"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)

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."

High Intensity Training - The Safety Factor

High intensity training is not dangerous training. It is, in fact, the safest way to train, the safety factor built in - but only under the following conditions: good form; slow, controlled movement. As long as form is good, you can take a muscle to failure, where it can no longer move with a 100% effort, and NOT produce injury. A bold statement? Just the facts, ma'am.

Force produces injury. The higher the force to which a muscle is exposed, the greater the chance of injury. Therefore, the maintenance of low levels of force during exercise assures minimal injury risk. And high levels of intensity with good form assures low force levels.

The force to which a muscle is exposed during the first repetition of an exercise is potentially high because the muscle is fresh and capable of producing its highest level of exertion and greatest speed at that moment. If you initiate the first repetition with a jerk or excess speed, you invite injury. To avoid potential problems, slowly press into the resistance (bar, pad or other) with enough effort to barely allow it to move, then continue (throughout the range of motion) producing a force slightly greater than the weight itself. The effort should produce a slow, controlled movement.

The muscle fatigues as it continues through the second, third and subsequent repetitions at a rate determined by genetics. The average muscle (an average mix of fast- and slow-twitch fibers) fatigues at a rate of approximately 2% (strength loss) per repetition. Therefore after 10 repetitions, the exercising muscle will be down in strength by about 20%.

What does that mean? During the final repetition, when it feels like your limb will disconnect, the muscle cannot produce the potential force it could during the first repetition. It's tired. Even if you tried to jerk the weight through the final repetition (which you should not), you cannot produce enough force to create injury.

Therefore, despite the way it feels, the last repetition of a set is always safer than the first. Unfortunately, many trainees train by feel, quit before they should - somewhere short of muscle failure - and ruin the potential to stimulate tissue change. All because of fear of injury - a fear not supported by fact.

Work as hard as you can - the harder, the safer.

Muscle Mass - Get It

"Why add muscle at my age?" is a common gym question.

"For many reasons" should be the answer, but rarely is.

Nautilus inventor, Arthur Jones often criticized people who sought easy solutions to their problems. Why? He spent a lifetime seeking harder solutions to problems in the field of exercise, concluding, "There's only one way to the top, outright hard work." It appealed to few.

Jones took no short cuts - there were none - but his approach was the exception. Most clients enter the gym looking for the easiest 20 minutes - a little cardio, a few machines, light weights, Swiss balls, ab work. Few arrive with a valid plan - one that requires discipline, pushing the envelope higher, progress. They simply arrive; and that, for most, is enough. The slightest hint at physiology is countered with, "I know you have good intentions, dear instructor, but..."

The result of such a casual approach is a decline in the average result produced by exercise. As Arthur put it, "If you do 10 repetitions when you could have done 12 (if you had applied yourself or been pushed), you might as well stay in the parking lot. Don't come in the building. You'll get the same result - nothing." He didn't mince words.

Lack of effort is not the only problem, there's choice. Functional training is slowly replacing strength training. It sounds better (more "functional"); it's easier; it's popular (everyone's doing it; trainers, pushing it). The dumb leading the blind.

I have, of late, worked with an elderly population. They have concerns - mobility, balance, orthopedic conditions - that are generally accommodated by trainers, the approach bordering on rehab; the emphasis rarely on strength training. Where strength is incorporated, the choice is lousy - bodyweight exercises, skill training, balance work (general balance cannot be improved), core training - things that contribute little to the addition of muscle mass. It's not aesthetics or performance I'm talking about - it's health. Improved muscle mass has been linked to a decrease in the incidence of a plethora of common ailments associated with the aging process - diabetes, heart disease and (closing in on) cancer.

I've stated for decades, "Exercise is not a cure-all, but it's damn close." Research may one day prove me right (and not for my sake).

Work hard on a few basic exercises with a challenging resistance. Add muscle to your body. Build a base from which you can enjoy a healthy life, throughout life.

Speed of Movement During Exercise

I've always found speed of movement interesting. So did Arthur Jones. After experimenting for decades, the Nautilus inventor concluded, "It is probably impossible to lift weights too slowly." Hence the outbreak of slow and Super Slow protocols. More importantly, his influence spread through trainers who emphasized good form, of which slow, controlled speed was part.

Today's trainers emphasize form in the same way, but few pay attention. No one knows exactly how slow is best (if it exists); few realize the physics, the physiology, the rationale behind slow-rather-than-fast repetitions; and many have been influenced, or at least confused, by the recent surge in "performance" training which promotes the opposite - explosive, fast-as-you-can reps. "Activate the fast-twitch fibers," they say. "Train for power, to demonstrate power on the field, to prepare the body for what's to come." Genius. Pure genius.

They forgot one thing - logic. The body can move at incredible speeds - limbs as quickly as 1000 ft/sec. When you add resistance to a moving part, however, speed slows. Now, the limb moves as quickly as it can against the resistance, not as quickly as it ultimately can. If resistance is very heavy, the maximum generated speed will be, by necessity, slow. The heavier the weight, the slower the speed, nothing else is possible.

Point one: How can explosive training with weights help an athlete become more explosive (demonstrate more power) on the field? In other words, how can a slower-than-possible movement (because of resistance used) help one become faster? The same people who believe slow training makes you slow on the field are training slower than possible (if no resistance is used) and claiming it makes them faster. Hmmm.

