Zone
Training™ & Method Madness
By Andrew Shortt, Fitness Clinician
The first and foremost item,
which attracted me to the IART, was the absence of a specific
method being promoted. I had grown weary, even put off by the
seemingly never-ending supply of methods available in the exercise
industry. I was far from clear about why I was attracted to this
lack of a "pre-packaged" methodology in the IART, but
suffice to say it was a breath of fresh air.
From my experience, too many
methods specifically and openly contradicted each other. This
I found both frustrating and simply did not add up. I am not
speaking solely from the angle of a cynic; it actually does not
make sense. How could two contradictory methods both produce
results? Certainly, one could be a scam but those are exposed
as quickly as they surface for the most part, exposed that is
to those who know better. My conundrum was with two disparaging
methods that both produced clear results. I understand this begs
the statement that "maybe one is just better than the other."
However, as hard as I looked, objective proof supporting one
method over another did not always exist. Even when I found a
particular method worked better for me, I often noted such was
not always the case for fellow trainees.
"What was going on?"
I asked myself. Was it the application of the method? Was it
a problem with understanding the method? Should we merely pair
up methods with appropriate people?
During this period, the IART
was severing its links to Mike Mentzer and Heavy Duty training.
I had been introduced to the IART because of my awareness and
respect for Mentzer and HD, and so, consequently, this situation
begged closer examination. In addition, I was growing to admire
the work of Arthur Jones, but had yet read his work at length.
After scouring through the Nautilus bulletins (which were available
on the IART website) and reading many of his articles from magazines,
I began a bit of retro style training. I fast discovered that
the Jones approach actually worked better for me than Heavy Duty.
Again, I queried myself, asking in effect "how in the blazes
can this be?!" Mentzer was unbelievably well built, had
first-hand knowledge of Jones' work and was by all appearances
furthering and fine-tuning AJ's discoveries. Why, then, would
traditional Nautilus/Jones style training work better for me
than HD? Once again, did I just not understand Mike's work? That
seemed ludicrous in that Mentzer's recommendations were every
bit as clear, if not more so than Jones' interpretation of the
requirements for effective exercise. Plainly put, Mentzer had
a far more streamlined approach with concise explanations to
follow.
During this period, Mr. Johnston
(the originator of Zone Training™/JReps™) was making
it clear, in no uncertain terms, that it was the constraints
imposed by a methodology that was the main reason for the parting
of ways; that an explicit theory of exercise must be detailed
before methods were developed. Moreover, it appeared that the
more Johnston flushed out and described this theory, the farther
away from a set methodology he needed to move. I was starting
to catch on to the basic fact that methods by their vary nature
tend to be limiting. Methods often conspire excessively to constrain
application of the variables, i.e., reps, sets, frequency, specificity,
intensity, exercise selection, general person to person individual
traits etc. That is to say, by developing a method, you are enforcing
what is not allowed as much as what must needs to be adhered
to for success.
Thus, methods in my estimation
were a best guess at what may work for the general public. That
if you and/or your personal circumstances did not fit the profile
then the method would fail or produce lack luster results at
best. Certainly the more researched, flexible and wide in scope
the method, the larger the demographic of successful advocates
there would be. However, no matter which way you sliced it, I
still did not have an answer to my basic question: How could
two methods contradict each other yet both produce equivalent
(or close to equivalent) results? Why has there not been one
method clearly rising above all others as supreme? Where was
the method, which encompassed all the "best of the best"
that anyone could apply to him or her self and achieve considerable
success? Was I aiming too high? Was I hoping for results beyond
my grasp? Were all thoughtful, honest methods basically equal
and, thus, should they be cycled for the sake of encouraging
long-term interests and enthusiasm? Most told me yes, forget
all the arguing and just enjoy surfing through the varies methods
available "Heck, come up with one of your own as you gain
experience," is what my 'trusted' sources told me. Keep
what you like and throw back the rest and be happy with the progress
that your genetics will allow, also was standard advice. I should
mention, though, that at this point I had yet to approach Johnston
directly with these questions.
Subsequently, off I went about
my merry way investigating methodologies with my junior Objectivist
mindset (thanks to Johnston and Mentzer, whose shared affinity
for Ayn Rand), as I picked through the available literature.
I tried this and tested that; I had friends/acquaintances join
in as guinea pigs whereby I could and had a generally interesting
time of it all. I was lucky as Jones and Johnston had done most
of the leg work with regards to detailing the proper requirements
for exercise and piecing together their interactions and hierarchy
of influences. Johnston, especially, had categorized and made
said elements easy to reference at will.
