Jul
3
2012

Dumpers Part IV, Segment F

31 comments written by Joshua Trentine

Dumpers
Part IV
Segment F

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

X-Force

The highly heralded X-Force machines arrived at Gainesville Health & Fitness in Gainesville, Florida on January 19, 2012. We visited GHFC on February 12th, only 24 days later. In Gainesville, these machines are placed on the workout floor with no restrictions to access. The following are our experiences:

First Impressions

The machines appeared to be copied almost exactly from Nautilus Nitro, except the chest fly, which looked more like the chest fly on the old Nautilus Double Chest, and the triceps machine, which, had movement arms like the Nautilus Compound Position Triceps, although independent. As for copying the Nautilus Nitro line, compare the current iteration of those machines (now called “Evo”) displayed at:

http://www.nautiluscommercial.com/products/nautilus-strength/nautilus-evo

… to the X-Force machines at:

http://www.x-force.se/index.php/products

The cams all looked nearly round and the compound row and leg extension machines provide extremely too much load at full shoulder and full knee extension respectively. Probably due to this, Drew Baye injured his right knee on the X-Force leg extension to the degree that it hurt to walk up stairs for about two months afterwards. This knee was completely without previous injury.

Of the 14 machines, at least three were out of order (The leg press, abdominal, and biceps had the upholstery removed to prevent use.), and the pulldown weight stack was also not working, but the upholstery was still attached. Two had broken seat adjustments (chest fly, pullover). The seats are raised and lowered with a pneumatic cylinder, but the adjustment levers were non-responsive on the broken ones and the seats were stuck in the top position. We are told that some of the machines are often in need of repair.

Generalities:

Instructor-Unfriendly

  • All of the X-Force machines are instructor-unfriendly. The seat adjustment is between the seat and the side frame housing the weight stack.
  • Weight increments are minimally 10 kilograms (22 lbs). Gapping the weight stacks for range-of-motion limitations is impossible.

Handles

  • They are too wide for most subjects on some machines.
  • They are actually okay on the Overhead Press although they converge too tightly at the top.
  • The handles on the pulling exercises like compound row and pulldown are too thick—although not as bad as on the Nautilus One.

Seat Belts

  • The only two machines with seat belts are the Leg Extension and the Pullover.
  • Because of sans seatbelts, subjects often slide around in the Lateral Raise and the Overhead Press.

Signage

  • There is a sign on each machine that says to watch for the weight stack to move during the hold at the endpoint (upper turnaround). This is dangerous due to the requirement to violate neutral head and neck position and also due to the necessity to take action to brace/prepare for hyperloading, without which there is a risk of injury.
  • The weight stacks are all positioned to the user’s right. If you turn your head, you risk neck injury. If you don’t turn your head so you can see the weight stack, there is no way to know exactly when it is going to tilt and for you to prepare. And you risk injury due to being abruptly hyperloaded. You can’t win. You’re damned either way.
  • There is another sign on each machine stating that a 3/5 cadence with a one-second pause at the endpoint is necessary for the machine to function properly. This demonstrates that the X-Force company is aware that the weight stacks may fail to function as intended if a different speed is used. We saw a man using the compound row very rapidly, and the weight stack did not appear to be tilting at all during use. He was defeating the machine’s cues.

Weight Stacks:

An X-Force weight stack takes several seconds to start. The subject must press a button, wait for a light to blink, adjust the weight, then wait for the light to go solid before starting the set.

Set Up—takes up to one minute

  1. Sleep mode
  2. Push button
  3. Weight stack goes vertical
  4. Button blinks—only time to change weight selection
  5. Push button again—once satisfied with the weight selection
  6. Weight stack goes sloped and the light goes solid
  7. Start exercise (with the light solid)

The machine goes back into sleep mode after 2-3 minutes of disuse.

Assumably, the weight stack switches from the basic load (positive/sloped travel) to the hyperload (negative/vertical travel) once the upper turnaround is attained and the motion briefly pauses. However, the feel is not consistent between machines. On the chest fly, if held motionless at the endpoint, the weights do not switch until starting to ease out of the endpoint.

