Pro Sports, Drugs, Testing, and more Lip-Service

Posted on December 20, 2009 by Josh

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.

Focus on your weaknesses – or – excuses abound

Posted on December 10, 2009 by Josh

I was shocked this semester, when I realized that I’d been caught up in an excuse-making volcano by one of the faculty in my department.

The question posed to the class was – what can be done to make the kinesiology program more effective, while still saving resources?

An especially timely question, for two reasons:
1. The California State University system is undergoing horrendous budget cuts because of the state’s financial crisis, and
2. The legitimacy of the field of kinesiology itself is being questioned by internal and external alike.

The students went wild. Many had something to say about specific classes they’d taken, or specific likes and dislikes of the current program. A few had more broad questions about what the faculty wanted to do, or where the field should go.

But for each of those statements, the professor had the same answer. Really, two answers. It was either:
1. Students don’t work hard enough and aren’t self-sufficient anymore, so we can’t do things the way you’ve described, or
2. The faculty are already overworked/understaffed, so we can’t do things the way you’ve described.

Now, whether or not either of those statements are true isn’t really important. What is important is the general demeanor they belie. One of defeat. One of submission. One of created “necessity,” instead of creativity.

I don’t think the professor in question has given up. Nor do I find this professor unimaginative. I think of them as one of the most creative of the professors in the program. I think what may have been happening was the repetition of a cultural expression from the department at large.

You know how words spread. In the 80′s it was “Dude.” Everyone was “Hey Dude, what’s up?” In the 90′s it was “Man.” “Hey Man, what’s happening?” In 00′s it was “Homey.” “What up homey?” etc.

Or the way people are suddenly using the word “epic” to describe anything. In the 80′s it was “rad” (radical). In the 90′s it was “awesome.” In 00′s it was “sweet.”

Or it was different depending on where you lived. I knew some people in the 90′s who weren’t from the east coast, and they always said “bitchin.” That was crazy-talk to me! Outside of my paradigm.

Regardless, the use of catch-phrases, or even recurring thoughts (memes, if you will) is cultural. That being the case, there are macro- and micro-level cultures that we all inhabit.

I inhabit the macro-culture of the United States. I’m exposed to that culture in many ways – TV, internet, movies, other people – any source that touches the US culture-at-large. I also inhabit the sub-culture of San Francisco. It’s significantly different from that larger US culture. As far as micro-cultures go, I’m a personal trainer. I spend a lot of time at a gym. I’m also a student. The language and customs of those places informs my own language and actions.

Teaching must be no different. And the type of school you teach within (and the nature of that school within its larger culture) will determine cultural expressions too.

So that explains that…

But I don’t want to leave it there. Because then you just go off thinking about all of the cultures flowing in and through you. I want you to do something else too.

I want you to focus on your weaknesses.

Strength and conditioning (and boxing) coach Ross Enamait recently posted a quote on his Facebook page. It was this: “What a player does best, he should practice least. Practice is for problems.” – Duke Snider

What you’re already good at, you can maintain. In fact, depending on how good you are at it, you may be wasting your time practicing it more and more. Instead, focus on your weaknesses. Practice what you’re not good at. Do the things that are really holding you back. Tackle those issues on a daily basis. Make a list and check it off if you have to. It will make what you’re good at improve too.

How does these two themes apply to one another?

I think we’re all pretty good at asking questions. But when the answers come back, we tend to fall back on our habitual ways of doing things. I think we can all work on that one. Be aware of yourself. Your actions and reactions…and work on your weaknesses.

Look Within

Posted on November 21, 2009 by Josh

Everyone who comes to see me, who comes to train with me, wants me to record numbers.

They want to record their weight. Their bodyfat level. Their heart rate. Their VO2max.

They want me to record the weights they use. The number of repetitions. Their speed.

And that’s fine. I’m happy to oblige.

But I’m not always happy with what lies beneath those requests.

When I’m unhappy about it, it’s because my clients are looking only at their numbers. They’re succumbing to the externally-focused drive of our culture. They’re looking at magazine cover-models, movie stars, their neighbors and friends, or anything other than their own bodies.

