions are idiots. They’ll go far with that attitude.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Scott,

How about just one example of where the message needs “polished”?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Surely there must be just one example after your many complaints?

Joshua

avatar Joe A December 13, 2012 at 9:38 pm

@Scott,

Realize that it goes both ways. Please recall the volume of advice extended to you that has all but fallen on deaf ears. Ken provided a gem to you earlier in this thread that went completely unnoticed: “Elevate yourself!”

Complaining is easier…

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm

We’re not gonna spoon fed here….and the volume of people that might pay attention doesn’t motivate me….the only work I’m motivated to do is that which interests me….it is completely selfish. Every single machine we’ve built was done for one reason; I wanted it in my shop for my own personal use….it just so happens that other people will pay to use them.

If I wanted to appeal to the masses, I’d get real ripped and sell abdominal machines to people and tell them how they can be ripped like me…

….is there not enough junk food for the brain out there? can’t you get that crap elsewhere.

Some say we’re elitist…I say “heck ya we are”.

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 7:20 am

Scott, Like Ken Hutchins never got it, Josh and the rest will never get it either. Birds of a feather…

avatar John Parr December 16, 2012 at 12:51 am

Seriously Scott, I mean no disrespect to you and certainly none to Arthur Jones, but saying he knew how to communicate well with the people he wanted to reach! Better than the RenEx guys?

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 7:21 am

Trace said: “You really underestimate the number of followers…”

“Followers?” That says it all!

Reply

avatar Scott Springston December 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm

How about just one example of where the message needs “polished”?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

==Scott==
I guess you never will if you believe everything you do is perfect. Ask yourself this question. Why is it some many people seem to hate REN-EX. Is it the machines or the methods ? Is it the people behind REN-EX are clowns ? No, the answer lies is the arrogant nose in the air way you guys present your product and the terminology that baffles even the best of us sometimes. Ken is a genius on this stuff, Joshua knows his stuff as do many others at REN-EX but that all fails when the method of communication is less than welcoming to those who question what you have to offer.
Should I rise myself up out of my cesspool of ignorance to endeavor to understand articles that blow over my head? Of course! I’m enrolling in Harvard tomorrow,ha ha. Many of us actually have jobs that are not associated with the fitness field. If we can’t understand something we don’t have the time to re-read it 5 times or consult a team of experts to figure it out. We just skip the article and move onto something better written. Ken, believe what you want about how well you communicate. As the song says, think of all the hate in Red China. Think about how many out there hate REN-EX. It’s not all unjustified. When this many people come down on something be it REN-EX or whatever it’s not for no reason at all . It’s really all about attitude. Notice how nobody but you comes down on X-Force. It’s all in how they communicate their message in a friendly non nose in the air way. REN-EX can and should learn something from that.

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Scott,

Please provide one example. There must be many since you complain so often?

Joshua

avatar Trace Johnston December 14, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Mr. Hahn,
Sorry, it was a poor choice of word. I meant “supporters.” I just wanted to clear up the number inaccuracy. By the way, if you are still instructing clients in any way that is similar to the content of your book, then you are still connected to this philosophy. When I saw your leg extension video I thought you weren’t anymore. It was alarming, to say the least.

avatar Brian F December 12, 2012 at 1:02 pm

I remember Schwarzenegger talking about mind muscle. He said that when performing e.g. curls he would connect to his biceps and visualise them as “mountain peaks” , etc. At the time I read it and pretty much ignored the concept, putting it down to the ramblings of an other worldly being.

It is a feature of the human condition that people require continuous repetition of a message before it is finally accepted. It took me a while to get it, however with the great work done by Dr McGuff, the guys on this site and the many incisive posts (and this article) from Joe A , I finally “get it” I get it intellectually, the challenge now is to maintain the mental attitude / intention and behaviour during training. Not easy if working alone, but I guess if it was easy everyone would be doing it?

BTW I have no problem with the terms or language used here. Often it forces me to put the brakes on the common tendency to skim read, and really focus on the information.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Brian,

Thanks for the feedback and support.

Reply

avatar Terry Condrasky December 12, 2012 at 4:04 pm

Josh , team or all
Do you think if the mind/muscle connection is excellent that even light t0 moderate loads are effective?
Thanks
Terry

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 4:17 pm

Yes…..although I find “light” and “moderate” to be relative terms.

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm

fred. I weigh a 195 lbs. yes i can lift these weights and more. have done so many a time. it is not that impressive. i train superslow now because this training does th lower back in big time

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Bradley,

From what I saw of you on our Leg Press I would bet this is child’s play for you.

I have no idea what the point of that video was….can anyone explain?

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 10:31 am

Brad – you weight 195 – he weighs 175. that is a big difference. Middle weights don’t fight heavy weights. I’d like to see you squat the 400 pounds he does and deadlift the 800 pounds he does. Got a video?

Reply

avatar Mark Lloyd December 18, 2012 at 8:55 am

Ah, but -why- does Brad weigh a muscular 195? Could it possibly have something to do with his training method?

Reply

avatar Jonas December 12, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Fred, I dont want get into a fight that dosent belong to me. It is quite clear thought that you for some reason totaly miss the point and therefore your comments dosent makes sense and your links with people moving big weights dont has anything to do with the discussion.

I have a hard way to understand how you can miss what the discussion is all about, but sometimes to learn you have to unlearn first, which could be hard when you have a position to defend.

//Jonas

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Like I said….revealed…

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 9:01 am

“I have a hard way to understand how you can miss what the discussion is all about, but sometimes to learn you have to unlearn first, which could be hard when you have a position to defend.”

****As I said, the idea of the article written by Joe is not lost on me. It is simply rife with misconceptions and dogma. And Joe needs a good editor to clean up some of his grammar. But the overall idea is appreciated. If you were to observe me training a client, you would hear me saying many things WRT “mind on the muscle.” You would see slow and precise movements. You would hear clear and concise exercise instruction based on known principles of human physiology.

Reply

avatar Joe A December 13, 2012 at 1:35 pm

Fred said:
“It is simply rife with misconceptions and dogma. ”

Rife? Really? Do tell. So far, you’ve mentioned one thing…and as I pointed out, you failed to recognize that analogies are figures of speech and tried to interpret the language literally. What else ya got?

Fred said:
“And Joe needs a good editor to clean up some of his grammar.”

Send me your resume, Fred, and I’ll put you on the short list…

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Joe –

Would you like me to pick apart your article? Really? I also said that I thought the general idea of your article was very good. You missed that post I guess.

I am not a professional editor. But you need one. And so do I as does EVERY writer. You use FAR too many words to get very simple points across. This makes your points hazy. You also don’t string together your thoughts in a clear manner. Show your article to a professional editor and you will be amazed how much better it will be.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Fred,

Sure….take everyone to school….how about just one example?

avatar Joe A December 13, 2012 at 8:59 pm

@Fred

Pick away…

I’m generally fond of criticism, so long as it is respectfully offered (I believe your paragraph RE: pro editor is an example of this).

And I caught your post…you actually said “Joe’s article is interesting. He makes some decent observations. But again, it’s the same old fictitious, made up, falsely concocted notions about building muscle.” Sorry if I missed the part where I was supposed to get that you thought anything was “very good”? I suppose stringing together thoughts in a clear manner is an elusive son of a bitch…

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 9:09 pm

Joe,

He won’t post anything…his pattern is clear…he’ll just jump to the next thing.

avatar Joe A December 13, 2012 at 9:29 pm

Shhh…Josh. I finally got Fred to respond to one of my posts and you’re ruining it for me…

avatar Bradley warlow December 12, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Josh.This is an excellent read.It has really got me excited.im really impressed by how open minded you are with other bodybuilders like Kai Greene.Do you think that training his way would give an individual better results than superslow, if the mind muscle connection is not addressed, in the latter?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 12, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Bradly,

I think it’s less about the method and more about the connection…I can get practically any person to get up to their highest order of stimulation. Kai trains for hours everyday….he may spend more time in a workout than i do working out in a month…. I’ve trained that way before and i couldn’t get over 165#…..I don’t know how the situation changes if we add exogenous hormones into the equation.

Better and worse cannot be evaluated this way…. proficiency at your chosen method may make one trump another…I believe I could train Kai in far less time, that’s the advantage……

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt December 12, 2012 at 10:12 pm

Really enjoyed the article Joe. Made me think about my training and alot about some ongoing life stuff.

Reply

avatar Dan Graves December 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm

Josh,

“There are some great articles coming up over the next few months” …
… hopefully by you!

Non-expert plagiarized misunderstood drooling copy-pasted drivel by the JA’s of the blogosphere only attract hundreds of distracting comments and psuedo-explanations by the ignorant. Don’t let these clowns distract you.

You and Ken (and your staff) are top of your class already. Other textperts only serve to denigrate your message. Heck, even when the old masters get involved they are 95%+ in your corner. You are one of the very very very few experts that have the physical development to back up your science with inspiring video.

Great success! Hold the course!

DG

Reply

avatar Joe A December 13, 2012 at 6:01 am

DG,

Thanks for contributing your expert commentary. I’m glad to see that you were able to rise above the apparently, typical compulsion to post distracting comments by the ignorant. 😉

Like I mentioned previously, I’m sorry my writing doesn’t do it for you.

Reply

avatar Thomas December 13, 2012 at 4:29 pm

@Dan,

Joe Anderson is mostly responsible for helping me understand what RenEx is all about; he deserves many props!

@Joe A,

Are you Dan’s landlord? Did he forget to pay rent?

Reply

avatar Joe A December 13, 2012 at 9:27 pm

Thomas,

Not sure how much help I could have been, you know, between the drooling and the drivel and all…hell, I can barely string together clear thoughts…I know, maybe you have the decoder ring! Please share with the group…

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 13, 2012 at 6:03 am

so it appears that everyone has varying styles of technique and volume can change immensely between individuals, but the person who has the greatest connection always makes the greatest improvements ?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm

Yes….well up to their genetic potential.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm

Bradley – the correct answer is “we don’t know.”

Reply

avatar db144 December 13, 2012 at 6:17 am

When you look a Josh and Ken you’ll see a faint aura reminiscent of Jesus.

d

Reply

avatar db144 December 13, 2012 at 6:21 am

How come I can only find old men and women, and those that look completely untrained on your Overload Fitness site extolling the virtues of RenEx in the videos? I thought you could build muscle faster than any other method in the history? How do you reconcile the failure with every person in the videos?

d

Reply

avatar Jeff Tomaszewski December 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Our target market at OVERLOAD Fitness is NOT those seeking the holy grail of muscle building. We have a very successful business that tailors to the busy professional that is starved for time and has become severely de-conditioned. We train very few body builders and physique competitors but those that we have taken on have all had tremendous success with our systems.

