 My name's James Steel, I'm an exercise physiologist and biomechanist. I came to know the 21 Convention through Anthony Johnson's blog, commenting, reading on his posts. I got introduced to the 21 Convention and Anthony felt that I could add a lot to it through my specific expertise and some of my philosophical orientations as well and some of my knowledge in that area. The first year I presented at the 21 Convention I covered two topics. My specialist area of research, chronic lower back pain and an exercise perspective on that and also objectivist philosophy. The talk I did on chronic lower back pain covered some of my thoughts on its main causes and how to tackle them from an exercise perspective, how to either prevent and or treat people with chronic lower back pain. On my talk on objectivist philosophy that was put together as an introduction to objectivist philosophy covering the four main branches, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics as well. My review of the literature has led to me to form the idea that specifically weakness of the lumbar extensor musculature as opposed to the trunk extensor musculature is responsible for development of lower back pain, the persistence of lower back pain and many of the symptoms that are normally associated with that condition. It seems to me as well looking back over some of the anthropological and paleoanthropological research that humans as a species may be predisposed anatomically to developing weak lumbar extensor musculature. The main approach that I recommend for people with chronic lower back pain is from an exercise perspective being that my thoughts on the predominant cause or the ultimate cause of most lower back pain is weakness of the lumbar extensors. A specific exercise approach seems to be the most rational way of treating that. It deals with the specific cause as opposed to dealing with the myriad symptoms that are associated with it and at the moment the main exercise approach that seems to be most effective in dealing with that specific cause is the use of a specific isolated lumbar extension i.e. the med-x lumbar extension machine although there are other machines available on the market which try to offer similar approaches. Gustav Zander started off with some initial resistance machines which allow trunk extension to be performed and the lawman Watkins used similar custom built equipment but with the aim of trying to limit movement of the pelvis by using some sort of restraint mechanism since then other machines have been developed nautilus, cybex and a whole host of other ones which provide lower back equipment as they call it but the restraint systems they use some are better and some are worse culminating in the most optimal restraint system being that used by the med-x lumbar extension. The earlier equipment can provide some stimulus to the lumbar extensors to improve and adapt in terms of strength and endurance, particularity etc but none of them in terms of the research I've reviewed and the research that I and my colleagues have conducted show that the med-x is most optimal for producing adaptations in the lumbar extensors in both those without chronic lower back pain and also producing the most optimal clinical outcomes i.e. reductions in pain and perceived disability in those with lower back pain so the med-x appears to be currently the most optimal form. There are other equipment which is being designed but it seems to me that the most important thing is the restraint system that's being used. Renix equipment or renaissance exercise equipment they one of the first pieces of equipment or the first piece of equipment that they unveiled was their trunk extension machine. From what I've seen of the trunk extension machine in terms of its design and its the writings around it it appears to be a very good trunk extension machine which is exactly what it's labeled as. Some of the problems I have with some of the claims made around it are with regards to the restraint system used on it. It's very clear to me from the research that I've examined and the research that's being conducted by myself and my colleagues that the restraint system utilized by the med-x is necessary to appropriately isolate and load the lumbar extensors. So I disagree with some of the claims made by renaissance with regards to their thoughts on not needing that restraint system. It seems clear to me that the restraint system is necessary certainly for the most optimal gains but it does seem sensible that the trunk extension that renaissance produced and any other trunk extension equipment can produce some degree of adaptation in the lumbar extensors that may not be optimal. Is there a line that needs to be drawn with regards to which machines should or should not be used? I don't necessarily think it's that simple it depends upon the objectives for using that machine so if you're working with someone who has chronic lower back pain then to me it seems that the most optimal way of achieving beneficial goals in that population with regards to reducing pain and disability and improving lumbar extension strength the med-x is at one end of the spectrum. All the other machines tend to fall further behind that and that's predominantly because they offer trunk extension as opposed to isolated lumbar extension so they're not specific in what they seek to produce. Now that makes it very difficult to then differentiate between which ones are best and which ones are not because when you're performing trunk extension as a compound movement differences in anatomy between different participants using that piece of equipment are going to vary the amount of loading that the lumbar extensors actually experience during that and therefore the degree to