"The Percentage of the Motion Resistance, from any Physical Exercise Device, that only provides the Intended Result, is also the method's measurement of Efficiency " Craig Wise 2000
Just like anything that runs on electricity, physical exercise methods are also powered by an invisible external force called Motion Resistance. Without Motion Resistance, physical exercise would not work just as a light bulb will not light up without electricity being applied. Therefore Motion Resistance is the external force that powers all physical exercise methods, and so the percentage of it that only provides the desired result is a device's measurement of efficiency.
For instance, if 100% of the Motion Resistance from an exercise method only damages the parts of the user's body that will heal to an even stronger state, while avoiding the parts that no longer will, that method is 100% efficient (if strengthening is the desired result).
Medical science knows how important physical exercise is for the health of aging adults, however, the 'official' state of exercise method understanding is still based on 'comparison' opinions. Because opinions vary from one expert to the next, official understanding of exercise method efficiency has always been a philosophy, not yet a precise science.
Likely the biggest problem with using philosophy instead of measuring exercise force distribution (usage) to determine a method's efficiency, is that a device which is only 10% efficient, can easily be judged as being totally efficient by experts if their comparisons are all less efficient. Something that is 1% efficient still works, just very very poorly.
For example, Thomas Edison's 10% efficient light bulbs seemed 1000% efficient at first because they were mainly compared to candles. Around 1880, Nicola Tesla tried to explain why Edison's light bulbs wasted 90% of the electricity they used, but America's engineering academics sunned him like some ignorant fool.
So he rapidly invented fluorescent lighting, providing about twice as much light with half the electricity, to prove his point.
Most of America's electrical experts continued ignoring him. About a decade later he hijacked the Niagara Falls power plant contract from Thomas Edison. Tesla's plan was based on the efficiency of his AC power and he demonstrated how he could provide about 75 times more electricity to Buffalo New York for less than half the price of Edison's DC plan.
The group funding this project had to switch to his efficiency based plan simply because their money spoke.
Suddenly American and European newspaper readers could not read enough about Tesla, making him the most popular man in America and Europe until Orville Wright took over that spot around 1910. It is interesting to note that Tesla also replaced Thomas Edison as the nation's most popular person in 1892.
However, most history books continued ignoring Tesla for about another century, yet among the thousands of things he invented were radio transmission, wireless remote control, the AC electric system in your home, and the electric motors used everywhere today, even in a brand new Tesla car, because he designed them to be nearly 100% efficient.
Tesla was the first to apply the universal law for electric (and any external fuel device's) efficiency. The reason we bring him up here is that the law he exposed for electric device efficiency is virtually identical to the law that Wise tried to explain to America's Health and Fitness academics back in 2001, only too also be treated an ignored like a stupid fool.
If 100% of the applied energy is used providing the desired result, then the device, method or process is 100% efficient.
This understanding can not only allow almost all adults at any age, regardless of most motion problems, to easily build and maintain an immensely higher level of fitness and stamina, but can also tack years on to the sports playing carriers of America's greatest athletes, and even keep our astronauts in very powerful physical condition during long space flights.