About Us
Trace Johnston, CPT
Co-owner & instructor
StrongerSimply,LLC
Trace Johnston graduated with honors from the Fitness Trainer Program at Ashmead College in Washington State in 2007, and received a Personal Trainer certification from the American College of Sports Medicine in 2008.
APOCALYPSE NOW
Most people don’t exercise.
In the U.S. the CDC reports that more than 80% of adults do not follow the official guidelines for strength and endurance. Globally the percentage may be as high as 98%.
The explanation, according to scientists, is that human beings don’t like to exercise. Our natural inclination is to work less and eat more. So, while most people would like to be fit in theory, they won’t do the work to achieve it.
I agree, but only in part. It’s true that all of us must contend with a natural resistance to hard work. Yet this alone doesn’t explain the disparity between the few who exercise and the majority who do not.
The consensus among medical practitioners is that physical activity is an essential lifestyle factor that thwarts chronic illness and early mortality. That so many people choose not to exercise has perplexed health care agencies around the world for a long time.
Some analysts argue that the only viable solution is to foster positive behavioral changes in the individual. Personal trainers are to engage clients in strategies. We are to assist our customers in figuring out clever ways to outsmart their own devious anti-exercise tendencies.
My view is this: No one can be expected to change their behavior without having a compelling reason. Counseling does nothing but sidestep the real problem.
As a personal trainer who has instructed hundreds of work outs and experimented with a variety of training methods, I think the solution is both simple and complex.
The simple part is finding a better way to exercise. The complication arises from a dogmatic belief about fitness that is universal and unyielding.
I’ll try to explain.
When I first started out as a CPT, I would give someone a set of exercises and move on to the next customer. Sometime later I might see the first person doing the routine on her own. What I thought I had instructed so carefully was hardly recognizable.
The most alarming feature was the rushed and frantic way in which the exercise movements were being performed. It was as though she was competing in a sporting event rather than exercising for physical improvement. This was neither effective nor safe. Clearly, I had failed to convey the most important message about exercise.
Yet, in all fairness to myself, I was a newcomer, fresh from fitness trainer school. Just as doctors have a “practice” for practicing, I too needed experience. However, instead of confirming my education, real life in the gym eventually revealed what had never been mentioned in class:
A. For most people exercises are not simple to perform or easy to remember.
B. An individual’s suitability for a given task depends largely on a fortuitous combination of inherited traits.
Knowing these two statements to be (A) factual observation, and (B) fact of science, a question poses itself: Why not change the exercise to fit the individual?
The answer appears to be because no one wants to.
This is not to say personal trainers don’t select the exercises they prescribe for their clients. It’s just that the modes or types of exercises come from the same source that everyone uses. And this is the thing no one wants to change.
Fitness exercises are created by those with genetic gifts (generally athletes) who assume anyone can do what they can do if they practice hard enough. The problem with this notion is that it’s not valid. Studies have shown that practice alone cannot develop an aptitude for a task. Individuals not born with a predisposition can practice all they like but the outcome will always be awkward at best.
Yet no one questions this approach, including those who struggle without success to imitate the athlete. Everyone just keeps trying without a second thought because it is the only paradigm by which the world presently conceives of fitness. In short, we are all supposed to want to be athletic and the work it takes to try to be one is what “getting in shape” is all about.
Of course, that only pertains to those who go to gyms. For everyone else (the rest of the population), they just stay home.
These are the reasons most people don’t exercise (or more accurately make the decision not to exercise in the way it is currently recommended):
- The fitness industry does not promote long-term participation.
- Our universal passion for sports has engendered a bias.
Of the two, the second is the largest contributor.
People with natural athletic abilities no doubt prosper from all types of physical play. So, it makes sense that they will frequent the gyms and clubs. Yet, statistically, athletes represent a minority of the population. The time has come for this fact to be openly acknowledged – especially in terms of physical activity guidelines by government sponsored agencies for populations with the least athletic ability.
Those who earnestly attempt to exercise for their health are routinely positioned at a disadvantage through no fault of their own – unless they are to be blamed for putting their trust in agency recommendations and industry promises.
For my part, I became convinced that the solution for serving more people could be realized on a wider scale if the conception of what it means to exercise was altered to fit the non-athletic population more appropriately. I believed this could be done by reassessing the purpose of exercise in relationship to the methods and tools being used at the present time.
I would no longer take my fitness trainer education at face value, rather, I would question it from top to bottom and fill in the blanks that were there from the very beginning.
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
Incredibly, the fundamental reason to exercise is rarely discussed or even thought about except in the vaguest terms. Indeed, the word “exercise” is a generality that can mean almost anything to anyone.
No matter how diverse the field may seem to the uninformed, in the final analysis there are just two types of exercise that exist in the modern world:
- Sports as exercise
- Pure exercise
First is the traditional view that is owned by most of the world’s population. It is rooted in the assumption that structured exercise must be athletic. Fitness approached in this manner suits athletes while excluding those who are not athletic. The crisis in terms of health and mortality is that all human beings need to exercise, not a select few.
Pure exercise, on the other hand, derives from the classical sciences. It logically describes exercise as a process rather than an activity and employs select methodology to precisely extract the desired benefit.
If we accept the latest medical research, we must acknowledge how crucial skeletal muscle is to our health and longevity. It follows, then, that the desired benefit of exercise is to stimulate the growth of muscle tissue – especially as we age.
For decades, the fitness industry has promoted the importance of heart healthy workouts while neglecting to mention the muscles. Neither heart nor muscle function in isolation, they are integral to each other. But if there was a hierarchy,the muscle would be first, because the working muscle (needing oxygen) places the healthy demand on the heart. Since all the emphasis has been aimed at the cardiovascular response to exercise for so long, a widespread belief in “cardio” took root almost permanently. Only recently has this distortion started to shift towards a more educated awareness about exercise and human physiology.
It is also important to realize that when we say muscle and strength, we are not just referring to large muscles or feats of strength. We are addressing metabolism and manufacture of energy, the requirement for life itself.
I have frequently asked new clients to tell me what they think the point of exercising is. The usual response is a look of confusion. Hardly anyone knows the answer.
STARGATE
In 2012, I attended a tradeshow in Ohio to see a presentation of a brand-new idea. There are not many innovative ideas in the fitness industry. But this idea didn’t evolve from the fitness industry. It was the result of 40 years of work by independent thinkers who had similar insights while trying to find the most perfect tool and method for fulfilling the purpose of exercise.
When I first saw the machines in the hotel conference room I was stunned. Although they vaguely resembled weight training machines, on closer inspection they weren’t machines at all.
More to the point, they were platforms built for static exercise.
It may be difficult today to appreciate what a revelation it seemed at the time. Isometric exercise was not new, but the use of custom seating and viewing screens for such exercise was out of this world.
On each platform, a separate screen provided visual feedback for the person performing the exercise. Built-in sensors could measure and display the work force as it was produced in real time. The objective of the exercise was to match one’s effort to a pre-selected line of force.
They called it “Timed Static Contraction with Feedback.”
The workout demonstration presented a pristine picture of exercise in its purest form. No movement, only the sound of labored breathing to indicate the effort of the physical work being performed.
I was amazed and inspired. Could this be a solution for those who are disenfranchised by the sports-centric exercise philosophy?
I also remembered individuals that I have known who endured joint pain as they aged and were given minimal exercise for fear of injury. Although understandably cautious, it is the worst strategy imaginable, because as we age, the medical need to strengthen and maintain muscle becomes increasingly difficult and urgent.
Certainly, Timed Static Contraction with Feedback could help resolve the dilemma of needing more strength despite discomfort by providing the equivalent of high intensity training (HITT) without overusing or overstressing the skeletal framework. Yet the level and quality of the exercise, from the perspective of metabolic health, would be as good or better than what is now offered only to the younger population.
Having contended with a wide assortment of customers and challenges regarding the complexity and pitfalls of conventional dynamic exercises, I have good reasons to advocate for the static method and its technology:
- Efficacy
- Efficiency
- Effectiveness
- Safety
Without elaborating the details, I can only say here that none of the factors in the above list are found in most clubs or strength-training facilities. Yet these factors are essential for anyone wishing to enjoy meaningful strength and fitness in the long term.
The Ohio tradeshow concluded with a heated Q & A session. Of concern was the feasibility of introducing such a radically different concept as TSC to the paying public. Would anyone accept it?
I seriously considered this question myself. For about a minute.
THE MEANING OF LIFE
In 2016, I left the gym and with Carol opened our exercise studio.
We posted our mission statement: “To facilitate skeletal muscle revitalization for all, regardless of ability or limiting conditions.”
Many of my gym clients courageously signed up. No one could be sure how the enterprise would turn out. As with any new business, there was a measure of uncertainty – and more so with an untested, unproven product.
In retrospect, the worry was baseless. And perhaps it’s no surprise that everyone continues to show up, 8 years later.
We spent seven years developing Timed Static Contraction with Feedback. I didn’t plan it that way, believe me, it just happened.
Of course, I practice what I preach and workout exclusively with TSC. It is not a business decision, it’s my personal choice.
Every time I complete a session, I am reminded again of how great it is. I particularly enjoy the immediate post workout feeling. My years lifting in the gym never felt as good or yielded such meaningful results.
Previously I said people needed to have a compelling reason to exercise. If I acknowledge their intelligence and describe a fact that can then be demonstrated and confirmed subjectively, it will be compelling.
The final step is to let the powerful metabolic effects speak for themselves.
For when all is said that can be said, it is our own experience that convinces us. That is what brings us back to exercising again and again.
And without the need for counseling!