Sweating It Out

Don't be fooled by sweating, and you might. The majority of gym trainees spend more time performing cardiovascular exercise than strength training. And the "why" is clear: 1) Strength training is "more complicated" (perhaps more boring); 2) calorie burn can be read directly from the panel of a cardiovascular machine; 3) the heart is perceived as the most important muscle for "life;" 4) weight training is too hard for most; and yes, 5) trainees "sweat" more during heart exercise.

Sweating is the body's way to rid itself of heat. Many trainees judge the value of a workout by how much they sweat - and most perspire more during cardiovascular activity, hence the bias. Yet, few realize why.

All other factors being equal, sweating is directly related to the length of time you devote to activity. Cardiovascular exercise is NOT superior because you sweat more. It simply lasts longer than strength training, and is not as difficult. When exercise is really HARD, it doesn't last long. Sprint on a treadmill for 30 minutes . . good luck. Proper strength training is brutally hard, involves an intensity that scares people away, an intensity that dictates brevity.

It's difficult to compare 30 minutes of cardiovascular activity and the same of strength training. Cardiovascular exercise is usually continuous - 30 total minutes of activity. A similar 30 minutes of strength training is generally interupted by water breaks, movement between stations, conversation, recovery and set-up time. Total work performed might add up to 20-25 minutes. Properly performed, strength training is superior in that it delivers more overall benefits. It just doesn't last as long.

Exercise duration dictates the amount you sweat, and sweating is a poor barometer of value.

Strength Training - Don't Forget It

There are five potential benefits of exercise: An increase in 1) muscle strength, 2) flexibility, 3) cardiovascular condition and 4) protection from injury, and 5) a decrease in body fat. Of these, one stands head and shoulders above the rest - muscle strength. Why? It's the only factor that can produce human movement. All of the others serve to assist once movement is initiated by the force of muscle contraction.

Besides that, muscle strength defines the limits of cardiovascular ability and of the structure's integrity to withstand outside forces (injury prevention). It determines the amount of muscle on a body which positively affects metabolism (more than any factor), corporal aesthetics and a number of health-risk issues such as heart disease, diabetes and many yet-to-be-determined conditions. Yet, despite these potential benefits, strength training is the most ignored element in fitness regimens.

There are many options on the fitness table. The next time your doctor recommends exercise, choose to strengthen your body. It's the best choice you can make.

Internal Muscle Friction

The force input of a muscle is the SAME while lifting, lowering or holding a weight provided the muscle moves at a constant speed - any speed, slow or fast.

If you lift a 100-pound weight at a constant speed, the muscle must exert a force equal to that of the weight to keep it moving at that speed. Less exertion results in a slower speed; greater exertion (muscle input) creates acceleration.

A force input of 100 pounds is required to hold 100 pounds in a static position. Less input causes the weight to descend; greater input, to ascend.

Similarly, a muscle input of 100 pounds is required to lower a 100-pound weight at a constant speed. Less input during the descent accelerates the weight; greater input slows the speed.

Therefore, if force input is exactly the same lifting, lowering and holding, why does output differ? Why is it more difficult to lift than lower? Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones speculated it was more than gravity. He called it "internal muscle friction," friction within the musle fibers as they slide back and forth, interacting with neighbors. He had no way to prove it.

Seventeen years later he completed a machine that could. Fresh muscles, he found, were 40% stronger lowering than lifting, few exceptions. Things changed with exercise. During the first submaximal repetitions of a set, lifting and lowering strength declined at a similar rate - a loss of approximately 2% per repetition. As the set increased in difficulty, lifting strength declined rapidly, at a rate that far exceeded that of lowering strength. When repetitions became maximum efforts, lowering strength began to increase for one reason -friction within the muscle had accumulated to a level that began to affect output. Not only did trainees have to lift resistance with tired muscles, they had to overcome the accumulating friction within the muscle (many thought more energy was expended with the friction than the weight). Friction hinders lifting, but helps the lowering phase - if its accumulation is adequate. During high-intensity training, it becomes adequate.

In one case study conducted by Jones, a highly-trained individual whose quadriceps (front thigh) lifting strength had been reduced by 98% (a high and painful level) on a leg extension exercise, demonstrated a corresponding 14% reduction in lowering strength - strength that dove initially, then climbed, bouyed by an accumulation of internal muscle friction.

You can always lower more than you can lift, especially when a muscle is fatigued. Find a way to continue when you can no longer lift (using negative-only, negative-emphasis or negative-accentuated work) to take muscles to a higher level of stimulation.

Friction can be an ally when it comes to muscle growth.

Check the Spelling

During my 14-year stay in Venezuela, in the early 1980's, I spent a few pleasant afternoons playing golf with the head professional at La Lagunita Country Club on the outskirts of Caracas. I recently discovered (through a TV infomercial) that Juan Elizondo was the co-inventor of a device used to increase swing speed, the Speed Stick. The gadget registers the speed you generate as you swing, claiming that every MPH increase produces a gain of 2.5 yards in distance. The infomercial was impressive, backed by some of the 'big' names in golf, including Vijay Singh.

I held a scratch handicap on several occasions, and I've got something to say. Golf rarely involves a full-out effort during a swing. Once in a while you can get away with a 100% effort but, more often than not, you will create a lengthy search for a ball. A different swing speed requires a different set of signals from proprioceptors and input sources, a phenomenon known as specificity. If things aren't specific - exact - skill will take a turn for the worse. Try to play or practice golf after a workout and you'll soon discover that you do not have the co-ordination. the muscles are simply in another state for a couple of hours. When they finally return to earth, they're fine. By then you'll be a few over par.

It's exactly the same when you use a weighted instrument to increase speed in other sports. Baseball, golf, hockey all make the same assumption - swing a weighted implement first, then grab your club, bat or stick and repeat. Of course it will feel lighter. Instantly. The bad news - try and find the ball.

A recent ESPN commercial promotes the same. A sportswriter sits at a computer typing a line while using weighted doughnuts around his wrists. With the weights on, his speed is normal. When he types the same line immediately after removing the weights, his typing cadence is quicker, and acknowledged. "It works," he cries.

Yeah. Check the spelling.

Good and Bad Luck

I've been lucky. Had MedX machines within close proximity to home and work for the past twenty-some years. Some luck was by design. I worked in facilities with MedX equipment, with owners that believed in the technology and I once purchased the $60,000 Lumbar Extension machine to address my back problems, a decision I'll never regret. After two lumbar operations 30 years ago and a recent cervical episode, I'm back. I've been on the lumbar machine for 21 years, the last 20 at once a month (90 seconds, approximately 10 reps) to maintain a level of strength; and been on the MedX Cervical extension machine nearly a year. My neck feels better in a stronger state (as will any muscle), but the machine won't touch the bone spurs I have. Neither will a surgeon.

I've not been as lucky in spreading the word. As a result, many others aren't as fortunate. Most trainers I've worked with over the years already know how to strengthen the muscles of the core, including those that extend the spine. My response? "Good luck."

So, they continue with tradition - exercises that doctors have handed patients for decades, a few changes here and there, a Swiss ball thrown in, generally things that don't work, can't work, won't work - no matter how they're done. Not blowing smoke. Check out the decade of research (1988-1998) at the University of Florida. Convincing. You can't access the muscles of the lumbar spine in a meaningful way (from a strength perspective) unless and until you prevent the pelvis from rotating during back extension movements. One third of the core out the window. Gone. You cannot strengthen the muscles of the low back in a gym using traditional exercise. Cannot. Sorry trainers. Sorry trainees.

Yet they try. Our facility recently initiated a "Healthy Back" program to a great deal of hype and interest. All fine and dandy, but we have the gym version of the MedX Lumbar Extension machine on the fitness floor. Had it five years. Hello. One hour, three times a week doesn't compare to a two-minute-once-a-week or once-every-two-week protocol in efficiency or effectiveness. Not close. One is ineffective (from a strength perspective); the other, highly effective. Why drive a Volkswagon when you own a Cadillac. As the MedX inventor suggested, "It's like comparing the Concorde to an Ox cart."

Yet they try. I once saw a trainer attach surgical tubing (bands) to the structure of a chest press machine to perform a chest press. It reminded me of what Arthur Jones once said, "(It's) . . . like tying a horse to the front bumper and having it pull the car." Bad luck by design.

It doesn't have to be that way with the lumbar spine.

The Toughest Workout - It Ain't Close

This sounds like a joke and it may be. Two guys walked into a gym, both advocates of 'functional training.' One selected, and was trained by, an instructor versed in that style of exercise. From my perch in the reception area, I heard him moan throughout a one-hour workout and overheard the concluding remark, "I swear, that's the toughest thing I've ever done. My abs are on fire." That was only the beginning.

The other guy, who was performing his own 'functional' workout, piped in. "Not long ago," he said, "a (functional) trainer challenged two NFL players to a one-hour session. The two were skeptical of his 'non-weight' approach, but showed up anyway. There was something on the line - $500 - if they finished. Both players were in excellent shape, but they never made it. After 45 minutes they quit, could not continue. It was too hard."

The point was made: A non-weight (or bodyweight-only) workout could be made as difficult and effective as a workout using resistance. That got my attention. It was my turn to pipe in and I'm rather fond of oneupsmanship.

Hard is relative. I've done two hard physical things in my life: One was a continuous run of 30 miles (a marathon wasn't good enough) that lasted 4 hours, 20 minutes. I couldn't walk for a week; the other lasted less than 5 minutes - my first workout on a set of Nautilus machines. Halfway through the fourth exercise, I had to leave the room, became ill (nausea and vomiting) and was shot for the rest of the day. At the time, I was in excellent physical condition - strong from training with heavy weights for years and in great cardiovascular condition, running 7-12 miles three days a week. I wasn't ready for HARD.

Part of what I experienced was similar to the NFL players. We were all exposed to something new, different - and that takes more energy. I introduced some marathon runners to a NordicTrack machine and watched them fail at about five minutes. They had the condition but lacked the skill. It took its toll.

Back to the story. The NFL-player challenge reminded me of Arthur Jones inviting any athlete in the world to train with him for free. Hundreds showed up, including many NFL players, bodybuilders, and others used to lifting weights. What was different about Arthur's workout, however, was not the equipment. He had only four Nautilus machines built at the time and used Universal machines and barbells for his 12-station onslaught. What was hard was the system: Hard exercise, pushed to failure, challenging weights and NO REST between exercises. It threw bodies into shock.

From 1970 to 1974, no one finished the full circuit, programmed to last about 25 minutes. In fact, no one lasted more than seven (minutes). Most were on the floor (if not out in the back alley), lurching, pale, with nausea, unable to continue - many, just plain sick. A few returned for a second and third attempt - the challenge was on. The great Arnold lasted 3 1/2 minutes. Of thirty bodybuilders that frequented my Nautilus facility in Caracas, Venezuela the first year, one, only ONE made it to the fifth machine. Like me, the rest were left in various stages of disrepair after minutes of exercise. The reason: It was HARD, and to some extent, different.

How hard was the functional training workout compared to the training system of Arthur Jones? Judging by how long trainees lasted before they were forced to quit (or threw in the towel), the traditional workout was approximately seven times (7X) harder - 600%. And I'd bet $500.00 that if the two NFL players had used resistance (in addition to their bodyweight) during their 'functional' workout, they would never have lasted 45 minutes. When something is really HARD, you don't last long. When it's long, it can't be hard. You have one or the other. Functional training happened to be the other. A 45-minute workout is not a necessity for any athlete. If the intensity is high enough to stimulate tissue change, the session shouldn't last that long - can't last that long.

The next time somone tells you that training without resistance is better than training with resistance, turn your back. You are talking to a fool.

A Cryin' Shame

The more things change the more they stay the same.

In 1986, MedX Corporation introduced a Lumbar Extension machine that was up for a Nobel Prize in medicine. Fourteen years of research and development, 3,000 prototypes, $88 million invested and extensive research that proved beyond a doubt the effectiveness, cost efficiency and reliability of the machine should have assured its place in the field of exercise and medicine. A decade of research conducted at the University of Florida concluded that the MedX device was the ONLY meaningful way to access the muscles that extend the spine from a strength perspective. Add to that - eighty percent of chronic low-back patients responded to the machine by having a reduction in pain perception after a 12-week protocol; 30-33% became pain free.

The machine should have been a hit, but was rejected by the medical community. According to Dr. Michael Fulton, an orthopod who worked with MedX inventor Arthur Jones, the device threatened them (doctors). . . would have put many out of business. Sad, but true.

Since then, MedX Corporation has introduced a gym version of the same, a machine you can use without help, giving more people access to an effective treatment for chronic back pain. Almost as restrictive, equally effective, fairly expensive. The result? Much the same. Few gyms have it. They won't spend the money for something better. "We have a back machine already." Yeah, you sure do. Good luck.

So, the same thing has happened. The MedX device has been perceived as just another machine, in an era when machines are out. It has resulted in the following scenarios:

1. A friend from Florida to whom I introduced the MedX Lumbar Extension machine, tried to locate one near his home. He had to travel 45 minutes to the nearest place. When he arrived, no one knew anything about the machine that sat in the corner covered in a mantle of dust. The instructor didn't know anything about it, so my friend proceeded to use it alone. He still makes that lonely 45-minute voyage once a week or two to a dusty corner of a gym that knows nothing about what it has. At least it has it.

2. A therapist was hired to head the rehab center where I once worked. The PhD was a self-described "hands on" therapist, didn't use machines. One of his first questions was, "How much can we get for the pair?" (Lumbar and Cervical extension machines valued originally at $120,000). I went to show him how to use the machines; ended up trying to convince him that they had exercise value. Luckily, several patients were addicted to the results they had received. He was forced to use them. I hope it's still the case.

3. There's a MedX Lumbar machine where I work in North Carolina - a private country club. Our director remains unconvinced of its usefullness despite my efforts. So, she's initiating a "Healthy Spine" program which amounts to a thrice-a-week exposure to an hour of core training. Twelve hours a month. I have used the MedX machine for 21 years - 90 seconds a month, two back operations, pain-free for 21 years. A lot of people could save a lot of time - 11 hours, 58 1/2 minutes per month - with better results, if they'd listen or read . . . or something.

As Arthur would say, "It's a cryin' shame."