By now, you appreciate that almost all fitness testing is a hoax. If not,
you are an incensed exercise physiologist denying and rationalizing away this fact. This
defensiveness occurs because the entire exercise physiology club — it is not a true
discipline — revolves around research data generated by worthless testing tools. And
if the testing tools are worthless, we must conclude that the discipline is a mirage.
In the middle 1970s Paavo Komi visited Nautilus. Although I was not there, he and Arthur
visited and discussed the definition of strength. Then they agreed that since it could not
be measured, it could not be defined.
Like many other concepts in science, definition often betrays our inability to truly
comprehend the quality and nature of an entity. For instance, no one really knows what
gravity is. It is a force. But what is force? The physicists are not able to accurately
and completely define it either. Therefore, they are relegated to define an entity
dependent on its measurement.
A circular statement ensues whereby the definition of force depends on its accepted
measurement standard and the measurement depends on the definition. By necessity, the real
nature of force is skirted.
Any discipline, exercise physiology in particular, is dependent upon definition. Never
mind that I have only recently presented exercise physiology with its first definition of
exercise. By and large, exercise physiologists are not interested in this. Remember their
penchant for testing.
Arthur Jones, however, has presented exercise physiology with its first true testing tool.
Although many others have contributed to this, it was Arthur's industry and will that got
the tool perfected. And regardless of my attitude toward the safety of its use, Arthur
truly should be noted as the Father of Exercise Physiology. After all, he presented them
with the tool on which to hang their entire discipline.
But even with Arthur's substantial contribution, a danger still lurks. Exercise
physiologists are users. This is a term sometimes used amont the computer techies to
denote those who are only capable of using computers versus those who design, program,
repair, or configure computers. Not being grounded in classical science, exercise
physiologists are unable to discriminate the reliability between different testing
equipment. Their mentality is to accept readouts without scrutiny and to generate
publications no matter their reliability. As long as test equipment manufacturers present
their products with high-tech facades, the inner nuances of the test equipment - how it
works, the principles of the measurements - are of little interest to them.
[If you will consult any university or college curriculum guide you will find that almost
all exercise physiology degree programs are completely devoid of any requirements for
statistics, math, foreign language, chemistry, physics, or biology. Then the diploma for
the graduates reads "Exercise Science."]
Good research is extremely difficult to perform. Everyone, including me, has the tendency
to grossly underestimate the extreme difficulties of every aspect of data collection.
The first rigor is the design of any study. To design a study properly requires clear
objectives, hard facts and percepts, and a flexible attitude toward hypotheses.
Very commonly, a research design is selected and the preliminary data does not conform to
the original hypothesis. This hypothesis failure demands immediate redesign and
reevaluation. It is a precious opportunity for creative and critical thinking.
Most exercise physiology research, I imagine, is indiscriminately published at this
juncture when it does not deserve to be - moreover, it is criminally misleading to publish
such preliminary material. It is at this juncture when the research approach is only at
its first stage of design evolution. Was the testing equipment unreliable and/or
inappropriate? Was the testing procedure inappropriate to prove or disprove the
hypothesis? Was the sample size statistically significant? Any one of these variables can
cause hypothesis failure. Which is it? Or are they all off the mark?
My experience with exercise physiologists is that they treat all of these delicacies like
a no brainer: "Line 'em up. Plug 'em in. Read it out. Write it up."
The question you and I should now be asking ourselves is this: "If the exercise
physiologists possessed good testing tools, would they then be able to perform valid
research?" If you give the typical exercise physiologist a MedX testing machine, you
have gained only one dimension of research control - that which is manifested in the
mechanics of the equipment.
A friend once stated to me: "If a fool is seen carrying a calculus book, the
calculus remains calculus and the fool remains a fool."
"Might and right govern everything in the world; might till right is ready."
Joubert: Pense'es XV, ii.