I trucked on, burning my muscles slowly and quickly, hitting
high points, moving very slow, accentuating the negative, consolidation
training, power of 10'ing, holding massive static contractions,
and so forth. I picked and chose from what I found worked and
what did not... it was the best of times, it was a waste of time...
well, not entirely.
Ignorance is bliss, so the saying
goes, and in the early days of this new phase in training, things
moved along at a nice pace. Unfortunately, nagging questions
eventually arose once again. After utilizing numerous methods,
I often would cycle back to the most effective ones from time
to time. I was experimental but practical as well. To my dismay,
I always found an old program, or a rethinking of an old method
was not met with substantial new gains, in that there may have
been something productive achieved, however nothing comparable
to the first run through. The more I tried past methods, the
more it became obvious that I had little or no real idea what
I was doing. In fact, the more I did the less I seemed to truly
understand what was going on.
As luck would have it, Johnston
had now fully developed and integrated the Principle of Individuality
into the "Theory of Prescribed Exercise." I now felt
a tickle or an itch in the back of my brain, which desperately
required attention. I purchased the Prescribed Exercise Manual
and got to the business of dealing with my intellectual irritant.
I learned what had been in front
of me all the time; that the measure or combination of the various
elements of exercise was person and context driven. That is to
say, the measure of things could and should vary person-to-person,
and situation-to-situation. Furthermore, the measure and chosen
combinations of the fundamentals needed to remain dynamic and
malleable .
The long and short of it all
came into full view. There are so many combinations of elements
possible, and so many different types of people that anything
even close to an all-encompassing method is practically speaking
all but impossible. As clearly stated at the beginning of the
section on "Individualism" in the Theory of Prescribed
Exercise:
"This principle dictates
that exercise must be prescribed in accordance with the needs,
goals, abilities, limitations, and preferences/psychology of
an individual.
Genetics forms the basis of individualism,
a concept that refers to the pursuit of the individual rather
than the "collective". In regard to exercise prescription,
it means that despite what may be suitable for the average population,
the goal is to discover what is ideal for the individual in question,
since that person may not be reflected within the average."
As far as methods went, I came
to accept and understand the approach promoted by the IART. That
is, to understand all the principles, how they interact and how
to go about effectively prescribing combinations. There was a
methodology there, but only in extremely broad strokes with more
focus on determining and applying the measures, and then noting
trends and readjusting as you go. Almost overnight I realized
how over simplified and inappropriate most methods were. I also
started to understand the pluses and pitfalls of varies programs,
schemes and methods.
The first thing that stood out
was how many methods had painted themselves into a corner, for
the sake of 'standing out in a crowd.' Methods that worshiped
rep speed at the expense of load, with others that held intensity
on a pedestal at the sacrifice of volume and frequency. Then,
of course, there were all the high-volume training (HVT) routines
that ditched almost all common sense for the sake of promoting
atypical body types, supplements and the "enhanced"
professionals.
Though I may have felt slightly
pretentious with my new perspective, I tried to keep my attitude
in check and get back to the business of growing. I became very
attached to the forward thinking, the 'never rest on your laurels'
attitude that Johnston took to exercise science. Hence, I was
gravely taken aback, like a trip to the Twilight Zone when Mr.
Johnston called one day to tell me about an incredible new "method"
he had developed.
The call went like this; Johnston
was clearly charged up about something, to the point that he
was heavy breathing in my ear long distance. That is, he was
so adamant about explaining the method in clear concise terms
that he was actually mimicking the required breathing patterns
for his method over the phone. After all the years of comfort
and seclusion from the whole "method" thing, I have
to say that at that moment I had two competing thoughts:
1. Johnston has had an equipment
failure at the IART Clinic and something heavy has fallen on
his head
2. He is really on to something
big.
As far as that particular method
I will come back to it later. The point is, I took the long way
around and had to describe the above to get to this point:
What Is a Method qua Method,
Anyway?
Certainly, a method is, as the
definition implies, merely an organized procedure. Thus, what
is so complicated about such a thing, and could an effective
exercise method be developed for all to use?
Well, the short answer is it
can, whereas the long answer is it is a huge undertaking. The
important point here, with regards to this article is that a
method, in order to encompass all of exercise, must be lengthy
in detail and massive in scope. In fact, in the end it would
not be a specific method at all but a vast amount of facts, information
and suggestions as to different sub-methods to apply and combine
in an effect manner.
The fundamental issue is not
what method of exercise to choose but what methods to use and
combine to reach your goals. There are methods to apply volume
and frequency, to create and encourage intensity, to select and
routine exercise choices, etc. One need not be limited to any
particular combination of things that represent your actual workouts.
There should exist an almost unending list of choices you can
make and combinations you can create.
A funny thing is, after all the
talk about one method being better or worse than another, closer
inspection finds people making up their own renditions for the
most part, regardless of the specific parameters laid out. People
have pet exercises they like, equipment limitations, personal
needs/wants goals etc.
I fine this whole thing akin
to the practice of philosophy. Many proclaim philosophy to be
useless egg-headed stuff that has little or no useful applications
in the real world. However, even a cursory examination of the
facts indicates that one uses a philosophy in life whether they
wish to or not. You decide how and why you know things and in
what manner you will apply that knowledge. With exercise methodologies,
people out of pure necessity, eventually resorting to altering
some or all of the parameters to fit their personal situations.
This, once again, suggests the
need to discern how to best go about deciding which methods to
use, which procedures you could follow to create an overall systematic
yet dynamic program of working out and getting/being in shape.
The most obvious problem is that many methods require rather
dogmatic adherence to certain particulars and overall design
to achieve the desired effect. That in and of itself could create
a two-fold problem:
1. The method depends on the user being heavily constrained.
2. The constraints negate your
individual traits and specifics of your particular situation
(goals, equipment availability, etc.)
Examples:
HVT training often requires 4
to 5 days a week of training that consists of several hours of
work. What of those who are not young males, full of testosterone,
and liable to tolerate great workloads? What of those who, due
to demands of career, family and other interests do not and/or
cannot commit that sort of time and effort?
HIT training often requires that one train with great effort
per set, thus keeping intensity as high as possible, which necessitates
minimal workload and plenty of rest days. What of those who do
not enjoy this type of training and prefer to have greater time
and social pleasure from their workouts? What of those who prefer
to back down in intensity and perform greater variety with more
time/sets to build muscular feel (to build mental and physical
momentum in a workout).
If one does not enjoy in a fundamental
sense as to the way he or she trains, then how can the method
be justified? Considering that humans are mainly cerebral in
nature, how could this issue possibly be overlooked? If you do
not like to train all the time or with "bone bending effort,"
what then?
A Closer Look
Having examined the issue
at length, and as a professional trainer, I offer some basic
guidelines to consider. I do so, not because I am so presumptuous
as to assume the reader is not capable of choosing for him or
her self, but that discussion of the issue is thought provoking
and lends itself well to asking and attempting to answer many
important questions.
Methods are a necessary evil
of sorts, and thus should be considered in a sober light. As
I have discovered through experience, as well as the writing
of this article, the examination is well worth the work. It saves
time and effort in the long run and expands one's ability to
understand exercise science in general.
The first major question to ask
is:
What is the basis of the method?
The obvious questions are: 1)
How was the method created; and 2) From what basis of fact and
information is the method derived?
It appears that most methods
I have come across are a combination of the experience of the
creator backed by information gathered from many sources.
There are those methods that
rely heavily on bits and pieces of information found in exercise
physiology texts. Others almost completely defer to the experience
of a particular person or group of people who have direct experience
with various techniques. The main problem I see in both these
standard approaches is the lack of a theory on which to base
a system, method, program or whatever one wishes to call it.
The fact is that without a firm
foundation on which to build, most methods are clunky and awkward
to apply. The method works all right for a select few; however,
when the majority apprehends its shortcomings, it falls to the
wayside. These methods may appear effective at the outset, but
do not hold up very well even in the short-term. Sometimes with
the more well thought through methods do we see spin-offs emerge
overtime, as with the many forms of HIT, e.g., Nautilus protocol,
Heavy Duty, Superslow, Power Factor Training, etc. This as an
obvious result of fine-tuning the variables to suit the individual
needs and point of view of the creator(s). Again, each spin off
suits a small percentage of the population and the method is
grossly limited in scope.
What is missing is the building
on a detailed and systematic list of the requirements for exercise.
Moreover, how those requirements measure up and affect one another
as the measurements differ is of importance.
As is well summarized by Johnston:
" a theory is a set of facts that represents
a correct description of some aspect of reality. A theory consists
of principles or
laws, which are fundamental, primary, or general truths, on which
other truths depend. Thus, principles are abstractions that subsume
a great number of concretes, meaning that they are very broad
in scope and help to guide us in making logical decisions and
in understanding the physical world. However, principles do not
indicate the specifics of any existent only its general
nature and what gives it 'identity'.
In this regard, the principles of exercise science indicate what
must be accounted for, and that reality cannot be escaped in
doing so. Consequently, principles of exercise science imply
that tolerance to exercise stress, i.e., the amount of work or
strain tolerated by each individual, exists and has an identity
and causal nature, but it cannot provide the measure of that
tolerance. To prescribe a specific measure of exercise strain
requires knowing the tolerance of the individual in question
a measure relative to an individual's needs, goals, abilities,
limitations, and an individual's psychology."
More to the thrust of this article,
a theory qua theory is to be differentiated from a method as
is touched on in Johnston's Heavy Duty: Mind and Body
critique:
"A theory is a set of principles, whereas a method is
a procedure based on those principles. Principles guide one's
actions to create a workout plan or method, but they do not indicate
precisely what to do as does a method. Moreover, all methods
do work to some degree, and some better than other methods. Even
if some methods produce a negative result, i.e., overuse atrophy,
they still work by virtue of an action. Not a positive action,
mind you (unless the goal is to shrink muscle and increase endurance),
but an action nonetheless. The differences in how well each method
works are based on measurement, as governed by the cost-benefit
ratio of stress, stimulus, and response (Principle of Diminishing
Returns), i.e., cause and effect."
The only other option is to base
the method solely on one's experiences, backed by interpretation
of what research has discovered thus far. Even a perfunctory
examination of physiology studies reveals that little definitive
information is available, and that there are far more gaps in
our knowledge base than hard facts. Though considering first
hand experience is very important, one cannot possible say they
or the group they have worked with reflect what "will be"
for all people in all situations and under all conditions
not by a long shot.
The need to work from reasonably
concrete facts (and to be stringent), that which we come up with
does not negate known elements is of paramount importance.
Far too often I have discovered what appeared to be a good method
did not work and specifically because it ignored or attempted
to change existing rules. The need to balance effort with how
much and how often you train is a 'given' for most, yet some
would suggest training for several hours at a stint for the better
part of a week. How hard could you actually train at that pace
(naturally)? Chances are, in no time your level of effort per
workout, then per set, either would reduce or cause you to burnout.
At the other end of the spectrum, if you are training too hard
all the time, how much could you possibly do and how often? Training
extremely hard, as with the addition of rest pause sets, heavy
forced negatives, etc., wouldn't allow for much volume or frequency,
and thus eventually would lead to either over or under training.
Even keeping it to only momentary muscular fatigue will short
circuit progress over the long run; hence, the recent popularity
of interjecting 'not to failure' sessions with your HIT routine
periodically.
There is a clear need to balance
the variables, so as to avoid painting one's self in a corner.
If you allow any particular variable to run amuck, you will be
spinning your wheels. The proof of this is not so much in how
well something does or does not work, but in what I have already
mentioned about everything working to some extent. If a method
opposite of yours is working just as well, then your scheme may
be missing what the other offers (and vice versa). Look to anyone
who has achieved remarkable gains with his or her physique, and
outside of basic genetic superiority you will always discover
one basic fact: They have tried and utilized almost every available
method to date. By this mix and match, hit or miss approach,
eventually they gain an edge over others. Undoubtedly this is
far from efficient, but it makes one thing clear, in that there
are several diverse elements and combinations required for physical
development and limiting one's self to any single or small group
of them is unreasonable.
Now, if any particular method
brought you all the gains that you desired, then fine, but as
a trainer I need to be capable of mixing and matching things
to produce the desired results for many diverse clients. Furthermore,
chances are if you are reading this article, then you still are
interested in gaining more or maintaining more efficiently.
Who Is the Wellspring?
The old adage "consider
the source" applies here, and all the way to the core. Not
just who created the method (and with whose help if applicable)
but from what? A great physique, great friends and/or a notable
college degree are nice on a resume, but are no firm guarantees
that a successful system has been created. Consider the case
where physiology science and research is held up to substantiate
a method. Where the creator decrees to be "most inline with
known science."
At this point there is still
much that is unknown about the mechanisms that take place during
muscular contractions. Cross bridge dynamics, energy consumption,
internal friction, fiber recruitment patterns, etc., are all
in play to some degree. With eccentric contractions still fully
under the preverbal microscope (because of the gross disparity
between positive and negative ability) it is easy to see how
the physiology may not be a stand-alone backing for a method,
with exercise scientists and physiology experts still disagreeing
and ruminating over:
1. One set vs. multiple sets.
2. Training with fast movements vs. slow.
3. Functional training environment vs. specificity.
4. Training to muscular fatigue or not.
It is not hard to see how the
details as discovered in the lab and in research still leave
much to be desired when putting together practical applications.
Some Ph.D.s swear by explosive work with free weights while others
cling to smooth running low friction machines with finely honed
cams. Other experts denounce aerobic exercise, and you will still
find professionals who think that larger muscles will slow you
down. University educated rehabilitation therapists continue
to exercise injured folk in unbalanced/difficult to balance scenarios,
even though the available neurological findings have contraindicated
this type of approach for decades. And it is interesting to note
the number of people world-wide who witness people falling off
exercise balls and hurting themselves the same 'tools' physiotherapists
use to treat injuries!
An easy parallel can be drawn
between this and the existing world of diet and nutrition. A
discipline where we see cardiologists and top rank doctors recommending
high fat and high protein diets while others promote mainly complex
carbohydrates or simply very low carbohydrates and minor fat
or even high protein and medium complex carbohydrates. There
are large groups of biologists and doctors as well who promote
severely calorie-restricted diets, which basically are vegan
in nature. The bottom line is that there exists a total lack
of agreement as to the proper measure of the variables, and to
my mind this is a direct result of a lack of a proper theoretical
base from which to build.
Distinction Is Often a Shortcoming
The next major thing
to be wary of is how a method creates its "personality"
or distinct qualities. In order for a method to exist and differentiate
itself from another, it must contain unique characteristics.
Unfortunately, this is usually the root cause for its ineffectiveness
in helping a wide audience.
Often we see the responsibility
for a method's success placed too heavily on the shoulders of
its unique component(s). That is, what makes it unique might,
at the very same time, grossly limit the scope of its applicability.
Take, for instance, a method that requires you to use specific
equipment only, or another that cannot be without certain movements
or "types" of movement patterns. If the equipment is
not available or the movements not possible (i.e., physical limitations)
then the method is not applicable. What of methods that have
folks doing something they truly do not enjoy and, thus, long-term
commitment and compliance is impossible or highly undesirable?
Many methods rely on the notoriety
of the creator and his or her personal levels of success. Success
and notoriety that may have been achieved despite a person's
ability to understand exercise (i.e., genetics, politics, etc).
Furthermore, just because someone does something well does not
always mean he or she understands explicitly the 'whys' and the
'hows.'
In addition, consider the problems
associated with a method that does not allow cardiovascular specific
exercise as a distinct characteristic. Thus, it would not provide
the type and level of conditioning required for a specific sport.
How about the reverse how about a method that requires one only
complete sporting type exercises like powerlifting and competitive
weightlifting moves? What of those individuals, whose shortcomings
in connective tissue, old injuries or skeletal abnormalities
contraindicate such practice? Again, all too often what separates
a method from the herd also is its greatest weakness in design
and significantly narrows the demographic that could benefit
from its use.
On the Defensive
Time and again, when
such methodologies are challenged, the results are a defense
made of cherry picked excerpts from existing physiology research
with little regard for how a particular element fits back into
the wider picture. Example: Since we are far stronger during
the eccentric phase of a muscular contraction, does it not stand
to reason that negative only or negative accentuated training
would be best (in order to provide greater muscular loading)?
If it is, then why is there not proof? Why would we limit ourselves
to our positive/concentric ability? How about the fact that carrying
sets to muscular fatigue drastically reduces the need for multiple
sets and volume in general? Why, then, would training to failure
not be far more productive than better-known protocols? Is it?
Where is the clear evidence of such? People are simply not getting
more muscular, stronger, faster, etc., with training to failure
compared directly to non-failure groups. If training is safe
and contains quality effort, results tend to be comparable on
a wide scale. One could argue that detail till the cows come
home, but the proof is in the people if it worked that much better
it would be plain as pie for all to see it isn't, and this
because so many other variables affect the ultimate outcome of
any method.
The point here is that something
like training to failure may be best, but only if the context
in which it is applied is not unduly constrained. If the method
is too "one size fits all," then the all-important
element of applying high intensity is crippled from the outset.
This is similar to methods based on solid interpretations of
biomechanics, which look great on paper, but in practice they
force one to give up highly effective elements in favor of supposedly
proper biomechanical function, i.e., avoidance of the most effective
zones of a muscle's possible ROM the stretch and fully
contraction portions.
Other less thoughtful, more 'instinctive'
programs have the trainee moving swiftly with poor form all in
favor of the pump and keeping the level of muscular contractions
high. Thus, again, having a trainee working the better part of
time (and with the highest effort) only in the certain portions
of an exercise's ROM with little or no attention to the effective
segments. This, usually, all in the name of a self-appointed
expert or guru.
What Is so Special About Specialization?
At the center of most
problematic methodologies is an over reliance on specialization,
well described by Johnston in System Analysis:
Sufficient Knowledge Outside
the Topic
"Specialization is for
insects", as Arthur
Jones once stated, and too much focus within one area can leave
a person open to criticism or limitations in reasoning. For example,
Chapter 7 of this book suggests that we can acquire strength
without increasing mass. In other words, an increase in the ability
to lift more weight does not always produce an increase in mass.
That section was based on only a few resources, besides my experience,
and one resource included the book Energetics of Human Activity,
by W.A. Sparrow, Ed.
This fascinating book deals with
discussions on the efficiency of movement and how humans optimize
their energy expenditure to learn and control movements. This
information has never been applied in the context of how movement
efficiency (and strength skill proficiency) is a limiting factor
when the goal is to maximize muscle mass, a largely ignored topic
within the fitness and bodybuilding industries. The various scientists
who contributed studies to this book never once brought up the
concept of "increasing muscle mass" within their discussions.
Their focus remained locked within a specialized aspect of human
physiology research, i.e., energetics of human activity.
Edward O. Wilson, a pulitzer
prize-winning author in the sciences, also believes that scientists
have become too specialized when he stated the following:
The majority of scientists have never been more than journeymen
prospectors. That is even more the case today. They are professionally
focused; their education does not orient them to the wide contours
of the world. They acquire the training they need to travel to
the frontier and make discoveries of their own, and as fast as
possible, because life at the growing edge is expensive and chancy.
The most productive scientists, installed in million-dollar laboratories,
have no time to think about the big picture and see little profit
in it. The rosette of the United States National Academy of Sciences,
which the two thousand elected members wear on their lapels as
a mark of achievement, contains a center of scientific gold surrounded
by the purple of natural philosophy. The eyes of most leading
scientists, alas, are fixed on the gold.
It is therefore not surprising
to find physicists who do not know what a gene is, and biologists
who guess that string theory has something to do with violins.
The same professional atomization afflicts the social sciences
and humanities. The faculties of higher education around the
world are a congeries of experts. To be an original scholar is
to be a highly specialized world authority in a polyglot Calcutta
of similarly focused world authorities.2 Wilson, Edward O. Consilience. Vintage
Books. NY: 1999. p. 42.
It is the vast encompassing nature
of the physical sciences in general that are necessary to comprehend
and apply to any area of specialization. The saying "jack
of all trades, master of none" definitely has merit. Dave
Smith, Ph.D. pointed out to me that Arthur Jones learned most
of what he knows about torque and friction from his hobby of
flying aircraft. This information was of great value to Jones
in regard to the design of his machines and in regard to exercise
physiology in general information that he did not obtain
from any physiology textbook.
Even more broad in scope, consider
how I applied philosophy (chpt. 3) and logical reasoning to exercise
science. Or consider the seemingly abstract methodologies found
elsewhere in this chapter. The basis for some of the content
in my books come from resources that deal with methods of thinking
or topics outside exercise, such as a business manager's book
(see page 713). I integrated the information into teaching instruction
and exercise program design.
Hence, information found in general
resources outside the scope of exercise science easily applies
to nearly any discipline but such information cannot be
found in the latest fitness magazine or in typical weight training
books. The reason is that the authors of most fitness materials
specialize too narrowly; they do not see the forest for the trees.
The goal should be to become
diverse and seek resources on any topic that has a bearing or
relationship to the general sciences, but not exercise science
in particular. Each paragraph that is read, think to yourself:
"How can I apply this information to exercise science?"
This always is not possible, but now and again a 'gem' will surface
that could change how exercise is perceived, and even life in
general.
As can be extrapolated from this,
it is clear that whether for reasons of distinction or defense,
specialization can be a dead end street. A route that takes you
away from getting results and leads you astray, all in the name
of "protecting ones interests".
Trendy: "New and/or Improved"
by Comparison.
Most with experience
know to avoid methods that rely on the purchase of equipment
and/or supplements as an important element of the system. However,
what of trends that are slightly more insidious and that spin
on the same theme? As a society we tend to perceive time passing
as a filtering and perfecting of things. Consequently, what may
only be a moneymaking, market share-grabbing trend may dupe folks
because it is new or old "rediscovered." Methods that
are catchy and appeal to a layman's understanding of science
are a scourge in my books. They use people's affinity for being
"current" and their ignorance of the facts to sell
a method. They cast a wide colorful and friendly net looking
to catch a large audience while interest and curiosity is high.
These types often and repeatedly
will site scientific literature to back their claims. When questioned
about a competing (or contradicting) method they either avoid
answering to be politically correct or are dismissive. If debating
they will site information that makes the conclusions of opposing
and/or competing methods impossible or improbable. Thus, suggesting
(as one expert I know who stated publicly about the JRep™
Method) "I don't see it or the need for it." This equates
to "I don't get it" and "have zero interest in
trying it," which, when talking honestly and about real
world application, is closed minded to say the least. Analyzed
even closer one can spot a deeper issue than closed mindedness.
Science holds up competing points of view and tests them against
each other, thus supporting a thing with the positive and negative
results. Claiming to see no reason to test your method against
one that for all intensive purposes may contradict your findings
is just lazy. Doing so is just basic old fashion bare bones science,
which brings me to another issue with regards to method selection
and analysis.
What of method holders who supposedly
compare their approaches to that of a very different one? This,
if done with truth as the goal, would be completed objectively
in relatively controlled conditions, with a strong attempt made
to avoid coloring the results of said test.
Many methods are promoted based
on how much better they are when compared to others. The fact
is, though, that when promoting a method you are certainly not
the best person to perform such a test. The conflict of interest
is clear. Such tests often are said to have happened as the method
was developed is there substantial proof of this? What
of testing against rival methods that contain opposite approaches
and opposite conclusions? Such testing is not possible or desired
always. However, for one to analyze a method it may be unavoidable.
The important point is that when/if doing so, being subjective
or trite about conclusions is a complete waste of time. It is
best to avoid such comparisons if you are not fully capable of
removing your personal bias. Inability to do so will result in
confusion and the waste of time and effort, and at the very least
is unprofessional.
It is easier and makes better
sense to start by comparing the method to how well it holds up
against the known principles of the discipline in question. Does
any requirement of the method contradict a known principle of
the theory behind the discipline in question? Are the basic facts
of scientific reality being ignored, or is an attempt being made
to work around them? If so, then can you seriously substantiate
what is wrong with the base principles and theory on which the
method should have been built? This brings me to a pet peeve
of mine.
What Constitutes Actual Refutation?
In the end, the real
question is; "What is proof?" In the drug industry
there is a term known as 'proof of concept,' which refers to
whether the drug is worth using, if it is necessary, and will
it make a difference. The same should be applicable to any science,
including exercise. But why even bother comparing or choosing
if you are not 100% clear on what you consider proof? Why not
just try all sorts of things and be causal about it all? I have
been there and it is fun in its way. No, I think a reasonable
level of seriousness must come with method comparisons if only
to avoid confusing yourself and then by extending to other methods.
Exercise science and fitness in general needs all the help it
can get to remain relevant and progressive.
Proof would and should mean the
basics: You follow the recommendations to a "T" and
watch for clear signs of results. Everything else come a distant
second; what you have to see are results and you need not wait
forever to get them. With exercise, gains are relatively immediate,
whereas waiting for several months for something wonderful to
happen means you either are not following directions or the method
is not working. Possibly, it will not work for you if the method
is too narrowly construed but, regardless, it is time to move
on. This brings me to what I consider the most important issue
and speaks directly to "The Johnston Rep Method" I
alluded to earlier.
Flexability
As you have probably
gathered, I desire room to manipulate the variables of exercise.
One thing I truly appreciate from the IART is the adherence to
the principle of "Individuality." This means respecting
people as individuals and tailoring fitness to the individual,
and not the other way around.
It is far to common to see methods
that require one to follow a program to the letter, including
specific timeframes to follow. It is of little wonder why most
pre-packaged routines and methods fail. Going out of your way,
to jam a square peg into a round hole is ludicrous, not to mention
a large waste of time.
To this end, you should at the
very least try to get a bead on how the method creator appeared
prior to training and how they are built now. If you saw pictures
of most pro bodybuilders before they trained seriously, you would
not bother with their routines, at least not if you knew anything
about genetics and drug use.
