The Renaissance of Exercise
A few months ago while editing Elements of Form I started investigating language and consciousness and other aspects of psychology in an effort to better explain the details of exercise performance, along with important concepts like the real versus the assumed objective and the appropriate mindset for true, high intensity effort. I decided to completely rewrite most of the book as a result, focusing on the optimization of various details of mental and physical performance, environment and use of technology. The past few months have been a process of detailed examination and hard thinking which have resulted in what I felt were huge leaps forward for me both in my understanding of exercise in general and as an instructor.
Today I had the opportunity to speak with Ken Hutchins about Renaissance Exercise (RenEx) and began reading The Renaissance of Exercise: A Vitruvian Adventure (TRoE hereafter for brevity). While our paths could be considered convergent I was astounded by their advances and refinement of both the protocol and the equipment. After seeing and trying some of the new machines I don’t think words can adequately explain the degree of improvement over everything else out there. “Amazing” is far too small a word, and my first reaction, “holy shit!”, doesn’t quite do it either.
I won’t say any more about the equipment for now, and I will not give any details on the equipment since they have their own timeline for presenting them.
As much as I feel I have made huge leaps forward just over the last half a year I am as blown away by TRoE as I was the first time I read SuperSlow: The Ultimate Exercise Protocol over seventeen years ago. Although I am only a few hours into reading it, I feel it is even further beyond Hutchins’ SS technical manual than that manual was beyond Arthur Jones’ Nautilus Bulletins in terms of the refinement of the philosophy, protocol and instruction of it.
In 1996 I was so excited about Hutchins’ SuperSlow philosophy and protocol I left my job, college, and everyone I knew to move across the country with nothing but my car, some books, and some clothes to work with and learn from him. Today I felt that excitement again. As much as the past six months have felt like a period of enlightenment for me, it would appear RenEx are truly bringing about a Renaissance in exercise.
Leave a Reply
Trackback URL
http://baye.com/renaissance-of-exercise/trackback/
Drew
I’ve been following the buzz about RenEx via Doug McGuff’s site for a while and then reading their material and watching their videos as they were released. I am really looking forward to reading the Manual when it is available. As you note there is an excitement about all this and they seem to be on to something interesting.
It will be interesting to see how your own journey moves forward on the back of this.
Chris
Chris,
I think they said it would be available on the 15th. Everyone should read it.
Drew,
Do you feel the RenX approach (protocol and equipment) delivers superior results in a addition to a superior experience?
Thomas,
Yes. I’ve been moving in a similar direction and will be adopting the protocol for use with my clients and my own training. I will also be making some changes to the terminology in Elements of Form for consistency.
Ok. I’m curious what your markers are to measure results? I’m curious about the whole RenX thing but remain skeptical when people claim superior results without proof (or proof that I’m not aware of anyway). I realize that they likely offer a better HIT experience, but this doesn’t necessarily translate to results in my experience. Thus, I guess the definition of “results” needs to be known.
Thomas,
There are two general categories of results from exercise – the desired physical adaptations, and undesired effects such as injuries and cumulative structural or cellular damage. Superior results means both more of what we want and less of what we don’t, and I believe the degree of refinement in the protocol will do exactly that. The protocol will result in even greater efficiency of muscular loading while simultaneously reducing all the negatives including better managing inroad to provide an effective stimulus without overwhelming recovery.
Drew,
Ok, fair enough. If we’re talking about benefit to risk ratios, you may be right. I still like your prior emphasis on turnarounds better than super slow (and I’m not convicned super slow is any safer-based on your arguments), but, as I tend to critisize RenX for making a big deal about splitting hairs, this may also be splitting hairs.
You said: “The protocol will result in even greater efficiency of muscular loading while simultaneously reducing all the negatives including better managing inroad to provide an effective stimulus without overwhelming recovery.” By this same token, a barbell squat is not an efficient exercise and may very well overwhelm recovery. Would you agree?
In general, I hope you also continue to maintain a “principals” based approach that can be applied (for the most part) to all equipment. Focusing on specific protocols and equipment really eliminates a lot of people from the discussion. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to be able or want to take advantage of the RenX approach.
Thomas,
I still believe the turnarounds are the most important part. However, in trying to become as skilled as possible in performing the turnarounds I’ve found their ideal performance requires a slower speed of movement. If you have pre-ordered Elements of Form you will be receiving another video either tonight or tomorrow which goes into more detail about this.
A barbell squat can be an effective exercise when properly performed, but is nowhere near as effective, efficient or safe as a properly performed leg press. Some people might disagree, but they are simply uninformed. Any exercise can overwhelm recovery if the combined intensity and volume of work exceeds what an individual can recover from.
The RenEx approach, while ideally suited to their equipment, is still something others should strive for with whatever tools they have available. The focus of this site will continue to be teaching principles and their practical applications.
Drew,
If I remember correctly from former blogs, you said that you moved away from Super Slow and Ken because he would not conceded that the data showed that 10/10 was no more effective than 2/4 rep time. Would you comment on this subject? Also, would you share what you are doing with your clients in respect to rep time?
Thanks,
Marcus,
A force gauge experiment by someone in another fitness organization showed little differences in peak force between 2/4, 4/4 and 10/10 and discussion with various engineers confirmed there would not be a significant difference, provided turnaround technique was performed correctly (minimal acceleration). At the time I also suspected a higher number of excursions might result in more microtrauma and experiments suggested it would result in greater rate of inroad. These are only a few factors, however, and when you consider the whole of an exercise and everything involved a slower speed is required for best results.
As for my clients, I require them to take at least 5 seconds to complete the positive, not including turnaround time, squeeze technique, etc., so it ends up being something closer to the SS cadence I was using previously. In the process of trying to improve both the effectiveness of my methods and my instruction I have gravitated back towards a slower speed of movement.
Drew,
Fascinating. I’ve been following this blog for a few years…I’m shocked by this post. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve become a big supporter of what RenEx is doing, where they are going. But, this direction seems (in some ways) 180 degrees different than what you’ve been writing. What was the determinant factor in your change of opinion?
Joe,
While editing Elements of Form I became extremely frustrated with the book and decided it could and had to be better and simpler and I began learning as much as I could about how thinking affects physical performance and how language effects thinking to better understand and teach the proper mindset – something almost everybody else gets backwards. This required taking a very critical look at every aspect of what I was teaching and how to refine both as much as possible. I talked about some of this during my presentation at the 2011 Indianapolis HIT Seminar, but have since made further refinements, much of which I will be discussing in a video being shot later today for this web site.
This process also resulted in my changing my mind about certain things, although I wouldn’t consider it a 180 degree turn but an evolution.
I realized if I was going to be the best instructor and writer I could be I needed to make a few changes. I will discuss all of this in more detail over the next few months, but the most important thing was to stop caring what anyone thinks or whether anyone is offended and to stop being so diplomatic with the rest of the fitness industry and just tell it l
Joe,
While editing Elements of Form I became extremely frustrated with the book and decided it could and had to be better and simpler and I began learning as much as I could about how thinking affects physical performance and how language effects thinking to better understand and teach the proper mindset – something almost everybody else gets backwards. This required taking a very critical look at every aspect of what I was teaching and how to refine both as much as possible. I talked about some of this during my presentation at the 2011 Indianapolis HIT Seminar, but have since made further refinements, much of which I will be discussing in a video being shot later today for this web site.
This process also resulted in my changing my mind about certain things, although I wouldn’t consider it a 180 degree turn but an evolution.
Hi Drew, how does RenEx/SuperSlow compare to the ARX machines or similar machines? Thanks,
Doug,
This is something I can’t comment on at the moment and the RenEx people have their own timeline for releasing material about their machines. Also consider I have only worked with a prototype ARX machine and not the final versions, and I have only tried a few of the RenEx machines and have not worked out on them consistently for a period of time so any comparison would be incomplete.
Interesting. Curious whether the Ren Ex Protocols could be used with conventional equipment or only on the Ren Ex equipment which most of us would not have the privilege of training on, leave alone own.
K
Drew,
I have been doing high intensity traing with a personal trainer since July and have been making,what Ifeel is excellent progress.The problem I have is that I need to undergo hernia surgery for a hernia I have had for about 8 years.The procedure that iam undergoing is a tension free procedure and the recovery period is relatively shortThe recomendation is to not engage in full bore training for two months.Can you recommmend any machine type exercises that i could do within this period that would not put any strain on the abdomen.I go to a facility that has a full complement of machines.
I’ve just spent the evening looking at some of the RenEx material, and then some of the stuff being put out by ARX Fit. Both are clearly in the HIT camp, but using different technical approaches to build their machines. I’m curious if you have an opinion yet on the relative merits of RenEx machines versus ARX Fit machines?
RenEx has clearly spent a lot of time optimizing each machine for a specific exercise, so I can see that each machine ought to offer a superior experience for that exercise. But a full workout would then require lots of machines, so the only practical way that you can get this experience is through membership to a gym that has a RenEx line and decent trainers.
In contrast, the ARX machine(s) aren’t quite as biomechanically optimized, but you need fewer machines. And it seems like they have a single unit that will be sold to the home market. So between the practicality of being able to buy one for home, and the optimization that computer control seems to imply, perhaps this is going to be the preferred way for many to get an optimal HIT experience. The ARX Fit Omni will certainly be more expensive than a free weight/body weight set up, but would seem to be much easier and safer for carrying out slow movements to failure since the issues of safety and sticking points should largely go away???
Craig,
I can’t discuss this now without risking talking about things I think the people at RenEx would prefer to eventually cover themselves.
Interesting. Curious if the Ren Ex book has applications of the protocol that could be applied to conventional exercises(Chins, Dips, DLs, etc) or is it concerned with applying the protocol only on Ren Ex equipment which few of us will have access to.
f it is the former, it would benefit a greater segment of audience looking for a safe, scientific, effective & efficient protocol.
K
Karthik,
The general principles can applied to conventional exercises, just not as ideally. The RenEx machines are something else. I previously thought much of what was being said and written about them was hyperbole, but it really is hard to explain just how much of an improvement these are. Every detail down to little things most people don’t even realize make a difference has been designed to provide the best possible exercise. I’ve always said how you train is far more important than what equipment you use – proper training on poor equipment will produce better results, more safely and efficiently than improper training on the best equipment in the world – however, the equipment does make a difference. As I mentioned above I won’t go into details – they have their own timeline for releasing information. If you want to know specifics about the equipment you’ll need to ask them. I’m just sharing my perspective and experience here.
I’m curious, is the approach announced in “The Renaissance of Exercise” necessarily contingent upon access to their new equipment? If so, unless they intend to distribute this equipment widely, then why should we care? I’ve read for the past several years about the superiority of MedX equipment, yet it’s available in only a handful of places. In other words, will the approach and protocols of “The Renaissance of Exercise” be ‘translatable’ to basic barbell/dumbbell/bodyweight environments?
Will,
Yes. While the protocol is ideally performed on their machines the general principles are applicable to other equipment.
Regrading Will’s question about availability of equipment: what do you give up, and how much do you give up by not having access to the specialized equipment? Is it more a matter of efficiency (takes you longer to get to the same place) or is there a fundamental difference in the quality of results that can be achieved?
Craig,
Proper training will produce good results with almost any tools, however properly designed tools will get you there faster and more safely.
The experience of using one is really difficult to describe. It’s almost like the machine isn’t even there. Imagine if you were to slowly reach up with both arms as you would during shoulder press, except that while doing so your arms felt very, very heavy. That’s what the RenEx shoulder press feels like – I tried, but could not feel any friction or noticeable change in resistance and the movement felt perfectly natural to the shoulders and elbows.
Interesting comments. I have listened to your Jimmy moore interview a couple of times and thought you were very diplomatic there about the rest of the industry
I am really looking forward to learning more of your current thinking and how it has developed.
Chris
Chris,
I believe the majority of the fitness industry are good-natured and sincerely want to help people improve their fitness and health; they’re just ignorant of the best way to do so.
I think more of them will be willing to read or listen to more from me if I present things positively than critically.
Drew,
A couple quick questions: 1.) do ;you happen to know how widely distributed the RenEx equipment will be? I went to their website and looked at the videos; I’d love to have access to something like that. Unfortunately, here in S.E. Michigan, we have very little in the way of even Nautilus or MedX equipped facilities. 2.) Regarding your comment about Squats vs. Leg Press. Is your claim on behalf of the leg press contingent on the type of machine? Or are you suggesting the Leg Press in general, no matter the machine, is superior to the Squat? Thanks.
Will,
1. I suspect they will be very widely distributed over the next few years, especially considering the interest from some in the medical and research community.
2. Unless I specifically state otherwise, if I mention machines I’m talking about properly designed ones. Unfortunately, most leg press machines out there are very poorly designed. A properly designed leg press machine is better than a barbell squat, but a squat can be better than a very poorly designed leg press, depending on what the design flaws are.
I was in Austin this past week and got to use an ARX machine.
a) I’m very curious to see how the RenEx compares
b) I’m even more curious to see if anyone here in Boulder gets the machines
but… c) I’m MOST curious to see what the RenEx does for working the posterior chain. The ARX wasn’t great for that since the leg press just doesn’t get glute/ham as much as I would like (since I’m a sprinter).
Steven,
It is a very different feel, and while I believe the ARX machines are highly effective if used properly, there are some neurological and control issues I suspect may be better addressed with an actual weight as opposed to a motor.
As for the glutes and hamstrings and the comparison to ARX, I suggest watching the video of Doug McGuff’s RenEx workout and note his comments on the negative, the inroad with the squeeze technique, and the effect on the glutes.
Drew
does your evolving thinking on style have any implications for the UXS15 unit?
While I am impressed by the RenEx machines, I am more interested in bodyweight prescriptions, as simple as possible that the average man or woman can employ. I tend to recommend pushups, wallsits, body rows, hip extensions as the basic 4. They are accessible, relatively low skill and pretty safe for most. These are things that I can get anyone doing and progressing with quickly
Chris
Chris,
Since the majority of people who visit this web site train with conventional equipment or body weight I will continue to write about them. It would be presumptuous and redundant for me to focus on writing about the RenEx machines since the people who invented and train and instruct their clients on them are better qualified to and already doing so.
Over the next few months I may be posting instructional materials on the UXS-15 web site for its use which will reflect some of these changes. I have not decided.
I did watch these videos and they do look impressive, however, as with all other tools of exercise, it’s not the tool itself, but how you use it. Just as it’s not so much the weight one is lifting, but how the exercise is being performed.Yes weight does matter. I’m still not sure why all the exercises were being performed in super slow(10/10) fashion. Relative to the weight being used, I believe it’s the # of contractions per unit of time that is more of a determinant of stimulation than tension time.
Also, if a certain muscle group is comprised mostly of FG II fibers, then the TUT should not exceed 70 seconds. So if it takes 20 seconds to perform each rep, that would mean that muscle group would experience 3 or 4 total repetitions. I am not sure if this will produce OPTIMUM results for the advanced trainee.
Farhad,
The average tension over a period of time is far more important than the number of excursions and is what the appropriate speed of movement is predicated on. The repetition guidelines for advanced trainees are lower, and are something I would recommend tailoring to the individual based on their progression.
Drew,
Sorry I should have worded it a different way.What I meant was the given a certain weight AND total tension time, the greater # of contractions the better the stimulation. Is this not the case? So for example, if the total TUT for the bicep curl is 60 seconds, isn’t a 5/5 cadence(6 contractions) better than a 10/10 cadence (3 contractions). If not, then why not perform a 15/15 cadence (2 repetitions). Don’t misunderstand,I’m not saying that the faster the better, but I just have a issue with going TOO slow such as 10/10. I do not see it as better in stimulating maximum muscle growth. Maybe for rehab purposes, but not for an advanced drug-free trainee. Even for safety reason, I don’t think it’s necessary.
Farhad,
I understood what you meant, but no, a greater number of contractions would not provide better stimulation. I once suspected there may be greater benefit to more frequent excursions for a given load and duration but I now believe this distracts from proper form and both a greater tension and inroad are facilitated by slower movement. It is possible to go too slowly, but for most people this doesn’t happen until you start to take longer than 15 to 20 seconds over a typical range of motion, depending on an individual’s proprioceptive acuity and motor control.
If anything, when done correctly (specifically with proper turnaround and squeeze technique) this is not only more effective for advanced, drug-free trainees, but optimal. As for safety, while it depends on the individual it is better to err on the safe side for everyone. Fortunately, there is no need to sacrifice one for the other; the same techniques that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of muscular loading also lend to safer performance.
Hutchins writes about this extensively in TRoE and I have also written about some of these things in EoF.
Keith Norris’s ’21Convention’ did little more than confuse me, but as I imagine it, an ARX, used by a motivated trainee, enables the effect of an ultra-precise automatic stripping-set, each rep the most the subject can handle; an ideal combination of high tension & deep inroad, enabling a shorter effective set than by any other means . Is this correct? Is there a downside? My questions that might relate to the revised perspective of “Elements of Form”: Is there a population, (beyond a handful of exceptional individuals), motivated enough to fully take advantage of this possibility, & can that mental quality itself be trained into an average trainee?
Drew,
In your response to Farhead, can you clarify one point? RE: moving slowly/moving too slowly…this all depends on the equipment, right? For instance, without good equipment a 10/10 rep may be highly ineffective/inefficient…a faster cadence (particularly through sticking points and through the friction-laden eccentric) will ‘feel’ better and provide a better stimulus. It would be easy to think that the “more excursions” is necessary for optimal stimulus, in and of itself, as opposed to recognizing that the expression of a rep is just a product (consequence) of the tools being used. Better equipment changes things, rather dictates what is possible (for instance a gradual loading to begin a rep, perfect turnarounds and squeeze technique will not even be possible with certain equipment). It’s not about ‘going slow’…I think that is a hard one to ‘get’ until you experience.
Drew,
When can we expect to receive the video you talked about on Sunday?
John,
I don’t recall which video it was. I have several planned, but none will be posted or available until mid-January.
Craig,
Determining the appropriate rep count total (RcT) or TUL for an individual on a particular exercise is mostly a matter of careful observation and record keeping. TRoE has repetition guidelines for learning, beginner, and advanced subjects and it tailoring reps and TUL to the individual is something I plan to cover on this site in more detail later.
Drew,
Isn’t determining the fiber-type of a particular muscle group a matter of testing? I believe IART proposed a method several years ago and Arthur Jones also had his testing method. And, based on those results, we apply the appropriate TUL. from what I can remember a predominantly ST muscle group should get between 70-90 seconds, Mixed fiber-type,55-75 secs, and a mostly FT type, should get a TUT of around 45-60 secs. Am I way off here?
Farhad,
No. Neither Arthur’s nor Johnston’s testing methods are practical or safe and they don’t take into account various other factors important in determining and individual’s appropriate rep count total or time under load like skill, neurological efficiency, etc. There are practical ways of determining this over time based on an individual’s workout chart. Hutchins’ provides guidelines in The Renaissance of Exercise and I also discuss this in Elements of Form.
Drew,
I think the background of John´s following question, was the answer you gave to Thomas on December the 11th, see below after John´s question.
I don´t want to criticize just to provide a clarification.
Best wishes,
Andy
John
December 14, 2011 | 7:07 am
“Drew,
When can we expect to receive the video you talked about on Sunday?”
December 11, 2011 | 12:53 pm
“Thomas,
If you have pre-ordered Elements of Form you will be receiving another video either tonight or tomorrow which goes into more detail about this.”
Andy,
I have decided to wait until Elements of Form is complete to do the final video. Those who pre-ordered the book will receive that video free of charge but it will also be available for purchase separately.