Thu 24 Jan 2013
W.O.W. 1/22/13-Greg Anderson Changed Lives
Posted by Doug McGuff under Uncategorized
I flew out to Seattle this past weekend to Attend the memorial service for Greg Anderson. It took place at a huge gathering room on the Upstairs of Pier 57 above the Fisherman’s Restaurant. There was a huge window at the front of the room that gave an incredible view of the downtown skyline and Puget Sound. There were literally hundreds of people in attendance. Friends and family made up a small percentage of the crowd. The vast majority were clients and students of Greg’s who attended to pay homage because the man literally changed his life.
Over and over again people came up to specifically tell me how Greg had changed their lives for the better. More than anything, they commented on how Greg always assumed ahead of time that you were destined for greatness, treated you as if you had already arrived, all with the intent of leading you there. I can say without a doubt that my proudest moments were the 20 or 30 times that someone came up to me thanking me (and John) for writing Body by Science, not because of the content of the book, but because I had made them aware of the existence of Greg Anderson in the Acknowledgments section of the book, which in turn led them to become clients of Greg.
After the memorial we were treated to a complementary ride on an enormous ferris wheel on Pier 57. Apparently the owners of the Pier and this enormous wheel were dedicated clients of Greg and Anne-Marie’s, so we certainly received the VIP treatment. Unfortunately, there was no time to make it to Ideal Exercise for a WOW. I was really looking forward to David Landau putting me through the paces, but it will have to wait for another time.
After arriving home, I took a day to recover from jet lag and performed the following WOW at the Clemson University Fike Gym.
Weighted Glute-Ham raise
Hammer Leg Press
Lateral Raise (Jrep halves)
Bent Fly (Jrep halves)
DB overhead Press
EZ barbell curl
Triceps Cable Pushdowns
Forearm work.
It was a good workout, but nothing compared to June 12, 1997 at Ideal Exercise. That workout changed the course of my life. If you don’t think providing personal training is meaningful work, then you never knew Greg Anderson.
Post your WOW’s and your thoughts.
“From a joint health / wear and tear perspective, do you think the negative phase should be a scenario of ’slight un-contract and control the lowering’…
Of course, but I disagree that the second part of your description applies to my original post. It applies to other “extra negative” machines I tried, it may apply to “negative only” training, but not what I experienced on XF.
After that, I agree even less, although as much on style as content. You make a lot of sweeping generalizations, –no, I’m not going to list them - from an obvious bias, so there’s no point to debating them.
I have a body of work that suggests objectivity and credibility, unless of course you disagree. From that and my experience, I find the X-Force useful, and the attacks on them and me less so.
@Bill
That’s interesting…I wonder what makes xforce different from the other attempts to add load to the negative?
And I agree, I am biased by my experience and biased toward ’safe and effective’. Not sure what sweeping generalizations you are referring to, and I took no shots at your body of work, your objectivity or your credibility…I was simply *suprised* that you liked a machine that is imposing extra load on the negative, based on my understanding of your exercise ‘train of thought’.
However, if XF is not behaving like typical negative uploading…that changes the perspective of your endorsement. Makes me damn curious why it ‘feels’ balanced between neg/pos? Maybe the disparity between the neg/pos excursion is actually less than advertised? Any thoughts? I know others mentioned friction…is it possible that the negative upload is just giving back what friction is taking away?
Thanks.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just “old school” (the only school). But these upload and offroading “terms,” sound like computer and dirt bike terms - kind of pseudo concepts if you might. Getting back to the point, I used X-Force back in 2009 and well, it’s a Non Factor, as there is 2 circuits in the entire United States? Think about this, a Positive Effort is always there in the Exercise Performed….Just some thoughts…..
Steven Turner says:
I remember reading about A.V. Hill 1920’s research into energy systems when sprinting and running, also cutting frogs legs. It all sounds extremely fascinating but extremely complex.
Mr. Turner
You would think in 93 years we would understand this more full, but sadly, we do not know what the rate limiting step is in muscular performance degradation. Perhaps complex, only because we lack complete information. I for one, will not minimize this issue, much like others have attempted to.
Craig says:
I believe there are a few commercial hip belt squat machines on the market (as I have seen pictures). They allow for narrower stances if desired. Also much easier to load and unload the weight from the belt. One version is sold by Westside Bell Club. I’ve also seen some pretty clever home built contraptions on YouTube.
A leverage hip belt squat would be ideal, plus a slight platform decline allowing a slight leaning backward finishing position at the top.
@ Mr. Tanner,
Context is important, much as is coming to grips with what we don’t know yet. Some of this report may sound like inroad to you, but even inroad is an unproven theory. The fact is, muscle performance degradation after 10 seconds of intense activity, is NOT due to the concentration of ATP inside the muscle cells. We can’t change that.
Secondly, I really like some of your articles, which I find particularly well written. For example, You wrote:
“The Hunch”
“So here’s the “just a hunch” part, where the labcoating begins: maybe people who get great results with HIT do this better than those that do not. I’ve been thinking about this a lot as I’ve ventured into my new experiment and thinking about gains in the past. I’ve been freaky-strong training only once a week and bigger than I am now, albeit not by a huge amount (~10lbs lean mass). It could be that my physiology is spendthift but it also could be that by training so infrequently you’re creating a miniature version of the curve shown above, changing the relative amount of fibers toward a fast myosin expression thus getting way stronger and perhaps a bit larger. Lots of anaerobic stimulus from the incredibly intensive, very brief workouts may have the potential to express a fast twitch machine without adding much mass.”
I declare that last sentence is full of meaning. Perhaps much more along this line of thought will be forthcoming in the future.
Marc
“is it possible that the negative upload is just giving back what friction is taking away?”
Yes…
myself and Jeff M. explained this already…Dumpers crushed the other myths…i’m not sure what the point of explaining this stuff is if people can’t follow.
Under-loaded positives…
@Chris & Craig,
Sorry I missed your comment Chris. Craig is correct in that I think that the lumbar extensor require a particular restraint set-up for the pelvis to isolate them appropriately and thus condition them optimally. Christian Lariviere research has recently supported this notion acutely and studies such as James Fisher’s continue to show that most ‘low back’ exercises that allow trunk extension to be performed do not stimulate improvement in either strength or hypertrophy of the lumbar extensors. A semi seated position 9machine with knees at 90 degrees perpendicular to the floor does not appear to be optimal either) with posterior restraint of the pelvis and a thigh belt seems optimal.
That being said however not everyone has access to a MedX Lumbar Extension (or OriGENE Lower Back revival systems or BackUp Dynamometer) which utilises such a set-up. In these cases I think trunk extension based work should still be performed as there is still the ‘possibility’ that the lumbar extensors may respond. A minority of studies have shown increased lumbar extension strength (when tested in isolation) or hypertrophy of the lumbar extensors, in response to trunk extension based movements. Also in James Fishers study here, despite the average response being poor in the deadlift group there were one or two participants who did improve lumbar extension strength. Although the lumbar extensors generally de-recruit and the hip extensors recruit continually during fatiguing trunk extension based movements there may be some in whom this phenomena does not occur (perhaps due to more favourable anatomical set-ups allowing greater lumbar involvement during trunk extension) and so these people may achieve lumbar extension adaptation from trunk extension. Again, that being said, trunk extension based movement is still important for hip extensor conditioning even if it doesn’t optimally improve lumbar extension.
The RenEx trunk extension I think looks like a great piece of kit for performing trunk extension. But based on the research I don’t think in and of itself it is optimal for inducing adaptations in the lumbar extensors.
In advance I’ll apologise if I don’t respond to any further queries along this line as I’m inundated with marking, teaching and organising the testing and logistics of beginning my next research trial so will have little time for long in depth responses.
Thanks
James
Oh, forget to note that I’ve a few papers in review at the moment discussing the Lumbar Extension/Trunk Extension research further so when they are available I’ll pop them on the blog and hopefully they will cover most questions.
@ Marc
“Some of this report may sound like inroad to you, but even inroad is an unproven theory.”
Indeed; I was not implying in any way that what Weyland states is an endorsement of inroad theory, only that the description of sprint force degradation sounds very much like how inroad is described.
Understand that I’m an exercise science graduate student so I get to work with the “silo” mindset on a regular basis. Weyland is novel in that he sees the energetic components of sprinting as being different than many exercise physiologists who are stuck in lab measurement fantasy land; just because they’re both locomotive modalities on two feet does not mean a model built on distance running fatigue characteristics is going to apply to why sprinters fatigue. This is what Weyland is fighting; he isn’t a muscle physiologists trying to find the rate limiting step of contraction.
The rate limiting step of contraction is multi-factoral; if you’ve ever trained someone with a nervous system disorder THEIR rate limiting step is not in the tissue but in the CNS. It is also well understood that undertrained or novice trainees cannot contract all of their muscle to maximum tension (measured by EMG and twitch interpolation) and even after 6+ weeks of training are still not able to achieve maxmimum tension. It could even be argued (another hunch) that there are trainees who hypertrophy rather than build/increase tension in their available muscle as some sort of proprioceptive protective mechanism (sharpey’s fibers come to mind). We don’t know but I find that exciting.
“I declare that last sentence is full of meaning. Perhaps much more along this line of thought will be forthcoming in the future.”
This is what sprint coach Barry Ross effectively determined from Weyland’s research and applied to his sprint to distance athletes. They deadlift a huge amount for tiny little girls (think 120lbs pulling 280+) and they don’t gain any mass and end up faster as a result. Now they’re already long sprint to distance runners so their ability to gain muscle might be low to begin with (you tend to gravitate to what you are built for) but his goal was to create the most “horsepower efficient engine” possible.
Of course that is for sport performance and tells us little about exercising the totality of the organism for health and longevity. The goal and the equipment determine the protocol.
Great discussion!
P.s.
WOW - a bit of fun at the weekend with my brother
Smith Press Drop Set
Superset w/Press up
Weighted Chins Drop Set w/negs
Barbell Squat Drop Set
Superset w/Bodyweight squat
Plank
All to MMF except BB squat drop sets - stopped one short of failure on each.
I have always enjoyed visiting this website regularly. However,
all the teeth nashing, ranting, personal insults and spitting over simple minutia & contesting terminology and verbage is getting BORING. Train hard, sleep, and eat right isn’t enough anymore? As Art Devany said once, “In terms of evolution, what (really) does a repetition mean?”
WOW
Barbell Squat, full range down to parallel
Leg Press, yielding isometric
Leg Extension, yielding isometric
Leg Curl, yielding isometric
Standing Calf Raise, yielding isometric
As Art Devany said once, “In terms of evolution, what (really) does a repetition mean?”
In my view a repetition is about applying a load to the muscles … in terms of the load applied it can be either good or bad … or somewhere in between … in terms of stimulating a muscle.
Frank,
well in regards to Evolution generally , Reps mean nothing, but in regards to evolution of lifting, they mean everything, because everything flows from the rep, and without the rep{s}
there is nothing, - lifting wise
Brian,
“Yielding isometric” ob the Standing calve raise.
How are you performing these, and what are the results if you dont mind.
Ive tried both SCR with a Safety squat bar and on vertical legpres, - Heavy Static contraction style, but the compressive forces due to the weight one can lift put me off, plus i actually seem to get better results from slow high rep dynamic work
@ Chris
The weight stack is only 300 lbs and I can hold it for around 150 seconds. I move it into position (on ball of foot, heels up) were the actual distance off of the stack is maybe 2-3 inches and stand with it until I can’t keep that position. The compression forces haven’t made me any shorter yet, and my time under load has increased a little every session. Just experimenting…
@ Chris
The machine is one of those U-shaped shoulder horn type things, and yes I realize there are probably better ways to work the calves without the compression forces of this device.
James,
We covered this in the “Game changer” article on the RenEx Trunk Extension.
@ Josh
When is that bodybuilding talk you gave going to be available? I want to do a competition in the next 2-3 years,i.e., novice,open, and masters all at the same event and am curious to hear your views.
Thanks Josh,
I had read the article already. It doesn’t really cover the issues of whether the lumbar extensors are adequately addressed. Only pre/post isolated lumbar extension strength testing, MRI/CT of lumbar extensor CSA/density would really show that. Its just speculation otherwise. The lumbar extensors are ‘active’ during any trunk extension movement, but whether they are conditioned chronically is a completely different question. Clark et al. have shown that they de-recruit during trunk extension. The totality of evidence would suggest that the RenEx Trunk Extension likely does not optimally condition the lumbar extensors. Thats not a bad thing as I’m sure it addresses hip extension very well. It may in fact condition the lumbar extensors very well also. But unless you have data to publish showing that the lumbar extensors specifically are conditioned then I’ll have to remain understandably skeptical.
@James Steele,
Would one’s ability to contract the lumbar extensors play a major role in how well these machines/exercises conditioned these muscles? For example, if I know how to contract my lumbar paraspinal and multifidus muscles, what it feels like, would doing this against resistance (such as in the typical hyper-extension exercise-which employs a lot of hip extension, but does allow for resisted lumbar extension if it’s done correctly) serve to be enough to condition these muscles without pelvic restraint?
@Thomas
I think thats definitely a possibility.
I believe Paul Hodges has done some research if I recall using real time ultrasound feedback to train multifidus activation during ’stabilisation’ exercises. The RTU improves ability to activate the multifidus and such exercises have been shown to induce CSA increase. But as in most cases there is a lack of comparative studies with approahces more consistently shown to induce lumbar extensor hypertrophy i.e. isolated lumbar extension. Studies showing actual improvements from ’stabilisation’ exercises are in the minority. The majority show no improvements. Also without RTU for feedback I’d remain skeptical of whether peoples ‘feel’ of whether they are engaging the lumbar extensors is really that valid. There are many sensations that can be felt about the lumbar region. I speculate that much of the ‘feel’ in the lower back in deadlifts and other trunk extension based movements for example resides from the tranmission of force across the thoracolumbar fascia.
Hi James,
I believe that we’ve adequately dealt with the hip restraint myth.
Cark et al results are not relevant to this discussion because they did not use 10/10 or supportive equipment.
Ask yourself for a moment…do the biceps de-recruit when flexing the elbow? if the answer is no then how do the lumbar extensors de-recruit when lumbar extension occurs?
There is something to be said for the ideas we have about flying under the radar, arresting reactionary forces,complex innate movement synergy pattern, variable and balanced resistance etc…
I’ll go as far as saying that the MedX lumbar machine restraint systems gets in the way of optimal recruitment…let me break every grammar rule for a moment…the way we do the Trunk Extension exercise is such that the lumbar extensors can’t NOT be involved.
I would expect you to “remain understandably skeptical”. You shouldn’t be anything but…..at the same time using these studies as the proof is comparing apples and oranges..the way the studies are done prohibits the muscles from being activated until restrained…the restraint is a cover up for the mechanical issues… the only thing that gives them a chance to get any meaningful loading is the harsh restraint.
This argument is actually very similar to the claim the we need 40% more on the negative….just cover ups …ignoring the real issue.
I’ve used the MedX medical lumbar since 1998…i’ve seen what good it can do and i’ve also seen where it creates road blocks that can EASILY be removed when we pay attention to complex innate movement synergy.
I have both machines in my clinic….i’ve been able to compare against myself and a large number of clients.
This could be a very long discussion, if you really want to get to the bottom of it post your position over on RenEx and we will cover it thoroughly… we can even write an article showing case studies where MedX failed or created mechanical roadblocks, yet this was overcome when the restraints were removed.
You guys have to be careful with all of the studies…they can really box you in and blind you to a self evident truth….If you want to strengthen the Lumar Extensors provide exercise that keeps them adequately loaded through the required ROM….its really simple…Be smart…if not used every where at least use 10/10 with neck and back.
Muscles are far less effective when mechanically blocked and neurological signal is muted…nothing works any where near optimal with this idea of blocking for isolation.
I don’t want to waste more time on this here….if your serious about discussing shoot a post over on the RenEx page.
That being said no one will be convinced without the experience.
Joshua
I wish the MedX hip restraint system worked as good as advertised…it would have saved me a ton of money in R&D.
We could have just used their gear or copied the restraint.
Brian,
Any day now…edited and ready to roll
ugh…post above is full of grammatical errors…please accept my apologies..i do these between apointments….another reason why i don’t want to take on the long answers here…i’d rather just write an edited article even if it takes 10 times as long
Thanks James, That is very interesting!
Hi Josh,
What do you mean by “complex innate movement synergy” with regards to the lumbar extension movement?
Lost 1.6 lbs in 5 days
horizontal leg press
Weighted Palms Up Chins
Weighted Dips
First day training with RPE/Mentzer Routine. I’m using Mentzer’s/BBS Big 3 routine but stopping 1-2 reps shy of failure. We’ll see how this goes but as long as progressive resistance is followed it should work well.
What about the SuperSlow System Linear Spine machine entering in this discussion? Josh … you know it well.
John
Thomas,
Thomas,
Muscles work together…what is the sum of their actions? what movement pattern encourages them to act together? how do we synchronize their actions?
Complex innate movement synergy pattern.
===============================
as opposed to –what can i block to make some thing else work harder….the nervous system does not work that way..it acts up when you do.
John,
yes, for sure….LSF is built in the same vein.
Joshua
Joshua,
Don’t worry about spelling errors. This rapid back and forth between participants is how progress is made. Errors are exposed and thinking is refined. This sort of back and forth will make the more formal writing better.
@All,
The tone that has developed is much improved. Still contentious topics discussed, but everyone holding back from the ad hominem attacks. I was going to post a new WOW, but will put it off to let this roll a little further.
@Josh,
Got it. Thanks.
@ Josh
Just placed my order for the technical manual. Will post questions/comments here as they arise.
When Joshua is speaking take notes boys and girls!Just like in school.
@Lucas,
You come off as an annoying side kick, one that Josh (and the rest of us) roll their eyes at when they speak. Just like in school!
I would be interested in hearing David Landau’s thoughts on training the lower back.
@ Josh
Thanks for the reply, mine will be quick for lack of time (also I don’t mind continuing the discussion here where it began for the benefit of everyone else if you are happy to do so).
I wasn’t suggesting the Clark et al. study was evidence against it. It is an acute study and so just gives some idea of what’s going on in the ‘black box’ to help explain the result of RCTs showing trunk extension does not confer adaptation in the lumbar extensors. Also the protocol they used was not so different really as the ROM for the roman chair was only 30 degrees and they used a 2/2 protocol making it 15 degrees/s. If the RenEx trunk ext is 122 degrees ROM then a 10/10 protocol is 12.2 degrees/s. Not a great deal of difference really but could be a clincher I suppose.
Really, the focus on acute effects isn’t that valuable though in figuring out what works for producing adaptations. There are a lot of assumptions made. The whole idea of “complex innate movement synergy” sounds quite plausible, but I’d like to see that evidenced. It would be very informative for everyone if you’d mind spending some time putting together a blog post showing some of the evidence you have for greater lumbar extensor recruitment using the RenEx Trunk ext vs the MedX Lumbar Ext or other similar set-ups. EMG amplitude data or spectral analysis would be great if you have it as again I remain somewhat skeptical of people’s ‘feel’ of whether their lumbar extensors are working and certainly to what degree.
But also, every acute EMG study I’ve seen shows the lumbar extensors to be active during any ‘low back’ exercise regardless of performance. What really tells us if it is of any benefit though are the RCTs using training interventions and performing pre and post testing of isolated lumbar extension or using imaging or EMG spectral analysis for isolated fatigability determination. This would be great to see if you have it too. Case studies along this line would be appreciated, but again you’ll have to excuse me for still being somewhat sceptical of case-study results in isolation (pun intended) as I’ve seen individual participants of larger trials have positive effects from non-isolated exercise and have speculated upon why that might be.
I appreciate that’s asking alot but I’d be thrilled to see it all if you have the data.
Thanks again,
James
I train my “Lower Back” at the end of my Workout with a Strive Medical Lumbar. It is as good as anything that has ever been made, if not better. The cost of this Machine was….Very Inexpensive and does the trick. So my Strive Lumbar “experience” if you might is just fine for now.
‘When Joshua is speaking take notes boys and girls!Just like in school’.
That is exactly what I have done for a long time,and not only when joshua speaks or writes but also when a lot of others do. You see,for me it’s about reading,thinking about it for some time and see if it fits with the rest of my knowledge.If not I rethink everything related and certainly implement ideas in my own workouts only to see what it is about.Last week I ordered the renex manual and I’m looking foreward to it.As a matter of fact I also listened to joshua and al about inroad and the endstop technique etc. and I implemented what I got from the talks in my workout yesterday. These minutia issues I got out of the talk made a great difference regarding inroading and I already controled for some time a few key issues regarding this.
My workout yesterday:
nautilus 2st legpress
nautilus next generation seated legcurl
nautilus 2st neck
nautilus OME calves
abdominal
I started to pay the price for inroading a few hours after the workout,walking became a new experience.Today fatigued quadriceps and a feeling in the calves as if I weaked up some fibers in them.
ad
WOW Yesterday - Strive Medical Leg Curl - Medx Leg Extension - Nitro Hip Abduction - Life Fitness Leg Press - Nautilus 2ST Overhead Press - Medx Arm Cross - Deep Bar Push-Up - Tru Bicep Pulldown - 2ST Preacher Curl - Nautilus Home Infimetric Bicep - Strive Medical Lower Back
ad ligtvoet,
Reading the RenX manual will be a great journey for you.Guarantee!Read everything you can from Ken Hutchins.
@ David
Thanks
Guys
The RenEx Manual Vol 1 is an excellent read, unlike some books it does need to be re-read a number of times but that is the great thing. The value of any material one reads is in the proof of the pudding, I have found that I have gained massive benefit from making adjustments to my current protocol/form/machine entry-exit/mind set etc due to studying the manual. I tip my hat to Josh & the boys for the scientific & evidence based approach.
Pete
@ Skyler
I’ve thought about this for some time. Perhaps your post brings my thoughts to the fore.
Barry Ross has indeed captured “inroad” training for the purpose of sprint training. By his focusing on the alactic energy pathway (~ 10 seconds) Ross trys to recruit the fast twitch fibers. Ross uses low reps and minimal sets minimize hypertrophy. He is more into HIT training than he realizes. Alactic training is great for anaerobic sports such as football, and sprints, however there are other muscle fiber types.
Endurance is a desirable quality, especially as one ages. The body thrives on variety, albeit to what extent, who knows, most likely as it varies with the individual. Training like a sprinter or a football player is likely of limited value for a 40 year old businessman. Training all available fibers may be of value here for most of the population. Some evidence exists that a variable rep range is beneficial for additional strength. However, any time I use high reps exclusively, I reach a diminishing return of effort quickly, I quickly stall out.
We can agree that low reps build the fast twitch, but medium reps will work fibers during the glycolytic energy pathway, and still…..unworked fibers are there.
Endurance fibers, with the help of the aerobic energy system may be best worked with high reps. One can alternate rep schemes for variety and fully recruitment of all fibers by ultizing knowledge of all these energy pathways.
I haven’t yet fully experimented with rotating rep schemes, but I will.
James/Brian,
thanks for your replies
It appears from this study that the shape of the cam or lack of one makes no difference in gains:
“Abstract
To compare the effect of constant resistance (CR) and variable resistance (VR) training on full range-of-motion (ROM) strength development, 22 men and 27 women (age = 26 +/- 5 yr) were randomly assigned to either a CR training group (N = 17), a VR training group (N = 17), or a control group (N = 15) that did not train. The CR and VR groups trained 2 to 3 d.wk-1 for 10 wk. Subjects completed one set of full ROM (120 to 0 degrees of flexion) bilateral knee extensions with an amount of weight that allowed 8 to 12 repetitions during each training session. For the VR group, resistance was varied with a cam supplied by the manufacturer (Nautilus). For the CR group, the cam was removed and replaced with a round sprocket. Prior to and after training, maximal voluntary isometric torque was measured at 9, 20, 35, 50, 65, 80, 95, and 110 degrees of knee flexion. Analysis of covariance indicated that the VR and CR groups gained strength at all angles (P less than or equal to 0.05) when compared to the control. [table: see text] There was no difference (P greater than 0.05) between the CR and VR groups at any angle, and the magnitude of strength gained was similar (P greater than 0.05) among angles for both groups. These data indicate that both CR and VR knee extension training elicit full ROM strength development.”
So, Ken, Josh, Gus and the rest of the RenEx gang - do you have any evidence to counter this?