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.