And then something happened…

Posted on April 4, 2010 by Josh

We like to think that we have it all figured out all the time.

Or that we don’t have anything figured out, and that we’re totally helpless.

It seems infrequent that we actually play in the grey areas – where we might actively admit what we really do know, and what we really do not, and let the rest lie, or fall where it may.

Life is surprising, beyond our comprehension, and we pay it so little attention, that we really shouldn’t be approving or disapproving of different circumstances, or things that occur. It really doesn’t make sense to claim an understanding of “cause and effect” where we have none.

However, in every action, or event, we create this idea that we had some control over it. Or, even, that we planned the event.

And it passes. And it is forgotten. And we do it again.

Instead of participating in this post-facto justification – which may be the single purpose for our neo-cortex – instead, do something else…

Listen…

Listen to what’s actually occurring around you, and within you, now. Listen deeply. Listen to the whisper of the blood in your veins. It’s audible. You just have to listen.

Listen to the traffic out on the street, and then listen further. How many blocks away can you listen? How far out can you stretch that awareness?

Listen to the people speaking to you in your life. Stop doing other things. Stop text-messaging during an in-person conversation. Stop trying to “multi-task” (you can’t, anyway). Stop speaking in your own head when the other person is talking, and listen.

Listen.

Get real

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Josh

Part of make believe is that you know it isn’t real.

When we begin to take things as real that are not real, we are, technically “insane.”

Now, what is our culture aimed at? What is your participation in your life aimed at? Is it aimed at understanding what is fundamental, what is real? Or is it aimed at artificialities?

How much do you believe what you hear or see on the radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, movies, or internet?

How much do you believe what you hear or see in your personal relationships?

How much of it is real?

In the realm of fitness, you’ll often hear advice like “you have to see yourself as being thin…” or “you have to see yourself succeeding.” This type of visualization practice can be helpful, but usually only in elite athletes, who’ve already succeeded at “seeing themselves succeed” at things by actually doing them.

We hold the brain, and the product(s) of the brain – our mind and thoughts – in such high regard these days, that we forget that only one thing changes the brain – action.

Passivity, motionlessness, inaction – all are death.

Action. Activity. Doing. Movement. Physical doing. Those things change the brain. In turn they change the mind, and change our thoughts.

So what good are your thoughts? Get rid of them.

Get more action.

Spark! – Play, and pop-science

Posted on June 16, 2009 by Josh

I’ll be honest. I haven’t read John Ratey’s book “Spark.” I’d like to, but I have a few others on the list ahead of it. But I’m looking forward to it!

At the same time, I have to share my misgivings about the book. Especially in light of my recent experiences with pop-science books about talent.

Dr. Ratey is a scientist. But he’s not a medical doctor. Or a movement scientist. Or a physical educator. He’s a psychiatrist. That shouldn’t detract from his message, its importance, or its timeliness. The book is no less important because of his qualifications. However, I think it is slightly misguided.

I’ve read an article by Jacob Sattelmair (a doctoral student in epidemiology at Harvard, where Dr. Ratey teaches) and Dr. Ratey, called “Physically Active Play and Cognition, An Academic Matter?” In it, they describe some of the argument for physical activity, in however a reductionist and atomistic manner. I don’t want to deal with the entire article, but would like to focus on one point made in it. Particularly, that “Animal and human research primarily supports the importance of aerobic activity to enhance cognitive function” (pg 369). There are no references provided to support this statement, and it seems very strange to me.

My question relates to the specification for aerobic activity versus anaerobic activity to realize the vast number of benefits afforded by exercise, or, really, where the distinction or line is drawn between aerobic and anaerobic play for the purposes of this paper.

My understanding of the concept is that there are three types or “levels” of respiration that occur in the human body – cellular (intra-cell, glucose-to-energy), internal (inter-cell), and external (air-to-lungs). As far as I know, “aerobic” means that metabolic processes occur using oxygen, while “anaerobic” processes occur in the absence of oxygen molecules.

In exercise physiology (particularly, for me, when working with my clients), there are two ways that I recognize whether or not someone is training “aerobically” or not – 1. They’re able to pass the “talk test” – that is, they can keep up a conversation with me while they’re working; and 2. They can maintain their level of exertion for 30 seconds or more.

While the talk test isn’t always accurate, it appears to be fairly reliable. The second method is a little more “scientific,” since I’m relying on my understanding of cellular (particularly muscle-cell) energetics. As the intensity increases (either the frequency or severity of contractions), metabolism works to maintain the homeostasis of the cell. When metabolism can’t keep up, and oxygen is unable to make it into the cell at a sufficient rate to fuel cellular reactions, it goes into “anaerobic” metabolism. 30 seconds is an arbitrary number, but seems to work for most of my clients.

The common understanding of “aerobics” is long, slow, distance exercise, that can be maintained for up to an hour or more – such as jogging, aerobics/group-exercise classes, etc.