You see, we offer a high end service that attracts those with discretionary income who truly value their health and fitness. All of our efforts in marketing and client acquisition are aimed at this type of person. It’s far more rewarding to have a hear a client tell you time and time again how they have dropped their blood pressure medication or that this is the ONLY program that has worked for them since they were diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and are now on the road to recovery or the person who has reversed the trend of osteoporosis or the person who is no longer diabetic or the person who can play with their grandchildren without aches and pains, etc… I could go on for days.

I’d much rather spend my time helping people improve the quality of their lives than someone win a trophy for having the biggest muscles on stage. Those people, no offense intended, typically let their egos get in the way and don’t want to pay for our services anyway. So why on earth would I waste my time and my staff’s time by trying to prove we have the best muscle building system? It’s just not practical nor profitable.

Thanks for your question.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 10:19 am

“At some point you have to actually answer a question…I’ve watched you run from Al & Gus and Me.”

****I’ve answered every question asked. Stop making stuff up.

“If Inroad doesn’t guide your intent, if total tonnage doesn’t guide your intent, if steady state duration doesn’t guide your intent… then what does?”

*****How can I answer this when your question makes no sense? And steady state refers to aerobic conditioning not building muscle. If anything “guides my intent” (whatever that actually means), building muscle and improving the health of my clients guides my intent.

And you keep dodging the inroad issue. But I know why. The reason: If you stopped for one second to think about inroad you’d realize it was complete nonsense.

“What is left? When you state something is nonsense and outright wrong you are also stating you have the answer as to what is right….So what do you subscribe to?”

****I already explained why inroad is invalid in an earlier post. That’s all I needed to do. You now need to explain to me how I have it wrong. Perhaps I do. Please explain.

“And yes, I’ve studied and interviewed natural bodybuilders for the last 22 years, I have a knack for asking as many questions as I’m given opportunity to and the most common theme is their intent when they begin the exercise…..they do not use the same word , but they are trying to do the exact same thing.”

****So you haven’t conducted a study. Too bad as I was looking forward to reading it.

“What is it that you are trying to do during your set? please tell….”

****Stimulate the proliferation of myofibirls and mitochondria within the muscle. You?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Fred,

If it’s not inroad, and it’s not total tonnage, and it’s not steady state (duration)… What’s left? what is it that you are trying to do?

Keep running….

Josh

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm

“If it’s not inroad, and it’s not total tonnage, and it’s not steady state (duration)… What’s left? what is it that you are trying to do?”

****I think you have forgotten you’ve said this already and I’ve answered it. The inroad hypothesis is invalid as I explained and which you have not countered. So who’s “running?”

Steady state duration refers to aerobics not to muscle building.

Total tonnage is not a scientific term or hypothesis. Just adding up the total weight you lifted for that day isn’t a valid way to determine stimulus.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Fred,

I subscribe to inroad theory.

Since you don’t I assumed you must either be using total tonnage or duration as your carrot….if it’s none of these, then what is it?

Since you know what it is not, you must know what it is…

Joshua

Reply

avatar Paul Marsland December 13, 2012 at 1:51 pm

This is a message I sent to Josh today regarding my return to the renex protocol and my actual workout today…and I thought I might share it here too.

Let me also state I’m not new to this type of training but of late have taken a step back and had to really look at what I was trying to achieve and what I realized is the biggest mistake people make when applying this protocol and something which I am 100% guilty of myself is trying to add weight too quickly what effectively happens is that your reps become a series of super slow one rep max’s and you are basically machine powerlifting, so I’ve taken the view that I’m not concerned with load on the machine etc, but more focused on the execution and quality of each and every rep and let me tell you it makes a BIG difference…here is my message, via FB to Josh.

Josh did my workout today and it went as follows
leg press,
chest press ( focus on pushing the arms together at the top and this really helps with contraction)
pull down again focusing on shrugging the shoulders and the squeeze.
calf raise, (couldn’t feel my feet afterwards! )….
shrug ( done the same as the video on the nautilus machine and holy fuck I’ve never felt my traps and even my neck feel so fatigued!!)..
lower back.
I forgot about how much weight was on the machine and more on the quality of each rep for a decent tul and it made a massive difference .

Paul.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm

Paul,

How many years have you been training?

Joshua

Reply

avatar Patrick December 13, 2012 at 3:15 pm

The guy in Fred’s vid is the poster boy for the inverse relationship between load and muscle.

I too would like to know if it’s not inroad theory or load based..what?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Patrick,

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking…

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker December 29, 2012 at 5:50 pm

Fred Hahn wrote:
“Patrick – The inroad hypothesis is invalid. It never was valid. It is something Ken Hutchins simply made up. Why not ask Ken to write an article explaining how it is valid? He won’t, because he can’t, because it isn’t.”

I first learned of “inroad” from Darden’s book, “The New High Intensity.”
On the previous thread, Fred, you claimed you’re not discrediting the man you’re sitting next to in your pic. Sorry, I’m calling you out… That’s exactly what you’re doing. Since you’re lumping RenEx in, you might as well be calling Darden a fraud, too.

And another thing, you keep harping on about “light weight”. Darden made it a POINT to mention in “The New High Intensity” that when starting a HIT program you more than likely will have to cut your weight back to start, since you will not be doing traditional HVT, with all it’s sputtering, momentum, breath holding, grunting, cheating, etc.

Now I’m lifting heavier weight at a slower, safer pace, and I’m stronger now than when I used to cheat it up with momentum. Basically, I found the low gear and actually put some thought behind what I was doing.
Btw… I add weights as I go, too.

Have to agree with the guys on the assumed vs. real objective. You come across as if your objective is to just make weights go up and down.
I should know, I used to subscribe to such a jock mentality. It was liberating when I was finally able to let it go. Now some actual thought process goes into how I lift.

But I digress…
Recently, I fell back into that jock mentality of going up incrementally, too soon, on dead lift. Being more concerned with numbers going up and in turn, losing form, I tweaked my back.

Well… that’s what I get for playing the numbers game. Serves me right.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 7:18 am

Patrick – The inroad hypothesis is invalid. It never was valid. It is something Ken Hutchins simply made up. Why not ask Ken to write an article explaining how it is valid? He won’t, because he can’t, because it isn’t.

There is no “load theory” though we do know that we need some amount of resistance. But what you are saying is that the best way to become very muscular is to lift very heavy things and try to lift heavier things, little by little, as time goes by that for sure works to build muscle.

If the inroad hypothesis were correct, why not pick the lightest weight possible and contract against it until you reach fatigue? The inroad hypothesis suggests this would be best for building muscle. But this approach won’t build an ounce of muscle.

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 13, 2012 at 3:15 pm

Hey fred havent got a video but a year ago i deadlifted 180kg for 6 repetitions. im stonger no doing superslow.the guy in the video is a little shorter than me.and im carrying more bodyfat. i would say i am 165lean atm

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:48 pm

This is very believable, I’ve seen people clear way more and even at lighter body-weights.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 7:27 am

Well that is impressive. You say you’re stronger now – how much stronger are you in that exercise?

Here he does 205kg for one rep.

http://vimeo.com/40776259

Note his breath holding which he says is required for intrathoracic stability.

Reply

avatar Gus Diamantopoulos December 14, 2012 at 10:56 am

That you do not see that this is weight lifting rather than strength exercise is appalling.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker December 29, 2012 at 6:20 pm

Fred,
We can always count on you to play the game: The numbers game, that is.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker December 29, 2012 at 8:22 pm

Fred said towards Josh:
“Well that is impressive. You say you’re stronger now – how much stronger are you in that exercise?”

I take issue with this kind of mentality. You do realize everyone has their glass ceiling, right? Even the guys on gear.
You can’t just keep stacking on weight. If you could, we’d all be benching 1000#… and next year 2000#… and the year after that…

But the sad eventuality is that we all grow old and will inevitably start to descend in strength. The upside is to be as strong as possible when we’re at that stage.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 8:33 am

Joe A said:

“Pick away…I’m generally fond of criticism, so long as it is respectfully offered (I believe your paragraph RE: pro editor is an example of this).”

****I don’t have the time right now to go over your entire article, but let’s take a look at the first paragraph:

“Communication, the exchange of information, between mind and muscle is supremely important to exercise. As a matter of fact, this relationship is the crux of the activity, and developing it must be the ongoing intent.”

First, your placing commas where they don’t belong. You’re also using WAY too many words and using them in an awkward manner. Here is your paragraph re-written more simply and clearly: “A critical aspect to building muscle is connecting your mind to the contracting muscle(s) and improving upon this connection over time.”

Joe A said: “And I caught your post…you actually said “Joe’s article is interesting. He makes some decent observations. But again, it’s the same old fictitious, made up, falsely concocted notions about building muscle.” Sorry if I missed the part where I was supposed to get that you thought anything was “very good”? I suppose stringing together thoughts in a clear manner is an elusive son of a bitch…”

****It is actually and you’ve done it again.

Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 9:09 pm said:

“Joe, He won’t post anything…his pattern is clear…he’ll just jump to the next thing.”

****Another lie. Don’t you get tired of your own BS? I’ve answered as many questions tossed at me here on this blog as I can. You on the other hand have failed to post several of my comments. If you’d fix this unwieldy comments page I’d have a better shot at seeing all the posts.

Reply

avatar Joe A December 14, 2012 at 11:58 am

Fred said:
” the idea of the article written by Joe is not lost on me. It is simply rife with misconceptions and dogma”

Joe said:
“Really? Do tell.”

Fred replied:
“Would you like me to pick apart your article?”

Joe proclaimed:
“Pick away…”

And the moment we’ve all been waiting for….

Fred decried:
“First, your placing commas where they don’t belong…”

Are you kidding me? You wanna argue commas not content? You wanna argue sentence structure not substance? I don’t have the time (though, I can make a case for every comma in that paragraph you quoted…superfluous (maybe) in one instance, but not incorrect).

And your simple and clear example paragraph missed the theme of my article…which addressed the “activity” of exercise, not the “outcome”. You read my article and assume I’m saying, “If you don’t do XYZ, you will not build big muscles, blah, blah.” When in fact, I presented an analogy to help drive one’s intent toward improving the activity (acutely), in order to actualize an ideal we’ve been sold by H.I.T. (intense, brief and infrequent performance).

I think you are so distracted by “muscle building” and Sumo and myofibrils and mitochondria, that you miss the performance of the activity itself and the keys to directing your effort, your behavior toward expressing, manifesting your intent.

Reply

avatar Laszlo Komaromy December 13, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Hi Josh/ all!

