Advice that endurance athletes reduce their bodymass significantly to improve
their cardiovascular performance may be ill-advised and outmoded.
Distance runners are generally advised to lose excess adipose tissue and not
to develop excessive muscle mass to enable them to run more efficiently. The
logic is that it is easier for one's propulsive muscles (primarily those of
the lower extremities) to carry one faster and further if one's body is
lighter. Thus, the classic physique of the modern distance runner is now one
which resembles that of the anorectic patient.
In many cases it appears that this advice that one must be thin to be a
successful distance runner may be responsible for adding to the number of
anorectic females who are already hard hit by the fashion magazines to look
lean and mean. Even in the case of most male runners, one might be forgiven
in commenting that they look like survivors from concentration camps.
One may question if this advice to be thin is wise and necessary. It is
tantamount to advising that one should improve the endurance capabilities of
a vehicle by stripping off heavy parts of the chassis (which may weaken the
entire vehicle). Would it not be more sensible to advise increasing the
power and torque output of the engine and maintaining the stability and
strength of the vehicle?
Of course, science is showing runners how to improve work capacity, but it
may not be advising on the obvious, namely to increase the strength and
strength-endurance of the propulsive muscles without decreasing bodymass. We
have always heard that heavily hypertrophied leg muscles and muscular upper
bodies are detrimental to the distance runner because they presumably add
unnecessary bulk to the body. No doubt, excessive non-functional hypertrophy
of the upper body is inadvisable, but what of the possible role to played by
increasing the strength of the muscles which facilitate cyclical movement?
All too often, because of the fact that strength has been found to correlate
with increase in muscle cross-section, strength has always been associated
mainly with massive hypertrophy. The fact is that strength depends on many
other factors, especially nervous excitation and motor efficiency in general,
so it is unnecessary for a runner to use bodybuilding methods to increase
strength. The runner could rely on weighltifting and sprint methods to
improve strength without major increase in muscle bulk and thereby become
more efficient.
Moreover, even a small improvement in running technique could produce a large
improvement in running economy. Instead we continue to be bombarded with
advice on improving the body's ability to store more glycogen. Might it not
be possible to decrease one's need to overload with glycogen if running
skills were significantly improved? After all, track athletes pay meticulous
attention to running skill, but this is generally a rarity among endurance
athletes.
Furthermore, since all running involves plyometric (or explosive rebound)
actions during foot strike and take-off (NB plyometric action is not the same
as plyometric training), might one then not suggest that carefully designed
plyometric exercises may improve running efficiency?
We might also be cautious in advising that any distance athlete should lose
significant amounts of adipose tissue, since this might contribute as an
energy source in long distance training and competition. After all, the
psychological impact of losing any form of weight is often to make a person
feel weaker and look less healthy, so there may also be a psychological
rationale behind advising one to improve strength and technique rather than
to become thinner and lighter.
Is the classical advice given to endurance athletes as effective as it
appears to be or does it have to be carefully re-examined by paying attention
to the issues raised above? Comment on this P&P by drawing on published
works and/or your personal experience.
________________________________________________
PP94 : HYPERTROPHY PARADOX
The traditionally recognised number of repetitions and loads recommended for
developing maximum hypertrophy may not be as effective or as rigidly defined
as is currently maintained.
Virtually every book or fitness professional refers to a traditionally
established table of repetitions, loads and sets to design a resistance
training program to produce maximum hypertrophy. Thus, we are advised to
execute something like 6-12 repetitions with moderate loads (65-85% of one's
1Rep Max) if we wish to develop maximum muscle bulk.
We are told that the very high intensity style training of the Olympic
weightlifter or powerlifter (1-3 reps with near maximal loads) is almost
exclusively geared towards the growth of power or strength, though we are
also advised that strength is usually better promoted by the use of 3-6 reps
with somewhat lighter loads (85-95%).
We are informed that higher repetition training with much smaller loads is
much better suited to enhancing muscle endurance or cardiovascular endurance,
depending on the amount of time spent in continuous movement at a given heart
rate (here we are often quoted that training heart rate should be at least
60% of 220-Age, depending on whether you are a beginner or more advanced).