Point two: The genii believe there's automatic transfer from gym to on-field activity. Few have read the literature. Four decades of motor learning research reveals that NO transfer exists, none. It's called specificity of training, and it's ignored.

The result? Wasted time, lots of it. Practicing something that doesn't transfer to sport and placing muscles in harms way to get there. Unfortunately, strength is general in its application. Any strength gained (even that by explosive repetitions) helps performance - thus belief in what they're doing. But strength can be obtained by safer means.

The sane approach, the logical approach - strengthen the muscles you need in a safe way independent of how they are to be used. Slow repetition speed doesn't mean slow movement on the field. Plug the new strength into the sport by practicing the sport.

We may never arrive at a conclusion about speed of movement during exercise - there are too many out there who believe that FAST has value.

Jones summed it up in the 1996 issue of Ironman magazine, "Ignore this warning at your great peril; move fast during exercise and you will eventually hurt yourself...Train properly and you will probably never hurt yourself."

"Properly," if I read Arthur correctly, means "not fast."

Arthur Rules

Nautilus/MedX inventor, Arthur Jones, his co-pilot (an elder man near deaf, and who generally ignored Arthur) and Dr. Michael Fulton (orthopedic representative for MedX Corporation) were flying to Daytona Beach, Florida from the west coast. Arthur was convinced there was something wrong with the plane and decided to land at his private jetport in Ocala (Fl) to check things out. The jetport housed the longest private runway in the world - elevated with slopes decending steeply into native brush on both sides. It was early AM.

Once the plane landed, Arthur insisted through a flurry of profanity that both passengers remain in their seats. And when Arthur insisted, you'd better not be deaf. After the tonguelashing, Jones lowered the steps of the plane to connect with planet earth. According to Fulton, "He disappeared into the dark." The plane was parked closer to the edge of the runway than anticipated. Jones ended up somewhere deep in the brush. The passengers didn't budge. Rules were rules.

Ten minutes later, the profanity returned, this time aimed at the pair who refused help.

Rules were rules.

Balance

For the past decade, I have been involved with the training routines of the elderly, currently have seven clients that range in age from 85-95. And while it differs greatly from the training of world-class athletes, there is a degree of satisfaction that is no less meaningful. The elderly have reduced egos, few specific training goals and are more appreciative. If they can return for the next workout and maintain mobility, they are grateful - which does not diminish my efforts. As a trainer, however, I am bombarded with the challenge of "I need to improve balance" - a common request of all trainers. So, as good Samaritans, we run our elderly clients through a series of balance activities that are supposed to improve balance for daily living. I was never comfortable with the scenario.

First, I was not schooled in balance activities and felt inadequate despite devouring several books full of 'balance-improving' activities.

Second, I was not convinced that improving balance at specific tasks had any positive transfer to other activities, such as the daily-living ones we were trying to improve. So I read, and read.

Brian Johnston put it together nicely in his book Systems Analysis, in which he critiques various forms of popular exercise, including "functional" training. Johnston classifies balance as an innate ability, not subject to change. You have it or you don't. The improvement in the performance of skills specific to balance (those generally administered by trainers) were just that - skill improvement through practice. Balance improvement occurred specifically to that skill, with no transfer to other non-specific skills . "Other" skills were different - almost the same, similar to - but they had their own set of specifics, their own input of balance, an input different to that practiced in the gym.

Aside from making the elderly feel better about their balance (a psychological factor) and the effort made to improve balance by trainers, the fact remains: Balance cannot be improved as an ability. It can only be improved specific to a skill.

With apologies to the elderly, balance is innate.

Fat Guys Rule

A female client asked an interesting question the other day in the fitness center.
"Did you watch the Masters?"
"Certainly," I replied.
"Well," she stated, "The three guys in the playoff looked fat and out-of-shape. Tiger Woods, on the other hand, looked incredibly ripped and Phil Mickelson more fit than ever. Do you think Woods and Mickelson (neither of whom made the playoff) have overdone fitness to the point that it is hurting their game?"

The question caught me off guard. I grew up in an era when strength training for golf was taboo. Gary Player was the only professional, an outcast, who dared train with weights. I recognized the value of strength for athletes in my 2005 book, In Arthur's Shadow, stating, "...professional golf would embrace strength training only when a Mr. Universe won the United States Open title." I was wrong. Mr. Universe hasn't come through yet, but Woods is a reasonable substitute.

THEN: When fitness was first adopted by the professional golf community, I waited for the first sign of skill deterioration to trigger a blame on 'lifting weights.' I worked with enough pros and amateurs who hopped aboard the fitness train to realize that most were looking for an out. They never tried it long enough to produce an effect, just as the majority of today's fitness novices.

NOW: Professional golfers generally recognize the value of strength training and fitness, having been bombarded by a commercial monster over the potential benefits to improve performance. Suddenly, 'lifting weights' is OK for golf.

How much seems to be the issue. Some training is good, but too much is not. The reported workouts of Woods and others reflect the same errors made by bodybuilders when they first arrived on their scene - more is better. Really? More exercise is often the cause of lack of progress among many trainees, but hardly in the case of golfers. Most players are afraid to get strong enough to make a significant difference. They tiptoe in just to say they're part of the movement.