It’s fine to track your progress with different measures. However, the primary concern of anyone engaging in an exercise program should be to become more who they are. To be more in their own body – to learn how to move, to build strength, and to feel the full measure of that strength-in-movement within.

When a month has gone by, and the weight on the scale has gone up, it’s usually because relatively heavier muscle is replacing relatively lighter fat in the body.

But the externally-focused individual just sees the higher number. And that blocks them from feeling themselves what the effects of the exercise have been. Do you feel thinner, more fit, happier? Do your clothes fit more loosely (or more tightly, in new areas, like the shoulders and thighs, perhaps)?

The other thing that happens is that people become fixated on strength goals. “I want to bench press 315.” Ok, great. What happens when you plateau at 285 for a few weeks?

The externally-driven person will tend to want to push past this plateau, instead of allowing what the body actually needs at this point – more time.

There are many methods for getting past plateau’s – focusing on the eccentric (lengthening) portion of the movement, doing partial reps, overspeed/power work, etc.

But usually, what the body needs when it hits a plateau (that is, if you’re still applying the same level of mental intensity to your lifting), is some time to accommodate to that load. The plateau is your body speaking to you. It’s saying “give me eight or ten weeks at this load,” “play with this weight for a while,” or even “back off.”

If all you can hear in your head is a number (315), you won’t be able to hear that voice, telling you what you really need to be doing.

This tendency is cultural. We put the Type A personality on a pedestal in this country. To our own detriment. It is also a choice. You do not have to push things all of the time. You can choose to slow down and listen.

However, that’s extremely difficult, because everything around you says you should push.

The tendency for people to constantly quote scientific research to support their claims, and the equally damaging tendency to believe people who do that, is another example of this external-focus.

Science is based on the law of averages. It is not concerned with the individual. And you are an individual. You are not an average. Nor are you average.

First, listen to yourself.

Pain

Posted on October 15, 2009 by Josh

My friend Aaron Schwenzfeier sent me a great article by Ronald Melzack, Ph.D.

Dr. Melzack proposes a neural network that has it’s own “signature” – which would be similar to your individual voiceprint, fingerprints, or heart-rate variability signature. That network “produces” pain.

What that means is that the old model of there being a single place in the brain that generates pain signals, or a single pathway from afferent neuron (the way you feel things external to you – in pain, if you were to touch a very hot stovetop) to single processing site in the brain would be incorrect.

The truth would be that pain arises as the result of diverse signals as processed by this neural network. Things like your stress level (and accompanying changes in cortisol/adrenaline levels, etc.), inflammation (and accompanying changes), and/or actual trauma to tissues (etc.) would all feed into this network, creating a susceptibility to pain.

This model would definitely help to explain the different “pain thresholds” or “tolerances” in different individuals. For one thing, one person might have a more robust network, capable of handling more stress than another. Or, they might have less chronic activity in the pain neuromatrix than the other person.

I like this theory, and hope it is explored more fully. That being said, I think it’s actually a little limited.

My first question is – where does the differentiation exist between the neuromatrix in the brain, and the neural-matrix that stretches throughout the body?

As we know, the separations we make between structures in the body are largely arbitrary, and this scientific/analytic approach to the body has hidden as much as it has revealed.

On a side note, I wanted to add some personal reflections about pain that came up while I was reading Dr. Melzack’s article.

I’ve had a few people over the years tell me to “make a friend of pain.”

That statement is much different from what old high school coaches said – “no pain no gain,” or “stop being a wuss.”

Make a friend of pain.

The first person who comes to mind as saying that to me was Luo Dexiu, the head of the bagua school I practice within. Luo is a master of Baguazhang and the internal arts. He’s been practicing the martial arts for roughly 40 years at this point.

Luo said it specifically in the context of getting through prolonged static-standing exercises. Invariably, when you’re holding static stances, your muscles start to rebel, your limbs start to shake, you start to sweat, and your body screams “pain!”

But there’s no real risk of injury in these positions. It’s just uncomfortable. So, what Luo was saying was basically – you need to reeducate your pain neuromatrix…teach it to differentiate true pain from discomfort. Or boredom.