On other exercises used without a definite end stop, it is difficult to determine if it switched, stopped, or if there was a slight reversal of direction. This created a situation where if stopped or off/oned, the weight stack unintentionally switched on the subject at that point. By off-oning it is possible to make the weight stacks repeatedly switch back and forth—between their vertical and sloped positions. This is extremely dangerous if a person needs to stop and unload due to suspicion of injury, exercise-induced headache (EIH), etc.

It is impossible to perform a proper lower turnaround. When stopping downward movement, sudden (0.5 sec) downloading occurs (Weight stack becomes sloped.).

If maintaining a consistent effort when approaching the start point, quick positive acceleration occurs when downloaded.

If reducing effort in anticipation of being downloaded, too-quick acceleration occurs downwards, making the turnaround even more abrupt and uncontrollable.

Despite our best efforts we were unable to perform a correct lower turnaround on any of the machines. It was frustrating.

Weight-stack Switching Inconsistencies on Both Upper and Lower Turnarounds

  • All of the mechanics in the X-Force that tilt (“switch”) the weight stack are problematic.
  • Lower-turnaround weight-stack switching on some of the X-Force—like the biceps—causes the subject to miss the lower five inches of stroke.
  • Upper-turnaround weight-stack switching on some of the X-Force occurs before the subject comes to a pause. Upper-turnaround weight-stack switching on some others does not occur even though the subject has paused.
  • On some, the subject must begin the negative before upper-turnaround weight-stack switching occurs.
  • Meaningful and/or efficient inroad is avoided due to unloads.

Friction:

  • Wheel(s) under the weight stacks during positive/slope sometime(s) stick(s).

 

Machine Specifics (common name then X-Force product name in parenthesis):

Prone Leg Curl (Horizontal Leg Curl)

  • The movement-arm axis does not align with the knee.
  • The movement-arm roller pads—despite multiple adjustments—nearly fall off the subject’s heels unless the subject is very tall.
  • The machine is difficult to enter/exit of without risk of hyperextending the knees.
  • The handles could be positioned better.
  • The resistance is too difficult in the finished position (virtually no decrease).
  • There is no way to limit the range of motion and there is no hard end stop.

Leg Extension (Leg Quadriceps)

  • No one actually completely extends on the leg extension because the resistance curve fails to decrease adequately. This harsh loading toward extension prevents complete quadriceps “setting” as is supposedly desirable in knee rehabilitation and functional knee maintenance. It also threatens knee integrity. What’s more, as the subject is excessively loaded at extension, the weight stack switches to hammer the knee joint with 40% more!
  • The handles are way too low and are beyond the reach of most subjects.
  • The movement-arm padding utilizes a large roller pad. We learned two decades ago that a roller pad against the shin is unacceptable. Such provides inadequate distribution of force onto the shins or ankles and risks severe bruising. This bruising has, in some cases, developed into sympathetic reflex dystrophy that threatened to require amputation of the lower legs! Only flat pads (not convex like a cylindrical roller pad) utilizing memory foam with extra firm resistance is required here.
  • The knee does not align with the movement-arm axis.
  • The movement-arm enter/exit is difficult because the pass is between the seat and the weight-stack side frame.
  • No goniometer is provided.
  • There is no way to delimit range of motion.
  • It is difficult for the instructor to set up this machine.

Leg Press

  • The excursion possesses a very short stroke.
  • No shoulder pads are provided—just like with the Nautilus One and the Nautilus Nitro leg presses.
  • The machine provides six different seatback angles. Many of them are excessive and most are unusable.
  • The subject is required to use his hands and grip to hold himself down into the seat—thus counteracting reactionary force. Depending on the seatback angle the leg press becomes tantamount to a hack squat exercise.
  • It is a formidable struggle for many subjects to enter/exit—just as in the Nautilus One and Nautilus Nitro leg presses.
  • There is no way to record seat positioning. Each time the subject uses the machine, the instructor is forced to just ballpark the appropriate settings. Standardization is fleeting.
  • All subject’s buttocks lift up off the seat! There are no shoulder constraints thus requiring handles to hold the subject down into the seat, but these handles are in a disadvantageous position. In a properly designed leg press, gripping is to be avoided to prevent unnecessary blood pressure elevation.
  • The foot plate swivels making the movement unstable and difficult to control.
  • The resistance is too heavy at bottomout.
  • Almost no one fits in this machine properly.
  • The weight stack switches abruptly on the upper turnaround, making it impossible to maintain smooth control.
  • This is a dangerous device even when used properly—if proper use is even possible.

