Super Slow Fitness Training Vs Curves for Women..you decide!

Super Slow Fitness Training in Victoria BC....Last year I discovered physical fitness trainer Marc Noel who owns Six Factors Super Slow Fitness Training in Victoria BC. Marc has been in the business as a fitness instructor and personal trainer in Victoria for 30 years. I had heard about Super Slow through a co-worker at my wife's work place. I was wanting build my strength up again, since over the years I had lost muscle mass and the Strength to lift many things around my home. At 64, and being an active and busy Realtor, I was not keen about spending hours every day in a gym. so I followed up and met with Marc, he is a personal trainer and qualified Super Slow instructor. After hearing the benefits of Super Slow Training I joined and hired Marc as my Personal Trainer. My workout routine is only once a week, for about 20 minutes, I have doubled my personal strength since joining Six Factors. Just yesterday Marc told me about the how bad the fitness program like Curves is and how it does nothing to improve fitness with women. He feels they maybe misleading the public in Victoria. he told me he has written a explanation on his opion regarding Curves. I thought this story needs to be told so I asked Marc if I could post his explanation on the disadvantages of Curves on my Blog....

Here is Marc's explanation:

Danger! Curves for Women should be outlawed! Read why below...

This LONG rant is to expose the numerous drawbacks of Curves for Women exercise facilities. I apologize for its length, but this information must be conveyed. Please be advised that none of the following comments can be denied (meaning that they CAN be proven), although some people (primarily Curves' advocates) will take offense at them. That reaction is childish. If Curves’ method/equipment is valid, then it should stand up to scrutiny. If it isn’t, don’t those advocating it want to know what’s wrong, so they can fix it? There now follow numerous comments describing the different problems with Curves…

No seat belts to arrest reactionary force, thereby enabling subject to be moved out of equipment (to varying degrees), due to forces on body during exercise. Exercises should be performed in a stable manner to maximize loading efficiency and to minimize injury potential.

Curves’ method, based on isokinetics (meaning “same speed”), was proven invalid over 35 years ago. Concept was to prompt user to work as hard as possible, since movement arm will only move so fast, regardless of how hard one pulls. However, since movement arm will still move with less-than-maximum force/effort applied, user may work at less-than-maximum effort. In comparison, it requires a minimum amount of force to lift regular weights; if that force is not generated, the weights won’t move. Regular weight training consists of lifting a selected weight a number of times, inducing enough fatigue that the subject can’t continue, and thereby stimulating an improvement. Contrary to popular belief, the weights do not get heavier. Fatigue sets in, making it seem like they are getting heavier. If subject doesn’t get hurt at start of movement, he/she won’t, since nothing will change, aside from fatigue setting in. As long as form/composure remains the same, so will the force on the body, along with potential for injury.

No negative (lowering) portion for each exercise, which is the primary contributor to muscle mass gains, and also provides for stretching potential to address flexibility.

Swaying of shoulder girdle due to alternating motion in some exercises; pivoting of pelvic girdle due to same, thereby increasing potential for injury.

Independent movement arms present motor-control issues that would not exist with fused movement arms. This drawback just increases the exercises’ complexity, and distracts the subject from proper performance.

No adjustability to accommodate people of different shapes and sizes, for optimum positioning and/or alignment.

Loading through spinal column in squat and shoulder press; dramatic potential for injury to inter-vertebral disks. In particular, squat is to be performed by slowly lowering, then driving up as hard and fast as possible. This exerts excessive force on the spinal column. Similar benefits can be had from a properly designed leg press, without spinal column loading issues.

Sideways-loading through knee joints on adduction/abduction machine (opening/closing of legs), due to pads being placed against lower legs. This loading tries to bend the knees sideways.

Elevated pads, where the subject runs in place to keep their heart/respiration rates up, are unnecessary, since machines initiated heart rate and respiration increases. Rationale is to give worked muscles a rest, but next machine would work different muscles anyway.

One circuit is sufficient, if done properly. More are counter-productive, because they do not beget proportionately greater results (meaning, doing twice as much does not attain twice the progress), but it does consume valuable recovery resources, along with time and energy. Plus, the more you do, the more potential to do something wrong and possibly incur injury.

A whipping action occurs each time the subject changes direction, which greatly increases force on the body. Changes of direction (turnarounds) should be done slowly, smoothly, carefully, cautiously,… not fast! Unfortunately, if you move slow enough to maximize loading efficiency and minimize force generation, you also detract from the loading efficiency of the exercise in Curves equipment, since the equipment dictates that one move fast to get significant resistance. However, moving fast enough to get meaningful resistance can result in injury. You can’t win with Curves!

Slamming into the ends of the machines’ excursions can send shock waves through the involved body parts, thereby increasing injury potential.

Exercises are performed in an alternating fashion, i.e.: pull with biceps, push with triceps, pull with biceps, push with triceps. This results in each muscle experiencing a respite each time the other muscle is in use. This is inefficient. One should focus on a muscle until it has been addressed, then move on to the next one.

Although machines rotate, straight-line resistance is applied to the rotary mechanisms through the hydraulic cylinders. This conflicts with the requirements of the target musculatures, which should have rotary resistance that can be balanced in accordance with their needs.

Resistance is dependent on movement – no movement, no resistance. When stopped, however briefly, unloading occurs. Also, alternating nature of the resistance contributes significant slack at each end of the machine’s travel, further reducing loading efficiency. In comparison, even if one stops the movement of regular weights, the subject must still expend effort to hold the weights, therefore, much less potential for unloading.

Because the equipment does not have adjustable resistance, it is nigh-impossible to quantify improvements. Most are subjective observations (“I feel stronger.”), but those are unreliable. Rather, objective observations need be made by using regular weights, thereby seeing how much the subject can lift for how many times over what distance in how long.

