Specific/General Response to Exercise

Arthur Jones was the first to identify a muscle's specific or general response to exercise. And he did it with significant tools - machines that totally isolated muscle function, machines checked for accuracy and reliability by research conducted at the University of Florida - so there was no doubt about the results.

Most of the 10,000 subjects tested (80% in the low-back extensors, 72% in the front thigh) demonstrated what Jones called a Specific response to exercise (Type S). That is, they experienced fatigue and/or results only in the range of motion where the muscle worked. Little or no results were produced in the non-work zone. The remainder of the subjects exhibited a General response to exercise (Type G) - full-range fatigue and/or results from partial-range exercise.

So, why all the hype about functional and performance training, and compound movement exercise? By their nature, none provide full-range exercise - exercise that provides an appropriate resistance throughout the entire range of motion. Which produces (in most cases, as above) partial-range results - athletes and housewives alike with great strength at some angles of movement and lousy strength at others. Terrific for performance, terrific for daily activities, terrific for injury prevention. Yeah.

It led Arthur to conclude, "Bullshit is rather easy to establish, and once established, impossible to irradicate."

Unfortunately, not enough trainers are aware of the facts.

Full-Range Exercise

I currently work in an exercise facility equipped with the finest tools available, MedX machines. Why the best? Best guarantee in the industry, lowest friction, smallest increments in weight-stack resistance and, most of all, they provide full-range exercise. By that I mean the machines provide proper resistance at every angle of movement throughout the entire range of motion. Big deal? You bet. Only full-range exercise provides: a strong resistance in full extension to increase flexibility and trigger a pre-stretch; resistance in a position of full contraction (to activate maximum muscle-fiber recruitment); injury prevention regardless of the angle at which force is applied; maximum size/strength benefits (because of its comparative difficulty); and the most efficient contribution to fat loss.

Despite the obvious, there are few instructors in this facility that use the machines at all, having been brainwashed into thinking that playing with rubber balls and bands is somehow superior. Ignorance - among those who should know better. What do you see?

Sport-Specific Exercise & Sports Performance Programs

Research related to skill training points to one thing - specificity. Training to improve skill (and ultimately performance) must be specific, that is, with the same equipment, the same motion performed with no deviation from the ideal path and no resistance other than the weight of the implement(s) used in the movement.

Research related to strength training points to another - maximum overload. Muscles must be challenged with heavy weights (for 8-12 repetitions) to stimulate the degree of change necessary to improve performance.

Skill training - no resistance: Strength training - maximum resistance. Simple enough.

Apparently not.

The flood of sport-specific exercise and performance programs around the country deny the apparent - they combine skill and strength training (train movement patterns in what is called "functional" training). The result? A compromise of both skill and strength - muscle groups that never reach their strength potential and movement patterns that are likely to interfere with the specificity required of skill training.

How should it be done? Separate the two. Strengthen the muscles involved in the movement independent of how they are to be used. Once they are as strong as they can be, plug them into the movement in the only way possible, by practice of the skill itself.

Anything else is insane, commercial or both.