"I Guess You Were Right."

Big John Krickovich stepped out of the cart, his drive safely in the center of the fairway. The 17th hole at Lookout Point Country Club in Fonthill, Ontario was tough. The predominant breeze was in your face. The fairway was ever soft, allowed no roll and stretched the par four to a challenging length - a wood or long-iron approach. John knew it. He'd been there before.

Krickovich held more than a dozen course records in upstate New York. The man could play and he could eat. There was nothing small about John.

His playing partner remained in the cart, observing the procedures. Sam Balsam had his own stellar resume (a three handicap, always a contender) that was accompanied by a cigar he removed only when necessary.

Necessity had arrived.

"What ya' hittin?" asked Sam as John pondered his shot.

"Four iron," mumbled John.

"Naw, not enough. You need the three."

John hesitated while both reiterated their positions. He stuck to his guns.

"You'll never make it."

"Ehh."

John wound up and took his customary five-pound divot. The ball soared through that pro trajectory of his - low to start, rising to a crescendo - and landed like a feather. Two hops and in.

John's eagle resounded over the adjacent fairways and provoked a cigar removal.

"Well," said Sam, "I guess you were right."

I won't waver in my belief that low-volume, high-intensity exercise as advocated by Arthur Jones is without a doubt the most efficient and effective way to produce all the potential benefits of exercise. Yesterday, today and tomorrow.

It's not a question of right or wrong. There are many ways to skin a cat, but there is a best way. When all is said and done, I'm hoping that the words of my buddy Sam resound loud and clear in the direction of those who advocate the virtues of Proper Strength Training.

Intensity

First the tatoo guy checking the mirror between lousy sets; then the girl in the corner performing squats, biceps curls and heel raises all at once (the obvious product of some genius). Both have ipods firmly in place, the first order of business. Like the "Where's the beef?" commercial, I ask, "Where's the intensity?" It has disappeared from today's gyms.

One reason: Intensity is against human nature. No one likes the pain associated with muscles exercised to momentary fatigue or failure. When we reach a certain level we say, "That's enough." Few can stand it, fewer invite it. It's hard. Yet, physiology dictates that the threshold required to stimulate change is high. Arthur Jones called it "outright hard work." Not what we think is hard, but something that can be measured as such, at least with an honest subject.

And how do you measure hard work? Easy. When movement no longer exists with an honest effort - a full effort, no smoke and mirrors. How do you get to failure? Not easy. Try this:

Go beyond what you currently do. If you perform 10 repetitions before you stop (because you think that's it), try to perform 15 or 20. Stay with the exercise for at least five more repetitions regardless of what they look like (halfway up, quarter-way up). Perform the extra attempts in good form, with a slow, controlled speed. Die in style. The first time you try, you might be surprised that you CAN do five more repetitions through a full range-of-motion. If so, you were working below your potential. Add five reps the next workout and continue to add until movement disappears. Clear, simple, measurable. Keep your eyes open and detect movement, or its lack. The good news: When there is no movement, you're done and don't have to face the same for a few days.

Don't stop at a pre-selected magic number. Twelve repetitions is no good if you could have done 14 or 15. Twelve, in that case, may satisfy the ego or psyche, but does NOT satisfy the physiological.

I tell people, "Learn to work hard. I'd rather have you go full out on an exercise (if it means having to lay on the floor for five minutes to recover) than do a little here and a little there" in an effort to spread out your energy to finish.

Intensity takes its toll. Work hard and rest between efforts initially, as you must. Gradually combine several full-out efforts and rest between groups of exercise. Eventually, reduce rest periods between to no rest at all. You won't believe the shape you're in at that time.

Don't expect to pull the "failure" thing off within a few sessions. According to Jones, it would take most professional bodybuilders months to learn momentary muscle failure (and Jones was a superb motivator, knew how to get everything out of every subject). Make hard-work-and-no-rest-between a long-term goal. As Jones reiterated, "I didn't say it was easy. I just said it worked."

It does.

I don't care what you do during your workout, but don't select easy things and easy ways to do them. Do something HARD. Work to exhaustion - measurable exhaustion. And open your eyes. You may see the result you envisioned.

