[orangedays]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

Before I start..(might not finish tonight), let me say that I have never been associated with a literary genius, so please don't call the dogs out on me. I am just a lowly mathematician...

First and foremost, thank you for your service. Over the past few months, I have been doing quite a bit of military-oriented reading which has helped me develop a new and profound respect for what you guys do for us. None of us would be able to live the way we do were it not for your sacrifice.

Now with formalities out of the way...

Obviously, that would depend heavily on the goal. The only question you have to ask is, are you strong?

This is a great question one needs to ask, and answer, for themselves. From my perspective, I've always been a rather skinny dude, armed/plagued with a runaway metabolism. In the past, I confused this thinness with health. As I developed a more sophisticated understanding of my body, I came to the realization that I was in fact "skinny fat"...arguably the worst kind.

Getting back to your point, my original goal was to be 'fit'. A goal that was generic, unguided and doomed to failure. I would run, do pushups, situps...and stop when I was tired. Was I strong? Eh. I was strong-er, but from the absolute perspective of the question you posed - I remained weak. My approach was half-assed and qualitative. Here is where I think what you said makes perfect sense:

That's why Squats, Presses, and Dead lifts are an absolute must to make sustainable and measurable gains.

You can't manage what you can't measure. By quantifying our results, by consistently drawing lines in the sand further and further away from our starting point, we are thereby able to measure improvements in relative 'strength'. This is something I've definitely taken to heart - I keep a daily Excel log of every activity I do, # reps, weight, seconds rest between reps, etc. Once you have the data, it becomes easy to measure progress.

Here's where I think we diverge though: while I agree that exercises like squats, presses and dead lifts are excellent go-tos to measure strength (and ones that I incorporate into my workouts), I also believe that there are alternative exercises that can easily be selected to fulfill the same purpose. I'm by no means supporting lily pad jumps or bunny hops (I confess to not knowing what those are but anything called a 'bunny' hop can't be that intimidating...ended up youtubing it here, not impressed). As an aside, I actually like burpees, but I can understand why a former Marine might feel he's had a lifetime's worth...

I think exercises like this, that do come off as gimmicky, belong on one end of the spectrum. My contention is that they are designed to be challenging, but eminently do-able for the beginning fitness enthusiast. My objection is that they should not be aggregated (and perhaps this was not Wells' intention) with exercises such as these, which I categorize as 'muscle confusion' when done in circuit:

Single-arm shoulder press with dumbbell lunge
Dumbbell straight-leg deadlift to row

It's exercises like the above that I refer to when I contend there are 'evolved' alternatives to traditional compound exercises, and when I made my previous reference to the fact that I found Wells' article parochial even as he preached against "reactionary elements". I don't think they are shortcuts, and I have definitely found that using them (and their cousins) have helped increase my strength as measured by the amount that I can press or squat.

One of the things in your response that really caught my eye was your multiple references to "behind closed doors". I'm curious as to what you mean by that. I'm guessing what you mean is that these truly strong individuals have paid their dues by using the, "I lift things up and put them down" approach (partially joking). Squat, press and lift until you reach a certain threshold, at which point it becomes okay to branch out into other exercises? I think it's just a definitional issue but would appreciate some clarification.

I'll be honest, I'm still confused but I'll give it a shot, anyway... Hypothetically, if there does exist this so called "muscle confusion", it's evolution as you say came about from squats, dead lifts, and presses. What am I missing here? Why would you try "muscle confusion" on a weak bodied person? Why not just put that person under a bar and have them lift it? Come back the next time and lift it again, but with an incremental weight change. Come back again, etc... until that weak body person is strong(er). Then you can take that strong person and incorporate new goals that might connect a sport or just being able to move a refrigerator down a flight of stairs..

I feel 'muscle confusion' (for simplicity, let's refer to this as Route B) folks are just taking a different path towards the same destination (vs. squats, lifts, presses = Route A). By combining multiple exercises into one movement, we reduce the necessary time commitment (a major constraint in most of our lives) as well as, depending on the exercise, create incremental aerobic stress on the body (a benefit Wells dismisses at the end of his paper). Essentially, we are able to do more in less time, which for me means I can accomplish even more in the same amount of time, a not insignificant benefit. Further, the benefits of aerobic exercise to the cardiovascular system should not be downplayed.

Bigger picture, I admit I am not in a position to make a definitive assertion that Route B will produce a stronger person than Route A. In the absence of empirical evidence, I'm not sure either of us are. And this brings us back to the question of goals. I will never, in all likelihood, need to move a refrigerator down a flight of stairs (I know that was an arbitrary example but stick with me). Just as you would, perhaps, never need additional strength in your quads to prevent a tight IT band from pulling your patella out-of-line (an issue I had in the past). As normal Joe's, you and I are not blessed with the same bodies as the stars we root for, nor are we cursed with the same responsibilities on the court or field. Some folks on this board simply want to lose weight, and to be perfectly honest, I think Route B would be better suited given the increased emphasis on cardio in addition to building muscle mass. But if my only goal was to be able to say, "I can bench 220x10 today whereas 2 weeks ago I was at 180x10", then certainly, Route A would be the way to go. I'm in a difficult position because I use both A and B. My issue is the criticism Wells brings to bear on the latter. While I share his distaste for gimmicks, I think he takes it too far and shortchanges a legitimate alternative methodology.

Ok, so you're wanting me to completely ignore this paragraph? Because there is a lot going on here that fuels the fire.

Ok, so here you didn't answer my question. What muscles does a proper squat leave out? The answer is none unless you're under the impression that a squat should be done above parallel. (not assuming you don't know but please clarify your understanding)

The answer is none, my criticism was never of the squat. Given how much mass and strength we carry around in our legs and glutes (and the amount of positive stress it puts into strengthening the lower back), huge part of my workout. The intention of my original sentence was to say, in essence, isolation exercises and machines are terrible. Words got jumbled around and cut out entirely, and the sentence became convoluted. Bernardos was kind enough to point it out for me so I was able to at least not look a complete idiot. Cut a guy some slack

I could barely dunk the basketball in high school at 6'3 175lbs. I'm 240 lbs and last month I dunked a basketball.

Awesome dude...I'm 6'0, 170 right now. Goal is to put on 10 more lbs of muscle but I'm having issues. Eating myself out of house and home and it's starting to piss me off.

You might find this interesting (it was a nice wake-up for me). Men's Health (yeah yeah, I subscribe) recently had an article entitled, "10 Standards to Assess Your Fitness Level". As you are much further along than me on the fitness trail, would love to hear your feedback on it. I found this to be a really interesting list of criterion (some traditional, some not) by which to measure ourselves on a relative and absolute basis. I'm sure all readers of this thread would benefit from your insight.