A good method will have rules
but mostly guidelines and "ranges" (maximum/minimum
points) from which to work and manipulate. That is, you have
the goal of applying the method, but reasonable room to fit it
to you personally with tools, variations, and techniques to make
it optimal for you.
It is a fine line though, in
that the rules and guidelines should be explicit and precise
in description. You should be quite clear on what is expected
of you, but there needs to be appropriate mechanisms present
to allow you to fit it to your individual needs, goals, etc.
This is why I settled down and
came to terms with Johnston promoting a method. First off, he
was not trying to encompass too much all at once, just rep performance.
It was a big bite, but not too much to chew, to twist a phrase.
There was an underlying concept, and thus the need to achieve
alignment with it. However, in true Johnston fashion, he created
several ways with which to achieve the intended effect. Furthermore,
he added many minor subtle techniques to allow fine-tuning.
The Little Things Add Up
A method must account
for individual traits and provide solutions for such. The onus
is on the creator to support the method, not the individual's
ability to fit it to their limitations. Johnston's assortment
of additions, minor as they may be, and when properly combined,
produce results that are significant and that lead to even more
variations on the original theme. This is how a productive method
should be, in that the more 'light of day' it receives, the larger
it grows. If there truly is a serious underlying worthwhile element
to achieve, then the method should almost take on a life of its
own when learned and earnestly applied. In the end, as can be
seen with JReps™, an effective method is reliant on 3 major
things to be successful:
1. It must be possible to adhere
to the already sound and proven principles of exercise properly
and cohesively. It must not negate those principles, because
doing so would be a rewriting of the established principles,
which would be completed prior to creating the method (by way
of hypothesis then tested theory). Furthermore, the method must
not be so narrowly construed as to over- (or under-) exaggerate
any particular principle; at best that sort of approach will
be short-lived.
2. The method must exist to support
the underlying concept and not the other way around.
3. The method must be considered
a tool and not overreach its bounds.
Concerning point 1, this is a
huge problem with the exercise industry. Any old idea can be
packaged and sold as long as solid marketing is in place. The
only ones performing any hard science "at large" are
not working on the issues of how to bring it all together to
create effective programs. They are agonizing over the minutia
of particulars and dissecting details. It takes more than finding
a few supportive papers and statements mixed with "old fashion
common sense" or "New Age discoveries" to validate
a method.
In a wider sense, the method
must agree with not just exercise science but science in general.
A method cannot exist in a bubble, and chances are if it negates
a known scientific principle it will by extension negate a known
principle of exercise science. The various sciences do not operate
independently; they rely on each other and differ only in specialization.
In other words, if your method could ignore a known aspect of
reality then you would have stumbled across something far greater
than a simple method to get in shape!
The second point is the one I
see being infracted upon the most. People often create methods
to generate fake or temporary environments, i.e., massive pump
and fatigue generated from very high numbers of sets and reps.
That is, everything is set up to garner a specific effect, and
things have to be executed in a narrowly construed manner to
achieve that effect. That may be fine short-term, but with this
constraint it will be far from optimal. Even in the short-term,
it will require generous room to customize the approach. As was
a way of dealing with long-term productivity and overall effective
fitness programs, it will most certainly fail. The method may
offer some variation but does not fit properly into the full
picture of a dynamic person living in a dynamic world where things
continually change over time. The method particulars (amounts,
order, procedure, etc.) can be adhered to, to generate the desired
effect, but not at the expense of the individual. The method
must suit the person and the situation. Again, I quote from the
section on Individuality from the "Theory of Prescribed
Exercise":
Suitability refers to an appropriate or ideal dosage
or prescription of exercise strain based on an individual's needs,
goals, abilities, limitations, and preferences"
Speaking to the third point,
a method is but a tool with which to apply exercise strain, and
strain is a vibrant thing in that too much or too little both
are problematic. A proper method allows the user freedom to balance
the known variables to suit his or her needs as reflected in
a tolerance for such.
The method cannot in the grand
scheme of things "stand alone." It must embrace the
underlying principles and work synergistically with other such
tools and procedures to cover all the bases properly. A final
quote from "Individuality" and to recap:
"Because of the diversity
of individual genetics, it should be obvious that no single exercise
program or method can be optimal for all of us. It may be true
that the construct of a single training program can provide generally
good results relative to average tolerances and responses. But
such a program should only be implemented as a baseline from
which to develop a program's elements, to reflect individual
criteria better."
To Sum It All Up In a sentence:
A method worthy of your attention
and time should simply be "a well fitting piece of the puzzle."
|