which they fatigue the degree to which motor units are activated and therefore the degree to which they're going to achieve any adaptations from those exercises. So I don't think there's no benefit from using inferior piece of equipment with regards to restraints. I think some benefit can be derived from them but that's going to depend upon the individual and if the med-x lumbar extension whether the medical or the exercise version is available then that would be my preferred choice of equipment to use with those participants. For those who don't have necessarily access maybe at the moment or at any time to specialist equipment like the med-x lumbar extension I think that there are various solutions to that. With those who are never going to be able to have access to it for example people who are traveling or certainly not regular access to it then using those other exercises those trunk extension movements will provide some benefit. It's difficult to objectively quantify what that benefit will be especially with regards to its effects on the lumbar extensors specifically but they will derive some benefit from doing it so whether that's performing deadlifts or whether that's using a generic lower back machine that can be found in a gym that they can head into then they're going to get something from it whether that's home-based trunk extension exercises using a Roman chair a Roman chair device they're still going to get some benefit from it is it going to be optimal no the med-x will provide greater improvements the ideal but personally I think that because of the improvements that the med-x produces there should be more awareness about the equipment and gyms should be looking at and physiotherapy clinics should be looking at investing in that equipment there's also been research done on industrial applications of it i private companies purchasing the equipment and using it as on-site occupational therapy for their employees who have been injured it makes economic sense for them to rehabilitate their own employees instead of going for insurance programs etc etc to try and get external companies or whatever it depends on what the insurance system or the medical system in that country how that works but they will get some benefit from using other devices or other exercises but I think the the best solution is to increase awareness and get more people interested in using the more optimal devices the ideal equipment that's going to produce the best improvements for them a few years back Doug McGuff produced a video looking at a couple of different variations on lower back exercises that people can do who haven't got access to specialist equipment one of those being a trunk extension performed using a specifically a super slow systems pull-down machine in his gym my thoughts are on this run along the same lines as my thoughts on other trunk extension exercises there's likely to be some benefit and some degree of loading and fatigue produced in the lumber extensors whether or not that's optimal though is is yet to be seen I think it will provide some benefit in terms of strengthening the lumber extensors and therefore potentially reducing pain and disability and those who have got chronic lower back pain but again it's something that can be used if access to more specialized equipment i.e. the medex lumber extension isn't available so it's a valuable tool as the other exercises can be in the absence of the more ideal tool I first came across Anthony and the 21 convention actually through Doug McGuff and John Little's site for the body by science book I was I'd recently purchased the book and I was following through the blog that they had reading their wiki posts reading through the comment as discussions and contributing to that as well myself and Anthony was a regular contributor there as well and I think it was around the same time that he had started to get into the body by science approach to training so I followed through from his comments on there found his personal blog started reading a lot of his posts and at the same time I was also getting into philosophy more deeply it always been something I've been interested in and specifically reading a lot of iron rands works I'd recently read Atlas shrugged and was working my way through her nonfiction books Anthony's posts resonated with my thoughts at the time and I started contributing to various different personal posts he had on his blog regarding philosophy exercise nutrition and other topics and from his blog I then obviously found out about the 21 convention itself and that it was a convention depicting this idea of the ideal man in all aspects of his life about individualism and succeeding in the various things which contribute to a meaningful and happy life for an individual so initially I was drawn to the 21 convention through that exercise link through body by science and the first videos I started watching were at the time Drew Bay's videos on there I was familiar with Drew Bay's work as well and it was the exercise link that really first got me in there at the time I wasn't interested in any of the pickup stuff and I didn't look through it it wasn't until I actually came and spoke at the convention that I actually started listening to the other speakers in topics which I at the time didn't think I'd be interested in but it was then that I started to learn that all of these different topics that were being discussed at the convention as it was evolving and as it was expanding in the different topics it portrayed were really complementary to each other and there were a lot of principles that were being discussed in each of the different selected topics that kind of translated from one to the other there was a real congruence about the