So, the average fitness professional is led to feel almost smugly confident
in that he/she has a recognised, scientifically valid table for prescribing a
precise type of resistance training. Prescribing the 'right' number of reps
with a few fairly traditional exercises using a given load for each exercise,
combining it with an appropriate nutritional program (maybe including some
supplements and drugs) and voila! - the instructor is contented that a
precise recipe for success has been concocted.
Of course, the instructor will no doubt be aware that there are sometimes
some variations that are necessary for some difficult clients who seem to
resist improving with some or other carefully formulated training regime.
What is not often appreciated is that these idiosyncrasies are more common
than is appreciated.
One simply has to examine the long-term training history of many competitive
weightlifters and powerlifters who train almost exclusively on 1-3
repetitions with very heavy loads, yet still manage to gain impressive muscle
hypertrophy (as a weightlifting competitor and coach for many years, I have
personally observed from meticulously kept records that some very massive,
well-defined hypertrophy occurs with this few rep style of so-called
power-oriented training).
A study of the long-term training program of most of the world's very
muscular top Olympic weightlifters reveals that the most frequently used sets
involve 2-3 repetitions and almost never anything exceeding 3-5 repetitions
for most of their lifts (e.g. Vorobyev A: 'Textbook on Weightlifting' 1978;
Chernik A: 'Methods of Planning Training for Weightlifters' 1978; The Annual
Soviet Weightlifting Yearbooks 1977-1988; and Roman R 'The Training of the
Weightlifter' 1988). A similar study of many top powerlifters reveals that
their very heavy training methods also produces some enormous muscle
hypertrophy. Nevertheless, many of the world's top lifters, especially those
in the weight divisions lighter than about 110kg, develop massive muscle
hypertrophy and good muscle definition.
The saga is further complicated by the fact that some bodybuilders and even
some non-athletes develop very muscular parts of the body either with minimal
work or with a huge number of repetitions in manual labour. One can lay this
down to favourable genetics and indeed, this is probably a major aspect of
the process - especially since we often see top distance runners, cyclists,
swimmers and canoeists with great development of some of their muscles. The
latter groups of athletes rely almost exclusively on very high repetition
training, yet they still manage to develop local muscle hypertrophy that many
bodybuilders on steroids 'would die for'.
Note that we have remarked here on local hypertrophy and not general
hypertrophy that is the aim of the elite bodybuilder. It is a well known
fact that some parts of the body develop more easily than others, so we would
have to say that your genes allow you to develop wonderful pecs or quads, but
miserable calves and biceps. Maybe that is true, but the most important
point emerging from this analysis is that some muscles develop better with
more reps and others with fewer reps. Sometimes, the desperate bodybuilder
may develop greater strength in a given muscle group, but virtually no
hypertrophy. This would appear to be a major reason underlying the urge to
start taking steroids.
This argument may be extended by presenting a much greater array of case
studies and research results, but many of them will simply further
corroborate the deduction that the classical tables of reps, sets and loads
may not be as precise and effective as has been intimated by years of
traditional expertise. This is not to denigrate the great value of
experiential evidence and scientific research (unfortunately much of which
has to be viewed cautiously because it has relied on studies of 'average' or
'untrained' individuals) - on the contrary, it has been responsible for
guiding many champions to the top of the competitive world.
However, we have to ask if these methods are also limiting future development
and proliferating the abuse of drugs in an attempt to overcome inefficient
training programs. We then have to ask if we have to re-examine many of the
popular resistance training textbooks and articles and wonder if they have
been responsible for slowing down or halting our progress into the 21st
Century.
Reader comments would be welcomed on this issue which is central to the
entire philosophy, methodology and future of resistance training. Support
your arguments on the basis of appropriate research articles and practical
experience.
________________________________________
PP95 : ABDOMINAL PARADOX
Current understanding of the function of the abdominal musculature and
training of these muscles may be misleading and inappropriate in many
instances.
