A “magic bullet” is something that kills whatever the intended target of the shooter is, regardless of where the gun is aimed.
It’s a fairy tale. A child’s imagining. It’s like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny – fun to think about, but it makes you cry when you’re 11 and you find out it was all a big lie.
The Miracle Cure
The magic bullet is a miracle cure. You just shoot it (or ingest it, or watch it) and it does all the work.
No work required.
Maybe that’s the part that’s so appealing to people who believe in magic bullets, but I digress.
The idea that exercise, or diet, or community, or weather, or income-level, or any other single thing is going to solve all of your problems, is terribly misplaced.
It comes from a culture that likes to invest in fairy tales instead of realities.
Next time you want some immediate cure, or think that something is going to “cure” you, stop yourself, and try to look at how it really is, at what’s really happening – both in yourself, and the situation.
I recently had the pleasure of hosting Barefoot Ted here in SF.
While we didn’t get to discuss this topic while he was here, I’ve been thinking about it since, and figured I’d share these thoughts, and see what everyone out in the web-world thinks…
I ordered some leather huaraches from Ted’s site, and was pondering my choice of leather over the Vibram rubber soles that he offers, and that I think he (and many others) prefer to the leather.
I was thinking more about the leather/rubber debate, and started to think about these things:
leather is a natural material, and is not much of an insulator…especially compared to rubber, which is a powerful insulator.
(I’ll refrain from the “production” debate for these materials here)
our blood contains hemoglobin, which has at its center an atom of iron (in the heme)
iron responds to electromagnetic charges.
the earth is a giant electromagnet (its core is partly iron)
when we stand on the earth, we receive that electromagnetic flow through our blood (iron).
further…
“polarity therapy” in massage says that one side of the body is positively charged, and the other negatively charged
if that’s the case, when we move on two (bare) feet, we alternately contact the electromagnetic field of the earth with our oppositely-charged sides, creating a current through our body
when we run, that current is even more divided (a true “alternating current”), since we completely separate contact with one side for a period in a running-gait.
further still… bone forms along lines of stress
that’s because bone is piezoelectric
that is, the lines of stress cause an electric charge to flow through bone
that electric flow is what directs the osteoblasts to break down the bone in places, and the osteoclasts to build in other places.
and…
though the “proof” is controversial, man-made electromagnetic fields are known to disturb natural bodily functions, for instance
high-tension power lines may be related to an increased risk in cancer
microwave ovens can have effects on people
the electrical impulse through natural stone walls has been linked by some to the presence of “ghosts” (as electromagnetic hallucinations)
etc.
final questions:
what happens when we insulate our bodies from the earth’s electromagnetic field
what happens when we don’t…
I was in the Administration building on campus at SF State today, going up to turn in my protocol packet for my final research, and got locked in the stairwell.
I’m a stair guy most of the time. I like taking the stairs. The protocol office is up on the fourth floor, which seemed like a nice walk to me.
And it turned out to be a nice walk, up and down. And a nice stand in the elevator afterward.
Given that there is an “obesity epidemic” in this country, and that it is directly connected to people’s (low) levels of physical activity, and that the best type of physical activity seems to be those done as “activities of daily living,” it seems odd that we’d lock off stairwells.
It’s very discouraging to people who might want to try taking the stairs instead of the elevator. It sends a message – Thou shalt not…
Here are some pics from foot camp yesterday. It was pouring rain when I got there, but lightened up, and we ended up kicking the ball around a lot, and then did some running.
Here’s a pic of the playground as seen from the top of the pine tree:
The Playground from the top of Old Piney
and one of the field, out to the ocean in the distance:
It was really windy up there!!
It was really windy at the top of the tree, it swayed back and forth, like being on a ship!
I also did some “wind tracking” on my own…
You can track the wind on this puddle:
It’s awesome to be out in the rain, and to see it change. Don’t stay out too long though, I don’t want you to catch cold!
I participated in the Ardenwood Highland Games yesterday, at the Tartan Day in Ardenwood Historic Farm.
I filmed a few of the events, and had another competitor (Charlie Reid) take video of my throws, which you can see below.
In all, it was a great day. I set a new personal record in the weight-over-bar event, hitting 14 feet – 2 feet over my previous personal best! I also learned, as you’ll notice, that I need to work on my speed, explosiveness and rotation quite a bit!
“Physical activity” is anything you do with your body. It’s a very vague, broad term.
“Exercise” is more specific. Here let’s define it as the use of the body for a specific result. But let’s be even more specific, let’s talk about “working out.”