I am continously amazed by the ingeniousity by Josh, his staff, the news/ articles on this site. Nowhere else do I find this.
My subjective view: Fred is a lost case!
Hard-headed, inflated self view and never gives up his circular “reasoning”.
He should analyze, and ask himself, what he has achieved physique-wise by his puffing and squirming and “reading hundreds of reaserch articles”.
As I have been trained by Josh and Al, I can say for certain, that Fred wouldn`t last 5 minutes at Ren X. ( Nota bene, he followed the advice of those who know an incredibel lot more about training than he does.)
I have seen, with my own eyes, overweight/ middleaged female clients there, who exercised with an intensity/ effort that neither Fred or I could match.
Yes, I admire Joe A.`s logic! Sharp without a doubt.
Regars to Al.
Greetings to You all from Sweden -14 C.
LaszloK

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Laszlo,

Nice to hear from you!!! I hope you’re well.

Don’t see so hard on Fred he doesn’t have nearly the experience that you do.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 7:12 am

“Don’t see so hard on Fred he doesn’t have nearly the experience that you do.”

***Don’t worry – I can take it. Besides, I have more experience at this than Josh – like over a decade.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker December 29, 2012 at 9:58 pm

Fred said:
“***Don’t worry – I can take it. Besides, I have more experience at this than Josh – like over a decade.”

Still a numbers game, huh?
Well over a decade down the wrong path is still just that.

That’s ok. I’m sure Arthur caught the same kind of drivel from the HVT crowd in his day.

Seriously Fred, why are you here?
Wouldn’t it serve you better to take up lively dialogue again with Anthony Colpo?

I’m surprised your posts get through. Honestly, I don’t think you’re winning any converts here, if indeed that is your intent. I mean, my clientele is taking off for the holidays, too, but daaaaang man! Don’t you have better things to do than bleed out on this forum?
Honestly, I think you get a kick out of stirring the pot; Bad attention is still attention.

In conclusion, I’ll say this…
Fred, on the outside looking in, you’re coming off like a high pressure salesman. When it comes to salesmen, if I need your services, I’ll find you. If you have to find me, you’ve failed.

Reply

avatar Steven Turner December 13, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Hi Josh,

I know that this is off topic but I think that the show “The truth about Exercise”, can be viewed by google SBS The Truth about Exercise”. A simple blood test can show that; 20% of the population are “super resonders” will respond to low intensity training typical of most fitness centres, 80% of the population non responders will not respond very little to low intensity training but will respond to HIT – “health wise”. The training protocols they used in the research are similar to the MacMaster studies in BBS.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:45 pm

Steven,

I’ll check this out…

Thanks,
Joshua

Reply

avatar Jonas December 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Trained today with my “extended” Ren-Ex program since I dont think Im skilled enough to “kill the bird with one stone”. Mind-muscle connection never been my best ability and something I always had really concentrate and focus on. After the discussion here for the last weeks I did today, with the aim to contract the muscle against the weight approach:

Smith Machines Calves
Nautilus Low Back ss/w
Nautilus Nitro Legpress
Nautilus Super Pullover ss/w
Nautilus XPLoad Pulldown
Nautilus 10 flye ss/w
Nautilus XPLoad Vertical Chest
Nautilus OME Shrug
Nautilus Lateral Raise

The shrug was done mimicking Josh video…all I can say is WOW! How the H3LL can i have done this simple movement so wrong all these years without realising it? Josh-style this movement just blow my neck and traps away! Never felt anything close to it, shrugging before. All I can say is: Thank you! I REALLY looking forward to more videos!

You guys continue to impress.

//Jonas

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:44 pm

Jonas,

Thank you for sharing! nice huh?

I’m sure Fred will be looking for the peer reviewed research study that I did to validate this movement.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm

BTW….Brutal looking workout 🙂

Reply

avatar Paul Marsland December 13, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Josh,

I’ve been training for 2o years now and I would say 18 of them using high intensity methods or protocol..You name it I’ve probably tried it. Of all the methods i’ve tried and I’m not just saying this slow reps be that super slow or what have you is one of the methods I have done for a considerable length of time or something I keep on returning too I think I first did superslow when I tried Ellington Dardens B.I.G routine. . I feel that my credentials in discussing this topic are valid as I’ve a lot of first hand experience which I’m always willing to share. I’ve also made my fair share of mistakes along the way and I’m sure I’ll continue to make more, sometimes the biggest disservice we can do ourselves is feel that we’ve seen or done it all and if I’m really honest when renex first launched I was guilty of this thinking… Oh here we go just another re hash of superslow” and basically turned off from the information that was on offer and more importantly what renex was trying to achieve its only of late that I’ve looked at it with a fresh set of eyes and began to really appreciate what was on offer..

Paul.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Paul,

Thanks for sharing! I’m very pleased to have someone with your experience chiming in….

I wonder what Fred will say about this?

Josh

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Fred,

I subscribe to inroad theory.

Since you don’t I assumed you must either be using total tonnage or duration as your carrot….if it’s none of these, then what is it?

Since you know what it is not, you must know what it is…

Joshua

REPLY

Reply

avatar Craig December 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm

As an older guy with some gimpy joints, the notion of reducing weight in exchange for longer time under continuous tension (to spare the joints) while still getting effective stimulus is quite appealing. However, I do worry that without objective measures of progress, people can fool themselves. Just because an exercise feels amazingly intense, just because you believe that you ’emptied the tank’, does that necessarily mean anything in terms of muscle or strength improvement?

People do seem to get addicted to the way failure feels at the end of the set, probably because of the near certainty that you couldn’t have done any more. Yet I occasionally see blog posts where long time advocates of to failure training finally start doing not to failure sets at higher volume, and break through a plateau. At the beginning, they sometimes indicate a certain level of guilt at not having given it their all, and then are surprised when it seems to allow them to progress.

I’m not sure how to fit such anecdotes into your framework and theories.

Reply

avatar Joe A December 14, 2012 at 8:55 am

@Craig

I think this is a fair observation, as these anecdotes certainly aid in mucking up the waters. I can only speak to my experience and the conclusions I’ve drawn from them.

This is not about heavy weight vs. light weight; to-failure vs. not to-failure; 1 set vs. higher volume; etc, etc. It becomes about behaviors that make the experience unsustainable, in terms of progress. Backing off from failure and adding sets is not managing volume or intensity, per se…it is accomodating for these behaviors. It becomes the only route to the necessary blend of tension and time, in the absence of changing behavior. The topic of this article speaks to this…steps were skipped and the only option is to go back…mend the relationship, attune the communication…there is simply nowhere else to go. There was a perfect example of this in the comments of the last article…and I have no doubt that a similar anecdote to what you’ve described could come from it.

I think there is often a misunderstanding in these discussions based on the use of words like “progress”, “plateau”, “failure”, “strength”. I think we apply this language without observing a common identity. They become meaningless terms, and using them to make determinations about what may or may not be transpiring during exercise is futile.

Reply

avatar Craig December 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm

@ Joe A.,

Thanks for the attempt to explain further, though I’m not sure that I really understand or fully appreciate, in a practical way, the subtleties that must be in place to make this exercise system work. And your explanation doesn’t really tell me how much value I might get if I were to make the effort to master these subtleties. Perhaps you really do have to experience it to understand it. If that is the case, no amount of poetry or rhetorical flourish is really going to bridge the gap, and the RenEx folks face a daunting marketing task.

As someone looking in from outside, these discussions seem to have a circular character to them that gets frustrating: In order for the system to work, you need to ‘get it’; if you tried the system, and it didn’t work, you probably didn’t ‘get it’. What is ‘it’? Well, that is hard to explain, you really need to experience ‘it’, to ‘get it’.

Reply

avatar enlite December 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm

The phrase ” mind muscle connection ” is an interesting one. It seems to denote a dichotomy or demarcation between ” mind ” and ” muscle “, as if the two are separate and distinct from one another. Another way to put it would be the so called ” mind body ” problem spoken of by descartes. The fact of the matter is that no such distinction can be made. The mind and the body are in fact one and the same thing. When people speak of the mind muscle connection they are speaking ” metaphorically “. The simplest way to describe this is FOCUS, total and complete focus on what you’re doing. Correct form and training to the point of failure will maximize results from training.

Reply

avatar Bill S. December 14, 2012 at 2:28 am

Fred,

Sumo’s performance is suited to what he is doing with the equipment he is using.

Your performance is at odds with the equipment you are using and its purpose.

Reply

avatar Jonas December 14, 2012 at 4:30 am

Yes it was a tough WO! Still I dont think the intensity is up to what you guys can generate.

When I trained on the X-Force I was literally on the floor for 20 min, almost got sick from the training, but I do believe outroading had a lot to do with that and the results were non-existing.

For some reasons pull-movements are hardest for me to “get”, the Pullover and Pulldown (even if I can “move a lot of weight”) and also biceps-exercises. If you have some tips on how to get better mind-muscle contraction with the Pullover, it would be fantastic.

@ enlite: there is a clear distinction between the muscle and the mind. I know Ayn Rand said otherwise but thats not my observation, from several viewpoints. You are not the body, you have a body for an example.

//jonas

Reply

avatar db144 December 14, 2012 at 5:52 am

Did the Swedish fish, Lazlo, buy any machines? Don’t think so but it’s still the greatest….
Where is the clinical research promised?
Where are the case studies?

d

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Hopkins is doing research currently.

I have an interview with another prominent researcher this month.

I aware of no other company do this type of work.

Reply

avatar Terry C December 14, 2012 at 7:11 am

“Contrary to what some of our detractors would like said, there was never a “mass exodus” of the SuperSlow masters. This is an imprecise characterization”

Ken
As a former member of the Guild, I appreciate hearing from you regarding the Masters. Thanks for taking the time and for providing a viable, efficient , productive and safe protocol for training into my 60’s.
Be Well
Terry

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Terry,

Thank you!

Reply

avatar Paul Marsland December 14, 2012 at 7:55 am

Josh,

I have some dealings with Fred Hahn both good and bad but on the whole found him to be a stand up guy. He has debated his use of slow burn ( heavier weights and shorter tuls ) for years and took some flak for his videos and they showed he was not in fact practicing what he preached.
In regards to what he will say about me adding my two pence worth I’m not that bothered I’m sure he we answer respectfully. It always amuses me that for some reason the topic of slow reps and inroad is one of the most fiercely debated topics on the net. But here is how i see it, the proof is in the eating, its all very well for those that have not tried slow reps let alone renex machines to pipe up, but what I can tell is this, just doing some small changes , the shrug in particular can make a profound difference to the feel and effect of an exercise. What I also find interesting is the discussion on how renex is more akin to typical bodybuilding workouts were the emphasis is on working the muscle and not purely on getting stronger (which HIT promotes above anything else) this in my opinion should be the corner stone of your workouts for me how I look is of much more importance than simply trying to get stronger and stronger, and yes I too bought into the HIT mentality of this for many many years and sometimes its a hard habit to break but I did and it was actually by moving away from HIT type workouts all together for a few months I trained purely like a bodybuilder with higher volume and not even taking most of sets too failure,. but more importantly I used moderate weights and really focused on working the muscle to fatigue it and obtain a good pump and this was in fact a revelation for me I kid you not, but like all good things I could only sustain it for so long as it became a case of diminishing returns. As I stated to you personally Josh at my level of development and years training I’m unlikely to see huge changes from using renex BUT if i can at least or make subtle changes from less exercise and wear tear then that for me is proof enough

Paul.