INTRODUCTION
The abdominal musculature (rectus abdominis, obliques and transversus) are
implicated in many functions and movements by numerous fitness professionals,
often apparently well supported by superficially by popular reasoning or by
complicated abstruse reasoning by some authorities.
SOLVING BACK PROBLEMS
Thus, we read about the importance of 'strengthening' the abdominal muscles
to solve lower back pain or to improve posture. Indeed, many physiotherapy
schools publish articles or posters to assist the general public in managing
painful back syndromes, invariably stressing the role of the abdominal
musculature in the process.
At the same time, they usually advocate prone small extensions of the trunk
and the lower extremities ('legs') to offer some modicum of back
strengthening. Somehow, these multiple repetitions with limited range
unresisted exercise is supposed to adequately strengthen the large erector
spinae muscles which are hardly challenged by this almost geriatric form of
exercise. Somehow, multiple repetitions of well-controlled situps or
crunches are supposed to adequately strengthen the abdominal musculature and
establish the 'correct' balance between the trunk flexors (the abdominal
muscles) and the trunk extensors (the back muscles).
At the same time, any form of deadlifting, clean pulls or cleans are
militated against, largely because of the belief that these exercises are
always harmful for the back or unnecessary for the general public. Instead,
some general advice on lifting technique is given in the hope that if someone
does need to do some form of daily lifting, then at least the right advice
has been given. Is it not ironic that lifting advice is given for movements
done in daily life that are quite similar to deadlifts and related lifts in
the gym, yet the public is advised NOT to use those same movements to
strengthen the back?
STRENGTHENING THE ABDOMINALS FOR SPORT
As we have noted above, most training regimes for 'strengthening' the
abdominals prescribe the use of many repetitions without a load, a method
which, at most, will offer very limited strengthening in a raw beginner and
some local muscle endurance in all. High repetitions against minimal
resistance are generally ineffectual at developing strength; strength
increases with much heavier loads for a few repetitions. Yet, for many
years, the fitness and strength conditioning experts, almost without
exception, have advocated unloaded high repetition training to 'strengthen'
the abs.
Even footballers, rugby players, boxers and martial artists, who are supposed
to have very strong abdominal muscles, have been told to do this type of
dubious strength training. Most of them have never been challenged with
loaded, near-maximal or maximal abdominal exercise (using pulley machines or
weights clasped to the chest or behind the head). There has been much more
concern about 'crunches' vs situps, bent knees vs straight knees and other
aspects of technique rather than the vital aspect of appropriate intensity.
One can perform any exercise with perfect technique, but if the intensity is
inadequate, it will never increase strength significantly.
Even most of the abdominal strength tests used to ascertain if the 'abs' are
sufficiently strong rely on non-strength testing methods, such as the maximum
number of repetitions which can be done or the maximum number per minute. It
is curious to understand how many experienced coaches or scientists can
accept that this type of testing is perfectly acceptable for determining
muscular strength.
This is tantamount to testing weightlifting or powerlifting strength by
requiring the lifter to perform free standing unloaded clean & jerks, squats,
bench presses and so on to failure or for a maximum number of reps per
minute. Certainly, this type of lifting test sounds totally ludicrous, but
this is precisely how abdominal strength continues to be assessed by
practitioners who should know better.
TRIMMING THE WAIST
The less said about this the better. The general public and many fitness
instructors (though they outwardly deny the existence of 'spot reduction')
still seem to believe that abdominal exercises trim the waistline. Enough
has been written about the futility of situps and crunches to produce any
significant subcutaneous fat reduction around the waist without our repeating
it in depth. No research has yet been done that shows that any form of
abdominal exercise is capable of trimming the waist. Any supposed slimming
effects have been produced more by the lower calorie diets and other exercise
which accompany such slimming programs.
CORRECTING TECHNICAL FAULTS IN SPORT
Numerous fitness experts and physical therapists advocate strengthening some
component of the abdominal musculature to prevent musculoskeletal injury,
overcome deficiency in sporting skill or generally enhance performance. The
underlying philosophy is that there should always be a certain synergistic
balance between so-called opposing muscle groups to ensure efficient and safe
movement.