Only way to show improvement is to move faster, resulting in greater force on the body and potential for injury. Doubling speed increases kinetic energy four-fold (1/2MxV²), thereby increasing injury potential while simultaneously decreasing loading efficiency on the target musculature(s).

30-second sets are of insufficient length to elicit improvement(s).

Music in the environment is a distraction for concentration, which increases injury potential.

Signage says "... weight loss centers", yet weight loss (actually body-fat loss) is primarily a dietary issue. When most people decide to lose weight (fat), they usually embark on an exercise program and start a diet. After losing a significant amount of weight (hopefully, fat), the exercise will get the credit when the diet had the major impact. Try ONLY exercising and see how much weight you lose. Then try ONLY dieting and see what happens. A workout might consume 500 calories, but following that up with a 1,500 calorie meal at McDonald's complete negates one's efforts. The point is, it is much easier to not eat something in the first place than to try exercising it off.

Boasts are made about how the Curves' workout only takes 30 minutes, three times a week. In comparison, if done properly, a safe/productive/time-efficient workout need only be done once a week for 20 minutes. It will be hard (as in tiring and uncomfortable), but not dangerous. The trade-off is that you don't have to do very much. JUST ENOUGH!

If you want safe, productive, time-efficient exercise, I urge you to investigate SuperSlow strength training. It addresses all aspects of physical fitness simultaneously in a safe and efficient manner, and is of such high quality and efficiency that it need be done only once a week for 20 minutes. Also, it is performed in a cool, dry environment, with no music, mirrors, or telephones (therefore no distractions, which can increase injury potential), on equipment that is optimized for that method. Additionally, only one person goes through at a time, fully supervised by a certified SuperSlow instructor in a private environment.

As an aside, unless you know something about exercise equipment design, don't assume that anything you encounter is correct, safe, valid, etc. It is possible that you might be looking at shiny, new, clean,... CRAP! SuperSlow exercise instructors are educated in exercise equipment design principles, which enable them to look at a piece of equipment, determine what's wrong with it (if anything), and propose how to fix it.

The foregoing is to inform those individuals who want to know. PLEASE don't contact me with the intent to argue. As I've already said, none of the comments can be denied, so leveling personal attacks at me won't accomplish anything.

Have a nice day! Marc

Please review your exercise program, hire a personal trainer like Marc and Join a Super Slow Program, stop spending hours in the Gym every day, keep your personal time for things that you enjoy doing. I hope Marc's explanation will convince you to look at options when it comes to physical exercise.

Here is a You Tube Video done by Marc to help explain Super Slow Strength Training

Posted Sunday Jul 06

(07/07/08 06:51AM) — .

(07/07/08 09:23AM) — mijules

Curves can be validated through a long term study through Baylor University, a leading medical university. Go to: http:..www3.baylor.edu/HHRR/Curves/ Now YOU put your money where your mouth is.

(07/07/08 10:24AM) — Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor

Hi Mijules... Upon reviewing the subject web site the following error came up...do you have another reference

Item Not Found
The requested object (http://www3.baylor.edu/HHRR/Curves) does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it.

(07/07/08 10:37AM) — Kip

In the time it took you to write what it is you wrote about Curves you could have gone to Curves and gotten a wonderful workout and one that will limit your chances of injury because the machines are designed for women that are of average build and strength. Basically what I'm saying is that what you wrote is trash at best and if you want to challenge my 2 Curves I invite you to come in for a couple of workouts with myself as your personal trainer. You won't get injured but you will leave feeling as if you just had the toughest workout ever in a 30 minute time frame.

(07/07/08 10:42AM) — Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor

Hi Kip... Thanks for your post, I'm sure Marc will reply to your post.

Cheers, have a great day!

(07/07/08 11:50AM) — Kip

I should have watched the video before saying what it is i said in my last post because i would have been much more confident in what I had said before and would have added that Curves is a superior workout compared to what it is you are offering. Good luck with your buisness.

(07/07/08 01:59PM) — TJ

Here is a link to Baylor University's website that explains how Curves works!

http://www3.baylor.edu/HHPR/Curves/

(07/07/08 10:32PM) — Nestor & Katerina Gasset Realtors® Wellington Florida Luxury Homes

Fred- Oh well, I just signed up for a year at Curves, because in 30 days, 30 minutes a day 3 days a week I lost one inch in my thighs, one inch in my abdomen, one inch in my upper arm ( where that female flab hangs out:)) and 1 inch in my hips. Thanks for sharing another form of exersise, we don't have anything like that around here.

(07/07/08 11:20PM) — Marc

Fred:

Thanks for posting my rant on your website. Instead of trying to respond to the different comments on this site, I feel it would be more productive and efficient to discuss the relevant issues in person, either at my facility or on the phone, primarily because it is quicker to talk than to type or text. Also, the verbal exchange can unfold in real time, vs. post a comment, wait for a response, post again, wait again. If anyone wants to contact me, I'm in Victoria at 250-885-9558.

Thanks very much.

Marc Noel

(07/08/08 12:42AM) — Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor

Hi Katerina...I have more than doubled my Strength going with Super slow equipment,plus Marc my personal coach has 30 years experience as a personal trainer. He just thinks Curves is not doing the right thing for their customer'swith their machines, and is concerned. He is a trained fitness equipment designer and worked with Nautilus for many years as a personal trainer. I said I would post his rant to show people there are better options.

I think there is a Super Slow trainer in Florida, I'll ask Marc, in the meantime Google Super Slow in Florida and see what turns up.

Marc has several Women clients he coaches.

Cheers, thanks for visiting!

(07/09/08 12:45AM) — Marc

In the event Katerina, Kip, and Mijules check back to see if there are any other posts on this site, here goes.

Katerina, just to clarify, did you lose those inches from JUST the Curves workout, or were you also watching your diet? We can use arithmetic to figure out how many calories different activities consume, and I'll tell you right now, no matter how many any activity may consume, one can easily overwhelm it by eating more. An analogy is: it takes about three minutes to fill a car's gas tank, but it can take a week to burn it off. The same applies to body-fat. It is much easier to not eat something in the first place, than it is to try burning it off through exercise. When people lose body-fat while participating in an exercise program, one of three things is happening. They are either doing so much activity that it's actually having a significant impact, but then they probably don't have time to do anything else, or they are saving calories eaten by being occupied by different things (how many people eat while jogging or swimming or cycling?), or else they have reduced their caloric intake at the same time, and that is what is having the primary impact, not the exercise. If you want to know what works, change only one thing at a time. Try ONLY exercising and see how much body-fat is lost, then switch to ONLY dieting and you'll see that dieting is much more effective.

Additionally, the SuperSlowZone headquarters is in Altamonte Springs, Florida. It is the center of exercise research in the world, and if you can’t get the best workout there, you won’t find it anywhere else.

Kip, no offense, but how do you know who the machines are designed for, or who designed them? Are you privy to the history of the equipment, or to the rationale behind their design? In my facility, I tell people that the general public doesn’t know anything about equipment design, and the way I prove it is to ask anyone “What’s wrong with my leg press?”, to which they reply “I don’t know.”, to which I reply “Why don’t you know?”, then they say “Because I don’t know anything about equipment design.” A-HA! What did I just say?

As I said in my rant, none of the things I said can be denied. The lack of seatbelts can't be denied. The fact that there is only positive resistance can't be denied. The abduction/adduction pads loading sideways through the knee joints can't be denied. What exactly did I say that was wrong? What exactly was “trash?” It’s funny how people not involved with Curves are quite taken aback when I tell them about the problems with Curves, but anyone who goes to Curves gets offended. They never address the issues I raise, they just get mad. I don’t understand. They didn’t invent it. They just do it. Is it not possible that something might be wrong? If I’m wrong, point it out, don’t just go off on an unrelated tangent.

Regarding your comments about the toughest workout ever, I highly doubt that, due to the inefficiency of the equipment. Yes, you might be able to get someone to expend a significant amount of energy, and tire them out by thrashing around, but that doesn’t mean they are obtaining appropriate exercise benefit. It is possible to perform large quantities of work while not stimulating the desired improvements. An example is ditch-digging. It can provide more work than most people can stand, but if you were to analyze it for what fitness improvements it can promote, you’d find it sorely lacking. Exercise is performed to improve fitness, but unless you know what fitness is, you won’t know what to do to improve it. Physical fitness is comprised of six factors: muscular size, strength & endurance; cardiovascular efficiency, flexibility, bone strength, increased injury resistance, and leanness. Aspects such as power, speed, agility, dexterity, balance, coordination, and the like fall under the heading of skill, and, are therefore, not included in physical fitness, as they are specific, not general attributes.

Back to your proposed workout, you couldn’t pay me enough to train on Curves equipment. I’ve spent approximately 30 years involved in the pursuit of fitness and exercise, and I’ve seen everything. Did you know that there is a predecessor to Curves equipment called Hydra-Gym? We used to have it in Victoria at the old Nautilus Club on Cook St. Although that was about 15 years ago now, and I don’t remember all the design details, I do know that they at least had adjustable resistance. But even so, I hurt my left elbow on the biceps/triceps machine when showing my cousin how to use it, because of the whipping action that occurred when going as fast as possible when changing directions. Also, Apex Fitness in Victoria manufactures their own line of Curves-style equipment (with adjustable resistance) for their own Curves-type facilities (Expressfit). Not that this validates the whole thing. They just don’t know any better. In fact, if you were to look at an Apex catalog, you’d swear you were looking at an old Nautilus catalog. But, sometimes, Nautilus would discard an idea/design, then someone else would pick it up and produce it, not realizing that it was garbage.

Yes, some women lost some body-fat, but they were also on reduced caloric intakes. Also, in the Biomechanical Analysis, the final recommendation was to perform 15 – 20 reps in 30 seconds. Assuming that a person did 20 reps in 30 seconds, that would dictate a certain average speed of motion. Since the resistance is dependent on movement (no movement, no resistance), and the faster you move, the more resistance you get, we can assume that doing 20 in 30 seconds generates more resistance than doing 15 in 30, since you are moving faster. Now, if you always do 20 reps in 30 seconds, then the speed will always be the same, which means the resistance will always be the same. If the amount of reps (20), the time (30 seconds), and the resistance (dictated by the speed, which is dictated by doing 20 in 30 seconds), remain the same, then that means the person is NOT getting stronger. This would be the same as determining a person can lift 100 lbs. for ten reps, then they never lift more than 100 lbs. for ten reps. Since they can already do it, their body has no reason to get stronger. PLUS, if a person comes in the door to start with Curves, and they can initially do the recommended 20 reps in 30 seconds, then they will never get any stronger than the first day they walked in, because there will be no increased demand, either due to longer time (thus equaling more reps) or more reps in the same amount of time (meaning faster reps). The body gets stronger because its reserves are threatened when we weaken due to exercise, but we need to weaken below a certain point; otherwise, the body won’t improve, because it still has enough strength in reserve.

My opinion (to which I’m entitled) is that the people who run Curves are not exercise instructors; they are business people. If they were exercise instructors, they would know better and not be advocating Curves. Sorry if you don’t like to hear that.

Once again, please address the specific comments in my post. Getting upset with me doesn’t dismiss what I said.

In the event Katerina, Kip, and Mijules check back to see if there are any other posts on this site, here goes.

Once again, please address the specific comments in my post. Getting upset with me doesn’t dismiss what I said.

(07/09/08 12:55AM) — Marc Noel

Fred:

Sorry, I think all the code that showed up with my latest post is from me writing it in Word. Hopefully, you can delete it.

(07/09/08 01:57AM) — Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor

Hi Marc...Thanks for your response, I cannot delete you code, you can edit your posting, I can delete your entire post, but I think that would not serve any purpose. Just go back and click on edit and copy the code and delete.

