Social Conformity, and the Chuck Wolf Seminar I Went to on Saturday

Posted on May 10, 2010 by Josh

I want to start here by talking about the social conformity experiments of Asch and Milgram back in the 1960′s.

Asch had people seated in a room, with a leader at the front. Six of the seven people sitting down were in on the experiment (“confederates”). Only one of them, number 7, was the “experimental variable.” There were cards with lines drawn on them, and the people were asked to identify the relative lengths of the lines.

When the subject was allowed to make his/her own decisions about the length of the lines, they were 99% accurate. When the other people (the confederates) were allowed to answer about the lengths of the lines first (incorrectly…as in, “A is shorter than B,” when it is not), the subject would conform to their answer 35% of the time.

In Milgram’s experiment, someone in a position of authority (a confederate) dressed in a lab coat, instructed the subject to ask questions to an unseen person in the room next door via a microphone/speaker system. Also, the subject was to administer electric shocks to that person if they gave incorrect answers.

The subjects would deliver “450 volt shocks” (there were no actual shocks administered, the screams and pleading of the person in the room next door were acted) 65% of the time.

Milgram said that part of the results were due to the conformity effect Asch noticed. But also, that part of it was due to “the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.”

One of his later experiments combined conformity and obedience, and noticed significantly greater compliance in the subject.

Social Conformity Is Evident in This...hold on a sec...where'd I put my blow-dryer...

Putting Your Best Foot Forward with Chuck Wolf
On Saturday, I attended a conference put on by the WAC Academy and the University of San Francisco, featuring Chuck Wolf, on the topic of “how the muscles and actions of the foot affect the hip, gluteal complex, and spine. By changing body angles, utilizing reaches, understanding how the foot functions, and applying the concepts from the Flexibility Highways, the fitness professional will come away with methods to enhance traditional exercises into a truly three dimensional chain reaction movement.”

Chuck was a really nice guy, and has a long history in post-rehab athletic conditioning. He walked around and said hello to everyone before the conference started, introducing himself and getting to know folks.

Yeah...you tell em Sammy!

But…those shoes…
You know how they say that women often look at a man’s shoes to learn more about him? I do that too…for everyone. When I looked at Chuck’s, I was shocked. He had large, Adidas, what looked like motion-control sneakers on. What Mick Dodge would call “flower pots,” and Tom Brown would call “foot-coffins.”

I began to wonder what Chuck was going to tell us about the foot and ankle.

Been There, Done That
I’ve been in this industry long enough, and been to enough of these seminars, to know not to expect too much. Most of the time, the information you get is rehashed, recycled stuff from the PT world. Chuck, as it happens, works in a PT clinic in Orlando. He hangs with those guys. That’s his social crowd…uh…social conformity…hint…hint…

Starting out, he talked about the structure of the foot. The bony structure. We didn’t get into musculature, except for the gross musculature of the shin – gastroc/soleus, anterior tibialis.

Chuck actually said that “the control of the ankle comes from the shin.” While I agree with him to a point, I strongly disagree with him in every other way.

There are something like 25 muscles in the foot, and three layers of musculature within the foot itself. The bottom of the foot is laced with muscles. So, if you want to talk about things “from the ground up,” you need to start there. On the bottom of the foot.

4 layers of foot muscle...courtesy Frank Netter

Knee-Jerk Reaction
I’ll admit that I quickly tuned out. The other trainers there were doing some sort of social-conformity thing. They were very interested in speaking in PT lingo – “pronate, supinate, evert, invert, abduct, adduct.”

These last two, by the way, are apparently defined in certain circles, opposite to the normal understanding – that is, by judging whether a limb or body part is ab/adducting by the motion of the distal portion (furthest from the trunk of the body) of the limb to the proximal portion. I learned that abduction is when you move the limb or body part away from the midline, and adduction the opposite. And I’m not clear on the reasoning for the new definition. If you can enlighten me, please do!