Yet, it is very rare to find any work done on measuring muscle balance
directly during a given sporting activity. Almost all of the testing is
performed with electromyographs, isokinetic or other machine resistance
devices which are presumed to provide information which correlates
significantly with the actual sporting action. Added to this testing
weakness is the problem that the degree of muscle involvement in any joint
action varies with joint angle, velocity, type of movement pattern, rate of
force development, local or systemic fatigue, level of motivation, tolerance
to exercise effort or discomfort, and so forth.
Moreover, while some muscles are executing some dynamic aspect of the
movement, others are stabilising to ensure that the dynamic action is
technically possible and efficient. In other words, one has to examine the
balance between all the stabilising muscles at the same time that one
assesses the concurrent balance between the movers. In some cases certain
muscles are serving as dynamic movers and stabilisers, so it becomes obvious
that the muscle balance philosophy is very complex and probably beyond the
present capabilities of our measuring methods.
Increasing research being done on the phenomenon of biological chaos,
non-linearity, indeterminacy, and fuzzy processing is revealing that
homeostasis and balance are by no means as determinate and quantitatively
exact as we are being led to believe by the manufacturers of testing devices.
In brief, any dogmatic proclamations about muscle balance have to be tempered
with a great deal of circumspection and humility, followed by even more
careful experimental design and qualified comment.
What has this preamble to do with sports training and rehabilitation? A
great deal, since testing on the basis of presumed exact measures of
so-called agonist-antagonist balance is rife in the training and therapeutic
setting. Before one even refers to agonist-antagonist balance issues, it
would be prudent to realise that the existence of agonist-antagonist pairs of
muscle groups is more a matter of convention and definition than actual
occurrence, except under specific conditions. The issue of cocontraction (of
agonist and antagonist) versus ballistic action (of agonist-initiated
momentum terminated at a very late stage by antagonistic action) needs to be
carefully considered (e.g. see Basmajian J : 'Muscles Alive').
For example, it would be illogical to state that the agonistic triceps would,
throughout a shotputting movement or bench press, be opposed by the
antagonistic biceps. How can direct opposition to one muscle by another
enhance force production? Besides decreasing the resultant propulsive force,
this type of action could lead to muscle rupture, especially if the movement
is meant to be rapid (as in shotputting or throwing). Yet, a belief in the
general principle of agonism-antagonism persists even in many textbooks,
without much qualification. It is logical to assume that antagonistic action
takes place nearer the end of a movement or in occasional spurts to protect
or guide a joint, but not as a general process in all motion.
AN EXAMPLE FROM SWIMMING
We are now in a position to analyse some of the superficially convincing
advice given to athletes. For instance, some coaches advise swimmers to
'strengthen' the abdominal musculature, which is presumed to act as a
stabiliser of the pelvis through its action as an antagonist to the prime
movers used to pull the body through the water. This advice is based on the
contention that all the prime movers in swimming tilt the pelvis anteriorly,
an action that ought to be balanced by strong abdominal contraction. The
upper body prime movers are stated to connect to the spine and pelvis through
action of the 'lats', thereby leading to anterior tilting of the pelvis and
consequent increase in viscous drag in the water. Sometimes articles
loosely call this action a 'sagging' of the pelvis, rather than a transient
and appropriate phase of the lumbar-pelvic rhythm).
This swim coaching advice may sound technically impressive and possibly
logical to the non-technical swimmer, but it should be regarded as highly
suspect because of its omission of advice to strengthen the erector spinae
(which play an extremely important stabilising and rotating role), enhance
gluteal strength, increase functional flexibility of the hip flexors and
rotators, and strengthening of the quadratus lumborum.
In this case, as is common in much abdominal training advice in all sports,
no mention of the fact that dedicated exercising of the abdominals, as
flexors of the spine, is liable to exacerbate the problem of inappropriate
pelvic action, because it neglects developing the erector spinae adequately.