Pullover (Lat Back Circular)

  • This pullover has lost one of the most reliable of all of Arthur Jones’ Ten Requirement of Full Range Exercise—direct resistance. (Most of the other ten requirements are invalid.) Since the subject is required to grip due to the omission of elbow pads, indirect resistance has returned. The weak link of the hands and forearms now filters the resistance before the larger torso muscle can be meaningfully loaded.
  • With a requirement now to grip the handle, the handle is too thick to securely grip .
  • The resistance curve is too difficult in the finished position of the positive.
  • The loading foot pedal is too close to the seat.
  • The stack switches in the upper turnaround whether the movement arm is stopped or not.
  • There is no way to adjust for the depth of the subject’s body.

Compound Row (Lat Back Row)

  • The chest pad is poorly constructed. It inappropriately swivels, and it is too small.
  • The resistance doesn’t adequately decrease in the finished position of the positive.
  • Its swivel handles allow inappropriate tracking and encourage instability.
  • It is made for subjects with long legs as most subject’s legs don’t reach the foot rest. Of course, the legs should not be in this location during this exercise in the first place.
  • The handles are excessively large, thus making the weak link of the grip yet weaker.

Pulldown (Lat Back Pull)

  • The handles are excessively large, thus making the weak link of the grip yet weaker.
  • The handle width does not accommodate different sizes of people.
  • The lower-body restraint is poor. It is not adequately adjustable.
  • There is no way to record seat position. The seat adjusts up and down.

Chest Fly (Pec Arm Cross)

  • It provides no foot pedal, although it requires assistance to enter/exit safely.
  • There is no seat belt—a requirement in this exercise.
  • The resistance is too difficult in the finished position of the positive.
  • The movement arm does not track joint function.
  • The distance between axes is too wide for most subjects.
  • The handles and pads do not adjust to accommodate different sizes of people.
  • There is no back-pad adjustment.

Vertical Chest Press (Pec Seated Press)

  • No seat belt is provided.
  • No foot pedal is provided, and this machine is dangerous to exit/enter without one.
  • The movement arm does not go through the correct path.
  • The handles are too thick and angled incorrectly.
  • There is no range of motion delimiter.
  • The vertical handles are too close for some subjects.
  • The weight stack switches abruptly, loading the subject hard in the upper turnaround.
  • The resistance is too difficult in the upper turnaround and too easy in the lower turnaround.

Lateral Raise (Deltoid Lift)

  • The arm pads are round. This movement requires flat, not convex pads!
  • It provides independent movement arms—a big source of motor control issues in this exercise.
  • The resistance is too difficult in the upper turnaround encouraging momentum to complete the positive.
  • No seat belt is provided.
  • No range of motion delimiter is provided.

Overhead Press (Deltoid Press)

  • No seat belt is provided—a requirement in this exercise to couple-lock the torso.
  • The vertical handles converge too closely, arriving 6-7 inches apart at the upper turnaround.
  • The horizontal handles are too far apart for most subjects.
  • Neither handle pair is ergonomically designed or situated.
  • The machine’s rear movement-arm articulation encourages excessive trunk extension during axial loading. This is a common and threatening situation found in many overhead press machines.

Incline Press (Pec Angled Press)

  • No seat belt is provided—a requirement in this exercise to couple-lock the torso.
  • The horizontal handles are too far apart for most subjects.
  • Neither handle pair is ergonomically designed or situated.
  • The machine’s rear movement-arm articulation encourages excessive trunk extension during axial loading.

Biceps Curl

  • Almost no one fits properly in this machine as it is built for very tall people—seven feet tall or more.
  • The seat-back angle is poor and encourages subjects to lean forward or lift their elbows off of the pad. Usually both occur!
  • It provides independent movement arms that ensure motor control difficulties.
  • The handles are angled incorrectly.
  • The resistance curve is excessively difficult in the bottomout and becomes excessively easy from the halfway point to the upper turnaround.
  • It is impossible to align the elbows with the movement-arm axes.