Hopefully some of these people will call and meet with you and get to understand how exercise is supposed to help with exercise Machines, not do possible damage or have little to no benefit.

Cheers

(07/09/08 11:59PM) — Marc Noel

In the event Katerina, Kip, and Mijules check back to see if there are any other posts on this site, here goes.

Katerina, just to clarify, did you lose those inches from JUST the Curves workout, or were you also watching your diet? We can use arithmetic to figure out how many calories different activities consume, and I'll tell you right now, no matter how many any activity may consume, one can easily overwhelm it by
eating more. An analogy is: it takes about three minutes to fill a car's gas tank, but it can take a week to burn it off. The same applies to body-fat. It is much easier to not eat something in the first place, than it is to try burning it off through exercise. When people lose body-fat while participating in an exercise program, one of three things is happening. They are either doing so much activity that it's actually having a significant impact, but then they probably don't have time to do anything else, or they are saving calories eaten by being occupied by different things (how many people eat while jogging or swimming or cycling?), or else they have reduced their caloric intake at the same time, and that is what is having the primary impact, not the exercise. If you want to know what works, change only one thing at a time. Try ONLY exercising and see how much body-fat is lost, then switch to ONLY dieting and you'll see that dieting is much more effective.

Additionally, the SuperSlowZone headquarters is in Altamonte Springs, Florida. It is the center of exercise research in the world, and if you can’t get the best workout there, you won’t find it anywhere else.

Kip, no offense, but how do you know who the machines are designed for, or who designed them? Are you privy to the history of the equipment, or to the rationale behind their design? In my facility, I tell people that the general public doesn’t know anything about equipment design, and the way I prove it is to ask anyone “What’s wrong with my leg press?”, to which they reply “I don’t know.”, to which I reply “Why don’t you know?”, then they say “Because I don’t know anything about equipment design.” A-HA! What did I just say?

As I said in my rant, none of the things I said can be denied. The lack of seatbelts can't be denied. The fact that there is only positive resistance can't be denied. The abduction/adduction pads loading sideways through the knee joints can't be denied. What exactly did I say that was wrong? What exactly was “trash?” It’s funny how people not involved with Curves are quite taken aback when I tell them about the problems with Curves, but anyone who is involved with Curves gets offended. They never address the issues I raise, they just get mad. This is called ad hominem argumentum -- attacking the person saying something instead of what they say. I don’t understand. The advocates didn’t invent Curves. They just do it. Is it not possible that something might be wrong? If I’m wrong, point it out, don’t just go off on an unrelated tangent.

Regarding your comments about the toughest workout ever, I highly doubt that, due to the inefficiency of the equipment. Yes, you might be able to get someone to expend a significant amount of energy, and tire them out by thrashing around, but that doesn’t mean they are obtaining appropriate exercise benefit. It is possible to perform large quantities of work while not stimulating the desired mprovements. An example is ditch-digging. It can provide more work than most people can stand, but if you were to analyze it for what fitness improvements it can promote, you’d find it sorely lacking. Exercise is performed to improve fitness, but unless you know what fitness is, you won’t know what to do to improve it. Physical fitness is comprised of six factors: muscular size, strength & endurance; cardiovascular efficiency, flexibility, bone strength, increased injury resistance, and leanness. Aspects such as power, speed, agility, dexterity, balance, coordination, and the like fall under the heading of skill/skill-related, and, are therefore, not included in physical fitness, as they are specific, not general attributes.

Back to your proposed workout -- you couldn’t pay me enough to train on Curves equipment. I’ve spent approximately 30 years involved in the pursuit of fitness and exercise, and I’ve seen most everything. Did you know that there is a predecessor to Curves equipment called Hydra-Gym? We used to have it in Victoria at the old Nautilus Club on Cook St. Although that was about 15 years ago now, and I don’t remember all the design details, I do know that they at least had adjustable resistance. Even so, I hurt my left elbow on the biceps/triceps machine when showing my cousin how to use it, because of the whipping action that occurred when going as fast as possible when changing directions. Also, Apex Fitness in Victoria manufactures their own line of Curves-style equipment (with adjustable resistance) for their own Curves-type facilities (Expressfit). Not that this validates the whole thing. They just don’t know any better. In fact, if you were to look at an Apex catalog, you’d swear you were looking at an old Nautilus catalog. Yet, sometimes, Nautilus would discard an idea/design, then someone else would pick it up and produce it, not realizing that it was garbage. Consider an art gallery showing an abstract painting, and people are fawning over it. Then the artist comes in and says "It's upside-down!", but nobody noticed, because they don't know what it's supposed to look like. The same thing applies to research and equipment. If you don't know what to look for, it may appear to you that nothing is amiss. But once you learn about equipment design principles (of which there are currently 23) and research methodology/ critical thinking/experimental method, you never look at equipment or research the same way again.

