Historical Reenactment
During a recent Facebook conversation with a friend about his workouts another person suggested he try Bikram or “Hot” Yoga, a method performed in rooms heated to over 100 degrees as an alternative to his high intensity training workouts. I replied,
The technology of exercise has advanced tremendously over the past century (mostly thanks to Arthur Jones and Nautilus in the 1970’s) in terms of both methods and equipment. To still be doing a method like yoga that is over 5,000 years old when more advanced and more effective methods are available makes no sense from a purely physical standpoint. Just like it would make no sense for us to send our soldiers into battle with spears and shields instead of modern rifles and body armor.
Some people enjoy doing historical reenactments, though, and if they’re doing it for the enjoyment, that’s great and I’m not going to discourage it, whether it is exercise or warfare.
The same could be said about many other popular exercise trends or the belief that barbells or other types of free weight equipment are superior to Nautilus machines for building general muscular strength and size. The appeal of some of these ancient or “old timey” methods and equipment is often more a matter of the image they evoke or an association with a particular group than with their relative effectiveness.
If your primary concern is the image associated with a particular training method, or the social or recreational aspects of it, then the level of the technology involved is irrelevant. However, if your primary concern is results you should use the most technologically advanced methods and equipment available to you that is appropriate for your goals.
A couple things to consider:
Just because something is newer does not mean it is more technologically advanced. Technology is the practical application of knowledge, and the design of many exercise machines being produced today exhibits far less knowledge of the subject than those being made by Nautilus in the 1970’s.
A Nautilus machine is superior to a barbell in many ways, but a barbell is superior to an improperly designed machine.
It is important to distinguish between older methods and tools that are still being used or have been “rediscovered” because of their relative effectiveness as opposed to tradition or trendiness.
If your specific goals involve the skill of using less technologically advanced tools (barbells in powerlifting and weight lifting, stones in strong man competition, etc.) then those are the most appropriate tools for that aspect of your training. For example, although a Nautilus machine will increase the strength of the muscles involved in the barbell bench press only bench pressing will improve your skill in that specific movement, which makes a large contribution to performance.
Technology has as much to do with how a tool is used as the tool itself. Improper use of a tool can nullify any technological advantage it might provide. Proper training with nothing but heavy stones and other odd objects will produce far superior results to improper training with the most technologically advanced equipment in the world. Proper training and technologically advanced equipment will produce the best possible results.
Comments on this entry are closed.
Drew,
Didn’t one of Oprah’s kooky spirtual advisers kill a group of followers in a sweat lodge doing this sort of thing? Some historical reenactments have resulted in death.
Yes. Two died, eighteen others were hospitalized and one died after being comatose for a week.
I wonder if Nautilus will also still be practised in 5000 years…
Leo,
Considering the rate of technological improvement increases exponentially I can’t even imagine what exercise will be like in 100 years, much less 5,000 if there is even a need for it then. I wouldn’t be surprised if in this century we see machines using electromagnetics for resistance and which sense and react to the movement of the user providing perfectly balanced resistance during each phase of the repetition over the correct path and range of movement for the individual and genetic testing used to determine optimal exercise programming for individuals.
In the distant future genetic modification will probably invalidate the physical need for exercise.
This is true and I realize the purpose of the article wasn’t to knock yoga. But there is nothing wrong to include basic yoga before a workout and afterwasrds. As I have alot of back and neck problems, yoga helps to loosen muscles so I may effectively do a HIT workout. With spinal issues, yoga is a great help. A “hot yoga” tent my not be healthy, but tried and true yoga will still be practiced and hopefully high intensity 100’s of years down the road by our other advanced civilizations. Personally I hope electromagnets will be used for both resistance and for back pain.
Aaron,
I don’t recommend stretching prior to a workout as this can reduce the force producing capacity of the muscles, but if the yoga is performed without going to extremes of range of motion as a warm up it probably won’t hurt. I don’t think it would hurt to do it after a workout as long as more demanding positions were avoided but doubt it would contribute much. Wayne Westcott did a few studies showing slightly better strength increases when stretching was performed after a workout and some people have made inferences from research showing hypertrophy resulting from loaded stretching in animals (which is a huge stretch, no pun intended) but I don’t think it would make much of a difference either way.
If you find your neck and back can tolerate intense exercise better after a warm up then you should do one, but even in that case the best warm up is a light set of the appropriate strength exercises for those muscles.
Drew, this was a really stimulating read. I think many of your ideas hit the nail on the head (image taking priority over results when choosing a training method).
However, the very same idea can be applied to machine based training itself: The claim of technological superiority is used as a marketing tool to attract people who look for a “smarter” (i. e. more comfortable, less intense) way of working out and are willing to shell some serious cash to obtain it.