The second person who came immediately to mind was Deric Stockton. Deric is a 40 year old powerlifter who recently squatted over 800 pounds. And he’s clean (not on steroids).

At his Symmetricore seminar a few months ago, Deric said “pain is my friend.”

He didn’t mean that he hangs out with pain on a Friday night. He doesn’t call pain up and invite it over for dinner. Rather, he sees pain as a very clear, immediate, and real way in which his body communicates with him. When he experiences pain, he can learn what his body needs.

These two people have a very different perspective of pain than what we commonly have. Pain is communication. It is a message. And, like all communication, most of us are only good at very surface levels of dialogue.

First, you have to want to communicate. Then, you have to be willing to listen. Communication is only good as long as you pay attention to it.

For many, communication consists of hearing the top of what someone’s saying, the most explicit level. The words. And then reacting to those. Not responding. Reacting.

In pain, most people, in a similar way, will feel and react to the immediate/surface stimulus. Then they’ll pop a handful of Advil and call it a day. It’s like listening to someone talk to you and going “uh huh…uh huh [when will this person shut up?] uh huh…uh huh…”

Neither party gets anything out of it.

The discipline that Luo was pointing toward (and perhaps “discipline” in general) is one that our culture works against vehemently – to pay attention, to stop and listen, and not only listen, but to hear.

It takes time. It takes effort. It takes willpower to do this.

Things the U.S. culture acts to destroy. Because when you listen, when you hear, when you feel, and consider yourself, are considerate of yourself, you don’t “impulse buy.”

Consider which path you’d rather take.

The use and abuse of science

Posted on October 13, 2009 by Josh

Science is out of control. And it needs to be put in the corner for a time-out.

In many blog entries, I’ve discussed the lack of scientific (or common-sense) validation for running shoes.

Eyal Lederman wrote an excellent article recently regarding the similar lack of scientific validation for current ideas surrounding “core stability.”

But what spurred this blog entry was a presentation by Dr. Robert Mazzeo gave to my graduate class last week about his work studying mitochondria.

“Mitochondria = Longevity”

Mitochondria are the “powerhouses” of your cells. They convert glucose and/or pyruvate into ATP, the nucleotide your cells use to do work.

Essentially, researchers have found that mitochondrial density (the number of mitochondrion per area unit) increases when rats are put on a calorically-restricted (CR) diet.

Further, they’ve shown that certain of these rats (called “responders”) live up to 40% longer than “normal” rats.

Dr. Mazzeo is a specialist in the field of cellular metabolism. I trust him when he says that there is an increase in mitochondrial density resulting from calorically restricted diets in lab rats.

But I’m more than a little confused about the connection of the research to longevity, or implications for longevity research generally.

In the past century, average lifespan in humans has increased due to preventive/treatment methods, hygiene, etc., while maximal lifespan (that is, ultimately how long people can live) has not (Lanza, et. al, abstract).

According to the Lanza paper, this is related to mitochondria, mitochondrial density, and the metabolic load (specifically, on mitochondria) associated with caloric intake. While it may be true that increase in mitochondria occurs in concert with extended maximal lifespan (in some animals), does that imply causation, or even direct correlation?

First, what about the non-responder rats? Are they “not normal?” In the studies that have been performed, non-responder rats are from a different genetic “strain” of rat.

Then, what about the rats that get “averaged out” in statistical analysis?

Why does the effect occur only when CR is introduced at a very early age in the lifespan? In all of the studies, maximal lifespan only increases when CR is introduced within the first few weeks of the rat’s life and then maintained from there.

There seem to be differences between mitochondria created in response to caloric restriction and those created in response to physical activity, and hopefully Dr. Mazzeo’s research will shed light on that question. But, again, does that mitochondrial increase (happening, simultaneous to increased maximal lifespan) imply causation? And does it transfer to human animals?

What are the other physical/metabolic structures/processes that differ between these two classes of stimulus?

The complexity of natural organism function needs to be considered when making claims like this.

