The Degradation of Fitness Science

The world and our selves evolve and exist in a cyclic

fashion; good times and bad... ups and downs... we

experience changes that seem to repeat, including everyday

cycles of sleep-wake and cell regeneration. History is a

broad example of cycles, whereby we enter the "dark ages"

followed by an "age of enlightenment." We now are in an

irrational dark age of fitness. Irrational is an ideal term to

describe a method of exercise considered dangerous,

impractical, unproved (yet implemented when other proven

methods exist) and irrelevant (i.e., claiming to do something

that cannot be achieved). Below is such an example.

FUNCTIONAL CORE EXERCISE

In an article by a well known "functional/core exercise"

proponent, there is an attempt to affiliate the concepts of

microscopic life of the amoeba with human cellular

processes, and "functional training" when the author claims:

"Movement, survival and the optimal functioning of the

organism all go hand in hand." This statement opens a

door for the author as he links "movement" with "function,"

together with the concept of "optimal." He then claims that

there is a link between functional exercise and survival, as

confirmed historically by the "fact" that when exercise needs

are not met (too much, too little, an absence or the wrong

kind), then "disease lurks!" (exclamation his). Certainly lack

of activity or too much activity (excess strain) can pose

negative results, but here he links "the wrong kind" of

exercise to that of disease or ill health.

After addressing how natives achieved functional fitness

through hunting practices, the author then discussed

ancient methods of yoga, Tai-Chi, and then martial arts,

connecting the concept of "functional exercise" with

improving health and vitality of the mind and body, to

improve "man's relationship with both external and internal

nature." This concept has now opened a second door for

the author's "brand" of functional training and to denounce

methods that are different.

Apparently, according to the author, today's concept of

exercise (particularly bodybuilding) is wrong, since many

methods confirm to Newtonian thinking to produce an

"isolationists'/reductionists' point of view," in that we think of

only single muscles and not the body as a whole. Rather,

what we need is "system integration." This would mean

whole-body movement/participation of some kind. However,

bodybuilders do consider the look of the body as a whole,

and many exercises performed take into account body

coordination (or, at least, the coordination of several

muscles). Even the use of a single-joint exercise machine

causes its user to contract many muscles in an attempt to

brace the body and to generate greater body coordination as

muscular fatigue is reached. Further ignored is the fact that

it may be necessary to focus one's attention on a single

muscle (for reasons of balancing development or function).

And, by doing so, this improves the system as a whole as

muscles are able to work and integrate better in more

dynamic activities, i.e., by strengthening the weakest link.

The author claims that the exercise machine industry also is

at fault, as it breaks the body into separate parts or muscle

groups to be worked in isolation, "building on people's

aesthetic desires rather than functional needs." It is well

known that no muscle can work in complete isolation, as

stated in the paragraph above. Nonetheless, exaggeration

is obvious in that many machines do train multiple muscles,

such as pulldowns, machine deadlifts and squats, leg

presses, chest presses, and shoulder presses, or that a

person can train for aesthetics as well as function. If a

person's biceps can produce 50% more force as a result of

machine or dumbbell biceps curls that served to increase

both mass and strength, certainly that person's biceps'

function has improved, and this has an influence on full

body functional ability.

The author then claims that those who succumb to modern

isolationist exercise methods and influence suffer higher

incidence of injury. What proof does he offer? None.

Conversely, the author does not reference activities that

produce the highest forces (and greatest potential for injury),

such as explosive lifting, Olympic lifts, and plyometrics. In

fact, he does endorse Olympic lifting and plyometrics (within

reason) since they apparently mimic "natural" movement

better. He also recommends the higher risk of Swiss ball

exercises, with an attempt to balance and control weights in

an unstable environment. I do not recall the last time a

person needed to clean and jerk an object, jump multiple

times off boxes (sometimes with loads on the shoulders),

or to balance one's self on a ball in activities of daily living.

Consequently, how do those activities mimic the "natural"

movements of walking, lifting items off the ground

(carefully), climbing stairs, or the unique and specific

mechanics of various sporting activities (outside Olympic

lifting)?

The author continues by stating that there is limited value in

isolationist exercise approaches, which is why there is such

a divergence toward Tai-Chi and other "integrated" systems.

It should be obvious that any approach is limited in value

(since everything in the Universe is finite), and that includes

Tai-Chi, which does a poor job of optimizing muscular

strength and muscle development, two key aspects that

support "function" as we age. From my perspective, people

tend to diverge toward Tai-Chi because it is an easy means

of activity, and is more of a means of meditation and

relaxation than exercise. In any event, it has been

established that greater muscular loading and functional

improvement can be had with stable exercises as opposed

to unstable Swiss ball exercises. This only makes sense

since so much more effort is directed toward balance (and

paranoia of falling) during unstable exercises, together with

less weight and effort on the target muscles. However,

those aspects are ignored by the author.

The author became more mystically vague when he stated:

"Historical analysis of the biological basis of movement

shows that even the ancient systems of exercise were

based on cosmic relationships, Mother Nature and our

relationship with her." He clarifies his stance by suggesting

that modern systems of functional exercise "see the body as

an integrated system, a synergy of the

physical-emotional-mental-spiritual energies and aspects

of realities." (I am aware of only one "reality"; that in which I

live.) I am uncertain how this differs from systems not

considered a "modern system of functional exercise." The

manner, method and intensity of my training, for example, is

governed by my emotions and mental outlook/motivations,

which affect my performance and any results that can be

achieved physically. My philosophy of life and how I view

fitness affects the spiritual aspect of that discipline. This is

true of any individual, no matter the method of exercise,

including the use of machines. The author sees it differently

and, apparently, we need to be lunging, balancing, and

rolling about on a ball for this

physical-emotional-mental-spiritual synergy to take place.

Now, for an exercise system to be "functional," it should

meet the author's criteria:

1. It must support and improve life. Chronic (regular?)

exposure to "training to failure" is not a good thing in the

author's eyes and serves only to "extinguish vitality." It is

ironic that many individuals (including yours truly) has

trained in this manner for many years, are strong, physically

developed and feel a great deal of vitality. It is not training to

muscular fatigue that is the problem, but the overall

demands that one is exposed to, including too much

volume and frequency. Nonetheless, training to failure and

believing in "no pain, no gain," according to the author,

"results in dysfunctional exercise and less functional

people." The idea of "no pain, no gain" is exaggerated,

although well meaning at one point in the history of exercise

(to get people to exercise harder). However, if a person can

increase strength and muscle to a greater degree (or even

to the same degree) by training to failure (without abusing

exercise in general), how would that result in less functional

people? How does greater/improved function = less

function?

The author concludes by stating: "the by-product of modern

bodybuilding and these types of training mottos is a new

culture of fitness without health." Suffice it to say that a

person can be healthy without partaking in a regular fitness

program. "Healthy" generally means free from disease.

And needless to say that an intense exercise program that

improves blood cholesterol, blood pressure, resting heart

rate, cardiovascular endurance, heart resilience, strength,

muscle, and ADL function certainly is "fitness with health."

Moreover, the term "fitness" means "the quality or state of

being fit," and "fit" means "to be well adapted or suitable for"

(Oxford's English Dictionary). Partaking in a fitness

program, to become "fit" (although some are better than

others) will result in positive health changes, even if a

method happens to be one of aesthetics primarily, i.e.,

bodybuilding.

2. Functional exercise is always a means to an end (with

examples of gathering wood to stay warm, lifting stones,

and doing calisthenics in the army to stay "strong enough"

to fulfill duties). In other words, perform movement patterns

that are essential to your work or sports environment. I work

at a computer for the most part, and so perhaps I should

perform some keyboard typing overload exercises.

Sarcasm aside, most of us have enough strength to

complete daily activities, and to mimic those activities with

resistance often does us worse than good. An example in

sports would be sprinting with heavy weights attached to the

body with the notion that our sprinting will improve, although

sprinting mechanics obviously would alter under such

circumstances. Moreover, consider elbow flexion that

occurs when we lift an object, and the elbow flexion that

occurs during dumbbell or machine arm curls. Would the

latter not have a positive bearing on the former? Certainly it

would, but since it is not "exact" to everyday movements, the

author condemns such actions, and without realizing that

any "functional exercise" also is not exact to daily activities

(unless the same resistance and movement patterns exist,

and if so, it no longer would be exercise but activities of daily

living).

The author talks around the issue of isolation training to

improve function by stating the following: "Training muscles

with isolation methods to achieve increased mass in

specific muscle is only functional if your goal is to compete

in bodybuilding competitions, or specific rehabilitation

procedures or as part of a well-designed

isolation-to-integration program." Certainly "isolation to

integration" could mean performing daily tasks and activities

better as a result of larger and stronger muscles that were

produced as a result of using machines or free-weights, as

has been done for several decades.

