An alluring feature of exercise physiology is fitness testing. It is a curiosity that
intrigues fitness buffs. And such testing is often, therefore, an effective tool for
marketing fitness facilities and programs to the general public. Witness the common
practice of complimentary blood pressure checks, cholesterol tests, and body fat
evaluations that are offered as come-ons at health fairs and other exhibits to induce
potential customers to try their wares. Such testing seems to disarm the customer's guard
to the sales spiel.
The natural appeal for fitness testing seems to derive from a mixture of hope and
gullibility. Apparently, such emotions and behavior are defenses against Man's everpresent
frustrations. These frustrations manifest themselves in many ways, although most are
related to his survival — health, i.e., food supply, creature comforts, and death
defiance. This is obvious and nothing new.
But in a more general way, Man is also frustrated by his lack of control of his
surroundings. He is eternally frustrated by this and strives to gain control of his
existence. But yet more than a lack of control, Man in our modern society senses a loss of
control. He feels that his life grows evermore complex and non-manipulative and his
private domain evermore shrinking. This is especially true with regard to government
regulation.
Yet exercise remains as one of the few pursuits devoid of government regulation and
formality but consistent with the right to personal opinion and expression. Exercise has a
clean and healthy image that promises a future where science and technology can still
prevail against the ills of mankind. Man still believes in the power of modern medicine
and science, and he instead blames government bureaucracy for their combined failure to
deliver him from the horrors of AIDS, cancer, and heart disease. Fitness appears to be an
untainted vista of hope. No wonder that every politician uses exercise as an instrument of
mass appeal.
Indeed the exercise realm has some of the hallmarks of religion. One of my college
professors formally defined a religion as "any method to deal with the horrendous and
non-manipulative."
Mixing this desperate hope with the trappings of science, fitness testing can captivate
all but the most wary. Though most testing is bogus, most is not deliberately fraudulent.
The testers are usually as gullible as the subjects being tested. Arthur Jones once
attempted to calm my tension regarding the inappropriate testing ongoing at the University
of Florida (1982-86). He said, "Ken, these researchers are not necessarily evil, they
are merely stupid."
More important, some fitness testing is physically dangerous. And all fitness testing
carries the risk that accompanying formality will eventually erode the pristine refuge
from government regulation, certification standards, insurance codes, and other organized
structure. Such structure is an obvious requirement for progress in any field, but
unnecessary and pretentious structure often prevents progress. An irony exists that the
exercise physiologists — through their phoney trappings of science and a penchant for
formality — strive to destroy the very freedom envisioned by the common man. Fitness
and its testing are not his deliverance from the rigors, toil, drudgery, and control of
the workplace imposed by the submission to a Scrooge of a boss. (According to Greg Smits
— an expert on Japanese society, the progressive Japanese fitness programs that we
see reported on television are in reality discreet formalities to keep in line the rank
and file of the school and workplace.) On the contrary, fitness testing is now used to
assess the employability of workers. It is applied to workers compensation cases and in
arbitration to justify termination of employees deemed unfit to serve. All concerned in
each of these cases — employee, employer, workers compensation case adjuster,
insurance carrier, union representative, physical therapist, physician, lawyer, or
arbitrator — are unaware that the tests are worthless. But the data — worthless
or not — will certainly be used against the employee if the company wants a
legitimate excuse to terminate — for example: a malingerer. And the employee with a
savvy lawyer may turn the tables to exact untold costs against the company using the same
phoney tests.
Before I come off sounding too liberal, I admit — perhaps encourage — that
industry needs fitness testing. If we are to compete in world markets, quality-per-cost is
the bottom line of success. And this industrial efficiency is fundamentally and ultimately
linked to the physical and mental performance of the work force. To remain competitive,
industry must have performance standards. Without them, efficiency suffers, thus the
industry as well.
For example, if a company permits workers with chronic back pain to serve as truck
drivers, what is the added cost of their absenteeism, their medical bills, the accidents
they cause due to pain distraction, and the discontent they sow among other,
more-productive drivers? To decree that back sufferers cannot hold jobs as truck drivers
at first may seem disfranchising to those so deficient. But to not decree such may
compromise cost efficiency to the point that the entire company and its jobs are lost, not
merely to another domestic company, but to another country.
As much disdain as I have for testing, it remains a necessary part of our lives. But to
date, fitness testing is not determinate of anything that I am aware. It means no more
than the score I might obtain playing a game of pinball or billiards. Such a score at
pinball is perhaps specifically meaningful to itself, not of transferable significance to
my job of driving a truck or to any other vocation unless, of course, I compete for money
playing pinball.
There also exists a remote historical perspective regarding fitness testing. Testing has
been with Man for eons. It originated with the clash of the Titans versus the brainies.
For thousands of years wisdom was measured by physical test. For example:
Three Stone Age hunters disagree whether to go north or to go south for the day's hunt. One hunter is a very strong man also possessing a reputation for his skill and bravery at hunting big game.
A second hunter is stronger and is a rebellious youth, but less skilled in the hunt.
The third hunter is slight of build, but possessing a very analytical mind. He believes it prudent to avoid the hunt altogether this season and devote the tribe's resources toward the development of an agrarian technology.
The first two hunters settle their differences by physical struggle. Since direct physical contest often proves too costly, other challenges — throwing contests, shooting contests, running contests — are invoked to decide fate. Of course, these are also mixed with a measure of ritual and religious incantation.
The third hunter is ignored altogether and forced to comply with the outcome of the first two. He has little or no influence on them and the rest of the tribe until and unless he can devise a test both that appeals to their machismo AND that he can win.
As time went own, however, the Titans were gradually disfranchised. Eventually, this
culminated in the settlement of the might makes right issue in 1215 AD — the Magna
Charta. The Magna Charta was made possible by academic preeminence over illiterate brawn.
This change was exactly the meaning of Lytton's reference to the pen is mightier than the
sword. The academic nerds who had lived in collective seclusion in the monasteries had
eventually amassed the required documentation — references, definitions, arguments,
contracts — that King John could no longer do whatever he wished merely because of
his status. Thus much of Western jurisprudence is traced to the Magna Charta.
For better or worse, fitness testing continues the struggle between the Titans and the
Academics. Please refer to the first issue of The Exercise Standard to appreciate this
statement with respect to the development of the exercise-physiology academic. It is
natural that the exercise physiologist becomes test-happy. For the moment, he has found a
contest that he can win, so-to-speak.
To the best of my knowledge there is no scientific organization among the exercise
physiologists that appraises and publishes their testing standards. On the other hand,
real scientists have the Bureau of Standards — now known as the Institute of
Standards and Technology. And specific organizations exist in the various scientific and
technological specialties for the exclusive and expressed purpose of detailing exacting
standards for testing equipment construction, testing methods, test equipment calibration,
known limits and tolerances of testing accuracy, and testing safety. Machinists and
mechanical engineers have the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Chemist have the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers. Geologists have Medical physiologists, hematologists,
microbiologists, histologists, and radiologists have organizations to publish such
standards. Exercise physiologists do not. And if they did, they would have to write
themselves off. As you will appreciate in the remainder of this newsletter, serious
standardization in exercise physiology would result with their kind having little to do,
for there would be few valid tests with which to feign research — assuming that the
other aspects of the research are properly conducted. Only since 1987, one valid specific
testing tool has emerged for exercise physiology: MedX®
Until now, my criticisms of fitness testing have been general. It is appropriate that I
detail some of the specific faults of the various tests used in fitness evaluation. But
first, study this explanation of testing inconsistency as I heard Arthur Jones explain it
on several occasions. It provides one more general explanation of how the exercise
physiologist has applied nonsequitors to correct premises.