Compound Position Triceps (Triceps Press)

  • This is, perhaps, the worst of the X-Force.
  • No seat belt is provided.
  • It provides independent movement arms that ensure motor control difficulties.
  • The handles are too thick.
  • The resistance is excessively difficult in the upper turnaround while there is almost no resistance provided from the starting position of the positive through 90% of the positive.
  • Almost no one fits properly in this machine as it is built for very tall people—seven-feet-tall or more.
  • It is impossible to align the elbows with the movement-arm axes.

Abdominal (Abdominal Crunch)

  • This machine is patterned after the original Nautilus Abdominal machine.
  • The resistance is excessively difficult in the lower turnaround, making it the most probable X-Force machine to cause injury.
  • It is akin to lying face up (supine) on a roman chair and sitting up with a 45-lb plate on your chest, then going down to parallel to the floor and back up… only with a partner in front of you pushing you over backwards.
  • The leg pads are not adjustable and do not fit most people.
  • The elbow-pad arm rests are too close to the handles.
  • The handles are positioned the wrong way for most people to properly fit them.
  • The stack switches abruptly without a pause in the finished position making upper turnarounds hard to control.
  • Small, short people fit best into this machine, just the opposite of most of the other X-Force machines.

Again we note that the X-Force equipment is:

  • Dangerous for expeditious transition from one exercise to the next. For example, on the leg extension machine, the seat adjustment is on the subject’s right between the seat and the weight-stack side frame. This is difficult for the instructor to manage. Additionally, the movement-arm roller-pad adjustment is on the subject’s left. This permits the legs only to enter/exit to the right in the cramped space between the seat and the weight-stack side frame. This is awkward and threatening to knee stability as the subject must squirm and twist the knees to climb out. Similar obstacles are found in many of the other machines: The pullover foot pedal is too close to the subject.
  • Not workable for either the instructor or the subject. It is instructor-unfriendly.

We hear rumors that X-Force is in the development of a neck machine as well as a lumbar or trunk extension machine—Yikes! It is bad enough that these machines are designed poorly. Moreover, they are made and promoted to be used in a way that represents defective thinking about strength training. Moreover again, now this defective thinking and defective design is going to be applied to the most vulnerable areas of the body. We shudder to imagine the outcomes: Defective thinking integrated with defective machines applied to produce defective bodies!?

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

In this video an X-Force representative at an ISRHA conference explains why the design is devoid of elbow pads as in the Nautilus Pullover. With this he demonstrates the proper elevation/depression of the shoulders during the exercise and also properly—but crudely—explains why this action is problematic to instruct and control by the typical subject. While correct in his criticism, his criticism is not complete. He does not delve into the subject’s confusion caused by the necessity to flex the trunk and pelvis (hip extension). Nor does he explain proper coupling effect for the lower body, although he performs this—probably unaware of the action or the need to explain it. All of this skirts the fact that removing the elbow pads—and thus, direct resistance—does not make the exercise more usable for the typical man and woman.

Note that the off-camera viewer comments that the switch to negative hyperload and to switch back to positive load is “smooth.” It is not.

Also note that proper interpersonal transfer—as when an instructor transfers a load to a subject—requires a non-moving and gradual release from the instructor to the subject as the subject increases effort. This technique requires several seconds to properly and safely accomplish and requires verbal cues. It is absolutely impossible to perform in the time—one second—that X-Force requires to rampup or rampdown, tantamount to a transfer though in violation of transfer technique!

Note also that there are intrapersonal transfers whereby the subject loads himself. For example, the vintage Nautilus Pullover utilizes a transfer bar that is pushed with the feet to then load the movement arm from the subject’s feet to the subject’s arms. The same principles mentioned with regard to the interpersonal transfer apply to the intrapersonal transfer.

With the X-Force, the transfer is between the machine and the subject. Neither the subject or a bystanding instructor control the rate of transfer or cueing of the completed handoff. At least with the Exerbotics machines (mentioned earlier), the subject hears (if he can hear) the revving up of the machine’s motor just prelude to being slammed with the load.

The speed of motion, while not obviously violent, is too fast to teach and instruct. Nor is it slow enough to have good standardization for progression, record keeping, proper cam profiling, etc.

Note the hamming by the representative and the lack of head and neck control it engenders. All this smacks of the typical jock syndrome and poor education that is ubiquitous throughout the industry.