Reply

avatar AC December 14, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Paul,

You don’t know me, I’m just a guy who has read your posts on various forums over the last 7 or 8 years.

I remember you used to say “Train for size and the strength will follow”.

It was the reverse of what HIT had taught us, and what we’d all done for many years.

It’s funny, that now, reading these discussion thread on RenEx articles, I now begin to understand where that saying of yours came from.

Keep up the good work and indeed the good posts!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm

AC,

I don’t have the words to explain how good it makes me feel to hear someone who has followed the consistency of the message.

I must admit I don’t always have to words to explain what I know I know 🙂

but with the help of the team and guys like:Travis Weigand, Joe A, John Parr, John Tatore, Thomas and many more who help to massage the message I think its because less esoteric to many.

This is just our version of what bodybuilders have ALWAYS said.

AC, thank you for your comment, it is greatly appreciated.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Brian F December 14, 2012 at 8:25 am

Joe A

I can’t link to your DL vid, have you taken it off?

I must confess to my tawdry curiosity. Ever since reading (and being impressed by) your stuff I’ve had this dread feeling that you have a great mind but just maybe you look like Woody Allen !

Reply

avatar Joe A December 14, 2012 at 11:06 am

Hmmm…not sure about the vid? I watched it before I linked it, so I thought it was working. I can’t access YouTube from work but I’ll investigate when I get home tonight. Thanks for the heads up.

LOL at Woody Allen…same height, but I got 70lbs on him right now. 🙂

Reply

avatar Joe A December 15, 2012 at 2:32 pm

@Brian F

Should be fixed now…

Reply

avatar gus diamantopoulos December 14, 2012 at 10:39 am

One of the things that is often forgotten or perhaps not understood is that inroad theory as a guide for action is not solely about the amount of weight or resistance relative to fatigue. Our inroading process is about creating an event whereby the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The only way this can work is when you view and understand the workout experience as a global event rather than as individual exercises.

We do not permit rest between our sets. To do so violates our protocol and may well nullify the effects of the session.

Fred asked how low do the weights go. Unfortunately this again communicates to me that the essence of what RenEx is about is somewhat lost in the idea of weights from heavy to light.

Without a consideration for low transition time between exercises, inroading is non existent and resistance value has no compass. To “inroad” on one exercise is not remotely as important as the cumulative effect of the workout as a whole.

If you truly reduce transition time between exercises, each subsequent exercise will simply feel more and more difficult with progressively less resistance than what would ordinarily be felt without the cumulative effect of those prior exercises. This has been the crux of the technical manual since day one and illustrated perfectly in the Intensity vs. Work chapter.

I can give you 100lbs of weight and tire you within “x” number of reps. But i can literally replicate your fatigue and rep count identically with 50lbs or less if i have you perform an number of exercises before. The juice of this is that if i DO tire you with prior work, the effect of the 50lbs will be GREATER on your adaptive responses than if i simply fatigued you with the single exercise of 100lbs.

We believe that there are also innumerable ancillary benefits to keeping rest times low between sets but from the most basic perspective, it means that smaller numbers of the weight stack can feel like larger ones.

So to Fred, i must now ask this question: how exactly do you deal with debilitated, injured and/or frail subjects?

If you acknowledge that fitness and rehabilitation exist on a single continuum then it must be that a proper strength exercise program is also a proper rehabilitation program. But the videos that you’ve shown on this thread display a sport being performed, not exercise. They exhibit extremely dangerous behaviours for the purpose of demonstration of strength, not building it.

If you do not acknowledge that the rehab-fitness continuum exists then we should cease all banter.

gus

Reply

avatar Nathan Block December 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Gus,
you should have ceased all banter with this man long ago.He doesn’t seem to understand anything and rejects everything of value.The crazy thing I find is that you,Joshua,Al have been trying to put him on the right track,providing him with tremendous information,taking your valuable time with him all for FREE.You guys are the TOP GUNS in exercise community right now and could command big$ for any information regarding exercise.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Nathan – I have been at this game longer than both of them. I toted the SS/perfect form/inroad/ party line for half a decade. So did the original 10 masters ALL of whom came to their senses and realized “Where is all the added muscle/strength/cardio etc., we were promised from this system?

Yes – it is a smarter and safer approach than flinging weights around aimlessly and pounding and grinning your joints via aerobics. But much (not all) of what is said by the SS/Renx proponents WRT it’s superiority has not been shown to be true. YET, many of them talk as if it is. It’s bad science. It’s cult-like talk.

I will bet you dimes to doughnuts that if you saw me train a client, there would be virtually no difference between us. The difference is we don’t bullshit our clients about what they can expect or what the goals are nor do we torture them with thorough inroad and no rest between sets. These techniques will NOT produce better outcomes, may produce worse outcomes, and will scare off half your potential client base.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Maybe you forgot about the transient Toronto to to New York of years past.

No contest…..

I invite any trainer or client in the world to come into Cleveland or Toronto and compare us to anyone…..it happens all the time and the response is always the same.

any doubts? look at the videos…look at the trainer’s expression…look at the equipment….of course all of that flows down to the client.

Reply

avatar Trace Johnston December 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

“The crazy thing I find is that you,Joshua,Al have been trying to put him on the right track,providing him with tremendous information,taking your valuable time…”

Yes, but the information is beneficial for everyone.

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm

Gus –

You seem to like making things that are very simple into overly complicated ideas.

You said:

“One of the things that is often forgotten or perhaps not understood is that inroad theory as a guide for action is not solely about the amount of weight or resistance relative to fatigue.”

*****But that is what inroad is in a nutshell and it’s false. It has never been shown to be true and recent research has shown it to be false. (McMaster et al.)

“Our inroading process is about creating an event whereby the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The only way this can work is when you view and understand the workout experience as a global event rather than as individual exercises.”

****Again, that is a long and winding way of saying that you believe you are “inroading” the clients entire system not just the muscle. And again I say there is simply no evidence to suggest this is better or even required.

“We do not permit rest between our sets. To do so violates our protocol and may well nullify the effects of the session.”

****I appreciate that it violates your protocol but it has no scientific foundation. As I see it, rest between sets is beneficial in order to allow for a greater effort on your next exercise. There is also good science that indicates that allowing for heart rate to normalize between repeated intense efforts is beneficial. To suggest that a good rest between sets nullifies the effect is completely unfounded. What effects exactly are you talking about Gus?

“Fred asked how low do the weights go. Unfortunately this again communicates to me that the essence of what RenEx is about is somewhat lost in the idea of weights from heavy to light.”

****Strawman. If you think my explanation of why inroad is invalid is incorrect, correct me then. Don’t take my statements out of context and then berate me for not understanding what RenX is about. That’s poor debate form.

“Without a consideration for low transition time between exercises, inroading is non existent and resistance value has no compass. To “inroad” on one exercise is not remotely as important as the cumulative effect of the workout as a whole.”

****Why? And it doesn’t matter as the concept is not valid in the first place. The hypothesis is false. Let it go. Show me how you have achieved superior outcomes Gus. Or is it all subjective talk.

“If you truly reduce transition time between exercises, each subsequent exercise will simply feel more and more difficult with progressively less resistance than what would ordinarily be felt without the cumulative effect of those prior exercises. This has been the crux of the technical manual since day one and illustrated perfectly in the Intensity vs. Work chapter.”

****Don’t I know it! You can’t go by feeling. It’s largely meaningless. Just because doing pullover, pulldown, row, lateral raise, overhead press back to back without stopping forces you to use less weight per exercise as opposed to resting a few minutes between sets DOES NOT mean a darn thing. It will NOT produce superior outcomes and only serves to torture the client for no good reason. Again, explain to me scientifically how the RenX way is superior. Please don’t regurgitate the SSTM.

“I can give you 100lbs of weight and tire you within “x” number of reps. But i can literally replicate your fatigue and rep count identically with 50lbs or less if i have you perform an number of exercises before.”

****Yes, we all know this but so what? If I make you run up and down my stairs 100 times and THEN put you in the leg press, I’ll have to make the weight lighter. So what?

“The juice of this is that if i DO tire you with prior work, the effect of the 50lbs will be GREATER on your adaptive responses than if i simply fatigued you with the single exercise of 100lbs.”

****Do tell! Prove that to me Gus. You state this with absolute certainty yet you have to evidence to support your claim. At least say “You believe it will have a greater effect…”

“We believe that there are also innumerable ancillary benefits to keeping rest times low between sets but from the most basic perspective, it means that smaller numbers of the weight stack can feel like larger ones.”

****AH – you believe there are…that’s OK. Again “feel like.” What has this got to do with anything? How do you know that in doing so you are not making the stimulus worse by limiting the load? For the purposes of increasing bone density vie resistance training you definitely ARE short changing the client. You know this correct?

“So to Fred, i must now ask this question: how exactly do you deal with debilitated, injured and/or frail subjects?”

****Very carefully.

“If you acknowledge that fitness and rehabilitation exist on a single continuum then it must be that a proper strength exercise program is also a proper rehabilitation program. But the videos that you’ve shown on this thread display a sport being performed, not exercise.”

****As for my exercise form Gus, that’s ridiculous. Don’t fall prey to Josh’s bullshit. My form is fine. We train all people using loads that allow for 60 seconds minimum and 90 seconds max with some exceptions.

“They exhibit extremely dangerous behaviours for the purpose of demonstration of strength, not building it.”

****But I’m never, ever, ever, ever injured by them or experience any aches, pains or anything harmful. Same goes for my clients. In fact, I feel fantastic at 51 save for my knees which are shot due to martial arts and gluten/gliadin alleriges that I never knew I had. I’ve never been more muscular or stronger in my upper body.

“If you do not acknowledge that the rehab-fitness continuum exists then we should cease all banter.”

****I don’t believe “fitness” exists at all to tell you the truth. Fit for what? Again, you’re just making stuff up – “rehab-fitness continuum” – what does this mean really? You’re concocting some fictitious idea about training that does’t actually exist. But if what you are trying to say is that all people should approach resistance training as if they are frail and injured, no I don’t agree.

Reply

avatar ad ligtvoet December 14, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Joshua,
After reading a few comments of how great the shrugg movement felt I’m now really curious . Could you describe the movement for us(me).I can see what you do on the video, but tell a bit about the “communication”that goes on during that exercise. I know this topic belongs to the former post but ,since it deals with communication,actually also to this one.
Keep posting these thought provoking articles,I like the elevation factor of them.
ad

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Hi Ad,

My apologies, but I haven’t forgot about you. Your question requires a lengthy response. It’s long enough to become it’s own blog post. I stayed up til almost 2am working on it, I will try to do more this weekend.

This article will require some time and some editing, but I’ll get it up….I may even wait until I can get to Toronto again to shoot some video.

Thanks for re-posting here, likely would have got lost on the last thread

Joshua

Reply

avatar AC December 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Gus said:

“I can give you 100lbs of weight and tire you within “x” number of reps. But i can literally replicate your fatigue and rep count identically with 50lbs or less if i have you perform an number of exercises before. The juice of this is that if i DO tire you with prior work, the effect of the 50lbs will be GREATER on your adaptive responses than if i simply fatigued you with the single exercise of 100lbs.”

This is pure gold. Love it. That is what so many seem to fail to understand.

It’s the thinking that if they’re using less weight as a result of resting less between sets (or indeed focusing intensely on HOW the reps are performed) then they won’t get the same effect that they would get from a boat load more weight, flung about with reckless abandon, and what seems like an eternity of rest between sets.

This is one of the best paragraphs I have read on this subject. So concise, yet on the money!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 12:50 pm

AC,

Gus spits out these gems out constantly…I’m so grateful he is on my side.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm

I didn’t want this to get lost….BTW I am working on reformatting the comments section. I guess I never thought it would get so much volume….its impossible to follow.

db144 December 13, 2012 at 6:21 am [edit]
How come I can only find old men and women, and those that look completely untrained on your Overload Fitness site extolling the virtues of RenEx in the videos? I thought you could build muscle faster than any other method in the history? How do you reconcile the failure with every person in the videos?

d

REPLY

Jeff Tomaszewski December 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm [edit]
Our target market at OVERLOAD Fitness is NOT those seeking the holy grail of muscle building. We have a very successful business that tailors to the busy professional that is starved for time and has become severely de-conditioned. We train very few body builders and physique competitors but those that we have taken on have all had tremendous success with our systems.

You see, we offer a high end service that attracts those with discretionary income who truly value their health and fitness. All of our efforts in marketing and client acquisition are aimed at this type of person. It’s far more rewarding to have a hear a client tell you time and time again how they have dropped their blood pressure medication or that this is the ONLY program that has worked for them since they were diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and are now on the road to recovery or the person who has reversed the trend of osteoporosis or the person who is no longer diabetic or the person who can play with their grandchildren without aches and pains, etc… I could go on for days.

I’d much rather spend my time helping people improve the quality of their lives than someone win a trophy for having the biggest muscles on stage. Those people, no offense intended, typically let their egos get in the way and don’t want to pay for our services anyway. So why on earth would I waste my time and my staff’s time by trying to prove we have the best muscle building system? It’s just not practical nor profitable.

Thanks for your question.

Reply

avatar ad ligtvoet December 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm

@ Gus,
I agree with AC’s comment .

You stated:”We do not permit rest between our sets. To do so violates our protocol and may well nullify the effects of the session”.

As far as I understand it, the growth stimulus is multi-factorial and fatigue products play a role as well as hormonal reactions and of course muscle ‘damage’.You state that it is about creating an event (the whole is greater then its parts),but how long needs this event to occur?I can do 3 exercises(can be another number,just hypothetical) and that is it or do the same 3 exercises and 3 more after that but with a bit longer rest (for whatever reason at that moment).The body doesn’t know that after the first 3 exercises some more are around the corner and if 3 exercises done back to back can provide a maximal stimulus what would you consider against the somewhat longer rest.How would that nullify the effects of the workout?

@ Joshua,
Thanks,and oh yea,I’m a patient type of person.

ad

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Right you are Ad. They are just making stuff up.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm

If that were true, why would you write a book and start a business that is just a watered down, poorly executed version of made up stuff?

The best I can tell you sell your customer a very similar product(explanation) as we do, but you don’t execute it anywhere near as well and you lack the triumvirate effect of Philosophy, Protocol ( supporting equipment), and Education.

You can’t be mad at us for doing something better…..

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

BTW….You sure have a lot of time on your hands…..honestly wearing me down.

So again…if it’s not Inroad, if it’s not Total Tonnage and if it’s not steady state/duration.

What is it? What is your intent? what is your carrot?

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm

“So again…if it’s not Inroad, if it’s not Total Tonnage and if it’s not steady state/duration. What is it? What is your intent? what is your carrot?”

***My god man, what is what? I already TOLD you my intent: to increase the number of myofibrils and mitochiondria in the muscle.

Explain why inroad is correct Josh.

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 2:03 pm

So you sit in the machine and and think myofibrils and mitochiondria synthesize? I’m trying to be serious, but this is VERY funny.

There has to be some intent, why write a book?

So its not Inroad, its not duration and its not total tonnage?

What is it? What are you telling your body?….what are the cues?

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm

“explain why inroad is correct Josh” F.H.

This is explained in the Renaissance of Exercise technical manual…its also discussed in many articles…..but let’s make it easy for everyone:

http://www.renaissanceexercise.com/being-critical-and-inroad/

Please counter any comments by Al or myself….

It might be a good time to change the subject again….

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

“If that were true, why would you write a book and start a business that is just a watered down, poorly executed version of made up stuff?”

****Have you read my book? And you STILL have yet to counter my explanation of why inroad is invalid. Who’s running now? You also ran away from schooling me as to why you thought fat loss is NOT best achieved via a low carb, high fat diet.

“The best I can tell you sell your customer a very similar product(explanation) as we do, but you don’t execute it anywhere near as well and you lack the triumvirate effect of Philosophy, Protocol ( supporting equipment), and Education.”

****Yawn. Keep puffing up that tattooed body of yours. And your equipment is not what you think it is.

“You can’t be mad at us for doing something better…..”

****I’m not mad at all.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 2:10 pm

You schooled me on fat loss? Where?

Again this is very funny….how about a little contest? I will post my top 20 greatest fat loss cases ever, I’ll also post my top physique competitors ever and I’ll post my best condition against yours and I’ll post my current condition against yours….I’ll post my trainers condition against that of your trainers….someone stop the bleeding…..

We can post this on any public forum…..There is no contest here and you know as well as I do that you’ll back down because you don’t have the goods and I do. I think you’ve been in business longer than me so it’s a fair challenge, right?

Joshua

ps: aren’t you overfat??

confused…..

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Posting for Gus due to his time constraints, he’s VERY busy up there in Toronto.
==================================================

Ad,

Whether you do 3 exercises or 6 is not really as important. The number of exercises that you choose to do is based on many different criteria. The key to understanding RenEx is that even our vaunted “minimalist” routine of 2 exercises can be of tremendous value. But such value is mitigated by the transition time.

Although debatable, our contention is that doing a set of leg presses and then in record time commencing a set of pull downs is far more productive overall than doing the leg press, resting, and then doing the pull downs. Many people will say that they can handle more weight in the pull down if they could only rest a bit. But this is wrong and precisely what we have been trying to explain.

You’re right that the body knows nothing at all about what’s coming.

Stimulation can occur at many different levels.

I have a 2 workout protocol as well as an 8. The 8 exercises are not as systemically draining and their purpose is different. Perhaps more technical, or rehabilitating, or addressing a mobility or pain issue. The key is to provide the overall effect.

We try to get to all the the ways that exercise can help our bodies…the muscles bones and joints, the cardiovascular system, the metabolic system, etc.

When i suggest that resting nullifies the effect of the workout, I mean that as an instructor in my studio on our equipment, there is no use in a workout that permits rest. The cam profiles, the cool environment, the venous effect and even the respiratory consequences are all reasons to support the intensity vs. work concept. I highly recommend reading this chapter in the manual.

All my record keeping is based on workout time being as integral to scrupulous measurement as weights, reps, etc.

To be 100% clear: if you are not specifically attending to measuring rest intervals between sets, you are shortchanging your results in your workout.

Gus

Reply

avatar ad ligtvoet December 14, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Gus,
I assume you mean that there is no value to the restmoments during a workout,they serve no purpose?Ideally a workout is a contineous event of muscular contractions(of different target musclegroups)just as a set is contineous event of constant loading the muscles?Doing so ensures that all the stimulus factors are primed and not some at the cost of others(metabolic versus muscle)?My workouts are short and intense as per exercise and I certainly don’t rest long but always felt that I needed that for concentrating on the next exercise and thus targetting the muscles intense.I do have the superslow protocol book and know the mentioned chapter but never thought that the effect of such a workout would lead to a better outcome then what I do in my workouts.So I will first integrate the idea of seeing the workout a one constant set and implement that in practice.
ad

Reply

avatar Gus Diamantopoulos December 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Ad,

You will discover a whole new you if you begin to dutifully attend to your transitions.

Be prepared. You may not initially be able to complete your planned routine…

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm

Question to the group:

Against my own best judgement I have all but stopped moderating, I’m not sure this best, but among the garbage I’ve seen some amazing posts.

What do you guys think is best? What suggestions do you have regarding re-formatting the site? Generally what do you want to see more of? We do listen 🙂
even to our critics.

Reply

avatar Trace Johnston December 14, 2012 at 9:17 pm

I’ve really been enjoying these discussions – but very time consuming. Great stuff has been said here, starting with the replies from “Trapped.” I think everyone may feel more involved as it continues. I don’t know what you mean by changing the format.

Scrutiny of thorough inroad is particularly interesting. Mr. Hahn’s dismissal of this term as a valid concept allowed Gus to write some great responses. For me, one of the principle benefits of the original SuperSlow approach was to facilitate going beyond momentary muscular fatigue in a completely safe manner. This cannot be accomplished with any other protocol. “Thorough Inroad” as defined in The Renaissance of Exercise, reaches even further. Chapter 5 lists the “other theories” such as load theory, total tonnage theory, eccentric loading theory and “variations” like “instinctive training” theory. Ken Hutchins notes that all of these are theories because “the exact mechanism of muscular growth stimulation is unknown.” Therefore, “our best clues revolve around the subject of inroad.” I don’t think Mr. Hahn or anyone else has enough knowledge to cancel this out.

Reply

avatar Ed M. December 16, 2012 at 2:18 pm

If we were discussing a domain with experimental empiricism available then you could moderate within that context. Since that is not the case open discussion-like sunlight-is the best disinfectant.
Additionally, since there are so many strong posters here eventually the unworthy “out” themselves.

Ed

Reply

avatar Fred Hahn December 14, 2012 at 2:46 pm

“Again this is very funny….how about a little contest? I will post my top 20 greatest fat loss cases ever, I’ll also post my top physique competitors ever and I’ll post my best condition against yours and I’ll post my current condition against yours….I’ll post my trainers condition against that of your trainers….someone stop the bleeding…..”

****Stop acting like a child again. Your challenge is meaningless. I am talking science. Just because I do not choose to be as lean as a body builder does not invalidate the facts. And great results can be due to genetics as well.

“We can post this on any public forum…..There is no contest here and you know as well as I do that you’ll back down because you don’t have the goods and I do. I think you’ve been in business longer than me so it’s a fair challenge, right?”

****Wrong. Again, my position was and is that low carbohydrate/high fat/moderate protein diets are best for fat loss. You countered me and said I was wrong in another thread but you never stated why.

“ps: aren’t you overfat??”

****No. I’m 5’10” 168 pounds.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Ok then, since I have such special genetics let’s drop me out of the equation.

My top 20…..heck i’ll do 30 best fat loss cases against yours.

Also my all time best physique competitors.

That should be enough to rule out genetics.

And no High Fat diets are not best for fat loss…..if your since is Taubes like we’re in for some fun…..stating high fat rules is hardly schooling me.

Sorry man results count….let’s do the challenge….Come on I think the viewers will really enjoy it!

Are you game?

btw: you have very, very high body fat for that weight , I’m 1 ” taller than you and that would bring me in under 0% bf

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Ok then, since I have such special genetics let’s drop me out of the equation.

My top 20…..heck i’ll do 30 best fat loss cases against yours.

Also my all time best physique competitors.

That should be enough to rule out genetics.

And no, high fat diets are not best for fat loss…..if your science is Taubes like we’re in for some fun…..stating that “high fat rules” is hardly schooling me. I can get the result, you can’t, but somehow I don’t get the science….this is funny.

Sorry man results count….let’s do the challenge….Come on I think the viewers will really enjoy it!

Are you game?

btw: you have very, very high body fat for that weight , I’m 1 ” taller than you and that would bring me in under 0% bf

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 1:08 pm

I figured he would back down.

High Fat diets= Stress response, short term weight loss muscle/fat … potential for long term metabolic damage.

Reply

avatar Brian F December 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm

RenEx guys and Fred

The internet is great, however when it comes to the back and forth of communicating ideas and arguments it can be clunky. Also can encourage a bit of attitude, a bit like the difference between sniping a threat with a high powered rifle from 1000 yards and hand to hand combat. We’ve already seen some great posts generated from the battle, if there was a way for you guys to get in the same room / gym for a couple of hours I for one believe the exchange would be very interesting and productive for all concerned………

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm

They won’t show up in the room much less back anything up.

Josh

Reply

avatar Joe A December 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Fred,

You’re about to exercise, you pick a weight…what are you attempting to do with it? Are you trying to fatigue yourself as quickly as possible, as thoroughly as possible? Are you trying to perform as much work as possible with it, i.e. get as many reps as you can? Or something else? Are you really focusing your effort on proliferating mitochondria? If so, how do you teach a client to do that…what prompts them to “go there”?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Joe how can you ask this? I can’t believe this…..So obvious…..

He’s CLEARLY synthesizing myofibrils and mitochiondria in the muscle.

Can’t you see?! DUH……

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Man my clients can proliferate the heck out of some mitochiondria…Joe you should see it.

And it is easy, you just tell them to do it…..piece of cake!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 3:15 pm

One more time:

It ain’t inroad, it ain’t total tonnage, it ain’t duration/volume…..

ok then what is it?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm

All kidding aside….

BTW, I do cover what it is in my “bodybuilding” talk at the Future of Exercise conference.

I also go into how it is best captured whether you use RenEx or more orthodox volume training methods.

You don’t want to miss this….coming soon…..

and no, I do not tell you to sit in your chair and synthesize mitochiondria, but I do have all of the attendees stand up and participate in a lesson to improve communication 🙂

Reply

avatar jim December 14, 2012 at 3:23 pm

So we see that ” body building ” is not a practical or profitable financial model . @ Jeff Tomaszewski . Then why entertain a conversation along those lines ?

The point should shift to the protocol as a dose specified medical intervention and the trainer a quasi medical provider like the exercise physiologist ? .

BTW and take it for what its worth , and the best intended… this brigs to mind something Marshall McLuhan once said ” Puny secrets need protection , big secrets are guarded by public incredulity ” .

Reply

avatar Jeff Tomaszewski December 14, 2012 at 4:34 pm

Josh covered this quite well at the Future of Exercise Conference (if you missed it, the DVDs will be released after the first of the year). We believe that getting out on the edges will also benefit those in the middle. (The study of advanced bodybuilding on one end and on the other end of the spectrum in depth physical rehabilitation). Working with someone like a stroke patient will unlock the keys to the “standard” populations. This is why we are focusing on partnering with those who make this their life work, such as the research team at Johns Hopkins University and some other research teams I can’t reveal at this time. We believe this work will allow us to to take the general population and elite athletes to another level. Stay tuned…

Reply

avatar jim December 14, 2012 at 8:15 pm

The jousting is about ” intention ” . There seems to be a question that is framed in a way that creates an language limit to response. ( Not to rub it in but language is crucial here i.e. the definition of exercise must be deconstructed within ” inroad” …itself a word struggling under the requirement for rigor etc )

It appears that intention is a ” what ” and attention is a ” where ” . Also there seems to be an assumption that intention is an end purpose , a product that you ” get ” or ” achieve ” . I want to put this in : Intention is not an invention of convenience , it is gravity .

Next is the ” where ” and the intuitive response is the muscle group challenged by the intention / gravity . So the suggestion is to ” put your attention here ” ; where ? here , a place in 3 dimensional space . Another suggestion is ” there ” away from the intention , away from the gravity challenge ( a distraction from the pain ) . I want to suggest that if it is about ” visualization ” ( again words ) there must be a mental picture of ” here” or “there” and the clearer that picture , the higher its resolution would seem to be an extension of the word meaning . If this is true , then a super high resolution of ” here’ or ” there ” would be meaningfull because it would be the basis of a hypothesis that could be tested AND would not make the suggestion that such resolution would get one there to the mitochondria and its molecular transitions even . But …

All of this is up for open source conversation including the assumptions because none of it is measured . If this is to be a research competent mudel someday for the purpose of dosing as a ” medication ” it will ultimately define intention in realtionship to gravity and that to a definition of Health . The ” doctor’s ” competence will know ” where ” that dose is delivered .

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Gus you really went to town on that one! awesomee! Quickly transitioning from one exercise to the other would make a lot of sense. i have been thinking how much harder it is to connect to the muscle when you are faced with high oxygen debt. – this is what you want,improvementt in the face of high oxygen debt will create the greatest chemistry for muscle building

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm

And this method can IMPROVE FOCUS!

Reply

avatar enlite December 14, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Jonas, you say there is a clear distinction between the muscle and the mind.Is there really? In terms of practical experience in the physical world our experiences can only be attained through the physical senses.In terms of physical
training the brain sends signals to the muscles in order for them to contract.I’m not saying that the mind/spirit plays no role in the process, spirit comes from the latin spiritus meaning breath.Breathing is a physical act.How does something that is non-physical interact with the physical? This question has yet to be answered in a legitimate way.Or better still; Is the mind/spirit simply another aspect of the physical world? Who really knows these things! In terms of bodybuilding/strength training i think the word FOCUS best describes what people mean by”mind muscle connection”.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm

I would certainly accept FOCUS as the language we use.

Reply

avatar Steven Turner December 14, 2012 at 8:56 pm

Hi all,

I know that I might be repeating myself about “The Truth of Exercise” genetic blood testing shows that only 20% of the population “super responders” respond to any type of anything goes gym program, 80 % of the population are non responders gaining very little health benefits from the typical commercial gym program – “steady state crap”. I would think that 80% is on the low side more closer to 95% non responders. I think that this message is being wasted by many on this forum. Lets focus our attention on developing the most safest, effective and efficient training that we can deliver and if that is what RenX is trying to do than I am with them.

Jeff points out above that Overload Fitness a different market from the commercial fitness centre “anything goes mentality”. Why focus your business on 20% super responders when there is 80% of the population will respond from a “health perspective” to high intensity training?

If Fred thinks is training is aimed at 80% non responders than I will listen if not than move on let go, we could debate the best methods forever and we would be none the wiser.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Steven,

This sounds accurate…. it is the 20% who we look to as our fitness examples.

I would also agree that it’s only 1 of 10 or 2 of 10 that might gain muscle mass at a large scale.

This goes way beyond muscle size though ……

Reply

avatar Craig December 15, 2012 at 12:45 am

It seems that a lot of people are finding the discussion around “Inroad” to be interesting. On reading some of the comments, I find myself longing for a more precise definition of inroad. I know Ken Hutchins put a lot of effort into a precise definition of exercise. Does he have something similar for Inroad (that is, a precise definition)? Might help to focus the discussion.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 11:45 am

Hi Craig,

We cover this quite thoroughly in the Renaissance of Exercise technical manual.

I’m not sure how much of that I want to post, many people are just about to get a manual under their tree 🙂

Reply

avatar Craig December 16, 2012 at 8:32 pm

Josh,

Thanks for the response. Fortunately, I don’t have to wait for Santa. I already have the RenEx manual. In fact, I consulted it and reread Chapter 5 on Thorough Inroad before posting my comment.

In that section, Ken provides a straightforward, pragmatic definition of Inroad:

“Inroad is the depth of momentary fatigue attained due to exercise. If a fresh muscle’s maximum force output is 100 lbs, then 80 lbs immediately after exercise, the inroad is 20%.”

This is the straightforward definition that has been used by A. Jone, E. Darden, and Doug McGguff, and is what I understood Inroad to be.

But in the debate with Fred, I saw comments by Gus (who I assume speaks as a RenEx representative) that goes beyond this simple definition, to something a bit more vague:

“One of the things that is often forgotten or perhaps not understood is that inroad theory as a guide for action is not solely about the amount of weight or resistance relative to fatigue. Our inroading process is about creating an event whereby the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The only way this can work is when you view and understand the workout experience as a global event rather than as individual exercises.”

“Without a consideration for low transition time between exercises, inroading is non existent and resistance value has no compass. To “inroad” on one exercise is not remotely as important as the cumulative effect of the workout as a whole.”

None of this appears in Ken’s definition of Inroad.

To be fair, Ken then goes on to discuss something called “Thorough Inroad”:

“Thorough Inroad goes beyond failure in prescribed form. It is the level of fatigue that renders the musculature momentarily disfunctional”.

