Resistance

Someone had the common sense, if not the audacity to put a handle on things. The invention of the barbell in 1902 made it more practical to apply resistance to working muscles. The inventor of the "miracle tool" recognized that bodyweight exercise (represented by gymnastics and calisthenic-type movements) was clearly not enough.

Fifty years later, another man, frustrated by the new tool, set out to improve it. Arthur Jones didn't like the feel of a biceps curl with a barbell - easy at the top and bottom, tough in the middle. Because of leverage and the effect of gravity, there was no effective resistance on the muscle when it reached a position of full contraction - the only spot where the maximum number of muscle fibers can get involved. To improve the situation, Arthur welded chains to the bar and attached additional weights to the chains at strategic points. When he lifted the bar beyond the sticking point (about halfway up), the new weights were activated in sequence to improve the "feel" in the contracted position. Jones knew that resistance must change according to the needs of the muscle throughout its range of motion. Most body movements were rotary; the pull of gravity, straight-line. Muscle needs were satisfied in few positions during exercise. Jones applied his concept to both rotary and (later) compound movements adding nine other ingredients over 22-years to emerge with what he called a "thinking man's barbell." It was commonly known as a Nautilus machine.

It's effect on the industry was instant, despite the efforts of barbell pushers to challenge and destroy everything Jones introduced. It's effect on muscle stimulation was beyond doubt, and proven with diehard skeptics - bodybuilders and professional athletes. "Proper strength training" soon became the most efficient and effective way to increase strength, flexibility, cardiovascular condition, body composition (muscle/fat ratios) and protection from injury. It was the closest thing to a perfect form of exercise, with one exception: "I didn't say it was easy, said Jones, "I just said it worked." His system was brutally hard, appealed only to those willing to pay the price. Two to three all-out workouts a week using the new resistance and system was too hard for most, despite the claim from hardcore trainees that it was "not enough."

The flame faded.

Fifty years later, Jones' system has been replaced - but not for the better. The field of exercise has reverted to pre-barbell days - gone back 106 years in large and sudden steps. Bodyweight is officially "enough" in the minds of today's self-proclaimed experts (it was never "enough" a century before). Calisthenic-type movements without external resistance are on the rise, with few complaints. After all, according to a growing majority of certified trainers, "It's more functional and more fun than what went before."

When resistance is applied, it is likely in the form of latex tubing, balls and an assortment of toys that have replaced hard muscle work with movement-pattern reinforcement, essentially skill training using resistance. The attempt to make exercise more "functional" has made barbells and machines obsolete. From a resistance perspective, we are left with no full-range exercise, no muscle isolation or direct exercise for major muscle groups, and resistance that never varies with the needs of the muscle. There's nothing rotary about tubing - like gravity, a straight-line pull. Wrong at most angles.

Yet, we've been led to believe that "functional" is better than "non-functional" (traditional strength training), that integrated movement is superior to isolated movement. When do we encounter isolated function in the real world? When do we perform daily or recreational activities from a seated position or in a single plane of motion.

A reminder or four:

1. You cannot strengthen a muscle to its potential by having it perform movements that are shared with other muscles. The quadricep is a perfect example. The front thigh cannot reach its peak strength without isolated leg-extension exercise provided by a machine with a proper cam that supplies an appropriate resistance at every angle of movement through a full range of motion. Impossible. Yet, in today's world, leg extensions are evil. And while I acknowledge that leg extensions are inappropriate for some of the population, they are appropriate for the vast majority. You can rationalize anything; and they do, in the name of "function."

2. For 20 years muscle testing for rehabilitation or strength research was dominated by (if not limited to) dynamic testing. A static or "isometric" test was not as "functional" as a dynamic or "isokinetic" test. When in life or sports are we in a static mode? Jones challenged dynamic muscle testing as early as 1972 and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that isokinetic tests were neither accurate nor safe - not by a little, by a lot. Despite his efforts, dynamic tests still dominate in rehab centers across the country, insurance companies continue to reimburse the same and doctors continue to make decisions based on false information. All in the name of "function."

3. The focus on "core" exercise among physical trainers is a point of intrigue. The experts seem unaware that the muscles that extend the lumbar spine (one-third of the core) cannot be accessed by traditional means. Research (University of Florida: 1986-96) has clearly shown that the only meaningful way to strengthen these muscles is to prevent pelvic rotation during back-extension movements. And the only tool capable of providing the degree of stabilization necessary to access these muscles is a machine made by MedX Corporation. Nothing else works - look it up, try what you will, and good luck. Imagine that, a machine, an isolated movement providing the only way to strengthen the most important muscles of the core - the lumbar spine. Yet, what do we see? Continued attempts to strengthen these muscles by tools and methods useless for their intended purpose. You can't weigh yourself with a toaster - but apparently you can try.

4. For centuries people thought the world was flat. It proved not to be.

Bodyweight and the latex resistance favored by trainers and trainees may increase fun, but fun at the expense of full-range strength, increased flexibility, body composition, cardiovascular condition and injury prevention, is no fun at all. And not very functional.

The solution? I'll let a medical doctor and friend share his approach: "I walked into the clinic (a highly sucessful exercise-oriented rehab center) one day and spotted some rubber balls and colored tubing with handles (brought in by one of the therapists). So, I got out my pen knife..."

A good start.

In his youth, Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones performed three four-hour workouts a week, four sets of each exercise while moving at a torrid pace between. The only thing that stopped him was lack of progress. When frustrated, he'd quit, often for long periods of time. But his brain never stopped. Upon return, he'd adjust a number of factors to see if he could break through prior size and strength barriers. On one such occasion, Arthur cut his workout in half - from four sets to two, no other change. In one week he vaulted over previous records, gained ten pounds of muscle and didn't understand why. His brain never stopped. Eventually, he identified the inability of his system to recover from the amount of exercise performed (four sets) as the problem and stated, "It took me 20 years to figure out that two sets was better than four, and another 10 (years) to discover that one set was better than two." He believed the field of exercise was focused wrongly on how much exercise the body was capable of performing instead of how much it actually needs. Quality vs. quantity.

He later hooked up with the University of Florida (1990's) and caught the attention of the PhD's in the Center for Exercise Science. Arthur was so insistant on his one-set theory that the Center's Director, Dr. Michael Pollock decided to investigate the phenomenon. Pollock's team first reviewed all of the literature published from 1962 that compared one set of exercise to multiple sets. In some cases, several sets was superior in strength results; in other cases, one set of exercise was superior. In none of the studies, not one, was the difference (either way) statistically significant, which led to the conclusion that 35 years of strength research had been wasted. In addition, Jones felt, and could prove, that the tools used to measure strength during that period were "useless for their intended purpose." Arthur changed things around when he introduced tools for specific, isolated testing of the spine and knee, the latter at a cost of 22 years and $120 million. He was not easily satisfied.

Pollock's group took the next step: they performed their own research with Jone's Knee machine. They first selected a large group of untrained individuals, tested the strength of their isolated front (quadriceps) and rear (hamstrings) thighs, and assigned them to two random groups. One group performed one set of leg extensions and one set of leg curls to momentary muscle failure (they were pushed, and pushed hard), three times a week. The other group performed three sets of leg extensions and three of leg curls (every set pushed to failure, with a brief, timed rest between), three times a week. No other exercise was performed by either group. After six or eight weeks (I can't recall), both groups were retested. There was NO difference between the strength gains between the groups. Zero. The conclusion: A second and third set of exercise is useless if the first set is taken to failure.

Convincing. Perhaps the best study to date. Tight controls. Professional supervision. Tools that could actually measure exactly what they set out to measure. Tools that were nominated for a Nobel Prize in medicine. Tools that led to the pet phrase of the unsatiable Jones, "We now know..."

So, what do we see in gyms - trainees that don't know. Set after set of low-intensity exercise that leads to nowhere. If the first set is hard enough to stimulate change (and it rarely is), subsequent sets are unecessary. As Arthur put it, "If you are capable of doing a second set, you didn't do the first one right." There's only one way to the top (reaching your potential) - outright hard work. And if it is hard, it won't take much. At high levels of intensity, a little goes a long way.