Nautilus and Free Weights - The Controversy
- The Truth
The Main Line Times, 4.12.1984
By Roger Schwab
Foreword - C. A. English, M.D.
Bryn Mawr Sports Medicine Clinic
FOREWORD
The results of improper exercise fill an orthopedist's
office daily. These are usually seen as the
result of an acute injury, or more commonly,
the over-35 year old whose resultant degenerative
musculo-skeletal changes have become symptomatic.
I strongly feel the use of slow weight-training,
as opposed to fast, violent or explosive weight
exercises, lessens the chance of immediate injury
or later progressive degenerative changes.
Properly supervised training as described herein
on Nautilus equipment would result in maximum
gains with minimal injury potential.
C.A. English, M.D.
Bryn Mawr Sports Medicine Clinic
Through the last years of the 1970's right
up to 1984, the hottest topic still raging in
the exercise arena is the question: "Which
is superior for building muscular size and strength,
Nautilus machines or free weights?". These
are the two most widely used tools in the gyms,
strength rooms and fitness centers in the United
States. Most of the discussion thus far has
been based strictly on opinion, hearsay, and
the written word in the latest trade journal
or muscle magazine, listing the current routines
of popular physique champions. Virtually none
of the discussion has been based on established
medical information (of which there is precious
little), basic physics, or cause and effects
of muscular strength and size. Am I getting
too technical? It's about time someone did!
Because, if the facts are not generated soon,
the entire field of strength-training will dig
itself an early grave from which it will not
likely escape in time for the current generation
to reap its enormous potential value. For, if
the truth be known, the field of exercise, though
gaining in popularity, is "faddish",
a religion to some; but in respect to results,
in many quarters, it has been marching steadily
backwards. I would conservatively estimate that
for every unit of benefit derived from today's
strength-training routines practiced in weight
rooms across the country, there are at least
ten (10) units of damage--and that does not
include the cripples and the deaths. How many
times have we heard, "Only free weights,
not machines, build bulk."? This should
tell the intelligent listener that the person
issuing such a statement knows little or nothing
about the cause and effect of exercise. If properly
utilized, free weights or Nautilus machines
will stimulate the skeletal muscles of the body
to respond. And if the tools are utilized properly--which
in most instances they are not-- results can
be stimulated safely, sensibly, and fast.
What we have, however, is hundreds, if not
thousands, of people in responsible positions
telling kids the "best way" to train.
How these "experts" got into responsible
positions in the first place is ridiculous,
if not pathetic. Some twenty years ago, I was
assigned the position of strength coach of the
football team of a major university. Not because
I understood the value of proper strength-training--at
the time I knew nothing of value about strength-training--but
because I "looked the part". I had
big muscles and the football coach thought so
too. So I was placed in charge of the strength
program of one of the' nation's foremost "powerhouse"
football teams. And I proceeded to train them
in a manner that was of no value at best, and
in some cases, nearly destructive. I could not
at the time understand it. After all, it did
work for me, didn't it (despite a few nagging
injuries)? Never mind the fact that it didn't
work for anyone else. I didn't understand that
at the time, but I do now. It took me many years
and many injuries to realize that there is a
right way and a wrong way to lift weights. And
most people today do it the wrong way.
Every mistake that I made coaching strength-training
to athletes twenty years ago is being repeated
today at every level--from the high schools
to the pros, and the situation is even worse.
Only after I was unable to stimulate results
either for myself or the athletes that I trained,
did I finally wake up! I finally realized that
I was on a treadmill, a dangerous treadmill
at that, going nowhere fast and usually creating
injuries--thus, going backwards. Experience
does not produce learning, but without experience
no learning at all is even possible. Change
does not produce improvement, yet without change
even the slightest possibility of improvement
is impossible.
