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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 9, 2009
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?
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?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)