SPORTSCIENCE

sportsci.org

News & Comment: Strength Training

A NEW WEIGHTS MACHINE WITH DYNAMICALLY ADJUSTABLE RESISTANCE

Frederick C Hatfield PhD

International Sports Sciences Association, Santa Barbara, California 93101. Email: drsquat=AT=issaonline.com

Sportscience 3(1), sportsci.org/jour/9901/fch.html, 1999 (762 words)

Reviewed by: William J Kraemer PhD, Human Performance Laboratory, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana  47306; Steven S Plisk, MS CSCS, Director of Sports Conditioning, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Those of you who, like me, have spent nearly 50 years in the weight room will recall all manner of equipment that promised to revolutionize training. In my opinion only a small handful of innovative devices have been introduced, and most of those during the last two or three years. Whether they have improved the effectiveness of strength training is often hotly debated. The new machine I review here may be one of the good ones.

For years, strength-training machines were built with no special intent beyond making muscles bigger and stronger by allowing the user to work against resistance. Then a few of the more thoughtful athletes and trainers realized that the ability of a muscle to rapidly generate maximum force involves a time/rate dependency that their current training technology was unable to address adequately. An explosion of innovations ensued. Eventually four categories of device could be discerned (Hatfield et al., 1999):

• constant-resistance--resistance does not increase or decrease during the course of exercise;
• variable-resistance--devices that increase or decrease the resistance during a movement to match changes in joint leverage;
• accommodating-resistance--devices designed to allow you to exert maximum resistance throughout the full range of movement by controlling the speed of movement;
• static-resistance--devices that prevent movement altogether.

Most sport scientists agree that machines are generally inferior to the constant resistance provided by free weights. Nevertheless, derivative technologies continue to flood the marketplace. Recently, Scott Naidus has patented and produced a cam-operated selectorized (weight-stack) machine (Figure 1).

The machine has an electric motor that drives two sprockets engaged by a cam designed to increase or decrease the angle of motion of a weighted lever arm. This innovation allows the user to adjust the resistance at any instant during a movement. The inventor uses the term dynamically controlled resistance (DCR) to describe the way the machine works (see his commercial site www.dcrtech.com). Naidus claims the following unique benefits for his machine:

• The user can change either the positive or negative resistance instantly at any moment during a set or repetition.
• If the user learns how to manipulate the resistance properly, s/he will be able to achieve a higher work load during each rep and set.
• Casual fitness enthusiasts will therefore be able "…to work out twice as hard and be out of the gym in half the time."
• Protocols can be fine tuned to make the training stress more closely match the user's sport-specific requirements.

Let's look at this technology from the standpoint of current gym practice. One training method in particular comes to mind: forced reps. An experienced and educated spotter can be helpful in ensuring that the lifter is working at the highest level of stress simply by adding to or taking away some of the weight in the lifter's hands. But such gifted spotters are rare. With the new machine, a lifter can alter the amount of resistance at any time, thereby accounting for momentary fatigue or a sticking point in a given movement. As usual, the chief drawback is the level of training wisdom of the lifter in knowing when to alter the resistance, and by how much.

In a personal communication to me, Naidus wrote:

I believe the features of my machines are excellent for permitting the exerciser to engage in different and unique routines in every workout, thereby serving to stimulate the muscles and impose upon them new patterns of workloads. This should ultimately result in constant adaptation, and better strength gains.

I do not disagree. This, from an old gym rat: it's certainly worth a try! Just don't throw away your dumbbells and barbells.

Hatfield FC, Kreis EJ, Hatfield II FC (1999). Sports conditioning: the complete guide. Santa Barbara, California: International Sports Sciences Association

Stephen Plisk pointed out that the machine is a modified version of those designed to exercise muscle groups in isolation. He asserted that such exercises are non-functional. The author thought this assessment was "a bit harsh", because they "work fine at producing overload".

The reviewer also downplayed the importance of "time under stress". He emphasized the importance of "impulse and motor control" in the development of strength, and he thought that "this type of resistance-training technology does little to account for them". In reply, the author agreed with the need to lift weights more slowly at first, and that the importance of motor control is why "...we all like free weights more than machines.."

William Kraemer was a little more positive than Stephen Plisk, but he raised several issues. I quote with minor editing:

• Optimizing force over the range of motion has been a quest for many lifters seeking a unique resistance exercise machine. The rationale for this quest is the fact that each movement has its own strength curve and the fact that each individual has a different body make-up (limb lengths, tendon insertions, etc.).
• The key concept here is that the machine allows one to modulate the resistance over the range of motion rather than having it set beforehand. In theory, therefore, force can be optimized over the range of motion. The assumption of such a theory is that the body will be able to tolerate such forces and benefit from their use. However, it has been shown recently that when you maximally stimulate eccentric phases of the movement in a set the body compensates by producing less force concentrically even in that same set. [So the athlete may lose on the swings what s/he gained on the roundabouts.]
• But what is optimal? If force maximized through a complete range of motion is optimal, this device may be better than one that simply limits resistance to the weakest point in the strength curve.
• It is not clear how the lifter will optimally increase the resistance over the range of motion. The necessary neural feedback would appear to be faster than the lifter's ability to respond with more or less resistance, especially at high velocities of movement.
• Some exercises are bounded by an impact point at the end of a joint's range of motion (e.g., knee extension). The loading and activation of muscle is related to protection of the joint--hence the deceleration through certain parts of the range of motion at higher speeds. How will the lifter know when to change the amount of resistance due to deceleration of the limb as it reaches its terminal limits?
• This equipment is an example of technological capability that goes beyond our understanding of how muscle adapts to overload. It may also go beyond our ability to withstand the forces.
• Nevertheless, increasing the intensity of load over the range of motion has always been a dream of many lifters. The question now is can the lifter engage such training purely on perceptual cues? This piece of equipment will certainly take some "smarts" to use.
• [Technical issues] How well does the machine work for people at the extremes of body size? Are all pieces of equipment for different body parts the same? Limb speed affects force production, so is limb speed calculated and displayed?

The author thought that this response was fair. He agreed that only time will tell whether the new tech is better than what has gone before.

I also gave Scott Naidus an opportunity to respond to this article. He said that it was not his intention to replace free weights with his machines. His objective is to give athletes another tool to maximize performance.