He continues: "There must be a goal motivating the

selection of exercises or one cannot ascertain whether the

outcome is functional or dysfunctional." In the previous

paragraph he clearly acknowledges that a weak chain can

be made stronger by (greater) isolation, yet ignores its value

unless it can be proven that the outcome improves function

(in the individual's best interests to achieve another goal). If

that goal is to feel better, look better, and function better,

then any exercise in any medium (free weight, machine,

rubber band, calisthenics, etc.) has that potential. The

extent to which that happens varies, thus depending on the

quality of movement and effort far more than how dynamic

(the use of several muscles in an unfixed environment) or

unstable an exercise happens to be.

Moreover, a few things are wrong with the author's

statement above. One, the ultimate goal may be aesthetics,

and there is nothing wrong with that, but pointless according

to the author since that aspect of a fitness program means

nothing to him. Two, injuries are the result of weak links,

and there is no better way of addressing this issue than

through means of specific exercise that is as isolated as

possible, whether through single-joint movements or not. It

is like working on an entire house when you know the

problem to be the support beams. If you need to strengthen

the support beams, then forget about the shingles or

windows. Three, function required in specific activity

requires practice of the specific activity to improve that ability,

whereas exercise provides general conditioning and

strength improvements that then support the specific

sporting movements. Hence, truly functional training

involves the specific motor skills of a particular activity, and

not movement patterns that "sort of" resemble an activity but

which uses different loads, different velocities, different

movement patterns, different balancing requirements, etc.

3. Selection of an exercise or exercise regimen must

consider the desired outcome on all primary physiological

systems of the body (including hormonal, musculoskeletal,

circulatory, immune, thermoregulatory, visceral and

neurological). And "every intent and attempt should be to

improve the exerciser's physiology through exercise, or the

exercise regimen can't be considered functional." Please

explain how stabilizing on a Swiss ball while performing

dumbbell presses can account for all the primary

physiological systems, whereas working the muscles with

heavier resistance and with greater physical/mental effort in

a stable environment cannot.

Moreover, it takes little effort to improve all these systems

even on the worst program (whether stable or unstable),

and so it goes without saying that improvement will occur in

all aspects to some extent. To what extent improvement will

occur depends on many factors more important than trying

to maintain balance while moving weights in the hopes that

you will not fall off a ball or wobble board as opposed to

using a machine, factors such as the quality and effort of the

program overall. Differences in results become obvious if

one were to compare a person who (purposely) puts forth

little effort while following the author's "functional" workout

with rubber cables and Swiss balls as opposed to a person

who tries very hard with an Author Jones intense workout on

Nautilus or MedX machines. In this example it should be

obvious who will make the best changes, and the opposite

also would be true of a person who tries very hard on any

so-called "functional" program as opposed to a person

whose performance is lackluster while using exercise

machines.

4. Selection of an exercise or exercise regimen must take

into account a person's emotional, mental and spiritual

components. This statement is obvious, in that a properly

prescribed program takes into account the individual, but

the author suggests that "the expenditure of the life-force

energy on a leg press is not bringing exercisers closer to

complete well-being!" (exclamation his). Why should this be

the case with the leg press, or why should it not be the

case? There is no explanation behind his statement, but he

does disclose the following: "when an exercise program is

functional, it supports the collective needs of the living

organism and the body becomes progressively healthier,

which positively influences the emotions and the mind and

affording the spirit greater freedom of expression." What a

load! (exclamation mine). How is it that a person can

become one with the Universe by balancing on a ball or

wobble board, or by moving about while yanking on some

rubber bands or cable system, yet this cannot be achieved

on a leg press? What is the scientific evidence?

The author concludes by stating: "The keystone of functional

exercise is that it improves the health and vitality of the

participant." Apparently, however, this is impossible with

machines or exercise modalities the author does not

consider "functional." Yet, if a person were to train only with

machines, and improve many aspects of health, such as

cholesterol levels, strength, muscle, heart health and overall

function, then that person's health and vitality has

improved... and, the exercises must be functional.

Brian D. Johnston is the Director of Education and President of the I.A.R.T. fitness certification institute. He has written over 12 books and is a contributor author to the Merck Medical Manual. An international lecturer, Mr. Johnston wears many hats in the fitness and health industries. You can visit his site at ExerciseCertification.com ExerciseCertification.com for more free articles.