Today, coaches, teachers, even trainers and
therapists, in many instances, glean most of
their information on strength-training not from
the scientific or medical communities, but from
the high-gloss, low-tech, "glitzy"
muscle magazines. Upon thorough (one minute's
worth) inspection it is obvious that the publication
in hand is geared basically to the 12 - 15 year
old "kid" (maybe also to the 20 -
30 or even 40 year old "kid") searching
for the elusive "secret"--the way
to big muscles--the way the champs do it! The
magazine then lists the weight workout of the
latest Mr. Muscle telling the four-hour a day,
six-days a week training program that transformed
Mr. Muscle from a 99 pound weakling into 225
pounds of shapely muscular mass. And the 12
- 15 year old kid believes what he just read.
And, pitifully, so does the 20, 30 and 40 year
old "kid"--which would be funny, if
it wasn't pathetic. And the problem doesn't
stop here. The strength coach, who should know
better, reads this pulp as if it were the Bible
and has his athletes or bodybuilders follow
these phony workouts to the letter. And here,
folks, is the truth.
Almost every article written in most muscle
magazines in the last twenty (20) years (geared
to building bigger muscles) has been outright
nonsense. The article by-lined by the champ(?)
lists a 3 - 4 hour a day, 6-days a week workout
in which, of course, he says he trains "hard".
Such a workout, by its very nature, could not
be "hard". If it was, it would probably
kill him. It certainly would not build muscles.
You don't believe me! Well, try 6-days a week,
3 - 4 hour "hard" workouts for one
day yet alone for six days--see you in the morgue!
The field of exercise is saturated with fraud
and lies with little or no scientific logic.
And the situation is not getting better, its
getting worse. If you seek results from progressive
weight-training, you must train hard, and if
you train hard you must train briefly. There
is no other way--PERIOD!
In coaching circles today, at the high school
through the professional level, the favorite
exercise for coaches and athletes alike is the
bench press. Why? Most coaches will answer,
"More than any other exercise the bench
press will help our linemen explode off the
line of scrimmage. It's the best exercise for
upper body strength". Usually the bench
press is performed for many "pyramid"
sets--hours upon hours spent doing the bench
press. Why? Do you want the truth? Because the
bench press is one of the easiest exercises
and certainly not the best! And certainly not
the best way to help linemen "explode"
off the line of scrimmage. Ten sets of bench
presses is not uncommon in many athletes' workouts.
Why, because it's easy! You think not? Well,
just for kicks, let's try ten sets of barbell
full squats--all the way down and all the way
up! The first excuse will be that squats will
hurt the knees. Not if they are done right--slow,
strict and hard! People will not do ten sets
of squats! If performed properly, people won't
do two sets of squats! Why not? Because squats
are hard, brutally hard. And if you do one set
right, you not only don't need two sets or more--you
literally can't stand them. I'll give you two
examples of hard work:
1. Take a weight that you think you can squat
with for ten hard repetitions (have three spotters
with you, one on each side and one behind you)
and do twenty (20) reps, or until you can no
longer stand up--until the spotters have to
take the weight off your shoulders while you
are in the down position. After you catch your
breath and the color returns to your face, you
can crawl to the next exercise, no one will
have to question you about your second set.
2. Sling about one hundred and fifty pounds
around your waist and climb up on a small stool
below your chin-up bar. Place your chin above
the bar. Lower yourself SLOWLY, about-ten seconds,
with your knees bent until you are in a full
hang at the bottom. Then climb up on the stool
again, get your chin over the bar and lower
again slowly. Try to complete ten (10) repetitions.
After your tenth rep, while you are lying there
on the floor with your eyes rolling around in
your head, try to put off the rage to slug someone
when he asks about a second set.
This is the best way to stimulate results.
In all likelihood, the following workout that
these hard squats and "negative" chin-ups
are scheduled, will find most trainees, instead,
substituting ten (10) sets of bench presses
and light dumbbell curls--equating more and
easier work with results--not wanting to do
the hard work. The results--NO RESULTS! And
many strength coaches endorse this high-quantity,
low-quality training.