To quote Booth and Laye (2009) – “Normal physiological processes are dynamic, integrated, periodic, and therefore, it is difficult to define normal physiological function by looking at a single time point or single process in a non-stressed subject” (abstract). It, I think, is far too simplistic to point at a single cellular function and make the claim that it (alone) increases maximal lifespan.

Another issue has to do with what the true maximal lifespan or caloric intake of rats is.

Human beings have been known to live as long as 122 years (as far as we’ve recorded), and people throughout history have been known regularly to live well into their 80’s. We might suppose that human “maximal lifespan” is somewhere around 125 years, given optimal genetics, environment, etc., throughout that lifespan.

There are a few populations (specifically, centenarian populations) around the world that exhibit unusual consistency in long lifespan, supposedly due precisely to “optimal conditions” (that include such a diversity of “causes” as: family, absence of smoking, largely plant-based diets usually including legumes, constant and moderate physical activity, and social engagement and the accompanying structures – see the book “Blue Zones” by Dan Buettner for his analysis of these populations).

Perhaps the researchers in rat studies have not increased the maximal lifespan of these lab rats, they’ve merely found what the maximal lifespan is for (a select strain of, “responder”) rats when those animals are isolated in ideal conditions (for lengthy lifespan).

Further, what is “caloric restriction” for rats? Animals with less “self-regulatory” mechanism frequently (naturally/evolutionarily) take advantage of large stores of calories whenever they find them. “Feast or famine” is programmed into many animals (human beings included). In these studies, are the researchers really “restricting” calories below what is “optimal” for the rats, or are they actually feeding the rats an optimal level of calories. That is, these rats are fed diets that appear to be calorically restricted based on a human understanding/analysis of “normal” rats whose natural instinct might be to eat well beyond what a human “normal” when opportunity provides for excess in a “natural” (non-lab) setting.

On a final, philosophico-theoretical note, I’m interested in what the implications would be if mitochondrial density due to caloric restriction were found to increase maximal lifespan in human beings. Why increase maximal life span? To what end? What is the quality of that lifespan? Especially with regard to increasing levels of disease in the population at large due to ever-rising pollutant/toxicity levels in everything from the air to the food we eat. Perhaps we should focus first on quality, and then on quantity. In fact, if we focus on quality, quantity might naturally follow, as found (again) in centenarian populations scattered throughout the world.

The biggest issue I have, though, has little to do with any of that.

Rather, it’s about scientists and other “authority figures” in our society presenting sentences like “caloric restriction leads to increased longevity.”

It’s not true. It’s not clear. It’s not responsible.

Very few people in our society have been given the “critical thinking” classes they’d need in order to hear news like this and use it the way they should (which is, not at all).

Again, this type of talk (authority/consumer) supports our basic ideas too, that common sense is not good enough, that the lessons of your elders are meaningless, that science (or authority in general) holds all the answers, that you can’t do it on your own.

You can. You should. And, ultimately, you do whether you believe “they” are helping you or not.

References
Booth, F.W., Laye, M.J. (2009). Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise’s complexitiescan pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery. Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Buettner, D. (2009). The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who’ve Lived the Longest. Washington DC: National Geographic Books.

Lanza, I.R., Nair, S. (2009). Mitochondrial function as a determinant of life span. European Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Closer to Nature

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Josh

When I attended Tom Brown’s Trackerschool a few years ago, one of the things Tom said was that the only cure for our civilization was to get people participating in nature again.

Mick Dodge, the Barefoot Sensei, has a similar belief (though alternate means).

Do I need to say that I agree with them? Okay, then I will – I agree with them.

Our current culture is so far removed from nature that it’s scary.

By “nature” I mean “what is natural.” Not man-made “nature.” That’s called “culture.” I mean, cycles of seasons, cycles of moons, cycles of years. I mean tides.

I mean “ecosystems” – but not in the sense of a closed-off “ecosystem.” I mean it in the sense of the-thing-that-you-live-within.

Why do I think this is important?

Well, we come from this nature. All of the things that we do rely on it. Our ideas about things are largely constructions these days. They’ve been built up over years, decades, eons. Society, and civilization, and our various cultures, are largely constructions that have taken on lives of their own. Now, many people are hard-pressed to say what is “natural.”