Furthermore, the lowest component of the pectoral muscles attaches to the
aponeurosis of the external obliques, so that stretching, rather than flexing
action, of the abdominal musculature can play an important role in providing
pre-stretch to increase the pulling power of the upper extremities.
Failure to comment on the central role played by the abdominal musculature
and its connective tissue in managing intra-abdominal pressure as part of the
essential stabilising process is also a grave neglect of biomechanical
detail. In fact, this breath-control aspect of abdominal action is probably
more important than its presumed role as antagonist to the prime movers of
the upper body. This type of exaggerated and distorted focus on the
abdominal musculature as a major component of sports training can be
inaccurate, misleading, ineffectual and unnecessary.
AN EXAMPLE FROM TRACK & FIELD
The following case appeared in the local South African Press in describing
how one of our top track athletes had his recurring hamstring problem treated
by medical experts. This athlete has been hampered regularly by hamstring
problems which have prevented him from 'fully utilising his major weapon, his
kick'. Apparently his cure (so far) has 'involved rectifying an out of
proportion ratio between his abdominal and hamstring muscles. This was
causing him to rely heavily on the hamstrings than the all-important
abdominals when tired'. Presumably, as in the previous swimming case study,
pelvic tilt would seem to provide the underlying rationale, since the
hamstrings and abdominals both attach to the pelvis and can affect its
disposition.
At least the article went on to say that 'there is still some concern over
the problem', and indeed there should be, if this unfortunate athlete is led
to believe that he should rely more on using his abdominal muscles rather
than his hamstrings when he begins to tire during the latter stages of his
event (800m)! The athlete, in being subjected to situps and other abdominal
exercises in an attempt to rectify presumed abdominal strength, may well
compromise qualities such as his functional range of hip extension, a point
that is often made by my Russian colleagues (who, by the way, are often
opposed to sprinters training with distance cycling, which can compromise
high speed hip mobility).
Testing of the athlete on the inevitable isokinetic device (since it is the
only mass-marketed reproducible evaluating system known to most sports
experts) may add to his problems without resolving them. Obviously, his
advisers have decided that the problem is an imbalance between hamstrings and
abdominals, so they will concentrate on this pre-judgement rather than other
causes and consequently, our poor athlete will be subjected to a largely
irrelevant balance-restoring training regime.
CONCLUSION
These two cases are by no means unique, since virtually every athlete is
advised to strengthen the abdominals to stabilise the back and pelvis,
thereby somehow preventing back weakness or inefficient movement. Abdominal
training programs, videos, seminars and stories are probably more popular
than any other form of training. For some reason, the 'abdominals' have
stayed at the top of the exercise hit parade and are in no danger of being
deposed, despite the fact that weak back muscles and defective movement
patterns or motor skills are undoubtedly of far greater importance in leading
to back pain and disability. And what about the wonderful propulsive muscles
of our lower limbs, without which so many of our activities would be
impossible?
Can anyone explain why the abdominals have been singled out for this special
attention and why this has resulted in even more deficient understanding of
trunk action and sports training? Is it time to depose abdominal training
from its undeserved lofty status and emphasize that any exaggerated emphasis
on any single muscle group is potentially dangerous and misleading in the
quest for health and performance?
________________________________________________________________
PP 96 : MUSCLE GROWTH PARADOX
The contention that muscle growth in response to resistance training is due
to damage or breakdown of muscle tissue may be misleading and inaccurate.
It is commonly believed by many that muscle hypertrophy is a result of
resistance training causing damage at a microscopic level to muscle tissue,
with the resulting trauma stimulating the growth of muscle tissue. In the
person indulging in resistance training for bodybuilding or strengthening
purposes, this would imply that his/her body is in a constant state of
non-debilitating local muscular damage, followed by ongoing repair during
rest periods and sleep. Thus, the long-term bodybuilder or strength training
athlete would appear to spend most of his/her life in a never-ending state of
damage to the body.
