Guest guest Posted September 6, 2002 Report Share Posted September 6, 2002 Casler writes: <<First and foremost, we all have to agree that the two general types of results we look for in " ForceLoaded Training " are " Form " (making ourselves look better) and " Function " (making our strength functionally or action specific)>> Including hypertrophic metabolic- ? Casler: <<The reason I design machines is because they allow me to create load applications that cannot be created or applied any other way. But then my machine designs are not conventional. I have developed some machines that DO allow for " very functionally specific " actions, and I have designed machines and programs that allow us to do things that " cannot " be duplicated with mass/based loadings such as free weights...>> If you've seen my patents US 4,863,161 & 5,344,374 you know mine are a bit esoteric also. As you know there are 3 " parts? " to machine training--the resistance-generating device, the movement (including possible machinery) and the interface(s) between. As shown on the first patent, I could generate extremely high negative forces, very quickly, with an active hydraulic system. I sold it when a hydraulics engineer from s Marrietta AeroSpace told me that the wrong sequence of valve functions and somebodys arms would be torn off--convinced me to use the slower acting linear translator for the increased eccentrics. It is also the only way to control instanteneous resistance level--a very important eccentric consideration. The linearly translating inertial resistance blended with passive hydraulic provides the varying, variable resistance concentric at any training speed. Brilliant eh !? -- too bad results didnt match design ! From my perspective I can provide matching resistnce at any rate of acceleration-movement-decel either eccentrically or concentriaclly at any speed with resistnce to match the athletes force (big conceptual problems there) throughout the entire ROM. After 6 months on this ingenious stuff--none of us blew up like the Michelin tire boy(gratefully)--but ?? So just what the blazes is going on? Admittedly there were too few subjects, possible overuse problems, exercise variety, tempo etc. The free weight variations *seem* better--now that we rotate exercises with a heavy influence from and Poliquin recommendations. In terms of movements side I think a " leeper " style squat machine can be usefull, as can a bench apparatus. Rows, curls triceps laterals etc. would be interfaced with a cable. Squats and bench *can* be cable interfaced with a bi cable system, one on each end of the bar--I never could get this psuedo gravity, psuedo cable system to work (well). It seems exercises that require balance with a fixed point of resistance (pulleys) have a strange " chime " ? to maintain balance--maybe this is good? My opinion, at this point, is to either fix the movement pattern or do them free! A cabled smith machine might be of benefit for some exercises. Did you happen to see that " butt punch " exercise I mentined a few weeks back--thoughts ? Casler: <<<As Jerry Telle and I (separately) discovered many years ago, every rep has a distinct and deteriorating force curve. Generally the deterioration is in the shortened ranges of motion. I'm curious as to what led you to it--the process of discovery fascinates me <<<Setting the curve at a single setting as in the Nautilus cam, only means that it is correct 1 rep of each set (if we assume it is accurately prescribed in the first place). I imagine you know this--the Nautilus cam NEVER matches the athlete's strength curve--it is either a % of the athletes strength on the1st rep or profile deficent on the last, with some mix of both in between. C: <<So what does this mean to the set? If we were to have the goal of the set, as reaching the greatest " overload " , then this cannot happen when we are braced on a machine and the muscle begins to fail.... If we we're doing a set of standing curls, when the force curve in the bicep began its deterioration we could add a bit of body action to allow us to perform a few more reps (overload)...>> ...Or we could alter the geometry(mechanical advantage) of the levers(bones)--and or a combination of both--AS EVERY trainer who ever curled a free weight has done--even when admonished by well meaning but largely ignorant trainer coaches to keep their shoulders and elbows fixed the entire movement--its time this idea was buried --it died a long time ago. Casler: <<<If braced in a machine, we cannot add this action and we subsquently have to terminate the set prematurely.>> I know I'm splitting fibers here, but pivoting the shoulders forward over the elbows, by rising in the seat, alters the characteritics of the strength force relation enough to continue--and as you alluded to above by dropping down in the seat while maintaining an isometric elbow action, one can catapult the apparatus into rotation-- <<<<<Premature termination means less overload and reduced stimulus means slower, reduced adaptation. I totally agreee ,but has this been validated?. <<<So Arthur ' Nautilus cam was the single greatest example of " retro-technology " in the history of exercise Instead of providing a tool to allow greater overload ability, it " reduced " or impeded the ability to do so. One giant step for ignorance--I even stepped in it for about 3 months back in the early 70's <<<<I addressed this issue by inventing a force transmission device that will add any amount of force in the form of " force curve overlay " while still using gravity/mass based force as the primary load force. This way we can program in any force addition in the concentric, transitional, or eccentric actions. D_ _ _ it when you gonna bring these things out. Taking them to the grave benefits no one. <<<But, lest you think I feel I have the " perfect " machines, I do not. The perfect exercise machine would be a " gravity/mass " device where we could control the gravity/mass forces either of, or exerted upon the body. This way we could take a sprinter or pole vaulter or whatever athlete and load " ALL " the body not just a specific chain or group. <<It would be like being able to change the Earth's mass and thus specific gravity in micro adjustments. This would be perfect because it would load " all " system equally and proportionately. well until you figure out a way to manipulate gravity fields to address the changing centers of gravity of 100 adjusting bones/muscles I think " perfect " (more perfect anyway) machines can be valuable adjuncts to specific needs--most obvious case West side Training(albeit sans machines).. they train competitive lifts at ~55% 1 RM and " perfect " assitance exercises at 100%1-5 RM?--though the 100% is apparently a training-non competitive effort. I believe some machines can be effective for this--for one, the West Siders are manipulating resistance curves, with cables and chains to facilitate lifts. You know what my philosophiies are--a little corrraboration might go a long way--I know theres more--I'm not sure what it is. Casler: <<Until this device is available, my devices which are too varied and numerous to mention here ...>> your best one--or if they're all equal--any of will do! Its time to " get off it " and share your brilliance !! Casler: << The difficult part is finding the financial backing to launch such a venture or else I would be somewhat " ian " myself.>> He didnt start with much--just a ton of nonsense and another of bravado. Of course, I guess that proves your point ! Casler: << If anything positive can be said about it, it would be that the " promise " of getting a maximum result in a single set of 10 exercises 3 times a week brought a lot of people into the gym to train a little harder than they might have, without the dogma.>> I've heard that before and if true, I agree--and more important for me, initiated my avid interest in resistance knowledge and application. Casler: <<Just think about the results we would have achieved if we had not been so " swayed " . And yes even the great Paavo Komi was involved in an " cam " machine from a company called DAVID, from Sweden I believe. >> If the venerable Komi is so great, why has he not presented his methodologies? I remember the 2000 adverts--which were a great relief to me because I had " found " the same thing my self intuitively/anecdotally as far back as 1965 when I first combined inertial with passive hydraulics. At that point I knew? something was amiss that resitance changed but didnt know how, why or care. In my naive eyes I had it all taken care of no matter what was going on. Then along came Arthur and I was hooked, finally building the 4, 863, 161 device in 81-82? as a research/training instrument. It wasnt until I had a conceptual symbolic sense of the relationship between resistance and strength did I attempt to publish a definitive statement.. (as far as it can be described) I spoke with Komi at the Minneapolis and Denver ACSM conferences. He expressed no particular interest in the topic, but did say he'd send me his research --- but did not. Casler: <<Their cam was much more accurate *BECAUSE IT MATCHED THE LAST FEW REPS?* and was designed to more accurately match the " last few reps " . This would have been better from a training aspect, --WHY--but it felt very strange and too light at the top of the movement, to most. It soon fell by the wayside, as just another Nautilus imitator.>> Well I took it on myself to demonstrate the effectiveness of different cam profiles by having folks do 3 reps of a possible 6 on early nautilus, immediately followed by 3of 4 on a cybex followed by 3 of 3 on the --variations in speed compensated for some? of the resistance strength mismatches-- not bad really--and if you ever found your self in a gym without dumbbells(iron) and all 3 of these specific machines--a good idea!--honest. Casler: <<<If we are talking about Sports Specific Conditioning, Nautilus was in no way close to loaded compound and complex exercises.>> He was in no way close on " single joint " exercises either. BTW, few people realize the possible complications of fixing an exerciser into a knee extension/flexion contraption with a fixed center of rotation--across from a joint that has a center of rotation that translates in space(terminology?) relative to the resistive axle. Nor do most scientists realize that shoulder abduction (side lateral raises) are really a 3 joint exercise--though the delts attach accross one joint, the rotation of the scapula about the pivoting clavicle changings the dynamics of the exercise--same thing with horizontal flexion (pec deck flys) except in this case the muscle does traverse all 3 joints. ---AND as long as I have the soap box I've wondered what the long-range consequences are of doing elbow flexion and supination on a pad that the elbow grinds into, especially when flexion and supination are combined? Casler: <<If we are talking about muscle specific hypertrophy or " specific muscle " muscle strength it certainly was in the same league as many other machines. This is exactly what Arthur " didn't " want. He wanted to build a better sports conditioning tool. It didn't work. Just like his newer line of MedX machines for the torso. They are ill-conceived and incorrect..... Once in a fit of rage, he yelled at me over the telephone, " I've killed 32 men and I'll kill you too " . To which I answered, " I don't think so, Arthur " .>> [ Does not realise that he has killed his higher self and higher qualities all without any assistance from any of us? Mel Siff] The devil has demanded his due and AJ is paying. <<<<30 years later I'm still alive, so another threat/promise/statement that didn't come true. >> and just when I thought there was nothing good to be said for empty promises !! JOHN-- we need your ideas--but please dont submit an answer for a few days--I have other things that need doing !! Jerry Telle Lakewood CO USA jrtelle@... * Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you wish them to be published! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2002 Report Share Posted September 8, 2002 Casler wrote: <<The reason I design machines is because they allow me to create load applications that cannot be created or applied any other way. But then my machine designs are not conventional. Jerry Telle wrote: If you've seen my patents US 4,863,161 & 5,344,374 you know mine are a bit esoteric also. As you know there are 3 " parts? " to machine training--the resistance-generating device, the movement (including possible machinery) and the interface(s) between. As shown on the first patent, I could generate extremely high negative forces, very quickly, with an active hydraulic system. I sold it when a hydraulics engineer from s Marrietta AeroSpace told me that the wrong sequence of valve functions and somebodys arms would be torn off--convinced me to use the slower acting linear translator for the increased eccentrics. It is also the only way to control instanteneous resistance level--a very important eccentric consideration. The linearly translating inertial resistance blended with passive hydraulic provides the varying, variable resistance concentric at any training speed. Casler writes: I looked at hydraulic actuation also and used it in the ZONE and TYGR machines whom I worked with, but found it slow acting, and less than controllable to the degree needed. Ariel also used " digital hydraulics " but he lost the " proprioceptive feedback " of inertia and momentum. I ended up patenting an electric motor/magnetic particle clutch (or electrorheological clutch) with a gear reduction. This allowed a constant or variable speed motor to apply " any amount of force " to the drive chain/belt of a machine fluidly and instantaneously. The voltage to force graph of the clutch was very linear and response was in " miliseconds " which allowed simple microprocessor control to apply ounces to hundreds of pounds in an instant, with " feather force " control abilities. This was the original patent. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2 & Sect2=HITOFF & p=1 & u= /netahtml/search-bool.html & r=11 & f=G & l=50 & co1=AND & d=ft95 & s1=5015926 & OS=50 15926 & RS=5015926 I let it expire when I improved it with a braking system to improve safety and function. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nphParseSect1=PTO2 & Sect2=HITOFF & p=1 & u=/ne tahtml/searchbool.html & r=1 & f=G & l=50 & co1=AND & d=ft00 & s1=6368251 & OS=6368251 & RS=6368251 I used regular weights as the " primary " load so as not to lose the " proprioceptive feedback " and just added (or subtracted) force where desired. It also has sensing devises to allow force and speed monitoring adjustments. As an interesting side note. As I mentally explored all the potential uses of " adding force " , I hit on something akin to " vibration training " . I realized that I could, with this device, add " pulses " of force (eccentric and concentric force spikes) at spaced intervals and of any magnitude, rise time or decay. These pulses (spikes) could then be slowly, progressively " rounded or smoothed " over several workouts until the whole rep was at peak force, rather than the valley. Simple principle, similar to Bannisters training for the Mile Record. You just reduce the low force time between pulses. My device would allow the pulses (vibrations) to be of any magnitude or duration and placed or spaced at all or any point in the ROM. My original thought was that the eccentric application might offer some great results, since the pulse could be applied and removed so fast that the muscle would proprioceptively (reflexively) react but the actual weight would not actually begin to " accelerate " appreciably before the pulse was " relaxed " . The rehab implications of this are rather significant as well as the strength and hypertrophic benefits. But that was just " one " of hundreds (thousands) of possible applications. Jerry Telle wrote: Squats and bench *can* be cable interfaced with a bi cable system, one on each end of the bar--I never could get this psuedo gravity, psuedo cable system to work (well). It seems exercises that require balance with a fixed point of resistance (pulleys) have a strange " chime " ? to maintain balance--maybe this is good? My opinion, at this point, is to eitherfix the movement pattern or do them free! A cabled smith machine might be of benefit for some exercises. Did you happen to see that " butt punch " exercise I mentined a few weeks back--thoughts ? Casler writes: You would love my TRI-VECTOR Barbell system. I have a design (patent pending) that attaches a barbell (or dumbbells) to a " lever system " . The lever system has movement in 3 planes of motion and allows one to introduce or subtract forces from the bar in three directions (front to back, side to side, up and down) It allows presses, squats, rows, high pulls and other exercises to be performed " loaded " at various angles rather than just up and down. For example: you could do 45 degree angle presses, rows or squats. It is very cool, and can be set up to be quite " action specific " . Casler wrote: <<<As Jerry Telle and I (separately) discovered many years ago, every rep has a distinct and deteriorating force curve. Generally the deterioration is in the shortened ranges of motion. Jerry Telle: I'm curious as to what led you to it--the process of discovery fascinates me Casler writes: Well, I read everything I could get my hands on regarding force curves. Which was helpful but didn't fill in the blanks. I can't remember finding much literature on " multiple " successive curves. I also didn't find any multiple " eccentric to concentric " force deterioration relationships published When you have a tool that lets you control force applied or subtracted to every degree of every rep you need to understand just what is happening force wise. So I not only analyzed a set, but every degree of eccentric and concentric force and fatigue during the ROM. It was not to hard to perform a set and realize just where a muscle's force curve began its deterioration and at what ranges of motion. It was also interesting to observe the differing deterioration patterns of the eccentric vs. the concentric. I also wrote an article on the phases of a set, as in " metabolic initiation stage " , " approach stage " , " target rep stage " , and " extended rep stage " . The Metabolic Initiation Stage was the beginning where all the metabolic processes begin for the rest of the set. This stage saw increased blood flow, lactic acid and other metabolite accumulation, heat increases, etc.. The Approach Stage was the retirement of fibers and beginnings of fatigue that took you to the final or " Target Rep " of the set. The Target Rep was the goal of the set and generally it represented either maximum current ability or an " overload " beyond previous ability. And the Extended Rep Stage was for those interested in " extreme " overload where the set was " extended " by specific means such as reduction of concentric force, or resting until another " target rep " could be performed. This type of analysis, led me to understand the significant force generation capabilities in all reps, and every degree of every rep. Jerry Telle wrote: I imagine you know this--the Nautilus cam NEVER matches the athlete's strength curve--it is either a % of the athletes strength on the1st rep or profile deficent on the last, with some mix of both in between. Casler writes: Arthur told me he took multiple " isometric readings " for each action and fed them into the curve. This type of curve would be totally incorrect for a dynamic action where the inertia of the load might vary depending on speed/acceleration. (thus the philosophical beginnings of Super Slow) So I was being " kind " in allowing it " might be close to correct " . In the end, we have to wonder if " matching " the force generation capabilities of the muscle/joint complex actually has a " functional " value. Never does this ever happen in the real world. Additionally, the motor impulse will eventually adapt to actually closely match, the stimulus. So in essence, we will adapt to the cam dictated force profile. A tracking cam may be more useful in Hypertrophy since maintaining " maximum " tension through the full ROM may be valuable for this purpose. Komi, as I understood it used more accurate " dynamic " readings, and then processed the information of the " final " reps, which yielded a curve where the load at the shortened ranges was significantly reduced. Even that was folly, because the lower load in that position reduced the stimulus in the early reps and subsequent " motor " response. In other words, the motor impulse then adapted to the different curve. After studying all this, I saw that the only way to do this effectively, was to have a sensing computer and a controlling microprocessor that would allow us to " decide " what we wanted and then program it in as an " overlay " to a real world load such as weights. The sensors are important to allow the computer to adjust for varying speed and such. I think it is important to also consider that " isokinetic " type devices already have the ability to " maintain " a speed controlled force the will track the force generated curve quite accurately. I don't find this valuable. I do not think exact tracking is the goal. I think that force control " is " . " Designer Force Curves " may offer specific benefits and advantages for rehab and certain applications of sports training such as high speed, and explosive work and RFD development. Jerry Telle wrote: ...Or we could alter the geometry(mechanical advantage) of the levers(bones)--and or a combination of both--AS EVERY trainer who ever curled a free weight has done--even when admonished by well meaning but largely ignorant trainer coaches to keep their shoulders and elbows fixed the entire movement--its time this idea was buried --it died a long time ago. Casler writes: Ah yes, what I call " introduction of biomechanical advantages " to provide an environment for " greater stimulation " or " overload " . I used to really enjoy it when a well meaning " certified " Trainer, would shyly attempt to find out why I " cheated " on some of my reps. Or more amusing was when they would tell me I wouldn't get any results from doing it that way and was likely to " hurt myself " . : ) Casler wrote: <<<<<Premature termination means less overload and reduced stimulus means slower, reduced adaptation. Jerry Telle wrote: I totally agreee ,but has this been validated?. Casler writes: Well if we agree that SAID (specific adaptation of imposed demand) is true, then if the imposed demand is reduced, the adaptation is also. Casler wrote: <<<So Arthur ' Nautilus cam was the single greatest example of " retro-technology " in the history of exercise. Instead of providing a tool to allow greater overload ability, it " reduced " or impeded the ability to do so. Jerry Telle wrote: One giant step for ignorance--I even stepped in it for about 3 months back in the early 70's Casler writes: I was a devoted follower for much longer than that, but as my " awareness " increased my perception changed drastically. When I actually realized that each rep had a different curve then I knew we had taken the wrong path. Casler wrote: <<<<I addressed this issue by inventing a force transmission device that will add any amount of force in the form of " force curve overlay " while still using gravity/mass based force as the primary load force. This way we can program in any force addition in the concentric, transitional, or eccentric actions. Jerry Telle wrote: D_ _ _ it when you gonna bring these things out. Taking them to the grave benefits no one. Casler writes: Let me assure you, I have placed " more than human " effort in the promotion, design and development of these devices. The problem is financing. This cannot be done with a welding torch in your garage, like we used to. With the proliferation of conventional devices on the market (most still cam based I might add) a device like mine must have two things, low cost and high proven effectiveness. My machines would certainly be effective, but until built have " no " track record. They would also NOT be cheap so without a proven benefit and substantially increased costs, it is a tough sale? I have concurrently developed an incredible operational and marketing plan that provides a web based system where " ANY " exercise program, system, or philosophy can be " delivered " to a " so equipped " facility. That means I can deliver fitness programming from any Trainer, doctor, clinician, celebrity, organization or whoever to the machines. (this network can also be used with free weights, but data " input " is manual) Without going into detail, this system is significantly beyond any existing system I am aware of. You (or any doctor,clinician, trainer, coach) can sit in your office log on, program your client and they can then go to the faculty and the program is waiting for them and you can both then access the data from each session and the accumulated data. So You, Mel, the American Heart Association, Jack Lalanne, Cory Everson, Tiger Woods, Men's Health Magazine, or even the Secret Girls, could all market/deliver your exercise and fitness programs/philosophies on this system. Complete with onscreen video exercise instruction and a host of incredible readouts and programming features. And those philosophies can have all the variables in strength training such as periodization schedules, rep/set schemes, weights and force loads, eccentric to concentric force relationships and thousands of other variables that make each philosophy different " and " marketable. I even have goal calculation programs and just about everything you can think of. The system also includes full LCD monitors on each machine with an " on screen trainer " to demonstrate the exercise properly,but also a video camera " on you the trainee " , that puts you, (split screen) side by side the " on screen " trainer for easy self instruction. The system also has " self use " , sphygomomonometers, heart rate monitors, bodyweight scales and body fat monitors. It also has a complete compliment of Cardio machines too. You would be totally amazed at what I have designed into this system. As well, you might be amazed at how ATM (automated teller machine) simple I have made it. I was in the commercial fitness business for 15 years so I didn't want to have to rely on any " onsite " staff for ANY portion of the use of these machines. I also wanted to make them so simple that the technology could safely and confidently be released to anyone who can read. BUT... It takes $$several million$$ to launch, and therein lies the problem. Jerry Telle wrote: You know what my philosophiies are--a little corrraboration might go a long way--I know theres more--I'm not sure what it is. Casler writes: I agree. You would be totally amazed at what I have in this system over all. I have more of the technology, design, physiology, biomechanics, and overall marketing savvy and approach, put together to make (what I think) would be a quantum leap in the way people exercise. It would have a similar impact on exercise as cellular phones did to communication, or Cable and Satellite had on Home Entertainment Programming. Can you imagine, now we can offer the training programs and philosophies of the worlds greatest experts to the multitudes??? (And don't forget Cory and the Secret Girls!!) A cardiac surgeon can now sit down in his office and program his patient. Not with just exercise parameters, but with many other factors such as specific " on screen " instruction (flashing on the top of each machine if he wants) like " Don't hold your breath " . Then the doctor will also be able to examine Blood Pressure readings before and after exercise, as well as pulse during cardio and in between each strength exercise. Never in the history of medical exercise has this been possible " off site " except in very specific clinics. Talk about prescriptive exercise, BIO-FORCE has it. They can also offer machine by machine " on screen " directions or warnings in the MESSAGE LINE, like " DON " T HOLD YOUR BREATH " or " DON'T BEGIN THE NEXT MACHINE UNTIL PULSE DROPS BELOW 90 BPM " . The patient exits the machine, and holds onto the hand held pulse monitor between each machine, and when the pulse goes below 90 he continues. (an athletic coach might instruct their client/athlete to begin the next machine " before " dropping below 145bpm) All the resulting data is then " uploaded " and available to both patient/client and the trainer/clinician online (with password of course). Casler wrote: <<Until this device is available, my devices which are too varied and numerous to mention here ...>> Jerry Telle wrote: your best one--or if they're all equal--any of will do! Its time to " get off it " and share your brilliance !! Casler writes: As I said this system is not something that can be marketed as a single unit or machine. The only way is to do it correctly and completely from top to bottom. And let me assure you, I have sacrificed the major portion of my personal life and financial assets to try and push this forward. I have a rather significant " Business Plan " that projects a " very " lucrative bottom line but initial needs are substantial and financing is not my forte. And thanks for the compliment, but I can't take the title of " brilliant " but I do know that my life experiences, creativity, common sense and interests have led me to a culmination (BIO-FORCE) that could have a profound impact as a tool to allow the delivery of some very significant advances in health, fitness and exercise. Casler: <<Just think about the results we would have achieved if we had not been so " swayed " . And yes even the great Paavo Komi was involved in an " cam " machine from a company called DAVID, from Sweden I believe. >> Jerry Telle wrote: If the venerable Komi is so great, why has he not presented his methodologies? Casler writes: Komi is also human and subject to the same mistakes in logic as we all are. He also has bills and I'm sure the promise of a " better mouse trap " (Nautilus machine) looked attractive and profitable. Let me assure you that Arthur believed every word he said. He was just incorrect in much of his logic. I call them " mistaken certainties " . Mel Siff wrote: [ Does not realise that he has killed his higher self and higher qualities all without any assistance from any of us? ] Casler writes: I admire , and feel sorry for him at the same time. My admiration is for his dogged determination and success considering his education and knowledge base. I feel sorry for him because with all his success, he has nothing but an empty shell and a failing company (MedX) to show for it. As accepted as his principles and philosophy was (and still is) they were a dismal failure in really advancing our science. His personality while amusing, is also demonstrative of a severely mis-shaped value and logic system, but his " world wide " affect cannot be denied, and the residual is still with us. Even a portion of Jerry's and my efforts can be attributed to the stimulation of Arthur's assertions and subsequent mistakes. Jerry Telle wrote: JOHN-- we need your ideas--but please dont submit an answer for a few days--I have other things that need doing !! Casler writes: Thanks Jerry for the comments. I remember when I first " burst " on the Fitness/Sportscience type forums, with my BIO-FORCE meanderings, you were one of the first to respond. As you can see much of our separate explorations have lead us to similar conclusions. I find it difficult to even write about some of the concepts and discoveries because my writing skills are not proficient and space is not sufficient. Then many confuse or perceive the explanations to be all inclusive with " this is the best " type hype. I have addressed many areas of exercise and in doing so have myself developed a philosophy that, if applied progressively, regularly and safely, it can " all be good " . The key to most however, is to find the " best " or " most effective " way to reach goals and maintain condition. With exercise being " SO " complex it is truly difficult to address the combination of factors that might contribute to the maximum effective result to any one situation, much less millions. I think I have a reasonable " overview " of the many facets of this jewel we strive to polish to a brilliant luster, but I know that I am only one diamond cutter. Now if we only had a partner with reasonable financial capabilities.... We could do what set out to do, but this time maybe do it with a little more comprehensive accuracy. Just imagine what the SuperSlow and HIT congregation could do with my machines, computer control, and delivery system. And I have to say, with my force and speed control capabilities, and my " INTENSIOMETER " , they could even further their science in a way NEVER before available. I am talking single set results that would border on maximum. On that note I better close. Probably no one is reading this far except you, Mel, and I anyhow. (and Mel only because he has to) : ) Regards, A. Casler TRI-VECTOR 3-D Force Systems Century City, CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.