That, of course, is not so nearly as well defined. And it seems that it isn’t really something that can be quantified in the context of an exercise done on a particular machine, set at a particular weight. Either you can move the weight in the prescribed form, or you can’t move it in the prescribed form, and that failure weight defines the depth of inroad at the point of momentary failure. How you achieve or measure inroad beyond the point of failure on the machine isn’t clear. Certainly, based on all the grief you have been giving Fred about exercise form, I can’t imagine you allow trainees to continue to move weights beyond the point of breakdown in prescribed form. And given your strong reaction against dumpers, I can’t imagine that you now allow forced reps or forced negatives to achieve more than inroad to Momentary Muscular Failure.

Furthermore, Ken’s overall definition of Thorough Inroad also mentions nothing particular about the global impact of multiple exercises, or the synergy of multiple exercises or the need to minimize the time between work sets. Indeed, the entire section focuses very heavily on the prescribed behavior for the proper execution and termination of a single set.

Given your past emphasis on precise language, and precise definitions, this failure to distinguish between Inroad and Thorough Inroad, and the inclusion of these other factors (pace of the workout, interval between exercises) under the umbrella term Inroad seems uncharacteristically sloppy, and was the reason I posted my request.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 16, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Craig,

What Gus is describing is thoroughly and clearly explained in CHP 8, pg 45, “Intensity Vs Work in exercise.”

I see no need to measure thorough inroad technique, but that being said we can get a really good look at it with the computer feedback.

If you believe that forced reps or breaking form facilitate through inroad you still have much to study….those things are in opposition of thorough inroad technique.

Please read “Intensity vs Work” and then come back and let me know if you still see “sloppy”….all of these chapters tie together the unified theory of exercise, looking at them independently won’t get you all of the way there.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 16, 2012 at 11:52 pm

“Furthermore, Ken’s overall definition of Thorough Inroad also mentions nothing particular about the global impact of multiple exercises, or the synergy of multiple exercises or the need to minimize the time between work sets. Indeed, the entire section focuses very heavily on the prescribed behavior for the proper execution and termination of a single set.”

It’s there….”INTENSITY VS WORK”

Reply

avatar Terry C December 15, 2012 at 6:40 am

Gus said
“We believe that there are also innumerable ancillary benefits to keeping rest times low between sets but from the most basic perspective, it means that smaller numbers of the weight stack can feel like larger ones.”

Hi Gus
Is there a ‘Target Transition Time” that you aim for (ex., <10 seconds). I will also re-read the Intensity /Work chapter in the manual. Thanks for taking the time.
Be Well
Terry

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 11:42 am

Terry,

I’ll check w/ Gus for a reply, he trains quite a few sessions on Saturday.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm

posting for Gus:

The simple answer is that the moment you finish an exercise, immediately go to the next one and commence without waiting to catch your breath.

Do not linger or take time to engage in pre-exercise antics. You need only sit correctly, secure any restraints and begin.

Needless to say, the settings and weights must be pre- set.

Reply

avatar Owen December 15, 2012 at 7:54 am

These last few posts and the ensuing comments have been very helpful.

Josh, a couple of posts ago you said:

“By the way, we are developing products to help instruct how to get more from conventional equipment.”

As someone operating a facility with mostly Nitro, 2ST and some Med-X equipment, I’d love to here more about these products. What sorts of products are you developing? Instructional DVDs? Retro-fits?

I’ve been doing my best, in my own workouts and in instructing clients, to fully engage the volitional, communicatory aspects of training and I’m appreciating the results, but it would be great to get further instruction from you guys about how best to do this with equipment that doesn’t fully, “get out of your way.”

I know you guys are busy following up on multiple requests but I thought I’d throw this out there. Thanks again for all the great work.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

Owen,

That reference was not aimed at a particular manufacturer.

Although, we do offer a weekend course where we go over other equipment.

As far as the retrofits go, I have not seen many pieces that are worth it and I have not decided if I want to enter into that business.

Thank you for the feedback, I think you would really enjoy The Future of Exercise conference when its out on DVD.

Josh

Reply

avatar John Tatore December 15, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Josh

I know you had asked some who had SuperSlow Systems equipment if they were interested in some retrofits but could one replace the movement arm in a SSS Chest press with the one used on the RenX Ventral Torso … and replaced the frame attachment on the SSS Pulldown …that has the slanted seat and roller pads … with the fame attachment on the RenX Pulldown that has the flat seat with seatbelt and the adjustable mid -back pad?

John

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Hey John,

Working on a cost effective way to do this.

The Pulldown has a lot more complexity than what meets the eye.

Reply

avatar Paul Marsland December 15, 2012 at 7:58 am

With regards to renex so called attitude and how they get their message across ..let me share a little something…i first encounter with Brian Johnston was ironically on fred hahns forum and my first impression of him was i thought he was an arrrogant know it all…but that fact was the problem was with me not him and didn’t fully understand most of the stuff he was saying and i thought i knew my stuff….now i had two choices , dismiss him and remain ignorant or enquire further, so i bought his books, and i now own nearly every one of them, my knowledge and understanding have increasd ten fold and I’ve even contributed to a couple of his books and now consider him a friend .

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 11:32 am

Hey Paul,

I’ve heard this from a few people….things change quite a bit when you get personal experience with someone.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 1:20 pm

ie: see below vvvvvvvvvv

Reply

avatar Laszlo Komaromy December 15, 2012 at 11:54 am

db144December 14, 2012 at 5:52 am
Did the Swedish fish, Lazlo, buy any machines? Don’t think so but it’s still the greatest….
Where is the clinical research promised?
Where are the case studies?
d

Why the snide remarks and malevolent questions? Boyfriend refused you again? He`s got my sympathy!

As you obviously can`t even formulate the right questions, I`ll help you. The last time though!
Did I learn from Josh/Ren X? You bet your a../behind I did.

Am I a gym owner? No, and how does my buying/ or not, machines contribute to this thread?
Do I believe Ren X traning/ machines are superior? YES!

Would I like to own the Ren X machines? YES! Drooling! YES!
(Meanwhile trying to incorporate what I LEARNED on Nautilus machines after my ability.)
But what I do/ or don`t is totally uninteresting. You should visit Josh and try the Ren X concept for yourself. I promise you, you aren`t as tough, as you think you are. I wasn`t.

Parting, with what I personally heard Arthur Jones say in 1981: “You are qualified to pick oranges, IQ less than 85.” (No, it wasn`t directed towards me.) db 144=IQ 85

Fred, reminds me again of a very funny cartoon, I once saw, of a:
– MOUSE- futilely trying to lift the foot of an ELEPHANT, while shouting: I`ll NEVER give up!
(If someone can find it, please post it.)

Greetings from Sweden. LaszloK

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 12:13 pm

db 144 you can come from out behind the woodshed now.

Laszlo is more than just talk, this guy traveled something like 25 hours to get to Cleveland, he stayed an entire week.

He endured lessons on all of our machines. He put his paradigms aside (I assume he’s trained 30 or 40 years at least) and patiently sat through dissertations by myself and my staff.

He even sat down to lunch and ate exactly what I did….now that takes real courage. 🙂

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Joe A December 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm [edit]
Fred,

You’re about to exercise, you pick a weight…what are you attempting to do with it? Are you trying to fatigue yourself as quickly as possible, as thoroughly as possible? Are you trying to perform as much work as possible with it, i.e. get as many reps as you can? Or something else? Are you really focusing your effort on proliferating mitochondria? If so, how do you teach a client to do that…what prompts them to “go there”?

REPLY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44

What is wiggle, squirm, lunge, heave and grunt?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 5:50 pm

Posting for Ken Hutchins:

Quote by Fred Hahn:

“Patrick – The inroad hypothesis is invalid. It never was valid. It is something Ken Hutchins simply made up. Why not ask Ken to write an article explaining how it is valid? He won’t, because he can’t, because it isn’t.”

From Ken to Fred:

Wow! Thanks for the credit, Fred! I didn’t know that I was the creator of the inroad theory.

By the way, I already wrote my address regarding inroad theory:
http://www.renaissanceexercise.com/inroad-theory-vs-whatever/.

Ken Hutchins

Reply

avatar jim December 16, 2012 at 10:44 am

” 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.” Hutchins

Hutchins tone is sarcastic , not a good sign for a scientist to be angry and acid . There is a bad karma thing going on when this exists . The best physicists that I know are by personality , training and experience more humble and calm . But I suppose , this ain’t physics and the ox must be whipped on occasion , it helps their mind / body connection ? Unless insulted for lack of intelligence , at least implicitly so , meatheads wouldn’t know that they might be wasting their time .

Intention : To build , test and apply an ” Inroad Model ” of exercise . One that will allow rigorous observation , description , prediction and explanation . In terms of development , we must ” attend” to that engine . Out of that comes all the power . That’s what is implied anyway .

So far ” inroad ” seems to qualify as ” drivel ” or have I missed the open source peer reviewed journal publication ? That’s ok , plate tectonics was drivel in 1908 and now we teach it in public schools . Back then there WAS some data that fit into that model but it was called ” geo-poetry ” until the 60’s .

More specifically though and relevant to this article ( which everyone seems to have forgotten ) , the ” mind/body” thingy is certainly , ” drivel ” by Ken’s own definition . . But , I can’t believe that the publication of this article is accidental and that a limit to the model of ” inroad ” is being experienced . The first hint of this is the declaration that ” inroad” is an ” inner experience” now that the machines have ” gotten out of the way ” .

Sorry , I taught science for 40 years and this is a mess in terms of ” communication ” . I will follow Mc Guffs rough outline in BBS at the $10 / month gym w/out a trainer sure that I am getting my health 80% from diet , 10% from BBS and 10% from managing my ” inner experience” .

PS : If you wire up a real Budhist Monk or Master Yogi , he will not flich from a bobcat .

Reply

avatar Trace Johnston December 16, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Jim,

I have one question to ask: Have you tried out this protocol for yourself? My response to anyone who depends on peer reviewed studies to validate something is that a large amount of said studies have been proven faulty in the past and will continue to be. As far as strict observation and documented results are concerned, this has been done and is still being done from many sources. Anyone who only reads about it or watches it from the sidelines cannot make any determination about it whatsoever. The skeptics appear to be limited to those who fail to experience the real protocol for themselves. I’ve experienced it and all of my clients experience it and that’s really all we need to know for us to recognize the validity of the inroad hypothesis. Seeing is not believing, but experiencing is.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 16, 2012 at 2:18 pm

“My response to anyone who depends on peer reviewed studies to validate something is that a large amount of said studies have been proven faulty in the past and will continue to be”

I’m really tired of people asking for peer reviewed research studies and if you really think this is going to help then before you ask please tell me which peer reviewed study is currently guiding your training.

