"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?