The Death of Sports Medicine
A Response to Explosive Exercise
By Roger Schwab
If the concept of explosive exercise and its
supposed benefits have been "peer-reviewed"
and supported by any bona fide study, justification
of the entire scope of exercise science must
be seriously questioned. Explosive exercise
and the "considerable evidence" of benefits
as cited by the authors are far outweighed by
common sense. Injuries in exercise are for the
most part caused when force exceeds the structural
integrity of the involved musculo-skeletal system.
Since the limit of this breaking strength is
an unknown until exceeded, thus too late and
producing injury, it is common sense to utilize
exercise with the minimum force necessary to
stimulate the desired result.
It took nearly three quarters of the Current
Comment on explosive exercise before the authors
finally and inevitably surrendered to the ultimate
truth, suggesting an exercise program which
has a rate of injury associated with it. This
conclusion renders their position paper worse
than worthless, a dangerous self-serving opinion
which should never have weaved its way into
the web of the American College of Sports Medicine.
Conley and Stone find the need to explain to
the reader that "injuries from strength training
including explosive exercise, are rare with
rates of occurrence and severity far lower than
many sports...adequate safety measures and quality
instruction should always be enforced." In this
opinion, the above is an admission of the obvious,
a before you try it warning that what is being
touted here is potentially dangerous to anyone
and everyone who does try it, athlete or non-athlete.
Common sense dictates that exercise programs
designed to build strength should seek to reduce,
if not eliminate, injuries. If you have ever
witnessed an injury in an Olympic lift, it is
almost always instantly obvious, painful to
look at and severe. And we're not talking novice
here, but experienced world class Olympic lifter.
Conley and Stone do not mention that proper exercise, exercise which can and should be performed
by everyone, should strengthen the muscles,
connective tissues, and bones, and never damage
the skeleton. The authors entice the reader
to ignore this common sense: If
force exceeds structural integrity, injury must
occur. And in almost every corner
of the athletic arena, from the head-on collision
we call football, the battle under the boards
in basketball, to the ultimate check in hockey,
serious injuries are produced by the high levels
of impact force imposed on the musculo-skeletal
system of the athlete. (Exceptions being over
use sports related injuries brought
on in part by athletes perpetually fatigued
by training programs stressing high volumes
of work which fail to allow overall system recovery.
Also, disuse
atrophy especially of the neck and
lower back brought on by failure to include
specific cervical and lumbar exercise. And
by the way, do the authors suggest explosive
exercises for the neck and lower back? If so, the paper further deteriorates to utter
insanity.) To suggest that fast, ballistic or
plyometric movement under load in the weight
room will produce faster athletes, sufficiently
and safely strengthening them in order to optimally
compete on the field or play is simply dangerous
advice. Fast movements under load will more
likely produce injured athletes. It is not fast
movements that make you faster, it is stronger
muscles. It makes far more sense for any athlete
(or non-athlete) to strengthen his or her major
muscular structures in the safest way possible
which most definitely is not high speed, high
impact force "speed-strength" exercises. Working
major muscular structures intensely throughout
the greatest possible range of motion with controlled,
smooth movement for a series of 10 plus repetitions
will stimulate strength increases for anyone
in a safe manner. Build strength safely in the weight
room. Practice skill specifically on the athletic
field. Though we cannot alter the forces on
the playing field, we can certainly improve
structural integrity safely through lower force,
higher intensity training to withstand these
forces. Even if explosive training somehow "appears
to increase a wide range of athletic performance",
which it almost certainly does not, the potential
orthopedic cost would be far greater than the
improvement in functional ability.
Can one really believe that athletes should
be performing jump squats with a barbell loaded
on the cervical spine? Power cleans? Squat snatches?
All of these exercises, according to Conley
and Stone, should be taught properly to prevent
injury (which in itself is incongruous, since
explosive exercise produces rather than prevents
injuries.) Those who by into this thinking usually
have a background in Olympic lifting and its
inherent dangers, the root of the problem.
Why the intensity and strong opinions of this
rebuttal? Perhaps it is my background as both an Olympic lifter and powerlifter.
I practiced both during a four year Collegiate
career at Pennsylvania State University from
1964 through 1967, setting school records in
both activities including a successful 365 pound
bench press at 180 1/4 pounds bodyweight with
a two second pause at the chest and without
the use of a "benchpressing" shirt or any other
aids. Squatting was performed in competition
with 400 plus pounds. These squats were not
partial squats as is the norm today when squats
are performed. Rather, these were full squats
(competitions dictated lifts below parallel).
I also successfully competed in the Olympic
"quick lifts"; personal bests including a 240
pound snatch and a clean and jerk of 305 pounds.
Not national caliber lifts, but very competitive
at the college level in 1964-1967. However,
X-rays performed due to nagging neck and lower
back pain revealed disc herniations at C3-C7,
osteoplytes at every level, a reversal of my
lordic curve and narrowing of my vertebral canal
(spinal Stenosis) at C7. My lumbar spine showed
similar disc disease at L4-5 L5-S1. Major
degenerative change at 24 years old! Strong reasons to take a serious look at exercise
protocol.
And what did I learn from this? Well, for starters,
maybe the spine was not meant to support 400
pounds or that "throwing" a barbell overhead
from a pre-stretched position will greatly compromise
muscles and connective tissues as will "catching"
this barbell on the way down. The cause of my
problems was not the barbell, it was my misuse
of the tool, a misuse that is at the heart of
explosive exercise.
Remember, trainees get older and joint stress
accumulates silently. The exercise sins of athletes
in their twenties, may not surface until their
thirties, forties and even later. When they
start falling apart later in life, athletes
(and non-athletes) may not realize that their
problems were produced by misguided priorities
and training principles practiced at an earlier
age, injuries
that never had to happen if safety
in exercise was never compromised.
Conley and Stone are right that athletes and
not-athletes can realize their potential utilizing
the exact same training program - however, not the training program that these "scientists"
advocate.
My advice is that anyone who has ever considered
utilizing progressive resistance exercise as
a stimulus to improving functional ability and/or
performance in sports should carefully read
the July 1999 Current Comment from the American
College of Sports Medicine. Read it again and
then proceed in your own workouts to do
precisely the opposite.
"Explosive exercise" is the antithesis of sports
medicine, leading to short term nagging injuries
and long term chronic disasters. It can not
be part of a well rounded training program.
If the American College of Sports Medicine ever
achieved any dignity, that moment in time is
now gone. And with it dies "Sports Medicine",
the catchy phrase once recognized and trusted
as the prescription for a safe, sensible medically
oriented approach to the field of exercise,
a field now adrift in myth and confusion.
The benefits??? of explosive exercise have now
been told - told officially on the letterhead
of the American College of Sports Medicine.
Shame on you.
|