convention in terms of the different topics being spoken it was a very holistic approach it was a very congruent approach and I think that really kind of resounded with me because I like to take the principles that I have learned through philosophy and logic and science and apply them to every aspect of my life and that's what the convention seemed to convey finding that success as a whole but applying the same principles in each different aspect of your life to create that kind of whole and I've heard it a lot I've read it online that a lot of people dismiss the 21 convention because of the the pickup element of it and I think if you asked Anthony himself he would admit it started off as a pickup convention and it's it's got a bit of a stigmata in some people with regards to that but to be honest that's bullshit really I the first year I attended the convention and this year when I attended the convention I had been in a monogamous relationship for a number of years and I still found value in talks that I didn't expect to find value in I those pickup artists who were talking they weren't just speaking on how to pick up chicks although that was an element of what they spoke about so they were also talking about how to build on that how to develop relationships talking about interpersonal relationships and a lot of what they spoke about with regards to how to relate to women I could take and apply into my own relationship with my girlfriend but also see that those skills also applied to other interpersonal relationships as well so for those people who are kind of sat there going well you know I don't think I want to go you know they're I'm not really interested in the pickup I've got a wife or you know I've got a long-term girlfriend or you know I'm just not interested in that there's still value to be had from those talks if you actually take the time to sit down with an active critical mind and listen to it and yeah there'll be stuff that doesn't necessarily apply to your situation but you can pick out if you're intelligent enough the things that will apply and you can find value in those different talks that you didn't expect to it seems to be ironic that the the biggest criticism or the most common criticism levied at the 21st convention as a whole is its consistency but that's misperceived as being a dogma by many critics consistently they have talkers on exercise who come from a high intensity training perspective talkers on nutrition from a paleolithic or an evolutionary perspective people who are talking on pickup on similar topics and philosophically and politically from a rational perspective from an objective style perspective and it's interesting that the fact that this is consistent is levied as a criticism because knowing Anthony personally he's a critical and active minded guy and when he finds something that he knows to be true based upon the evidence he's seen he'll consistently go with that idea and apply it congruently throughout his life and therefore throughout the convention but in the same respect I know from talking to him that he in the past has held completely counter ideas to this completely contradictory ideas and when presented with evidence that's undeniable that those ideas are false and that another set of ideas are true he's changed his ideas and that's shone through in the way the 21 convention has been presented at the moment you know Anthony is sure of the ideas he is presenting in the in the convention he's confident of them and therefore they're consistent I'm sure that if evidence came to pass that some of the ideas weren't you know entirely true he would spin on a dime and change them because it's not the ideas that he's being consistent with it's his perspective on reality and his adherence to it and his pursuit of the truth that he's being consistent to resistance training to momentary muscular failure has a significant impact on all the components that constitute cardiovascular fitness in layman's terms what it allows is the metabolic processes that constitute aerobic and cardiovascular fitness to be maximally stimulated and therefore adapt in the same way that the muscle would do if as a a plastic tissue if it was maximally stimulated the same thing happens to the vasculature the capillaries that supply that muscle as well so in layman's terms resistance training to momentary muscular failure stimulates maximally the muscles that are involved in the movements being performed and therefore increases their ability to perform aerobically and cardiovascular cardiovascular in the academic world and certainly from my perspective from what I've read from other academics I've spoke to and her talk there is this distinct dichotomy presented between resistance training and typical cardio or endurance training and strength adaptations or anaerobic adaptations and aerobic cardiovascular adaptations terms are used interchangeably which just confuses them out further there are a number of things that kind of prop up this dichotomy which to me appears to be false when the evidence is appropriately examined one of them being the or the person who started to introduce that dichotomy was Ken Cooper, Ken of Cooper in the 70s with his aerobics concept trying to split up the anaerobic and aerobic metabolic pathways the anaerobic pathways performing working creating energy in the absence of oxygen and the aerobic pathways creating energy in the presence of oxygen Ken of Cooper tried to create a form of exercise or mode of exercise that he thought would just work the aerobic pathway but the fact of the matter is that that's not true the anaerobic pathway feeds into the aerobic pathways it feeds in the substrate that the mitochondria actually uses to produce energy in the