Also, I’m not sure whether there is sufficient evidence for claiming that Nautilus machines represent the pinnacle of technological advancement, and that they are clearly superior to free weights. Many people would disagree.
I think for the typical recreational exerciser, practical considerations are far more important than technology. Lacking time and money, a growing number of people prefer working out at home to joining a gym, although this decision means that they will mostly be restricted to calisthenics and dumbbells. As long as they have the motivation to stick to a schedule of strenuous workouts, they won’t be disappointed by their results.
The quest for the perfect workout equipment is largely irrelevant for them (with the possible exception of low-tech props such as suspension trainers, which can even be DIYd).
Machine based training can definitely be an image-based choice for some people, although properly designed machines don’t make exercise more comfortable or less intense, they make it harder and more efficient.
While many people would disagree about Nautilus being superior to free weights they would be wrong. An objective comparison of the effectiveness of each would show several advantages of properly designed machines over free weights where training for strength and size are concerned.
You are right about practicality, however, and that is where free weights have a huge advantage. An adjustable barbell or dumbbells can be used for a variety of productive exercises at a very small fraction of the cost and space requirements of a single machine, much less a small line of them.
This reminded me of the ROM machine (back in the 90s) that touted a 4 minute, full body, workout. A quick Google search revealed that it is still being peddled for 14.6 grand.
The ROM machine is a ridiculously overpriced “cardio” gadget and not a real exercise machine. In my opinion, the current state of the art of strength training is Randy Rindfleisch’s motorized “hybrid” machines and the Exerbotics machines, but both need major design changes and/or improvements. The only hope I have for properly designed exercise machines now that MedX is closed and Nautilus is producing crap like the One line is that Ken Hutchins starts making equipment again. Unless he does I’m just going to buy 1st and 2nd Generation Nautilus machines.
I know this is a super old post, but what were the major design changes you were thinking of that Exerbotics machine needed?
I wrote about this in Workout at Gym Flanagan’s Gym
If you’d like to learn more about exercise equipment design I have a series of videos on equipment design principles in the private HIT List group.
“The Biggest Loser” comes to mind. The amount of volume and the explosive movements these contestants do is crazy once you understand what safe productive exercise is and how little you actually need. When you talk to many people about exercise they say things like, “I bet he has to work out all the time to look like he does.” or some guys will see someone doing slow controlled reps or very low volume and say, “He works out like a b—-!” A personal trainer I know has had some of his clients doing static contractions in the gym. Some are reluctant to do them because of “the weird looks they get”.
Just thought these kinda went along with the topic here. Many seem to be of the mindset that you have to go into the gym, throw around some weights, see how long you can stay, or maybe it’s just a macho thing.
Donnie,
Unfortunately a lot of people will avoid doing things differently than “the herd” because they’re more concerned with social acceptance than doing what is objectively correct. My advice to people would be to ignore everybody else in the gym and focus on your workout. You’re there to accomplish something and whether others understand or approve of your methods is irrelevant, especially considering the majority of people are ignorant of how to exercise properly.
A lot of the behavior you see in the gym is definitely a “macho thing”. It is practically the same kind of dominance displays you’d expect from lower primates. Male silverback gorillas do a sort of strutting walk holding their arms bowed and bristling their hair to look bigger. Male chimpanzees do something similar, walking with a side to side swagger with their shoulders hunched, arms held out to the sides and hair bristled to look bigger. Guys walking around the gym puffing out their chest, flaring their lats and flexing is the exact same thing. Also, a lot about the way people exercise appears to have more to do with making a dominance display of their workouts than actually working out effectively.
Next time you work out stay at the gym for a while afterwards and watch people train, looking for the similarities. The only thing missing is Marlin Perkins narrating.
