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.

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.