Mijules, just for your information, the Baylor studies don’t validate Curves; they just show what they did research on. Also, don’t assume that Baylor knows what it’s doing. Just because it has a fancy website and is a university doesn’t mean it knows what’s good and what’s bad in exercise. One example is the
fact that they reference the National Strength and Conditioning Association and the American College of Sports Medicine, two organizations that are both known for erroneously advocating numerous activities as exercise. Anyway, if you want to go over the studies with a fine-tooth comb, you’re more than welcome to contact me and we’ll discuss them. I did give some of them a cursory glance, and my impression about three of them (one being another link to a “Biomechanical analysis of Curves”) was that it seemed that they were sponsored by Curves, judging from the Curves logo that was on each page. If so, then that invalidates the studies, due to bias. Aside from that, most people are impressed when they see research studies, regardless of whether they are valid or not. Also, unless you know what to look for, you can’t interpret the data. Believe it or not, some people publish something, even if it's invalid, because they are under pressure to produce. Yes, some women lost some body-fat, but they were also on reduced caloric intakes. Also, in the Biomechanical Analysis, the final recommendation was to perform 15 – 20 reps in 30 seconds. Assuming that a person did 20 reps in 30 seconds, that would dictate a certain average speed of motion. Since the resistance is dependent on movement (no movement, no resistance), and the faster you move, the more resistance you get, we can assume that doing 20 in 30 seconds generates more resistance than doing 15 in 30, since you are moving faster. Now, if you always do 20 reps in 30 seconds, then the speed will always be the same, which means the resistance will always be the same. If the amount of reps (20), the time (30 seconds), and the resistance (dictated by the speed, which is dictated by doing 20 in 30 seconds), remain the same, then that means the person is NOT getting stronger. This would be the same as determining a person can lift 100 lbs. for ten reps, then they never lift more than 100 lbs. for ten reps. Since they can already do it, their body has no reason to get stronger. PLUS, if a person comes in the door to start with Curves, and they can initially do the recommended 20 reps in 30 seconds, then they will never get any stronger than the first day they walked in, because there will be no increased demand, either due to longer time (thus equaling more reps) or more reps in the same amount of time (meaning faster reps). The body gets stronger because its strength reserves are threatened when we weaken due to exercise, but we need to weaken below a certain point; otherwise, the body won’t improve, because it still has enough strength in reserve. When we get stronger, we must increase the demand to compensate for the improvements.

My opinion (to which I’m entitled) is that the people who run Curves are not exercise instructors; they are business people. If they were exercise instructors, they would know better and not be advocating Curves. Sorry if you don’t like to hear that.

Once again, please address the specific comments in my post. Getting upset with me doesn’t dismiss what I said.

(07/10/08 12:00AM) — Marc

Fred:

God forbid I should get things right the first time. I got the text right, then forgot to add my name. Would you please delete the first post that doesn't have my name? I re-posted it immediately following with my name.

Thanks very much. This should be it.

Marc

(07/10/08 12:00PM) — Michelle

Not even touching the "scientific research and findings" on any workout around...the fact that so many of our members at Curves are now off of blood pressure medication, have (with doctors proof) stronger bone mass, are losing weight and feeling so much better about themselves is enough for "just a business person" as myself to stay in this business.

If the majority of my members are women who would never step into any other form of gym or workout facility, then so be it. Some members are women who would otherwise be sitting at home or behind a desk with no other form of excercise. While none of my members are interested in building huge amounts of muslce mass, they are all interested in losing body fat and toning up. Just like ANY other workout, the person MUST change their eating habits, MUST change their lifestyle.

Show the proof of Curves members being hurt just because of the types of machines. Then, show the proof that not one person has EVER been hurt in another type of workout in another type of gym.

Your workout works for you and many others. Curves works for me...and many others.

Have your opinion...yes, you are entitled...but try the workout for yourself before you blab on the internet about it to try and make a buck for yourself.

A Curvaceous Day to you all!

(07/10/08 12:00PM) — Michelle

Show the proof of Curves members being hurt just because of the types of machines. Then, show the proof that not one person has EVER been hurt in another type of workout in another type of gym.

Your workout works for you and many others. Curves works for me...and many others.

Have your opinion...yes, you are entitled...but try the workout for yourself before you blab on the internet about it to try and make a buck for yourself.

A Curvaceous Day to you all!

(07/10/08 10:58PM) — Marc

Michelle,

Thank you for your corroboration regarding changing eating habits. Wonderful to see someone else realizes this.

Bear in mind that many people make progress in spite of their efforts, not because of them. Many people train in a dangerous (meaning dramatic potential for getting hurt, not that they will definitely get hurt) and inefficient manner, but still make some progress. That doesn't mean that they couldn't do better if things were improved. How did we arrive at the methods and equipment available today? By analyzing deficiencies and trying to improve on them. Something else to consider is: an activity is not dangerous only if NOBODY gets hurt. It's not a matter of degree. It's not like, if less than 30% of the participants get hurt, that's acceptable, but if 30 or more get hurt, it's not. This relates to your comment about showing the proof of injury. I have neither the time nor inclination to gather that info, but physics and common sense (!) indicate that moving that fast (.75 seconds per direction per rep when doing 20 reps in 30 seconds), whipping when changing directions, possibly slamming into the stops at either end, loading through the spinal column, swaying/pivoting due to the alternating motions and trying to bend the knees sideways (among other things) are things to avoid. Although people may do some things that carry dramatic injury potential, they may be of the attitude "Oh, well. That's the way it is with this workout." Wrong. Instead, switch to something else that minimizes or eliminates risk. Some people like to run, but also incur injuries to their knees, hips, ankles, and/or lower backs. They think that it's part-and-parcel with that activity, but what they SHOULD do is STOP RUNNING! The minor fitness benefits obtained through running aren't worth the drawbacks. Much better overall fitness can be had through proper strength training with none of the hazardous drawbacks.

Considering all the drawbacks to the equipment and method, why on earth would I even bother trying a workout? I don't need to jump off a cliff to know that the fall would kill me. I don't need to do a Curves workout to know that it's not worth my time, due to the equipment deficiencies. Also, considering the different problems regarding potential for injury, I'm not going to try the workout to see if I don't get hurt. If the abduction/adduction pads are in the wrong place, and place sideways loads on the knee joints, I'm not going to try it to see if I maybe get hurt. Instead, I would modify the equipment so that the pads were above the knees. That would solve one problem. I can't believe the Curves attitude that, even though I've pointed out all these problems, no one wants to accept it or do something about it. As far as I'm concerned, this is irresponsible behavior, and just makes those people appear foolish. As an analogy, if a person says "I'm going to eat this food." and I say "But it's poisoned, and I can prove it.", and then, even after I prove it, they decide to eat it anyway, is that smart? The only way to learn is to open your mind and accept the possibility that you might be wrong about something. Investigate, do research, question things -- don't just accept them, because one could end up doing something dramatically wrong.