But it’s actually the simplest thing to do. Here’s how you do it:

Take away.

Strip things away, until you get to the place where there’s nothing left. No TV, no cell-phone, no computer, no clothes, no books, no cars, no sidewalks, no toilets, no buildings, no politics, no religion.

There is nature.

It is still there. It is there while you read this.

I’m advocating that we all get closer to nature. I think we need to become less and less, as far as our material and mental possessions go. I think we need to reduce entirely, and return.

I’m full of optimism and hope that this can occur right now…for a few reasons.

First, the focus on “the environment” (kind of a silly phrase – which environment? – but hey, it sticks) has led people to a greater awareness of ecological issues (if not their own environments…sometimes…).

That concern by “consumers” has led corporations to take greater interest in the environment. While this is a double-edged sword, with car companies pushing hybrid vehicles (it’s still a “new car” folks – pollution due to construction, fabrication, and transport of the vehicle hasn’t changed a bit – and the gas mileage is really insignificantly lower than that of regular cars), and other companies pushing other new “green” products (made of plastic, which is a petroleum (read, oil) product…anyone out there? hello?), it still has led to (albeit, mostly weak) initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and an infantile level of thoughtfulness about ecological responsibility.

Second, there seems to be a loss of faith in some regarding the general state of things. People are starting to question, and to feel comfortable questioning, the way things are.

While Michael Moore’s most recent foray may not be everyone’s cup of tea (don’t know if it’s mine, I haven’t seen it yet), he is indicative of this movement…this push to seek better alternatives.

The problem we face is our existing culture, which will seek to subsume any efforts, and absorb them into itself.

That’s how systems work. Any system takes the energy that is given to it and uses it for its own ends (not for the ends that the “energy itself” would’ve hoped for). For instance, when you eat dinner. The spinach or steak you eat may have had its own intention. But your body will use it for its goals. Beyond that, your cells will use that spinach or steak for the goals they see fit (perhaps, grimly, cancer) – not for the goals you might have in mind yourself (6 pack abs, anyone?) – even though those cells comprise you!

Systems speak aside…it’s time we return. Is it too simple? Is there a way to package simplicity, so we can sell it? Is there a way to market “nothing?”

Ingenuity…the playful mind in action

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Josh

I recently posted with the subject heading “I shouldn’t be alive…”

It was meant to be funny, based on the TV show of the same name. Granted, most of the people who appear in that show have real stories that back up the claim…while mine, though real, was not necessarily life-threatening.

It got me to thinking, though, writing that post, about what our culture promotes. What types of stories we tell one another.

The stories on the show “I Shouldn’t Be Alive” are usually very grim. And the ones I’ve seen have all been stories about survival occurring due to luck or chance.

That’s a different mentality than the story of a person who survives because they know how to.

In Wade Davis’ TED talk he tells the story an Inuit man named Olayek told him. Olayek’s grandfather was not interested in relocating to the settlement the Canadian government was trying to put the Inuit on. The family were worried for the grandfather’s life. They were afraid that the Canadian government might try to force him to move. If the grandfather rebelled violently, they might kill him. So they did the only thing they could think to do – they took away all of his belongings. Wade tells the rest as follows:

“The Inuit did not fear the cold, they took advantage of it…so, this man’ts grandfather was not intimidated by the arctic night or the blizzard that was blowing, he simply slipped outside, pulled down his sealskin trousers, and defecated into his hand. And as the feces began to freeze, he shaped it into the form of a blade. He put a string of saliva on the end of the shit-knife, and as it finally froze solid, he butchered a dog with it. He skinned the dog and improvised a harness. Took the ribcage of the dog and improvised a sled. Harnessed up an adjacent dog, and disappeared over the ice floes, shit knife in belt. Talk about getting by with nothing.”

Now that’s ingenuity!

One of my most favorite “playful thinkers” of all time is Bugs Bunny. That rabbit always plays. Every other episode featuring Bugs starts off with him singing a carefree song.

