The Decline of Fitness Science

The world and ourselves develop and exist cyclically.

Fashion; good times and bad... ups and downs... we go through changes that appear to repeat themselves, such as the daily cycles of sleep-wake and cell renewal. History is a wide example of a cycle in which we enter the "dark ages" followed by the "era of enlightenment." We are now living in an unreasonable dark age of fitness. Irrational is an excellent phrase to describe an exercise strategy that is deemed harmful, impractical, unproven (but used when proven alternative ways exist), and irrelevant (i.e., claiming to perform something that cannot be accomplished). Here's an example of one. 

EXERCISE FOR THE FUNCTIONAL CORE 

An effort is made in an article by a well-known "functional/core exercise" proponent to link the principles of microscopic amoeba life with human cellular processes and "functional training" when the author claims: "Movement, survival, and the optimum functioning of the organism all go hand in hand." This sentence provides an opportunity for the author since it connects "movement" with "function," as well as the idea of "optimal." He then asserts that there is a relationship between functional exercise and survival, which has been historically validated by the "truth" that when exercise demands are not satisfied (too much, too little, an absence, or the incorrect sort), "illness lurks!" (exclamation his). Certainly, inactivity or overactivity (extra strain) may have negative consequences, but here he associates "the incorrect type" of exercise with sickness or bad health. Following a discussion of how natives achieved functional fitness through hunting practices, the author moved on to ancient methods of yoga, Tai-Chi, and martial arts, connecting the concept of "functional exercise" with improving health and vitality of the mind and body, in order to improve "man's relationship with both external and internal nature." This approach has now created a second door for the author's "brand" of functional training and has been used to condemn other techniques.

According to the author, today's notion of exercise (especially bodybuilding) is incorrect since many approaches corroborate Newtonian thinking to develop a "isolationists'/reductionists' point of view," in which we think of just specific muscles rather than the whole body. Rather, we need "system integration." This would imply some kind of whole-body movement/participation. Bodybuilders, on the other hand, examine the overall appearance of the body, and many workouts are done take into consideration body coordination (or, at the very least, the coordination of numerous muscles). Even using a single-joint training machine requires the user to engage a large number of muscles in an effort to brace the body and produce stronger body coordination when muscular exhaustion sets in. Furthermore, it may be required to concentrate one's attention on a specific muscle (for reasons of balancing development or function). And as a result, the system as a whole benefits since muscles are able to perform and integrate better in more dynamic activities, i.e., by strengthening the weakest link.

According to the author, the exercise machine business is partly to blame since it divides the body into various portions or muscle groups to be treated separately, "building on people's aesthetic preferences rather than practical necessities." As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, no muscle can operate in full isolation. Nonetheless, exaggeration is evident in that many machines, such as pulldowns, machine deadlifts and squats, leg presses, chest presses, and shoulder presses, do work several muscles, or that a person may train for aesthetics as well as function. If a person's biceps can create 50% more power as a consequence of machine or dumbbell biceps curls that increase both mass and strength, that person's biceps function has undoubtedly improved, and this has an impact on whole-body functional capacity.

The author then asserts that people who submit to current isolated exercise practices and influence are more likely to get injured. What evidence does he provide? None. In contrast, the author makes no mention of exercises that generate the largest forces (and hence the greatest risk of injury), such as explosive lifting, Olympic lifts, and plyometrics. In truth, he does support Olympic lifting and plyometrics (within bounds) since they seem to better replicate "natural" movement. He also suggests Swiss ball workouts, which include attempting to balance and manipulate weights in an unstable environment. I can't remember the last time I needed to clean and jerk an item, leap many times off boxes (often with weights on my shoulders), or balance myself on a ball in everyday tasks. As a result, how can such exercises imitate the "natural" actions of walking, gently lifting goods off the ground, ascending stairs, or the unique and specialized mechanics of numerous athletic disciplines (other than Olympic lifting)?

The author goes on to say that isolationist exercise programs have limited utility, which is why there is such a shift toward Tai-Chi and other "integrated" systems. Tai-Chi, which performs a poor job of improving physical strength and muscle growth, two crucial components that support "function" as we age, should be evident that any strategy is limited in usefulness (since everything in the Universe is finite). People gravitate toward TaiChi, in my opinion, because it is a simple kind of practice that is more about meditation and relaxation than exertion. In any case, it has been demonstrated that stable workouts provide more muscle loading and functional development than unstable Swiss ball activities. This makes sense given how much more effort is devoted toward balance (and fear of falling) during unstable workouts, while less weight and effort is put at target muscles. The author, however, ignores these features.

"Historical research of the biological foundation of movement demonstrates that even the oldest systems of exercise were founded on cosmic connections, Mother Nature and our relationship with her," the author said, becoming more mystically vague. He emphasizes his position by stating that current functional exercise programs "view the body as an integrated system, a synergy of physical-emotional-mental-spiritual energy and parts of reality." (I am only aware of one "world," the one in which I live.) I'm not sure how this differentiates from other systems that aren't called a "contemporary approach of functional exercise." My emotions and mental outlook/motivations, for example, determine the style, technique, and intensity of my training, which impact my performance and any physical effects that may be accomplished. My life philosophy and how I see fitness have an impact on the spiritual side of that discipline. This is true for every person, regardless of exercise mode, including the usage of machines. The author views it differently, and it seems that we must be lunging, balancing, and rolling about on a ball in order for this physical-emotional-mental-spiritual synergy to occur.

Now, in order for an exercise system to be "functioning," it must satisfy the following criteria:

1. It must help and enhance people's lives. In the author's opinion, chronic (regular?) exposure to "training to failure" is harmful and serves only to "extinguish vitality." It's amusing that many people (including yourself) have exercised in this way for many years and are strong, physically developed, and full of energy. The issue is not so much exercising to muscle tiredness as it is the total demands that one is subjected to, such as excessive volume and frequency. Nonetheless, the author claims that preparing to fail and believing in "no pain, no gain" leads to "dysfunctional exercise and less functional individuals." The concept of "no pain, no gain" is overstated while being well-intended at one time in exercise history (to get people to exercise harder). However, if a person can build strength and muscle to a larger (or even the same) degree by training to failure (but not abusing exercise in general), how can this result in less effective people? What is the relationship between greater/improved function and reduced function? 

"The by-product of contemporary bodybuilding and these sorts of training mottos is a new culture of fitness without health," the author says. To summarize, a person may be healthy without engaging in a regular workout regimen. "Healthy" typically refers to being disease-free. It goes without saying that a rigorous exercise program that increases blood cholesterol, blood pressure, resting heart rate, cardiovascular endurance, cardiac resilience, strength, muscle, and ADL function is "fitness with health."

Furthermore, "fitness" refers to "the character or condition of being fit," while "fit" refers to "being well fitted or appropriate for" (Oxford's English Dictionary). Participating in a fitness program to become "fit" (although some are better than others) will result in favorable health benefits, even if the strategy is mostly for looks, such as bodybuilding.

 2. Functional exercise is always a means to a goal (e.g., collecting wood to remain warm, lifting stones, and practicing calisthenics in the army to be "strong enough" to perform responsibilities). In other words, engage in movement patterns that are necessary for your job or activity. Because I spend most of my time at a computer, I should probably do some keyboard typing overload workouts. Aside from sarcasm, most of us have adequate strength to execute everyday chores, and mimicking those behaviors with resistance frequently does us more harm than good. With sports, an example would be sprinting with large weights strapped to the body in the hope that our sprinting would improve, despite the fact that sprinting mechanics would plainly change under such conditions. Consider the elbow flexion that happens when we lift an item, as well as the elbow flexion that occurs when we do dumbbell or machine arm curls. Wouldn't the latter have a favorable impact on the former? Certainly, but because it is not "exact" to everyday movements, the author condemns such actions, oblivious to the fact that any "functional exercise" is not "exact" to daily activities (unless the same resistance and movement patterns exist, in which case it is no longer exercise but activities of daily living).