X-FORCE 101 – Gainesville Health & Fitness

This video is a how-to from the Gainesville Health & Fitness Center in Gainesville, Florida. The fitness director says X-Force is “not better than MedX. It is a different way to work out.” He also states that anyone working out on MedX equipment needs a day of rest between workouts, but if using the X-Force, one needs a full week of rest. Why the dichotomy? Recovery needs might differ between subjects, but not as a function of which equipment line is used.

Note that the setup process is inefficient and reduces the efficiency of the workout.

The instructor tells the subject to put her “head back”—almost always the incorrect position for the head in this exercise as it puts the head and neck into an extended position and promotes pushing on the backpad with the head, thus encouraging neck issues and headache.

It appears that the subject sets the weight down and completely unloads at the lower turnaround. This is probably necessary to avoid sudden positive acceleration. It shows the designers do not appreciate the need for continuous loading. And, of course, after about one repetition consisting of an approximate 3-second positive, she resorts to positives of, at best, one second with the use of tremendous heaving, largely relying on momentum to move the weight.

Summary of the X-Force

Since the Nautilus heyday, we have made vast improvements in protocol, in our ability to discuss the particulars of exercise philosophy, and in the tangible design of exercise equipment. X-Force is a degeneration of these improvements. It is an expectation that those of the general fitness community operate with an explosion of creativity but without the necessary critical thinking for problem solution. It is disappointing that some of the leaders of the Nautilus old guard do not know better than to succumb to what is falsely and proudly displayed as superior technology.

Earlier, we mentioned defective thinking in conjunction with defective design. For clarity this deserves expansion.

Defective thinking about exercise—particularly regarding strength training—certainly fosters the poor reasoning for negative hyperloading. But this defective thinking with regard to exercise has nothing to do with most of the faulty details—specified above—inherent in the dumpers equipment, especially the X-Force. The same can be said for the Nautilus Nitro and the Nautilus One equipment lines from which the X-Force machine frames and movement formats were derived.

As Arthur Jones mentioned regarding an automobile: It doesn’t serve much of a purpose to design an automobile that has no doors and windows, no matter how perfect the rest.

IF negative hyperloading is a valid objective in strength training, the X-Force equipment is a poor and dangerous mechanism for its implementation.

This concludes our opinions regarding the X-Force.

{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Russ July 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm

X Force certainly not instrutor friendly——
No interest here as a viable device for supervision in my studio

Thanks guys

Reply

avatar mark July 4, 2012 at 12:14 am

Please, your thoughts on this “X-Force” promotional claim: “… failure to repeat the movement (muscle exhaustion) must be reached WITHIN,(my caps), 60 seconds, or the muscle cell will be forced to change its method of energy deliverance to one that bypasses the uses of oxygen (anaerobic) so that it instead produces lactic acid, which lowers muscle power output….” It seems to me that unless this was true, there’d be no point to even the most perfect “dumper”.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm

(Posting for Ken Hutchins)

Mark,

“… failure to repeat the movement (muscle exhaustion) must be reached within, 60 seconds, or the muscle cell will be forced to change its method of energy deliverance to one that bypasses the uses of oxygen (anaerobic) so that it instead produces lactic acid, which lowers muscle power output….”

This sentence fragment is interesting. Besides it being part of an embarrassing run-on sentence, it exposes several faulty assumptions.

It expresses and applies energy substrate theory as hard, inflexible, and practical fact. It represents the metabolic pathways as an either/or and sequential phenomenon rather than as a simultaneous blend with predominance of one or more pathways as inroading ensues. It presents the illusion that at 60 seconds we are totally out of jet fuel and must switch entirely to coal by the 61st second.

And although this illusion has some degree of validity, especially as we go further out in time (beyond 2 minutes), strict application of this notion renders a time under load that is impractical for almost all subjects. It suggests that the load be such that threatens safety, control and confidence.

The word, “power” must be restricted from exercise discussions. It is a mechanical physics term that must not be applied to exercise. Doing so is a mark of pseudoscience.

The fragment smacks of the need for an exercise device that provides a continuous and meaningful load—without the respite of unload—on the muscles to efficiently inroad their momentary strength to evoke a growth stimulus within minimum time. What equipment could the X-Force people possibly be referring?