In addition, we have read that all the systems of the body (except possibly
the central nervous system) are constantly in a state of damage and repair,
with many textbooks informing us that each specific system replaces itself
within a given timespan and that periodically the entire body reconstructs
itself on the basis of its genetic blueprint.
Indeed, some of the experimental methods used to analyse urine and blood
measure the presence of specific by-products apparently indicating tissue
damage in the various systems of the body. Thus, tissue damage would seem to
be a normal, rather than an abnormal process involved in all physical
exercise At least, this is what we have been led to believe.
The occurrence of post-exercise stiffness or soreness is inevitably related
to these exercise by-products, thus we are exposed to theories that lactate,
hydrogen ions, catecholamines and a host of other biochemicals are implicated
in various aspects of physical degradation. The fields of overtraining
(chronic excessive training stress) and over-reaching (acute excessive
training stress) currently are devoting a great deal of time to these
damage-repair theories and to the mechanisms whereby fatigue actually becomes
overtraining. The existence of overtraining and over-reaching as specific
syndromes may even just be modern-day synonyms for acute and chronic fatigue,
so that this apparently modern field of research may simply constitute a
re-exploration of the anciently recognised phenomenon of fatigue.
Some authors have suggested that muscle growth may not be due to regular
breakdown and damage of muscle, but rather to tissue remodelling. This
deduction may also be a matter of terminology, unless the word 'remodelling'
is defined more specifically to exclude the involvement of damage processes.
Thus, it would be preferable to think of remodelling of biological systems as
analogous to the remodelling of a house. Not all remodelling necessarily
involves breaking down some structures for replacement by others. It might
just imply the addition of an extra room, painting some walls, adding some
decorative features or modifying some existing structural features.
Similarly, remodelling of biological tissues would implicate non-destructive
modifications.
This analogy cannot be taken much further, because the body contains unique
mechanisms based on genetic cellular programmes which permit any of the
structures and functions of most subsystems to be changed without the need
for destroying or damaging existing features.
The Example of Muscle Protein Isoforms
Apparently, the difference in response between fibres lies in the diversity
of forms in which muscle fibre is synthesized. Instead of occurring in one
identical form for all muscle fi bres, many of the protein building-blocks of
muscle exist in a variety of subtly different forms, known as protein
isoforms. Research reveals that a muscle will manifest itself as 'slow' or
'fast' on the basis of precisely which protein isoforms it is manufacturing,
in particular which isoform of the heavy myosin filament is being formed
(Goldspink, 1992). The role of the myosin is very important, not only
because of its size, but also of its diversity of function. Besides
providing muscle fibres with cross-bridges, it also reacts with ATP to
harness the en ergy released by the mitochondria for contraction.
Geneticists have discovered that different members of the myosin gene family
are activated at different stages of human development from embryo to adult.
The reason for this is not yet known, but the fact that embryonic muscle
continues to grow in the absence of contraction or mechanical stimulation
suggests at least one hypothesis. It is possible that the embryonic form of
the myosin heavy chain liberates muscle fibres from dependency on mechanical
stimulation for growth. Evidence for this proposal comes from the
observation that the cells of damaged muscle fibres revert to synthesising
the embryonic form of the myosin protein in an apparent attempt to assist in
tissue repair.
The existence of numerous different forms of the myosin chain endows muscle
fibres with an inherent plasticity, thereby enabling them to modify their
myofibrils to produce muscles with different contractile properties. Unlike
other genes, which are generally switched on and off by the indirect action
of signalling molecules such as hormones or growth factors, muscle genes are
regulated largely by mechanical stimulation. Goldspink (1992) found that
immobilisa tion causes the normally slow-twitching soleus muscle to become
fast twitching: apparently it requires repeated stretching to sustain
synthesis of the slow myosin chain. In other words, the 'default' option
for muscles seems to be the fast myosin chain. Moreover, training apparently
can alter the contractile properties of muscle by modifying one type of fibre
to act like or be come another type of fibre or by enhancing the selective
growth of a particular fibre type (Goldspink, 1992).