Please explain how the bone mass/density has increased (solely due to the workout) if the load doesn't increase, as per my comments regarding the rep count staying at 20, which keeps the resistance the same (since speed remains the same). Just placing the same load on the bones won't keep them increasing, because once they've increased to support that load, they don't need to get any stronger, unless the demand increases. Otherwise, just the same loads from daily living would increase bone strength, and we know that's not true.

Generally speaking, women don't have nearly the potential for muscle mass as do men, primarily because of testosterone levels and muscle belly lengths (the longer the muscle belly, the more potential for mass). Muscle gains don't happen overnight. Many women are scared that they'll get too big, but it would take a while to achieve that, and to prevent it, all they'd have to do is monitor themselves in the mirror, then when they reached their goal, switch to maintenance. Now, it can't be had both ways, that women will get stronger while not getting bigger, not if their genetics dictate otherwise. If they have the potential, strength gains will result in size gains. Thankfully, for those women who don't want to get dramatically bigger, most women don't have the potential to be gigantic. But in Curves' case, since the equipment is not adjustable, and Baylor University's recommendations are to do 20 reps max., this means that, once a person reaches 20 in 30 seconds (if they don't at the start of training), they will never get any stronger, since the demand (resistance x time) doesn't increase. If they aren't getting any stronger, they aren't adding any more muscle to increase their metabolisms and aid in body-fat loss. Also, there would be no signal to the body to spare lean tissue and burn primarily fat because the demand wouldn't be severe enough. If they aren't gaining more muscular strength, then their bones aren't getting any stronger. How does all of the foregoing result in improved fitness over time? I wouldn't be very happy if it turned out that I'd been going to a place for years, with no OBJECTIVE way to measure progress, only to find out that I didn't improve much beyond the first few months, due to the equipment deficiencies. The women may FEEL or THINK that they are accomplishing something, but they aren't really. Yes, they're expending some energy and time, maybe socializing and encouraging each other, but the physical benefits are limited, if not non-existent, once again, due to previous statements.

I have spoken with several different people who've commented on others having gotten hurt doing Curves workouts. Also, at least one doctor told one patient to stop going or he would dismiss her as a patient, since she'd repeatedly been hurt doing it. If all of my equipment-deficiency points can be verified, why would you buck it, instead of trying to determine how to eliminate the problems? More than likely, some women come into Curves and either can't or won't max out on the machines at the start. If they can't, then, yes, they may be getting somewhat stronger, but then only up to the point where they've maxed out their rep count. Considering the inefficiencies of the equipment, much better results could be had in the same time frame with regular weight machines, due to the ability to progress the resistance, and to also be able to quantify performances. Why does it have to be that, although I've pointed out numerous problems, people figure that if nobody's gotten hurt yet, that's okay. Do you need to wait until someone gets hurt due to what I've pointed out, then say "I should've listened?"

I don't appreciate being accused of saying this stuff because I'm trying to make a buck. That could be said if I was lying about them, but show me where I am. Please directly address any of the points I've raised. Realize that I'm not pointing out these problems because I'm trying to get people to come to me. Because I do personal training, I can only handle 20 people a day max., which is 100 clients total, since they train once-a-week. I can't train all 400,000+ people in Victoria, but everyone does need to know what problems there are, either so that they can avoid them or else fix them. Boy, I just don't understand why Curves people take it personally. If anything, you should be complaining to Gary Heavin about the design. I didn't cause the problem. I'm just pointing it out. And the points I've raised are not opinion, they are observations. Feel free to deny that there are no seatbelts, or that there's only positive resistance, or that the knee pads on the abduction/adduction bear against the lower leg, etc.

Just for anyone's information, today (July 10), my strongest female client performed lower back with 285 lbs. for eight reps (one set, 10 seconds up, 10 down) leg press with 300 lbs. for six reps (10 up, 5 down), pull-down with 160 lbs. for five (10 up, 10 down), chest press with 110 lbs. for seven (10 up, 5 down), compound row with 210 lbs. for eight reps (10 up, 10 down), and calf raise with 295 lbs. for ten reps (10 up, 10 down). Compare these stats with a Curves subject. The resistance has to be heavy enough to sufficiently tax the body to stimulate an improvement. If the resistance is too light, no stimulus will occur. Out of the 9+ years I've had my facility open, only two women have ever felt they were getting too muscular, at which point, they just switched to maintenance. Most women won't put on tons of muscle, but they will experience dramatic strength gains, which is the way it should be. Curves just isn't hard enough to do much, if anything. If you don't believe, it test a non-Curves subject's strength on conventional equipment before training, then have them train at Curves for six months, then test their strength again. Don't be surprised if not much has happened. I challenge anyone to do this. If Curves is valid, then something dramatic should happen. Give it a try. By the way, it is a poor argument to say that Curves is meant to get women only a "little bit" stronger, because they don't want bigger muscles. You could still get women a "little bit" stronger with conventional training, without the numerous drawbacks.

My workout works for everyone, not just me. And it does it without any of the Curves drawbacks. It was designed that way -- not with Curves in mind, as it existed before Curves -- but through a process of elimination, careful observation, research, testing, re-testing, and contributions from mechanical physics, motor learning, and classical biology.

I plan to contact the researcher at Baylor who recommended the 20 reps in 30 seconds bit to grill him about his recommendations. He obviously didn't think it through that performing the same rep count with the same resistance equals no strength gains. Also, if it were me, and I knew all the drawbacks to Curves equipment prior to doing those research projects, I wouldn't have even bothered doing them. Baylor... well, it's anyone's guess what they would have done.

(07/10/08 11:17PM) — Marc

Michelle said:

"The fact that so many of our members at Curves are now off of blood pressure medication, have (with doctors proof) stronger bone mass, are losing weight and feeling so much better about themselves is enough for "just a business person" as myself to stay in this business.