"Training muscles with isolation methods to achieve increased mass in specific muscle is only functional if your goal is to compete in bodybuilding competitions, specific rehabilitation procedures, or as part of a well-designed isolation-to-integration program," the author says of isolation training to improve function. "Isolation to integration" might certainly imply doing everyday duties and activities better as a consequence of bigger and stronger muscles developed by utilizing machines or free weights, as has been done for decades.

"There must be a purpose driving the selection of exercises," he says, "otherwise one cannot determine if the output is useful or dysfunctional." In the above line, he clearly accepts that (increased) isolation may strengthen a weak network but rejects its usefulness until it can be proved that the consequence improves function (in the individual's best interests to attain another aim). If the aim is to feel better, look better, and operate better, then every workout in any media (free weight, machine, rubber band, calisthenics, etc.) has the potential to achieve that. The degree to which this occurs varies and is therefore determined by the quality of movement and effort considerably more than by how dynamic (the usage of numerous muscles in an unfixed environment) or unstable an activity is.

 Furthermore, there are a few flaws in the author's assertion above. One, the ultimate objective may be aesthetics, which is fine, but it is worthless, according to the author, since that component of a fitness program means nothing to him. Two, injuries are caused by weak linkages, and there is a no better approach to treat this problem than with particular training that is as isolated as possible, whether via single-joint exercises or not. When you realize the issue is the support beams, it's like working on a whole home. If you need to reinforce the support beams, skip the roofing and windows. Three, the function needed in a given activity necessitates the practice of that activity to increase that skill, while exercise improves overall fitness and strength, which subsequently supports the specialized athletic actions. As a result, fully functional training requires the unique motor abilities of a given activity, rather than movement patterns that "kind of" mimic an activity but employ different weights, velocities, movement patterns, balance needs, and so on.

3. The intended consequence on the key physiological systems of the body (including hormonal, musculoskeletal, circulatory, immunological, thermoregulatory, visceral, and neurological) must be considered when choosing a workout or exercise plan. And "every aim and endeavor should be to enhance the exerciser's physiology via exercise. Otherwise the exercise routine cannot be termed functional," according to the study. Explain how balancing on a Swiss ball while executing dumbbell presses can account for all of the basic physiological systems, yet training the muscles with stronger resistance and greater physical/mental exertion in a stable environment cannot.

 Furthermore, even on the worst program (whether stable or unstable), it takes minimal work to enhance all of these systems; therefore, it goes without saying that progress will occur in all areas to some level. To what degree progress will occur is determined by elements other than striving to keep balance while moving weights in the hopes of not falling off a ball or wobble board as compared to utilizing a machine, such as the overall quality and effort of the program. When comparing a person who (intentionally) puts forth minimal effort while following the author's "functional" exercise with rubber cables and Swiss balls to a person who works extremely hard with an Author Jones rigorous program on Nautilus or MedX equipment, differences in outcomes become clear. In this case, it should be evident who would make the greatest adjustments, and the contrary would also be true of a person who works extremely hard on any so-called "functional" program vs a person whose performance is subpar when utilizing exercise equipment.

4. When choosing a workout or exercise routine, it is important to consider a person's emotional, mental, and spiritual components. This remark is self-evident in the sense that a correctly designed program takes the person into consideration, yet the author claims that "the waste of life-force energy on a leg press is not bringing exercisers closer to perfect well-being!" (His exclamation mark) Why should this be the case, or why should it not be the case with the leg press? There is no explanation for his statement, but he does say that "when an exercise program is functional, it supports the collective needs of the living organism and the body becomes progressively healthier, positively influencing the emotions and mind and affording the spirit greater freedom of expression." What a burden! (Exclamation mark my) How can a person become one with the Universe by balancing on a ball or wobble board, or by moving about while tugging on some rubber bands or cable system, but not on a leg press? What scientific proof is there?

The author says, "The cornerstone of functional exercise is that it enhances the participant's health and vitality." However, it seems that this is difficult with machines or workout modalities that the author does not deem "functional." However, if a person simply uses machines to train and improve many elements of health, such as cholesterol levels, strength, muscle, heart health, and general function, that person's health,
and vitality has increased... and the workouts must be useful.