Growth with and without Damage
In other words, genetic mechanisms can remodel tissues either to facilitate
normal growth, growth stimulated by mechanical effort or growth to repair
damage. The above example, therefore, suggests that one should be cautious
before implicating damage as a central and necessary process which can
explain all hypertrophy. After all, it would appear to be unnecessarily
inefficient and stressful for the training athlete always to be in a state of
damage. Does it sound logical that damage should be the primary stimulus for
all biological growth? Would it not be preferable to implicate cellular
restructuring orchestrated by genetic programmes in response to environmental
and endogenous stresses (such as increase in tissue tension).
Then, again, the frequent occurrence of macroscopic tissue injuries
(manifesting as partial or complete tissue ruptures or lesions) among sports
competitors would seem to corroborate the theory that accumulating
micro-injuries and damage are the fundamental cause of many injuries which
are not caused by traumatic impact or accident.
Possibly we need to distinguish carefully between several different
categories of growth and abandon the hypothesis that all growth is stimulated
by damaging tissue through exercise:
. Growth occurring as part of the normal maturation process
. Growth to replace tissues depleted by daily living and ageing
. Growth regulated by the mechanical stimulation of effort
. Growth to repair damage caused by excessive levels of tissue stress
. Growth to repair damage caused by disease or disuse
What do you think? Support your argument by use of appropriate references or
logical argument based on your own expertise or research.
___________________________________________________________
PP 97: SPEED DANGER PARADOX
Many recommendations and conclusions concerning the speed of movement and
magnitude of momentum in resistance training may well be inaccurate and
misleading.
It is very common to encounter strong condemnation of rapid movements as
being unsafe and unnecessary because speed of movement and the use of
momentum in any exercise are often regarded as being the major reason for
injury. Slow and non-ballistic movements, therefore, frequently are advised
for all forms of resistance training. This belief has even led to the
formation of virtual training cults based on the idea of slow, controlled
movements being the most effective and safest form of training for most
purposes.
Thus, we read statements such as "Slow exercise speed minimizes momentum and
maximizes muscle tension' (Westcott W 'Building Strength and Stamina' 1996:
37). This sort of pseudo-scientific analysis is not confined to this source;
it is rife among proponents of the slow training philosophy. Let us examine
why such a statement is meaningless. Momentum is defined as Mass times
velocity (M.v), so that there are two ways in which large momentum may be
produced: (a) a small load being moved rapidly or (b) a heavy load being
moved slowly. Interesting! In other words, doing exercises with heavy loads
at a slow pace also produces a large amount of momentum.
This means, according to the slow is best (SIB) philosophy, that we have to
condemn both slow, heavy and lighter, faster exercises. Taking this to its
logical conclusion, it means that it is safest of all to train with no loads
at no speed at all, i.e. remaining sedentary. Even then, ergonomic studies
have revealed that more low back pain and disability is produced by some or
other form of relaxed sitting than by Olympic weightlifting, especially if
spinal flexion of prolonged duration occurs (e.g. see Chaffin & Anderson
'Occupational Biomechanics'). This is because, even at rest or at extremely
low speed, the body is always acted upon by gravity, which offers an
acceleration towards the centre of the earth (of 9.8 metres per second
squared). Thus, the very act of supporting a load and not even moving it can
strongly stress the body. In other words, slow speed or no speed can be
just as stressful and dangerous as high speed (or acceleration). We have to
focus more on the FORCE involved rather than the speed of any movement.
What is not often pointed out by the SIB group is the fact that one of the
least safe phases of movement is when the inertia of the load is just being
overcome under isometric conditions, i.e. when a load is being moved from
rest. Thus, it is not at all unusual to witness soft tissue injuries
occurring at the beginning of the bench press, deadlift, press behind the
neck, pec deck exercise, some bicep curls and so forth. Injuries also occur
when there is any change in velocity, direction or timing of a movement.
The common denominator here lies in Newton's Laws of Motion, in particular
the fact that a force is associated with any change in the existing state of
an object. These laws do not state that force emerges or increases with
speed or velocity, but with CHANGE in velocity. Great speed does not mean
great force; it may mean great momentum.
Thus, it is a serious oversimplification to state that movement speed and
amount of momentum are the main causes of injury, since non-accidental injury
can occur at high speed or low speed, with small loads or great loads.
The remark that slow exercise "maximizes muscle tension" is intended by its
author to mean that maximal muscle tension produces maximal strengthening and
hypertrophy, despite the fact that a large variety of very different slow and
fast, short and long training regimes by bodybuilders, weightlifters and
powerlifters have all produced outstanding performance results without the
implied plague of injuries.
The fact that such a wide variety of different training methods can yield
similar results still intrigues sports scientists and allows even some of the
most unscientific or inexperienced personal trainers to obtain positive
results with their clients. At least in the world of distance running,
training lore is far less equivocal. If one fails to put in enough distance
training, one will never excel in an ultramarathon and that is the end of the
story!
The entire concept of 'maximal muscle tension' bears closer scrutiny. What
is really meant by this term? Superficially it would simply mean the maximum
tension which a muscle can produce under any conditions. If one exceeds this
maximum, then the muscle complex has to fail and rupture. How, then, does one
train to this precise point of maximal tension? Does one just learn to feel
when the muscle is about to tear apart or does an all-sensing orchestra of
stretch reflexes decide for you?
What about the contention that maximal muscle tension occurs during eccentric
joint action? In the same context, we hear about maximal concentric,
isometric and eccentric tension. This implies that, even though we can take
a muscle to its tension limit just before muscle rupture occurs during the
load concentric phase of an exercise, we can somehow take it way beyond this
tissue threatening level to a still higher eccentric maximum!
Our obvious deduction is that there can be only one true maximum (!!) and
that occurs under eccentric conditions. A further deduction then is that we
should not waste any time on concentric training; we should use only slow
'negatives', with the raising of the load being achieved with the aid of a
partner or yet another one of those wonderful machines which pay for all the
SIB publications. Q.E.D.
Is it even possible for maximal muscle tension to occur voluntarily? Is it
not more likely that this maximum is reached under involuntary, reflexive
conditions associated with sudden changes of state, such as those associated
with ballistic action, explosive movement or so-called plyometrics? If we
accept the latter, then we have to dismiss the contention that 'maximal
muscle tension occurs with slow movement'. We should also probably conclude
that it is impossible (and certainly inadvisable) to produce maximal muscle
tension voluntarily because of the very real risk of tissue failure. This
would then restrict us to talking about high levels of muscle tension, but
not a maximum level.
We need to return to an important issue raised earlier, namely that it is
FORCE or rate of change of momentum (F = mass x acceleration), rather than
fast or slow movement which is central to the problem of training program
design. All too often, we witness unproductive arguments between the SIB
group and supporters of explosive and Olympic lift training on the basis of
movement SPEED instead of movement ACCELERATION. Thus, we read
recommendations about training so that the concentric or 'positive' phase
lasts 2 seconds and the eccentric or 'negative' phase lasts 4 seconds, or the
time per repetition is 14 seconds and the time per set is 70 seconds.
Durations such as these are claimed to offer the best increases in strength
and hypertrophy, but no mention is ever made of the isometric phase which
couples every eccentric and concentric movement of a joint. Not a word is
usually said, other than 'slow control', about the transition phases between
the two directions of movement, and any acceleration or deceleration
occurring then. To ignore or state that these brief phases are of
insignificant relevance is a serious omission, because this is when the
greatest muscle tension occurs. In fact, it is likely that a vital amount of
muscle and other soft tissue strengthening, as well as proprioceptive
conditioning, takes place during them, something which becomes even more
marked under the much-maligned explosive, ballistic and plyometric conditions.
There are many other arguments supporting and rebutting the various
viewpoints of slow versus fast training, but the intention here was to focus
on the puzzling ways in which biomechanics is applied to vindicating one
point of view. Draw upon your experience, personal research or appropriate
references to examine this P&P in greater depth.
____________________________________________________________