My answer to the female client, before I stray too far, was as follows. Golf is a high skill game in which strength plays a minor role. When a skinny runt outhits you by 60 yards, you'll soon discover that skill and timing have more to do with success than strength. Strength protects you from injury and improves power production, but the fact remains, the most efficient way to improve golf is to improve your swing through proper skill training. Nonetheless, if strength represents 5% or 10% of golf success, one must fill that percentage to reach one's potential. According to Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones, "A stronger athlete is a better athlete, short of checkers and chess." He found few professional athletes strong enough for their sport.

As I see it, too much strength and conditioning in golf is rarely, nor likely to become, the problem. It remains, however, a viable scapegoat on the horizon.

THEN: Golfers did nothing.

NOW: They're doing too much?

How can you win?

How We Learn

Somebody once asked Ben Hogan for a golf lesson. His reply, "You can't teach golf. You can only learn it." Hogan wasn't arrogant, just giving an honest opinion. To learn golf, you must practice until an efficient and effective motion is ingrained in the nervous system and the muscles they feed. Timing, control, balance, feel, rhythm - the muscles and nervous system must figure things out. It must be precise, specific, exactly the same - swing after swing - to reach the pinnacle. Things almost correct will likely retard the process, insert roadblocks, promote negative results.

Yet, this insertion is exactly the essence of sport-specific or performance training. Do something (an exercise or movement) that resembles a sport-movement pattern; then assume there is a positive transfer to the sport itself. Poor assumption. The motor learning principle of specificity is violated every time - something coaches and trainers don't get. They continue to train athletes under false assumptions and beliefs, then argue that they produce results. They have the studs in the barn to prove it. Doing something will produce a result, not the best result, a result.

Why do coaches and trainers not get it? Your guess is as good as mine, but one thing is certain. The alternative, old-school thought, is unattractive, not hip, not functional. Strengthen the muscles needed in the sport, independent of 'how' they are to be used. Then, take the new muscles out to the ball game. Let the nervous system piece the new structure and strength together in the only way possible - by practice of the sport itself, specifically, with no added weight or opinion. Practice the sport exactly as you would in competition.

Let's put the current sport-specific training approach where it belongs - the nearest trash can. The nervous system is capable of improvement with the proper signals - signals not confused by extra weights that trigger patterns similar to, but not exactly like, that encountered in the sport.

Strengthen muscles; practice the sport. Anything else is insanity, fraud or both.

Get it?

New Equipment

Something new in the field of exercise. It's been a while. Equipment. Equipment that focuses on what Arthur Jones once emphasized, the negative phase of exercise, lowering the weight. Jones built a number of prototypes in the early 1970's called "Omni" machines (shoulder and chest presses, biceps and triceps) that allowed trainees to lift weight with the stronger muscles of the legs, and lower it with the weaker muscles of the arms. Besides the "Omni" series, he developed techniques (negative accentuated and negative emphasis) that emphasized the lowering phase of exercise. Some techniques required outside assistance; others, not. Nonetheless, Arthur's approach pointed in one direction - fatigue a muscle beyond normal by adding resistance as weight is lowered.

A Swedish entrepreneur with the help of automotive designers has come up with a new way to emphasize the lowering phase of exercise. Instead of adding weight to the lowering, as did Arthur, the Swede has reduced the resistance on the lifting phase and restored it during the lowering phase. This is accomplished by tilting the weight stack (a motorized system) to approximately 45 degrees as weight is lifted and returning it to vertical as weight is lowered. The return to vertical is a half-second process. In plain English, resistance increases by 40% during the lowering phase. Since muscles are 40% stronger lowering than lifting under fresh conditions, trainees experience the same difficulty to lift - but a new ballgame on the way down. Hard on the way up, equally hard on the way down. As a result, fatigue occurs more quickly, inroad into the muscle's reserve system is greater, and repetitions and training-time are reduced. More efficient workouts, less frequent workouts as recovery time is increased. Eight exercises. Twice a week. More results. Sound familiar? A commercial? This is for real.

Yet, the concept is not new. I trained on a version of the same, a line of equipment introduced by LifeFitness, more than 20 years ago. The machine tested strength, selected an electronic weight, and challenged the lowering phase by increasing the load by 40%. But all was not roses. One problem lay in the testing. The strength test was neither accurate nor safe, typical of all dynamic test efforts. Another problem lay in the execution. The transition from what the muscle felt during the lifting phase to what it experienced while lowering was rough - a sudden jolt, dangerous. Let's hope the Swedes have that down.

Kudos to the new equipment, called X-Force, and to the emphasis on negative training.

Only one thing remains. When will someone take on another of Jones' innovative concepts - the return of Double machines - so that pre-exhaustion can again soar to the forefront of muscle training?

Of That Kind...

Years ago a friend of mine named Frank received a birthday gift from his kids - an international golf membership at Royal Dornoch in Scotland. That summer he timed his arrival for the senior club championship where he proudly found himself on the first tee, swinging his driver to warm up. The local pro wandered over, introduced himself and said in a deep brogue, "Laddie, that's the finest swing of that kind I've ever seen . . . but we don't swing that way over here. Let me show you . . ." During play, Frank hung in as long as he could for someone not knowing the course. The wheels of his three-handicap, one-of-a-kind swing came off early in the back nine.