presence of oxygen so that was one of the first things that started to create this kind of false dichotomy and since then training programs have been designed based upon this anaerobic aerobic dichotomy which has further strengthened the idea that because strength training was high intensity and of a short duration it only worked the anaerobic pathways and because endurance training or aerobic training or cardio training however it was being labeled at the time because it was longer and of a lower intensity was working the aerobic pathways it just reinforced this dichotomy more recently we've studied into the metabolic pathway sorry molecular pathways that actually create those adaptations there are two opposing pathways one that stimulates these muscular adaptations in terms of improvements in strength and power and another that induces these adaptations which contribute to endurance and cardiovascular fitness now on the acute level these two pathways appeared to be opposing each other and while one was elevated the other one would be depressed and vice versa but the problem was these these studies didn't really kind of control their variables such as intensity appropriately they were performed in rat subjects the the first ones were and these results were just taken and just slapped on and applied to humans interestingly less than a year later another study was published that disproved this and showed that intense resistance training i.e. to momentary muscular failure actually stimulated the molecular pathways that improved cardiovascular fitness and the ones that improved strength adaptations as well just the timescale of these different things differed immediately after exercise the cardiovascular adaptation pathway was in up-regulated after a while that started to come down and the molecular pathway that induced strength adaptations started to come up so both pathways were active it was just the timing at which you looked at them and also the intensity of the exercise that dictated whether or not one was activated or the other recently in trying to get the paper published that discussed these aspects of resistance training and their effects on cardiovascular fitness published was was very difficult because of the the false notions held in academia these kind of dogmas that have not been challenged up to this date in the in the way we presented them we found a lot of difficulty in dealing with reviewers who either didn't appear to understand the concepts or editors who were flat out resistant to publishing the paper a lot of the comments we got back while at the same time helping improve the quality of the paper in terms of its presentation didn't really add a lot in terms of critiquing the paper or adding to its ideas and it wasn't until we approached the journal that is published in now journal of exercise physiology that we felt we had found an open and active minded critical editor and a set of reviewers who treated the paper without any obvious preconceived biases we've published myself and James Fisher have published another paper discussing the peer review process and some of the barriers that we feel that we've certainly we've faced and that other young scientists with controversial new ideas that go against years and years of accepted wisdom and and frankly dogma in certain disciplines the problems that they tend to face when trying to present their new ideas so we've discussed that previously in another paper as well and and that's from our experiences and the experiences of others in the paper that we published we discussed a lot of areas where there's research lacking and also highlighted areas that I think research needs to be more fine-tuned and more defined certainly in the way it controls the variables that it's looking at many of the studies haven't appropriately controlled for intensity which is the main thing that we highlight in the paper they've misconstrued load in resistance training as being synonymous with intensity when that's just uh not true intensity is uh indicative of effort involved in the exercise so for example uh studies that have looked at oxygen cost vo2 during resistance training have often not had their participants trained to failure they've often included rest periods as well and they've also tried to compare those oxygen costs relative to oxygen cost vo2 measured during a whole body exercise are you in a treadmill or a bike or an elliptical trainer and the problem is because of false notions regarding the relative amount of oxygen cost during exercise that's required to produce cardiovascular adaptations these resistance training studies give the impression that it doesn't give a sufficient stimulus now the training studies show a different story it does improve vo2 max in both untrained individuals young and old but what I'd like to see is studies that more accurately look at what the working muscles are actually doing in terms of their oxygen cost because that's where the adaptations seem to occur and comparing them to vo2 max measured during a maximal treadmill test is just comparing apples and oranges in my uh in my understanding of it so it that's where I want to see uh research in that area going and uh in the paper I highlight you know other areas where there are mechanisms that may be involved in stimulating adaptations so at the periphery in the vasculature where we get this capillarization this increase in the amount of the number of capillaries fueling sending blood to the muscles and taking away waste products there may be there are some mechanisms that were discussed in the paper increasing nitric oxide production and sheer stress on the vasculature that may be involved but there needs to be more research done in that area so I'd like