Barnham & Bailey

Most first attempts on an eliptical cross-trainer are failures, regardless of the condition of the subject. The reason, not always apparent, is lack of skill. Most subjects fatigue early because the novelty of the movement (the use of muscles in a different way) forces premature fatigue. Just as true, after a few sessions with the new tool, muscles learn more efficient patterns of movement which delays the onset of fatigue. Soon, what was perceived as "extremely difficult," becomes mundanely routine. The body figures out the skill patterns required to pull it off.

The same with the novelty of functional training. Those who take up the challenge are first mystified by the level of difficulty in an attempt to learn something that appears simple. Why can't my strong, conditioned muscles handle this easy task (easy because it lacks external resistance)? The initial failure leads us to believe that our current routine is missing something, that the new method is superior.

Don't be misled.

The reason you cannot do some of the things asked of functional trainers is that you are being forced to re-tool. And until the body figures out the best way to handle the situation, you will flounder. In the meantime you and your peers might mistaken the novel activity as "a challenging workout" or "really hard."

Don't be fooled.

The only thing gained from such a workout, unless you are totally deconditioned, is a novel set of skills. Functional training is, first and foremost, skill training. I don't know about you but if I want skill training, I go to a coach - a tennis or golf pro - someone who can improve my skill to better my game. I go to the gym to improve strength, flexibility, cardiovascular condition, body composition and to protect myself from injury when I immerse myself in those skill situations. I don't workout to increase skill or learn a set of unrelated activities -UNRELATED regardless of what the trainer says.

If you want new skills, do functional training. If you want what you could and should get from a quality program, do something else.

Dont be fooled by the majority who loudly proclaim: "Bring on the clowns!"

Strong Golfers, Not

I played golf the other day with a young man who hits the ball 300 yards plus. At 150 pounds, he gets the job done with a swing that is more efficient than mine. According to his instructor, Florida-based Jim McLean, James Fields generates his power by driving his legs and, of course, through the timing of that drive.

Jack Nicklaus would agree. I trained Mr. Nicklaus a handful of times . . . long enough to understand where he was coming from. Jack is convinced that power in golf comes from the ground up. One look at his legs would make anyone a believer.

Legs and leg drive are key.

So, what do we see. Last week, The Golf Channel aired a segment "Lessons with the Pros" with PGA professional Pat Perez, hardly a household name. During the program, his trainer presented a glimse into a philosophy that has taken the PGA Tour by storm: Core training, rotational movements and flexibility. What about legs? Furthermore, the application of this philosophy revealed nothing but bad form in everything shown - fast, explosive movements. Despite the fact that the stupidity of performing fast movements during exercise has been proven beyond a doubt, the practice has inundated every facet of sports. Golf is no exception.

Trainers who do work legs to help golf clients almost always select compound movements on the basis of their "functionality." More garbage. Compound movements fail to strengthen any muscle in the chain to a maximum degree. How can a leg function to its maximum if its front thigh muscle is not as strong as it could be? Or its hamstring is not as strong as it could be? Or its calf muscle? Or glute? Instead of using compound movements as the prime exercise, they should be used ONLY to complete a sequence of exercises that FIRST involves an isolated exercise for one of the major muscle groups mentioned. For example, a leg press that follows a leg extension would be more effective at stimulating change than a million lunges. A leg curl immediately followed by a heavy squat is superior to what functional trainers advocate.

Isolated, direct exercise for the major muscles of the legs is a MUST for an athlete to reach his or her strength potential. Not an opinion. A MUST. Check out the research. Use logic. But don't listen to the slew of idiots pushing what's trendy in the field of exercise. All the pros jumped in when they heard that Tiger Woods was "lifting weights." They all jumped in when they saw most of their peers performing "functional" training. And the trainers jumped in when they saw an easy buck.

The dumb leading the blind.

Good luck, Mr. Perez. Your only consolation: "You're not alone." And good luck to all "functional" training advocates who will NEVER reach their strength nor athletic potential. Nautilus inventor, Arthur Jones, summed it up more than 30 years ago when he said, "A stronger athlete is a better athlete." Most professionals on the PGA Tour are not doing a good job at getting strong. And they can thank their trainers.