“Working out” is exercise to achieve greater strength or endurance, some health benefit, or aesthetic qualities.
While I’ll use the typically understood meaning of those words in this post, I think it’s worth pointing out that we all are “indigenous” to our habitat, whatever that may be at the moment. We are continually produced within and crafted by the environment (in every sense of the word – buildings, nature, people, weather) that we are within.
We also all are “aboriginal” – coming from our own origin. You can track your heritage back all the way to the “origin” if you have the time and gumption.
Source of the Physically Active
If you read my previous post, you know that I disagree with a lot of the arguments made these days in attempts to explain overweight/obesity, lack of physical activity, and associated diseases.
In sum – I think the built/man-made environment has very little real effect on what physical activities people choose to participate in, but that participation in physical activities and use of ones environment is largely a matter of imagination supported by a like-minded community – and examples of this can be found in many places today or throughout history. I think that agriculture is not the downfall of mankind, and that there are many examples of extremely healthy populations that practice agriculture. I think that over-abundance of cheap calories is not the cause of obesity or overweight, but that over-indulgence is.
Most importantly, I think that most of these arguments involve the removal (or subjugation) of self-responsibility from the individual and their free choice to engage or not engage in whatever they choose. Discussions supporting the built environment approach imply that people have no free will to engage in whatever they want, but are determined to behave in certain ways by their surroundings. Parkour would be a counter to this idea. Discussions of agriculture imply that people cannot choose what to plant in what manner. Masanobu Fukuoka would be a counterpoint. Discussions of over-abundant, cheap, and “empty” calories say that a person cannot choose to eat other things. Granted, this one is trickier, as some areas literally have no alternatives within easy grasp. But there still are alternatives – get out of those areas.
Any system, as I’ve mentioned before, is self-sustaining, by definition. Every system must seek to maintain, sustain, and maybe even to further, itself, in order to continue to survive in the presence of/cooperation/competition with other systems. Society is no different. The discussions mentioned above are part of society, so they reflect the values of that society. Mine is as well, so take it with a grain of salt.
How, Kemosabe
So what is it then, Josh? What’s the difference between working out and physical activity, and how does it relate to health?
Indigenous cultures are “physically active” throughout the day/week/month. Usually, in small discrete increments, but sometimes for extended periods of time at a stretch. Usually at relatively low intensities, but sometimes at very high intensities. And almost never at very high intensities for extended periods of time.
Indigenous cultures (except for ours here in the US) largely don’t “work out” to get their physical activity. Even in many places in Europe today the concept of going to a gym and working out is still seen as a secondary and inferior mode of exercise.
Rather, physical activity in indigenous cultures (and in many places in “civilized” Europe) comes from and in daily living. They walk to work. They walk to the store. They push or pull or carry their food, instead of driving it in a car. They may have to do physical activity to get their food. Their days have physical activity “built-in.”
I don’t want you to think that this is true only of “indians” and “aborigines” (as we typically think of those terms). I mentioned that there are places in “civilized” Europe where physical activity comes as part of daily living.
There are also a few agricultural communities that still behave this way, nestled within our own (US) culture.
From the abstract:
“Amish and Mennonite children have higher levels of physical activity than modern-living children, despite less participation in competitive sports. As a result, Amish and Mennonite children tend to be leaner than their counterparts in contemporary society.”
If you can get your hands on it, you should read this paper. It’s very interesting. It says something that seems terribly obvious when you read it – that people who do physical work as part of their daily lives are leaner than those who do not.
But if you look deeper, you’ll see that the “agriculture” argument breaks down here as well. Amish and Mennonite groups participate in agriculture. It doesn’t make them fat or stupid.
They also have an abundance of available calories most of the time. But that doesn’t make them fat either.
They construct a built-environment very similar to any you or I might live in. There are buildings with rooms. But they don’t just sit in those rooms all day.
Opposite-Land
Where “traditional” human activity is intermittent, as I stated above (btw, this paper is a fantastic overview of “intermittent” exercise in the animal world), physical activity in our US culture has become limited to “workouts” – half-hour or hour-long blocks of relatively continuous, relatively intense exercise.
Problems of overtraining and burnout in physical activity arise because our exercise has no tempo, other than a factory-based one, a vestige of the early-industrial foundations of our “work culture.” That is, “work” in the United States is based mostly on ideas of labor that came about during the industrial revolution – still. Things like “shift work,” where the employee works a certain shift every day, set daily/weekly schedules, set meeting times every week, etc. – the artificial, machine-based (i.e., machine-rhythm) division of time into measurable increments, with the aim of “maximum production” – where the ability to produce never fades, never waxes and wanes, but is always set at the maximum.