However, weightlifting activity can be maintained during aerobic cellular action. This is often done using weightlifting circuits, where exertion is circulated among different muscle groups throughout the exercise session to avoid total fatigue of a particular group. Also, heavy bouts of anaerobic weightlifting result in increased post-exercise oxygen consumption (aerobic metabolism) over/above the increase experienced from a similar-duration aerobic activity.

In light of my understanding of human evolution, every type of muscular action or metabolism has its place. As animals, we had to be able to sprint, sometimes for long distances, to avoid danger. Similarly, we had to be able to maintain long-duration activity when tracking animals, or moving to new territories. We had to be capable of lifting very heavy things at times, as well as lifting or carrying light things for long periods. Is there evidence to support strictly “aerobic” activity as a sole or preferential stimulus for brain development? It seems to me that the activity shaped the brain. And if that’s the case, then the same rules for growth now would apply as then – the rules that determine growth in anything – the more varied the stimulus (before sheer erratic randomness), with sufficient time for recovery (here – mental and physical, if you have to make that distinction, which I think is arbitrary), over a sufficient period of time, the more adaptation (“learning”) occurs.

Never Walk Alone

Posted on June 12, 2009 by Josh

Frank Forencich posted an article from the Mayo Clinic on the Exuberant Animal Blog today.

The article is about walking, and how frequent walking is just as effective (if not more effective) at improving health as “heavy” exercise. Not only is it just as effective, but there’s also significantly lower risk of injury in walking than in other types of “work out.”

Walking is part of our evolutionary heritage. Bipedal locomotion (walking on two legs) is one of the things that sets us apart from the other primates, and one of the things that enabled the rapid growth of our brain. We could do more things while we were moving – hold weapons, carry food, fix tools or clothing, etc. This increased effeciency definitely helped us to create neural pathways that didn’t exist in our primate brethren, and may have helped us to get the enormous amount of calories needed to fuel that growing brain.

There is one comment I’d like to make about the article, though, that the author misses. That is, the communal nature of human “exercise” through history.

We never walked alone.

But most gyms are set up in a way that forces people to work alone. All machine-based exercise equipment is made for one person. Sure, people have conversations next to each other on their stationary bikes, but where’s the creative problem solving? The space for play? It isn’t there.

For those of you reading this post, or the Mayo Clinic article – find a friend to walk with, and play some games along the way…

Doing new things…cont.

Posted on June 7, 2009 by Josh

I posted a very short entry last night about trying new things. Let me explain where that came from, so it makes more sense, and is, hopefully, a little more motivating.

Earlier this year, my buddy Charlie said he was going to try the Highland Games. I said, sweet, I’ll try it too. We practiced a little bit, went to the Woodland games, and competed. I pulled my right biceps on the very first throw of the day.

Today, the group we practice with down in Stanford had a little cookout. We all threw, all day. It was awesome. I learned some very good lessons from all of this. First, make sure you’re plenty warm before you try to start throwing heavy things. Second, make sure you don’t workout two days before a competition. Third, practice, and practice with good form. It’ll help you to perform better, and not to get injured. Fourth, technique is king. A guy with average strength, but excellent technique, will beat a brutally strong guy in the Highland games. The technique itself taught me something as well – follow. If you try to lead the weight, or force it, it will force you right back. The first thing everyone says when trying the men’s heavy weight for distance for the first time is “You don’t throw it, it throws you.” In a very real sense, this is true. You get the weight going, and guide it, and at the last second you give it a little extra help…but all along, the weight is the thing moving. It’s moving you. If you come at these events with this perspective, things suddenly make more sense – less force, more follow.

The second place I’ve recently experienced epiphanies due to trying something new was at a Tai Chi class at Doc Fai Wong’s school in the Sunset district of San Francisco. This was Charlie’s idea too. I’ve done Tai Chi before, and continue to practice martial arts by myself on a semi-regular basis. But it had been some time since I’d had a teacher watch me or teach me, or correct my technique. I learned a few things in that short 1-hour class. First, don’t “walk on a tightrope.” You don’t want your feet directly in line with each other, because then you don’t have any balance. This is something my teacher George Wood used to tell us all the time, but it suddenly “made sense” this time. Second, keep your body in neutral – that means your spine, scapulae, pelvis, knees, feet, etc. If you reach a limit in your movement, you won’t be able to extend or retreat beyond that limit, and you’re vulnerable. Know your limits, and play within those. That’s a new definition of “safety” for you!

If I had never done these things, I would never have had these wonderful experiences. They informed other things I was thinking about at the time, and made my life richer and deeper in the process. Trying something new isn’t just about novelty (though your brain will thank you, by creating new synaptic pathways), it’s also about rounding out the things you already think you know.

So, like I said, go try something new, or try something old in a new way. Be open to the experience, and really pay attention to what’s happening – how is it different from what you’re used to, or from what you expected? What lessons can you take from the experience? Go ahead and try!