Dumpers Part IV, Segment E

Dumpers
Part IV
Segment E

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

Exerbotics

On January 11, 2012, the team traveled to Evansville, Indiana to experience the Exerbotics.

Despite our biased expectations of what these devices would provide, we did hold some glimmer of hope that they could provide a similar feel to what one might experience with a set of properly applied manual resistance exercise. Manually resisted exercise is the most efficient approach to exercise with regard to muscular loading, however it is fraught with danger and inconvenience. We stand ready to abort our present products in favor of a tool that can supply this efficiency of loading if devoid of the adverse issues. Our hopes for Exerbotics were dashed.

For starters, the Exerbotics technology operates on the faulty premise that each individual has specific and personal strength curves for each exercise. The machine provides no predetermined curve. The subject is, therefore, tested for the purpose of determining his strength curve for both the positive and then the negative phase. The administered test is a “dynamic maximal force production.” This dangerous, inaccurate, and unnecessary test is made yet more dangerous by requiring this of a fresh musculature.

By the way, researchers commonly report that, as part of their methods, resistance selection for a strength-training exercise is determined as a percentage of a one-repetition maximum performance. This must never be done! This must be outlawed for everyone—including researchers!

A provided monitor displayed the subject’s force output as a graph for both the positive and the negative excursion. We were repeatedly told that a negative curve should be “different than the positive because the musculature is much stronger during the negative.” This statement is a non sequitor. These two concepts are not to be connected by the word, “because.” The first phrase is not dependent upon the second.

In addition, the magnitude of force potential of the negative is greater than the positive, but this will provide similar force profiles, not different.

Their statement provides the most profound example of this misconception that we’ve encountered to date. How might a muscle possess a different strength profile (shape of its curve) just because it is now un-contracting instead of contracting? There is nothing physiological or physical to explain this. The displayed test curves did display a difference between the positive and negative excursions, but the shape of their profiles—these were also different—was not because the targeted musculature was stronger while lengthening.

By the way, only the MedX testing equipment is capable of rendering accurate strength testing. To do this, it must be a static test and performed on equipment with rigid immobilization and stabilization. Dynamic testing—as is performed in the Exerbotics—is dangerous, inaccurate and useless. And although we deplore the MedX testing for general application, it remains the only way to obtain accurate strength measurement.

Instead, we experienced a motor that ramped up after the upper turnaround to force values based on the manufacture’s ideas of what should be happening. The test curve changed, because the increased resistance provided by the motor necessitated that the body brace and recruit outside help to handle the increased load—thus skewing the resulting curve. Once again, our best imagery regarding the experience on this equipment was that of being inside a trash compactor. Along this line, Ken Hutchins remembers an old episode of Superman where the man of steel rescues Jimmy Olson and Lois Lane from a room designed to slowly shrink and crush them.

Their “idealized” graph is depicted in this link:

http://www.exerbotics.com/assessment/

The chest press is quite a bizarre experience and seems to be the best example of the potential danger of these devices. Once the motor is set to its predetermined speed it begins to rev and the subject is expected to somehow gradually apply force as this is happening. This is nearly impossible. The graduation of force is abrupt and disrupting.

During the positive, the subject is instructed to “keep the line of force above the one presented on the screen.” With the arms just shy of lockout the subject sustains force as the motor redirects and increases its output in preparation for the negative excursion.

Once again, this is abrupt and promotes body bracing to absorb what is being placed against the subject.

We consider ourselves to be on the higher end of the motor control continuum and found it absolutely impossible not to have our shoulder girdle driven upwards towards our ears. Our shoulders felt as though they were going to dislocate. We fear this experience for a subject with a lower skill set and/or with debilities.

The later half of the negative felt like a load respite, and there was essentially no lower turnaround as we had to statically apply effort while waiting for the motor to change again. Hence, the principle of a meaningful and continuous load is violated on this equipment.

The set of muscles that were responsible for the positive were not the same that were involved during the negative. Each rep essentially involved two different exercises. We believe that, even though these devices do provide deep levels of inroading, they do so in an inefficient manner, and do not provide direct inroading. The inroading was global as though wrestling a bear.

In addition to the chest press, we performed the pulldown, the leg press, and the compound row. The experience on these exercises mirrored that of the chest press. One of our staff, Al Coleman, injured his neck during the pulldown. This injury was debilitating for about a month and remains at least a faint presence with some meaningful resistance to cervical rotation today—five months later.

The poor bio-mechanical design of the exercises adds another level of complexity and danger to these devices. They are devoid of proper tracking of the muscle and joint functions. Apparently the human body is to adapt to the designs rather than the other way round.

We were fatigued after the session but without the usual oxygen debt that goes on with our regular training sessions.

We experienced little to no direct muscular fatigue or soreness in the days following, but the insertion points of all the secondary muscles did ache quite a bit for days. The effect was extreme joint stiffness.

Following are more video links, each immediately followed by our annotated criticism:

This video shows different subjects performing squat in an exhibit hall. In addition to seeing some of the operation of the Exerbotics equipment, witnessed is common and accepted but inappropriate yelling at subjects, group insults to the subject, irrational mind psyching lingo, long sustained yells and screams by the subjects, etc. There were no attempts to quell or educate the subjects or the bystanders against this defocusing and counterproductive nonsense. Also shown is the incorrectly assisted lifting of one subject from the floor: pulling him up by one of his arms from a somewhat oblique direction of pull.

Progress in exercise equipment design and its proper application is extremely unlikely when the designers and promoters of said equipment do not understand the required environment to engender focus and sobriety.

This video shows a man performing leg press in an exhibit hall. In addition to seeing some of the operation of the Exerbotics equipment, witnessed is common and accepted but inappropriate hamming for the camera, cute talk and laughing without education to quietly focus. Several obvious discrepancies: feet too high, feet too wide, seat back too upright, hands in hip angle, head turning out of neutral position.

This concludes our opinions regarding Exerbotics.

Tagged as: Exercise Equipment, High Intensity Training, Ken Hutchins, Renaissance Exercise, RenEx