[Note: Although I usually prefer to place my obligatory statement of the definition of exercise as a preamble to my discussions regarding exercise, I have placed it at the end of this treatise.
You commented years ago about how, when doing a static, the subject may realize there is nothing to lift, and something clicks. I tell clients that, no matter how you perform a movement, you always have to stop at the same point, which is when you can't lift it anymore. If they keep their speed down, and avoid discrepancies, it will be tougher for a given weight. They will be done sooner, it will be safer, and they will decrease potential for getting a premature weight increase, then not being able to handle it properly. It is okay if you can't lift something. Everybody has an upper limit, and no-one can go forever. It is okay to get tired. Allow it to happen. If you focus on lifting the weight, you find ways around the fatigue. It may APPEAR like you're getting stronger, but you're actually just changing your lifting style.
Separately, it appears that some people think they are stronger if they lift it 8 times one way, vs. 6 another. No, your strength is the same in all cases, because it is what you have before you start a movement. It is like having a certain amount of fuel in your tank. It doesn't matter where, or how far you drive, you start with the same amount of fuel.
I am surprised that the human race has lasted this long, considering how difficult it is for some people to grasp all of this.
I always think that this definition is both refreshing and clarifying. In particular, the distinction between the definition of exercise and the purpose of exercise is important to grasp.
Even in this article however there are a number of ideas that I think still need to be expressed more clearly. These are around the ideas of strengthening "the real objective is to momentarily fatigue the involved muscle to stimulate its strengthening", and growth "loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism". What is it, growth or strength?
Is the aim growth or strengthening? Are we really just trying to grow or to "produce benefits to your body so that you can improve the quality of your life." The life benefits come from strengthening, not from growth.... there can be strengthening without growth.
I still think the ultimate purpose needs clarity - growth, strength or quality of life?
I totally agree. And this requires a comprehensive text on these subjects. In other words, it requires a book or textbook to get into the fine minutiae. This is accomplished in two-volume series of "The Renaissance of Exercise": https://drewbaye.myshopify.com/collections/books-by-ken-hutchins?page=1
I reluctantly posted this article as I realized that it would have to be a delimited excerption without the vast and ramifying nuance explored in ROE. It is necessarily skeletonized for those readers who are already familiar or wish to familiarize themselves with the nuance in ROE.
I suggest that serious exercise facilities mount reproductions of these two flow graphics on their walls.
You commented years ago about how, when doing a static, the subject may realize there is nothing to lift, and something clicks. I tell clients that, no matter how you perform a movement, you always have to stop at the same point, which is when you can't lift it anymore. If they keep their speed down, and avoid discrepancies, it will be tougher for a given weight. They will be done sooner, it will be safer, and they will decrease potential for getting a premature weight increase, then not being able to handle it properly. It is okay if you can't lift something. Everybody has an upper limit, and no-one can go forever. It is okay to get tired. Allow it to happen. If you focus on lifting the weight, you find ways around the fatigue. It may APPEAR like you're getting stronger, but you're actually just changing your lifting style.
Separately, it appears that some people think they are stronger if they lift it 8 times one way, vs. 6 another. No, your strength is the same in all cases, because it is what you have before you start a movement. It is like having a certain amount of fuel in your tank. It doesn't matter where, or how far you drive, you start with the same amount of fuel.
I am surprised that the human race has lasted this long, considering how difficult it is for some people to grasp all of this.
I always think that this definition is both refreshing and clarifying. In particular, the distinction between the definition of exercise and the purpose of exercise is important to grasp.
Even in this article however there are a number of ideas that I think still need to be expressed more clearly. These are around the ideas of strengthening "the real objective is to momentarily fatigue the involved muscle to stimulate its strengthening", and growth "loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism". What is it, growth or strength?
Is the aim growth or strengthening? Are we really just trying to grow or to "produce benefits to your body so that you can improve the quality of your life." The life benefits come from strengthening, not from growth.... there can be strengthening without growth.
I still think the ultimate purpose needs clarity - growth, strength or quality of life?
I totally agree. And this requires a comprehensive text on these subjects. In other words, it requires a book or textbook to get into the fine minutiae. This is accomplished in two-volume series of "The Renaissance of Exercise": https://drewbaye.myshopify.com/collections/books-by-ken-hutchins?page=1
I reluctantly posted this article as I realized that it would have to be a delimited excerption without the vast and ramifying nuance explored in ROE. It is necessarily skeletonized for those readers who are already familiar or wish to familiarize themselves with the nuance in ROE.
BTW, growth and strengthening go hand in hand.
Thanks Ken - that is helpful. I have ROE 1 but not ROE2.
It's constructive that you posed these comments. Thanks!