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.

Glutes Are King - Good Luck

According to the leading authority in the field of physical training for golf, an institute, "Glutes are King." The large muscles that extend the hip should be strengthened and stretched to their maximum to reap the benefits of optimal performance. For the purpose of discussion, I will assume their opinion is true - glutes are king.

So how does The Authority strengthen glutes? By performing functional activities, sometimes using resistance, usually in the form of dumbbells - their first mistake. While functional activities can challenge glutes, they cannot provide full-range exercise for the same. Nor can the use of dumbbells. Full-range exercise means just that - a resistance that provides the muscle with an exact and appropriate challenge at each and every angle of movement through the entire range of motion. Full-range exercise can increase flexibility, strength (due to a greater involvement of muscle fibers in contraction) and protection from injury. Functional activities fail to isolate muscles. Without isolation, maximum muscle strength is impossible. Not maybe, impossible. And the only device capable of providing full-range exercise is a machine with an appropriate cam - something the Authorities would love to discuss. The point is this: If you identify a muscle as being important in a sports-related role, strengthen it the BEST WAY POSSIBLE, not by a half-assed choice because it looks like golf (in this case).

The second mistake: When glutes are worked hard (with a heavy resistance), the effort can put the muscles of the lumbar spine at risk. Glutes, hamstrings and low-back muscles (erector spinae) are closely associated in function. Glutes and hamstrings are among the strongest muscles of the body. They can take heavy loads. The small muscles of the lumbar spine cannot, despite the fact that they function within the most efficient joint system of the body. So before you work the glutes hard, you'd better strengthen the muscles that extend the lumbar spine. And what does the leading Authority have for that purpose. Zero - and no clue. Research conducted at the Center for Exercise Science (University of Florida) as early as 1986 concluded that the ONLY meaningful way to strengthen the erector spinae was to prevent the pelvis from rotating during back-extension exercise. Two decades later, the ONLY device capable of performing that task is the MedX Lumbar Extension machine. Yes, a machine - another discussion point that would end if the Authorities ever read the research.

The third mistake: They brag that they don't produce injuries . . . for all the wrong reasons. They attribute success to working the core (including spinal erectors, which they CANNOT work, at least doing it their way) when it's due to another factor - not strengthening glutes to their maximum (neither full-range nor hard). What kind of watered-down program is that for the King? And why has the incidence of low-back injury on the professional tours (PGA, LPGA and Champions) not been reduced by such genius?

Full-Range Exercise

I currently work in an exercise facility equipped with the finest tools available, MedX machines. Why the best? Best guarantee in the industry, lowest friction, smallest increments in weight-stack resistance and, most of all, they provide full-range exercise. By that I mean the machines provide proper resistance at every angle of movement throughout the entire range of motion. Big deal? You bet. Only full-range exercise provides: a strong resistance in full extension to increase flexibility and trigger a pre-stretch; resistance in a position of full contraction (to activate maximum muscle-fiber recruitment); injury prevention regardless of the angle at which force is applied; maximum size/strength benefits (because of its comparative difficulty); and the most efficient contribution to fat loss.

Despite the obvious, there are few instructors in this facility that use the machines at all, having been brainwashed into thinking that playing with rubber balls and bands is somehow superior. Ignorance - among those who should know better. What do you see?