L.I.F.T.

There is a whole “boutique fitness clothing” economy springing up across the country (world?).  Places like Lululemon, Athleta (which Gap Inc. is buying), were created to “cater to female athletes.”  They offer luxurious workout clothes (that can be tailored, no less), that cost a small fortune for an average person.

We all know this is make-believe.  You don’t need “yoga pants” to do yoga.  In fact, my favorite clothing for yoga is a pair of shorts.  Women may want to keep their bra’s on, but I’m fine if they don’t.

What about running?  Yeah, again, a pair of shorts.  If it’s chilly out, give me sweatpants and a sweatshirt.  If it’s too cold for that, what the hell am I running for (from?)?

Back in high school gym class we were given running shorts (the real deal…if you have big glutes, your cheeks are hanging out of the back) and a tank top.  That was our gym uniform.  Perfect.  Then, suddenly, someone designing clothes for athletes realized they could charge more if they used more fabric (or something).  Suddenly, guys in the NBA were wearing coulats in games, and arm-sleeves, or several t-shirts at the same time, and sports became a fashion-show.

Well, okay, whatever floats your boat.  But I want you, dear reader, to consider two things about these choices – Function, and Repercussions.

Function – how will you function best?  Consider that.  Then think about “fashionable” items that you might wear a lot (I mean, more than your gym clothes) – like “skinny jeans,” that inhibit hip flexion.  Suddenly everyone walks like a penguin, they can’t bend at the hips.  They have to flex their lower back (lumbar spine) when they sit, because their “skinny jeans” won’t let their hips bend.  Add high heels to that mess and you have physiological disaster waiting to happen.

Repercussions – aside from the physical repercussions (which aren’t obvious…that is, you won’t notice you’ve been crippled by your clothes till your back blows out), there are serious global environmental repercussions to the continual production, consumption, and disposal of unnecessary bullshit.  When you buy your new Lululemon workout gear, where was it made?  Where was it shipped from?  Who made it, and how much were they paid?  What happened to the environment they lived in?  How long will it last?  Longer than a skimpy pair of running shorts?  When the trends change, will it sit in your closet, or be dumped on Goodwill, or worse – in the trash can?

You are effecting very large things with your fashion choices.  Be careful.

I just want to be clear about my ideas about barefooting.  I do believe that being barefoot as much as possible is healthy.  However, I also believe that shoes are necessary at times, and particularly in the types of environments we’ve chosen to build for ourselves.

Here in SF, people pee and poo on the streets.  I’m not interested in walking through that with my bare feet.

It’s not a great idea to go barefoot in the city for a number of reasons (aside from that one) – broken glass and other debris can cause real damage if you aren’t careful.  If you have to look down to see what you’re landing in all the time, you might be better-served to use some shoes (more on those later).

It also isn’t too good to run barefoot on concrete.  It’s an unforgiving surface (not at all like grass, dirt, or sand), and you’ll suffer for it, no matter what your form is like.

It is, however, physiologically more healthy to be barefoot as much as possible.  And, with regards to footwear, it is healthy to wear shoes that allow your feet to move freely, and to run in a way where you land on the middle of your foot instead of on your heel.

Something else to think about, though, is what our choice of footwear (or any clothing, for that matter) is doing to our environment.  Suddenly, when you have dense footwear, it’s okay that there’s broken glass on the streets.  It isn’t a big deal.  It’s okay to build time-, material-, and labor-intensive surfaces like sidewalks everywhere.  When your life revolves around an automobile, people on bicycles are annoyances.  It isn’t important if the roads are uneven or dangerous for cyclists.

Your choices necessarily exclude other things.  It’s important to pay attention to what you’re choosing to exclude.

Remember the first Tim Burton “Batman” film, with Michael Keaton as the Batman, and Jack Nicholson as the Joker?  The Joker’s “killing joke” in the film was something he called “Smile-X.”  Smile-X, it seemed from the commercial the Joker hacked into the TV network, was in health and beauty products.

But the “joke” about Smile-X was that it was actually the combination of several different health and beauty products that resulted in the toxic soup that resulted in people laughing themselves to death.

I’ve always liked that movie, and Jack’s Joker (sorry Heath) – but the idea behind Joker’s “joke,” in particular has always stuck with me.  At first, I wasn’t sure why, but now, I’m starting to understand what appealed to me about it.

The killing joke relied on something that our society isn’t really capable of seeing – complex combinations of elements that result in a single outcome (or at least, a single outcome that we focus on…).

Most of the time, when we see something, we try to find an immediate (and single) cause for that thing.  We attribute it to a single cause because, first, it’s easiest.  It makes our life simple to be able to reduce causes to one.  Then we can move on to the next problem needing to be solved, or the next crisis needing to be averted.

However, it’s (almost…”never say never”) never the case that there’s a single cause for an event that occurs.  And I’d like to present a couple of places related to fitness where it certainly isn’t the case.

The first is with disease states.  I will hazard it to say that all disease states occur from a combination of factors.  Name one disease state that comes from a single cause.  Even diseases that seem to come from “obvious” single causes, such as diseases related to the presence of a virus, also require other factors in order to present themselves.  For one, there has to be some way for the disease to manifest itself in the host.  This could be something as simple as decreased immunity overall (opportunistic diseases fit in here), or a lax social/cultural environment (“social” diseases fit in here), or some type of cultural tradition.

The second example I’d like to present, is the “opposite” of the first – “health states.”  For some reason, no one ever talks about “health states.”  But they’re as real (and as multifaceted) as disease states.  The healthiest people in the world are always healthy.  That’s why they’re “the healthiest people in the world.”  They make it a point to expose themselves to healthy stimuli as often as possible, whether those stimuli are exercise, rest, diet, or what-have-you.

This is related to my previous post about Under Armour’s new shoes (or any “performance” shoes, for that matter).  Don’t be fooled by people trying to convince you there is some single element that you need in order to improve yourself or your performance.  There isn’t.  Improve everything, all the time, and you’ll be doing fine.

I was blown away recently when I stumbled on this article on Stack magazine online.  It’s called “Training Trends with Under Armour,” and is about a year old at this point.

The “trends” they’re talking about are shoes.  Specifically, three shoes produced by Under Armour, called the UA Proto Power Trainer, UA Proto Speed Trainer and UA Proto Evade Trainer.

Under Armour has created the three shoes to provide foot support for three different types of training – sagittal plane (frontward/backward), frontal plane (side-to-side), and “vertical” plane training.

Essentially, you now need three different sets of shoes in order to practice properly in the off-season.  I would guess, too, that you’d need to change shoes in the middle of your workout, as you transitioned from training in one plane to the other.  Unless, of course, you only trained in a particular plane in each workout.

Aside from the fact that this “informational article” is obviously an advertisement, and that the “logic” behind these shoes is more about making money than about improving human performance – I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  People will obviously be buying these shoes, and buying the message that goes with them.  Under Armour is a huge company, that wouldn’t have invested resources into producing and marketing these shoes unless their market research said they’d be successful.

For all of the athletes out there using these shoes, I have a couple of questions.  The first is the one I pose above – how do you train?  Do you have to change your shoes during each workout, or do you just focus on one plane of movement each workout?

The second question I have for you guys is – what happens when you’re on the field of play?  Do all of your abilities meld together magically in the heat of the moment?  Do you miss the specific cushioning provided by the shoes when you have to lace up your old Nike cleats?

Meanwhile, Under Armour, I assume you’ve done some real scientific research to back up the claims made about your shoes.  Can I see it?  And can you justify the increase in your carbon footprint (and the amount of garbage in the world) with that science?

I have to reiterate that shoes are essentially bad for you.  They’re necessary because of the way we’ve structured our man-made environment – as a cold, hard place.  But they’re accessories to the body, not enhancements.  People who excel in sports excel in any shoes.  They have put in the hard work to perfect their technique, to build their strength…years of practice and effort, not new shoes, make a better athlete.