If the majority of my members are women who would never step into any other form of gym or workout facility, then so be it. Some members are women who would otherwise be sitting at home or behind a desk with no other form of excercise. While none of my members are interested in building huge amounts of muslce mass, they are all interested in losing body fat and toning up."

No offense, Michelle, but these statements appear to be attempts to justify what you're doing. While some of your clients might not step into another type of facility, that's just because they don't know any better. After learning about Curves' drawbacks, how many people will go there? And if they do, that is foolish, because they could get appropriate benefit elsewhere without the drawbacks. Nobody is justified doing something this inefficient and potentially hazardous, based on what I've already said. Instead, if those people running Curves are interested in doing that type of work or providing that type of service, they should investigate something else. If they did, they'd at least have a long list of things they DON'T want in a facility.

My clients experience the same things yours do, so that argument is invalid.

One more thing: losing body-fat is primarily a dietary issue, and they don't need to go to Curves to watch their food intake. Also, there is no such thing as toning. Toning is a marketing derivative of a proper biological term called tonus. Toning was invented by Vic Tanny in the 1950s as part of an endeavor to get women to come into gyms. Tonus is the residual tension in a muscle at volitional rest. Increased tonus requires two things: stronger muscles and decreased body-fat. While your clients might be losing body-fat primarily due to changing their eating habits, it is unlikely their muscular strength is increasing dramatically, once again, based on my previous comments.

(07/11/08 01:26AM) — Marc

Although I had said earlier that I wouldn't respond to comments here, I've flip-flopped, and decided to keep opening my big mouth.

I feel that it is a travesty that some ignorant individuals (meaning they don't know any better) who might be thinking about opening a business, learn about Curves and how successful they are without being made aware of the drawbacks. They only see the earning potential. If it were me, I wouldn't touch a Curves or Blitz (Curves for Men) with a ten-foot pole, but that's because I know what the problems are. Most other people don't. Every now and then, I meet someone who is under the impression that Curves is great, then I enlighten them, to which they respond "I didn't know that." Of course they didn't, because nobody told them, because either nobody knows or cares. Well, I care, and will continue to speak out about it. Please don't get me wrong. I am not singling out Curves. I feel the same way about aerobics, running, Pilates, stabilility-ball training, and the like. I just happen to be talking about Curves here. By the way, I can argue against those other activities, too, in the event anyone wants to discuss them.

To the average woman going into Curves, nothing seems amiss, because they don't know what to look for. But to someone who knows something about exercise, strength training, and equipment, it's a different story. In my own case, because of my experience, knowledge, expertise, and education, the first thing I do is analyze equipment when I first encounter it. I look for any flaws so that I can see how it measures up to a particular standard. Now, some might say "Whose standard? Who says you're right?", and they'd be right to ask. At that point, I would explain what I've learned over the years, and how certain design principles have been determined through observation, experience, and the process of elimination. For example, how many ways can you move your body? Near-infinite. How many ways do you need to move to stimulate an improvement? Only the most-efficient way. This falls under the heading of "Track muscle and joint function", which means, figure out what the muscle does, then build the equipment to track that function. In the case of the chest muscles (pectoralis major), their function is to draw the humeri (upper arms) from a position somewhat behind the torso, elbows elevated to approximately ear level, down and across the torso. It is unnecessary to develop exercises that work only part of the function, like dumbbell flyes or cable crossovers, because the correct exercise will work the muscles in the most-efficient and productive manner possible, thereby rendering the other exercises redundant and superfluous. Some people might say that doing certain movements will shape their muscles a certain way, but that's incorrect. Genetics dictate what the ultimate muscle shape will be. We know this because, if someone were dissatisfied with their particular development, all they'd have to do is change exercises and they'd rectify the problem. Also, everyone doing a particular exercise should look the same. However, this isn't the case. Look at the Mr. Olympia line-up. Even though everyone is doing the same workout (pretty much), they all look different because of their genetic dictates. Occasionally, we see a champion bodybuilder with a lagging body-part. Some will criticize, saying that he/she should work on that area more. Now, does it make sense that they would address every body-part except that one? This would be tantamount to wanting to lose a competition, vs. win it. The reality is that he/she has worked that part, but it won't improve any more, because it has reached its limit of development, either in size or shape. Anyway, the foregoing tells us we don't need to do multiple exercises for a body-part, only the best one. This is just one of the design principles that goes into a piece of proper exercise equipment.

(07/11/08 11:38PM) — Marc

And another thing...

It is probably safe to say that the average Curves facility owner has the right motivation and best intentions. They wish to provide a place for women to work out and obtain exercise benefit. Unfortunately, the mechanism and method are flawed. The owner(s) could provide the same service without the numerous drawbacks already enumerated, by researching the subject and learning about what to look for, and also how to discriminate between good and bad equipment, along with good and bad methodology. As previously stated, it's highly unlikely that anyone interested in opening a Curves facility has investigated the validity of both the equipment and the method. It would be very surprising if someone were aware of the drawbacks yet still chose to pursue the issue.

(07/20/08 02:48PM) — Marc

UPDATE:

Having spoken with some Curves people about the findings of the Baylor studies (see previous posts), I encountered several things. One woman, when told that if reps, time, speed, and resistance do not increase, then neither does strength, stated "Well, I'm sure that strength is still being gained." I replied, "No, it isn't. In order for strength to continue increasing, the demand must also increase." She finally said, "I see what you mean." A-HA! Somebody at Curves actually acknowledging that there might be a problem. It has been said that the true scientist always wonders if he might be wrong; whereas, the non-scientist never considers the possibility he might be wrong. This is one major problem with Curves people: the fact that they never consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with either the method or equipment. Look around you and observe what goes on in the strength-training world. Debate continues to this day in different magazines and publications, yet if Curves was so good, wouldn't everyone have jumped on the bandwagon by now, considering Curves came out in 1992? Most people who do conventional strength training either don't care about Curves enough to speak out against it, or else don't know what the problems really are, but know enough to not do it.

