Strength Training for Flexibility

Most people associate strength training with lack of flexibility. It doesn't have to be so.

Hang your elbow over the edge of a kitchen table with your upper arm flush to the surface. If left to gravity, the weight of your limb will eventually stretch the tendons of your biceps and forearm muscles to increase joint flexibility. Eventually would be shortened if you held a five pound weight in your outstretched hand, further expedited if you held a 50-pound weight and terminated once the limit of your elbow joint's range-of-motion was reached.

Therefore:
ONE: Heavier weights produce quicker gains in flexibility.
TWO: Muscles must encounter resistance in a position of full extension. If the arm (above) is held in a vertical (not horizontal) position, stretching would not occur regardless of the weight.

With few exceptions (chest flys and presses), barbells do not offer resistance in full-extension. The only tools that offer resistance in this position are exercise machines with a good cam or leverage system; and proper use of machines has clearly demonstrated flexibility gains. In many cases, range of motion is the first thing to improve.

THREE: Exercise tools influence the opportunity for flexibility gains.
FOUR: The proper use of a good tool is probably the most important factor. Speed of movement when approaching full extension must be slow and controlled to trigger the correct physiological response (allowing the muscle to stretch). When a muscle approaches its extension limit with too much speed, the body triggers a "stretch reflex", a contraction of the antagonistic muscles as a safety measure. And it's safe to say, when a muscle is contracting (shortening), it is not lengthening.

Stretch muscles with slow, controlled movements on equipment that offers an appropriate, progressive resistance in full-extension. And go ahead, use heavy weights.

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?

The Fast Twitch Boys of Summer

In my 2005 book, In Arthur's Shadow, I predicted that once the fitness craze took over, professional golf would fall into the same traps that bodybuilding has over the years - more is better, two-a-day workouts, split training systems and special routines for golfers, etc. Add this to the list.

A low-handicap golfer approached me the other day reporting that a mutual friend (a physical therapist who works with PGA Tour players) mentioned that many pro golfers were working on their "twitch" muscles. Once I explained the concept to him, I thought, "Sounds like a knee-jerk response to the latest trend in sports-performance training - training muscle fibers to respond to specific needs." All I can say is "Good luck!"

Muscles have a mix of fiber types. That is, some fibers are strong and powerful when activated; others are endurance oriented. The strong ones are called "fast twitch" muscle fibers and, like sprinters, they don't last long. The weaker ones are called "slow twitch" fibers and, like marathon runners, they can last a long time. The buzz among athletes and trainers is that different training methods can DEVELOP certain fibers. For example, that moving quickly or explosively with weights, that using heavy resistance and few repetitions can PROMOTE the use of fast-twitch fibers. And the contrary, that moving slowly against resistance while performing higher repetition schemes promotes or develops slow-twitch fibers. Not so.

Muscle fibers are activated by intensity of effort during exercise. When intensity is low (during the first few repetitions), the brain perceives little need to call upon the big boys, so it sends in the lower order of fibers (at least lower on the strength/power scale), the "slow-twitch" fibers. Toward the end of a difficult set, the brain senses "Help" and recruits higher order "fast-twitch" fibers. If the intensity falls much short of a full effort, the fast-twitch fibers will stay home - no need to make an appearance. As far as converting muscle fiber-type to the needs of the athlete, high repetitions for endurance does not work; and low reps, heavy weights for strength does not work. And varying movement speed during exercise has nothing to do with fiber-type recruitment. If you think otherwise, show me the research . . . and good luck.

Professional golf's attempt at recruiting or developing fast-twitch muscle fibers to produce a more powerful golf swing is doomed. The quality and quantity of muscle fiber is dictated by genetics - you have it or you don't - and what you get is NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

Golfers don't know much about exercise, but trainers are to blame - dumb, follow-the-crowd trainers. Let's hope they don't send too many athletes to the hospital in the process.

Golf Specific Exercise

Dear John,

Just saw a male golfer in our private country-club gym perform a series of torso rotational golf turns on a Bosu ball (flat side down). He placed a weighted bar across the front of his shoulders to measure the extent of his turn and tried to maintain balance during the movement. John's a good golfer (carries an eight handicap) and makes a consistent effort in our facility to improve his game. But he's wrong on this.

As John turns into a golf backswing position, he must shift weight toward the center of the ball to maintain his balance. In golf, it's called a reverse pivot. Ideal weight distribution during a backswing should leave the golfer with approximately 75% of his weight on the rear leg - loaded for action. The ideal distribution would send John into the adjacent flower garden, and quick.

As John turns into a golf follow-through position, he must again shift weight toward the center of the ball to maintain his balance, a reverse pivot Part II. Ideal weight distribution during a follow-through should leave the golfer with 90-100% of his weight on the front leg - fully unloaded. The ideal distribution here would send John into the adjacent flower garden even quicker.

The point is this: Skill training is specific, must be THE SAME AS THE MOVEMENT ITSELF to properly register with the nervous system. John's training will serve one purpose only - make him more proficient at standing on a Bosu ball as he twists. It will not help his golf ; in fact, will hurt it.

GB

Motor Learning and Today's Training

I just read Ellington Darden's chapter on motor learning in his latest book, "The New Bodybuilding for Old-School Results." He put into perspective why and to where motor learning has disappeared and how it has reappeared in several distorted forms. Brilliant read.

Training centers and gyms around the country have become bastians of functional training, performance training and whatever other training - everything but what should be the focus, proper strength training. The entire field has willingly substituted valid resistance for no resistance or body-weight, machine- and free-weight-training for floor exercise, and logical, safe training for dumb training - all in the name of "function."

They've crossed the line.

Standing on a Bosu ball while you perform bicep curls and squats is quite a feat if you intend to include it in your daily activities. As a skill it has little or no "function." As a strength exercise, it compromises what could be achieved in the same time frame. I was once a physical education teacher and coach (four years, college; four years, high school). I taught movement skills. Students practiced movement skills. Sure, they gained strength and cardiovascular benefits as they performed those skills, but the emphasis was improving skill.

Strength training, when applicable, was practiced separately from skill training. "You need strong hamstrings? Here's an exercise. Strengthen them to their limit and take them to the field. Stronger hamstrings will improve performance in your sport." That was it. We knew enough to separate skill training from strength training. Textbooks and research told us so.

Not so now. A few self-proclaimed experts have decided to make a quick buck on something unique by combining the two (strength and skill) into what they call "functional" training. They're wrong.

Skill training is specific, must be applied using NO overload. Anything not exact to the movement itself confuses the nervous system - can screw up the skill.

Strength training is general (a strong triceps might help in various tasks such as swimming or throwing) and involves a MAXIMUM overload for best results.

The two are opposites and should be treated as such. Anything else is dead wrong.

And that makes the majority of today's athletes wrong (in their training) as well as the many fools following in their foosteps - fools because they are ignorant of the facts, and fools because they're being misled by others who sound as if they know what they are talking about - and have the ammunition to back them up. "Look at Joe Blow who trains with our methods. He's a world champion. And this entire team uses our philosophy."
Hook, line, and sinker.

Darden summed it up; "If almost everyone is practicing incorrectly, the best athlete/team still wins." So it makes no difference anymore - except that there are still a few sane people on the planet who train the muscles they need, apply the new strength to skill practice and avoid the negative transfer applicable to today's shenanigans.

Protein Supplements

The other day a male trainer in his early 20's was mixing a protein shake in the locker room of a gym where I once worked. The ensuing conversation could have been 40 years old. He was convinced his success was due to his protein habit. According to his sources (bodybuilding magazines), he required "1.5 times" his bodyweight (200 lbs.) in grams of protein to build significant muscle mass. Sounded like something I subscribed to when I was young.

Today, I have a different take.

According to Ellington Darden, a significant bodybuilder in his day and a PhD in nutrition, the optimal amount of protein required to build muscle is .36 times one's bodyweight. Which means the young man requires only 72 grams, not 300. The extra is a burden on the liver and kidney and can increase body fat (more protein = more calories, and calories are stored as fat). Darden once spent $400 a month on supplements - including a 300+ gram/day protein consumption. His post-graduate professors performed an experiment on him, establishing his requirement at 86 grams. In May of 1969, Darden took his final supplement(s) and won the Collegiate Mr. America title in 1972 - eating food from the local grocery store.

A new stance on protein may save this young man a lot of time and money.

Training Intensity

Two factors influence the production of results from strength training - form and intensity. Both are abused in the general training environment. Intensity is simple: Work as hard as you momentarily can. Don't stop when you think you've had enough, or think you can't continue, or when you reach that magic number of repetitions. Stop when the resistance stops you, when muscles fail in the face of an all-out effort.

Intensity can be achieved by working harder, by pushing yourself, by being pushed. It can also be achieved by spending less time between exercises - reaching a level of systemic shock greater than the norm. This ultimate level of physical excellence was named "metabolic conditioning" by Nautilus inventor, Arthur Jones and defined as the ability to work at 100% intensity for a prolonged period of time. Impossible? Dichotomy of interest? Not so. Metabolic condition can be obtained through proper strength training.

1. Select a circuit of exercises (10-12) that cover the major muscle groups (large to small).
2. Perform the first exercise to a point of momentary muscle failure (use a weight that allows 8-12 repetitions) in good form.
3. Within seconds, start the next exercise.
4. Repeat - until the circuit is complete.

As simple as it sounds, the effort required is beyond the capacity of most (no athlete made it in his first attempt the first four years it became available under Jones' supervision). So, ease your way into the intensity part (learn to work hard) and gradually reduce time between exercises. If and when you make it, you'll be in your best possible condition . . .
. . . and the toughest kid on the block.