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.