Moving along, the other thing I ran into with two Curves people was that they commented they had a different demographic than either regular facilities or my own. I therefore put it to them: If my clients are trying to get stronger, lose body-fat, address flexibility and cardio, improve muscle "tone" and appearance, increase bone strength, among other things, what exactly is it YOUR clients are trying to accomplish that is different? We both have the same demographic, and, therefore, we should both be providing the same thing, which is efficient muscular loading in a safe, productive manner. If the muscles get stronger, so will the bones. By working through a full range of motion (with negative resistance to provide muscular stretching), their flexibility will be enhanced. The muscles are what place demands on the heart and lungs, so cardio will automatically be addressed. If the person increases their muscle mass by getting stronger, then their metabolism will increase, aiding in losing body-fat (which is primarily a dietary issue). If they are stronger, their muscle "tone" will increase, and if they've lost body-fat and gained muscle, they will look better. If we both have the same objective, then we should both be providing the same thing. Also, some comments have been that Curves subjects are women who aren't trying to do this or that, and that the workout provides for them. A proper workout will provide for everyone; it will be up to the individual as to how far they take it. Proper exercise is the same for everyone, regardless of who they are or what they do. We are all human beings, have the same muscle/joint functions (on which proper exercise is based), and, therefore, all have the same requirements. While some might argue that an older, out-of-shape woman needs a less demanding workout than an athlete, this is incorrect. They both require a SAFE, demanding workout, so that neither is injured, but both obtain productivity. It will just be at different levels and different amounts. It is inappropriate to assume that a harder workout is more dangerous and injury-prone. Done right, it doesn't have to be. The hardest workout possible can still be injury-free, if done right. Dramatic effort doesnt' hurt people. It is the reaction to that effort that hurts them -- throwing the weight, breath-holding, grimacing, gripping tightly. If a person's maintains their composure/form, then the worst thing that will happen is that they will get so tired they can't continue. They won't get hurt. Imagine climbing an endless flight of stairs. You can't go forever. You eventually stop when you're worn out, but you're not hurt.

The last issue was actually encountered on a Curves message board, and is with regard to caloric expenditure. I don't know where Curves is getting its numbers from, but one woman commented that she burned over 600 calories during one workout. That is impossible. A 154-lb. person consumes 100 calories to run a mile. Since the entire 30 minute workout is not comprised of continual, consistent muscular work, considering warm-up, cool-down, stretching, and transition time between stations, even if we allow 24 minutes for a workout (eight machines with eight elevated pads = 16 stations/circuit, performed three times), that's 48 stations performed at 30 seconds apiece, which is 12.5 calories consumed each station on average. This is equivalent to that 154-lb. person running a mile in four minutes (world-class performance), but also running at that same speed/rate (15 mph) for 24 minutes, thereby covering six miles in 24 minutes. Even if it is possible, the runner would be working a hell of a lot harder than a Curves subject, especially considering what I've learned about how subjects work at a level that is "comfortable" for them. If it's comfortable, it won't be demanding enough to stimulate an improvement. It needs to be sufficiently hard for the body to respond. The bottom line is: Curves is outright lying that these women are burning such high levels of calories.

(07/21/08 04:19PM) — Marc

From what I've seen of the Curves Smart display device, it appears that the resistance has not been made adjustable. Rather, the display is meant to prompt users to perform more reps in the same amount of time, either as their fitness improves, or else if they change the goal settings. This conflicts with the Baylor study that suggested 15 - 20 reps max per 30-second set. Otherwise, form deteriorates (not that it was good to begin with).

Regarding the "Range" setting, if this is meant to prompt users to maintain a consistent range of motion, then my guess is that, prior to the Smart upgrade, some subjects were shortening their range so that they could do more reps in the same amount of time, which is, of course, cheating.

Something else to consider is: nobody has perfectly equal strength on both sides of their body. Yet when the subjects use certain machines which have independent movement arms, they are trying to move both sides at the same speed (some of which are in an alternating fashion), which dictates a certain resistance imposed on each side. Assuming that the mechanical parts are machined identically (maybe not), then each side would see the same resistance at the same speed, even though both sides are not equally strong. This means that it would be harder on the weaker side, causing the body to shift that way, plus the weaker side would tire sooner, causing either that side to slow down or else stop. If it slows down, then that introduces a dramatic motor-control issue, moving both sides at different speeds in an alternating fashion. If it stops, does the user keep going with the other side until the set is finished?

Since the only way to increase the resistance is to speed up, when one does, two things are changing: the force output and the speed. This throws in a second variable which will make it more difficult to track progress (did the person get stronger or was it that speeding up contributed more momentum?). Ideally, only the force output should change (more resistance); the speed should remain the same for consistency.

Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor
Re/Max Camosun Victoria Real Estate

Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor : Real Estate Agent in Victoria, BC

Office: (250) 744-3301

Mobile: (250) 413-7042
Secondary: (800) 663-2121

Fred Carver's Blog for luxury,view and waterfront homes For Sale in Victoria,James Bay,Fairfield,Rockland, Saanich,Gordon Head,Arbutus,Ten Mile Point,Oak Bay,Uplands,North Saanich, Sidney,Westshore,

Super Slow Fitness Training Vs Curves for Women..you decide!

Danger! Curves for Women should be outlawed! Read why below...

Post a comment

Temporarily disabled — coming soon!

Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor
Re/Max Camosun Victoria Real Estate

Recent posts by Fred

Super Slow Fitness Training Vs Curves for Women..you decide!

Danger! Curves for Women should be outlawed! Read why below...

Post a comment Temporarily disabled — coming soon!

Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor Re/Max Camosun Victoria Real Estate

Recent posts by Fred

Post a comment

Temporarily disabled — coming soon!

Fred Carver,Victoria BC Realtor
Re/Max Camosun Victoria Real Estate