For years since I left Nautilus I wanted equipment ideal for SuperSlow® Protocol that Nautilus either could not or would not make. Eventually, MedX emerged with an exercise line and for a brief time offered hope. Then I began to retrofit equipment so that my old friends at MedX might be convinced to follow suit with the resulting designs. I failed to make them understand.

I then decided to make my own equipment and teach others to make their own and to sell some of the retrofits. This became frustrating, because the designs would be compromised when others would cut corners or misunderstand what I instructed them to do.

I avoided a design for the generic exercises: leg press, chest press, overhead press, pull down, or compound row. I did this, because I was momentarily satisfied with most of the existing movements in the then-available products. And I was not as astutely aware of their limitations. Also, I was preoccupied with what seemed to be more-important problems in some of the simple (single-joint) movements.

MedX began to offer its leg press.  I appreciated that it was a big improvement over the Nautilus, but everything is an evolutionary process.

More recently, I found ways to make a pull down, offering a resistance tracking from  in front of the vertical line (frontal plane) of the torso. This relieved many of the shoulder and elbow irritations stemming from the directly-overhead-oriented machines.

Then, we found a way to make the overhead press articulate from the front of the torso, so that the torso tends to flex rather than extend, giving better control and protection to the lower back as well as facilitating instruction.

We began to experience more shoulder complaints from the MedX Chest Press. Although during my Nautilus career we had argued for a design whereby the handles move toward midline during the positive—like that provided by the MedX, we had also argued for an inferior-directed positive—and the MedX arced superiorly.  So we set out to make a chest press that forfeited (since we cannot have both approaches simultaneously) the midline approach but tracked inferiorly. We succeeded in all these projects and have taken all of them to market within the past three months. But it has taken about five years to work out all the problems. And, almost any problem seems easy after you solve it.

I felt wrong about putting out a SuperSlow® Leg Press. What could I do to improve on the MedX? I have promoted the MedX Leg Press since its advent, because I believed that it was the best single exercise machine in the industry.

I admit that I needed a leg press to go with the SuperSlow® line, so a gym owner could do one-stop shopping to set up a SuperSlow® business. As some have heard me say, to complete the SuperSlow® image we must have all the elements: Certification Program, Web Site, Technical Manual, video instructionals, SuperSlow® Facilities, and SuperSlow® Equipment.

I believed I could build a leg press that was almost as good as the MedX—say, had 95% of the elements of the MedX, but cost much less. At nearly $6000 for the MedX, I believed we could scale down one for around $3,300.

I spent almost two years of design time taking pictures, buying other leg presses to study, measuring strokes, and drawing combinations that I preferred. Finally, I sent the drawings to my prototypist in Texas this past May and was sold his design time using two of his assistants for one entire week.  I flew to Texas to inspect the result in late July and within 10 minutes, I scrapped the entire prototype. The prototypist had followed my instructions perfectly.   He had made the machine—designed with elaborate four-bar linkages—just as I had envisioned, but the adjustments were completely unworkable. $10,000 was trashed not to mention the hundreds of hours of my study and drawing.

Part of my dilemma was that I was unimpressed with the conventional linear bearings for exercise machines.   My prototypist showed me some of his new ideas and convinced me that these bearings could be applied for a low-friction product.  He agreed to rebuild the machine incorporating the new bearings as well as my previous adjustment requirements.  I returned within two weeks and approved a new leg press design that has since surprised me and several customers.

The SuperSlow® Leg Press

The new SuperSlow® Leg Press compares with the MedX as to:

•    $1800 less in cost.

•    Provides better hip stability due to feet remaining superior to pelvis.

•    Accommodates larger subjects.

•    Accommodates smaller subjects.

•    Requires the same operational space but only about 40% of the floor space.

•    Weighs 1/2 as much.

•    Passes through a 36-inch doorway completely assembled while the MedX requires  breakdown into six pieces.

•    Can be easily and precisely repositioned in the gym for maximum efficiency. MedX is difficult to move.

•    End point is adjustable while subject is in motion. MedX requires unloading of subject.

•    Less obstruction to entry/exit. This is a major consideration when assisting debilitated subjects.

•    Larger pedal.

•    Grid on pedal for exact feet positioning.

•    Less friction.

•    Convenient flip-over headpads in variable thicknesses.

•    Identical seat-back adjustments.

•    Same, but more-stable shoulder pad adjustments.

•    More-stable lateral sway of entire movement arm

•    Less claustrophobic to some subjects

•    Slightly easier to start those last almost-impossible repetitions in a high-intensity set.

•    Less shoulder Compression

•    More convenient ventilation

•    More total resistance

There is only one attribute of the MedX Leg Press that seems to surpass the SuperSlow® Leg Press. Positive foot travel on the MedX goes forward and downward, providing more overall stroke. This is the attribute that makes hip stabilization in the MedX worse—encouraging the hips to rise, but may provide better comfort and stability to the knees, since the bars of the four-bar linkage in the MedX arc roughly congruent in motion to the upper thighs.

I was not aware, until recently, that many SuperSlow® instructors were encountering hip instability with the MedX. I suspected it to be a rare occurrence, but it seems it has been a major plague to some in parts of the country. One medical doctor recently stated that, if the instructor tells the client to squeeze tightly at the end point and  the pelvis rises up and out of the seat, hurting a client’s back, this problem becomes a very serious matter.

Regarding knee stability, I have heard only positive reports—from within the ranks of my subjects, as well as from reporting outside instructors—that the knees seem less irritable with the SuperSlow® Leg Press. I cannot say why this is so, but it corroborates against the sheer force myth.

With proper set up, the Super Slow Leg Press can be used as a reasonable calf (Heel Raise) machine.

This machine is now the overall best exercise machine available!

The SuperSlow® Pull Down

This Pull Down permits a pull-down movement from a position upwards and forward of the torso about 30 degrees. This permits greater comfort and stability to the shoulders and elbows, making valgus popping of the elbows less likely. Note that almost all conventional pull down devices track from straight overhead.

Its handle is angled for wrist comfort and is boxed to permit flexing of the torso without the cable in the subject’s face and turning of the head in avoidance.

In review of the Exercise Equipment Design Principles (newsletter #4), note principle XIX—Consider the Consequences of Congruent and Incongruent Arcs in Compound Movements. We should always consider these effects to appreciate their outcome. In some cases, congruency might be desirable. In others, incongruency works to our advantage.

Note that the MedX Pull Down is for a behind-the-neck-style movement, whereby the hands, elbows and shoulders are maintained in a common lateral plane. If you then attempt, as we have, to use it as a front-grip pull down to effect a kind of compound pullover movement, you must place a bar across its handles. This allows for a congruent arc for both upper arms and torso flexion, but flexion of the torso—chest goes anteriorly with middle and lower back going posteriorly against the seat back—jams the torso against the arc of the handles—moving somewhat posteriorly at finish. This is one instance where congruency is a problem. This problem is solved in the SuperSlow® Pull Down by two features:

•    Deliberate omission of a seat back.

•    Accommodation of arcing to any radius by the linear nature of a cable articulating around an overhead pulley.

Returning to the MedX Pull Down: It is a more-specific, latissimus machine. For this, the machine works fine. Note that this machine was first designed for Nautilus and released as one of the four (Dip, Pull Down, Bench Press, Compound Row) Series III machines in 1986. The same engineer developed a similar product for MedX, and has since left the company.

The rationale behind this design was to avoid any possibility of the subject being hit (under his own volition) in the head by the movement arm. Nautilus was plagued by this mishap as the clevis pin between the chain and handlebar might break on earlier designs, and hit the subject in the back of the head. Of course, subjects almost always moved too fast, and this violence eventually led to fatigue of the connecting materials. Therefore, the designers became sensitive to any new product that did not stay away from the head.

I argued that the behind-the-neck design was good, as far as that goes, but the behind-the-neck movement obviates the more important tracking that involves the far-greater muscle mass experienced in the front-grip pull down (chin-like)  movement. Only in this movement is the chest significantly involved,  involving everything reasonably possible for the upper body.