This is even more apparent in the term we use to describe exercise – it’s a “work out.”
This industrial idea of work has little to do with what happens in “natural” living, where work, though it is intense, and regular, happens in waves of exertion and rest, happens with a rhythm that matches the ability of the body to produce energy, and in rhythm with the seasons, the weather, and the habitat.
Our ideas about what constitutes “exercise” have been shaped by this. Just go into any gym and look at all of the machines in there. To use a machine, you must become one. Using one, you are used by it.
The Big But
But, Josh, you might say, we don’t live in a culture where physical activity is demanded of us in our work, throughout the day. So we have to go to the gym to exercise. We have to “work out.”
Here’s where that old argument comes in again – that we are without option. That we have no free will. No choice. We “must” because “that’s how things are.”
I disagree.
In fact, I have to thank one of my clients for proving this point to me. He is a very successful corporate executive. He travels about two weeks out of every month. He’s in fantastic physical shape.
Yes, he does go to the gym to work out, but he also has a stability ball at his desk, that he sits on intermittently throughout the day instead of sitting on his office chair. When he is using the ball, he’ll do crunches, and other exercises whenever he feels like it. He’ll get some intermittent physical activity.
A more extreme version of getting intermittent physical activity in our daily lives, one that I really highly respect, and think that we all could take a cue from, is Herschel Walker.
When he was a boy, according to one article I read, he would do pushups and situps while watching TV and studying (which usually were happening at the same time).
Can you do that as well?
If you feel resistance to doing pushups and situps during commercial breaks while you’re watching TV, why is that? Let’s do some physiology tracking – Where does that resistance come from within you (I mean, physically – your gut, your heart, your mind, your limbs – where do you feel the “pressure”?) and where does it come from outside of you (peer pressure?)?
Why can’t we do pushups and situps at work? Or walk or run up and down the stairs a couple of times? Why can’t we get up from our desks to take walks around the office park whenever we’re feeling stagnant or burnt out?
Physical activity for us, has become a choice, not a necessity. We choose not to.
The answer to the question above is – we can, but we don’t. We choose not to.
First, I want to preface this post by saying that I am currently in the master’s degree program in kinesiology at San Francisco State University, with a concentration in “physical activity: social-scientific perspectives.”
I also want to point out that, even being a student, I’ve only been a student of this particular topic since I started the program. My undergraduate degree is in Classical Greek and Roman History. I’ve studied “sociology” very generally. Most of my learning is just beginning. So this blog is a question, not a statement. If it sounds like a statement, it’s because I’m bad at making discussions…I’m working on it! As a question, as a discussion, I’m asking you please to contribute your thoughts and ideas to this post.
My questions were originally these – what is “culture,” and how does it affect participation in physical activity…and, can we effect/affect it (either culture or physical activity)?
“Culture” could be loosely defined as the behaviors and beliefs of a certain group of people, as evidenced through shared values. Or, as shared values of a certain group of people, as evidenced through their behaviors and beliefs.
“Culture” is different from “society.” “Society” is the set of relationships between people, within a group of people. Things like social standing, class, etc., are what constitute “society.”
If we accept those definitions, we have also to accept that the study of social science is not the study of culture. They’re different. Most studies of culture fall under the banner of “cultural anthropology.”
In the learning and reading I’ve done so far with regard to physical activity, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the social-science aspect of this equation – the emphasis is on the relationships between people within the group, and how those dynamics foster or prevent physical activity. For instance, why certain socioeconomic classes, or certain ethnic groups, participate more or less in physical activity than others.
The Built Environment
Things like the “built environment” (the man-made environment) also come into play in social-scientific studies. Largely, I think, because the built environment can be very clearly related to social constructs like economic status, or class. A great number of researchers specialize in the concept of the built environment, and its effect on physical activity.
But I think that something lies much deeper than the built (or any) environment.
Now, I don’t have a lot of research to back me up on this. I’ll work on finding that. But it seems to me that people find a way to participate in physical activity (or not) regardless of their environment.
In Dan Everett’s book “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes,” he mentions the physical activity levels of the Piraha tribes as being relatively low, but says that they’re the strongest people he’s ever met. Dr. Everett describes an incident in which one Piraha man takes his bundle of wood (to be used to build a new hut) in addition to the one he is already carrying…each bundle weighing roughly 50-80 pounds (if memory serves…I don’t have the book handy).
I’ve read many accounts of indigenous peoples’ physical activity levels being relatively low (“working” 4 hours a day, perhaps, – and at that, not every day – and resting the rest). Granted, their “work” is entirely physical, but it seems like something else is happening here.
In those cultures, the natural environment provides a place for physical activity. But activity levels can be similar in Amish societies, that do not rely on “modern” technology. The Amish environment is significantly different, however. Does the “built environment” matter?
I feel like the “built environment” approach to increasing physical activity is really an approach coming from a “social control” viewpoint. It seems to me to posit that free-will does not exist. That people will make choices based on what they see around them, rather than what they feel inside of them.
The playground for little kids, where all of the moms go in the morning when I’m hosting play-camp in the enormous open (baseball) field (and trees) right next to it, is one example of this.
While the playground has provided a place for socialization for the children and mothers, and does make it “easier” to “watch” the kids (not sure how much watching actually goes on), it is precisely this that I have issue with. The idea is not that the children can’t get exercise in the large open field, playing freely (and probably supervised just as much, or a little less…which might be beneficial anyway). The idea of the playground is that there is some risk in being in the open. Perhaps.
The final example I’d like to give of why I think built environment methods of changing physical activity participation are misguided is that of physical activity taking place in areas where the environment is actually hostile to physical activity.
In one instance of this, I can remember playing ball often in parking lots or streets. And have seen countless pictures of children in Manhattan playing stick-ball in narrow streets or alleys.
In my day, the kids who would go on to create or inspire the creation of the X-Games would go skate and ride bikes in shopping malls and parking lots. Places typically not considered conducive to physical activity.
It was here! Springfield Mall, VA
An even more modern example of this is found in Parkour runners, who specifically look for environments hostile to physical activity in which to “trace” – to create an art through their running, jumping, and tumbling.
The Role of Technology
I think another social-scientific perspective, that merges with a cultural perspective, has to do with the role of technology in limiting (or encouraging) physical activity.
I have to admit that I take issue with the modern use of the word “technology.” A technology is simply a method for getting something done. It may involve the use of tools, or not, but it is systematic and repeated, and gives certain, predictable results (for this reason, Louis Liebenberg called tracking “the origin of science”).
Most folks nowadays use the word “technology” to mean “computer/electronic technology.” That’s a very limited use of the word, and I think it is misleading. Starting a fire with two sticks is also a technology. Some call those “primitive technologies.” Tracking animals is another technology, involving a systematic method for observation and understanding of what you are observing. Narrowing down further still, meditation/yoga/somatics/qi gong/self-awareness are also a “technology.” Each has their own method for acquiring deeper awareness of what is occurring within the body…basically an internal “tracking.”
People rant and rave about the issue of the effect of modern technology on physical activity levels. There are two rants I’d like to address – the industrial (technology) rant, and the entertainment (technology) rant.
The industrial rant goes something like this – industrialization (first, now “computerization”) led to the loss of physical activity in normal labor, which led to people not moving as much, which has led to decreased physical activity (generally) and diseases associated with that decline.
A similar argument says that industrialization has ruined our food supply, and blames the industry of agriculture for the decline in health in human beings.
The entertainment rant is centered largely around electronics, and culturally accepted modes of entertainment. This argument says that the increase in electronic technologies (such as the computer I’m typing on now) has led to a decrease in physical activity. People want to relax, and things like the television, video games, and the internet (via computers), have taken precedence as modes of recreation and relaxation over physical activity.
Both of these rants have something in common, similar to discussions about the built environment. They both imply that human beings cannot make choices about their activities, or about what they do with their time. That is, the industrialization rant implies that people are slaves to the machine. That there is no alternative but to take part in industry as it has come to be, which means sitting for long hours, commuting to work in cars and buses, etc., and not being physically active. The entertainment rant implies that people cannot choose to participate in physical activity due to the presence of more tempting options.
This argument – lack of self-control – is also similar to that made by many diet studies, programs and books. You cannot control what foods are produced, and since that’s what’s largely available, you’ll tend to eat higher-calorie foods, and, combined with your sedentarism, that will lead to overweight and disease.
Paradox
One of the keys to realizing that all of these rants are related, and that they all may be addressing their respective issues in ways that are not consistent with what is actually happening, is the presence of paradox.
Before we go into the pardoxes, I want to mention here, that this is the crux of what I’m saying – the ways that we’re addressing participation in physical activity are related to (and built from) the very problems leading to a decreases in physical activity – a lack of individual self-control, a lack of the teaching of that in our culture(s), and a continuing insistence on the necessity for policing/control measures.
A paradox is a situation that is contradictory to itself. I, personally, think that paradoxes usually signal that the approach to understanding the situation is the source of the paradox. That is, that nothing is “truly” paradoxical…we just perceive it that way.
From the examples above, industrialization was “supposed to” create more time, freeing up the average person’s day to enjoy leisure (which would include physical activity). But all of that free-time meant that you had more time to be “productive,” to try to “get ahead.” And corporations realized that they could be more “productive” and “get ahead.” So no one ever (except Kellogg‘s) had their employees work fewer hours for the same pay. That’s a paradox. Industrial technology was supposed to be “time saving.” We should have more free time when “time is saved.” But we don’t…we have less. How is that possible?
Similarly, the internet age was “supposed” to bring un-told advances in human freedom and communication. But instead, it brought things like YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook…”time-wasters.” Again, a “time saver” turned into a “time waster.”
The availability of plentiful food was the promise of agriculture. But now some say that agriculture has lead to disease, through its overproduction (and subsequent, “inevitable,” overconsumption) of grain products (not to mention the ill effects of pesticides, genetic modifications, and tilling the soil (it kills all of the microorganisms in the topsoil…)). What was supposed to feed us ended up poisoning us?!
Questions of “Pure Culture”
On the other side, the studies I’ve read that have to do purely with culture, with regard to physical activity or sport often focus on things like racial or religious cultures. Sometimes, those papers also considers smaller, individual cultures, participating in a particular type of physical activity (a certain sport, perhaps).
Those studies were very informative, about a particular culture in a particular place, at a particular time. But they weren’t very generalizable (able to be turned into “rules”), and were never (of the ones I read) generalized (i.e., turned into “rules” of culture and then applied to another culture).
I haven’t been able to find a single research paper or article that focuses on “United States culture” in relation to physical activity. Surely there is a “culture” that is the culture of the United States…right?
But maybe that paper is unnecessary. We can look at things like the recent research on Framingham Heart Study data that showed that we have very similar physical qualities (particularly, diseases) to our friends. That is, we’re much more likely to be a smoker if our friends smoke. I think it’s also true that we’re much more likely to exercise if our friends exercise.
But what is the cause here? Is it that “birds of a feather flock together,” so, because I like to exercise (or smoke) I naturally gravitate to others who share my interests? Or is it that, once I start to hang out with a certain group of people, “peer pressure” leads me to start doing as they do? Or is there a balance, where my set of values must match their set by a certain percentage? If that percentage is high, I stay in the group, if it is low, I leave.
But what about groups or cultures where we all come up together at the same time? My childhood friends, for instance. None of us smoked or drank when we were 5. Yet some of us did when we were 16, and many (if not most) of us eventually went down completely different paths in life by the time we were in our early 20′s. What causes us to stay in one culture and leave another, when we all shared such similar beginnings?
The Fear of the “Individual”
That brings me to my final point. (Thank god, you say…yes, sorry, this is a long one!). I think that there is something deeper than culture (which I think is deeper than society, if you couldn’t tell).
That “thing” is the individual‘s internal “motivation.” Not strictly their “psychology,” but, rather, the full sum of that individual – their personal history, their thoughts and beliefs, their mindset, their resiliency, their physical constitution.
It’s the reason we see kids who couldn’t get a grade above a C in high school become straight-A students in college, or college dropouts start their own businesses and have a high degree of success, or people who’ve never exercised a day in the past ten years get up and start running ultra-marathons.
I think we like to make broad sweeping generalizations (hahaha). It is the aim of science to do so – to “figure out” the “rules.” But lost in that mix is what is really happening. Lost in the averages of many individuals is the single individual.
Not only that, but the other things that are lost when we deny the validity, the existence, and the sanctity, of the individual. We lose concepts like self-control, or self-motivation, self-responsibility, self-actualization. We also lose concepts related to real teaching, real communication, and real equality.
And instead of using our wonderful massive brains to create a technology, or a “science” of the individual, we use it to explain why any single “individual” who stands out from the “average” is a fluke…an exception…
But they’re 112 of the most densely-written pages you’ll never want to read.
From the back cover, a synopsis:
“Now is the whimper of our self-contempt. Indeed, time and again for more than two millennia we in the West have been haunted by the specter of our own inner being: an apparition of human nature so avaricious and contentious that, unless it is somehow governed, it will reduce society to anarchy. I claim this is a specifically Western hangup, for it supposes an opposition of nature and culture that is distinctive of our own folklore…and contrastive to the many peoples who consider beasts are basically human rather than human basically beasts…The idea that we are involuntary servants of our animal dispositions is an illusion – also originating in the culture.”
For those who don’t know, Sahlins is the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Chicago.
The book traces the idea of humans as beasts who need a controlling government back to Thucydides (Ancient Greek historian) via Hesiod (Ancient Greek poet who wrote the Theogony and Works and Days), through Thomas Hobbes (English philosopher), all the way to John Adams.
But it’s the way he does it that hurts so much.
Tell me a story Marshall! I want a story. Instead, he traces the history of the idea of human beings as deep savages needing to be governed through a circuitous series of connections.
I wasn’t able to stomach it after a while. It made me mentally dyspeptic (that’s Greek too). I skimmed from about page 60 on, then started skipping wide chunks, and then just went straight to the last page.
In all, I think he could’ve summarized the entire thing in the paragraph I put above (and edited…for brevity’s sake). Or in a few pages. Without all of the tangents.
I think it’s good, and important information. I think he does a good job of tracing the history of this idea. But I’d rather have seen a timeline with references under it, on one piece of paper, than struggle through 60 pages of turgid writing.
For a fan of Nietzsche, he writes really badly! He should read more Spinoza, or the Italian troubadours’ songs!
Pareto’s Principle, also known as the 80/20 rule, says that 80% of the effects of something come from only 20% of the causes.
This rule has been applied to all sorts of things, and generally holds true, statistically speaking!
The “bell curve” is the graph of a set of averages in a statistical normal distribution. It has a characteristic shape, like this:
The reason behind the rule
The graph above shows “standard deviations” from the average. One standard deviation accounts for about 68% of all of the individual averages represented in the graph. Two standard deviations make up about 95%, and three 99%.
Pareto’s Principle covers, then, something between one and two standard deviations from the mean – from the average effect of whatever it is.
This 80 percent isn’t typically represented in statistical normal distributions, or bell curves. Mostly because it doesn’t follow the rules of averaging.
But Pareto’s principle does seem to follow the rule of life…that is, it seems to describe a phenomenon of how things actually happen pretty well.
But what is the 20%, where the big effect comes from? I’d like to suggest that the 80% comes from the 10% on either end of the bell curve. That the most abundant effect comes from the presence of the two least greatest effects on either end.
What do I mean by that? Well, take a workout program, for instance. Let’s say you do a leg workout that looks like this:
Squats – 3 sets of 10 reps
Leg Extension (please don’t do these) – 3 sets of 10 reps
Leg Curls – 3 sets of 10 reps
Calf Raises – 3 sets of 10 reps
80% of the benefit you get from that workout is going to come from the squats. Period. So, you could probably cut out the leg extensions and curls entirely and not really notice the difference in the effect that workout has on you (performance and/or appearance).*
I think we often pile on more work than is necessary, or than we actually benefit from. We might do it because we’ve always been told that we have to work hard to get results, and confuse “working hard” with “working a lot.” Or we might never have not worked a lot, so we have no reference point for what is giving us that 80% benefit.
Here’s my suggestion for a way to start to figure that out for yourself:
Within any one sphere of your life – fitness, diet, work…whatever – and list the things you love the most about it, and the things you hate the most. Try to make it an equal number of most-loved and most-hated qualities.
It seems likely (to me, anyway) that these are the things that are generating the greatest amount of the effect of that activity for you. The things you love, you love because they feel good, or because they give you the response you want. The things you hate, don’t make you feel good, or you aren’t good at.
Now, take those two lists – the 10 percent on either side of your bell curve – and only do those things for three weeks.
Cut out that 80% in the middle – the wasted effort, the largest amount of your effort, that is only giving you 20% of the benefits you get.
See what happens. Let me know!
*Note – this is only true 80% of the time! It never hurts to do accessory work, but how much, and how often, are the point of this blog post. That is, different strokes for different folks. Use your head (and gut) when applying this or any “rule” in your life.
The skies cleared up for us at today’s Foot Camp, and the view from the top of the big tree was beautiful!
The air really does get so much clearer after heavy rains, and today was proof in point. The sky glowed like a jewel, and the grass seemed to push green light out of it, into your eyeballs, whether you liked it or not!
Way up in the tree...see the ocean in the distance?
The picture gives a clue, but misses the smell of the field after the rain. Not like grass, but like watery grass – seaweed or something!
We had a good time, and played a little wall-ball today!