When trouble comes around, it’s no worry. It’s a game. Some of the funniest scenes are where it actually gets serious, and Bugs hightails it out of there! You don’t see cartoons like that nowadays…at least, I haven’t. Everything’s loaded with seriousness or innuendo. No ingenious characters, who approach every problem with a light heart, and the power of their quick wit.

As Wade Davis points out, what changes people, and in turn, what changes societies, are the stories they tell to themselves, or to one another.

What stories are you telling yourself, and those around you?

What stories are you being told?

What story do you want to tell or be told?

I’m starting to think that there’s nothing wrong at all…

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Josh

I went to the dentist today. Yes, everything’s fine, thanks. I love going to the dentist! The feeling of clean teeth afterward…amazing!

But this isn’t about the dentist, or teeth.

It’s about what’s wrong with the world these days!

More to the point, it’s that I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with the world these days.

My new dentist works in Presidio Heights, a very wealthy neighborhood in San Francisco. The streets are still lined with cars, in spite of massive garages and fenced-in driveways, but the cars here are BMW’s, Benzes, and other high-end “luxury vehicles.”

It’s situated up on top of the hill (hence the “heights” part) that rolls down to the Presidio (ergo “Presidio” part of the name) on one side, and the Marina neighborhood on the other side. It’s beautiful up there! Especially on a day like today…sunny, warm, wonderful!

As I walked back to my car, running my tongue over my squeaky teeth, I fell in behind a couple, walking to their car.

They were probably in their early forties. The man had a very nice suit and shoes. The woman looked like she just got out of the gym, spandex shorts, a t-shirt, Nike Shox. The man was a big fella. Probably 6’2″. He lumbered like a bear. Heavy guy. Maybe around 270. The wife was tall, too, hovering around 5’10″. Tall folks. She was a little plump around the midsection too. I’d put her around 200.

I was watching the way they walked. I like to watch people’s gait, try to figure out what’s bugging them, what they may have injured in the past, or present. They had gait distortions typical of overweight chair-sitters – their feet splayed out a bit, pushed off to the sides instead of straight back, etc.

Then I realized – neither of them probably has any difficulty getting around at all. I mean, they might get winded walking up the hill from the Marina (if they ever do that). They might have high blood pressure, and suffer from some complications of their lifestyle later in life.

But from the look of them, at that moment, neither of them looked to be in any pain or discomfort at all.

There was nothing wrong.

In the training world, we frequently ask people what their “goals” are. “What are you trying to accomplish?” We want, one, for the program to be focused and directed. We want our clients to work toward something clear, something specific. S.M.A.R.T. goals, as they say – Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound (that is, there’s a date-goal).

We also want accountability. If you tell me your goal is weight-loss, and then you go have a medium pizza for lunch, I’ll know why you’re not getting any closer to your goal. Hopefully, stating the goal helps to keep your savage appetites in check.

Hopefully.

At the very least, if it doesn’t, you can’t blame me, the trainer, for your failure!

If you don’t have specific goals, well, we’ll make some up for you.

For one thing, you’re totally dysfunctional. Let’s just start there. You sit way too much. You eat processed foods. You don’t move enough at all, and certainly not in enough various ways to stimulate your body. You don’t sleep enough at night. And because of your inactivity, your muscles are horribly imbalanced in terms of strength/weakness, or length/shortness, or tight/looseness.

Well, there are some goals for you. Once we get past all that stuff that’s really wrong with you, we can start to think about getting you the Brad Pitt/Angelina/300/Mrs. Obama Arms look that you’re after.

But under the dross of catchy fitness goals, there lies a human being.

Underneath the blank stare, the blank dreams that come from media-hypnosis, there’s an individual. A person.

And what we do in the fitness world, often, is take that face at face value. We don’t want to dig. We don’t want to know about your upbringing. We don’t want to hear about your dog or your kids or your job. For chrissakes we aren’t your therapist! We’re your trainer! We train.

Now, let’s get back to those goals.

Meanwhile, on the surface, for most folks, everything’s fine. Sure the diabetes kicks in…but the doctor prescribes insulin. The gut gets huge, but I can get a gastric bypass. The headaches keep coming, but I can get sleeping pills, caffeine pills, something…give me something.

