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.