Lately, I feel like the last of the Mohicans in a gym, the place in which I once felt most comfortable. Education from my mentor, Arthur Jones, and certification as a HIT (High Intensity Training) practitioner have all but left me standing alone, like Frank on the first tee. "He's the finest trainer of that kind I've ever seen," they say, "but we don't train that way here. Let me show you . . ."

And what I'm shown is functional training - no weights, no barbells, no machines - exercise performed essentially using body weight as resistance. Are you kidding? As Arthur once put it in his own brogue, "It is rather easy to establish bullshit; and once established, it is impossible to eradicate." Is high-intensity training not functional? Or as functional as functional training? Show me your results and I'll show you mine. Then, let the chips fall where they may.

In a West Point Academy study in the mid-1970's, Jones took half the cadets on the football team and ran them through his version of "proper strength training" - a brief circuit of high-intensity exercise that targeted the major muscle groups important to football. No barbells, no free-hand exercise, machines only, three 25-minute sessions per week. His group increased their strength in six weeks by 60%, decreased their time to run two-miles (part of everyone's training) by 88 seconds, increased their flexibility, reduced body fat significantly, and suffered no injuries in the process, despite practicing football at the same time. The results were compared to the other half of the team who continued to train using traditional football methods. It was no contest. Proper Strength Training. Brief. Hard. Not good enough? Put your best functional training research results up against that and I'll guarantee less results in every category - less strength, less cardiovascular effect, less flexibility, less fat loss and increased injury. My money's on the table.

The results of "Project Total Conditioning" could not be duplicated by any other method, a fact made clear to Dr. Kenneth Cooper whose team measured the cardiovascular results - 60 different tests. When Dr. Cooper viewed the summary on his desk, the man who firmly believed that strength training had no significant cardiovascular benefit ripped it up and threw it in the garbage. "These results are impossible!" he claimed. Jones eventually heard about the response and called the famous doctor. "Yes, Dr. Cooper, those results are impossible, the stupid way you do cardiovascular training. They are only possible by performing proper strength training."

Functional? Very. My money's on the table.

The Dumb Leading The Blind

During The Golf Channel's coverage of a PGA tournament from the Doral Country Club (Miami, Florida/March 13, 2009), announcer Nick Faldo mentioned he saw Phil Mickelson in the gym that morning doing "all sorts of bunny hops." What Faldo undoubtedly referred to is the trend among athletes in "explosive" sports (those that involve power production) to use "plyometrics." Poor Phil.

Plyometrics involves jumping - sideways, forwards, backwards, horizontally and vertically - up and down. And it involves forces, high forces. Twenty-five years ago I watched Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones demonstrate the forces involved in running and jumping activities. During a four-inch vertical leap, a 200-pound man registered, upon landing, a cool 1,000 pounds - five times his body weight. And the effort was passive - with both legs. Running activities expose each leg, hip, low back and system to 3-5 times the participant's body weight - at every step. Multiply that by millions of steps and you'll soon realize the cost of liftoff - what goes up must come down, and the landing is never pretty. Add the practice of leaping from one level to another, as in plyometrics and . . . you get the idea. Pretty dumb.

That's the "good" news.

The "bad" news: You don't need to jump to create high forces. They can be realized by performing "explosive" movements against resistance. A fast speed of movement alone does not create injury; but a sudden change of speed does - and that includes a rapid acceleration or deceleration. Sudden movement versus a stationary object (such as a weight stack) can produce forces 2-5 times that of the weight of the object. Not smart when you don't know the breaking strength of the joint or muscle system. The result, and only result of explosive activity in an exercise program was summed up by Jones decades ago. "Anybody dumb enough to do plyometrics will get exactly what they deserve - hurt."

High forces produce injury, plain and simple. If the forces during running are 3-5 times one's body weight, they may be 50 times that during jump squats. Trendy but dumb. And who's at the forefront of the outrage. Experts. Trainers. The dumb leading the blind.

Forty years ago I entertained the thought of playing on the PGA Tour. If I wait long enough for the young guns to injure themselves because of the stupidity of trendy trainers, I'll join Mark Calcaveccia, Tim Herron, John Daly and others who had the common sense to lay low, to not participate in the fitness craze.

I'm neither dumb nor blind, and I'll do nothing, thanks, if doing something involves plyometrics.

My Golf Program

Several members of our staff recently attended a Titleist Performance Institute (TPI) level-one certification conference in Orlando, Florida. TPI has made a significant impact on fitness through their presence on The Golf Channel. I speak from ignorance on their course content, but not on their approach. They perform extensive muscle testing to detect leaks in golf's movement chain and then address the leaks by strengthening and stretching where needed. No one can argue with that approach. It makes sense. Many golfers can't reach ideal swing positions because of movement leaks, leaving their pros a lousy deck of cards. So, all is fine in the kingdom.

