How fitness programs have evolved through the years
Several of my fitness friends were talking about different training programs that are available for various groups. We covered some generic programs for athletic teams as well as many of the recent fitness programs for individuals. It was interesting to talk about how different fitness programs appear that advocate the latest programs for people to follow. We started to compare the programs we have seen, and even tried a few, from several years ago. We discussed the length of time that each of the fitness programs lasted before a new program appeared for the “latest and greatest” program for people to try.
Very early strength contests had strong men lifting boulders of increasing size. In Ireland the Dinty Stones were the big challenge. There are two different stones with iron handles in them. The feat of strength was to just lift the stone off the ground. The real challenge was for a strong man to lift both stones off the ground at the same time. The combination weight of the two was approximately 600 pounds. There was an article in Sports Illustrated years ago that featured Dr. Jan Todd, a University of Texas professor, as the only woman to lift both stones off the ground.
In very old strength programs the weights used were kettle bells. They are back again for those born after the 1940s, or earlier. Kettle bells are once again “new” programs in fitness and making an appearance in gyms. One of the big strength contests for strongman shows was to have the athlete lift a railroad axel and wheels. The weight wasn’t that heavy compared to what strength people can do today, but the shape and size made it difficult to lift overhead.
I recalled the study by German researchers, Hettinger and Muller, advocating the use of isometrics to get strong. The big selling point of this study was that you could get maximum strength by straining against an immovable resistance for six seconds. I still have a chain that fits into a steel cup like container on a board that you could pull against to get strong. Further research showed that the resistance was very specific. The strength part was only good for a few degrees range of motion. If you wanted to strengthen the bicep by doing a curling motion, you had to pull against the chain at a minimum of four different angles of flexion. That sort of phased out the slogan of, “Pull for six seconds and increase your strength four times.”
Peter Karpovich, an exercise physiologist at Springfield College, did a study with a group of students in his class. I happened to be one of those students. He had a machine that recorded the amount of resistance that a student could apply against a pad while the student did a curl motion. There were three types of resistance. Isotonic, where the resistance arm moved in the direction of the movement. Isometric, where the arm did not move when resistance was applied. Eccentric, where the student tried to keep the resistance arm from returning to the starting position. The results showed that the eccentric resistance had the highest reading. The media reported the results of the study and every fitness trainer started to tell their clients that the slow motion returning to the starting position was the best way to increase strength. The problem with this theory was that in the study the eccentric resistance was greater than the strength of the arm strength of the student. Lifting the same resistance up, and then down, does not change the effort, and unless the weight was heavier than what the person could lift the eccentric contraction was not the same as the results of the study. One other point that came out of the research was that a maximum isometric contraction only lasts about three or four seconds. After four seconds the amount of resistance a student could apply to the pad dropped off very quickly. So much for gaining strength with a 10 second contraction is all a person needs.
We also started to compare fitness programs for teams. It was enjoyable to hear the different experiences the group had with different teams. I happen to be a firm believer in the theory of specificity. The fitness program should be designed to meet the demands of the sport. Would you give the same program to a tennis team that you would a defensive tackle on a football team? Are the demands of a lineman in football the same as a wide receiver? Do the fitness programs for sprinters in track fit those runners that do the 5,000 meter run? The discussions amongst the group were very interesting when they started to compare the generic fitness programs to the demands of each sport. One interesting point was when the group started to look at the type of injuries that occur in the various sports. What injury is prevalent in tennis versus ice hockey versus basketball versus sprinters versus marathon runners? The key to understanding what injuries are most frequent in the various sports will determine what type of fitness program you give that athlete to prevent the injury from occurring.
Listening to the different experiences from the individuals in the group was enjoyable. It demonstrated that some programs need some major overhaul in regard to the physical demands of each of the different sports.