To glibly dismiss practices that have survived over 5,000 years, i.e., the various forms of yoga and other non-HIT physical regimens, seems to me to be imprudent at the least. And of course the kernel of the issue is what one means by “results.” Clearly, in the present discussion, “results” are very narrowly defined to include very precise, empirically-evaluated outcomes–and ones that are of importance primarily to the body-building community. As such, they would have limited interest and applicability to
most “athletes” in the traditional sense. For example, what year-round athletes such as wrestles, MMA fighters, jiu-jitsu players, boxers, etc., would have the luxury of HIT training to exhaustion 2-3 days per week, with rest on the off days? Similarly, because their sports call for the mastery of complex skills that require high repetitions–often with two-per-day workouts– they don’t have the luxury of intense 30-minute workouts to muscular failure with multi-day lay-offs for recuperation. Which is primarily why Steve Maxwell, long-time Brazilian jiu-jitsu Black Belt and early practitioner of HIT who was on the ground floor of the Arthur Jones/Nautilus revolution, later abandoned it for other modalities more suited to the needs of the martial artist and practitioner of physical culture. Steve’s experiences after thirty-five years in the fitness, fighting and personal training arena (having trained literally thousands of clients) have led him to embrace kettlebell training and various forms of body-weight exercises as the things that give most people the best bang for their buck–practices that go back, in various incarnations, for thousands of years. But then those practices were never directed at “bodybuilding’ per se. The outcome of a pleasing physique in those days was, by and large, the by-product of goal-directed training aimed primarily at combat and survival. One can imagine the Spartans, the Roman Legions and the gladiators did not have the luxury of brief, intense workouts followed by days of relaxation. And yet, what modern athlete could force march 20 miles over rugged terrain, bearing 80 pounds of armor and weapons, and then engage in a 3-hour pitched physical battle with that same 80 pounds of sword, spear and shield? I doubt seriously if it would be the modern athlete who trains for 45 minutes to failure, once or twice a week. Yes, HIT may produce “show muscle” in the modern context. But the Great Gama and other modern warriors were not and are not bodybuilders. And that’s why they don’t, and should not, train like bodybuilders.
James,
I’m not dismissing them, I’m saying if a person is primarily concerned with achieving results they should use the most effective method to achieve those results. By definition, if something is more effective it is more technologically advanced. Like I said, just because something is newer doesn’t mean it is a technological improvement. A lot of new exercise equipment is vastly inferior to the machines Nautilus was building almost 40 years ago.
The results I am talking about are hardly limited to bodybuilding, and neither is the usefulness of high intensity training. The volume and frequency of a HIT program can be adapted to the demand of an athlete’s training schedule and HIT has been used successfully by athletes at all levels in a variety of sports including MMA.
As for the training of the Spartans, Roman Legions, etc., versus HIT you have a similar situation as with sports. You have metabolic conditioning and skill demands specific to the sport or vocational activity which must be trained, but for the general improvements in functional ability (muscular strength, general metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning, flexibility, increased structural integrity, etc.) a HIT program would be more effective, more time efficient, and safer. Again, you have to balance the volume and frequency of the strength training program against the specific skill and metabolic training required by the athletic or vocational activity in question.
Kurt Harris, MD made an interesting comment related to this on his Paleo Nutrition blog:
“Remember, the paradigm is about paleolithic metabolism, not paleolithic food re-enactment!”
I’ve received a few e-mails from people claiming my recommendation for the most advanced technology for exercise was at odds for my recommendation for a “paleo” style diet, however this is missing the point. Our evolution shaped our general requirements for exercise and nutrition, not the exact way we need to train and eat to optimize our response to it.
As Dr. Harris says, the goal with eating is to create the appropriate metabolic (and hormonal) environment, not to eat exactly what our paleolithic ancestors ate. This would be impossible any way, since their diets would have varied significantly depending on geographic location, time of year, climate, etc.
The goal of exercise is not to mimic the exact physical demands of the paleolithic environment, it is to create the same type of demand that stimulates muscular strength and size increases in the manner that is most effective, most efficient and safest.
There seems to be a mind set that in order for exercise to be productive or to be “real exercise” or “real training” ones has to be moving explosively. I’ve got caught up with the whole idea of “functional training” before. Or trying to mimic everyday movements while adding resistance. I can easily see how this type of training could sooner or later lead to injury, especially power cleans or clean and pressing type movements. The topic of paleo made this come to mind.
Donnie,
Unfortunately there are still a lot of people who believe you must move explosively during exercise to develop the ability to move explosively during other activities, but doing so reduces both the safety and effectiveness of exercise while adding nothing of value. Getting stronger will improve your explosiveness regardless of your speed of movement during exercise, so it makes sense to use a controlled speed that is safer and provides more consistent tension over the full range of the exercise. The only things that need to be done explosively are the specific skills you are trying to improve the explosiveness of, but only after learning and practicing them at a slow speed to ensure they are being performed correctly.
Solid post and discussion. Good find with the Kurt Harris comment as well.
Hey drew nice post. I have this stigma where I believe machines great for isolation exercises but when it comes to compound movements the free weight wins. My reasoning is whenever I do a pull down on a hammar strength pull down. I feel less impact on forearms and biceps and I feel like it just isolates my lats taking most everything else out of the equation (thus becoming isolation workout). Vs A pull up where I feel all said muscles above burn more. Is this rational? Is my reasoning sound?
Alex,
Feeling it more in the lats and less in the biceps and forearms is most likely a matter of how you’re using the machine and not a problem with the design. A properly designed machine is still better. I have an entire section in the book devoted to equipment selection, pros and cons of free weights, machines, body weight, etc.
Drew, just on the equipment issue, how do you rate ‘Hammer Strength’ machines?
Adam,
Hammer Strength machines are generally well designed, but as far as plate loaded machines go there are better ones like Pendulum Strength Systems.
I’ve also noticed that pullups are too heavy for most people to do 8 strict 3-1-3 cadence reps. if a guy says he can do a high number, it usually means rocketing to the top and dropping to the bottom. it’s like using too much weight on a pulldown machine therefore it burns more. for this reason i plateaued doing pullups when i should’ve switched to pulldowns long ago and worked my way up.
I just received word that MedX is not out of business, although they are in very bad financial shape. I called the plant today and only got an answering machine, and the phone number for the main office is not working. I will post something when I am able to speak with someone at the company and get a first-hand account of what is going on.
I have also recently received new information on Randy Rindfleisch’s machines, now called “CZT Fitness Systems” and I’m pleased to say they made all the changes I requested when I was testing their prototype. The new machines are incredible.
Ken Hutchins is selling equipment again, but from what I have heard from several people he is asking a very high price and has not even built prototypes of the equipment yet. It will be interesting to see what his new machines look like, if anybody is willing to pay top dollar for what is essentially going to be a prototype.
The highest level of training technology for me is a set of PowerBlocks because I can afford them and combined with HIT they have provided the most consistent routine I’ve ever followed.
I’m always saddened when people fail to see that Yoga is supposed to be more than exercise. It’s also about meditation and self-reflection, learning to listen to your body, and so forth. Embodied cognition.
David,
The PowerBlocks are great for people who prefer to train at home but have limited space. I recommend them over the Nautilus/Bowflex SelectTech which are not very durable and become unusable over time due to the selected plates coming loose during use which can be hazardous during overhead movements. The PowerBlock Elite set goes up to 90 lbs which can accommodate even stronger people with the proper exercises. For anyone training primarily with dumbbells I recommend checking out Dumbbell Training for Strength and Fitness by Fred Fornicola.
I have no problem with people practicing yoga for the other reasons you mention but it is not optimal for exercise or even comparable to high intensity strength training for effectiveness and efficiency. I would discourage anyone from doing Bikram or “hot” yoga, though, especially if they have a medical condition sensitive to high temperatures.
This looks interesting, but I see the PowerBlock Elite set is nearly $700. For that price it’s cheaper to stay at Planet Fitness for another year.
Aaron,
When you consider all the major costs one year at Planet Fitness or similar budget gyms might cost you anywhere from $300 to $400 dollars. Even if you live within five miles of the gym and only train twice weekly over half of that is transportation at current gas prices. While the PowerBlocks aren’t the equivalent of a gym they are effective when used properly and are a space efficient solution for people who prefer to train at home and over the long run are far more cost efficient. This is especially the case with couples or families with children old enough to work out. One set of weights can be used by everybody in the home for a very small fraction of the cost of two or three or more yearly gym memberships.
If someone intends on making strength training a permanent part of their life a good home gym is priceless.
A home gym would pay itself off in time, but one would still need a bench and a rack for squats and such. I’d interested in seeing how you perform a leg press or a squat with dumbells.
Aaron,
There are several options for training the legs with dumbbells, the best being dumbbell squats and deadlifts. I will do demonstrations on video later if there is enough interest.
Drew,
Great stuff here. I include two nautilus machines at my local LA fitness (slim pickins over there) into my workout and was wondering how to tell upon inspection what generation they belong to. I’ll probably be using them either way but would be cool to know. After 2nd generation they became shit? What happened?
Also, ignore this if its stated somewhere obvious (I haven’t checked the blog in months so playing catch-up) but when is the long-anticipated book coming out?
Kevin,
The Next Gen, 2ST and Nitro all have the line name on them either on the frame or the instruction card. The easiest way to tell the line is the first and second gen had little or no shielding and used chains, the Next Gen equipment used chains and had full plastic shielding, the 2ST used kevlar belts and had partial plastic shielding, the Nitro uses kevlar belts and has little or no shielding. The Nitro machines are much better than the Next Gen and 2ST.
Trying to wrap up the book by end of November, but working on a side project now which will be available in a few days.
Good to hear about the book update.
I took a look at the Powerblock Elite set. I found a used set with the stand at Play it Again Sports for about $300. I figured as I would like to work out from home more often and only go to the gym once a week, it would be well worth getting. I will be interested to do deadlifts with these. They look good, the only thing it to make sure the pins are firmly inserted so the extra weight stack doesn’t slip off. Now I can get rid of some of the hexagon weights I have that I’ve outgrown.
Aaron,
I’m glad you found a deal on them and hope you have some great workouts with them.