And what about the difference between Nautilus
and free weights? Simply, Nautilus allows you
to train harder than free weights. Or, performed
correctly, Nautilus is harder than free weights;
a superior tool. And that is no slap at free
weights. Free weights are a good tool, used
properly, a great tool. Yet a barbell has certain
built-in limitations which limit its function.
A barbell offers resistance only in a verticle,
up and down direction, straight line by nature.
Resistance is not provided against full-range
movement. Thus, a barbell, in nearly all instances,
does not, literally cannot, work a muscle in
the position of full muscular contraction. Thus
barbells give resistance in a mid-range position
and do not work the whole length of a muscle.
Nautilus does and adds proper, balanced, and
variable resistance--from the extended position
to the position of full muscular contraction.
Nautilus allows you to work the full length
of a muscle, and when performed correctly, enables
you to work harder than mid-range resistance
offered by a barbell. Both tools will stimulate
results--size and strength--to those who have
the potential to develop size and strength.
And all of us do not have equal potential. The
coach who screams out that, "Only free
weights will build size and strength",
or that "Linemen should use free weights
for bulk and backs should use Nautilus for flexibility",
is either ignorant or stupid or both. Ignorance
being a lack of knowledge (we all have that
to greater or lesser degrees). Stupidity being
the inability to learn (we don't all have that).
It is not the tool that builds muscle, it is
the proper use of the tool and the genetic make-up
of the user. For the man who has the potential--long
muscle bellies and shorter tendons being the
primary factors--great strength and size is
attainable-fast. To those of us without that
great potential, good results are possible but
cannot ever duplicate the results of the physically
superior, gifted athlete. Thus, it should be
obvious, but usually never is, that to compare
one person to the next is meaningless--absurd.
The only justifiable comparison is that of comparing
one person to himself at a later time.
Please note that women are not purposely being
left out of this discussion. Women can realize
tremendous value from proper weight-training;
it is by far the finest exercise for any woman
seeking to realize her full physical potential.
Yet, large muscles for women? No way, due to
the higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone
levels indigenous to women. Great strength,
great body, yes! Big muscles, almost never!
Linemen, as well as backs, can and should train
identically--as hard as possible and briefly,
by necessity. Whether the tool is a barbell
or a Nautilus machine, the method of training
is exactly the same. A Nautilus machine is really
a barbell--a step beyond--a more logical barbell.
Yet how often do we hear, "A barbell requires
more muscle fibers, plus skill is required for
balance in barbell work". Part of this
statement is true. A barbell does require a
skill in order to handle it effectively, a skill
not needed when using a Nautilus machine. This,
however, is more than offset by the fact that
a barbell does not, simply cannot, isolate a
muscle or work that muscle through its full
range of motion, with resistance from the stretch
to the contraction. Does a barbell work more
muscle fiber? Let's take the bench press for
an example. The bench press is performed primarily
for building strength in the pectoral muscles.
Yet the exercise cannot fully work the pectorals
for two reasons:
1. The smaller, weaker muscles of the triceps
will fail before the larger pectoral muscles.
2. The bench press does not meet the physiological
function of the pectorals. The muscles are not
worked from an extended position to a position
of full muscular contraction.
The above facts do not imply that the bench
press is a useless exercise, far from it! Performed
correctly--meaning briefly and as hard as possible--the
bench press can yield great upper body strength,
though not as great as a Nautilus Pullover,
Double Chest, or Omni Chest, or even a set of
negative dips. As far as more muscle fibers
being used by a barbell, the way most people
perform bench presses--INCORRECTLY--many fibers
actually are brought into play. Sadly, most
of these fibers come from heaving the lower
back, pushing the floor with the feet, etc.,
and not the intended muscles of the chest, for
which the athlete is supposedly performing the
exercise. Properly performed, the barbell is
capable of stimulating enormous results (almost
a miracle machine). Improper use of a barbell,
however, has the potential to cause great damage
to the muscles and to the skeleton of the body.
Unfortunately, this is the way the barbell is
taught in many sectors-- incorrectly and dangerously!
And herein are problems.
For some years now the term "explosive
training" has been a catch-word in many,
if not most, strength-training facilities associated
with contact sports. Demonstrating strength
has become more important than building strength.
In many camps, weight-training has hit rock
bottom with the emphasis placed on heaving weights
explosively instead of lifting weights slowly.
Such a style of training develops-one thing--the
ability to throw a barbell; it builds nothing.
So if your goal in sport is to throw a barbell,
then train explosively. If the goal is building
stronger and larger muscle tissue, lift weights
slowly, smoothly, and in proper form. Proper
form on an exercise should never be sacrificed.
When the coach yells to his athlete in the
weight room, "Train explosively so you'll
explode off the line of scrimmage", that
coach is guilty of nothing short of criminal
malpractice. His athletes will explode all right--their
lower backs will explode, their hips, necks,
and knees, etc. When the force of movement created
by a ballistic throwing of a weight exceeds
the breaking strength of the tendon or muscle
involved, injury can, literally must, occur.
Exercise, when performed correctly, should and
will build muscle, stimulate strength--not damage
or destroy the skeleton. The next time a person
tells you to explode under a weight instead
of performing the repetition slowly and smoothly,
turn around and walk away from that person--you
are listening to a fool--a dangerous fool! There
is no nicer way of saying it.
Remember, skill in a sport can only come from
one possible source, the practice of the sport
itself. Building strength should be general
and will improve functional ability in any sport.
Trying to simulate your sport in the weight
room is always a step in the wrong direction.
It will do nothing to increase your strength
but it will hurt your skills. Swinging a heavy
golf club or weighted baseball bat will do nothing
to increase your strength but it will just as
certainly, inevitably, lead to confusion, messing
up a skill. And to add insult to injury relating
to an earlier topic--bench presses and the muscles
involved--while productive, are just as certainly
not responsible for exploding off the line of
scrimmage. The primary mover there is the gluteus
maximus and the large muscles of the hips and
thighs, and those muscles are best stimulated
by heavy, hard leg work--SQUATS. Takes some
of the prestige off of the bench press! But
you want the truth, don't you?
Since we have exploded several, though certainly
not all of the myths surrounding exercise at
the present time, we might as well destroy some
of the other "sacred cows" while we
are at it. Instead of looking for ways to make
exercise easier, look for ways of making it
harder! Be aware of the latest fad devices usually
designed to make exercise easier or more exciting.
Falling into this category, probably to the
outrage of some people, are gadgets such as
E-Z Curl Bars, reverse gravity boots, and ankle
and hand weights. The pitfalls of these devises
range from ridiculous to outright dangerous
and are so obvious that no explanation should
be necessary.
So, in conclusion, free weights and Nautilus
machines are both productive tools and valuable
whenever greater strength and/or muscle size
is desired. And the harder the style of training,
the better the results. Nautilus is the superior
tool merely because it allows a person/athlete
to train harder than a barbell. The best barbell
exercises and the ones which should be a staple
in every serious barbell trainee's workout should
be: Barbell Squats, deadlifts, overhead presses
(either in front or behind the neck), bent-over
rowing, bench presses, curls and shrugs. The
best Nautilus exercises which are the most difficult
and hardest weight-training exercises available-are
the: Nautilus Duo Squat, Nautilus Pullover/Torso
Arm, Negative Chin-ups on Nautilus Multi-Exerciser,
Negative Dips on Nautilus Multi- Exerciser,
and all of the Nautilus Omni machines, the ones
with the foot-pedals, allowing purely negative
(eccentric contraction) work. You've never heard
of a Nautilus Omni machine? Well, you haven't
looked hard enough. But here's a hint--these
old "dinosaurs" are still around--as
close as Bryn Mawr! |