It’s been called the “King of Chest Exercises”.  Millions of people have done it, world-wide, for the past 50+ years.  It’s in almost every fitness book and fitness magazine, and almost every gym in the world has a bench press “station”.  In fact, the “bench press” (pressing a barbell off one’s chest, while lying flat on a bench) has been so ubiquitous, that many people use it as the barometer of total body strength.  A common question asked of someone who is known to weight-train, is “…how much do you bench?”.  Yet, mechanically speaking, the bench press has a couple significant problems.  Let’s take a closer look, and see what we find.

First of all, let’s establish that the primary reason to do a bench press is to work the chest – or pectoral – muscles.  This assumes that one’s goal is either “bodybuilding” or “fitness”.  Powerlifting – the act of competing on the basis of how much is lifted in a given exercise – is something else entirely.  This article is not for Powerlifters.  With that in mind, let’s analyze what characterizes a “good” chest exercise, and see how the bench press rates.

Any “good” exercise – whether for the pectorals, or biceps, or quadriceps – typically has the following characteristics, which are considered “essential”:

Path:  the exercise movement must follow the path specifically determined by the muscle’s function (i.e. the range of motion of the muscle determines the path, beginning at the position where the muscle is fully elongated, and ending at the position where the muscle is fully contracted).

Alignment:  the concentric movement should be in direct opposition to the resistance (for example… pushing upward as gravity pulls downward… or pulling horizontally to the left, as the resistance pulls horizontally to the right).  Also, the position of the muscle should be directly opposite the resistance (i.e., if the resistance pulls from below, the muscle must be positioned opposite the downward resistance – therefore directly above, so as to be able to pull upwards, directly opposite the downward pull).

Range of Motion:  the exercise should have “enough” range of motion so as to be considered isotonic (as opposed to static or isometric), and is in the “useful” and “safe” range.

1.  Let’s first examine the Path of the bench press.  The function of the pectoral muscles is to bring the upper arm bone (the humerus), from a position that is lateral to (the side of) the body, and perpendicular to the torso … to a position that is anterior to (the front of) the body, and still (mostly) perpendicular to the torso.  Therefore, the path of a dynamically working pectoral muscle is from a position where your arm is out to the side, and then moves inward, toward a position where your arm is directly in front of your body.  To a degree, the bench press conforms with the correct path of the pectoral muscle.

2.  Next, let’s look at Alignment.  When looking at someone doing a bench press from the side view, there is definite alignment between the two important factors:

a. Opposing forces: resistance (i.e., gravity, pulling straight downward) and the concentric movement of the upper arms (moving straight upward) are in a straight line, and opposite each other – as it should be.

b. Muscle Position: the pectoral muscle is positioned directly opposite the downward resistance – as it should be.

Therefore, there is no alignment problem with the bench press.

3.  Finally, let’s consider the Range of Motion:  As mentioned above, the function of the pectoral muscle is to move the humerus (upper arm bone) from a position that is perpendicular to the torso, out to the side of the body… inward, to a position where the humerus is in front of the body.  Actually, the pectoral muscle brings the arm slightly past the mid-line of the body (where your nose points when looking straight ahead), crossing over to the opposite side by a few inches.  So, the contraction of the muscle occurs somewhere near the center, or past the center, of the body.  Yet, the bench press movement ends much short of that.  In fact, it stops about a foot short of that (assuming a standard width grip on the bar).  In other words, the bench presses misses the point of contraction by long-shot !

Let’s look at the other end of the range of motion – the point of muscle elongation.  Typically, we are expected to bring the bar down until it touches our chest.  However, that could very well be considered “excessive” stretch of the pectoral muscle.  The reason for this is something known as “mechanical advantage” and “mechanical disadvantage”.  The simplest way for me to explain this is the adage, “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line”.  You see, the pectoral muscle originates at the center of the rigcage – the sternum – and crosses the front of the shoulder, and connects to the upper part of the upper arm (the humerus).  So, if you were to lower the bar down only to the point where your upper arm is parallel to the ground, the pectoral muscle would be in a “straight line” from its origin to its insertion, and that’s as far as you should go (especially with a heavy weight) – even though the bar may still be 6 inches away from your chest.  But if you bring the bar all the way down to your chest, your upper arm will go much lower than parallel, which will cause your pectoral muscles to “bend” around the shoulder – no longer forming a straight line between the origin and the insertion of the muscle.

This would be considered a severe mechanical disadvantage.  The pectoral muscle, at that point, would be pulling the upper arm in a forward direction, rather than an inward direction.  This means that your upper arm bone is being pulled in a direction that is encouraging it to dislocate.  Now imagine doing this type of joint distortion with a very heavy weight, and with a sudden reversal of the downward inertia.  In other words, it’s bad enough to bring the bar so low, if you were doing it very slowly (with a heavy weight); it is much worse if you just let the weight fall quickly to your chest, and then reverse that downward inertia with an explosion out of the bottom.  Doing it this way would magnify the force of the muscle pulling the humerus forward, and could easily damage shoulder cartilage, if not fully dislocate the shoulder.

So, although the path of the movement that constitutes a “barbell bench press” is generally correct, and the alignment of the movement is perfectly correct, the range of motion is too short at the top – missing the contraction almost entirely – and the elongation is excessive – causing a tremendous amount of shoulder strain at the bottom, when using a heavy weight.

Comparison

Let’s assume – for just a moment – that the bench press really is the “king of chest exercises” – as it has been called.  This would imply that it’s the very best exercise for the pecs, despite the fact that it misses the point of full contraction (by over a foot), and despite the fact that it strains the joint at the bottom of the movement.  Would we accept these conditions with other exercises, for other body parts?  Hardly.  Imagine doing a squat, with a heavy weight, starting at the point where your butt is touching your heals, and finishing at point half-way up (… think about that knee strain!).  Imagine doing a heavy preacher barbell curl, starting at the point where your arms are fully straight (at the bottom) – essentially hyper-extending your elbow (ouch!) – and then only coming up half-way.  Imagine doing a heavy leg curl, starting at a point where your legs are completely straight, but still with a full load (weights not resting) – straining a backward bend of your knees (ouch!) – and then only coming up half-way.  Shall I go on?  I’m sure you get the point.  In no other circumstance, would we “happily” start a movement with joint strain, and then avoid contraction of the muscle.  Why do we so happily accept that dual condition with a bench press?

Ironically, we not only accept the bench press, despite those two negative factors.  We honor it with the reverent title of “King”.  Yet – logically – if the negative conditions that are aspects of the bench press are not enough to disqualify it from the title of “King”, then these same negative conditions would therefore also be acceptable in all other exercises.  But we know they are not acceptable in other exercises.  Therefore, they should not be acceptable in the bench press.  We can’t have it both ways.  Either an exercise with incomplete contraction and joint strain is good, or it’s not.

Why the Bench Press Became So Popular

The “barbell bench press” was invented (so to speak) during the early days of weight training – before weight lifting machines or pulleys had been conceptualized, and before we had a thorough understanding of biomechanics.  What we (the weight lifting community – personally, I was not around yet) discovered in the early 1900s, was that we were able to lift a fairly heavy weight when using a bar, as compared with using individual, hand-held weights.  In fact, typically we can barbell bench press between a third, and twice as much, as the aggregate amount of two separate dumbbells.  This – naturally – makes us “feel” (i.e., believe we are) strong.  It satisfies our egos, and – mistakenly – causes us to believe that it must be more beneficial for our pectoral muscles, as compared with using dumbbells, because we are able to use a heavier weight.  But that is a false belief.

First, the ego has no relationship with physiology.  Although you may “feel” strong, it is unrelated to the actual stimulation that your pectoral muscle is experiencing.

Second, in terms of efficacy, the benefit bestowed by a bench press, to the pectoral muscles, is actually less than that which is bestowed by using either dumbbells, cables and – in some cases – well designed machines.  The reason you are able to use a heavier weight is NOT because your pecs are working harder.  It’s because the bar is more stable than two separate dumbbells, and – more significantly – because the bench press involves a great deal of triceps involvement.  Don’t believe me?  Try putting some baby oil on the bar before doing a set of bench presses.  Guess what happens.  Your hands slide straight out.  Why?  Because that is the direction that your triceps are pushing.  Think about it.  Your pecs are pulling up and in – not in an outward direction.  If you oiled up a pair of dumbbells, you would still be able to perform your chest press without any sliding, because that movement involves very little (if any) triceps (… especially if you keep your forearm perpendicular throughout the movement).  The additional weight you are able to lift on the barbell bench press is due entirely to the added stability of the bar, and the help of the triceps.  It is not because your pecs are working harder.

False Endorsement

You probably have spoken to someone who “swears” by the bench press – in terms of his pectoral development (… even if that person happens to have a “mysterious” shoulder pain).  You’ve probably also read articles endorsing and encouraging use of the bench press.  But ask yourself this simple question: has there ever been a study, whereby one group of participants did ONLY bench press, and another group did ONLY dumbbell presses… and then their progress (and possible injuries) was evaluated?  No – there hasn’t been.  Typically, people do both, possibly along with using cables and machines.  So the development we SEE cannot be accurately determined as coming more or less from any one exercise.  The development we see on someone is due to the combination of exercises (… and genetics is a factor as well).  Certainly some exercises contributed less, and others more.  Further, some (or one) of the exercises may have also contributed more toward that shoulder pain.  The fact is that when we hear endorsements of the bench press, they are usually based on the misguided belief that – since it’s the exercise that allows the heaviest weight to be lifted – it must be the “most important” of the chest exercises (so it is thought).  But that assessment is not based on logic, nor on a mechanical/physiological analysis, nor even on a well-constructed study.  In fact, logic and scientific analysis suggest that the barbell bench press contributes less benefit, and poses more risk of injury, than the other chest exercises.

Evaluation

For beginners, the bench press is fine.  It offers stability – like training wheels – which allows the user to begin gaining some strength, as well as a sense of coordination.  Plus, since the beginner is not yet very strong, using a lighter weight provides enough stimulation, while simultaneously preventing the injury that would more likely occur once the user begins pushing the limits with a heavier weight.

However, as the user graduates to a more advanced level, incorporating a contraction into his/her chest exercises becomes more important.  Since the bench press fails to provide that full contraction, the more advanced user would be wise in moving toward better exercises.  Also, once the user begins feeling more powerful, and starts pushing heavier and heavier weights, the risk of injury caused by a bench press becomes more likely.

I’m going to assume that most of the Iron Man Magazine readers are at least “semi-advanced”, so this rating is more designed with that particular candidate in mind (… novice users would get a little higher benefit score, as well as a lower risk score).

For Benefit: 5 (on a scale of 1 – 10) … because of the lack of contraction

For Risk:  7 (on a scale of 1 – 10) … because of the over-stretch

Some people would argue that the triceps involvement in the bench press is a good thing.  I might agree, for the novice, but not for the advanced athlete.  The novice can benefit from the triceps stimulation, without risking a shoulder injury, because the weight he or she would be using is relatively light.  But the advanced athlete would be using a much heavier weight, so the triceps stimulation might come at the expense of a shoulder injury.  That’s foolish, since there are other great triceps exercises that don’t have any risk of shoulder injury.

What We Should Do Instead

Basically, any chest exercise that brings both hands together at the center of the body, is good from the perspective of a full contraction of the pectorals.  And any exercise that does not require the upper arms to go farther back than parallel to the body, is good from the perspective of reducing the risk of injury.  Of course, the other two categories mentioned in the second paragraph are still required – namely, that the movement follow the correct path, and that the alignment be correct.  So, given these requirements, here are the good exercises:

Supine (flat bench) Dumbbell Presses

Incline Dumbbell Presses

Decline Dumbbell Presses

Cable Crossovers (standing / bent over)

Incline (bench) Cable Crossovers

Cable Crossover on a Flat Bench

Butterfly Machine

Any Chest Press Machine that… allows the user to bring his/her hands together in front of the body (or close to that) – like some of the Hammer Strength machines, for example.

And, here are the ones that would not qualify as “good” for the chest, given the above criteria:

Barbell Bench Press

Incline Barbell Bench Press

Decline Barbell Bench Press

Parallel Bar Dips

As you can see, the above four exercises are the ones that fail to bring the hands together, which would allow full contraction of the pectoral muscles.  Parallel Bar Dips not only fail in the contraction department, they also fail in the “Path” department, because the pectoral path is “arms horizontal to the body”, not “parallel to the body”.  Further, dips put an enormous amount of strain on the anterior deltoids, precisely at the point of maximum stretch (the worst place in the range of motion to load up the resistance).  So, while the above four exercise do involve the pectoral muscles, they don’t bestow as much benefit as those exercise listed in the “good” list, and they also present a higher risk of injury.

Summary

The main goal of a chest exercise (movement-wise) should be to bring the arms from a position of: out-to-the-sides… then forward and inward – toward the center of the body.  This is actually a circular movement.  The bench press tends to be more of a linear movement, pushing the hands forward and OUTWARD. In the quest to spend one’s time, energy and effort doing the “best” exercises – the ones that produce the most benefit, and pose the least risk of injury – eliminating the barbell bench press from one’s repertoire is a wise move.  Try replacing it with exercises that don’t overstretch the shoulder, and allow the pecs to fully contract with each repetition, and you’ll be surprised to discover that you can get all the pectoral development you need (and more) – without the risk of shoulder injury, typical of bench press.

The “Resistance Curve” is the Most Fundamental Part of Weight Training

The basis of weight training, or any other type of resistance training, is physics – specifically, the laws of levers.  While it may not seem obvious that it’s such an integral part of weight training, virtually everything you do in the gym, involves levers and the forces that act upon them.  Understanding the laws of levers is vitally important to making sense of resistance training, and maximizing its benefits.

Every primary bone – or group of bones (like your hand, for example) in your body, is a lever, which is activated by a particular muscle.  For instance, your forearm (which is actually two bones that run parallel to each other) is a lever.  It is activated by your biceps in one direction (pulling / a.k.a. flexion), and by your triceps in the other direction (pushing / a.k.a. extension).  Your hand, as mentioned above, is also a lever (even though it is comprised of an assortment of bones), which is activated by the muscles of your forearm (flexors and extensors).  This may seem elementary, but it is not always as obvious as these two examples.

What is even less obvious – and where most people make mistakes in training – is understanding the forces which act upon those levers: namely – free weights, pulleys, and the cams of machines.

The most fundamental premise of weight training is this: Resistance must CROSS a lever, in order to challenge the muscle that activates that lever.  Let me phrase that another way: if resistance does NOT cross a particular lever, the muscle you intend to work will get little or no benefit.

Of course, challenging a muscle is what resistance training is all about.  So understanding how and when (or if ) resistance CROSSES a given lever is vitally important, if one hopes to maximize his or her success in the pursuit of fitness or bodybuilding.  Yet – ironically – it’s one of the least understood concepts by practically everyone who exercises.

First, I’ll offer this elementary example.  It may seem simplistic, but stay with me, because the next examples won’t be so obvious.

Let’s say you’re going to do a standing barbell curl.  The muscle you intend to work is your biceps.  Therefore, the lever which must CROSS resistance is the forearm, because it is the lever that is activated by the biceps.

Since you are using a free weight, gravity is the resistance at work here, and gravity always pulls straight down (on free weights).  So, before you begin your curl, you should notice that when your elbows are straight and your forearms are perpendicular to the ground, your forearms are parallel to gravity, so your biceps are not activated.  But as you begin to curl the weight, and your forearms begin CROSSING the downward direction of gravity, your biceps begin to be challenged.

When your forearms are parallel to the ground, gravity is completely CROSSING that lever.  In other words, when your forearms and gravity are forming a “ T ” position, you are getting the most resistance from that weight.  That is the point where your biceps are the most challenged – when resistance is pulling straight ACROSS the lever that is operated by the biceps.  That is the 100% resistance mark.  The curling that comes before that moment (on the way up) encounters lesser percentages of resistance (first 25%, then 50%, then 75%, etc.), and what comes after that moment (the upper half of the movement) is also lesser percentages (first 75%, then 50%, than 25%, etc.).  If you continue curling the bar upward (allowing your elbows to shift forward slightly, so that they are under the weight), your forearm will again be straight up and down (i.e. your hands directly above your elbows), the resistance will again reach ZERO – because your forearm is parallel to gravity again.  Your biceps are essentially unchallenged, in that position.

This is called the RESISTANCE CURVE.  It is the sequence of resistance changes that occurs through a range of motion, as the lever passes through varying percentages of CROSSING resistance.  Whenever a lever is completely at 90 degrees (forming a “T”) with resistance, it’s at maximum resistance.  That is when the muscle (which is moving that particular lever) has the greatest challenge.  That is when the weight seems “the heaviest”, because that is when gravity has a mechanical advantage on that lever.  But when the lever is not at 90 degrees – when it’s only at 20 degrees, or at 10 degrees, or at 5 degrees (… in other words, more parallel to resistance, than perpendicular to it) – that is when the muscle is less (or least) challenged.

Test it Yourself

In order to get a thorough understanding of the resistance curve, do this:  pick up a 10 pound dumbbell, and – while holding it in your hand – put you arm flat on a table top, with your arm fully extended.  Now, begin curling the weight upwards (bending your elbow), and observe how much force you have to use to initially lift the weight (or your hand) off the table.  Then, observe that when the weight gets to the point that is directly over your elbow (with your forearm straight up and down), it feels like there is no more “resistance” – even though you still have a 10 pound weight in your hand.  You can easily balance that weight over your elbow, without effort or strain to your bicep.  With your free hand, poke the bicep of the arm holding the weight, and you’ll see that it’s un-flexed and un-challenged, by the weight.

If you were to continue “pulling” (or curling) beyond that point, you’ll notice that the weight actually begins falling toward your shoulder.  In other words, you don’t need any bicep effort to continue curling your arm.  This is because gravity is no longer crossing your forearm from the side of the biceps; it is now crossing the forearm from the other side.  Imagine rolling a large, heavy ball to the top of a hill, and then – once it gets to the very top – it suddenly begins rolling on its own, without any force required by you.

If this little experiment hasn’t yet made the “resistance curve” perfectly clear, do it again with a heavier weight.  Try to 20 or a 30 pound dumbbell.  You’ll see that no matter how heavy a weight you use, it will always offer ZERO resistance to the working muscle, when the lever (in this case, the forearm) and gravity, are parallel.  And it will always offer the MOST resistance when the lever is perpendicular to gravity.  Naturally, this means that resistance will offer percentages between ZERO and 100%, when the lever is between parallel to resistance, and perpendicular to resistance.

Analyzing Exercises

The goal of an exercise should be to utilize the optimum lever advantage, thereby bestowing the greatest benefit to the target muscles, with the least amount of wasted effort.  In other words, avoid exercises that bestow marginal benefit to your target muscles, while requiring a huge amount of work by muscles that are not your target, and unnecessary strain to joints.  Let’s see how some common exercises rate.

Analysis # 1

Let’s analyze Parallel Bar Dips.  Assuming your objective is to do a good triceps exercise, your goal should be to do an exercise during which resistance CROSSES the forearm, from the side of the elbow (the back side).  Keep in mind that – somewhere during the range of motion – resistance should reach a “T” position with your operating lever (in this case, your forearm), in order to get optimum triceps benefit.  However, if you were to observe someone while they were performing Parallel Bar Dips, you will easily see – as they dip down and push up – that at no point during that range of motion, do their forearms EVER reach a “T” position with gravity.  When they are at the top position, their forearms are parallel to gravity.  Then, as they begin lowering themselves, their forearms begin to cross gravity only a little bit, but they never get past about 15 or 20 degrees (from perpendicular).  That’s not good.

But – perhaps more interestingly – if you observe the upper arm bone (a.k.a. the “humerus”) during a Parallel Bar Dip, you will notice that IT certainly moves through the “T” position with gravity – but it’s not operated by your triceps.  In other works, whichever muscle is operating THAT lever, is the muscle that’s getting MOST of the work.  Which muscle is that?  It’s the frontal deltoid, in this particular movement, given the path through which the arm is passing (i.e. with the elbows close to the sides).  Your primary objective is probably NOT to work your frontal deltoids with Parallel Bar dips, and yet that is what’s getting most of the work.  In fact, if you were to assign percentages of effort, you could estimate that about 65% of the work is being done by the frontal deltoids, about 15% is being done by the pectorals, and about 20% is being done by the triceps.

Now, you may ask, “well then why do I feel it in my triceps when I do them?”.  Answer: because 20% of your bodyweight is a lot, for your triceps.  But, while your triceps are pushing 20% of your bodyweight, other muscles are having to work beyond their safe limits.  In fact, Parallel Dips move your upper arm bones into an extreme front deltoid stretch (far beyond a safe stretch position), and does so with (approximately) 65% of your bodyweight – ouch! (i.e., unless you’re using a machine that offers a counter-weight … but the movement is still being done primarily by your front deltoids).

So the question is why would you want to do an exercise that maximizes the leverage-resistance for your front deltoid (thereby creating risk of injury), while offering only partial leverage-resistance for your triceps, when you can – more easily, safely and effectively – do an exercise like triceps pushdowns with a cable?  With “pushdowns”, your forearms move through that perpendicular (“T”) position, thereby crossing resistance (i.e. the cable), and your triceps receive a maximum leverage advantage, without strain to other body parts, and without excessive (and unnecessary) effort.

Equally bad mechanics as Parallel Bar Dips, is “Dips on a Bench” (with your feet up, or not).  Next time you see someone doing that exercise, observe how their forearms stay almost perfectly parallel to gravity, rather than CROSSING gravity.  And know that unless their forearm crosses resistance (moves through a “T” position), their triceps are not getting the full benefit of the exercise, while other body parts (namely the front deltoids) are at risk of injury due to excessive load and stretch.

Analysis # 2

Let’s examine Supine Triceps Extensions (sometimes called “skull crushers”) – either with dumbbells or with a barbell (often done with an EZ Curl bar).  Typically, a person starts with arms straight, holding a bar or dumbbells over their chest.  At that position, their forearms are parallel to resistance, and therefore offer no challenge to the triceps.  Then, the person begins bending his or her elbows, and his forearms begin CROSSING gravity (so far – so good), and encountering increasing percentages of resistance as they approach the position of having their forearms perpendicular to gravity.  When they reach that position (the “T” position), they reach maximum resistance (their elbows would be bent at about 90 degrees at that point).  They might bring the dumbbells down a little farther, and then push them back up to the top.  As you can see, the triceps were taken from a ZERO resistance position at the top, and then – as the weight was lowered, resistance went from 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% resistance levels, and then – beyond that (with an elbow bend of about 60 degrees) – reaching about 75% resistance again, and then back the other way, up to the top.  That’s fine.  The triceps are getting the full benefit of the resistance, and there’s no strain to any joints, nor excessive stretch or demand on any other muscles.

But what happens when – towards the end of that set – the person decides to “finish off” with a modified version of that movement, whereby they bring the dumbbells down to their ribcage (instead of toward their forehead), and then back up again?  Well, since the forearms are then parallel to gravity, the triceps get almost no benefit.  Instead, the upper arm bone begins CROSSING gravity, and – again – the front deltoids begin doing the work.

If you’ve done this, your rationale might have been along the lines of: “…since my triceps are so exhausted, I’m just squeezing the last bit of juice from them”.  Foolhardy.  If you read my previous blog article (“To Burn or Not to Burn”), you would understand that there is essentially no productive reason to “squeeze the last bit of juice” out of any muscle.  This aberration of a triceps extension is mostly without benefit, given the lack of leverage advantage.

Analysis # 3

Hanging Leg Raises.  The target muscle one typically wants to work when doing this exercise is the abs.  The “lever” that is moved by the abs, is the spine.  Specifically, the abs pull the ribcage and the pelvis closer together, thereby creating a rounding of the spine, by bending the spine forward.  The abdominals do not pull on the legs.  Yet, as you can plainly see, when one does a Hanging Leg Raise, it is the thigh bone (femur) that CROSSES gravity, and it’s the hip flexors that perform that function – not the abs.  The abs are only involved in stabilizing the torso, while the legs move up and down, and it’s this static contraction (with a very little bit of isotonic contraction) that accounts for the burning sensation you feel when doing this exercise.  But the vast majority of the work is being done by other muscles, never mind that you also have to use your arms from which to hang.  The bottom line is that of all the muscles that are working while doing Hanging Leg Raise, the abs are the least involved because the spine is mostly parallel to gravity, and never approaches a perpendicular position (“T”) to it.  Plus, hip flexion (raising the knees up) has nothing to do with the abs.  So it’s a lot of work, with little reward (i.e. abdominal benefit).

The Direction of Resistance

Every exercise you do, offers a resistance that comes from a particular angle.  Gravity – of course – is invisible.  But, if you are using a free weight (not a pulley or machine), simply imagine an arrow pointing straight down.  It is up to you to determine whether or not that force is CROSSING the lever operated by the muscle you want to work, or not.  Ideally, in order to do this type of analysis, you need some basic knowledge of which muscles operate which levers, and along which paths.  But, assuming you have this basic knowledge, it is very easy to understand whether or not resistance is being properly applied.

When using cables, it’s entirely visible.  The cable acts like an arrow – illustrating the direction of the resistance.  For example, say you were to place a Preacher Curl Bench in front of a low pulley, about two feet away from it.  Now, as you do your Preacher Cable Curls, you should observe how the direction of the resistance is different than it would be if you were doing FREE BAR curls on that same bench.  When the cable and your forearm reach a “T” position, your biceps is getting the most resistance.  And you’ll notice that that position is half-way-through the Preacher Cable Curl, as compared with the quarter-way-up position when using a FREE WEIGHT.  Conclusion: these two exercises have different resistance curves – even though they utilize the same bench – because you’ve changed the direction of the resistance.

Cams (on weight training machines) offer a more continuous resistance.  In essence, the entire range of motion offers a “T” moment.  This isn’t necessarily good or bad.  It’s just different, and different is good.  Variety (of resistance curves) is good.

What is not good, is using an exercise that does not offer an opposing resistance to the lever that is operated by your target muscle.  In other words, if an exercise fails to encounter the “T” moment (CROSSING resistance) – as well as the slightly lesser percentages, i.e. 90%, 80%, 70% etc. – during the range of motion, it’s benefits are compromised.

The Power of RC

(…and I don’t mean “Cola”.)  Understanding the Resistance Curve not only allows you to avoid exercises that are risky or unproductive, but it also allows you to modify exercises to create variety or enhanced benefit.

For example, if you do a Standing Side Raise for your lateral deltoids, the Resistance Curve is such that you get the most resistance at the conclusion of the movement (when your arm is perpendicular to your torso), and the least resistance at the start of the movement (when your arm is at your side).  But if you do a side raise while lying on your side, on a floor mat (with one arm, of course), you “flip” that resistance curve: now you’ll have the most resistance at the start of the movement, and the least resistance at the conclusion.

Here’s another example of how you can vary the Resistance Curve on a given exercise.  While doing Triceps Pushdowns (from an upper cable/pulley), stand farther back – away from the pulley.  When you stand close, you have more resistance at the top and less at the bottom.  But by standing back, you add resistance to the bottom (where the muscle contracts) and take some away from the top.  You can easily see this, because the cable indicates the direction of the resistance, and the forearm is the lever that it crosses.  The more “across” the cable is from your forearm, the more resistance you get on your triceps.  The less “across” it is, the less resistance you get.

Is your knee bothering you?  How about your elbow?  Maybe your shoulder?  You can work around it, by modifying the Resistance Curve.  Just establish whether your discomfort is worse at the beginning of a movement, or at the end, and adjust the Resistance Curve accordingly (… by selecting exercises that provide more resistance where you have no pain, and least resistance where you do have pain).

There’s literally no end to the ways you can modify exercises, using this knowledge.  This would most definitely improve your results, and minimize – if not eliminate – any risk of injury.

Summary

You probably now realize the importance of understanding the Resistance Curve, though this article barely begins to clarify how this concept effects ALL the exercises you do in the gym.  This article might seem a bit too technical, but if you are at least able to grasp the concept of the lever, and that when resistance CROSSES it, you get the most resistance, and when it’s parallel to resistance, you get the least resistance, you have a basic understanding, with which you can begin to distinguish the good exercises from the bad ones – and modify the good ones.

I will discuss this concept again in future articles, and with more specific examples.  Eventually, I think you will be able to understand clearly why some exercises are obviously better than others, and thus you can begin to make super-productive, efficient and safe choices in the gym.

Vive la Resistance Curve !

We’ve all heard people encourage us to, “… go for the burn”.  Many of us have believed for years that a good workout requires you to “feel the burn”.  Those who have been trying to reduce the fat in a specific place on their body have thought they were being more effective when they felt the burn, during an exercise.  And – years ago – Joe Weider espoused something called “The Weider Principles”, and they included such techniques as “super-sets”, “break-down sets”, and “force reps” – all of which encouraged us to go for “the burn”.  But is going for the burn really a good thing?  Is the burn productive?  Is the burn an indicator of “effective” exercise?  Let’s take a closer look.

What IS the “burn” ?

Generally, the “burn” refers to that sensation of intense fatigue, in a localized area – a muscle – when we are working it with a high degree of “intensity” (i.e. high reps).  It’s usually accompanied by facial distortions, profuse sweating, and a lot of grunts and moans.  Most people would agree that it’s not a particularly pleasant sensation, although it might give us a sense of reassurance that we are accomplishing what we’ve set out to do.  Namely, to build a particular muscle, or to reduce the fat in a particular place.

Oh!  Wait a minute – did I say, “build a muscle… or reduce fat in a particular place”?  Well – which is it?  Does that “burn” build muscle?  Or does it diminish localized fat?  It can’t do both, can it?  Maybe it does neither.

Interesting – isn’t it?  The idea that each of us – individually – interprets the “burn” in a way that is convenient for us and our goals, even if our goal is the exact opposite of someone else, who is also “reassured” by feeling the burn.  The guy who is pumping rep after rep of biceps curls, and wants to get bigger biceps, or the woman who is hammering out rep after rep of lunges, and wants to make her butt smaller – both are reassured that they are “on track” by feeling that burn.  And both are wrong.

Whoa!  What?  Yes, that’s correct – at least “mostly” wrong.  Let me explain.

Let’s start by realizing that “the burn” is lactic acid.  Lactic acid occurs when muscle glycogen (i.e. stored carbohydrate) is spent, thereby producing a form of waste – like the emissions of an auto, after it burns fuel.  So the first thing to establish is that the burn is occurring in the muscle – and not in the fat.  Plus, you may have already read my preceding blog (“Waist Not”), and would therefore already know that “spot reduction” is fiction – like vaporized transport in Star Trek – cool if it could happen, but it can’t.  So, let’s rule out the idea that fat is melting away off your butt, simply because those high-rep lunges are “burning” your glutes.  It’s not happening.

Okay – so how might we now analyze whether or not “the burn” is building muscle?  Hmm – let’s consider other athletes who might experience super-high levels of fatigue (i.e. burn), and see if they are getting the results we seek?  How about those who in Track and Field, who run a mile in 4 minutes?  Do they have “massive” muscles?  Nope.  How about marathoners?  Nope – even less, although they feel even more fatigue (now there’s a clue)!  How about crew (… you know, those guys who row boats competitively)?  Nope.  Certainly they have decent bodies, but not the build of a bodybuilder.  You see, it’s not fatigue that builds muscle – it’s “overload” – that builds muscle.

Well then, what the heck does fatigue build?  Answer: endurance.  What does “endurance” look like?  Mostly – nothing.  It’s a functional adaptation – not a visible one.  That certainly makes sense, doesn’t it?  If you introduce a great amount of fatigue to a muscle, it’s going to adapt by preparing itself specifically for this type of encounter – logically, a “resistance to fatigue”.  Any athlete who encounters large amounts of fatigue, develops increasingly high endurance – even though they do not get more and more muscular (e.g. Lance Armstrong).   A muscle will not get bigger, as an adaptation to fatigue.  A bigger muscle is actually less capable of dealing with high levels of fatigue.  In other words, a bigger muscle is the opposite of an enduring muscle.  By introducing high levels of “burn”, you are actually programming your muscle to become “less big” and more enduring.  Perfect – if you’re a marathoner.  But you probably aren’t – so why go down that road?

What is Overload ?

First, a disclaimer: the following is information which is most useable to someone whose goal it is to get larger muscles.  That doesn’t entirely exclude those whose goal it is to lose fat and not build larger muscles, because part of fat loss involves – to some degree – building the muscles which ultimately end up doing the fat burning.  I’ll “tailor” all of this to the various goals at the end of this piece.

“Overload” is a combination of four things, but mostly it’s about weight.  It’s also about range of motion, contraction, and overall workload – but it’s mostly about the amount of weight that the muscle is required to lift.  Here’s the equation:

The amount of weight being lifted (as a percentage of the maximum weight that a given muscle is capable of lifting…ideally, 70% – 95% of maximum)  +  good form (deliberate force, instead of swinging or other type of cheating), in full range of motion  + a solid contraction x  the number of total reps (in a given workout).

weight +  good form /  full ROM +  contraction x  total reps  =  M.O.B.

If you use a heavy weight, but use bad form, you lose overload.  If you use a partial range of motion, you lose some overload.  If you fail to contract the muscle at each rep, you lose some overload.  And if you do few total reps, you get less overload than you could have gotten if you had done more (… but only up to a point… then you begin overtraining).  If they’re all present, you get maximum overload benefits (M.O.B.).

But what happens if you bring “the burn” into the equation?  Several things happen – most of which are counterproductive.

1. You compromise your ability to use a heavy weight, because a fatigued muscle can’t lift as much
2. You compromise good form and full ROM.  You begin swinging, twisting, squirming, and shortening the movement – wrongly believing that “quantity” matters more than “quality”.
3. You compromise the muscle’s ability to contract.  It starts to get somewhat paralyzed, and literally loses its ability to flex.

Let’s examine this scenario:  Joe and John are at the gym, working biceps.  They’ve already done 9 sets of curls.  John picks up a 100 pound barbell, and begins a set of standing BB curls.  His intention is to get 12 reps.  He seems to be doing fine, until he gets to his 7^th rep.  At that point, the speed of his reps starts to slow – his 8^th rep is at half the speed of the preceding reps.  Jim stands by, ready to “assist”.  John barely squeaks out his 9^th rep (with lots of squirming, twisting and back arching).  When he starts his 10^th rep, he stalls half-way up.  Jim yells out, “c’mon man, these are the ones that count!” – and gives the bar a little upward nudge, completing the 10^th rep.  John then starts his 11^th rep, and stalls a quarter of the way up.  Jim immediately assists, pushing upward on the bar with about 10 pounds of pressure.  Red-faced, vein-popping, sweat-dripping John finishes that rep, and starts his 12^th.  Again, he stalls a quarter of the way up – and Jim assists, now with about 18 pounds of upward pressure.   After completing that final rep, John drops the weight on the floor with a loud crash, grins with sweaty satisfaction, and flexes his swollen biceps in the mirror, savoring the pump.  Jim slaps John a high-five.

Poor misguided souls.

Here’s what really happened.  John began his set determined to get 12 reps.  Because of this, he started out compromising the quality of his early reps – swinging a little, avoiding a full range of motion, and skipping the contraction at the top – so as to not fatigue too early, thereby allowing him to reach 12 reps.  In other words, John was more concerned about getting to “12”, than he was about “milking” the early reps.  He must have been thinking his biceps had some sort of “counter”, that clicks and wins points after each rep – without measuring the quality of the reps… as if simply “moving” the weight qualifies for points, and that’s all that matters.

John’s 9^th rep was the last one on his own, which he only managed because he leaned way back – thereby bringing in the assistance of various other muscle groups (thereby reducing overload to his biceps).  When his buddy Jim began assisting, it was the same as if John had taken some of the weight off the bar (further reducing overload).   His 10^th rep was about 5 pounds less than the 100 of the bar, thanks to Jim’s nudge.  John’s 11^th rep was, in essence, a 90 pound curl, thanks to Jim’s assistance (euphemistically called “forced reps”).  His 12^th rep was essentially an 82 pound curl.  That’s if these movements – with all the squirming and swinging – still qualify as “curls”.

Evaluation

1.  John missed out on some of the overload benefits that he could have had, during the early reps, because his form was bad (swinging and not keeping the elbow stationary).  He also shortened his range of motion, and skipped the contraction at the top.

2.  John missed out on some more overload benefits when Jim started assisting him – essentially reducing the weight

3.  John took his set so far into the fatigue zone (9th – 12th reps), that he compromised the quality of his next sets.  In other words, John could have used a heavier weight on his next set, and he could have gotten a better, more deliberate contraction on each rep of his next set, but that was compromised because his biceps were so fatigued from the previous set.  He should have had just stopped at the 8^th rep.  The 9th thru 12th reps did not have any more overload than the first 8.

4.  John introduced a high degree of fatigue to his biceps during the 9th thru 12th reps, which sent a message to his muscle to adapt to a fatigue environment.  The natural adaptation of a muscle, in this environment, is to lessen fiber thickness, and to adopt a more “aerobic” metabolism, which is similar to that of endurance athletes – slender but with a tolerance to fatigue.

Jim was wrong when he said to John, “… these are the ones that count!”.  That suggests that – since John’s latter reps were more “painful” with burn and exhaustion – that pain and exhaustion CAUSE muscle growth.  They don’t.  John had all he needed for maximum growth at the beginning of his set – a heavy weight, and the ability to do full range of motion curls, with good form, and a deliberate contraction – but he didn’t take full advantage of it.

When he started to lose his ability to use good form (around the 8^th rep), and started to lose his ability to contract his biceps, his “overload” was diminished.  He should have stopped his set at that point – rested enough to do another set without interference from lingering fatigue – and attacked the next set with an “as heavy” or heavier weight, good form and forceful contraction – again stopping before complete exhaustion (… that might have been around 6 reps).

By the way, there is no correlation between immediate muscle pump (that temporary swelling of a muscle during a workout, which is typically produced by high reps sets) and muscle growth.  A muscle will grow more with low rep (high weight) training, even though it does not get as much of a pump during the actual workout.

The Ideal Number of Reps

Too many reps per set leads to too much fatigue.  However, too few reps per workout produces less stimulation than could be achieved with more.  So the trick is to do more sets of low reps.  In other words (… assuming your goal is to build muscle), 5 sets of 20 is bad.  But 20 sets of 5 is good – because you will have used a heavier weight during your sets of 5, than you would have for sets of 20.  That accounts for “total work load”.  If you added up the total amount of weight for each of those sets (weight x reps x sets =), it would be much higher for the low rep method – even though the total number of reps would be the same (100).

So how many reps per set is “ideal”?  Well – assuming you’re already warmed up – 6 to 8 reps per set, seems to be the optimal number, if your goal is to get maximum muscle size.  This, of course, takes for granted that you’ll be using a weight that challenges that particular muscle (80% – 90% maximum effort), for the 6 – 8 reps.  Smaller muscles – like calves, abs and forearms – do better with slightly higher reps: more like 10-15.  But ultimately, the goal is to lift as heavy as possible (within reason), and to avoid so much fatigue that it lessens your ability to use a heavy weight, with good form, and a deliberate contraction.  And that is as true for abs, as it is for biceps.

What About Those Who Don’t Want Maximum Muscle Size ?

If you average 10 – 12 reps per set (with a slightly lighter weight, obviously), you’ll still get some muscle size, just not as much as those who go heavier for 6 – 8 reps.  15 – 20 reps, even less muscle size, but still some.  This all depends, in part, on your genetics.  Some big-boned people (endomorphic somatotypes, as it’s known in the jargon), grow muscle more easily, and will gain more muscle than a smaller-boned person (ectomorphic somatotypes) – even if they use high reps.  But I mention this because sometimes we see a very large, muscular person using higher reps, and it may appear that high-reps builds bigger muscles (… not to mention that he or she might be using steroids, which maximizes muscle gain, even if the training is faulty).  But the fact is, everyone would build bigger muscles, regardless of their somatotype, using heavier weights with lower reps.  And that translates to less “burn” (fatigue).

What About Super-Sets, Break-Down Sets and Forced Reps ?

Glad you asked.  Remember when I mentioned the “Weider Principles”?  Well, with all due respect to Joe Weider, and the “Weider Laboratories”, intensity (of the high-fatigue / high-burn variety) does not equal muscle growth.  ”Super-setting” two exercises for the same body part – like “peck deck” with bench press – will certainly result in high “intensity” and “burn”, but it’s not conducive to maximum growth.  It’s conducive to a little growth and a lot of endurance.

Let’s look at “breakdown sets“.  For those unfamiliar with this method of exercise, it’s where a person does one set of “X” number of reps, with a weight – say 70 pounds – then puts that down, and picks up the 60 pound weight, does more reps, then puts it down and picks up the 50 pound weight, does more reps, then puts it down and picks up a 40 pound weight, and does more reps.  That sort of training (most certainly) does make the muscle scream with “burn” – but for naught.  Again, high fatigue does not produce anywhere near as much muscle-fiber-thickening as does heavy weight.  And it’s much less fun, to say the least – unless you’re a glutton for punishment.

“Forced reps” is essentially the same as a breakdown set, in the sense that your spotter simply gives you more and more “help” (with each successive rep), thereby lessening the weight more and more – with the ultimate goal to get more reps and cause more fatigue.  It is entirely counterproductive.  Why endure increased torture, for a compromised benefit – when you can get better benefits with less pain (i.e. burn)?

There is one “Weider Principle” (… not that he ever actually invented or owned of those methods) that is excellent for those striving for bigger muscles: “The Rest-Pause Principle”. Rest-Pause simply allows you to stop, and rest for a second, in between reps - instead of doing “continuous tension” reps.  This momentary reduction of fatigue allows you to use a heavier weight.  For example, doing 10 reps of leg extensions, with a 1 to 2 second pause in between reps, using 120 pounds, is much more productive (and less painful) than doing 10 “continuous tension” reps, with 80 pounds.  The heavier set results in more overload, and therefore more development of fiber thickness and strength.  Rest-Pause is great.  I use it whenever possible.

Glycogen Effect

High-rep / high fatigue training, does seem to have one relatively incidental “benefit”, for those seeking increased muscle size – but it’s a misleading one.  Higher reps tend to deplete more glycogen (stored carbohydrate) from a muscle.  So, since the body is always trying to adapt and anticipate what it needs to prepare for, a muscle that is “over-depleted” of glycogen tends to horde glycogen when it’s recovering.  In other words, it prepares itself for the next onslaught by having extra amounts of glycogen at its disposal next time to you workout.

Since glycogen is stored in the muscle, and since each gram of glycogen stores with it approximately four grams of water, a muscle may experience a little “swelling” as a result of that “glycogen compensating mechanism” produced by high-rep training.  But this is not the same as having a muscle fiber thicken as a result of adapting to a heavy load.  It might appear that high-reps make you grow.  But, it’s limited growth and short-lived.  More importantly, high-reps significantly inhibit the overload process, thereby limiting the fiber-thickening growth that a muscle could experience.  By the way, low reps still cause some glycogen depletion and compensation – in addition to the fact that they produce thicker, stronger muscle fibers.

What About Calorie Expenditure ?

Higher reps tend to spend more calories at the time of exercise, which would be good if your primary goal is weight loss.  A set of 20 reps would likely spend more calories than a set of 10 reps – although perhaps not by much.

On the other hand, a person might spend more calories lifting a heavier weight, than a lighter weight.  Plus, a heavier weight would also lead to a stronger muscle, if not a bigger one.  And stronger muscles tend to be more metabolically active.  They require more calories than weaker muscles, and therefore make fat loss easier.

So it’s a bit of a toss up.  You might burn more calories with higher reps, or you might burn more calories with more muscle.  It might be a good idea to experiment with both, to see which works best for you.

Wrap Up

Ultimately, the number of reps you decide to do (per set) should depend on how much muscle you want, and how much muscle you’re getting.  Generally speaking, I would recommend higher weight / lower reps for everyone, unless you are starting to get more muscle than you want.  But wait until you actually see the muscles getting too big, before you embrace lower weight / higher reps.  Gaining muscle is not easy, and a stronger (more metabolically active) muscle is not always a bigger muscle.  So for you ladies, I still suggest that you use a heavier weight and lower reps.  The odds are it will be better for you.  And if you think you’re getting too big, you can easily cut back.

Now – a word to those who think this information is a license to “take it easy”.  It’s not.  It is an encouragement to do – as an example – 10 repetitions with a 50 pound weight, instead of 20 repetitions with a 25 pound weight.  It is NOT an encouragement to do the lower reps, with the lower weight.  Nor is it an encouragement to avoid anything that resembles a burn  - or any type of fatigue or effort – entirely.  Often times I see someone using a ridiculously light weight, which – of course – causes no burn or fatigue, but also poses no challenge, and therefore bestows no benefit of any kind.  Mostly, I see this on the inner thigh machine.  A person might be using the lightest weight the machine allows, doing countless repetitions (… and I DO mean countless – they are not counting – instead they are reading, or playing with their I-Pod, or talking to someone next to them… ).  This will not produce ANY kind of benefit at all, and you are keeping others who want to use that machine productively, waiting – while you simply waste time on it.  You must challenge the muscles involved, if you want to get any benefit at all.

Lastly, consider the emotional / psychological component of exercise.  Going for the burn is not exactly “fun”.  Some people mind it less than others.  But there is probably a link between those who go for the burn, and those who just “burn out”.  Generally, the more unpleasant you perceive exercise to be, the less likely you are to stick with it.  But if you’re one of those people who hates “the burn”, the good news is that you don’t need it (… although you do need “effort”).

Whether you’re one of those people who wants maximum muscle size, or someone who wants to get leaner – you don’t need to go for “the burn”.  Try lifting a little heavier, for fewer reps per set, and more total sets.  I think you’ll be pleased with the result, and – as an added benefit – you’ll be less likely to “burn” out.

Getting a lean / muscular midsection could possibly be the most common fitness goal, as well as the most misunderstood.  I think it’s safe to say that I’ve seen more time and effort wasted on abdominal exercises that are ineffective, than I have for any other body part.  And yet, it’s really very simple.  That doesn’t mean “without effort”.  It just means “uncomplicated”.  Here’s the scoop.

There are three reasons WHY achieving a lean midsection is so misunderstood:

1.   Misleading advertising and/or misguided instruction

2.   Wishful thinking

3.   Lack of understanding of how the body works

It might seem reasonable to believe that abdominal fat can be reduced or eliminated by “working” that area (i.e. doing sit-ups, leg raises, twists, side bends, etc.) – but, if you believe that, you would be mistaken – in a big way. Companies trying to sell you an abdominal exercise product, a course or a book – often LIE to you (what a surprise!) – so they can make a profit.  They tell you that you CAN exclusively reduce abdominal fat – by using their product, and you believe them.

The truth is that your lifestyle created the problem – and the solution must address your lifestyle – both your diet as well as your overall exercise program.  The idea that one exercise, or a “killer ab routine” alone, will make your abs “ripped” is – wishful thinking.  For those of you who are guilty of that sort of idealistic optimism, “ripped abs” will remain a fantasy, until you understand how the body loses fat, and then do the correct homework.

The Myth of Spot Reduction

You cannot specifically lose abdominal fat by doing abdominal exercise.  Period.

That bears repeating for the simple reason that, although people have heard that they cannot “spot reduce” their midsection, and they say they understand it, they continue doing things that demonstrate a belief in “spot reduction”.  It is impossible to lose ANY abdominal fat, by doing abdominal exercises.

When you perform abdominal exercise, the muscle – which is underneath the fat layer – does the work.  But the muscle is not what needs “fixing”. Ab exercises benefit the muscle under the fat, but do nothing for the fat layer which covers the muscle.

That jiggly stuff that is on your midsection is not un-toned muscle; nor is it “flab” that can be “firmed up” or converted into muscle.  It’s fat, and can only be reduced as part of a whole-body-fat-loss-plan.  You might indeed have a well-developed abdominal muscle under that fat, but you will never see it, and that fat layer will remain the same, until you address your overall diet and overall exercise program – regardless of how many sit-ups, or crunches, or leg raises, you do.

If you do daily abdominal exercises and/or high repetition ab crunches, or leg raises, you are demonstrating a belief in spot reduction.  Stop it.  It’s a waste of time.  It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work in the future.  If you believe that your abdominal muscles “burning”, during your high-rep crunches, is proof that your abdominal fat is melting away, you are seriously mistaken.  That burning sensation is occurring in the muscle (i.e. lactic acid) – it is not occurring in the fat.

You cannot choose where to take fat off your body – just as you cannot choose where to add fat onto your body.  This is a physiological fact.  You must put your entire body into “fat loss mode”, in order to lose fat around your midsection.  Have you ever seen anyone with ripped abs – who was fat everywhere else ?  Of course not.  And you never will.  You must get leaner overall, to get a lean midsection.

How Fat Gets “Burned”

Fat is stored on the body in a specific molecular form, called “adipose tissue”.  The body cannot, and does not, burn adipose tissue.  In order for body fat loss to occur, the body must first convert adipose tissue into “free fatty acids”, which is the useable form of fuel.  Only then, can the body actually use it (spend it, burn it, whatever you want to call it).

When this conversion takes place, it does so “systemically” (throughout the entire body) – not locally (nearest to where the muscle is working).  After this conversion takes place, free fatty acids enter the bloodstream, and go to the working muscle.  In other words, tiny amounts of “free fatty acids”, which were converted from tiny amounts of “adipose tissue”, which came from all over your entire body simultaneously, provide whichever muscle is working with its necessary fuel.  And it’s the larger muscles – like the leg muscles – which are more likely to require that sort of fuel.

That is why people lose fat everywhere on their body – including their face – when they peddle a stationary bicycle – even though they are only peddling with their legs.  Fat only comes off the body as a whole.

This process only happens if your diet is right.  If your diet is wrong, and there is plenty of fuel in the bloodstream from foods you’ve recently eaten, the body will not have to resort to spending it’s “fat storage”. Further, if your insulin level is high during your workout, because you ate some candy or bread (or other sugary / starchy carbohydrate) – mistakenly believing it would give you “energy” – just before the workout, your body will resist giving up its reserve fat, even if your total caloric intake is fairly low.  These are two of the reasons people often do not lose body fat, even though they’re exercising: they’re still eating too much, and/or they’re eating the wrong kinds of foods.

How To Get Leaner Overall – Part One: The Diet

You must make dietary changes in order to lose body fat.  Specifically, you must reduce your calories, but – perhaps more importantly – you must reduce or eliminate certain types of food, and replace them with better choices.  Starches and sugars cause the body to produce more insulin, and that will cause your body to store more body fat – and/or restrict fat loss – even if you are exercising every day, and even if your caloric intake is not exceptionally high.  Some people produce more insulin than others.  If you tend to have a weight problem, it’s likely that you are one of those people.  Dietary fat is actually less of a problem – in terms of body fat – than are starches and sugars.

Starches and sugars are considered “high-glycemic”, which means that they convert quickly to glucose, and therefore result in a dramatic rise in your insulin production.  Instead, try getting your carbohydrates from vegetables (brocolli, cauliflower, zuccini, squash, tomatoes, peas, carrots, etc.) and legumes (lentils, black beans, kidney beans, etc.) and – to a lesser degree – some fruits.  Try to reduce – as much as possible – flour products (breads, pasta, crackers, flour tortillas, etc .), as well as potatoes, white rice, and sugar.  And don’t be afraid to eat nuts, avocadoes, olive oil, cheese, etc.  Although there are still those who advocate a low-fat, high-carb diet, there is plenty of evidence that obesity levels rise dramatically with that type of diet.  Further, new research has demonstrated that a reduction of starches and sugars, and a slight increase of healthy fats, has produced more fat loss and better health.

Try eating four or five small meals, and make sure that each of them has a protein source, a low-glycemic carbohydrate source, and a little fat.  For example, grilled chicken, steamed vegetables with a little olive oil, and an avocado.  Or, scrambled eggs, with ham and black beans.  Or, a steak, a salad with dressing, and some fruit.

How To Get Leaner Overall – Part Two: The Exercise Program

The best approach is a combination of aerobic exercise and whole-body resistance training.  Both types of exercise have a different fat loss effect.  Resistance training makes all of your muscles more metabolically active, meaning that they burn more calories all day long, when they are strong.  Plus, those who do only aerobic exercise tend to become more “efficient” at it.  Meaning that their body eventually learns to conserve fuel while doing aerobic exercise, which means less fat loss.  Those who combine weight training with aerobic exercise have a much better rate of fat loss.

Also, interval training works best, when doing cardiovascular exercise.  Low intensity / long duration exercise is ultimately less effective, than either high intensity / short duration (15 – 20 minutes)… or alternating between high intensity (for one minute) and then low intensity (for one minute).  High intensity burns more overall calories (in a shorter period of time), plus it stimulates your metabolism more – than low intensity aerobic exercise.

When doing your weight training, try to emphasize working the larger muscle groups, like your legs, your back and your pectoral muscles.  The smaller muscles, like the shoulders and arms, contribute much less to the overall metabolism.  For best results, try weight training 2 – 5 days per week (with either a full-body workout, or a split program where you work different body parts on different days).  The more often you exercise, the better the result, obviously.

Abdominal Exercise

Work your abdominal muscles the same way you would work any other muscle in your body – 2 to 3 times per week (not on consecutive days), approximately 3 to 8 sets of 15 to 20 repetitions, with full-range-of-motion, a deliberate contraction at each repetition, and a resistance that challenges the muscle.  In other words, think of your ab exercises like you would your chest or back exercises.  You would never think to do 100 partial-range-of-motion reps of a chest or back exercise.  Instead, you do slow, deliberate, full-range of motion reps, for 15 – 20.  Do the same thing for your abs.

When doing ab exercises, choose exercises that emphasize spinal movement, rather than hip movement.  In other words, crunches are infinitely better than leg-raises.  My favorites are “decline crunches” and “kneeling cable crunches”.

Now here this:  there is no such thing as a “lower ab”.  It doesn’t exist.  The abdominal muscle is one continuous muscle, that begins at the base of the rib-cage, and ends at the pubic bone of the pelvis.  And you cannot work one end of the muscle more than the other end.  The whole muscle works evenly.

When someone says “this works the lower abs”, they are either grossly mistaken or fibbing (for the sake of marketing).  You cannot lose lower abdominal fat – because spot reduction is impossible – and you cannot work the only lower part of the muscle (the rectus abdominus – aka the “six pack”) – because it isn’t a separate muscle.  You also cannot add “notches” to your abs.  When, or if, you are lean enough (for men, it’s usually around 8% body fat – for women around 15%), and your abs are visible, the shape and number of grooves your ab muscle shows is “fixed” (set in stone).  It is determined by genetics.   You cannot add a third or fourth row of ab muscles, simply by working them.  It’s a fibrous divider that is either there, or not, since birth.

When the abdominal muscle contracts, the rib-cage and the pelvis get closer together, which creates a “curling” of the torso.  And when the muscle extends (stretches), it allows the rib-cage and pelvis to get farther apart, which creates an arching of the torso.  That should be the goal of any abdominal exercise: to arch the spine and then curl the spine.  That is a classic “crunching” movement.  Too often I see people doing something they might call an abdominal crunch, but is little more than a head and neck lift.  To say that this is an incomplete range of motion is an understatement !  It’s about 10% range of motion.  You gotta crank out the rest of that 90% (range of motion) – if you want to develop that muscle.  And if that means that you do fewer repetitions, it’s fine.  15 solid, forceful repetitions of full range of motion crunches, with a deliberate contraction at each rep, is FAR better than 100 reps of 10% range of motion, with no deliberate contraction.  No question about it.

Summary

If you are one of those people who does endless reps of teeny-tiny ab crunches, you are wasting your time and energy.  You will not get any sort of result that way.  You are neither burning fat, nor developing muscle.  Instead, use a 3-prong approach.

1.    Make the appropriate changes to your diet

2.    Combine smart aerobic exercise with full-body resistance training

3.    Work your ab muscles no differently than you would any other muscle (non-consecutive days, 15-20 reps per set, 4-8 total sets per workout, full-range of motion with deliberate contraction)

This type of program will give you the best odds of achieving your goal.  Genetics also plays a role in determining your ultimate result, as does any hormonal or metabolic problems you may have.  It would be a mistake to assume that everyone who uses the same program gets the same result.  As they say, “results may vary”.  I recommend that the amount of effort you use should be “reasonable”, as determined by your own sensibilities – unless you’re preparing for physique competition, or you have a temporary, short-term goal, like a high school reunion, after which you can return to a more balanced program.

The bottom line is that the ONLY smart way to achieve a lean midsection is by addressing the big picture: your overall body fat level.  And the way to do that is by addressing your diet and your overall exercise program – of which your actual abdominal exercises are only a small part, as ironic as that may seem.

So-called “Functional Exercise” has been the rage for quite a few years now.  There are several variations of “functional exercise”, and they go by other names, including “core” training and “balance” training.  We see them demonstrated in all the magazines, and we often see people doing them in gyms.  Many trainers – who may have learned them at the latest “trainer convention” – teach these exercises to their clients.  The problem is many of these exercises are largely unproductive.  Some could actually result in an injury.

