Feb
15
2012

Inroad Theory Vs Whatever

54 comments written by Ken Hutchins

Inroad Theory
versus
Whatever

By Ken Hutchins

Yes, other approaches other than inroad have been shown to effect muscular growth. Or, more accurately, other forms and means of inroad, perhaps, have been shown to effect this.

In the Nautilus heyday we did battle against those promoting transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in physical therapy. Sure, low-level electrical pulses will have some adaptive response on the muscle. But beyond the resurrection of almost-dead tissue, electrical stimulation does not offer a continuous, progressive improvement beyond a slight initial one.

I would not be surprised that some muscular growth occurs from a near-miss lightning strike… or for that matter, from someone jumping out from behind a tree and saying “Boo!” to the unsuspecting.

The limitation with the Boo process is that the subject is unsuspecting only once. Perhaps if it is performed differently each time it is possible to keep the subject unsuspecting. I guess this would merely lead to chronic paranoia.

And the foregoing principle sometimes works even with the suspecting. When I was 14, we kept a grown bobcat (Actually we had two at different periods of time.) in a large cage at one of the rear outside corners of the house. I was always aware of its presence and braced myself to be jolted by its ferocious scream and lunge at the side of the cage whenever I came around the house. No matter how prepared I was to remain calm, it consistently caused every muscle in my body to seize as though I jumped out of my skin. It seemed to have the same effect on my dogs.

When I was 15, I practiced trumpet in a small building just outside our back door. I regularly practiced between 5 and 7 every morning and often late into the night. About once a week, Philip Alexander (before he went to medical school) delighted in sneaking around the house in the dark just to startle me. As I expected Philip to do this in the late evenings—as he was a night owl who studied all night—I remained particularly vigilant during that time. He knew how to wait until I was immersed in a particularly difficult passage to open the door and shock me out of my melodic trance. It worked. Perhaps I owe my surge in muscular strength in those days to Philip’s repeated fright games, and less to the barbell work on the bench he built me?

Also at Nautilus, we grappled with staunch advocates from the yoga and massage communities promoting the strengthening effects of stretching. Yes, there is muscle strengthening—with such poor efficacy and high risk of injury that one’s time and mobility must not be worth much.

For eons, the medical community has recognized walking as a way to strengthen the body, especially early on after bedridden states. This has great value to those patients who are so disposed, but it has no meaningful muscular strengthening effect past the minimum to enable walking.

There are amazing CAT scans contrasting the muscularity of triathletic and sedentary elder men. It is apparent that destroying your body in a triathlon can, at least, maintain your muscularity. Or, perhaps the difference is completely due to a genetic aberration whereby the above-average muscularity of the elder man merely enables him to destroy his body in the triathlon. Of course, it is also true that such activities are sarcopenic.

Also, in the late 90s, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article about a program whereby I, with a cane, beat the muscles of a subject named Joel Waldman while he was tied in a partly-suspended position in the middle of a large room. Although this was imaginary, I expect, without trying it (assuming Joel is still cooperative and agreeable to this), that the muscles will respond positively if the dose/response is controlled. However, even if the improvements surpass those possible from strength inroading, I don’t believe that this will catch on for the masses or pass the rigors of any internal review board for human research. I am surprised, however, that there is not a certification program for this by now.

I would not be surprised if muscular growth occurs from being injected with water, stuck with needles, branded with hot or cold irons, or by prayer inducement. In fact, some, if not many, readers are already aware of the story—told by Ellington Darden, PhD—wherein big John McWilliams revealed his secret to his massive arms… drinking large quantities of water and praying that the water go to his muscles. Truly, muscle is mostly water, you know.

And then there is the remark by Arthur Jones. He claimed he felt his muscles begin to grow merely by the anticipation of resuming his workouts after a long layoff.

As far as I am concerned all of the foregoing is wasteful drivel. It may be amusing drivel to some of us, but as far as the development of a methodical, practical process that can be ubiquitously applied for study, research, and beneficial application, it is still drivel.

And the only meaningful pathway to putting exercise on a scientific footing—so far—is the inroad theory. Renaissance Exercise is not going to waste our time—or yours—being distracted with any other head trash.

Almost all people are grossly confused about exercise. They need an easy-to-follow explanation and plan of what it is and how to implement it. The inroad theory accomplishes this. Yes, there are other ways—terribly stupid ways, inefficient ways, inaccessible ways, pie-in-the-sky ways, gym-rat ways, dangerous ways, and ways that don’t lend to research and practical education for the average man and woman concerned about their health.

A major part of our creed is the inroad theory. It is the fundamental operational basis of what we do. To discuss otherwise is a distraction that unnecessarily serves to confuse and slow our pace of progress in our analysis of protocol, equipment design and research implementation. And such discussion certainly does not help the confusion harbored by the general public.

When the path along the road diverges into several possible directions, resources demand that we must decide for one and forego the others. To choose all, we go nowhere.

We are committed to the inroad theory. We inroad on inroad tools. We design and sell inroad tools and teach inroad methodology.

I, for one, will not be bothered by so-called other possible stimulus possibilities until someone can show me something better—more practical, teachable, repeatable, researchable, safer, accessible, etc—than the inroad theory. To be clear, inroad might not be the stimulus, but it is probably the process of choice for the stimulus of choice—whatever that turns out to be ultrastructurally—for muscular growth. And within this constraint, inroad theory IS the only stimulus for muscular growth.

Note the diagram entitled, The Unified Theory of Exercise, by Renaissance Exercise. The inroad theory is a fundamental part of The Definition, the central nucleus around which the other fundamentals revolve. Also, it is the reasoning for the Real Objective as well as the support for the Ideal Environment and the Exercise vs. Recreation argument.

This diagram not only enables us to contemplate the vastness of these concepts, but also provides a rough impression of how they interrelate.

In addition, the mere fact that we take the trouble and time to render such a diagram staunchly implies that we are committed to the inroad theory. This is our future. This is the future of exercise, and for us, there will be no going back to the old ways of thinking!

{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Thomas February 15, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Hi Ken,

Very well said, nice Job. I remember as a teenager trying to pray-on bigger muscles (along with weight training). God didn’t seem to care.

With regards to your walking for rehab example, my step father is currently undergoing this kind of rehab. He is 74 and suffered a spinal infection that collapsed two vertebrae. He lost almost 50 lbs laying in bed. It was unbelievable! He is currently undergoing “rehab” using 3 lb weights and bands for his upper body and walking for his lower body. While I get this, I think he would have been better served doing totally controlled and supported leg presses on your machines even before he could walk-why wait? (he had to wait to even try walking because of his low back pain, which could have been totally controlled for with a brace and proper positioning on your leg press.) . He could then take a bit more strength into re-learning to walk. The medical applications of your new equipment could be tremendous.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 16, 2012 at 1:16 am

Hi Thomas,
I worked as a physical therapist in this type of setting, unfortunately I’m all too aware of the practices trying to be passed off as exercise. The patient’s insurance company is being billed good money for this so called “therapeutic exercise”, people deserve better.
I too have tried any and every method that MIGHT add muscle…some quite scary. When comes down to it inroad is the only acceptable method to apply as an exercise instructor…and for all of the other so-called exercise stimuli that might exist I believe they are side effects of effective inroading.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 17, 2012 at 9:58 am

posting for Ken:

I agree with your sentiments regarding your step father. Assuming his health is improved enough to begin exercise, he should be doing Timed-Static Contraction exercise. Some of these—even for the legs—can be conveniently performed in bed. Exercises performed in this manner are extremely productive, require a minimum of equipment, and are safer than walking—or for that matter—safer than lying in bed!
An entire chapter regarding this approach to exercise is included in The Renaissance of Exercise. It is outrageous that care givers don’t know about these techniques and principles.

Ken Hutchins

Reply

avatar John Parr February 15, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Great artice Ken! Yes RenEx is truly the way. I just finished talking to Joel and if you have a cane, he’s ready to go.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 16, 2012 at 1:17 am

John,

thanks for the comments….I’ve seen some pictures of Joel he still looks pretty damn strong.

Reply

avatar Trace February 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Personal experience with this method of training is all the proof I need to show that it works! Thank you and thank you for The Book, it’s a masterpiece.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 16, 2012 at 1:23 am

It’s that simple.

No one is waiting for a research study to dictate their training…expecting that research should dictate protocol presumes that a researcher knows more about training application and program design than the guys out on the front lines

Reply

avatar Scott Springston February 15, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Inroad,this is the future of exercise, and for us, there will be no going back to the old ways of thinking!

==Scott==
I guess this is where I get lost as what exactly is the difference in your version of inroad vrs the the old ways of thinking? If a guy grabs a barbell and does 5 heavy curls whether cheating or not he is trying to and will most likely work the bicep as hard as possible. Yes, REN-EX allows the user to more isolate the biceps and cut out more extraneous muscles and do it in a safer manner but still in the end the muscle will still get worked comparably hard with barbell or REN-EX machine will it not?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 16, 2012 at 1:20 am

no way….it’s not even close….i’m happy to put our machine next to a barbell and let anyone take the test, no comparison.

that being said i can show people how to get FAR more out of a barbell curl than with conventional methods.

Reply

avatar Scott Springston February 16, 2012 at 8:08 am

==Scott==

I sure wish you lived closer so I could try them.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 16, 2012 at 10:00 am

I made it my mission to make the cities of Orlando and Toronto close to me…much to learn.

Reply

avatar Drew Stearns February 19, 2012 at 12:57 am

How can there be a difference between free weights and machines if the same level of inroad is achieved?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm

Hi Drew,

Can you please re-phrase, no one on the team is following the question.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Drew Stearns February 20, 2012 at 11:54 pm

Sorry about that, let me try again:

Let’s say I achieve the same amount of inroad performing a barbell curl as I do when performing a machine curl.

Is there a “quality” aspect to inroad that would favor one method over the other, given the total amount of inroad is equal?

avatar marklloyd February 15, 2012 at 2:17 pm

I can feel my muscles growing merely from reading Ken’s post!

Reply

avatar Justin Smith February 16, 2012 at 8:51 am

Are you RenEx guys so full of yourself you have the audacity to claim, even merely suggest, that this is NOT exercise? HOW DARE YOU!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RwVEutgvns

(tongue planted firmly in cheek – and I hope she’s OK)

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 16, 2012 at 9:59 am

lol

Reply

avatar Luke O'Rourke February 16, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Ideally you’ll have access to RenEx equipment, expert supervision and a distraction free, low humidity, cool environment.

For those who don’t, I’ve come to some conclusions that have helped me using equipment that equates to rocks(everything else) next to RenEx and having to train unsupervised at times.

-If in doubt, go slower.
-If in doubt, go lighter.
-If in doubt, exercise tomorrow, or skip a workout.
-If in doubt, stop your workout.
-Remember to breath, keep your mouth open and unclenched and your hands as unclenched as possible except where stabilization is a safety issue with imperfect equipment.

All of these things are excruciatingly hard to do when you’ve been intermingling exercise with recreation for most of your life. They are the opposite of what you ‘feel’ you should do.

Each time I identify(or my supervision identifies) a form discrepancy, and I tighten it up, or slow down, or lighten the resistance to eliminate it, two things happen. The first, although diminishing, is that I find another form discrepancy that was being drowned out by the louder, more obvious one. The second is that I inroad more, because I’m doing less with better quality and I can’t tolerate the empty volume that I was previously undergoing.

Once you begin to understand the difference between exercise and recreation, and once you really start to value your health and start making your exercise really exercise, it becomes a magnificent obsession. Like a person you love, wanting to know everything about them and wanting to honor that person to the utmost with total consistency of thought and action -loyalty. Loyalty is consistency. Loyalty to health. Loyalty to exercise.

Reply

avatar Joel February 16, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Perhaps I missed it somehow, but I’ve read all your articles and postings on this website, your books, and even followed many of the threads on Darden’s board, and I’ve never seen anywhere that you guys have provided any actual evidence or detailed argumentation to support your belief that inroad is the growth mechanism. As far as I can tell you’ve merely assumed it and then built your method and equipment around this assumption.

I really would like to see some data, or research references, or some physiological explanations. Can you help me out?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 17, 2012 at 9:59 am

posting for Ken:

“Obtaining data with research starts with applying the inroad theory in a systematic way as demanded by Renaissance Exercise. The inroad theory is the starting point for the research and until this occurs research progress will continue to flounder. However, we do have sound principles for applying the theory. And these do not need be rediscovered by the gym rats. All of this is explained in The Renaissance of Exercise.”
Ken Hutchins

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 17, 2012 at 10:00 am

Joel,

This is why we call it theory.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 17, 2012 at 10:05 am

Joel,

Dear Joel, (and all readers).

We realize that in our postings and writings in general the content is layered and dense but we ask that you please read carefully and make sure you are comprehending what you’re reading. The blog above, in fact, contains the answer to your question. Having said this, Ken added some points specifically to address your question more.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 17, 2012 at 10:01 am

The ASCM demanded data from Arthur and he said, “I don’t have any and neither do you.”

Reply

avatar Will February 17, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Ken,
Thanks for the interesting piece. I’m on your email list and have read your material and have a good bit of sympathy for your general approach (as well as with your frustrations with much of what passes for conventional wisdom about exercise). Unfortunately, I do not have access to RenEx equipment (or MexX for that matter – I’m in Ann Arbor, Mich. if you know of anyone close by, by all means, let me know). So, I train with free weights and perform some bodyweight exercises. My question is this: what is the link between the recommended 10/10 repetition speed and ‘inroad’? I fully understand the need to reduce momentum (to the extent possible) and to maintain tension in the working muscle. However, might not the same sort of inroad achieved through 10/10 also be achieved via 6/6 (simply as an example), but with a slightly higher number of repetitions. It is my understanding that relative effort is key to achieving the desired exercise effect. Presumably that effect is not inextricably linked to a 10/10 cadence. I would greatly appreciate a ‘heads up’ on any relevant research literature that speaks to this particular issue. Thanks. Will

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Definitions of theory:

1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

We qualify for most of these definitions. We do base our theories on provable facts and well-established principles from other sources. Perhaps they do reside in the nebula between hypothesis and theory. So what.

At some point, every thing is opinion. Whether the sky is blue is a matter of interpretation and therefore opinion at some level.

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is sometimes mentioned as an example in the definitions of “theory.” What could he really prove, especially in 1905 and 1916? And how much of quantum theory is truly observable?

-Ken Hutchins-

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 20, 2012 at 3:54 pm

From Wikipedia:

A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures, while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

It is debatable where we stand with regard to hypothesis and theory. I am adamant “theory” is acceptable. We might not have “data” in the sense that some would like to see us express, but we do have reliable observation and documentation (notes).

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Let’s just say for a moment you are right and Inroad is a hypothesis and not yet theory. How would you suggest we test this hypothesis? Consider for a moment that we consider inroad as verb that describes a process of ever deepening fatigue. We are exploring ways to expedite that process. What would going in the opposite direction do to all of the involved variables(ie; load, time, forces placed on the joints, distribution of load)? Here’s what we do know: finding ways to deepen fatigue while simultaneously improving time efficiency seems to optimize all of the components of the stimulus while reducing the negative consequences imposed by said stimulus. There really is only two directions to go. What would you suggest?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 20, 2012 at 3:58 pm

“a scientific theory is a set of principles that serves either as a correct description of reality or a guideline for man’s actions.”-Mike Mentzer-

To this I would add: “our theory is renaissance exercise and it is a good one. It has helped us to deliver a service that has made so many people much more powerful. We have seen growth, strength, and improvements beyond our wildest expectations. We do our utmost to describe our experience and we provide a cohesive, non contradictory guideline for actions toward specific goals. Data is nothing more than icing on an already delectable cake and we look forward to such as we move toward greater and deeper understanding.

We are very much our own personal experiments in exercise and nutrition and renaissance exercise applauds the idea that all science begins with observation that piques curiosity.

Renaissance exercise is the product of life-affirming imagination and this is more important-initially-than data.

Reply

avatar Scott Springston February 22, 2012 at 9:13 am

Hey guess what, the Renaissance continues thread has been locked after your absence and it got side tracked to be a debate over steroids. To top that off now all of a sudden I can’t log on to it or even open it from work because I believe all the talk of steroids has placed the Darden forum on the Government restricted sites list for supplements and illegal drug content. Just something to keep in mind should drug talk come up on here! It’s to bad Darden has no moderators or limits to the crap it allows on it’s board. I think you guys do a better job of keeping the crap off .

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 22, 2012 at 10:54 am

Hey Scott,
Thank You for the update! I really love the Nautilus legacy…without it we wouldn’t be here, but that forum is beyond disgusting.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Scott Springston February 22, 2012 at 2:09 pm

==Scott==
Joshua, you recently mentioned you modified Randy’s Nautilus behind the neck machine. Can you please tell me what you changed? Bearings, chains to belts, new cams??

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 22, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Hey Scott,

Send me pictures of what machines you intend to update and I’ll tell you what can be done.

my email is joshuatrentine@yahoo.com

Reply

avatar Scott Springston February 22, 2012 at 3:42 pm

==Scott==
The first would most definitely be my BNTA machine,. I have modified the pulldown part by switching to a cam off of the pec deck part of a double chest which I also redrilled the pivot point hole and also added some counter weight to the arms of the behind the neck part to make both movements less aggressive in the contracted position. The cams on it are just to cool so I didn’t have it in me to mess with them.They’re not perfect yet but in my opinion are much better than before. I’ll try and get you a picture but am not sure yet how to get one on here?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm

send the picture to my email:

joshuatrentine@yahoo.com

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt February 24, 2012 at 3:55 pm

These are somethings I’ve thought about that have been triggered by Renaissanceexercise and various others.

When using conventional equipment, why are drop sets not of value? Should the initial load be at a level that allows a long enough time under load?

Ken’s article “The Real Objective of Exercise vs. The Assumed Objective”, not the newer one, the older one with the olive/pimento looking graph, I think made me think about the following. Ken says something along the lines of the trainee not being able to move the weight still “attempting” to move the weight. This seems to me that you could apply this idea to many types of equipment. Granted the equipment would not be ideal. It just seems to me what Ken says here, says alot. Sorry if I’m too rambly here. Is this something that is covered more in the book?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 26, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Hi Donnie,

Ken covers Breakdowns and other conventional methods in The Renaissance of Exercise.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt February 24, 2012 at 10:00 pm

Let me attempt to make more sense of my last rambling. I’m simply wondering if there is value in using drop sets when using conventional equipment? If the goal or objective to is to inroad wouldn’t drop sets accomplish this quite well?

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 26, 2012 at 7:44 pm

Donnie,

I think the greatest concern here is recyclying of motor units.

I believe going this direction will take people back toward a multi-set approach.

Reply

avatar mark March 5, 2012 at 3:42 am

If you think you have the strength to do a drop set, instead: Continue to maintain all possible strength/tension on the first set, attempting full-effort concentric travel in the face of a non-volitional static, non-volitional eccentric,& non-volitional static after the stack’s bottomed-out. You’ll never do another drop set.

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt March 8, 2012 at 12:49 am

Hey Mark, That sounds very painful. I haven’t delved much into the whole “intense” realm like they talk about on this website or some of the other websites. I haven’t been very consistent for a consectutive period of time with exercise. For whatever reason I like to read about this stuff and get on a kick of “working out” and then I’ll stop. Certain topics will get my attention and I attempt to add my two cents.

The whole thing with drop sets was me thinking that they would allow the trainee the ability to create a deeper inroad because you can get your current strength level down lower than just a straight set while still using a range of motion.

Reply

avatar marklloyd March 8, 2012 at 4:47 am

Donnie: Actually, it’s no more “painful”, (I dont interpret it as pain), than the sincerely best effort on the full-range portion of the set. At first, you may feel frustration over little-to-no additional mechanical work getting done, but once you’re over that, it’s a very satisfying sensation of truly having put forth all possible effort . “Still using a (full?) range of motion” is no virtue in your scenario, especially considering the unloading & retracing required. If you think that failing again with a lower weight will afford you a deeper inroad, you probably should’ve used it as your original weight, focused more on technique, & gone a little longer.

Reply

avatar Nathan Block March 16, 2012 at 1:05 pm

Hi Joshua,How do you renex guys perform a warm-up?Do you directly go to one all-out set?I always do 2-3 warm-up sets to start any exercise. thanks

Reply

avatar mark March 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm

If I may interject til Joshua gets here: The 1st rep of each set begins by not even ‘cracking the stack’, but rather, slowly filling your target muscle(s) w/tension, until the weight finally moves. -Then- you make sure to not further increase the tension, ( now manifested as speed), perhaps even backing off a bit, as long as the stack keeps moving continuously. If the weight selection is correct, this is an ‘easy’ rep, a safer, more efficient version of the warm-up sets you’ve been doing. (10secs up, 10secs down, plus the unmoving 2 to 5 secs at start, that’s a longer warm-up than most traditional trainees do!) Taking retracing out of the workout saves both time & energy for use toward the primary immediate objective of deep inroading.

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine March 17, 2012 at 9:57 pm

Thanks Marc, nicely done.

I might add that now that we have computer feedback we’re actually seeing the load up take as high as 7 to 10 seconds.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt March 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm

Thank you for the detailed response Mark. This make me wonder as I have wondered before, Just how important is mechanical work?? Contradictory to what I said here previously but as long as the weight stack is not resting we know the body is doing the work.

Reply

avatar donnie hunt March 20, 2012 at 9:51 pm

Regarding my question here about mechanical work. Is this covered in the book?

Reply

avatar mark March 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Donnie, I couldn’t find your question’s direct answer, but the chapter on Timed Static Contractions , (used w/subjects who have physical problems w/particular movements), suggests that mechanical work is secondary, & muscular effort itself is primary.

Reply

avatar Nathan Block March 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Thanks for the answer regarding warm-up.Would like to ask Joshua Trentine how you would train a guy like Phil Heath if he knocked on your door and ask you to train him for his next Mr.Olympia.Would you change his workouts somewhat comparing to what you are prescribing?What could be the volume and frequency for such man? thanks

Reply

avatar mark March 26, 2012 at 12:57 am

If Mr.Heath trained in accord with Renaissance Exercise, withdrawal from steroids & growth hormone would take him from first place to last, (tho Josh has real-food dietary concepts to maximize natural muscle) . If Heath continued “using”, concepts like correct volume & frequency are irrelevant: His current workout might as well remain unchanged, (unless he was complaining about not having enough time out of the gym:-).

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine April 1, 2012 at 3:05 am

Hi Nathan,
I have to agree with the other poster, Phil Heath is already at the outer edge of human potential, I’m not sure that I could do any more for him for his goal. Now if it were up to me to rehab an injury or provide the greatest longevity possible I might be of service. Clearly Phil’s training will not be the same at age 60 as it is now and my certainly will be.

The only other area where I might be of service is if Phil wanted to come off of steroids and go into natural competition.

Joshua

Reply

avatar Donnie Hunt March 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm

@ Mark,

Thank you for taking the time to look into and answer my question. The whole “mechanical work/range of motion” topic has been something I have thought about regarding exercise and strenght/muscle gain.

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 16, 2012 at 6:38 am

Hi Josh. I have been curious how the theory of inroad couples with the theory/hypothesis of signature TUL:
If a specific load is required to allow one to properly inroad their muscles, is this not an inclusion of total tonnage theory?- albeit to a lesser degree used by most- and thus a contradiction of the mind-muscle connection idea we have been discussing on the communication continuum blog? Id like to share what i think leads to this phenomenon we all witness when lifting a weight lighter than normal and yet failing at the same TUL is perhaps not down to the staying power of each muscle fibre type-as stated by Doug Mcguff-but more down to the congestion in the muscle which, I think, causes friction within the muscle and initiates mechanical failure earlier than expected and this can simply be worked around by pushing statically when mechanical failure sets in?Always I find that when dropping the weight by a few pounds , I still feel like I have far more ‘left in the tank’ with the lighter weight than I would have with the heavier weight?

Reply

avatar Bradley warlow December 16, 2012 at 6:41 am

Any insights will be greatly appreciated!

Reply

avatar Joshua Trentine February 21, 2012 at 1:19 am

inroad is inroad

but your ability to inroad deeply is restricted with a barbell, not to mention saftey issues when inroading a muscle to the degree that is possible.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: