I’ve studied the fitness industry for the best part of my adult life now. I’ve done the University thing, worked in a gym, personal trained a host of individuals, trained sports teams and now working with Fitness Qatar.
I’ve studied a number of fitness related matters including physiology, coaching, teaching, biomechanics and strength and conditioning. During this time however, one thing stands out for me above all else (drum roll please)…the fitness industry is full of fallacies.
That’s right, the industry is full of so much conflicting information, false claims and false promises. It’s no wonder so many people are confused as to how to achieve their fitness goals. You only need to look at the nation’s general health and fitness to get an indication that the industry is a completely misunderstood subject.
At the elite level it is no different either. For example, UK football has some of the best facilities in the world yet look at the poor physical attributes of their national and club teams. One of the first rules a strength and conditioning coach should abide by is injury reduction. However, top athletes at top clubs week in, week out are pulling hamstrings, groins etc every week. In this day and age, this simply shouldn’t happen!
A common instance in football is hamstring injuries due to the sport being primarily quad dominant. However, do supposed ‘top’ coaches/trainer’s correctly address this or any other muscular weaknesses/imbalances? Some may, but I’d argue the majority don’t. This is a massive concern.
As a consequence of this, I’ve binned a host of useless uni textbooks/notes etc and compiled at list of 10 common fitness misconceptions I have come across at some stage or another. Some of these you may already know and some you may be surprised by but either way, they give an indication of how artificial the fitness industry can be.
(1) Body-part splits
Body-part splits were first popularised by bodybuilding. Now while I admire and commend the athletes associated with this sport, their methods for training have no place with the everyday trainer. In fact, I would even argue some of their methods are completely flawed in any case (read below). Since the existence of the human body, it has and always will work as a unit. Everyday tasks require your muscles to work co-ordinately together, not separate. Even simple tasks such as writing involve more than one muscle group, so why would/should one design and follow a programme based on a body-part split?
Do you want to look like Ronnie?
Think about it, the notion that a programme works different muscle groups individually is in actual fact completely impossible. Therefore the training philosophy involved in a body-part split routine doesn’t exist. So why bother wasting your time following a programme that is unworkable!
Whatever your views of body-part split routines, there is evidence suggesting it can lead to muscular imbalances leading to injury and postural difficulties. This is largely a consequence of particular muscle groups often being neglected.
Another argument against split-routines is that the majority of people essentially don’t want to look like a bodybuilder. In fact, most people tend to want a physique that resembles that of many athletes. This is just one of many reasons why I believe everyday people should use similar training methods to that of athletes. The benefits and advantages? To name a few you look better, feel better and are able to function better given everyday tasks.
Now splitting your programme is not entirely impractical. You could for example revert to a lower body/upper body split or push/pull split. However, whatever you decide, try to at least base your training programme on what your body does and not what body part it is.
(2) Muscle turns into fat and vice-versa
This one is very simple. Muscle and fat are two entirely different types of tissue therefore it is impossible that one can change into another.
(3) Simulating sports movements with weights
When I worked at a commercial gym, I witnessed many athletes (even those professional) trying to exactly mirror the movements of their sport with added weights. What made the matter worse was that some trainers were actually prescribing this to their clients. This can be extremely detrimental to the athletes sporting performance as it can damage a number of key motor skills. For example, Siff (2002) explains that significant extra loading can lead to the development of inappropriate and conflicting neural programs in the athlete. This in turn can change the centre of gravity, torque, acceleration, involvement of elastic energy processes and patterns of force production.
Contrary to popular belief, above is real sports specific training
If athletes are looking to improve the skills necessary in their sport, then this is best accomplished by actually playing or practising the skills within their sport. This may be in the form of repetition drills or conditioned games etc. Either way, it is clear that no substitute can or should be made for your ‘sports specific training’.
Now this doesn’t mean resistance training should not be included in your overall training programme. It’s quite the opposite, as a carefully prescribed programme can improve your overall performance and athletic well-being. The rule of thumb regarding resistance training exercises is that they should not exactly mirror sporting movements but limit parts of the movement range. Exact exercise selection ought to be based on needs and analysis (i.e. your sport) but generally full-body exercises such as deadlifts and squats will form the foundation of most athletic programmes.
(4) Lifting weights as children stunts their growth
As a former PE teacher this one is of particular interest to me. There is no evidence whatsoever that if children lift weights it will stunt their growth…none! This position stands by the National Strength & Conditioning Association who suggest that children can benefit from participation in a properly prescribed and supervised strength training programme. This is also supported by Siff (2002) who suggests carefully controlled, progressive resistance training can actually improve muscle and bone strength significantly in children, so there is no valid reason to single out properly administered resistance training as being potentially dangerous for children.
Remember this kid!
Another matter I find interesting concerning this matter is that running and jumping activities actually impose higher loading on the body than most resistance training (often greater than 6 times bodyweight!). Does this mean we should stop children from taking part in activities that require these types of movements, for example football? I didn’t think so.
(5) Steady-state cardio is the most efficient way to lose bodyfat
This is quite possibly the most hotly talked about fitness topic. I’ve debated over what methods are most efficient to lose bodyfat with clients, trainers, teachers, lecturers and gym goers and I still stand by my view. There is no single best method to lose bodyfat!
The whole process is far more complicated than merely engaging and swearing by one form of physical exercise (think of diet for example). Nevertheless, bearing this common myth in mind I strongly believe steady-state cardio is not the most efficient method to lose bodyfat. Unlike many others however, I don’t disregard steady-state cardio altogether. I believe this form of exercise (e.g. running, cycling) can play a small part in successful fat loss. It’s just other methods are far more effective.
The most effective activities to introduce in a programme based on fat loss burn a lot of calories, promote muscle mass and elevate metabolism, much like many athletes programmes! People need to understand that the bulk of calories burned are largely determined by their resting metabolic rate (RMR) and not during the exercise itself.
The number of calories burned outside your RMR plays a small role in the number of overall calories burned. The number of calories you burn after exercise is known as Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption (EPOC) and involves the recovery of your metabolic rate to pre-exercise levels. Now, this is where traditional cardio exercise significantly struggles as this type of ‘light to moderate’ exercise will see your RMR return to normal in the space of several minutes. More intense exercise however (e.g. interval running/resistance training) results in your RMR being raised for several hours after exercise.
A further method in raising your RMR is based upon the amount of muscle you have and how hard it works. Therefore activities that promote and maintain muscle mass (i.e. resistance training/circuit training) elevate your metabolic rate significantly meaning you will burn more calories/energy.
All in all, it all boils down to what your exact fitness goals are. Boring, steady-state cardio sessions will burn calories and expend energy but never to the extent the abovementioned activities will. In terms of your physical wellbeing, I believe the benefits of intense exercise far outweigh those of steady-state cardio exercise. In terms of those aesthetic, I also believe the benefits of intense exercise far outweigh those of steady-state cardio exercise.
An easy way to identify the difference (aesthetically) is by comparing the physiques of a. the sprinter who predominately adopts highly intense training methods to b. The marathon runner who predominately adopts light to moderate training methods.
Firstly, answer me this, who has less bodyfat? Contrary to what you probably assumed before, you should now know the answer is a. Now answer me this, who would you rather look like? I know my answer but what is yours? Who’s in better shape?
You Decide...