To be clear, not all “functional”, “core” or “balance” exercises are bad.  Some are actually pretty good.  It depends on three factors: your goal, the trade-off, and the risk/benefit factor of each exercise.

1.    The exercises you choose should produce results that are consistent with your fitness goals.  Often they don’t.  The result produced by a given exercise might be completely different than your goal.  You should be very clear about what you want to achieve, and fully understand what result a given exercise will (or won’t) produce.

2.    There is always a trade-off.  Although the proponents of functional training would have you believe otherwise, you actually lose some benefit in one area, in exchange for a particular benefit in another area.  This is fine – in theory – as long as what you trade away is minor, and what you gain in exchange is significant.  However, often times it’s the other way around.  You might be sacrificing much, for little in return.

3.    The evaluation of risk/benefit of each exercise is important.  Some exercises strain joints unnecessarily, and many exercises produce an insignificant benefit – despite requiring a lot of effort.  I recommend that you choose only exercises that produce a significant benefit, and pose little or no risk of injury.

I’ll give you some examples of exercises that fail in the above three criteria in just a moment, but before we go into that, let’s establish what the theoretical goal of functional exercise is.

The Sales Pitch

The appeal of functional exercise, core training, and balance training, is the concept that “exercise should improve your ability, and not just your appearance”.  That’s the pitch – and it sounds good.  Few people would disagree with that premise.  However, like any propaganda or commercial, in order to sell you something new, the sellers suggest that the existing system is “inferior”, and needs improvement.  So, they tell you that this “new exercise” will improve your balance, which implies that the “traditional” system does not.  That’s false.  It also implies that traditional exercise is just “cosmetic”.  That’s also false.  Exercise is never “just cosmetic”.  All exercises make you stronger, and – as such – they all improve your balance, because strength is a major component of balance.

Saying that an exercise “works your core” (which is often defined in vague terms), suggests that traditional exercises does not.  Again – also false.  Abdominal exercises, oblique exercises, lower back exercises, trunk-rotation (twisting) exercises, have been around for years – and they all work the “core” muscles (i.e. the muscles around the perimeter of the waist – those close to the surface, as well as the deeper ones).  They just weren’t called “core” exercises.

The word “core” has such marketing appeal, that it would almost seem foolish to refuse doing an exercise called “core”.  The term almost suggests it strengthens the center of your being.  Who would say “no” to being strong to the core?  People brag about doing “core exercise”, like it’s what people “in the know” do – like you’re not cool if you don’t do them.  But it’s mostly just an over-rated buzz word, designed to sell a whole new generation of services and products.  And apparently tens of thousands of consumers (including trainers) have fallen for it.

The proponents of core training usually describe the benefits with a certain ambiguity – often unable to define it in specific terms.  They say that, “it works the center of your body” – as if to suggest that your body would crumple if you don’t do them, like a building on a fragile foundation.  But this is nonsense, and the evidence is everywhere.  Look around.  If this were true, you would see people who only appear to be fit, but can’t walk or run, or play a friendly game of volleyball at the beach.  Further, despite the proliferation of core training, we do not see more fit people today than we did 10 years ago.  In fact, the opposite is true.

Ten years ago, when people did “ordinary” exercise, a smaller percentage of the population was deemed “overweight”.  Today, despite the fact that more money than ever is being spent on fitness products and services – and core training is the rage – obesity is at an all-time high (67% by one recent statistic).

Moreover, people who are doing these core exercises often look the same (no less fat and no more muscular) – month after month – and their balance is no better than it would have been if they had done traditional exercise.  In fact, their balance may not even be as good, as it might have been, if they had done traditional exercise.

Choosing the Right Exercise for Your Goal

People’s primary fitness goals are usually these: losing weight, gaining muscle, improving muscle definition, feeling better, improving their health (thereby reducing their risk of illness), and improving their performance in a particular sport.

For example, let’s say an overweight guy walks into a gym.  He’s probably feeling a little embarrassed, because he knows he’s in bad shape.  He may feel like everyone at the gym is in better shape, and he thinks they’re all looking at him.  He may have even been avoiding coming to the gym, for fear of embarrassment.  But he’s finally come to the gym now and he meets with a trainer.  He tells the trainer that his goal is to lose weight.  Next thing you know, the trainer has him standing on one leg, pushing a pair of dumbbells overhead.  What’s wrong with this picture?

In the first place, this guy didn’t say anything about needing to improve his balance.  He didn’t complain about “falling down frequently”.  He said he wanted to lose weight, so why did the trainer assume he needed to help the guy’s balance?  I will speculate on the reason, shortly.

Secondly, the overhead press is an exercise with little benefit and considerable risk (…as you will see in an upcoming article).  It does not work the large muscle groups (back, chest or legs), which are the more metabolically active muscles (…the ones that burn more calories) – so it will not contribute much to the weight-loss goal.  It also places a significant strain on the shoulder joint.

Third, this guy’s worst fear was that he would feel “stupid” and “out of sorts” at the gym.  And now the trainer has him struggling to keep his balance on one leg.   Being put in an off-balance situation isn’t necessary for losing weight.  The best thing for a guy like this is for the trainer to make him feel physically stable (to gain confidence), while getting his heart, lungs and legs working.  Squats, with no additional weight, while holding a handrail would be ideal.  Rowing exercises.  Side bends.  Torso rotations with a cable.  Exercises he can do comfortably and safely, that stimulate his metabolism, and still allow him feel in control. That’s what that client needs – not a circus act.

My speculation?  The trainer is focused on something other than having this man do what would be “ideal” for him to reach his goal.  The trainer is concerned about being perceived as “knowledgeable” and “cutting edge”, and believes that unusual or “tricky” exercises are more likely to be perceived as “good”.  This would improve his (or her) apparent marketability.  It’s the old “secret method” theory at play – the idea that there are “secret” exercises that work better.  What works better is simply what requires more calories – not what challenges your ability to prevent yourself from falling during an exercise.

In fairness to the trainers, they are taught this type of training by the industry journals and associations (for the commercial gain of the journals and the associations).  And some gyms provide an economic incentive to their trainers to learn and teach this stuff (ultimately for the commercial gain of the gym).  The commercialization of “new” methods of exercising is what has been driving this trend.  Well-meaning trainers are simply trying to make a living, and are persuaded to believe that “new” must be better.  And any trainer trying to make a name for himself/herself realizes that his or her odds of attracting attention (either at a convention, in a magazine or on a TV show) are better if he/she uses “modern” methods, rather than the “same old”.  However, it’s misguided – what sells is not necessarily what’s true – as you will see shortly.

But let’s get back to the end-user of core training.  An interesting thing happens, I’ve noticed.  People who employ these off-balance exercises (…standing on one leg, or on a wobbly board, etc.), begin shifting their focus from their original goal – fat loss or muscle gain – to one of balance.  In other words, they begin thinking that “progress” is demonstrated by learning how not to fall while doing the exercise – even though the exercise may be less effective at burning fat and building muscle, than other exercises that don’t challenge their ability to keep from falling.

I can certainly understand the value of making exercise “fun”.  And it IS fun to convert “exercise” into a game of skill.  Often times we see people in pairs, taking turns at the “game” of doing an exercise while struggling to keep from falling, as they joke and tease each other.  However, there is a trade-off.  And before you invest hours, weeks and months, in this sort of training, you should be aware of what your getting, and what your losing.

The Trade-Off

Let’s say that you’re doing a flat bench dumbbell press.  You’re on your back, pushing a pair of 40-pound dumbbells over your chest, with the goal of building your pectoral muscles.  A trainer walks over to you and says, “…would you like me to show you a better way to do that?”.  You say, “sure” – assuming he knows what he’s doing, and grateful that you’re getting some free advice (and attention).  He puts you on a large ball, and asks you to press the same 40-pound dumbbells from that position.  You follow his instruction, and discover that – although the ball is little less stable than the flat bench – you can still manage the exercise without much difficulty.

However, now he wants to “challenge” you a bit more.  In truth, what he really wants is to have you believe that your balance “needs work”, and – after peeking your curiosity about this sort of training – appreciate his “cleverness”, and then hire him for more “tricks” like this.  Here’s how this scenario continues.

He tells you to lift one leg straight out in front of you, so that it’s not touching the ground.  Now you only have one leg down, and your back is on the ball.  You quickly discover that it’s much harder to maintain balance, but you can still do it (sort of), as long as you bring both 40-pound dumbbells down and up, symmetrically (equally distant from the center of your body).

But now he wants to make it more difficult for you.  He tells you to leave the left dumbbell up, at arms length, while you bring the right dumbbell down…  then, switch arms… leaving the right one up, and bringing the left one down.  Big difference!!  Impossible, in fact.  You cannot bring the same 40-pound dumbbell down on only one side, and not have it pull you over to that side…. unless… you reduce the weight and/or bring the dumbbell down closer to the center of your body (not as far out to the side).  Can you see the trade-off coming?

Reducing the weight reduces the stimulation to the pectoral muscles.  And, bringing the weight down closer to the side of your body (not as far out to the side) reduces the length of that lever (your arm), which reduces the resistance even more, thus further reducing the stimulation to the pectoral muscles.  If you were aware of this dramatic reduction of stimulation to the pectoral muscles, a good question to ask at this point would be, “… I’m losing benefit to my pecs… so what am I getting in exchange for that?”.  Sadly – even if you are aware enough to ask that enlightened question – the trainer will probably not answer accurately.  He will say that you are gaining “core” benefit.  You might be assertive enough to ask, “… exactly what is that benefit?”.  He’ll try to explain that your effort to prevent falling to one side, works the muscles that rotate your torso – which is your core.  Unfortunately, he is overstating the facts.

The very same instability that challenges you to keep from falling, also prevents you from adequately working the muscles that rotate the torso.  In other words, you cannot work your “transverse abdominus” (the torso rotation muscles) with sufficient resistance, because as soon as you add sufficient weight (or extend your arm out farther), you fall off the ball.

The truth is, you could work your transverse abdominus much more forcefully (and therefore more effectively) by standing – with a wide stance – next to a pulley, and rotating your torso the left, while the cable (with more resistance than you encountered on the ball) pulls you to the right.  Then switch directions.  So – while you were struggling to keep your balance on the ball – you relinquished significant benefits to your pectoral muscle, in exchange for a rather insignificant “core” benefit.  You essentially wasted your time in both endeavors.  You could have gotten better results (consistent with your original goal of gaining muscle and losing fat), by doing stable, flat bench dumbbell presses, and then torso rotation with a cable.

I apologize if this seems complicated.  This analogy might be easier to follow:  Imagine that I had you perform a set of squats on a wooden platform, with no additional weight.  Then, I handed you a pair of 20-pound dumbbells, and asked you to do another set of squats, while holding the weights.  Suddenly, the platform collapses.  The reason?  It was more weight than the platform could hold.  The moral of that story?  We were unable to work your leg muscles with sufficient resistance, due to the “instability”.

In order to adequately work a given muscle (with enough resistance), there needs to be sufficient stability, from which to push (or pull).  Imagine trying to do those torso rotations with a cable, while standing on a surface that is oily and super-slippery.  You would be unable to pull much weight, without your feet sliding.

Imagine trying to do a “standing one arm rowing movement” with a cable, while standing on a skateboard.  You would be unable to adequately challenge the muscles of your back, because as soon as you pull a significant weight, the skateboard moves.  In both of these cases, without a sturdy base, you would be unable to adequately challenge the muscles you want to work.

So the question you should ask when considering one of these exercises is, “what benefit am I giving up as a result of the instability of this exercise… and how much of that benefit am I giving up… as a trade-off for the other benefit I’m getting… and how much of that benefit am I getting?”

The two most important considerations for a person whose goal it is to “gain muscle and/or lose fat” are (1) adequate resistance and (2) adequate cardiovascular demand (heart and lung stimulation).  But if you’re standing on one leg, you are limiting cardiovascular demand because one leg working requires less fuel than two legs working.  And if you’re standing on an unstable surface, and the instability forces you to use a lighter weight than normal, you’ve lost the benefit of adequate resistance for maximum muscle simulation.  That also translates to a reduction of calories spent.

Equally important is the evaluation of whether or not you are REALLY gaining an improvement in balance.  In theory, it seems like standing on one leg, or some other wobbly surface, would automatically help improve you balance.  But ask yourself this question: do kids have good balance because they stand on one leg frequently, or because they’re active, and therefore strong?  I believe it’s the latter.  So if – during one of these exercises – you significantly compromise your fat loss and your muscle gain, in exchange for a miniscule improvement in your balance, it’s an unwise trade-off.

The Risk and Benefit

If an exercise causes you to feel strain in any of your joints (like shoulders, wrists or lower back), then don’t do it.  Don’t ignore feelings that an exercise doesn’t feel “natural”.  Further, be careful with exercises that involve swinging a weight, or any type of jerky movements.

For example, many of the exercises performed with kettle-bells (one of the current “core” tools) require swinging and catching the weight.  These types of exercise might be useful to someone who participates in a sport where similar activities are required. But for the sake of general fitness (losing fat, gaining muscle and improving health), it’s not as productive, nor as safe, as controlled, deliberate movements.  Further, the off-balance nature of kettle-bells could easily result in the twisting of a wrist or shoulder.  In my opinion, the evolution of the modern dumbbell – from the original metal ball and handle design – was a very good thing.

I am also not a big fan of exercises that involve “bodyweight”, as opposed to a weight that you’ve selected.  Chin-ups, for example, require that you use your entire bodyweight, which is usually excessive (limiting your reps or compromising your form).  A much better choice is Lat Machine Pulldowns, where you can choose the weight that is exactly correct for your strength level.  It also allows you to lean back slightly, which protects the shoulder joint.  In general, the evolution of machines has also been a very good thing, in the sense that they allow you to by-pass the short-comings of “bodyweight exercises”.  Modern chest machines, for example, are much more effective (for the pectoral muscles) and safer (for the shoulder joint) than push-ups.  Parallel bar dips are another low benefit / high risk exercise, in part because it’s a body-weight exercise, but also because the mechanics are all wrong.  I will soon do an article on “Dangerous Exercises”, and will further elaborate on this.

Another commonly seen exercise among proponents of core training, is putting your forearms on a ball (or on the ground), and extending your body so that your form a bridge from your toes to your suspended elbows – and then hold it for a minute.  The theory here is that multiple muscles participate in holding that “pose”, including your quadriceps, hip flexors, abdominals and pectorals.  This exercise is certainly more productive than sitting on the couch watching TV (…it is challenging, and does make you sweat), but it involves “isometric contraction” – which is also known as “static” muscle tension (i.e. holding tension, rather than extending and contracting the muscle).  Numerous studies have demonstrated that isometric contraction is much less productive than “isotonic contraction”, which involves a full range of motion.  In other words, although you may feel your abdominal muscles burning while doing that sort of “bridge”, it will not result in as much benefit to the abdominal muscles as would abdominal crunches.  So why do an exercise that is difficult, but produces little benefit, when you can just as easily (maybe more easily) do an exercise that produces a better result?

Summary

I think it makes sense to ONLY do exercises that produce maximum results with minimal risk and minimal wasted effort, and to make sure you’re choosing exercises that produce results that are consistent with your goal.  For general fitness, these include exercises for the major muscle groups, that are isotonic (full range of motion), performed with adequate weight, on a stable surface, and with no strain (twisting, jerking, swinging) to the joints involved.  Some compound exercises are excellent, and they would also fall into the category of “functional”.  These include things like performing a straight arm side raises, while simultaneously stepping up and down on a step.  Also, curling a pair of dumbbells, and squatting, alternately, is a great compound exercise.  Lunges are also very good.  These work multiple muscles at one time, and simultaneously create a great cardiovascular stimulation.

I would argue that the result one gets from the more traditional exercises is far better – in terms of visible, measurable, results (fat loss and muscle gain, as well as cardiovascular benefits and health enhancement), than those achieved with most “functional / core / balance exercises” – without sacrificing any noticeable coordination, balance or athletic benefits.

If doing an exercise while only slightly off-balance does not compromise your ability to use an adequate weight, it’s less compromised, however I still question the supposed advantage.  I have not seen any significant improvement in the balance of people who do their exercises this way (over traditional exercise).  But if it makes exercise more fun for you, then fine.

If you are an athlete who competes at an elite level, and whose priority it is to play your game better, and the appearance of your body (i.e. body fat and muscle tone) is secondary to your performance, you would have a good rationale for doing SOME of these functional or core training exercises.  The slight improvements in performance obtained from these exercises would be valuable at a highly competitive level, but would not be noticeable unless you participated in sports at that super advanced level.

In my upcoming book – “Stop the Overhead Presses: The No-Nonsense Guide to Exercise Selection” – I evaluate all the most common exercises, on a scale of 1 to 10, for both risk and benefit, along with an explanation, so that readers can understand the basis for choosing, and can create their own combination of exercises, in the most logical and productive manner.

Hello!

I would like to begin by thanking John Balik – Publisher of Iron Man Magazine – for the opportunity to do a blog on the Iron Man website.  Iron Man Magazine is truly one of the best fitness publications on the market, and I say that because they are dedicated to the pursuit of truth in fitness.  Most of the other fitness publications are more interested in being “commercial”, even at the expense of truth.  So I feel very honored to have been accepted as a team member by Iron Man Magazine.

I would also like to thank Steve Holman, for his support and for the excellent job he does as Editor in Chief of IM.  But I would like to give special thanks to my long-time friend, Lonnie Teper.  He was the main force behind the encouragement of me promoting my knowledge by way of writing.  Lonnie, as many of you know, has been a contributing author for Iron Man Magazine for many years.  He is an award-winning author, and also a university teacher, a bodybuilding show emcee, and the person responsible for the launch of the careers of many bodybuilders.  Those who know Lonnie, know he’s a real character – funny, crazy, at times difficult, expressive – and always a good person.  He has seen me at my best and at my worst – and has been a friend through all of it.

I have been analyzing and studying the mechanics of exercise, since I was 14 years old, and – over the past 35 years –  have come to certain realizations about the mechanics and the physiology of exercise, that are compelling.  I think you’ll enjoy, and benefit from, these observations.  I enthusiastically invite conversation on these subjects, so feel free to ask questions or make comments.  I will address them as best I can.

By definition, a blog should be kept relatively brief.  However, I hate the thought that I might leave out an important part of an explanation.  So I am hereby apologizing in advance, because some of my articles will be rather lengthy.  However, I will try to be as brief and succinct as possible.  This may force me to leave out, at least in part, some of the explanation.  Nevertheless, I will strive to be as clear as I possible here, despite the required brevity.

I have written an article entitled “The Case Against Overhead Presses”, which will be published in an upcoming edition (printed version) of IM – probably February 2010.

I am also in the process of writing a piece called “DYS-Functional Exercise”, which I will post here, probably within a week.  It explains why some, if not most, so-called “functional exercise” (like exercises on one leg, or on a ball, etc.) are less productive than we’re lead to believe.

I hope you enjoy reading my stuff, as much as I enjoy writing about it.