And everything is fine.

The doctors will take care of me. The system will take care of me. It has to. It is the system that made me.

And the human being underneath withers.

Use it or lose it.

And once it’s lost, it’s hard to get back…if not gone forever.

So this post actually, is about nothing at all.

Community…in training, and out

Posted on September 30, 2009 by Josh

My last post was about community as well. Read that one too.

By “community” I also mean “culture.” It’s a group of like-minded individuals who want to accomplish a similar task, and who provide support for one another.

JR Atwood just posted on his PlayThink blog about an article that found that people who trained with others experienced a lower perception of pain than when they trained on their own.

Most of us can relate to this experience. The run was much easier when we ran it that day with our friend. The visit to the dentist’s office was much less psychologically difficult when mom was there holding our hand. The test (or studying for the test) seemed much easier when we had our friends in our class and had a study group with them.

Community, even among two people, lessens the burden, lightens the load, allows for freedom – allows for play.

This is why group exercise has always been really popular (even though we often do it in a way that keeps people separated, standing at their “stations”). We have a common goal, we suffer a common pain, we pull together, we help one another. We are able to laugh at our mistakes.

Our culture, however, is one that places high emphasis on individuality, individualism, and individual achievement. Beware this cultural tendency in yourself. It isn’t necessary, or necessarily good. For you, or anyone else.

Culture – Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Josh

Remember history class? At any point. High school, college, prison…wherever you took a history class. Remember?

Remember what you studied? Yeah, dates, events, blah blah blah. But the important stuff, the stuff that grabbed your attention?

For me, there were two things. The first was the great leaders in history. Usually, they were the “conquerors” – Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, etc.

Then, it was the great cultures. The rise and fall of civilizations – the Babylonians, the Greek, Roman, Aztec, Mayan, Mongol, etc.

The great leaders either represented the pinnacle of the culture they led, or became the representation of that pinnacle – the goal to reach for, for that culture (Jesus is a good example of this latter type).

I’ve been thinking a lot about culture recently. Ever since I read Rene Dubos’ book, “So Human an Animal,” back in the Spring.

An article in “Trends and Updates” laments “The Culture of Getting and Spending.” Which is part of our American (US) culture. The author highlights this culture by quoting from William Wordsworth’s poem ”

There are other aspects of that culture, such as:

Ignorance of one’s own feelings (lack of self-awareness)
Self-denial (“needy” people are looked down upon)
An inability to communicate feelings
Obsessive Compulsive tendencies
Tendencies to Hyperactive/Attentional disorders
Unconscious mythmaking/Idolatry
Sloth and gluttony (lack of self-awareness in relation to one’s surroundings)
Lack of general awareness (of surroundings)
Disdain and/or lack of awareness of nature

There was an article published in the New York Times on September 10th called “Are Your Friends Making You Fat?”

The answer, in short, is YES.

Researchers have found that there is a direct connection between fitness levels/mortality indicators and…friends.

Your culture determines largely what you will engage in or not. Do all of your friends smoke? If yes, than you are likely a smoker as well. Does everyone in your neighborhood play soccer all the time? If yes, then you probably will as well.

Does your culture believe in faith healing? If yes, then most likely, you will as well – and not only that, but you will likely be healed by a faith healing at some point in your life.

Sure, you might also die. But what does that say about you?

The secret here, is to do something. Thinking about what your culture does is fine, to get better at thinking (specifically, to get better at thinking about what your culture does…maybe not better at “thinking in general”).

If you want to get better at doing things, you have to do. You cannot get better at doing things by thinking about them.

If you want to get thin – make friends with thin people. If you want to be more active – surround yourself with people who are active (preferably, who’ve been where you are now, and are now active).

The age of the craftsman has almost entirely vanished. But in that practice, there was the concept of apprenticeship. If you wanted to learn a craft, you went and lived with the master. This used to be true of the martial arts, as well (and still is, for some). You made sacrifices of your personal liberties in order to learn what the teacher had to teach you.