to see that done an additional thing that needs to be looked at is lactate threshold which is another typical measurement of cardiovascular fitness in addition I'd like to see uh more research done on for example measurements like lactate threshold looking at how they improve in response to resistance training because at the moment there's a lack of studies looking at that and uh it's generally conceived to be a an important measurement of cardiovascular fitness or endurance performance certainly at uh below maximal uh workloads so that's another area I'd like to see research being done and how I'd like to see it move forward at the same time all of this research needs to more appropriately define its variables and control those variables instead of changing a host of different things and then trying to draw some conclusion from it when it's nearly impossible to do so in terms of frequency of high intensity resistance training resistance training to motor muscular failure with regards to its adaptations on cardiovascular fitness at the moment it's unclear as to whether there's an optimal frequency with regards to strength adaptations and it seems to be that once twice a week is optimal for the majority of the population in terms of producing optimal adaptations these studies just haven't been done though just looking at changes in frequency while holding all other variables constant and to see what effect that might have on cardiovascular fitness at the same time differences in load and repetition duration haven't been looked at with regards to those adaptations nor have set number what we found was consistently though different studies have used different load schemes repetition duration schemes frequencies set volumes but the one thing that those studies that showed improvements had as consistent was the intensity so some studies have shown that once a week training a single set to momentary muscular failure is sufficient to produce adaptations whether or not those cardiovascular adaptations are comparable to other frequencies is not truly known yet there needs to be studies done to compare that but certainly it does seem that low frequency low volume but high intensity training can produce those adaptations where do I see the 21 convention going in five years time well at the rate it's expanded from its inception back in 2007 if it continues at that rate it's going to be far bigger than it is now it's growing exponentially in terms of the attendees it's attracting and that's a direct consequence of the exceptional speakers not to sound too big headed that anthony is attracting to the convention these are great speakers on a wide variety of topics all presenting fundamentally the same principles but applied to different areas and I think it's going to really start to take off you know shoot real high it's going to become a world acknowledged convention not only in terms of the you know the direct attendees and people who follow the website and the videos online but I think it's going to be start to become more of a talking point in terms of the popular media it's going to become well known it's going to put its place on the map I think because of its consistency and because of its integrity and because of the you know sheer awesomeness of the content people who have influenced my personal growth I could list a number of them I could list loads of them but I'll pick out a few that really stand out to me to begin with I started off getting into high intensity training through Mike Mensa the bodybuilders writings through that I was also introduced to a philosophy an area of study I'd always been interested in it but it wasn't until I started reading Mike's works and the way it was presented in a logical rational and philosophical manner that I started to take an interest in studying philosophy I was introduced to Rand's works I'm Rand's works through that and found her to be an increasingly influential person in my life in terms of what her ideas were in terms of friends my friend Sean Tuma who attended a few years back last year with me he's been a very influential person in my life in terms of the way he's conducted his life in a similar way to mine as an individual as a rational individual striving for the best in his life and I see that in Anthony as well and I'm happy to say that Anthony's been quite an influential figure in my life as well same sort of age same sort of ideals and it's no coincidence that when I became introduced to him through his blog online that we seem to be very similar individuals and it's like I say it's no coincidence it just seemed to me to be the natural state of two rational individuals coming to similar conclusions about the topics that they've looked at I'm coming to the end of my PhD the research I'm specifically doing at the moment and I have a number of other directions I want to take with the research I'm doing right now the research I've proposed that needs to be done with regards to resistance training and cardiovascular fitness and other areas as well where I've read things that I don't necessarily agree with or I think that I've found holes in the current area of evidence and felt that they needed to be plugged I found those questions that need to be answered job wise I don't know where that's going to take me but I see myself in five years time somewhere that enables me to perform research and answer those questions and then take those answers and present them to other people as well because not only do I selfishly do it because I you know find the answers interesting and important in my life but I take a lot of selfish interest out of presenting those ideas to other people and take a lot of value myself from allowing people to understand those ideas