-Ken-

Reply

avatar Mel Sanderson July 4, 2012 at 10:54 am

I have worked out at the Gainesville Health & Fitness for several years, always using the MedX and the MedX Avenger plate loading machines. Since the introduction of the X-Force machines, I have noted that they required a much higher level of maintenance attention than the other equipment. I have avoided getting on them, even for a test run. Being 68 years old, I may not have time to recover from an injury like Drew’s.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Hi Mel,

Yes, some of the MedX and the AVENGER will make for a GREAT workout.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Anthony July 4, 2012 at 11:37 am

Great post/criticism. I hated these machines from the first time I saw them.

The biggest give away for me was seeing that they seemed to (arbitrarily) mimic Nautilus equipment without any real explanation or purpose.

That kind of intellectual laziness could only lead to the number of flaws you guys listed here … which may not even be complete!

A few of your criticisms also depart from Bill DeSimone’s work in Congruent Exercise. I’ll discuss those on my blog.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Anthony,

We have been having a internal debate as to which of the Dumpers is the furthest from the direction we are going….some of the team believes the Hybrid Dumpers are the worse choice…personally I believe the purely motor driven machines are the biggest step away. I would much sooner use a barbell. You would be better served to get a nice adjustable barbell set or use body-weight exercise rather than using a trash compactor or a tow motor to pull and push against.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Ken Hutchins July 4, 2012 at 8:00 pm

Anthony,

I agree. Given more time we could be more thorough with the flaws of X-Force. On one hand, once only one or two egregious defects are illuminated, why delve further. On the other hand, the dissection is educational to all of us. It makes us think, define, and articulate the issues.

Ken

Reply

avatar Scott Springston July 5, 2012 at 10:21 am

==Scott==
Ok, these criticisms of X-force seem valid and is good stuff to know but to be honest, how does that help the majority of us? I and most of the readers here are not preparing to rush out to jump on X-Force machines any more than the other wacky electronic controled machines in the prior dumpers series. Unless you feel threatened by X-Force or these other machines and feel the need to spend so much time dwelling on their negative aspects I suggest you get back to trying to convince the reader that the machines you make and the methods you employ indeed do show an advantage in muscle building over conventional methods. Being that Joshua is a bodybuilder and promotes REN-EX machines one can only assume that their purpose is to build large and strong muscles in a safe manner. If there is some other goal in mind like general fitness or whatever then please just say so, so serious bodybuilders who are looking to build muscle the fastest way possible can stop wasting time considering REN-EX.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 11:39 am

Scott,

I’ve answered this already.

We have been consistently asked about the Dumpers and their usefulness for Ken’s protocol. We will move on only when we’ve included sufficient detail in our answer.

We have so much written right now and so much to cover in the coming months. I doubt your comments will change that schedule.

Furthermore no machine, barbell, or exercise can build any muscle.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Scott Springston July 5, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Furthermore no machine, barbell, or exercise can build any muscle.

==Scott==
and I’ve seen this written by you one to many times. Of course no machine builds muscle. It’s a tool to build muscle with. You do love to argue for the sake of arguing. The big question still is do your machines and protocol help one build muscle any better than any of the other major brands. Look around, I am the only one on these dumb forums who has followed you from the start who after all this still seriously thinks there may be something good about your system yet you relish in making statements like my comments will change nothing. Yes I agree with you that my comments ,as good or bad as they might be, will most likely not change anything you decide to do any more than Kens good suggestions changed Jones thinking. Like talking to a wall.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Scott,

We have a plan, we will release information only when it’s time. If you don’t like it don’t read it.

Joshua

Reply

avatar marklloyd July 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Just in case there’s any doubt, I’ve had good use for your dumpers series: I had been seriously considering the purchase of one of the reviewed pieces. I’m not claiming to be typical, but if there’s even the smallest handful of people in a situation similar to mine, I’d hope they’re aware of this forum. Please continue.

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Scott,

A machine does not build muscle…and this “tool” could aide us to either:
STIMULATE
PREVENT
but exercise can only PRODUCE one thing directly and in this regard Dumpers may be best.

Does anyone know the one thing exercise can directly produce?

Ken said it best above:
“The dissection is educational to all of us. It makes us think, define, and articulate the issues.”

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Mark,

We will!

avatar Bradley warlow July 5, 2012 at 10:38 am

How can you not have elow pads on the X-Force pullover machine! come on x-farce ! basic thinking has gone out the window in anticipation to bring about a new line of equiptment or financial gain!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 12:27 pm

I have no answer….my guess is the risk to the shoulder may have been to great when the machine uploads….either way these are a big step backward from Jone’s work with Nautilus and MedX.

Reply

avatar Drew Baye July 5, 2012 at 5:45 pm

When I first saw the X-Force pullover I was shocked.

The combination of a lack of elbow pads, bars too thick for secure gripping, nearly round cam, abrupt hyper-loading at the upper turnaround, and faulty seat adjustments which leave the seat stuck in the top position (both the brand new X-Force pullover and chest fly machines in Gainesville already had broken seats) has the potential to turn this machine into a sort of blunt guillotine. All it takes is for a tall enough person to use the machine with the seat stuck in the top position and lose their grip.

Reply

avatar Russ July 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm

Jones used to say the only thing exercise produces directly is injury. In that regard perhaps xforce may do it better this side of olympic lifting.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm

exactamundo

Reply

avatar Bradley Warlow July 6, 2012 at 1:27 pm

A VERY probable reason for disregarding the elbow pads! most likey they initially tried making the x force machines with elbow pads and injured half of thier collegues in the process!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm

could be

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt July 6, 2012 at 9:32 pm

Ken’s post to Mark really made me think. I have long been a “prisoner” to load so to speak. Prisoner may sound a bit dramatic. Ken’s writing here really hit home.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 7, 2012 at 1:08 am

We all have been at some point…just keep reminding yourself that internal cues always trump external cues no matter what protocol you use.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker July 16, 2012 at 12:41 am

Josh,

Speaking of internal cues and injuries, (I can hear you chuckling already) are you or anyone on the team runners?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine July 16, 2012 at 1:04 am

Hey Ben,

No, we don’t have any runners on the team. My father got me into running 10K(s) around age 11, I did this into my early 20’s and I blame it for some of the joint problems I have. I don’t think anyone on the team does much recreational activity. I think Gus snowboards a couple of times a year and I think Drew practices martial arts.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker July 21, 2012 at 9:30 am

I figured as much.

I recently spoke with a gentleman (in his 60’s) who gave up running for cycling. His words: “You’ll find that most cyclers are past runners.” He quit running due to a “torn meniscus.”

Just casually observing the animal kingdom, I never seem to see any animals running for “good health.” They’re either running to catch something or running away from being eaten. Both instances of high energy output.

It follows that the more one understands intelligent and proper exercise, the less they engage in high impact activities.

avatar Russ Wakefield July 7, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Drew

Blunt guillotine? Yikes a scary thought for a trainer or business owner with such a device on their workout area. With that kind of a potential.

I do like the shiny blue paint on the equipment he says just before the blade is released.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker July 16, 2012 at 12:19 am

Scott Springston,

Metaphorically speaking, if proper exercise protocol is the U.S.S. Enterprise and Josh & crew are a ship full of Spocks, then that would make you Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy.

Sound logic seems to bring out the emotion (in some) and emotion is not founded in logic.

I’m curious, Scott. You seem to come across so vehement in your posts. Do you suffer from exercise anxiety? Are you an Ectomorph? Or are you an extremely muscular type that refuses to except the possibility that there might be a more succinct way to build muscle?

I ask because I have an Ectomorph body type and I once suffered from exercise anxiety. At one time, I desired to be a solid 220 at my 6′ 2″ frame but realized I could only attain this with the aid of steroids.
Didn’t go that route.
Once I was able to let go of the fantasy, I was also able to let go of the anxiety.

Upon high school graduation, I was a buck 42, soaking wet. Now I’m a lean 190; Rather similar to Drew Baye’s B&W photo… Just not as strict as Drew was about the sodium intake, obviously.

What I’m saying is that, at this point, I’m more interested in building my body as opposed to body building. Longevity is more of a focus for me, and I feel that the folks at Ren-Ex are hell-bent on that, too.

I have no doubt that there are numerous ways to build muscle, but this team seems to be relentless in its pursuit of finding the most direct, safe and efficient way to do it.

Reply

avatar Ben Tucker July 16, 2012 at 12:25 am

“accept”, not except the possibility.

Edit fail.

Reply

Cancel reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: