L.I.F.T.

I’ve realized recently that I got distracted for a long long time.

While there’s nothing wrong with that, and I was perfectly happy being distracted in the way that I was, when I woke up from my distraction, I was a little upset.

I mean, I realized that I could’ve been making advances that whole time, instead of just being upset.

So I started thinking about it.  How could I have stayed on track?

There’s only one way I could think of.  It was to have had a list, some sort of checklist of stable, unchanging goals that will persist throughout my life.  I’ll call them persistent goals.

I’m not talking about to-do lists.  I’m not talking about weekly, monthly, or quarterly goals.

I’m talking about goals that persist across the years.

They’re different for everyone.  But strength – greater strength – is one of those persistent goals for me.

Greater strength is easy to measure.  It’s most easily measured in the “classic” lifts – squat, bench press, deadlift, overhead press, (and perhaps bent row and pullups, to round things out).

I’ve decided to start keeping track of that persistent goal (and a few others).  To make sure I’m always gaining on it…at least till my body just won’t anymore (but, based on the performance of 75 year old Wim Van Weenen, who deadlifted 523 pounds, I don’t have to worry about that for a while!).

I recommend that you do this as well.  With all of the fitness gadgets and fads out there, it’s easy to lose sight of your long-term, persistent goals.

Do it for everything that matters.  Right now is a perfect time to start.

A relatively recent research study reveals a connection (of some sort) between muscular strength and longevity.

The article, “Association between muscular strength and mortality  in men: prospective cohort study,” says that “Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.”

This is not an insignificant study.  The researchers used data from the Cooper Institute in Texas, and included 8762 men aged 20-80 in the study.

Why might muscular strength be correlated with longevity?  Well, there are a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head.  Here’s one:

For one, balance is highly correlated with muscular strength.  While the “scientists” among us will argue about “tonic” (the so-called “anti-gravity” muscles), and “phasic” (the “mover” muscles) muscles, I can tell you from personal experience that, when someone isn’t very strong, they aren’t very stable – and that “working on stability” (as much “functional training” does nowadays) by balancing on one leg on a Bosu ball, is the long, slow, hard road to stability…working on “gross strength” has much faster and better results.

Anyway, as we get older, we tend to lose muscle mass, strength, and with it, balance and proprioception (spatial awareness).  A lot of this has to do with lack of use in old age.  Some of it is “programmed.”  That being said, falls and related fractures, etc., can lead to death, or can lead to further lack of movement, which becomes more and more fatal the older we get.

The bottom line – get stronger.  My next post will be about this…

Tons of people use music in their training.  There’s something about it.  Music can be motivating, hypnotizing, stimulating, or soothing.

In yoga studies it’s the ambient/”Eastern” music that prevails.  In hardcore powerlifting gyms, mostly super-intense metal of some sort.  The “big box gyms” (Gold’s, etc.), play top-40 type stuff.

I see people wearing their iPods or other MP3/4 players all the time these days, whether they’re running, walking, taking the bus, or whatever.  It’s ubiquitous.  I do it too.  I love to listen to music all the time.

What is it about music, about rhythm, that we love so much?  As someone once said “music calms the savage beast.”  Kant said that music was the highest form of art, because it’s the least embodied, it relies on pure concept/noumena.

There’s something fundamental to it though, beyond description.  We’re composed of rhythms.  We live within rhythms – large-scale rhythms/ultradian (6, 10, and 12-year), annual, seasonal (solstices), monthly (moon-rhythms), weekly (work, weekend, etc.), and daily circadian rhythms.  Even below that are the rhythms of the cells in our bodies doing different tasks.

When we’re born, we learn language by hearing the rhythm.  We know who our parents are by the sound, but also by the rhythm of their voice.  We can recognize people by the rhythmical signatures of their movement – it’s possible to identify friends walking just from their silhouettes, when no other identifying characteristics are available to us.

When we exercise, there’s the rhythm of our breathing, our heartbeat, our energy-levels, and metabolic demands.

The danger is when we stop paying attention to these rhythms, when we lose touch with them.  Then, we’re cut off from the flow of life around us.  We’re floating, unable to get in synch, we lose our energy, our vitality.  Plants and animals cut off from their natural rhythms wither and die.

Pay attention to the rhythms in your life.  Don’t let any drown the others out.  The undulating flow of exertion and rest, activity and recovery, it’s crucial to life, it is life.

This is a review of the book “The Wisdom of the Body,” written in 1932 by Walter B. Cannon, M.D.

Cannon was a physiologist, and was the first person to promote the idea of homeostasis in American medicine/physiology.  Homeostasis is the concept that the human body is a dynamic system composed of smaller subsystems that serve to maintain an ideal steady state (stasis) for the function of the body.

This book is absolutely fantastic.

First, from a historical perspective, it’s a wonderful look into the methodology of early twentieth century experimental science in the field of physiology.  This book is not for the faint of heart.  Descriptions of experiments on cats and dogs in which the animals were denervated, etc., abound.

The book also provides a wonderful introduction to the science of homeostasis, which has become a field unto itself.  My next read, “Rethinking Homeostasis,” by Jay Schulkin, will be an interesting follow-up, summarizing some of the research that led to the development of the concept of allostasis – the attainment of stability through challenge or change, rather than through a subtle balance of systems.  But that’s another review…

Finally, Cannon provides tons of wonderful nuggets of wisdom throughout the book.  On page 199 he mentions the practice of cold baths/showers and profuse sweating in exercise or saunas as methods of training the temperature-regulation system of the body.  I’ve often heard of cold showers as being tonic, but never for that reason…mostly just in reference to “folk wisdom.”  Interesting to see a “scientific” explanation for that practice!

On pages 240-241 Cannon discusses the role of the physician in maintaining health.  The physician isn’t there to provide health.  That’s provided by vis medicatrix naturae – the healing power of nature.  Rather, the physician is there to facilitate that natural process of healing, by being familiar with the functions of the body, the balance of forces/activities that are present in optimal health (homeostasis), and the ways of helping the body to achieve that ideal balance.

I loved this book, and highly recommend it to anyone who wants a clearer understanding of how their body works.  You will probably need/want a dictionary at places, and an anatomy/physiology reference book in other places, but the journey will be well worth it!

Just wanted to say happy holidays to everyone who reads this blog!

Have a great time, wherever you are!

So many articles on overweight/out-of-shape children popped up on my Google alerts yesterday that I have to post about it.  Not that I don’t want to, you know.

The kids in Sacramento are terribly unfit, and getting less fit by the year.  The Sacramento Bee article linked to above does a good job of showing how most “physical fitness” data ignores socioeconomic data.  It’s essential that we start putting these things together, to be able to see the bigger picture.

You see, poor kids are typically less fit than kids from more wealthy families.

One of the schools mentioned also had to reduce the presence of their “physical fitness specialist” from five days per week, to two days per week.  I’m sure that kind of thing is happening all over the country.  “PE” isn’t valued in our culture.

Great Britain is experiencing the same symptoms.  The article says, though, tat the biggest cause is a lack of regular physical activity by the children.  Sounds good.  Again, though, it’s only part of the argument.

This recent article in Scientific American points out how being in nature or in a natural setting not only reduces stress markers, but also creates value change in the people involved.

Out in the Wild, people naturally become more “other-focused,” and less “self-focused.”  Further, our motivational drive switches from an extrinsic drive, to a more intrinsic drive.

In all of these articles, though, where are the parents?

I mean, why aren’t fingers being pointed?  And pointed where they should be?

Socioeconomic status notwithstanding, parents play a huge role in getting their kids active, and into nature.

I suppose what I’m saying is this – we always look for the “cause” in the immediate present.  But those things are just symptoms.

What happened in the parents’ generation that has led them to care less about physical activity and nature?  Or at least, to be less involved in those things, or have their kids less involved?

What happened back then?  Treat the cause, not the symptom…

I haven’t done a “cookie-cutter” weightlifting program in years.  Probably not since I bought Ross Enamait’s excellent book “Never Gymless.”  I think that was in 2006.

Since then, I’ve created my own training programs.  I’ve vacillated wildly between types of training – weightlifting, bodyweight, o-lifts, Crossfit and Crossfit-style workouts, rings/gymnastics, etc.

Too much stuff!

I feel like I’ve learned some things since then, and figured I’d share some of those lessons.

1. Cookie-cutter programs aren’t all bad.  Hell, I and most of my friends learned everything we knew about the gym from magazines, and from trying out programs in those magazines.  I still like to try people’s programs, to see how they affect my body.  While I might fiddle with them a little, I try to adhere as closely as possible to the program as-is, to see what happens.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll pitch it again, because I think the guy has a ton of integrity.  DeFranco’s “Built Like a Badass” program is fantastic.  It’s based on the “core lifts” (bench press, deadlift, squat, overhead press), is based around the individual’s current single-rep maximum, and progresses up nicely.  I don’t know how it would work with a pure “beginner,” but it’s working great for me.  Try it out if you’re looking for something new.

2. Related to the above, I feel more and more like strength is built in the gym, but skill is built on the field of practice.  Modern “functional training” has athletes doing a lot of stuff that is not related to strength training in the gym.

3. Strength is best built using the “classic lifts”/”fundamental movement patterns,” and adhering to the guidelines of good form.

4. This is where “functional training” or “corrective exercise” come in.  When an individual has a limitation that doesn’t allow them to perform the “classic lifts” or fundamental movement patterns in a way that is biomechanically sound for them, you have to start incorporating the lessons from functional/corrective training methodologies.

5. If the individual’s form is breaking down because the weight is too heavy for them, you have to evaluate the risk/reward equation for them.  Is it worth it to possibly get injured in the gym, in order to lift more weight that day?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

6. There is no “perfect” anything.  There’s no “perfect” form.  There’s really good form for a particular individual at a particular time.  There’s no “perfect” program.  There’s a really good program for an individual at that time.

7. Athletes need specificity.  The general person needs general movement.

Let me be more clear.  When you have specific tasks or demands that you have to accomplish, you have to be very specific with the type, frequency, and intensity of the movements you engage in.  When you don’t have anything so specific, you have free reign to do whatever you want to.

That being said, while the athlete’s “skill” training (aside from the “skill” of strength) will be specific to their sport, position, or event, the general gym-goer will benefit from playing more to develop skill.

8. Rhythm is critical to success.  As the saying goes, “timing is everything.”  I’d make it more specific – “rhythm is everything.”  Find the rhythms in your life and synchronize them to your best advantage.  Use rhythm in your training, both in terms of programming, and in terms of practice itself – engage in rhythmical movement more frequently.

Ok, that’s all folks…more later.  Appreciate any thoughts on the above…

The first person I ever saw use the phrase “strength is a skill,” was Pavel Tsatsouline.  His method of “greasing the groove” – repeating a movement pattern (like a pullup, for instance) very frequently throughout the day, but with very low duration/repetitions – summarizes this idea, and has helped a lot of people achieve levels of strength they thought were impossible.

It struck me today, after my workout, that this is really true, but in a different way than I had understood before.

It seems like the type of strength you practice is a skill.  I mean, like a skill, strength is highly specific.

I’ve long been an admirer of Digby and Sale’s SAID Principle – Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand.  But I guess I never really felt it in my own training till today.

I started a weightlifting program about a month ago.  Specifically, DeFranco’s “Built Like a Badass” program (more on that later).  It had been a while since I’d done any regular, scheduled weightlifting.  My workouts for the past six months or so have been bodyweight stuff.

Today I was doing some heavy one-arm rows, and realized how different I felt versus the first week of the program.  It wasn’t just strength-gain/adaptation.  I felt accustomed to the whole thing – the movement pattern, the intensity, the stance, etc.  It was something I haven’t felt for a few years…since the last time I did one-arm rows on a regular basis.

I realized that that type of strength was a skill I had stopped practicing.

And I know that when I go back to bodyweight movements, there will be a (re-)learning curve there as well.

Seems like Pavel, Digby, Sales, and everyone else who said it was right…strength is a highly specific skill.

I’ve mentioned the Egoscue method in several previous posts.  I first encountered the Egoscue method last year, when I met Charlie Reid in my graduate program at SFSU.  I was immediately impressed by the simplicity and effectiveness of Egoscue’s method.

Egoscue has now released an iPhone app.  Reading his book, Pain Free, will give the most comprehensive view of the system, but the app actually contains everything you need to know about the philosophy behind the method, and also provides “e-cises” (Egoscue exercises) for different types of pain (back, knee, ankle, etc.).

The app will also find an Egoscue clinic based on your zip code.

For .99, you can’t beat this app!

I’m really grateful for excellent bloggers like JR Atwood at Playthink.  JR has again prompted me to write an entry that is essentially a response/reflection on one of his recent posts.  JR’s post has a highlight section of the discussion between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell about sport celebrity…that, to me, goes nowhere.  The topic of the part of the discussion posted in JR’s blog is about the public reaction to sports-celebrities’ behaviors, and how “random” those reactions appear to be.

While a fascinating topic in itself, that conversation really goes nowhere.  There are no answers in the end.  Why?

That’s the reason for this post.

I’m confused by the Gladwell/Simmons conversation.  They only talk around their subject-matter, describing it, but not uncovering anything.

What’s strange to me is that neither of them points out that expectations of (or reactions-to) professional athletes and their behavior are entirely fabricated.  They’re created by the media, the consensus-view of the commentators, and the consensus-view of the viewers.  Granted, that’s a vague statement, but stick with me for a second.

What I’m saying is that there is no “strict moral ground” by which to judge the behavior of celebrity athletes (or any celebrity, for that matter).  Instead, the reaction is more a conflagration of the “public image” of that athlete, the media’s reaction/billing of the behavior, and the public’s buy-in to that billing.

I don’t think the reaction has anything to do with the “volatility of statistics.”  Stats are meaningless if a game is “infinite” (played for its own sake, to continue playing, as opposed to played to win).  Therefore, the value of stats is agreed-upon before the sport is begun.  The rules are laid out.  “This is a finite game.  It is played to win.  Therefore, we keep track of everything.”

This is also a cultural creation.  What are the meaning of statistics?  The meaning, like the meaning of celebrity athletes’ behavior, is culturally created.  What is the meaning of one or several players taking performance-enhancing drugs (PED’s) and thereby skewing those stats?  How can one really know?

At this point, I’d like to turn to the PED discussion.  Because it does highlight what’s happening underneath this discussion of celebrity-athlete behavior and public reaction.

Here’s the deal, and here’s what fascinates me the most – This “debate” itself is a game.

It’s similar to the “healthcare debate” entry I posted.  Till cultural change occurs that supports all of the talk about healthcare change/promotion, any talk about healthcare is mere lip-service.  No true change can occur until the culture will support that change.

Similarly, until a systematized, reliable, regular, and transparent method of testing athletes for PED’s is put into place, there’s no real telling what the “true” stats are.

Along with any other specifics about the subject matter they propound on, Gladwell and Simmons don’t discuss the testing policies/procedures in place now, or the history behind those policies.

While they were “banned” in 1991, “random” drug testing was only started in MLB in 2001.  Steroids were only banned in the NBA in 1999.  And, though steroids were “banned” in the NFL in 1990, loopholes were found in 2005 that allowed Carolina Panthers players to be prescribed banned substances two weeks prior to the 2004 Superbowl. (go here for the USA Today article outlining the last two references).

I put “random,” and “banned’ in quotes above, because, to the best of my knowledge, testing is far from random, and (as in the case of the Panthers), performance-enhancing substances are far from truly banned.  Instead, players are tested who will test positive.  Occasionally, a scapegoat may be needed, or someone out of which to make an example, and they’ll be tested.  Or, someone from outside the organization will report unfavorable news and the whole thing will blow up.

My point about testing, above, is to say that the stats are already skewed.  It’s impossible to know what the true stats are for sports until everyone is tested.  If that’s your goal.

But I don’t think that it is.

This site has a nice “news-based” overview of drugs in sports, that shows clearly that athletes have always used “performance-enhancing drugs” of some sort or other.  So the question I come to is not whether or not PED’s should be banned, or whether or not they’re skewing sporting outcomes, but what the game is behind this discussion.

What is the purpose of organized sports?  “Bread and circus?” – that is, a distraction for the masses?

For those who believe that organized sports are simply there because so many people enjoy watching them, I strongly disagree.  At the point at which a thing becomes a multi-billion dollar industry, people’s enjoyment, as being free from coercion, diminishes exponentially.

So if it doesn’t really matter…that is, if there’s no way to know what the “real” stats are, and there’s no “real” ground by which to judge a (any) celebrity’s behavior, what are we talking about here?

I don’t think we’re really talking about anything.  Certainly nothing of importance.  Just surface characteristics of a much larger dynamic.

It’s like talking about the weather.  How is it?  The city-slicker hates the rain, the farmer loves it.  Same rain.

But hate it or love it, there it is.

Why do we talk about the weather?  It’s easier than doing something.  It’s easier than admitting that we have no control over it.  Comfort?  I don’t know…you tell me.