Doug McGuff made some comments about peer reviewed research at the Future of Exercise conference…..everyone needs to hear these comments before defaulting to the old “Where’s the peer reviewed research”

Reply

avatar jim December 17, 2012 at 10:23 am

@ Trace . No , I have not . And the reason that I have not is because ” the protocol ” is , by definition , specific to an environment i.e impossible to ” do” outside of that environment . You agree to this statement , right ?

It would be ” drivel” ( Hutchins ) to suggest that anyone is doing ” the protocol ” at this point . Do you get that , Trace ?

W/out ” a protocol ” , peer reviewed studies are obviated but w/out such studies , words like ” John’s Hopkins ” are inappropriate .

Reply

avatar Trace Johnston December 20, 2012 at 5:23 pm

Jim, You said: the protocol is “specific to an environment i.e impossible to ” do” outside of that environment . You agree to this statement , right ?”
My answer: Strictly speaking, yes. BUT, it is possible to get really close to the perfect ideal without a perfect environment. You can even use less than perfect equipment. You can even use no equipment. Try some simple body-weight exercises using the suggested protocol. There’s no reason to stand back.

avatar Joshua Trentine December 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Posting for Ken Hutchins:
====================================================
Response to Jim:

“Hutchins tone is sarcastic, not a good sign for a scientist to be angry and acid …

… PS : If you wire up a real Budhist Monk or Master Yogi, he will not flinch from a bobcat.”

I doubt the bobcat-Yogi claim is true, but it might prove to be an interesting study albeit irrelevant to the target point of my article. The postscript has a tone of sarcasm if I allow my reception to become defensive.

By the way, I am not claiming to be a scientist. I do not qualify as such…at least not in the regard that I perform studies with statistically significant, randomized populations, using measuring tools with known, repeatable, and published errors that are applied within framework of a truly workable definition of exercise. And I don’t yet know of anyone in the exercise community who has done this, is doing this, or has the stated requirements to do this.

I like your point that this is not physics. What goes for science by those that published so-called “refereed studies” in exercise is a pathetic and sick mockery of science that most laymen are not aware. The high priests dress professionally. They refuse to consider any information outside of their herd. They address each other formally with regard to rank and decorum. They speak in a detached and objective tone like physicists and chemists. And then they impassionately spew nonsense that hurts people. This is where my passion and sarcasm arises! And I consider it immoral to not care passionately about this obscene miscarriage of science!

“If we are unable to logically derive practical application for exercise from our experiences and what we do know of basic biology and physics, then we are nowhere.”
–Arthur Jones

Ken

Reply

avatar jim December 21, 2012 at 9:51 am

@ Trace : I apply McGuff’s ( Body by Science) premise @ a $ 10 / month , on commercial gym equp for the past 2 years. I was told BBS is not a ” protocol ” , only RenEx is a ” protocol ” for BBS . I accept that under ” definition of exercise ” . Those doing RenEx are the only one’s doing ” exercise “. Because there is no other rational definition there is no other ” protocol ” . Fine . To me its a distiction w/out a difference but to the ” pioneers ” it is everything .

@ Josh . Your reason to reject the need for peer reviewed studies because ” they have been faulty in the past ” is very unlike RenEX i.e. what you are attempting : the definition of exercise . I do not need such studies but you certainly do . Here’s a softball study : Walking vs RenEX . The medical profession and their govt and quasi govt agencies currently say that you should get exercise and recommends that ” walking ” qualifies as exercise .
You should be able to knock that one out of the park and in the process establish the rationale and all of the definitions and thereby all of the relevant and legitimate variables . You already have enough MD’s and PhD’s to qualify as ” peers” .

@ Ken : The bobcat / yogi thing is true …. don’t you dare ask me for a peer reviewed study , haha . Point of it is simply logic by extension : IF you define ” exercise” as inroad and if inroad is an inner experience ( now that all externals are controlled ) we get to the relevance as per this context , this thread , this ” communication ” proto- hypothesis . You then have your next portal of research staring you in the face . Controlling the inner experience . You can excuse that and yourself from science and call it art , fine .

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 21, 2012 at 11:15 am

Hey Jim,

I’m on vacation and will not be spending anytime here until Jan 7th. I did write a blog last night that will go up in minutes.

As for the need for peer reviewed studies, Johns Hopkins is currently doing one and I have a interview with another very serious researcher on Dec 28th to discuss a project. As far as I know we are the only ones going after anything like this.

My question to you is which peer reviewed studies guide your training? For me the answer is none and I’ve somehow managed.

Lastly, if I remember correctly Ken’s father kept bobcats on their property, he has extensive experience with a number of animals, but special first hand experience with this one.

I’ll leave the yogi to you.

See you in January, Happy Holidays,
Joshua

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 5:55 pm

The Unified Theory of Exercise, by Renaissance Exercise

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 15, 2012 at 6:24 pm

josh perhaps the issue regarding low intensity / high intensity responders can be applied to muscles on the same person? what do you think?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 15, 2012 at 11:34 pm

yes

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 16, 2012 at 6:55 am

i thought that it may be more down to one muscle having more muscle fibres than others and not necassarily down to different intensity responses in each muscle. How many people have you noticed, for expamle in your training studio, that actually posses more muscle fibres in and longer muscle bellies in one muscle yet that muscle needs more intensity than muscles with less?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Muscle length, muscle fiber type distribution, capillary density, hormonal status, individual exercise expression, all likely play a role in the response and and exercise selection.

I have had some clients that have experienced hypertrophy without any direct work some who respond better to direct work. Alternating the two is another way to manage volume/frequency issues.

Reply

avatar Mark Lloyd December 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm

1/The word “theory” is being used loosely in this forum. Think of the word in terms of -music- theory: Not hypotheses from idle pondering, but explanations of why what already, obviously, -works-, does indeed work . Ken put in as many or more hours than any other trainer before invoking his inroad theory. If the theory turned out to be wrong, so what? That would simply mean that a better theory was required to explain a -method- that -does- work. 2/ I suspect that Fred suffers from a “problem” that all advanced trainees do, SS or otherwise: He’s reached well into his genetic potential for strength gains, and is frustrated with long periods of seemingly no progress. A wiggle here, a breath-hold there, and he ‘proves’ he has has a better way to keep progressing. However, when one changes his technique to enhance performance, he’s only measuring the differences between the -techniques-. Maintaining form over long periods of no change in -exhibited- strength eventually prove to be productive: When the trainee -does- makes his next gains, he can be assured that it was -only- due to new strength, not a better skill at a wiggle, or a firmer deeper breath-hold, or a faster rep.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine December 16, 2012 at 11:59 pm

Mark,

This is REALLY good!

Reply

avatar ad ligtvoet December 17, 2012 at 11:17 am

@ Gus(or anyone else of the team),
Today I did my workout with as little rest as possible between exercises,that means about 20 seconds.In the past the rest was about 50-60 seconds and that was purely done with the intention to limit the respiratioire effect a bit and give more value to the muscle stimulus for the most part.I saw the fatigue cummulation foremost as important on the exercise per exercise basis.Same with inroad .Today I started with smithmachine incl.press followed by pullover and then seated row.This one was done on a row without chest support and after the 3 rep I felt what I can best describe as communication breakdown. Whatever I tried to sent currency to my muscles ,there was very little respond.The resistance I used was the same as on the previous workouts done so to see what the effect of no rest would be.After the workout I did another set of row and now I was able to generate deep intense contractions up to the point of failure.Felt more stimulated so to speak.Would you suggest to reduce the resistance or to work with the same resistance and see to improve the situation(learning to do so)?At the end of the workout there was no deeper feeling of fatigue overall compared to my previous workouts.Will follow up with my upcoming workouts with keeping rest to the minimum.
As I said I wanted to tweak the muscle growth stimulus more by resting a tad longer and I did so on th basis that one can direct the stimulus a bit by the way of how to conduct a workout.Do you think that this tweaking of the one or the other side of the stimulus can be done by the amount of resistance chosen(longer or shorter TUL) but that rest between exercises should always be minimal and is not the factor to use in regard to this?
ad

Reply

avatar AC December 18, 2012 at 12:09 pm

I figured I would post this before I forgot about it. Was training the other day and tried something on both the leg press and overhead press as I approached failure. I hut my eyes. I found that this helped me to concentrate far more on muscular contraction and striving for those few more inches of movement, squeezing it out of the target muscles rather than outroading and squirming etc.

I do train in a typical, commercial gym full of people and music etc. I appreciate that shutting your eyes in Overload Fitness or a Superslow facility may not make any difference as it’s already as distraction free as it can be, but I found it really helped.

Has anybody else had any experience with this? Good, bad, indifferent?

Reply

avatar Joe A December 18, 2012 at 4:51 pm

@AC,

In my experience, seated exercises where the action happens in front of my eyes, I prefer to close my eyes…keeps me from getting distracted by the action itself (let alone everything else in the gym…though I do a good job of zoning that out). I become distracted with the temptation to complete reps…OR, I inadvertently concentrate on one muscle group (the one I can see). Example: leg press, with eyes open, I burn out my quads…eyes closed and it is a whole different exercise. In these cases, eyes shut, feeling my way through the ROM, behavior begins to follow intent…

Also, for those reading who train with free weights or standing during some exercises…keep your eyes open. Sight is necessary feedback to drive the behavior appropriate for these situations.

Reply

avatar AC December 19, 2012 at 2:36 am

Joe,

Thanks very much for the response.

On a 45 degree leg press like this one – http://site.hockeytrain.com/blog/hockey-dryland-training-workout/

What muscles should I be feeling? At the moment I have been experiencing exactly what you describe with eyes open, burning out my quads. Should I be experiencing fatigue in other muscle groups?

Reply

avatar Joe A December 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm

AC,

The point, as it relates to the blog, is improving mind-muscle communication to facilitate an exercise effect…to this end, exercise selection matters. I don’t recommend using the 45 degree LP. I think it presents obstacles, both in safety and muscle pattern, that are avoidable. I would opt for bodyweight squats if no other option exists. Search Drew Baye’s site for an article called “Time”…in the comments of that article, he gives a good, general description for performance.

Adding Hip AD/AB immediately before can be a brutal series…if you don’t have these machines available, you can perform TSC with minimal equipment…I actually prefer the TSC versions. Either way, I think simply switching exercises may allow you to answer your own questions.

Reply

avatar Mark Lloyd December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Josh, Is there a plan for trainees who report that they didn’t properly finish a set due to losing concentration? Are they allowed to go immediately into a short “finishing set”? So far , every time this has happened to me , I was already past my previous best, thus I didn’t feel the need to request any such thing; but perhaps I should have(?).

Reply

avatar Rob K January 2, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Fred
These textperts are what you get in a comedy show when you give the hecklers the microphone.
Ironic that they are rehashing 20 year old info ….
Fret not …. they’ll come around in about 20 years.
Rob

Reply

Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: