MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
NEW! Negative-Accentuated Machines
First | Prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Drew Baye wrote:
theHITman wrote:

With it being dubbed a 'home' machine, I don't know how big the weight stack will be, but if the idea is extended into a commercial version, it could definitely be a viable purchase for trainers, etc.

The prototype of Randy's machine I'm working with only takes up 30x48 inches of floor space, and the motor provides as much resistance as anyone could possibly require. It can be used for squats, standing calf raise, deadlift, stiff-legged deadlift, seated dips, shrugs, pulldowns, and shoulder press.

He has another machine with similar dimensions that does leg press, leg curl, seated calf raise, chest press, row, abs, and back extension.

These are only weeks from production.

As for trainers, the motorized resistance is a huge plus, since if you want to do forced reps, hyper, negative-only, heavy statics, etc. you can do it all day long, client after client, without wearing yourself out.

And, since there's no weight stack they weigh far less than weight-stack machines of any kind, so you don't have the same problems having them on a second-story in a home or building.

For a home unit, weight is a major consideration. If the floor you're putting the machine on is anything less than concrete slab or was built specifically to handle higher static loads, you can't have anything too heavy. If you're going to put a machine on an upper floor, or on the main floor of a house with a basement or crawl space, you'd better not exceed the weight limit.

Randy's Hybrid machines are also only 30" wide - easily able to fit through standard residential doors without having to be disassembled.


Hey Drew,

Might be to early to ask but does Randy have any idea how he is going to price these machines?

Michael

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

I'm not sure what the production models will cost yet, but I will ask him about that.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

BIO-FORCE wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
southbeach wrote:

how long have i been telling you isokinetic is superior, and you busted my balls for it everytime! :|



I don't remember arguing with you about this.

There were problems with older isokinetic equipment (way, way, way back), mainly that they did not provide negative work and used servos which did not provide a smooth, even resistance, but this was old stuff.

Isokinetics are not (IMHO) the Holy Grail, but they can offer some unique benefits. in particular in highly controllable eccentric loads.

However the normal methods of creating and employing them (electric motors, hydraulics, and pneumatics) lack the isoinertial qualities the body depends on for proprioception, and this reduces their long term qualities as the primary mode of training.

They have been available as training tools for over 20 years, yet have not flourished due to these aspects.

Their best implementation (again IMO) is as an addition to a conventional program, so as to harvest their unique capability without the stagnation many encounter with their exclusive use.



It is time to harvest winter squash.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Michael Petrella wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
theHITman wrote:

With it being dubbed a 'home' machine, I don't know how big the weight stack will be, but if the idea is extended into a commercial version, it could definitely be a viable purchase for trainers, etc.

The prototype of Randy's machine I'm working with only takes up 30x48 inches of floor space, and the motor provides as much resistance as anyone could possibly require. It can be used for squats, standing calf raise, deadlift, stiff-legged deadlift, seated dips, shrugs, pulldowns, and shoulder press.

He has another machine with similar dimensions that does leg press, leg curl, seated calf raise, chest press, row, abs, and back extension.

These are only weeks from production.

As for trainers, the motorized resistance is a huge plus, since if you want to do forced reps, hyper, negative-only, heavy statics, etc. you can do it all day long, client after client, without wearing yourself out.

And, since there's no weight stack they weigh far less than weight-stack machines of any kind, so you don't have the same problems having them on a second-story in a home or building.

For a home unit, weight is a major consideration. If the floor you're putting the machine on is anything less than concrete slab or was built specifically to handle higher static loads, you can't have anything too heavy. If you're going to put a machine on an upper floor, or on the main floor of a house with a basement or crawl space, you'd better not exceed the weight limit.

Randy's Hybrid machines are also only 30" wide - easily able to fit through standard residential doors without having to be disassembled.

Hey Drew,

Might be to early to ask but does Randy have any idea how he is going to price these machines?

Michael



Arthur told me that he always priced machines as high as the market would tolerate. He gave the example of a Porsche being little more than a souped up Volkswagen with a high price tag.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

Joshua Trentine wrote:
Nautilus 1


The Nautilus one looks like a MedX knockoff without a weight stack.
Open User Options Menu

Michael Petrella

Ontario, CAN

Granted I have not tried the new X-Force but I am still stunned by the MEDX.

I have been working out the last month with only dumbbells, barbells and cables, (which is fine) but some of those MEDX machines seem to be built for me when I get on them.

Nice thing is all my clients felt the same way. Interesting to feel how the biomechanics are on some of these new pieces.

Michael
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Dr. Darden, tell them that it would very useful if they would place a VIDEO of at least a couple of the machines in actual use. I'd love to see the weight-stack adjusting in actual use.

Thanks!
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Michael Petrella wrote:
Granted I have not tried the new X-Force but I am still stunned by the MEDX.

I have been working out the last month with only dumbbells, barbells and cables, (which is fine) but some of those MEDX machines seem to be built for me when I get on them.

Nice thing is all my clients felt the same way. Interesting to feel how the biomechanics are on some of these new pieces.

Michael


MedX makes incredible machines. I remember the first time I saw one - it was at the Body Coach in Altamonte Springs, FL, in August of 2005 when we were in FL for the SuperSlow Exercise Guild's annual convention. Ken Hutchins gave a bunch of us a tour, including several engineers from MedX who were visiting at the time (Clay Steffee, and I think Phil Sencil might have been there as well) showing the retrofits he had made for some of them.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

before i'd change MedX design i'd change my FORM!
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

Bill Sekerak wrote:
Joshua Trentine wrote:
Nautilus 1

The Nautilus one looks like a MedX knockoff without a weight stack.




???????
Open User Options Menu

Sjoss

I tried the Xforce machines at the IRSHA show .. They are hands down the best selectorized machines ever made... They are smooth, bio mechanically correct --hence they are essentially Nautilus machines tweaked a bit, and the negative wil amaze you.

The row , the bicep and the Leg press need a little more work.. and the Xforce crew are aware of that. These were just prototypes -- but wow!
The Xforce machines just make you work harder -- rep per rep.

Dont get me wrong...Medx - which we use regularly -and have a full line of is great equipment....but Xforce is special.. The negative just has to be felt..
Exciting .. Hopefully they can get the price down to about 7K a machine...
Open User Options Menu

strengthmaster

Michigan, USA

Ell, sjoss, Luke, admnautilus:

Thanks for your updates on X-Force machines. Having read posts from all of you, and watched videos by you Luke,
your opinion(s) are valued ones.

I hope to try them this fall at Club Industry in Chicago. Hopefully, X-Force will exhibit there.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

admnautilus

Washington, USA

Michael Petrella wrote:
Granted I have not tried the new X-Force but I am still stunned by the MEDX.

I have been working out the last month with only dumbbells, barbells and cables, (which is fine) but some of those MEDX machines seem to be built for me when I get on them.

Nice thing is all my clients felt the same way. Interesting to feel how the biomechanics are on some of these new pieces.

Michael


Michael,
I am with you there. As far as equipment goes Medx is an incredible piece of machinery. Low friction, great strength curves and you can fit almost anyone.When I worked a show for Nautilus like the IHRSA show, I would wait till everyone was gone then go get my workout in on the Medx line!! We had some good equipment(2ST) but they sure weren't as good as Medx.

Chest press and row are two of the best pieces ever built, in my opinion! X-force is unique and will enhance a persons workout- another great step in the right direction. Harder, briefer exercise that will return better results. Of course only if you train properly. Jeff
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Actually, the X-Force is a few years behind. Scott Naidus invented machines almost 10 years ago using motors to vary resistance between the positive and negative by changing the angle of a weighted lever, something he calls Dynamically Controlled Resistance.

In addition to being able to change the resistance between the positive and negative to match the individuals strength ratio (rather than just 40%, which may be too high or to low for some, and changes over the course of the exercise), Scott's machines could change the resistance from repetition to repetition, so each rep was a near max positive and negative effort.

If you're going to use a motor, though, you might as well skip the weight altogether and use the motor to provide the resistance - which can perfectly match the users strength over the full range and duration of the exercise, including matching their exact ratio of positive to negative strength as it changes with fatigue.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Drew: You are my friend, but this Article Based Thread is about X-Force Machines. Whether they were 1st 2nd or 3rd is irrevelent. These guys spent a huge fortune to expose the U.S. (Fraud Based Weightrix) Fitness Industry to a form of proper Exercise, something that has not been done since Arthur Jones left the Industry. They did not promote anything other than Progressive Exercise Equipment, no BS cardio BS, no ropes/chains/bands/kettles, no supplements, no aqua, no body pumps, and no stationary bikes. They are a beacon of hope to an industry that quite frankly is embarassing. I know you want to promote your thing, which is ok, but this Thread is about X-Force and give them your due respect.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Hey David,

Didn't mean to hijack the thread. Just responding to points in the discussion and claims.

Just pointing out that while X-Force is no doubt superior to conventional weight-based machines (assuming proper biomechanics, which they probably have based on the similarities to the Nautilus machines), they are neither the only nor the best for the purpose of providing greater overload during the negative. I also pointed out they were not the first - Scott Naidus developed his machines about 10 years ago, but using a weighted lever instead of a weight stack, and his machines went further than altering the resistance between the positive and negative by an arbitrary fixed ratio - they could vary the resistance between the positive and negative AND from repetition to repetition by any amount required.

Other than doing some artwork for Scott years ago, I have no involvement with or stake in DCR Tech or their machines.

As for mentioning the Hybrid machines, and considering the discussion is about machines designed to provide greater overload during the negative, there is bound to be comparison. Even if I wasn't associated with them, I'd have brought them up. In fact, the reason I am is because of my enthusiasm for Randy's equipment since first talking with Charlie Haire about it a few years ago.

I understand there's some kind of association here with X-Force, otherwise it wouldn't have it's own section, but also consider if they're really that good, they should be able to handle comparison to other equipment.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

admnautilus wrote:
Michael Petrella wrote:
Granted I have not tried the new X-Force but I am still stunned by the MEDX.

I have been working out the last month with only dumbbells, barbells and cables, (which is fine) but some of those MEDX machines seem to be built for me when I get on them.

Nice thing is all my clients felt the same way. Interesting to feel how the biomechanics are on some of these new pieces.

Michael

Michael,
I am with you there. As far as equipment goes Medx is an incredible piece of machinery. Low friction, great strength curves and you can fit almost anyone.When I worked a show for Nautilus like the IHRSA show, I would wait till everyone was gone then go get my workout in on the Medx line!! We had some good equipment(2ST) but they sure weren't as good as Medx.

Chest press and row are two of the best pieces ever built, in my opinion! X-force is unique and will enhance a persons workout- another great step in the right direction. Harder, briefer exercise that will return better results. Of course only if you train properly. Jeff


Did you know that those two machines can be used akinetically or infimetrically ?

MedX have range limiters as well and are perfect for stage reps.
Open User Options Menu

Greg Kelly

Dr. Darden:

From an economics, space, and simplicity standpoint, I still don't know why pneumatics are being ignored for this purpose.

My clients follow a static/max contraction, slow speed, negative only training protocol. The equipment, Keiser, is 10-25 years old, and still works great. I have 29 pieces in an 800 square foot office.

The feel is unusual, but I think the turnaround is the best out there, as it is the highest resistance of the stroke. There is no fall off at all.

For those who prefer a consistent feel, a cam can be incorporated like those found on HUR and Air Machines.

I ran this by Landau this weekend, but I'm not sure he liked the idea.

Just a thought for the X-Force people.

GK

PS - I used to hate the feel of Keiser until I applied it to slow speed training. Outside of the X-Force machines, which I could never afford, I could not duplicate my training program with resistance that wasn't adjustable on the fly. It is absolutely awesome for Static and Max Contraction training, and very cheap if you buy used.
Open User Options Menu

admnautilus

Washington, USA

Hey Greg,
The Kieser works well. I have used them quite alot with a group out of San Diego who has full line. It is very easy to add resistance to the negative on Kieser. This was also alot of fun to do hard workouts to failure on, then drop resistance to go to a deeper level of inroad. I was able to get a great workout. Kieser allows for putting together many different exercise protocols.

This group also has Airmachine line. Another air resistance line that looks like Technogym. Does not feel as good as Kieser though.
The X-Force equipment has a more traditional weightstack feel. X-Force will appeal to a wider range of people in my opinion. It will be able to fit in with a typical club setting and most trainees will understand how to set the weightstacks and seats since they are much like other equipment.
Keep up the hard work with Kieser, it is a very good line of equipment and will produce great results!
Jeff
Open User Options Menu

jastrain

admnautilus wrote:
Hey Greg,
The Kieser works well. I have used them quite alot with a group out of San Diego who has full line. It is very easy to add resistance to the negative on Kieser. This was also alot of fun to do hard workouts to failure on, then drop resistance to go to a deeper level of inroad. I was able to get a great workout. Kieser allows for putting together many different exercise protocols.

This group also has Airmachine line. Another air resistance line that looks like Technogym. Does not feel as good as Kieser though.
The X-Force equipment has a more traditional weightstack feel. X-Force will appeal to a wider range of people in my opinion. It will be able to fit in with a typical club setting and most trainees will understand how to set the weightstacks and seats since they are much like other equipment.
Keep up the hard work with Kieser, it is a very good line of equipment and will produce great results!
Jeff

i like the,"traditional weight stack" much,much better than the motor driven machines.i tried one of those motor driven machines in the early 90s and you could adjust the neg to allow for more resistance but i didnt like it at all.i cant put my finger on it but i think it is because with a weight stack you are weaker and stronger in many different parts of the rep range.

you are able to see the weight stack move in various parts of the rep.with the motor it just powers through at a constant rate of speed. this is something that is hard to put into words but i simply hated useing those early model motorized machines.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

jastrain wrote:
admnautilus wrote:
Hey Greg,
The Kieser works well. I have used them quite alot with a group out of San Diego who has full line. It is very easy to add resistance to the negative on Kieser. This was also alot of fun to do hard workouts to failure on, then drop resistance to go to a deeper level of inroad. I was able to get a great workout. Kieser allows for putting together many different exercise protocols.

This group also has Airmachine line. Another air resistance line that looks like Technogym. Does not feel as good as Kieser though.
The X-Force equipment has a more traditional weightstack feel. X-Force will appeal to a wider range of people in my opinion. It will be able to fit in with a typical club setting and most trainees will understand how to set the weightstacks and seats since they are much like other equipment.
Keep up the hard work with Kieser, it is a very good line of equipment and will produce great results!
Jeff
i like the,"traditional weight stack" much,much better than the motor driven machines.i tried one of those motor driven machines in the early 90s and you could adjust the neg to allow for more resistance but i didnt like it at all.i cant put my finger on it but i think it is because with a weight stack you are weaker and stronger in many different parts of the rep range.

you are able to see the weight stack move in various parts of the rep.with the motor it just powers through at a constant rate of speed. this is something that is hard to put into words but i simply hated useing those early model motorized machines.


It is called "proprioceptive feedback".

The body has evolved to produce force on anything we wish, but the command and control center has sensing feedback mechanisms that are sensitive to mass based loads, and that is why, non-mass based loads never make it for serious long term training.

While Dennis Kaiser has machines that can do very unique things, and at a very attractive price point, they lack the proprioceptive alignment to compete with mass based loadings.

The most valuable property of the motor controlled, pneumatic, and hydrauilic machines to date is the ability to introduce a more accurate eccentric loading. But as a full rep (con/ecc) they do not have the load "feel", to make them singular or long term valuable to serious training.

Short term or highly controlled environments (such as rehab, or as supplemental uses, they will work fine.

X-FORCE obviously also have limitations, but it is a nice step to make available these capabilities to serious trainees.

And I might offer, that even "fitness" trainees who don't care particularly about greater strength benefits, or senior citizens who might not be concerned with using HUGE weights can benefit from these machines, since even a lower load levels the properly loaded eccentric will stimulate an improved adaptation if implemented in a progessive program.



Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Bio-Force is correct. The motor, pneumatic, and hydraulic machines do NOT have the load "feel" that is necessary for serious training.

X-Force, however, does a masterful job with its tilting weight stack and load feel.

You really have to try them to understand and experience what Bio is referring to. Too bad the X-Force machines won't be back in the USA for at least six months.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

Turleyzinfandel

British Columbia, CAN

Dr Darden, I have read your treatise and a few of the threads, and if, in fact these machines perform as you represent then they truly provide the ultimate workout. On the positive stroke you have the appropriate amount of resistance and likewise on the negative portion of each excercise.

It seems reasonable to expect that the results produced by such exercise would be signficantly better and more efficient than what we are accustomed to. In my view these machines will never reach commercial production. They are far to costly and will only have appeal to the hard core HIT trainees of which I happen to be one of.

Firstly, no gym is going to invest in them, too much cost, too large a footprint, secondly if the capital outlay is made, there are few trainees who are interested in training that hard, thirdly, they need a massive marketing campaign fuelled by equally massive funding. It's a great concept but it's not going anywhere, you heard it here first.
Open User Options Menu

DSears

Randy's first machines used a lever arm with a trainer controlling the speed. It essentially amounted to manual resistance and in essence was no different than a motor driven machine.

Charlie Haire did some experiments with a group of high school football players and achieved some outstanding results. I think it's a bit premature to say they can't be used for serious training. I'll be curious to see what Drew finds out with his experiments.


David
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Turley,

Heard it first from you? For more than two years, people have been telling Mats Thulin that he could NOT get the X-Force machines displayed at IHRSA.

He proved them all wrong.

Too expensive? Jones's first pullover sold for $745 in 1971 (which amounts to almost $4,000 in today's money) and most people said he couldn't sell a single-station exercise machine for anything close to that. Well, Jones quickly doubled the price and proved them wrong.

During the Jones era, more than 15,000 pullover machines were sold.

Ellington
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy