.

Curves can be validated through a long term study through Baylor University, a leading medical university. Go to: http:..www3.baylor.edu/HHRR/Curves/ Now YOU put your money where your mouth is.

In the time it took you to write what it is you wrote about Curves you could have gone to Curves and gotten a wonderful workout and one that will limit your chances of injury because the machines are designed for women that are of average build and strength. Basically what I'm saying is that what you wrote is trash at best and if you want to challenge my 2 Curves I invite you to come in for a couple of workouts with myself as your personal trainer. You won't get injured but you will leave feeling as if you just had the toughest workout ever in a 30 minute time frame.

I should have watched the video before saying what it is i said in my last post because i would have been much more confident in what I had said before and would have added that Curves is a superior workout compared to what it is you are offering. Good luck with your buisness.

Here is a link to Baylor University's website that explains how Curves works!

http://www3.baylor.edu/HHPR/Curves/

Fred- Oh well, I just signed up for a year at Curves, because in 30 days, 30 minutes a day 3 days a week I lost one inch in my thighs, one inch in my abdomen, one inch in my upper arm ( where that female flab hangs out:)) and 1 inch in my hips. Thanks for sharing another form of exersise, we don't have anything like that around here.

Fred:

Thanks for posting my rant on your website.  Instead of trying to respond to the different comments on this site, I feel it would be more productive and efficient to discuss the relevant issues in person, either at my facility or on the phone, primarily because it is quicker to talk than to type or text.  Also, the verbal exchange can unfold in real time, vs. post a comment, wait for a response, post again, wait again.  If anyone wants to contact me, I'm in Victoria at 250-885-9558.

Thanks very much.

Marc Noel

Hi Katerina...I have more than doubled my Strength going with Super slow equipment,plus Marc my personal coach has 30 years experience as a personal trainer. He just thinks Curves is not doing the right thing for their customer'swith their machines, and is concerned. He is a trained fitness equipment designer and worked with Nautilus for many years as a personal trainer. I said I would post his rant to show people there are better options.

I think there is a Super Slow trainer in Florida, I'll ask Marc, in the meantime Google Super Slow in Florida and see what turns up.

Marc has several Women clients he coaches.

Cheers, thanks for visiting!

In the event Katerina, Kip, and Mijules check back to see if there are any other posts on this site, here goes.

Katerina, just to clarify, did you lose those inches from JUST the Curves workout, or were you also watching your diet?  We can use arithmetic to figure out how many calories different activities consume, and I'll tell you right now, no matter how many any activity may consume, one can easily overwhelm it by
eating more.  An analogy is: it takes about three minutes to fill a car's gas tank, but it can take a week to burn it off.  The same applies to body-fat.  It is much easier to not eat something in the first place, than it is to try burning it off through exercise.  When people lose body-fat while participating in an exercise program, one of three things is happening.  They are either doing so much activity that it's actually having a significant impact, but then they probably don't have time to do anything else, or they are saving calories eaten by being occupied by different things (how many people eat while jogging or swimming or cycling?), or else they have reduced their caloric intake at the same time, and that is what is having the primary impact, not the exercise.  If you want to know what works, change only one thing at a time.  Try ONLY exercising and see how much body-fat is lost, then switch to ONLY dieting and you'll see that dieting is much more effective.

Additionally, the SuperSlowZone headquarters is in Altamonte Springs, Florida.  It is the center of exercise research in the world, and if you can’t get the best workout there, you won’t find it anywhere else.

Kip, no offense, but how do you know who the machines are designed for, or who designed them?  Are you privy to the history of the equipment, or to the rationale behind their design?  In my facility, I tell people that the general public doesn’t know anything about equipment design, and the way I prove it is to ask anyone “What’s wrong with my leg press?”, to which they reply “I don’t know.”, to which I reply “Why don’t you know?”, then they say “Because I don’t know anything about equipment design.”  A-HA!  What did I just say?

As I said in my rant, none of the things I said can be denied.  The lack of seatbelts can't be denied.  The fact that there is only positive resistance can't be denied.  The abduction/adduction pads loading sideways through the knee joints can't be denied.  What exactly did I say that was wrong?  What exactly was “trash?”  It’s funny how people not involved with Curves are quite taken aback when I tell them about the problems with Curves, but anyone who is involved with Curves gets offended.  They never address the issues I raise, they just get mad.  This is called ad hominem argumentum -- attacking the person saying something instead of what they say.  I don’t understand.  The advocates didn’t invent Curves.  They just do it.  Is it not possible that something might be wrong?  If I’m wrong, point it out, don’t just go off on an unrelated tangent. 

Regarding your comments about the toughest workout ever, I highly doubt that, due to the inefficiency of the equipment.  Yes, you might be able to get someone to expend a significant amount of energy, and tire them out by thrashing around, but that doesn’t mean they are obtaining appropriate exercise benefit.  It is possible to perform large quantities of work while not stimulating the desired mprovements.  An example is ditch-digging.  It can provide more work than most people can stand, but if you were to analyze it for what fitness improvements it can promote, you’d find it sorely lacking.  Exercise is performed to improve fitness, but unless you know what fitness is, you won’t know what to do to improve it.  Physical fitness is comprised of six factors: muscular size, strength & endurance; cardiovascular efficiency, flexibility, bone strength, increased injury resistance, and leanness.  Aspects such as power, speed, agility, dexterity, balance, coordination, and the like fall under the heading of skill/skill-related, and, are therefore, not included in physical fitness, as they are specific, not general attributes.

Back to your proposed workout -- you couldn’t pay me enough to train on Curves equipment.  I’ve spent approximately 30 years involved in the pursuit of fitness and exercise, and I’ve seen most everything.  Did you know that there is a predecessor to Curves equipment called Hydra-Gym?  We used to have it in Victoria at the old Nautilus Club on Cook St.  Although that was about 15 years ago now, and I don’t remember all the design details, I do know that they at least had adjustable resistance.  Even so, I hurt my left elbow on the biceps/triceps machine when showing my cousin how to use it, because of the whipping action that occurred when going as fast as possible when changing directions.  Also, Apex Fitness in Victoria manufactures their own line of Curves-style equipment (with adjustable resistance) for their own Curves-type facilities (Expressfit).  Not that this validates the whole thing.  They just don’t know any better.  In fact, if you were to look at an Apex catalog, you’d swear you were looking at an old Nautilus catalog.  Yet, sometimes, Nautilus would discard an idea/design, then someone else would pick it up and produce it, not realizing that it was garbage.  Consider an art gallery showing an abstract painting, and people are fawning over it.  Then the artist comes in and says "It's upside-down!", but nobody noticed, because they don't know what it's supposed to look like.  The same thing applies to research and equipment.  If you don't know what to look for, it may appear to you that nothing is amiss.  But once you learn about equipment design principles (of which there are currently 23) and research methodology/ critical thinking/experimental method, you never look at equipment or research the same way again.

Mijules, just for your information, the Baylor studies don’t validate Curves; they just show what they did research on.  Also, don’t assume that Baylor knows what it’s doing.  Just because it has a fancy website and is a university doesn’t mean it knows what’s good and what’s bad in exercise.  One example is the
fact that they reference the National Strength and Conditioning Association and the American College of Sports Medicine, two organizations that are both known for erroneously advocating numerous activities as exercise.  Anyway, if you want to go over the studies with a fine-tooth comb, you’re more than welcome to contact me and we’ll discuss them.  I did give some of them a cursory glance, and my impression about three of them (one being another link to a “Biomechanical analysis of Curves”) was that it seemed that they were sponsored by Curves, judging from the Curves logo that was on each page.  If so, then that invalidates the studies, due to bias.  Aside from that, most people are impressed when they see research studies, regardless of whether they are valid or not.  Also, unless you know what to look for, you can’t interpret the data.  Believe it or not, some people publish something, even if it's invalid, because they are under pressure to produce.  Yes, some women lost some body-fat, but they were also on reduced caloric intakes.  Also, in the Biomechanical Analysis, the final recommendation was to perform 15 – 20 reps in 30 seconds.  Assuming that a person did 20 reps in 30 seconds, that would dictate a certain average speed of motion.  Since the resistance is dependent on movement (no movement, no resistance), and the faster you move, the more resistance you get, we can assume that doing 20 in 30 seconds generates more resistance than doing 15 in 30, since you are moving faster.  Now, if you always do 20 reps in 30 seconds, then the speed will always be the same, which means the resistance will always be the same.  If the amount of reps (20), the time (30 seconds), and the resistance (dictated by the speed, which is dictated by doing 20 in 30 seconds), remain the same, then that means the person is NOT getting stronger.  This would be the same as determining a person can lift 100 lbs. for ten reps, then they never lift more than 100 lbs. for ten reps.  Since they can already do it, their body has no reason to get stronger.  PLUS, if a person comes in the door to start with Curves, and they can initially do the recommended 20 reps in 30 seconds, then they will never get any stronger than the first day they walked in, because there will be no increased demand, either due to longer time (thus equaling more reps) or more reps in the same amount of time (meaning faster reps).  The body gets stronger because its strength reserves are threatened when we weaken due to exercise, but we need to weaken below a certain point; otherwise, the body won’t improve, because it still has enough strength in reserve.  When we get stronger, we must increase the demand to compensate for the improvements.

My opinion (to which I’m entitled) is that the people who run Curves are not exercise instructors; they are business people.  If they were exercise instructors, they would know better and not be advocating Curves.  Sorry if you don’t like to hear that.

Once again, please address the specific comments in my post.  Getting upset with me doesn’t dismiss what I said.

Fred:

God forbid I should get things right the first time.  I got the text right, then forgot to add my name.  Would you please delete the first post that doesn't have my name?  I re-posted it immediately following with my name.

Thanks very much.  This should be it.

Marc

Michelle,

Thank you for your corroboration regarding changing eating habits.  Wonderful to see someone else realizes this.

Bear in mind that many people make progress in spite of their efforts, not because of them.  Many people train in a dangerous (meaning dramatic potential for getting hurt, not that they will definitely get hurt) and inefficient manner, but still make some progress.  That doesn't mean that they couldn't do better if things were improved.  How did we arrive at the methods and equipment available today?  By analyzing deficiencies and trying to improve on them.  Something else to consider is: an activity is not dangerous only if NOBODY gets hurt.  It's not a matter of degree.  It's not like, if less than 30% of the participants get hurt, that's acceptable, but if 30 or more get hurt, it's not.  This relates to your comment about showing the proof of injury.  I have neither the time nor inclination to gather that info, but physics and common sense (!) indicate that moving that fast (.75 seconds per direction per rep when doing 20 reps in 30 seconds), whipping when changing directions, possibly slamming into the stops at either end, loading through the spinal column, swaying/pivoting due to the alternating motions and trying to bend the knees sideways (among other things) are things to avoid.  Although people may do some things that carry dramatic injury potential, they may be of the attitude "Oh, well.  That's the way it is with this workout."  Wrong.  Instead, switch to something else that minimizes or eliminates risk.  Some people like to run, but also incur injuries to their knees, hips, ankles, and/or lower backs.  They think that it's part-and-parcel with that activity, but what they SHOULD do is STOP RUNNING!  The minor fitness benefits obtained through running aren't worth the drawbacks.  Much better overall fitness can be had through proper strength training with none of the hazardous drawbacks.

Considering all the drawbacks to the equipment and method, why on earth would I even bother trying a workout?  I don't need to jump off a cliff to know that the fall would kill me.  I don't need to do a Curves workout to know that it's not worth my time, due to the equipment deficiencies.  Also, considering the different problems regarding potential for injury, I'm not going to try the workout to see if I don't get hurt.  If the abduction/adduction pads are in the wrong place, and place sideways loads on the knee joints, I'm not going to try it to see if I maybe get hurt.  Instead, I would modify the equipment so that the pads were above the knees.  That would solve one problem.  I can't believe the Curves attitude that, even though I've pointed out all these problems, no one wants to accept it or do something about it.  As far as I'm concerned, this is irresponsible behavior, and just makes those people appear foolish.  As an analogy, if a person says "I'm going to eat this food." and I say "But it's poisoned, and I can prove it.", and then, even after I prove it, they decide to eat it anyway, is that smart?  The only way to learn is to open your mind and accept the possibility that you might be wrong about something.  Investigate, do research, question things -- don't just accept them, because one could end up doing something dramatically wrong.

Please explain how the bone mass/density has increased (solely due to the workout) if the load doesn't increase, as per my comments regarding the rep count staying at 20, which keeps the resistance the same (since speed remains the same).  Just placing the same load on the bones won't keep them increasing, because once they've increased to support that load, they don't need to get any stronger, unless the demand increases.  Otherwise, just the same loads from daily living would increase bone strength, and we know that's not true.

Generally speaking, women don't have nearly the potential for muscle mass as do men, primarily because of testosterone levels and muscle belly lengths (the longer the muscle belly, the more potential for mass).  Muscle gains don't happen overnight.  Many women are scared that they'll get too big, but it would take a while to achieve that, and to prevent it, all they'd have to do is monitor themselves in the mirror, then when they reached their goal, switch to maintenance.  Now, it can't be had both ways, that women will get stronger while not getting bigger, not if their genetics dictate otherwise.  If they have the potential, strength gains will result in size gains.  Thankfully, for those women who don't want to get dramatically bigger, most women don't have the potential to be gigantic.  But in Curves' case, since the equipment is not adjustable, and Baylor University's recommendations are to do 20 reps max., this means that, once a person reaches 20 in 30 seconds (if they don't at the start of training), they will never get any stronger, since the demand (resistance x time) doesn't increase.  If they aren't getting any stronger, they aren't adding any more muscle to increase their metabolisms and aid in body-fat loss.  Also, there would be no signal to the body to spare lean tissue and burn primarily fat because the demand wouldn't be severe enough.  If they aren't gaining more muscular strength, then their bones aren't getting any stronger.  How does all of the foregoing result in improved fitness over time?  I wouldn't be very happy if it turned out that I'd been going to a place for years, with no OBJECTIVE way to measure progress, only to find out that I didn't improve much beyond the first few months, due to the equipment deficiencies.  The women may FEEL or THINK that they are accomplishing something, but they aren't really.  Yes, they're expending some energy and time, maybe socializing and encouraging each other, but the physical benefits are limited, if not non-existent, once again, due to previous statements.

I have spoken with several different people who've commented on others having gotten hurt doing Curves workouts.  Also, at least one doctor told one patient to stop going or he would dismiss her as a patient, since she'd repeatedly been hurt doing it.  If all of my equipment-deficiency points can be verified, why would you buck it, instead of trying to determine how to eliminate the problems?  More than likely, some women come into Curves and either can't or won't max out on the machines at the start.  If they can't, then, yes, they may be getting somewhat stronger, but then only up to the point where they've maxed out their rep count.  Considering the inefficiencies of the equipment, much better results could be had in the same time frame with regular weight machines, due to the ability to progress the resistance, and to also be able to quantify performances.  Why does it have to be that, although I've pointed out numerous problems, people figure that if nobody's gotten hurt yet, that's okay.  Do you need to wait until someone gets hurt due to what I've pointed out, then say "I should've listened?" 

I don't appreciate being accused of saying this stuff because I'm trying to make a buck.  That could be said if I was lying about them, but show me where I am.  Please directly address any of the points I've raised.  Realize that I'm not pointing out these problems because I'm trying to get people to come to me.  Because I do personal training, I can only handle 20 people a day max., which is 100 clients total, since they train once-a-week.  I can't train all 400,000+ people in Victoria, but everyone does need to know what problems there are, either so that they can avoid them or else fix them.  Boy, I just don't understand why Curves people take it personally.  If anything, you should be complaining to Gary Heavin about the design.  I didn't cause the problem.  I'm just pointing it out.  And the points I've raised are not opinion, they are observations.  Feel free to deny that there are no seatbelts, or that there's only positive resistance, or that the knee pads on the abduction/adduction bear against the lower leg, etc.

Just for anyone's information, today (July 10), my strongest female client performed lower back with 285 lbs. for eight reps (one set, 10 seconds up, 10 down) leg press with 300 lbs. for six reps (10 up, 5 down), pull-down with 160 lbs. for five (10 up, 10 down), chest press with 110 lbs. for seven (10 up, 5 down), compound row with 210 lbs. for eight reps (10 up, 10 down), and calf raise with 295 lbs. for ten reps (10 up, 10 down).  Compare these stats with a Curves subject.  The resistance has to be heavy enough to sufficiently tax the body to stimulate an improvement.  If the resistance is too light, no stimulus will occur.  Out of the 9+ years I've had my facility open, only two women have ever felt they were getting too muscular, at which point, they just switched to maintenance.  Most women won't put on tons of muscle, but they will experience dramatic strength gains, which is the way it should be.  Curves just isn't hard enough to do much, if anything.  If you don't believe, it test a non-Curves subject's strength on conventional equipment before training, then have them train at Curves for six months, then test their strength again.  Don't be surprised if not much has happened.  I challenge anyone to do this.  If Curves is valid, then something dramatic should happen.  Give it a try.  By the way, it is a poor argument to say that Curves is meant to get women only a "little bit" stronger, because they don't want bigger muscles.  You could still get women a "little bit" stronger with conventional training, without the numerous drawbacks.

My workout works for everyone, not just me.  And it does it without any of the Curves drawbacks.  It was designed that way -- not with Curves in mind, as it existed before Curves -- but through a process of elimination, careful observation, research, testing, re-testing, and contributions from mechanical physics, motor learning, and classical biology. 

I plan to contact the researcher at Baylor who recommended the 20 reps in 30 seconds bit to grill him about his recommendations.  He obviously didn't think it through that performing the same rep count with the same resistance equals no strength gains.  Also, if it were me, and I knew all the drawbacks to Curves equipment prior to doing those research projects, I wouldn't have even bothered doing them.  Baylor... well, it's anyone's guess what they would have done.

Michelle said:

"The fact that so many of our members at Curves are now off of blood pressure medication, have (with doctors proof) stronger bone mass, are losing weight and feeling so much better about themselves is enough for "just a business person" as myself to stay in this business.

If the majority of my members are women who would never step into any other form of gym or workout facility, then so be it. Some members are women who would otherwise be sitting at home or behind a desk with no other form of excercise. While none of my members are interested in building huge amounts of muslce mass, they are all interested in losing body fat and toning up."

No offense, Michelle, but these statements appear to be attempts to justify what you're doing.  While some of your clients might not step into another type of facility, that's just because they don't know any better.  After learning about Curves' drawbacks, how many people will go there?  And if they do, that is foolish, because they could get appropriate benefit elsewhere without the drawbacks.  Nobody is justified doing something this inefficient and potentially hazardous, based on what I've already said.  Instead, if those people running Curves are interested in doing that type of work or providing that type of service, they should investigate something else.  If they did, they'd at least have a long list of things they DON'T want in a facility. 

My clients experience the same things yours do, so that argument is invalid.

One more thing: losing body-fat is primarily a dietary issue, and they don't need to go to Curves to watch their food intake.  Also, there is no such thing as toning.  Toning is a marketing derivative of a proper biological term called tonus.  Toning was invented by Vic Tanny in the 1950s as part of an endeavor to get women to come into gyms.  Tonus is the residual tension in a muscle at volitional rest.  Increased tonus requires two things: stronger muscles and decreased body-fat.  While your clients might be losing body-fat primarily due to changing their eating habits, it is unlikely their muscular strength is increasing dramatically, once again, based on my previous comments.

Although I had said earlier that I wouldn't respond to comments here, I've flip-flopped, and decided to keep opening my big mouth. 

I feel that it is a travesty that some ignorant individuals (meaning they don't know any better) who might be thinking about opening a business, learn about Curves and how successful they are without being made aware of the drawbacks.  They only see the earning potential.  If it were me, I wouldn't touch a Curves or Blitz (Curves for Men) with a ten-foot pole, but that's because I know what the problems are.  Most other people don't.  Every now and then, I meet someone who is under the impression that Curves is great, then I enlighten them, to which they respond "I didn't know that."  Of course they didn't, because nobody told them, because either nobody knows or cares.  Well, I care, and will continue to speak out about it.  Please don't get me wrong.  I am not singling out Curves.  I feel the same way about aerobics, running, Pilates, stabilility-ball training, and the like.  I just happen to be talking about Curves here.  By the way, I can argue against those other activities, too, in the event anyone wants to discuss them.

To the average woman going into Curves, nothing seems amiss, because they don't know what to look for.  But to someone who knows something about exercise, strength training, and equipment, it's a different story.  In my own case, because of my experience, knowledge, expertise, and education, the first thing I do is analyze equipment when I first encounter it.  I look for any flaws so that I can see how it measures up to a particular standard.  Now, some might say "Whose standard?  Who says you're right?", and they'd be right to ask.  At that point, I would explain what I've learned over the years, and how certain design principles have been determined through observation, experience, and the process of elimination.  For example, how many ways can you move your body?  Near-infinite.  How many ways do you need to move to stimulate an improvement?  Only the most-efficient way.  This falls under the heading of "Track muscle and joint function", which means, figure out what the muscle does, then build the equipment to track that function.  In the case of the chest muscles (pectoralis major), their function is to draw the humeri (upper arms) from a position somewhat behind the torso, elbows elevated to approximately ear level, down and across the torso.  It is unnecessary to develop exercises that work only part of the function, like dumbbell flyes or cable crossovers, because the correct exercise will work the muscles in the most-efficient and productive manner possible, thereby rendering the other exercises redundant and superfluous.  Some people might say that doing certain movements will shape their muscles a certain way, but that's incorrect.  Genetics dictate what the ultimate muscle shape will be.  We know this because, if someone were dissatisfied with their particular development, all they'd have to do is change exercises and they'd rectify the problem.  Also, everyone doing a particular exercise should look the same.  However, this isn't the case.  Look at the Mr. Olympia line-up.  Even though everyone is doing the same workout (pretty much), they all look different because of their genetic dictates.  Occasionally, we see a champion bodybuilder with a lagging body-part.  Some will criticize, saying that he/she should work on that area more.  Now, does it make sense that they would address every body-part except that one?  This would be tantamount to wanting to lose a competition, vs. win it.  The reality is that he/she has worked that part, but it won't improve any more, because it has reached its limit of development, either in size or shape.  Anyway, the foregoing tells us we don't need to do multiple exercises for a body-part, only the best one.  This is just one of the design principles that goes into a piece of proper exercise equipment.

And another thing...

It is probably safe to say that the average Curves facility owner has the right motivation and best intentions.  They wish to provide a place for women to work out and obtain exercise benefit.  Unfortunately, the mechanism and method are flawed.  The owner(s) could provide the same service without the numerous drawbacks already enumerated, by researching the subject and learning about what to look for, and also how to discriminate between good and bad equipment, along with good and bad methodology.  As previously stated, it's highly unlikely that anyone interested in opening a Curves facility has investigated the validity of both the equipment and the method.  It would be very surprising if someone were aware of the drawbacks yet still chose to pursue the issue.

UPDATE:

Having spoken with some Curves people about the findings of the Baylor studies (see previous posts), I encountered several things.  One woman, when told that if reps, time, speed, and resistance do not increase, then neither does strength, stated "Well, I'm sure that strength is still being gained."  I replied, "No, it isn't.  In order for strength to continue increasing, the demand must also increase."  She finally said, "I see what you mean."  A-HA!  Somebody at Curves actually acknowledging that there might be a problem.  It has been said that the true scientist always wonders if he might be wrong; whereas, the non-scientist never considers the possibility he might be wrong.  This is one major problem with Curves people: the fact that they never consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with either the method or equipment.  Look around you and observe what goes on in the strength-training world.  Debate continues to this day in different magazines and publications, yet if Curves was so good, wouldn't everyone have jumped on the bandwagon by now, considering Curves came out in 1992?  Most people who do conventional strength training either don't care about Curves enough to speak out against it, or else don't know what the problems really are, but know enough to not do it.

Moving along, the other thing I ran into with two Curves people was that they commented they had a different demographic than either regular facilities or my own.  I therefore put it to them: If my clients are trying to get stronger, lose body-fat, address flexibility and cardio, improve muscle "tone" and appearance, increase bone strength, among other things, what exactly is it YOUR clients are trying to accomplish that is different?  We both have the same demographic, and, therefore, we should both be providing the same thing, which is efficient muscular loading in a safe, productive manner.  If the muscles get stronger, so will the bones.  By working through a full range of motion (with negative resistance to provide muscular stretching), their flexibility will be enhanced.  The muscles are what place demands on the heart and lungs, so cardio will automatically be addressed.  If the person increases their muscle mass by getting stronger, then their metabolism will increase, aiding in losing body-fat (which is primarily a dietary issue).  If they are stronger, their muscle "tone" will increase, and if they've lost body-fat and gained muscle, they will look better.  If we both have the same objective, then we should both be providing the same thing. Also, some comments have been that Curves subjects are women who aren't trying to do this or that, and that the workout provides for them.  A proper workout will provide for everyone; it will be up to the individual as to how far they take it.  Proper exercise is the same for everyone, regardless of who they are or what they do.  We are all human beings, have the same muscle/joint functions (on which proper exercise is based), and, therefore, all have the same requirements.  While some might argue that an older, out-of-shape woman needs a less demanding workout than an athlete, this is incorrect.  They both require a SAFE, demanding workout, so that neither is injured, but both obtain productivity.  It will just be at different levels and different amounts.  It is inappropriate to assume that a harder workout is more dangerous and injury-prone.  Done right, it doesn't have to be.  The hardest workout possible can still be injury-free, if done right.  Dramatic effort doesnt' hurt people.  It is the reaction to that effort that hurts them -- throwing the weight, breath-holding, grimacing, gripping tightly.  If a person's maintains their composure/form, then the worst thing that will happen is that they will get so tired they can't continue.  They won't get hurt.  Imagine climbing an endless flight of stairs.  You can't go forever.  You eventually stop when you're worn out, but you're not hurt.

The last issue was actually encountered on a Curves message board, and is with regard to caloric expenditure.  I don't know where Curves is getting its numbers from, but one woman commented that she burned over 600 calories during one workout.  That is impossible.  A 154-lb. person consumes 100 calories to run a mile.  Since the entire 30 minute workout is not comprised of continual, consistent muscular work, considering warm-up, cool-down, stretching, and transition time between stations, even if we allow 24 minutes for a workout (eight machines with eight elevated pads = 16 stations/circuit, performed three times), that's 48 stations performed at 30 seconds apiece, which is 12.5 calories consumed each station on average.  This is equivalent to that 154-lb. person running a mile in four minutes (world-class performance), but also running at that same speed/rate (15 mph) for 24 minutes, thereby covering six miles in 24 minutes.  Even if it is possible, the runner would be working a hell of a lot harder than a Curves subject, especially considering what I've learned about how subjects work at a level that is "comfortable" for them.  If it's comfortable, it won't be demanding enough to stimulate an improvement.  It needs to be sufficiently hard for the body to respond.  The bottom line is: Curves is outright lying that these women are burning such high levels of calories.

From what I've seen of the Curves Smart display device, it appears that the resistance has not been made adjustable.  Rather, the display is meant to prompt users to perform more reps in the same amount of time, either as their fitness improves, or else if they change the goal settings.  This conflicts with the Baylor study that suggested 15 - 20 reps max per 30-second set.  Otherwise, form deteriorates (not that it was good to begin with). 

Regarding the "Range" setting, if this is meant to prompt users to maintain a consistent range of motion, then my guess is that, prior to the Smart upgrade, some subjects were shortening their range so that they could do more reps in the same amount of time, which is, of course, cheating.

Something else to consider is: nobody has perfectly equal strength on both sides of their body.  Yet when the subjects use certain machines which have independent movement arms, they are trying to move both sides at the same speed (some of which are in an alternating fashion), which dictates a certain resistance imposed on each side.  Assuming that the mechanical parts are machined identically (maybe not), then each side would see the same resistance at the same speed, even though both sides are not equally strong.  This means that it would be harder on the weaker side, causing the body to shift that way, plus the weaker side would tire sooner, causing either that side to slow down or else stop.  If it slows down, then that introduces a dramatic motor-control issue, moving both sides at different speeds in an alternating fashion.  If it stops, does the user keep going with the other side until the set is finished?

Since the only way to increase the resistance is to speed up, when one does, two things are changing: the force output and the speed.  This throws in a second variable which will make it more difficult to track progress (did the person get stronger or was it that speeding up contributed more momentum?).  Ideally, only the force output should change (more resistance); the speed should remain the same for consistency.

Good Day...Not sure who you are, the first thing anyone should do before starting any exercise program is to discuss it with your Doctor. I've been doing Slow Motion for over a year with Great Results, I have personal trainer at my side throughout my hole routine, it very safe and effective. I've done weight training and I have not seen the same positive results in the same time frame, not to mention it only takes 20 minutes out of my week. Sounds like you may have a health issue, best to see a Dr, do not Blame any exercise program because get dizzy and vomit, Strange reaction to Lifting weights for only 20 minutes and while having a personal trainer standing beside you all the time..

Hello Fred:

Yes it was strange but is happened too often.  I am in good health, was cleared to work out by my family doctor ( who by the way opposes the Super Slow Method) and was training directly beside my "guild accepted, level 19 ??, Ken Hutchins trained trainer" !!!  The heavy breathing lead to light headiness and nausea!!!  I guess it is not for everone....the only thing that drives me crazy are these guild guru trainers who are so convinced Super Slow is their religion !!!!

Hi Andy....Personally I do not understand if your Dr cleared you... how would a supervised twenty minute work out makes you dizzy and be sick, My trainer is always is right beside me all the time and very careful with me.

I would get another medical option, sounds serious. As for Super Slow, it's a time issue, I prefer to not spend all my personal time after work in the Gym, some people like that. I have referred several people none of them have had a issue and are happy with the results., I was referred and those people still belong, it's about Efficient Strength Building, Nothing odd about the work out, basically on Nautilus type machines, but more up to date. The whole idea of increasing weights is not unique to Super Slow , their system is time efficient, and proven, I read up on the work out before going, I have increaseded my Strength by a lot, and I'm please about that. The Program does everything they said it would for me.

There is no"This is the Only Program" Hype, they do not need to do this"

Andy:

I'm sorry that you got a headache(s).  Did the instructor forewarn you of the potential prior to your first workout?  SuperSlow instructors are trained to advise subjects of exercise-induced headache (EIH) prior to the start of the first workout.  Maybe you pushed yourself harder than appropriate at the time.  I warn first-timers of this all the time.  Everyone is welcome to run themselves into the ground during the first workout, but if they can't get out of bed for three days, or else they make themselves throw up or pass out, it will be their own fault.  If, instead, they gradually work their way up to maximum effort, they will most likely be okay.  That has been my experience.

Do you really think that our intention is to hurt people?  Why would we go to all the trouble of advising people of a bunch of different safety issues, only to hurt them later?  SuperSlow was originally developed as a safer method of obtaining the same results as conventional weight training.  Over the years, it has been refined to its current point, where numerous safety topics are covered prior to the first workout, and reminders are always mentioned when necessary.  I, myself, forewarn people that I'm a big nag and a mother hen, and that they can hit me if they want to, but I would rather have them annoyed and alive, vs. I didn't say anything and they're injured or dead. 

It is interesting that almost no one comments on the various injury rates that are part of other exercise activities, but as soon as a SuperSlow advocate starts talking about them, someone has to try to find something bad about SuperSlow, most likely because they don't want to hear that what they've been (or are) doing is less-than-ideal or has significant injury potential. 

Just for your information, I have been running my facility for almost ten years, and only two people have run into problems during that time.  One got a headache, and the other ALMOST got one.  The first was doing calf raise, which isn't usually associated with EIH, and his form fell apart in the pursuit of another rep, instead of maintaining his composure and allowing fatigue to set in.  He caused the problem with his behavior, not because the exercise/method was dangerous.  Effort doesn't hurt people.  It is their reaction to it that hurts them: breath-holding, grimacing, gripping tightly, and throwing the weight. 

Although an individual can sustain an EIH doing numerous other activities, SuperSlow is the only method that actually talks about it, deals with it, tries to prevent it, work around it, and/or rehabilitate it.  The primary contributing factors are breath-holding and being crushed in the equipment, primarily leg press and trunk/lumbar extension.  One critical error some subjects make is saying that they are set up okay, when they really aren't.  For example, if I ask if a person's seating position is okay, and they say yes, but they're actually too folded up in the machine, then if they encounter a problem, they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.  This is why I say to people "If I ask you if you're okay, and you say you're okay, I'm going to assume you're okay!"  It is better to err on the conservative side, meaning, open up the positioning to reduce intra-abdominal pressure.  We can still get productivity with a reduced range of motion.

Occasionally, one will encounter information that says to hold one's breath during barbell squatting, as it can help stabilize the spinal column.  While the increased air pressure might press in on the spine and try to keep it from buckling, it won't help with supporting the spine vertically, and reducing pressure on the column, down through the disks, plus by the time you'd get enough pressure in there to add meaningful support, you'd probably blow your brains out.  Think about it: inhale as deeply as possible, hold your breath, then try pushing on your tummy (relax the abs).  You'll find that it still compresses, because the increased air pressure isn't really that high.  If you were able to increase the pressure high enough for
dramatic support, you'd end up hurting yourself through the stratospheric blood pressure increase.  This is along the same lines of someone invoking discrepancies to get out another rep, while simultaneously incurring injury due to the discrepancies.  No one really cares that they got another rep out if they get hurt.

Would you be so kind as to explain why SuperSlow is dangerous?  The force on the body is as low as possible, while still being productive -- much lower than explosive/ballistic weight training, and lower than conventional weight training.  The exposure is as little as possible, so you don't need to worry about over-doing it.  We never try to see how much one can lift for a one-rep maximum; we always do a minimum of four reps to keep the weight down.  We encourage people to breathe freely to ensure that they don't raise their blood pressure in their heads any more than necessary (As an aside, we cannot avoid elevating blood pressure during exercise.  All we can do is minimize the elevation).  We keep people cool to minimize potential for heat stroke/exhaustion.  We advise people to NOT have gum or candy in their mouths during training, so that they don't accidentally inhale it.  We advise subjects
to keep themselves adequately hydrated.  We also advise them to keep their heads still while exercising, so that they don't irritate or injure their necks.  How exactly is SuperSlow dangerous?

SuperSlow is NOT the only way to go; otherwise, nothing else would either exist or produce the same results.  However, it is the safest and most-efficient way to go.  If someone wants to do something less safe and less-efficient, help themselves.  No one gets twice the productivity from doing twice as much.  There is an upper limit to how quickly the body can respond, and to what degree.  Anything beyond the minimum amount necessary to stimulate an improvement is just wasted effort and time, plus the more you do, the greater your chance of doing something wrong and possibly hurting yourself.  It takes only a second to get hurt, but it can take six months to recover.

I've been doing superslow with Marc for four months.  In that time I've noticed astounding improvements in my strength and endurance.  The workout is intense but it only lasts about twenty minutes and then I bask in the afterglow all week while my muscles grow stronger. I actually enjoy everything about the workout--and Marc's relentlessly logical view of it is perfect for a personal trainer.

I just thought I'd add my 2 cents as a middle aged woman.  Now I must go eat bacon, pancakes and apple pie!

Ellen,

Thanks for your comments.  There'll be a little something extra in your pay envelope at the end of the week.

I am a big proponent of proper driving, primarily stopping at stop signs and red lights, not tail-gating, and proper signal usage.  A while back, I had pulled over to pick up someone's garbage can out of the middle of the street, and as I returned to my car, I saw a woman run a stop sign behind me.  I flagged her down, and said "Would you mind actually stopping at the stop sign, instead of just rolling through it?"  Guess what?  She gave me the finger.  I didn't do anything wrong; I just pointed out to her what she did wrong.  This type of response is analogous to that from some people when their exercise method is criticized.  Instead of accepting and admitting that some things might be wrong, they get defensive and mad, and launch personal attacks.  If one reads the Curves proponents' comments above, you'll see what I mean.  As I previously stated, please tell me where I'm wrong with regard to my Curves comments.  The same thing applies to conventional weight training.  Many people think that conventional/traditional training is correct, and that something that deviates from it is incorrect.  That line of thinking assumes that conventional is correct in the first place, and that's not necessarily the case.  I have noticed a peculiarity with some people who seem to think that just because they CAN do something (in weight training), they should do it.  Imagine someone picking up a barbell for the first time, and without any guidance, experiments with it to see what can be done.  While they might be able to use it in a bunch of different ways, that doesn't mean they should.  Some of the movements might be redundant, ineffective, unsafe, or any combination thereof.  A good example is barbell squatting.  While it may be the most productive exercise, due to how much muscle is involved, it also loads through the spinal column, and has the lower back as the weak link, which may limit productivity.  In my opinion, it is irrelevant how productive an exercise is if it is going to hurt you.  In my own case, I have two damaged discs in my lower back, from barbell squatting, dead-lifting, and car lifting years ago.  At the time, I didn't know any better, but now, I would never recommend squatting to anyone.  They are unnecessary, because productivity can still be had with a properly designed leg press machine without dramatic spinal column loading.  Since there is an upper limit to the amount of improvement, even if it takes a bit longer to get there by doing leg press, it will be much better if the person doesn't get hurt along the way.

Marc:

Thanks for your reply.  Somewhere in your thicket of verbal foliage there are some good points and are well taken.  Perhaps the SuperSlow trainers here in NYC are a bit more proud ( delusional) and keep preaching their "guild, Ken Hutchins gospel with a certain mightier than thou attitude.  In any event, I am back to my 3 day a week splits, 3 sets of ten, normal speed, non-panting breathing, and feel great.  No EIH's, no medieval machines and crazy positions to get into.....

Good luck with your business.....

Andy:

Thanks for the good wishes. 

I wish to make some comments about the current subject.  They are intended to give food for thought, not only for you, but also for anyone else reading this. They are not meant to start a debate/argument.

The greatest benefit comes from the difference between doing nothing and doing something, but doing twice something does not beget twice the results.  John DeFendis and Steve Michalik did something in the early '80s called "Intensity or Insanity?", where they were doing 60 - 70 sets per body-part.  Now, if we assume that they did only two body-parts per workout, and did three workouts per week, that's a minimum of 360 sets per week.  Compare that to doing six sets total in a SuperSlow Generic Routine workout.  Does anyone really think that doing 60 times as much (360 divided by 6) will beget 60 times the benefit/progress?  If I gain an inch on my arms doing one set, will I gain 60 inches doing 60 sets?  Of course not.  There is an upper limit to progress and to how quickly it can occur.  If one gets the same results doing one, two, or three sets, then why would anyone do more than one? 

Regarding the notion of "normal speed", there is a tremendous assumption that conventional/traditional training is correct and/or valid.  However, it is more likely that many things came about without actually thinking about them.  Periodically, one can read in the media about how someone is training at conventional speed, then they say that it's two seconds up, four seconds down.  This is NOT conventional speed.  It is standard Nautilus protocol, which was the predecessor to SuperSlow.  Conventional speed has never been defined; just look around at any facility and note the different speeds used by different folks.

Years ago, I was reading on a message board about weight training, and someone posted information about a particular research study.  Although it was brought up for another reason, I noticed something critical about it.  It compared training frequencies; at one end was three times a week, and at the other, once every two weeks.  The thrice-weekly gained 41% in strength, while those training once every two weeks gained 25%.  The average person looking at this would say "41 vs. 25%?  The first group did better!"  HOWEVER, if we analyze it, here's what we get: Let's say both groups started off at 100 lbs., then went to 141 and 125, respectively.  141 divided by 125 is 1.128... approximately 13% greater, not the 16% that seems apparent at first glance.  Also, those training thrice-weekly had six times the opportunity to practice and refine their skills.  If we attribute half of the apparent demonstrated strength gains to skill refinement, then that leaves us an approximately 6% improvement for working out six times as much, or a 1% improvement per workout (keep in mind that each workout is 100% of a workout).  So they got a 6% improvement for doing 600% training.  Is it worth it?  It depends on the individual.  Personally, I don't think so.  Plus, training three times per week does not give three times the results, but it does mean three times as much time spent at the gym, three times the work and, hence, fatigue, and three times the opportunity to do something wrong and possibly get hurt.

Regarding medieval machines, I take umbrage at this.  In many cases, the machines are cutting edge.  They are designed around the human body.  This is necessary because you can't adapt the human body to equipment, which is what is required with free weights.  Free weights have three advantages over machines: They are cheap, low in friction, and adjustable.  However, they are nothing more than adjustable bricks that are easier to handle/manipulate.  Think about it: One must orient their body in a certain way to take advantage of the resistance provided by a barbell.  If you want to work your chest with a barbell, you must position yourself lying down on your back to lift the weight vertically, because gravity is always pulling the barbell down, so the only way it provides resistance is straight down.  If you want to work your upper back with a barbell, you either have to bend over and do barbell rowing, or else hang upside-down and pull the barbell up, like doing an upside-down pull-down.  In comparison, machines can provide the appropriate resistance direction (horizontally, vertically up or down, or on an angle) while keeping the user upright, which is important to avoid excessive blood pressure elevation in the head, due to inhibited blood return from the head to the heart, when the head is lower than the heart.  Also, barbells provide resistance in an unbalanced manner, meaning that the resistance variation does not match the strength curves of the different target musculatures, whereas machines can be fitted with resistance-varying devices (i.e.: cams) to provide the appropriate resistance variation for greater efficiency and productivity. 

Regarding "crazy positions", please give examples.  In my facility, people normally perform trunk extension on a lower back machine, leg press, pull-down, chest press, compound row, and calf raise (on leg press).  How are these "crazy", or any more crazy than doing lunges with a barbell on the shoulders, decline bench presses, bent-over lateral raises, hyper-extensions, preacher curls, etc.?

While there is a ton more to say about this, I will leave it here for the moment.  If anyone wants more information about the superiority of machines over free weights, please contact me at marcnoel@shaw.ca.

Andy:

Three more things: I had asked you to specify why SuperSlow is dangerous, but you didn't respond.  I ask you again. 

Second, most weight trainers don't even consider that benches, squat racks, preacher benches, etc., lean toward the machine side of things.  See what exercises can be done with a barbell and nothing else... no racks, benches or the like.  Along the same vein, it is puzzling that a person might like a crappy leg extension machine that is plate-loaded, but can't stand a selectorized unit that is much-better designed. 

Last, if you're willing, please advise as to whom the SuperSlow instructor was that trained you.  I'd like to have a talk with him/her.

Andy:

I went to your suggested link (above), and the author has most of the information wrong.  This is similar to other articles that have been posted in the past.  It is unfortunate that this continues to occur. 

Below, I have inserted the pertinent points from the article, along with my comments on them.

"...exercise program that makes claims to get people into great shape in as little as thirty minutes a week. Some of the folks who sell super slow training even claim that since you will receive optimal results by doing one set of an exercise per muscle group each week, you won't work up a sweat while exercising. Therefore it isn't even necessary to change into exercise clothes to do the super slow routine."

As I said before, training thrice weekly does not beget three times the progress; unfortunately, it appears that no one criticizing SuperSlow will address this issue.  I challenge anyone to get ten times the benefit from doing anything ten times as much, regardless of the exercise method.  There is an upper limit as to how much and how quickly the body will respond, so anything beyond the minimum training required is just wasted effort.  If a person gains an inch of muscle working out once a week, they won't gain three inches training three times per week, nor will they achieve those gains three times as quickly.  Also, it has never been said that one won't sweat; rather, we are trying to minimize heat build-up and sweat production by dressing briefly and using air conditioning, fans, and de-humidification to facilitate the evaporation of sweat, so that it can cool the subject.  I, myself, sweat, even though the room is 62 degrees F and a fan is blowing on me.  I've often wondered about those facilities allowing people to train in street clothes, as it is not recommended when learning to become an instructor.

"...you exercise your muscles utilizing an exaggeratedly slow movement both in the positive; or concentric phase of the exercise and the negative; or eccentric phase of the exercise you will realize superior benefits in both building lean muscle tissue and reducing bodyfat..."

It has never been said that one gets superior results from doing SuperSlow, if superior is to mean greater mass or strength.  One will achieve the same thing they would doing anything else, as ultimate potential is genetically dictated.  What is said is that SuperSlow does it in a safer and more-efficient manner.  Think about it: one can do anything for only one set.  SuperSlow does not have a lock on "one-set."  However, the slow speed of movement and low acceleration keep the force as low as possible and still be productive, plus the minimum generation of momentum keeps muscular loading as high as possible, for the greatest loading efficiency. 

"The exercise principle that the super slow philosophy is based upon is the principle that states that increasing the time a muscle is under load will stimulate that muscle to develop more quickly."

This author is baffling.  I know of no principle that states this.  SuperSlow doesn't necessarily increase the time under load; it just keeps the force down and efficiency up.  There is an upper limit to how much time to spend under load; beyond a certain point, the subject will shut it down due to discomfort and loss of concentration, so we are not trying to go too long.  Just long enough, and that applies to any speed of motion, because, if you don't do enough (not the same as "more than enough"), then the body won't be stimulated to improve.

"The amount of load, or resistance that is used in performing any exercise is at least as important as the speed at which the exercise is performed in stimulating muscular development. Unfortunately, when one adopts the super slow training style there is a corresponding reduction in the amount of resistance that can be used in performing the exercise."

Why is the weight reduced?  Because the subject can't use momentum to their advantage.  This means that using a heavier weight does not necessarily mean the muscles are seeing a heavier load.  It is muscular strength moving the weight slowly, vs. strength PLUS momentum to move it fast.  For those who are performing SuperSlow on a regular basis, they know that they start off with a certain weight for a minimum amount of time/reps, then, over time, they are able to go longer. When they reach a certain maximum time/reps, they are graduated in weight, so the load increases.  THIS IS PROGRESSION.  Either the weight or time under load increases.  What else is there?  IF a SuperSlow practitioner weren't increasing weight or time/reps, then it could be said progress is not being had, but I've yet to see it happen.  Some people stagnate at times, but most people eventually move up.  In comparison, little attention is paid to consistent, efficient form in conventional training, and it appears that when someone demonstrates a performance improvement, it is not solely due to increased muscular strength, but also to a change (read: degradation) in form.  I've had numerous nay-sayers come in, trying to shut me down with their arguments, but when I get them on a machine and enforce slow movement, guess what?  They can't use as much weight as they thought.  Slow strength is directly related to fast strength; it's just that the two use different amounts of weight.  Slow trainees have an advantage, because it is always easier to speed up to lift more than it is to slow down.  When we encounter a ponderous load, our natural, instinctive reflexive reaction is to yank, heave, or throw it -- not to slow down.  Why?  Because we know from experience that it will work.  Daily living is not performed with strengthening in mind.  Heavy items are moved because of the necessity to re-locate them, not to stimulate an improvement in the body.  This is akin to subjects whose form falls apart as they approach failure, because they want to keep going, instead of allowing the fatigue to happen and let the movement grind to a halt.

"...all things being equal an exercise routine that requires the exerciser to move through the concentric and eccentric phases of an exercise at a faster pace will help the individual to reduce bodyfat more rapidly."

While this MIGHT be true, we don't even worry about calorie burning during the workout, because no activity burns a significant amount of calories.  When people embark on a weight-loss (meaning: body-fat) program, they usually incorporate a reduced-calorie diet and an exercise program.  The diet has the major impact, but the exercise gets the credit.  They are changing two variables.  Burning 500 extra calories a week by running a mile a day for five days is seven times less efficient than eating 500 fewer calories per day for a week.  I performed an experiment a while back and was able to ingest 1,200 calories in one minute.  Even if one could expend 1,200 calories in an hour, that would still be a 60:1 ratio.  It took 60 times as long to burn it off as it took to eat it.  This is why we advise people to not eat it in the first place, vs. trying to burn it off through exercise. 

"The equipment that these centers use are most often a group of selectorized exercise machines that attempt to work the different body parts in isolation from each other. Most of the equipment functions no differently than the equipment you will find in any commercial fitness center."

Obviously, the author has never seen or used dedicated SuperSlow equipment, or else they would not have made this statement.  Conventional equipment is not designed with slow movement in mind.  The primary issue is the resistance curve, giving one more where they are stronger and less where they are weaker.  The only way to determine the appropriate curve is by minimimizing the contribution of momentum.  One example is on a pull-down machine.  Most every pull-down machine has a virtually flat resistance curve, meaning that it is the same at the top and bottom of the handle's travel.  However, we are not equally strong in all positions.  We are stronger at the top and weaker at the bottom, so the resistance should decrease as we pull the handle down.  People don't notice a problem with conventional pull-downs, because faster movement generates enough momentum to help them into the bottom position.  If they were to slow down, they woud note that it would be a lot harder at the bottom, even though the resistance remains the same.  If people try to do SuperSlow on conventional equipment, they will eventually run into an impasse with it, and won't be able to progress unless they speed up or yank.  If anyone wants more details, feel free to visit my facility, which has dedicated SuperSlow equipment.

"...does not enhance functional fitness."

Yes it does.  Muscular strength is the only productive factor in human movement.  Everything else is supportive.  Functional fitness doesn't really mean anything.  Strength is strength.  How it is applied is a separate issue.  One does not need to perform every conceivable movement to promote improvement in the body or to prepare the body for every eventuality.  Do we need to have someone periodically shoot a gun at us, so that we can train ourselves to jump out of the way?  This is nonsense.  Additionally, the author's comments are similar to some people who say that training slow makes you slow.  This is like saying people who walk can't run.  Our muscles are quite capable of reacting whenever necessary.  Is there any event that anyone can think of where we wouldn't be able to react physically?  It appears that the author is referencing some Pilates information, primarily about activation, stability, and working as a unit.  This is invalid.

Andy:

The linked article you provided says nothing about why SuperSlow is dangerous.  For the third time, please back up your statement as to why Superslow is dangerous.  If you're not going to respond, please say so, then I'll stop asking.

Andy:

To add, the author commented about being able to fire muscles fast (actually, quickly; quick refers to time, fast refers to speed), in the event someone slipped on ice, so that they could right themselves.  Two problems with this.  First, fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscle fibres does not refer to speed of contraction, but to fatigue rate.  Fibres are recruited in a progressive manner, so if the exercise is performed long and hard enough, eventually, all available fibres, both fast and slow, will become involved.  The stronger a person is, the faster/quicker they can move, because they can accelerate quicker, due to increased force production potential.  Compare one person pushing a stalled car to five people pushing the same car.  The five can get it going quicker and achieve a higher speed than the one, because there is more force available.  The same with stronger muscles.

Second, we don't need to train for every conceivable action in order to perform those actions.  The author's reasoning about falling on ice is flawed, because if it were necessary to train for every event, then we would need to practice slipping and falling on ice, in order to improve our reaction to it. This, of course, is a bunch of nonsense.  This is similar to needing to perform every possible exercise for a certain body-part, in order to ensure complete development.  This is unnecessary, because no matter how one trains a muscle, it still grows the same.  This is genetically dictated.  If it were possible to change a muscle's shape, then if a person were dissatisfied with their development/appearance, they'd just have to change exercises and things would be better.  An example of this idea NOT working is to look at the Mr. Olympia line-up.  Although everyone is doing pretty much the same workout, they don't all look the same, due to genetic dictates.  If they could change muscle shapes, then everyone doing the same thing should look the same.  As I've said before on this blog, does it make sense that a pro bodybuilder would work on everything except his biceps, or lats?  If he doesn't have adequate development in a certain area, it's not due to trying.  It's because his body won't co-operate.  He has reached the limit of his development.  He might be able to get bigger, but he won't be able to lengthen his lats down his sides more, as was commented about Paul Dillett, former Mr. Canada, at times.  How about Chris Dickerson, 1982 Mr. Olympia?  His biceps were tiny, yet he TRIED to improve them.  They just wouldn't.  What about all the black bodybuilders with small calves, a trait that is very common?  They might have bigger everything else, but most can't get larger calves.  Why was there a rumor that Flex Wheeler had calf implants?  Couldn't he just build them up through training?  Etc., etc., etc....

MARC

I sure hope you type fast. WOW you a writting machine about Curves I have not read all this, not enough time. I can tell you I tried curves for a while, and very quickly hit a plateau.  I have just had enough of my own weight fitness areas.  I live in Ontario.  I am eatting well for, balanced and better than I have in along time, and adding execrise in for now it shall be the treadmill, too busy for gyms here, truely.

question for you is Hydroxycut Weight loss safe? Does it help? you seem to know lots.

Connie,

Thanks for your comments.  I AM frustrated about Curves, because there are so many drawbacks, none of which are personal bias on my part.  Most of the general public doesn't know about the problems, and most Curves people don't want to know.  This doesn't make sense to me.  Why would someone want to keep doing something wrong?  It is not the Curves people's (aside from the creator) fault that these problems exist, so I don't understand why they are taking it so personally. You'd think they'd be grateful that someone cared enough to examine things and make these observations, then telling them.

With regard to Hydroxycut, I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about it to really comment.  I will say, however, that, when I've seen ads for it, there has been small print at the bottom of the screen or page that says it is to be combined with a low-calorie/fat diet, exercise, and, in one case, other muscle-building products.  So, when you add it all up, you end up with four variables.  Most likely, the diet is what will have the major impact on body-fat loss.  Figure it out: if the Hydroxycut burns 100 calories a day, the exercise burns 300, the muscle-building products increase metabolism by 100, but the diet cuts 1,000 calories (for example), which one did the most?  The diet.  As I tell numerous people, it is easier to not eat it in the first place than to diet it off.  If it were me, I would just cut the calories.  When one starts using muscle-building products, first of all, they need to be doing strength training to take advantage of them, so if YOU are only going to use a treadmill, you probably wouldn't get much out of them.  Second, it becomes an issue of where to stop (adding in products)?  "Hmm, maybe I'll try this, and I've got to get some of this, and, oh, this looks good..."  Before you know it, $ 500.00 a month out of pocket, plus who-knows-what contribution to body change, along with potential side effects.

Regarding the exercise portion, it won't contribute much to fat loss, and if one tries to do enough to make a significant difference, then they might run into over-use problems.  At that point, it might take a second to get hurt, but it could take six months to recover from it.  One of my clients was recently showing off on an ice rink, fell down, tore one set of quadriceps muscles and bonked his head.  He hasn't been able to work out for two months (so far). 

One peculiarity about fat-burning products is, why would the body burn more calories than necessary?  The reason it burns calories (fuel) in the first place is because some type of work (biochemical or mechanical) is being done.  It doesn't just decide to light a fire and burn off excess fat.  My concern is with regard to the mechanism employed with fat-burning products.  Although Hydroxycut might not be the same as Ephedra, that product was found to be harmful.  This is why you see product ads stating "No Ephedra."  It might be that Hydroxycut acts as a type of stimulant, which might be harmful to the heart, and if it causes body temperature to go up significantly (due to the burning of extra fat), one might end up cooking themselves.

Here's a link to read about Hydroxycut: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/06/043643.php .  Watch for the words "might, may, and perhaps."  What I mean is, if the text says MAY help, that means it has not been proven.  The author alludes to this, and concludes that Hydroxycut buyers should "beware!"

Marc thanks for your feed back.  I sure hope you can type fast.  I used Hydroxcut years ago with Ephedra in it. LOVED it to tell you the truth. But did not full get the risk I was playing with.  I guess I was not a mom and was invincible, know I now there is more than just me in the world that needs me.  Hence the reason I need to get in better shape.  I appreciate you caring enough to write me back.  P.S. Today I order Turbo Jam and I  can not wait to get at it!

Toshiba:

The primary stumblilng block when trying to discuss the foregoing is the reluctance of people to consider the possibility that whatever they think they know about exercise JUST MIGHT BE WRONG!  This is like when confronting someone when they run a STOP sign.  Instead of apologizing and saying that they will be more careful in the future, they just get defensive, maybe swear or flip, etc.  The same thing applies when telling some people about their pet activities.  One can't deny the different things said about those activities.  They are not opinions, but facts, based on scientific analysis and observation.  For example, it cannot be said that running two minutes per week will get you the same benefit as doing leg press for the same amount of time.  Yet, leg press will stimulate a much greater improvement than that running ever could, plus it will do it in a much safer manner.  If, after being informed about the inherent dangers about a particular activity, a person still decides to pursue it, then that is akin to being shown that a food is poisonous, but still eating it.  To each his own.

I am just trying to enlighten people as to some different aspects about exercise.  I don't need to do every exercise-type activity to be able to assess them.  Physics and common sense can help towards that end.  Running is a high-force activity that can result in over-use injuries, while simultaneously promoting a very limited fitness improvement.  Plus, because running is so inefficient, one has to do a whole bunch to get any significant benefit.  By the time that is done, the subject might run into injuries.  If you were to look at the six factors of physical fitness, you would see that running does nothing for flexibility (it can actually decrease it). It can help with body-fat loss, but that's more of a dietary issue.  It can stimulate improvements in the cardiovascular system, but, then, so can any demanding activity performed with the skeletal muscles.  It MAY promote bone density increases, but, because the forces on the skeleton are unknown, they might be high enough to go beyond stimulus and cause micro-fractures.  Running does not increase resistance to injury, primarily because it can cause it.  It is no coincidence that most books on running have sections on injuries, and how to deal with them, because they assume you will get injured somewhere along the way.  Finally, running does little, if anything, for muscular size, strength, and endurance.  Even if it did, there are much more efficient and safer methods for accomplishing that.

I just noticed something else in the Baylor study.  It says that the subjects performed 1-repetition maximums during the study.  Since the resistance is not adjustable, 1-rep maxes are IMPOSSIBLE!

Curves was selling a concept, the 30 Minute Fitness Phenomenon.  Women Only, calorie burining express workout and social interaction.

Curves is not Hydra-Gym. Hydra Gym is not isokinetics it is Omnikinetics as the speed and resistance is variable which allows for 100% maximal loading at every joint throught the range of movement.  The Founder of Curves used to work for HG and actuall took their PACE system and used it for Curves. their equiptment is not he best

Hydra-Gym and Curves Machines are apples and oranges. Hydra-Gym has 30 years of training world champions from the 1980 US Hockey Team to Michael Johnson. Patented hydraulic cylinders that provide the best possible workout for strength, power and endurance on the market.

I can t offer you one study to validate this, but i can offer you 75+ from the premier exercise physiologist in the world validating and verifying that Omnikinetic resistance is superior for larger demographics, safer and more reliable than anything else out there.

Hydra-Gym optimizes athletic performance like no other equiptment and they have ther championships, endorsements and research to back it up.  We have nothing to prove, we have been doing that for 30 years.

Brent:

Here's what I found on Hydra-Gym's website:

Hydra-Gym and Omnikinetic Resistance

Before Hydra-Gym there were two fundamental methods of muscular exercise-isotonic and isokinetic. Isotonic exercise allows one to vary the speed used to move a pre-set resistance (weight), while isokinetic exercise allows one to vary the resistance as he maintains a pre-set speed of movement.

Hydra-Gym equipment combines the best features of both isotonic and isokinetic principals with Omnikinetics Total Dynamic Resistive Training which emphasizes concentric (positive) reciprocal work. Hydra-Gym equipment, through Omnikinetic Resistance automatically- and continuously- adjusts to the strength and speed output of the individual.

The principal of Omnikinetic Resistance is founded upon the patented hydraulic cylinder which accommodates the power output of the user; whether the force exerted is one or one thousand pounds the Hydra-Gym cylinder automatically and immediately accommodates it. Hydra-Gym equipment does not rely upon gravity for its resistance but upon our patented hydraulic cylinders, and we the only product that is able to provide you with double concentric (positive) resistance through out the range of movement.

How can concentric (positive) resistance benefit you? When an individual replaces gravity’s work with his own he is accomplishing approximately twice as much positive (concentric) work within the same amount of time. Hydra-Gym with its concentric (positive) resistance gives you the opportunity to approximately double your work load, therefore cutting your time for needed for conditioning in half.

I did say earlier in this blog that Hydra had adjustable resistance vs. Curves not.  However, Hydra stil doesn't have any negative resistance, it can't provide resistance in the stretched position for addressing flexibilty, it does not balance strength development, because if one is weak in a position, it gives less resistance, instead of enough to stimulate an improvement.  Additionally, if movement stops, so does resistance.  Also, the line about replacing gravity's work is ridiculous.  Gravity is always working against us, whether we are lifting or lowering regular weights.  This is why we can perform negative work.  If gravity was doing the work, then there wouldn't be any negatives, regardless of the equipment used, therefore, the double-positive/concentric reciprocal statements would be redundant.  Hydra also has the same problem as Curves, and that is alternating muscle groups instead of focussing on one at a time until finished.  In order to get more resistance on Curves, one must move faster, and potential for excessive force imposition on the body increases dramatically, along with injury potential.  IF Hydra can provide increased resistance without speeding up, that's a step in the right direction, but the other problems still apply.

Brent:

I looked at Hydra-Gym's site some more, and will comment in the next few days (around Halloween).

Brent:

Sorry to take so long to respond.  I'm tired of arguing about exercise, but I finally got up the mental energy.  Anyway, if you look at Hydra-Gym's site, you will see (read) that the only machine that has Omni-Kinetic resistance is their neck machine.  Although adjustable resistance is a step in the right direction, moving as fast as possible against as much as resistance as possible is asking for neck injury trouble.  Strength is part of power, just as torque is part of horsepower.  If you strengthen your neck (or whatever) in a slow, safe, controlled manner, your power potential will automatically increase, but without possibly hurting yourself in the process.  Also, the other machines are isokinetic, so the Curves information posted previously (above) applies.