I once badly strained my pectoralis major doing negative dips—which is one reason why I am not too fond of dips —on parallel bars—as an exercise. Expectedly, I could not do dips for a long while, nor pushups, nor pullover, nor bench press, nor decline press, nor chins, nor front-grip pull down. But I could do three upper-body exercises: the Nautilus Behind-Neck machine, the behind-neck chin or the behind-neck pull down.  I could tolerate the Behind-Neck machine only if I kept my shoulder in external rotation. If I permitted a moderate amount of internal rotation, the pecs became very involved and painful. If I permitted any anterior drift of my elbows during a behind-neck pull down, same result.

[Note: I have often wondered why the injured pec was spared in external rotation while doing Behind-Neck, although external rotation puts it into active sufficiency.  I suppose this happens because, although actively sufficient, the lateral humeral excursion does not require any force from the pec.]

We have a MedX Pull Down in our studio. I intend to keep it because some subjects cannot perform the front-grip style because of elbow valgus irritation or  shoulder problems. With the behind-neck style, they can still do a semblance of pull down, although it is not as thorough as the front-grip.

The SuperSlow® Pulldown fills a void in the pull down realm. It is, generally speaking, a more important exercise than a behind-neck movement.

A handle and pullpin on the side of the central column are provided to permit three resistance curves by retiming with the same cam. The selections vary from a flat (no) curve to moderate to most. These selections are varied dependent on arm/torso length and seasoning of the subject.

The abdominals are felt as much as the arms during this exercise by most subjects. The latissimus is also noted by many subjects.

An optional seat belt is supplied for subjects who are unable to use the roller pads which are removable.

The SuperSlow® Overhead Press

This Overhead Press movement arm articulates from the front of the torso as most similar products articulate from the rear. Rear articulation encourages the subject to inappropriately extend the lower back,  jeopardizing the spine in an attempt to complete the positive stroke. By articulation from the front, the subject is encouraged—not required—to push backwards with the lower back as the movement arm rises. This design results in a somewhat longer machine, but it is functionally much better.

Again, In review of the Exercise Equipment Design Principles (newsletter #4), note principle XIX—Consider the Consequences of Congruent and Incongruent Arcs in Compound Movements. We should always consider these effects to appreciate their outcome. In some cases, congruency might be desirable. In others, incongruency works to our advantage.

In the design of the Overhead Press, note that the arc of the upper arm (humerus) is incongruent with the rotation of the machine’s movement arm. But also note that flexion of the torso—which to a degree is maintained, but also increased somewhat during the finish of the positive—is congruent with the movement arm arc. This is both compatible as well as desirable for what we intend for the torso action in order to protect the back. Some subjects become profoundly aware of their abdominals while doing this exercise.

Additionally, the movement arm might effect a more-inclined press movement, but moderate and progressive torso flexion keeps the movement arm tracking pretty much as a superior movement.

The SuperSlow® Chest Press

As explained above, this chest machine provides a positive stroke downward but not across the torso. The handles are kept as close as reasonably possible.

The result is a movement that begins with a chest press action and rotates into decline action and then finally a dip action and finish. Many subjects report feeling their pectoralis musculature more so than on the MedX as well as feeling relieved shoulder joint irritations. The downward depression of the shoulders seems to greatly aid in shoulder stabilization.

In the design of the Chest Press, note that the swing of the upper arm (humerus) is incongruent with the rotation of the machine’s movement arm. But also note that flexion of the torso—which progresses throughout the positive and then is reversed during the negative—is congruent with the movement arm arc. This is both compatible as well as desirable for what we intend for the torso in order to maximally work the pectoralis musculature.

Is the pectoralis musculature a torso structure or an appendicular structure? The pectoralis major attaches to the humerus and moves the upper arm (shoulder adduction and flexion), but it also has a more general effect to the torso, specifically to depress and protract the shoulder girdle. Furthermore, the pectoralis major interlocks with the abdominals and functions to assist in trunk flexion. (I suppose that this abdominal part of the pectoralis major varies tremendously in individuals.)

[Note: This machine can be used as a pure abdominal machine by keeping the arms locked as the torso alternately flexes. This is a reasonable abdominal approach that relieves several  hip and neck problems often encountered in traditional abdominal exercises. It is no surprise that subjects also remark about their abdominals during use of this machine.

Note: This machine can be used as a pure shoulder girdle depression exercise by keeping the arms locked and the torso stationary. Shoulder girdle depression also involves the latissimus.]

The pectoralis minor is high on the chest and inserts on the carocoid process of the scapulas to more-directly depress and protract the shoulder girdle.

If we view all of this collectively, the torso is a tube structure—like a worm—flexed from the front by the aforementioned structures. Therefore, rather than keep the chest up as we have so instructed in the subprotocol for the chest press (Nautilus and MedX), we now build a machine to follow tendency and function more generally.

One might ask, why were we so insistent regarding keeping the chest high in earlier chest press subprotocols? Answer: the chest function in the other equipment is no different, however, the problems were different. Subjects commonly and suddenly ratcheted in the Nautilus Chest Press to get around the sticking point against their triceps. In the hands of a disciplined and knowledgeable subject, that particular ratchet might have been a step toward a deeper inroad via permitting just enough slow ratchet through torso flexion to get the arms through another rep. But to permit this, on the whole, is a bad idea, although to control it sometimes leads to problems.

I have a male client who recently hurt his neck while doing the MedX Chest Press. Luckily, a physical therapist was on hand completing his Level II Exam, and was able to fix the problem. Nevertheless, I suspect that an internal indecision, of sorts, is imposed by the chest subprotocol, in that the pectoralis muscles, collectively, are being innervated intensely to flex the trunk and to protract the shoulder girdle (as well as to anteriorly adduct the arms and depress the shoulders), but prevented volitionally. 

With the MedX, we usually delimit complete extension of the arms by setting the seat so close to the movement arm that the elbows cannot quite completely straighten. Torso flexion complicates our delimitation, because flexion of the torso prevents elbow extension yet more—too much. Indeed, the subject often will subscribe to the assumed objective—that he is to move the machine forward—as opposed to straighten his arm—and makes elbow straightening too curtailed. It is often necessary to instruct the subject to permit his shoulders to relax backwards—retract—in order to obtain adequate arm straightening. Therefore to some degree, we have been contradicting pectoralis function to prevent loss of control.

The new SuperSlow® Chest Machine is designed to solve these problems.

Specifications

Leg Press

  Weight—1000 pounds
     Length—89 inches/108 inches
     Width—25 inches/55 inches
     Height—70 1/4 inches
     Stack—500 pounds

Pull Down

  Weight—590 pounds
     Length—71 inches/80 inches
     Width—30 1/2 inches/36 inches
     Height—94 inches
     Stack—250 pounds

Overhead Press

  Weight—400 pounds
     Length—78 1/4 inches
     Width—28 inches
     Height—60 1/2 inches
     Stack—200 pounds

Chest Press

  Weight—600 pounds
     Length—63inches/75 inches
     Width—36 inches
     Height—68 inches
     Stack—250 pounds

Note: All four of the previously-described SuperSlow® products   fit and operate in a 9 x 12-foot bedroom. Possible exercises on these four machines are: heel raise, Leg Press, squat, Pull Down, back extension (not recommended for some subjects), Triceps Extension, Chest Press, abdominal, shoulder girdle depression, and Overhead Press. (Our convention is to denote names of machines in upper case and names of exercises in lower case.)

The Seated Leg Curl

The advent of the seated leg curl was not my idea, but it a good one by Keith Johnson, MD.  It was my idea to build it with a floating seat. This has fallen on deaf ears since 1984.

The need for a floating seat was supposed because of the ovoid nature of the knees and related  (in my mind) complaints of knee irritation when using the MedX Seated Leg Curl.

Please note that the following explanation is a simplification. For the complete explanation read Muscles and Movements by MacConaill and Basmajian. If one can pretend there is a constant axis—inaccurate—for the knee, the condylar surfaces of the femur appear to possess ever-increasing radii as the knee is taken from full extension to full flexion. As the knee bends, the tibia performs three actions simultaneously. One—the tibia slides around on the condylar surfaces. Two—the tibia rotates in the sagittal plane and on end—known as swing, so that a different part of its articular surface contacts the condylar surfaces. Three—the tibia rotates slightly outward (laterally). The result of all of this is that the knee’s instant axis constantly changes during movement.

Obviously, we need to devise a simple device to accommodate all of this action. Apparently, knee irritations we have encountered are due to an oversimplified device.

The prone design had poor control. The reactionary force pulled the knee off axis—posterior—when the knee approached 90 degrees of flexion.

The seated version—because its self-centering (coupled) movement arm—overly constrained the knee—too much control. In other words, the couple forces the knee to conform to a perfectly circular arc when the natural arc is not perfectly circular.

I have heard that Nautilus and other companies have sought to prevent knee irritations by building a seated leg curl with the coupled movement arm plus a variable axis. I predict this will not work because of several factors. How much and in what direction do you make the axis vary?

As reported in newsletter #7, it was my hope that the seated leg curl—fitted with a floating seat—would supplant the need for the prone design. The prone design is fraught with motor control and alignment problems for instructor and subject alike: The subject’s face is buried in a pad. The arms are overly involved with  stabilizing alignment. The pelvis must rise as positive flexion occurs, but the subject is indecisive as to when to raise the pelvis or how much or whether the pelvis is evenly raised.

Nevertheless, approximately 1/3 of my clientele have had to use the prone design because of irritations inherent in the seated design—without a floating seat. The problem was so bad that even MedX acquiesced several years ago to produce a prone design.

In September of this year, finally, I was forced to build a new seat incorporating linear bearings sandwiched in the  frame of the MedX Seated Leg Curl. This permitted a two-inch, fore-aft, horizontal freedom for the subject’s body superior to the movement arm. Since then, I have removed the prone machine—a machine I required for myself —from my studio. All complaints regarding the seated leg curl have disappeared except for a few from subjects who have deranged knees.

Note: Using the Seated Leg Curl with floating seat, there appears to be increased range of motion of some knees. This occurs because the give in the seat permits additional resistance falloff in the most-contracted position.

Another Observation: Previous to the advent of the floating seat, many subjects subscribed to the assumed objective as demonstrated by their anterior upper shins leaving the proximal movement arm pad. They thought move the machine further rather than flex the knee further. Since the seat now gives to their action, their shins appear to remain contacting the upper pad more consistently.

Most subjects move the seat forward as they flex and backward as their knees extend. Some go in reverse for reasons so far not determined. We have considered that some subjects may commence and continue the exercise with their knees on one side of the axis or the other, but this has not panned out. This remains an interesting curiosity.

The most common irritation of the knees—before the floater—was during the negative—as the knees straighten. During this motion, the movement arm jams the knees posteriorly—driving them into the seat. This occurs after the positive, whereby the movement arm has dragged the femur forward and somewhat out of the seat.

The floating seat relieves this if the seat back is properly positioned. To accomplish this, the seat back is adjusted to permit the linear bearing to freely float between stops located approximately two inches apart. Attempted is to arrange this so that neither stop is abutted throughout the exercise. If abutment must occur we desire that it be the front stop instead of the rear stop.  We have seen a few subjects who abut both stops. We may decide to increase the distance between stops.

The bearing we sandwich into the seat frame is a German-made Schneeberger costing approximately $500, not including seat refabrication, which is not simple.

Although we now sell a retrofit seat for the MedX Seated Leg Curl, we expect to avoid MedX altogether by producing a SuperSlow® Seated Leg Curl with an integral floating seat within the next year.

The SuperSlow® Compound Row

This machine promises to be as unique to the basic movement of row as the other new products. My intent is to provide a linear motion to the body while the hands (handles) remain stationary.  Pictures of the machine can be seen here.

The SuperSlow® Biceps

We are now building the first SuperSlow® Biceps machine.  It will have a fused, coupled movement arm, range selection and a variable resistance curve selector.

Among subjects, there is a large variable in the position of maximum elbow flexion.  I must build a machine to provide maximum falloff exactly at this position for each individual.

We will no longer reengineer the Nautilus Biceps/Triceps Combo Machine and are going to scrap ours.  We have become sensitive to the eventual probability that someone will drop a barbell plate on their foot. The space we can save with the new design is also a factor.