A "Base" Workout

Variety is a large and current "buzz word" in exercise, some groups claiming it the major reason for best results in its program. "Muscle confusion," they say, is part of the formula for success - a smaller part than what they would have you think.

Variety plays an important role in the physiology and psychology of training, but also a role in the "confusion." Strength training includes an element of boredom and the body may have the capacity to memorize what's coming. "Here we go again: Leg Extension followed by Leg Press, then Leg Curl, then the Hip Extension machine, then upper body starting with . . . "

Boring to the point that the body needs variety in exercise choice, sequence, etc. However, when variety is taken to the extreme, the resistance used during certain exercises must change. For example, the resistance of a chest fly performed immediately before a chest press is different than that used immediately after a chest press. Advanced sequences and slower speeds of movement both demand an adjustment of the resistance.

As a result, the training records of those who demand variety are a mess. One workout shows the use of 50 pounds; another, 80 pounds - same exercise - yet, the sequence, form, technique, reflect that something was different. After a while neither the trainer nor trainee know whether real progress is being made. The subject may be holding his own or going backwards. There's no way of knowing. Unless . . .

. . . one uses a single routine to revert to as a test to determine the direction of the program. Frequency of the selected routine? Whenever you decide. Whenever you want to see where you stand. Every month or two. Every once in a while. After a diversion from your normal program. You decide. Go back to a basic program, basic sequence, a favorite routine that has a logical sequence. Check your performance against that of the last time you tried that SAME sequence. Then, and only then, you'll know where you stand.

Full-Range Exercise

To gain strength through a full range of motion requires what Arthur Jones called "full-range exercise." He identified several ingredients to fulfil the requirements. One was an appropriate resistance at every angle of movement, something that can only be supplied by an exercise machine that changes the resistance to satisfy the needs of the muscle as it moves. The change is accomplished by a 'cam' or leverage system not found in barbells, bands or bodyweight resistance. Traditional tools (including some poor machines) may change resistance as one moves from an extended to contracted position, but the change is seldom 'dead on.' Resistance is not enough. It must be variable and 'correct' throughout the range of motion.

Assuming you have that perfect resistance, there's more. You must move through as great a range as possible to take advantage of the potential benefits provided (strength and flexibility increases, protection from injury and performance enhancement).

Arthur Jones discovered an interesting tidbit of physiology in the late 1980's that may help the above stick to your palate. I reiterate 'discovered' because he, and he alone, must be given full credit. Arthur was the only man on the planet with tools that could measure what others were reportedly measuring - isolated muscle strength. Jones spent a pile of money and time developing tools that isolated muscle function - five in all: Lumbar extension, torso rotation, cervical extension and rotation, and what he called a "knee machine" (front and rear thigh). Each tool, total isolation, no discussion. "When I say something about a muscle," he often said, "I want it to be 100% of that muscle. Not 99 or 95, 100%." And it was.

To discover what he did, Jones tested the strength of a muscle through a full range of motion. (And if you don't think the measure was accurate with a co-operative subject, you had better read the literature.) He then exercised the muscle through half of the existing range - exercised it to exhaustion in either the first or second half of the range. Immediately (and I mean immediately) after, Jones tested the muscle as he originally had - through a full range of motion. The results reflected the 'effect' partial-range exercise had on full-range strength. That's where the fun began.

In the case of the lumbar spine, 80% of subjects lost strength only in the range where work was performed, with a minimal 5-10 degree carryover loss in the non-work zone (72% with the front thigh). This loss was regardless of which half of the range of motion was worked. Jones called this a "Specific" response to exercise. The others (20%) fatigued the same (or very close to the same) amount throughout the range of motion, a response he labeled "General."

Arthur found the same when he worked subjects over a period of time to strengthen muscles. "Specific" subjects gained strength ONLY in the range of motion where they had worked, regardless of which half of the range was exercised. "General" subjects exhibited their genetic tendency - full-range strength increase using partial-range exercise.

Since the overwhelming majority (72-80%) of the population (Jones measured approximately 10,000 people) are "Specific" in their response to exercise, it is imperative to work through as great a range of motion as possible. If not, results will be limited to the range through which movement occured (not great when you observe the average trainee). If your muscle is lucky enough to be "general" in its response to exercise, you might get away with limited-range exercise. Until you can test on the tool Jones developed (there are hundreds of clinics that have MedX equipment), you'd better stick to as great a range of motion as possible.

You wouldn't go to the Half Foods store to buy Whole Foods.

. . . and those lucky people in rehab who are "General." The injury that prevents them from moving through a full range of motion does NOT prevent them from receiving full-range strength - the ultimate goal in any program designed to strengthen the body.

Core, Schmore

Thirty years ago a series of research studies using electromyographical technology concluded that the muscles of the abdomen were significantly weaker than those that extend the spine, and suggested that this imbalance was one reason for the predominance of low-back pain among the general population. Their good-news solution: Strengthen the muscles of the abdominal wall. The bad news: The advice became more than an opinion.

The problem with the studies' conclusions lay in the assumption that the electrical activity detected in muscles indicated their strength and involvement during activity. It was an opinion. Arthur Jones had another.

The Nautilus/MedX inventor spent 14 years building a machine that isolated muscle function (lumbar extension), $88 million in the process and tested approximately 10,000 people before concluding, "99.99% of the population is walking around in a state of chronic disuse atrophy. They have never used those muscles (refering to low-back extensors)." According to Arthur, weakness in the muscles that extend the lumbar spine was the major reason for the high incidence of back problems. A decade of formal research with his device at the University of Florida confirmed his suspicion.

Coupled with his premise that low-back strength in most people was "Pitiful" (with a capital P), Jones believed that strength in the abdominal muscles had "nothing to do with back pain." His opinion went against the grain.

The other day an orthopedic surgeon stopped by our facility. His host asked if I could tell him a little about the MedX Lumbar Extension machine (we have the 'gym' version). As I began, I was reminded of the resistance Jones must have met in his attempt to market the then 'new' tool. Protest was fast and furious.

• "The only way to meaningfully access the muscles that extend the spine" was met by, "Well, at my clinic we do extensions on a Roman chair and . . . "

• Official MedX research demonstrated that traditional extension exercise strengthened hip muscles and hip muscles only (mainly hamstrings and glutes). His reply: "Of course, strength was measured on the same tool that produced the results - a no-no in research." (It can't be measured with a broomstick, bathroom scale or any other tool)


• "The need for total isolated function (no pelvic rotation during extension movement)" was challenged by "The spine is never isolated during any activity. Exercise for the same has to be functional, integrated." (If you're not concerned about strengthening the spine). His reluctance resembed the ignorance displayed by doctors who, for decades, believed that muscle testing had to be be 'dynamic,' not static. After all, when in life or sports is there ever a 'static' situation? Jones demonstrated in his daily seminars that 'dynamic' testing was inaccurate, dangerous and useless. It took him about three minutes; the industry a little longer. Slowly, they swept 'dynamic' testing under the table.

Ignorance is no excuse. The literature is out there, has been for 25 years. I've read it, and so have others - orthopedic surgeons who believe in the MedX Lumbar extension machine, its theory, practical application and results - Dr. Vert Mooney, Brian Nelson, M.D., Dr. Michael Fulton. Heavyweights, all.

Arthur Jones came to one major conclusion after lecturing to medical practitioners seven days a week for several years, "Doctors know nothing about exercise." Too many have listened to sources who should know, but don't - trainers, coaches, therapists - many of whom 'learned' from a few idiots who parade around the country exposing the virtues of core/functional training and other ideas that have little or no base in fact.

"The abdomen takes care of itself," announced Jones to nearly every doctor he met. It turned them off in the same way that my statements of fact concerning the MedX machine were a threat to the beliefs of the visiting orthopod. Some punk trainer wasn't going to tell him how to run his business. Just threw in my opinion - an opinion I can support all day and night.

Jones was confrontational, loved the battle; I don't. I like to see them squirm, but don't enjoy the process. The purpose - to make people think, make them re-evaluate their beliefs. Arthur was a master at it, though a little rough at the edges.

Today's focus on "core" exercise would surely make him roll in his grave. His ideas, as he suspected, have been conveniently "flushed down the toilet of history." The medical community has a weighty hand on the crank.

Open your ears and mind. Read the facts, decide and beware: "An open mind is not the same as an empty head." (Jones)