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.
******
I think this is a natural response for a lot of guys. We have been exposed to airbrushed abs in just about every magazine on the shelf. It's unrealistic, not healthy, and in no way indicative of strength. When I decided to educate myself properly, I found that most my ideas of fitness were completely wrong.
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?
******
I think what most people are ignorant of is the importance of not only eating good food, but eating enough in general to make gains when they train like you describe.
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.
******
Absolutely!
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...
******
Since you mention this, I want to direct your attention to a movement that is rumbling throughout the military. You might be aware from your reading that things don't change much in the military. Sometimes stupid is as stupid does... But, in particular units, officers, soldiers, marines, etc are becoming more educated in the bigger picture of what is necessary to survive and fulfill their duties in the face of adversity on the battlefield. Yes, you guessed it. Are we strong?
Why Does the Army Want Me Weak? - this is a primer
Combat Worst-Case Scenario
An Argument for Strength Training in the Military -
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.
*****
I can't speak for Wells on this but my take on this is keep it simple. As a novice, I don't need variety to instigate growth. I need quality. And in my opinion, quality are lifts that require my whole body. I apologize, but I will beat this horse until its blue. The "low bar back" SQUAT is the lift that will, when done correctly, make you as physically strong and vital a human being as you can be. BUT, the most important part is you have to do it correctly.
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.
*****
Out of the public eye... Every high school kid that made it to the collegiate level, and then to the pro level has spent countless hours working on their craft. In this process, they got under a bar, pushed a bar, pulled a bar, or lifted a bar with a substantial load. You might be to young to know the details, but until 1990-91 season the Detroit Pistons beat the shit out of Jordan on the court. If you compare the Jordan in 89 with the Jordan in 90, it's evident that he started strength training. I was in high school and remember seeing him at the free throw line that year. He looked like a different player. Anyway, my point was these athletes have already done what I am advocating...
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?
*****
Exactly!
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).
*****
OK, but how does incremental aerobic stress vs anaerobic exercise help you achieve your fitness goals? From the standpoint of a long distance runner whose craft is to perform under those aerobic conditions, yes, of course it should be in their training. My point (Wells point maybe) is that we don't need to distinguish the benefits of aerobic exercise from anaerobic. The former is not necessary. I know it's been beat in our heads that to burn calories/lose weight/get ripped - we need to run our ass off or jump up in the air, twist, and repeat at least twice a week (just throwing that out there). It's so far from the truth, yet, we have been conditioned to think this way by every PT in a globo gym. Not to mention every infomercial. Yes, that sells.. It sells because it's easy to dictate, easy to train someone to do, and very easy to modify to keep the interest of the poor sap in front of the TV. But, what happens is those individuals who stop seeing results, quit. And they are right back in this thread asking what went wrong? Dammit, I am one of them...I have wasted so much of my time doing stupid shit that doesn't make sense yet I just kept on plugging.
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.
*****
Fair enough... But I think the message is correct. Unfortunately, it's hard to do Route A... It is very hard to get under that bar and feel like your eyeballs are going to pop out of your skull. I certainly don't do it for the "numbers" game. The numerical gains are just the indicators that I am getting stronger each time I go into the weight room.
I do it because it really works. Our bodies are meant to do that kind of work. I have a pretty interesting theory about mankind evolving over the last two centuries. I think the invention of the "throne" has destroyed the full development of our hips, hamstrings, abductors, and caused some of the bowel problems we have today. We are meant to squat. It's our natural position. We have squatted for thousands of years. Have you ever taken a shit in the woods? Aside from getting it on your pants, wasn't it the easiest thing you've ever done? LOL... Just think about it...
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
*****
Agree.
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.
*****
Keep eating and keep putting weight on the bar. Even if its micro loading 2lbs per workout, you're getting stronger.
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".
*****
I'll check it out.
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.