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.
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..."
No comments:
Post a Comment