It's the strength solution that aches. Stretching suggestions and methods are cookie-cutter; any of them can get you from A to B. Not so with the strength component. Need to strengthen a hamstring muscle or the back of the arm? Do it. Isolate the muscle, strengthen it to its max and stick it back in the movement. Nautilus inventor, Arthur Jones addressed the issue years ago:
1. Identify the muscles you need in your sport.
2. Strengthen them the best way you can, independent of how they're to be used.
3. Plug your new strength into action in the only way possible, by practice of the sport itself.

Simple, logical, typically brilliant and physiologically sound from both perspectives - strength and skill training. According to TPI, however, a muscle must be strengthened as part of a chain because that's how the body works during the golf swing. Nothing isolated, nothing performed with your feet off the ground and other assorted bunk - to set things on the right path. Right? And then spread the opinion with the power to distribute, to influence - TV. Stir people up. Excite trainers with another tool. (I was associated with a successful golf program in Jupiter, Florida. Our opinion reaped $180,000 in three months without TV. Sure, I'm jealous.)

Bottom line: Muscles can't reach their strength potential if worked in a chain or compound movement - unless they are the weak link in that chain - the same problem with most barbell exercises. The large muscles of the torso and legs could not reach their strength potential because there was no way to work them directly or with a resistance that challenged their full range of motion. Impossible, until Jones created the thinking-man's barbell, a device now rejected because golfer's legs don't reach the floor - a sin. Call me old-fashioned, but I can't see rubber tubing providing anywhere near the resistance needed for large muscle groups. Or a weighted ball replacing the barbell. But it has. Body weight is somehow enough, as it was 2,000 years ago. No golfer will reach his or her potential until they reach their strength potential. You can swim to Hawaii or take a jet. Most are swimming, and gladly; and coaches happily paddling the boat. Hell, they're employed.

To add insult to injury, the leading programs always sneak in the ultimate training technique for athletes, plyometrics. TPI is no exception. Once you begin performing plyometric activities, you know you're ready. Ready to climb to the top. I won't waste the paper on either plyometrics or functional training.

The TPI approach is commercially attractive, rewarding. Mine is not. When the swimming program looks like the wrestling, football and golf programs, heads turn - the other way. Everyone wants to feel special regardless of what they do. Doing something has become the "thing." The means has become the end.

I speak from ignorance on TPI course content, and plan to remain that way. But I won't be silent on their approach. Most athletes are getting a result, not the best result, a result. Arthur would call it "a cryin' shame."

Back Extension Dynamics

There is a common fear among medical doctors and physical therapists of allowing low-back patients to move to a position of complete extension. The fear is based on the premise that extension (a position that extends beyond the normal standing position of a patient - lordosis) diminishes the already narrow and potentially dangerous spaces available to the lumbar discs.

In lordosis, most people demonstrate less disc space between vertebrae in the rear section of the spine than the front. Movement toward flexion (performing a stomach crunch, curl or pelvic tilt) creates more equitable spacing - front and back. That is, the space in the front and rear of the spine between vertebrae evens out, a plus for a struggling disc. Doctors and therapists, therefore, freely recommend flexion exercise as a first choice. Many of the same, however, are skeptical of movement in the direction of extension, despite the fact that such movement has proven as effective in resolving low-back problems. The reason, once again, lies in the belief that disc space, poor in lordosis, must be worse in extension. Not so.

When the vertebrae of the lumbar spine are in a position of lordosis (normal standing) and/or flexion (bent forward), the rotation point between any single vertebra and its neighbor (above or below) lies between the vertebral walls. This means that one vertebra balances on the other like a teeter-totter, with muscles (as weak as they generally are) holding things in place. When vertebrae move from lordosis to extension, the dynamics change. At some point, the facets of neighboring vertebrae (structural protrusions on the rear sides) contact one another, changing the rotation point between them. The vertebrae suddenly rotate from an axis beyond the rear of their walls. The greater the extension, the greater the space between vertebrae, both in the front and rear of the spine. Dynamic X-rays clearly show that the greatest space in the rear of the lumbar vertebrae occurs in maximum extension.

It led the man who discovered the phenomenon, Arthur Jones to comment, "Doctors have been looking at dynamic X-rays and MRI pictures of the lumbar spine for 50 years, and no one noticed." Jones then took it a step beyond. The grade-four dropout developed a precise method of measuring the space dynamics during movement to concrete his conjecture.

The knee-jerk response of the medical community upon hearing the news was denial, followed by cries that "not all disc problems should be exposed to extension - the majority respond to flexion, the safe alternative." And while it is true that not all patients can tolerate movement toward extension, approximately 80% can and respond with a reduction in pain perception, a fact established through extensive research on the safest, most valid and effective extension exercise - the MedX Lumbar Extension machine. Approximately 33% of chronic low-back patients became pain free after a simple 12-week protocol.

From a mechanical perspective, extension movements reduce the danger of further pinching a disc. Of that, there can be NO discussion.

How to Determine Muscle Fatigue Characteristics

How many repetitions in a set of exercise for best results? The long-time wisdom of 10 was standard for years and worked for most; but has recently been challenged by speed of movement advocates. A fast set of 10 repetitions might last 10 seconds, where a slow set, properly performed, might last several minutes. The results from such "different" sets of 10 might be less than ideal.

MedX inventor Arthur Jones developed tools in the mid-1980's that measured muscle strength, and eventually, fatigue rates - using the terms "time under load" and "inroad" in his writings. "Time under load" meant the amount of time a muscle remained exposed to a resistance during exercise - the total time to perform an exercise. "Inroad" referred to the percentage of strength lost from the time an exercise started (fresh muscle strength) to the time it ended (strength in a state of fatigue). He believed muscles were best stimulated (for strength) when the "inroad" fell between 15-20% - that is, when a muscle lost 15-20% of its strength as a result of an exercise. He also found that the average muscle lost approximately 2% strength per repetition (10 reps led to a loss of 20%). He defined "average" as a muscle with a relatively equal distribution of slow-twitch (slow-fatigue, endurance) fibers and fast-twitch (fast-fatigue, powerful) fibers.

Some muscles he tested, however, were not average: They fatigued more quickly and responded better to fewer repetitions, less time under load. Others were laden with endurance fibers, fatigued more slowly (if at all) and responded best to more repetitions, greater time under load. The different repetition schemes required of such unique muscle fiber-types would more likely leave a fatigued muscle in the 'ideal' inroad range.

How can we use this information?

The results of Jones' experiments and a method to determine the ideal number of repetitions for single-joint muscle systems were reported by Ellington Darden, PhD in his recent book, "The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results." The method:

A. Find out how much weight you can lift for one repetition.

B. Rest at least 5 minutes.

C. Using 80% of that weight (A), perform as many repetitions as possible (to fatigue).

D. Multiply that number by .15. Add the result (rounded to the nearest number) to the number of repetitions performed in C to determine the upper limit of 'ideal' repetitions. Subtract the calculated result (rounded to the nearest number) from the number of repetitions performed in C to determine the lower limit of 'ideal' repetitions.

Example: A one-repetition lift of 140 pounds would result in an attempt to lift 112 pounds for repetitions. A performance of 7 repetitions would result in an ideal repetition scheme of (7 x .15 = 1.05 plus 7 = 8.05 or 8 as the upper limit; and (7 x .15 = 1.05 subtracted from 7 = 5.95 or 6 as the ideal lower limit. Six to eight repetitions (6-8), ideal for that muscle group.

If the repetition scheme in the above calculation is less than 8-12, the muscle has a tendency to fatigue more quickly than normal (fast-twitch). If the scheme is greater than 8-12, the muscle is more endurance oriented (slow-twitch).

From a time perspective, fast-fatigue muscles respond best to exercise that lasts between 30-40 seconds. Slow-fatigue muscles respond better to an exercise duration of 80-90 seconds. Muscles with an average mix of fibers respond best if exercise lasts approximately 60 seconds. According to Jones, 70-80% of muscles fall in the "average" category, responding best to 8-12 repetitions.

Time it, rep it or both - now you can train for best results.

Muscle Fiber-Type

"Athletes are born, not made," he claimed, and there was no better source. Arthur Jones developed a series of specific testing tools that revealed an astounding range of difference between individuals. There was no better topic than muscle fiber-type to prove his point. In an era of "fast-twitch" and "slow-twitch" slang, Jones was the only one with his hand on the wheel.

The MedX inventor built 3,000 prototypes and tested approximately 10,000 subjects before making any declarations. He was thorough - his equipment accurate. Jones first tested the fresh strength of an isolated muscle, selected an appropriate weight for an exercise (based on the results of that test) and exercised the muscle to exhaustion. Immediately after, he tested the muscle's remaining strength to determine the "effect" of the exercise. The process revealed a pattern. Using 50% of their peak strength value on the pre-exercise test, most subjects performed approximately 10 repetitions to failure and lost about 20% strength in the process. In other words, the average subject lost approximately 2% strength per repetition - with few exceptions.

Arthur then met his match. He tested a subject who could not perform ONE repetition with 50% of his pre-exercise peak value (measured in foot-pounds of torque). Jones was enraged, the man was clearly not trying. He tested him repeatedly until he was convinced of his integrity. The pre-test alone drained the subject of more than 50% of his strength, leaving him unable to perform any exercise until Jones reduced the weight to approximately 20% of his peak strength. Despite the expletives thrown his way, the man was clearly "different."

Many tests later, Arthur was exposed to another "freak" - this time in the form of a University of Florida professor. Dr. James Graves, an "occasional exerciser" by his own admission, went through the protocol. Using 50% of his peak pre-exercise strength value, he performed so many repetitions as to leave Arthur scratching his head. "Get him off the damn machine, " he blurted. Graves showed up a few days later. Jones increased the weight. It was no match. The game was on. More weight. More reps. No fatigue. In fact, every post-exercise test revealed an INCREASE in strength. Graves gained strength with every repetition . . . and the game was still on.

One day Jones put him to the test when he buried a pin deep in the weight stack and said, "OK, boy, let's see what you can do with this." Graves could barely initiate the first repetition yet performed more than 20 minutes of exercise, more than 150 slow repetitions, and felt nothing - no discomfort, no fatigue. He could have gone all weekend. James was tested more than 100 times and demonstrated two things: He was consistent and clearly "different."

Some have it, and some don't. Jones' testing demonstrated another fact about muscle fiber-type and the rate of muscle fatigue. It doesn't change - can't change, which makes current attempts at programing exercise to "develop" certain muscle fiber-types utterly useless. If you don't like your nose, you can't "develop" a new one by sneezing differently.

But apparently you can try.

Make It Happen

One of my goals in golf is to shoot 65. Been close - shot 66 in Danville, Virginia in the mid-1970's and near a few times since. As my ball-striking improves with age, the goal of 65 remains on the table. Nonetheless, every time I shoot a great round, it just seems to happen - out of the blue. I can't force it or make it happen - it just happens. The same occurs on the PGA Tour. Great rounds are few and far between, but when they occur, the player concurs, "It just happened." And few are able to follow up a career round with another career round. Apparently, it doesn't "happen" twice too often.

Like golf, strength training has its good days and bad. I once claimed that for every "good" day in the gym (when you feel energetic and strong), there are nine "bad" ones (when you just want to finish and go home). That's where the similarity ends. Results from strength training derive from good planning, execution and trying to "make it happen."

Physical change requires a push. It is stimulated by reaching intensity levels (during exercise) that are higher than the norm. Once the switch for change has been turned on, you must then "let it happen." Many trainees keep pumping their muscles, set after set, day after day in the mistaken belief that their efforts will stick (that is, their arms will remain at the pumped size for a longer time, if not forever). Good luck. Muscles grow when they are not working, when they are given a chance to recuperate from exercise. Remember: Exercise stimulates change. Your body makes the change . . . but only when it is ready.

What level of intensity stimulates change? No one knows, but it is probably a high percentage of 100%, if not a full-out effort. Only HARD work stimulates change.

How much time is required between efforts to allow change to occur? No one knows. It varies from one person to the next, but the concensus is 48-72 hours.

If you are stuck in your current program, try LESS exercise (quantity and frequency). Chances are your body cannot recover from your efforts.

"Thar She Blows"

One of the funniest men I know was asked by his trainer to sit on a Swiss ball to perform biceps curls. His response was typical, "What the hell's the capacity of that thing? If it blows, we'll all be outa here." The man, decimated by six heart operations and subsequent medication, weighed 320 pounds - a legitimate concern. The trainer opted for a sturdy bench.

Whatever advantage the trainer foresaw in sitting this giant on a Swiss ball to perform exercise was beyond my conception. Maybe it would have worked his core at the same time, a common two-for-one concept. And if it had (worked his core), big deal. It was too late - too little, too late.

The two facilities in which I work (NC and FL) are equipped with tons of toys - not my choice. From dusk 'til dawn, the toys are put to use by savvy trainers who spend half their nights dreaming up ideas to modify what was once exercise at its finest. They have reduced full-range exercise to a pile of rubble and kicked it out the door. They rarely use machines when good ones provide the only source of full-range exercise. They rarely use free-weights, another step up. They rarely use their head - maybe because this is how they've been trained, having been influenced by today's crop of experts who know little or nothing about real exercise. Regardless, we are stuck with rubber tubing and body-weight movements that do nothing more than satisfy the growing public need of "What's the easiest thing I can do and still call it exercise."

Easy solutions to physical problems are never the best way to go, they're the common way to go. I was highly influenced by Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones who spent a lifetime introducing HARDER solutions to exercise problems, both by method and machine. His advice, "Find a harder way to perform exercise, and it will be more productive" has fallen by the wayside. I'm sick of wading through latex to get to the good stuff. Donate the toys to the local nursery and get on with things as they should be. Sitting on a Swiss ball ain't gonna get it done.

I probably sound like my funny friend when he was telling me about trying to raise three million dollars for an addition to the baseball stadium at the university he attended (he was a star ballplayer in his era but became more famous for scoring the winning touchdown in the 1947 Rosebowl game by running back an 85-yard interception). The stadium was to be renamed after him, a fact of which he was very proud. As he related the story, a friend of his passed by and overheard the conversation. "Hell Ruck, they should have named the cafeteria after you."

"God damn it, God damn . . ." was all I heard him mumble. I wish the Swiss ball would have blown. Then we'd all be "outa here." It would certainly improve the state of exercise.

Strength Training for Flexibility

Most people associate strength training with lack of flexibility. It doesn't have to be so.

Hang your elbow over the edge of a kitchen table with your upper arm flush to the surface. If left to gravity, the weight of your limb will eventually stretch the tendons of your biceps and forearm muscles to increase joint flexibility. Eventually would be shortened if you held a five pound weight in your outstretched hand, further expedited if you held a 50-pound weight and terminated once the limit of your elbow joint's range-of-motion was reached.

Therefore:
ONE: Heavier weights produce quicker gains in flexibility.
TWO: Muscles must encounter resistance in a position of full extension. If the arm (above) is held in a vertical (not horizontal) position, stretching would not occur regardless of the weight.

With few exceptions (chest flys and presses), barbells do not offer resistance in full-extension. The only tools that offer resistance in this position are exercise machines with a good cam or leverage system; and proper use of machines has clearly demonstrated flexibility gains. In many cases, range of motion is the first thing to improve.

THREE: Exercise tools influence the opportunity for flexibility gains.
FOUR: The proper use of a good tool is probably the most important factor. Speed of movement when approaching full extension must be slow and controlled to trigger the correct physiological response (allowing the muscle to stretch). When a muscle approaches its extension limit with too much speed, the body triggers a "stretch reflex", a contraction of the antagonistic muscles as a safety measure. And it's safe to say, when a muscle is contracting (shortening), it is not lengthening.

Stretch muscles with slow, controlled movements on equipment that offers an appropriate, progressive resistance in full-extension. And go ahead, use heavy weights.

Glutes Are King - Good Luck

According to the leading authority in the field of physical training for golf, an institute, "Glutes are King." The large muscles that extend the hip should be strengthened and stretched to their maximum to reap the benefits of optimal performance. For the purpose of discussion, I will assume their opinion is true - glutes are king.

So how does The Authority strengthen glutes? By performing functional activities, sometimes using resistance, usually in the form of dumbbells - their first mistake. While functional activities can challenge glutes, they cannot provide full-range exercise for the same. Nor can the use of dumbbells. Full-range exercise means just that - a resistance that provides the muscle with an exact and appropriate challenge at each and every angle of movement through the entire range of motion. Full-range exercise can increase flexibility, strength (due to a greater involvement of muscle fibers in contraction) and protection from injury. Functional activities fail to isolate muscles. Without isolation, maximum muscle strength is impossible. Not maybe, impossible. And the only device capable of providing full-range exercise is a machine with an appropriate cam - something the Authorities would love to discuss. The point is this: If you identify a muscle as being important in a sports-related role, strengthen it the BEST WAY POSSIBLE, not by a half-assed choice because it looks like golf (in this case).

The second mistake: When glutes are worked hard (with a heavy resistance), the effort can put the muscles of the lumbar spine at risk. Glutes, hamstrings and low-back muscles (erector spinae) are closely associated in function. Glutes and hamstrings are among the strongest muscles of the body. They can take heavy loads. The small muscles of the lumbar spine cannot, despite the fact that they function within the most efficient joint system of the body. So before you work the glutes hard, you'd better strengthen the muscles that extend the lumbar spine. And what does the leading Authority have for that purpose. Zero - and no clue. Research conducted at the Center for Exercise Science (University of Florida) as early as 1986 concluded that the ONLY meaningful way to strengthen the erector spinae was to prevent the pelvis from rotating during back-extension exercise. Two decades later, the ONLY device capable of performing that task is the MedX Lumbar Extension machine. Yes, a machine - another discussion point that would end if the Authorities ever read the research.

The third mistake: They brag that they don't produce injuries . . . for all the wrong reasons. They attribute success to working the core (including spinal erectors, which they CANNOT work, at least doing it their way) when it's due to another factor - not strengthening glutes to their maximum (neither full-range nor hard). What kind of watered-down program is that for the King? And why has the incidence of low-back injury on the professional tours (PGA, LPGA and Champions) not been reduced by such genius?

The Fast Twitch Boys of Summer

In my 2005 book, In Arthur's Shadow, I predicted that once the fitness craze took over, professional golf would fall into the same traps that bodybuilding has over the years - more is better, two-a-day workouts, split training systems and special routines for golfers, etc. Add this to the list.

A low-handicap golfer approached me the other day reporting that a mutual friend (a physical therapist who works with PGA Tour players) mentioned that many pro golfers were working on their "twitch" muscles. Once I explained the concept to him, I thought, "Sounds like a knee-jerk response to the latest trend in sports-performance training - training muscle fibers to respond to specific needs." All I can say is "Good luck!"

Muscles have a mix of fiber types. That is, some fibers are strong and powerful when activated; others are endurance oriented. The strong ones are called "fast twitch" muscle fibers and, like sprinters, they don't last long. The weaker ones are called "slow twitch" fibers and, like marathon runners, they can last a long time. The buzz among athletes and trainers is that different training methods can DEVELOP certain fibers. For example, that moving quickly or explosively with weights, that using heavy resistance and few repetitions can PROMOTE the use of fast-twitch fibers. And the contrary, that moving slowly against resistance while performing higher repetition schemes promotes or develops slow-twitch fibers. Not so.

Muscle fibers are activated by intensity of effort during exercise. When intensity is low (during the first few repetitions), the brain perceives little need to call upon the big boys, so it sends in the lower order of fibers (at least lower on the strength/power scale), the "slow-twitch" fibers. Toward the end of a difficult set, the brain senses "Help" and recruits higher order "fast-twitch" fibers. If the intensity falls much short of a full effort, the fast-twitch fibers will stay home - no need to make an appearance. As far as converting muscle fiber-type to the needs of the athlete, high repetitions for endurance does not work; and low reps, heavy weights for strength does not work. And varying movement speed during exercise has nothing to do with fiber-type recruitment. If you think otherwise, show me the research . . . and good luck.

Professional golf's attempt at recruiting or developing fast-twitch muscle fibers to produce a more powerful golf swing is doomed. The quality and quantity of muscle fiber is dictated by genetics - you have it or you don't - and what you get is NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

Golfers don't know much about exercise, but trainers are to blame - dumb, follow-the-crowd trainers. Let's hope they don't send too many athletes to the hospital in the process.