Anyway, they wanted to “dig deep,” but only into what he was presenting. Not into the topic itself. Which I guess is fair. I guess.

Chuck said that flat footed people have a greater incidence of ACL tear. That may be, but why is that the case? He didn’t say. Actually, a few studies (here’s one) have shown that people with flat feet have lower risk of ankle injury than those with high arches.

There it is! Right there! I can see it!

Yes, I know the ACL is in the knee, not the ankle. So you’re saying the strain isn’t transferred to the ankle, but instead, goes up the chain to the knee. I guess I can understand that, to a point. But usually, soft tissues change structure to match kinetic patterns. So the argument that a person with flat feet automatically has pre-stressed ACL’s is suspect to me. If they had flat feet their whole life, wouldn’t the ACL conform?

Is it flat feet that cause ACL tears, or is it poor motor patterns?

Haile Gebrselassie hasn’t had any problem being one of the world’s greatest long-distance runners for years in spite of gross over-pronation:

The point of this section, though, is what gets missed when you skip over the bottom of the foot, and move straight to the calf and ankle.

Or, also, what gets missed when you skip over the most basic reflex patterns that stem from the stimulation of the bottom of the (bare) foot? See this paper for ideas about that.

This little cutie knows what I'm talking about...

Where’s My Cookie?
Look, I can see the multitude of perspectives there are on the human body. I can smell them and taste them too. I’ve touched those perspectives with my own hands. Trust me.

I have two problems with what happened to me on Saturday:
1. The body is not that complicated.

2. The way of addressing it in these complicated (and contradictory) terms, only causes confusion and dismay. And,

3. People seem to have turned off their brains…they’re just following anyone who stands up and says “follow me.”

I’ll explain the way I look at the body in another post…so STAY TUNED!!!

Sorry for the rant…hahaha…

Insulating ourselves to death?

Posted on April 22, 2010 by Josh

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…

How Not to Get Fit – Take the Stairs, Not.

Posted on April 13, 2010 by Josh

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…

So why the locked stairwells people?

Exercise vs. Physical Activity

Posted on April 11, 2010 by Josh

What’s the difference?

“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.

We Indigenes
Indigenous means you’re born of a certain area. Literally “produced” (gen) “within” (in-).

Normally we think of “indians” with this term…or “aborigines” (a similar type of meaning to this word – “from” (ab), “the beginning” (origine, origin)).

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.

An example of this is found in this paper: Physical Activity of Canadian and American Children: A Focus on Youth in Amish, Mennonite, and Modern Cultures, by David R. Bassett, Jr.

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.

Why don’t we? Why don’t you?

The Best Exercise Includes a Dose of Nature

Posted on March 31, 2010 by Josh

The British Ecological Society’s blog posted about a recent research article titled “What Is The Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise For Improving Mental Health?”

The article is a meta-analysis (that is, it synthesizes research from many previous research studies about the topic), and sums up its results with the following statement:

“This study confirms that the environment provides an important health service.”

And I have only two questions…

1. REALLY?!!! and,

2. AND?!!!

First, this information is anything but new. Anyone who has every gone hiking, who has ever taken a vacation in the mountains, or in the woods, or who has ever played in a creek behind their house, knows firsthand the difference between “exercising” (moving) outdoors in a natural environment versus doing the same or similar activity indoors or in a “built” (human-made) environment.

I’m talking here, not only your own first-hand experience, but also about the incredible amount of scientific research that shows the benefits of moving in a natural environment. The paper quoted above used a lot of that research to make its own (redundant) point!

I’ve pointed out at least one piece of this literature in previous posts (here, here, and here). So…it’s not even new to this blog!!!

However, even with that knowledge, and even with the rapidly mounting evidence, and my (and others’) incessant blog postings on the subject, it continues to be an “issue.” That is, people continue to choose Wii, and to choose justifying their Wii time, to actually going out into the woods and taking a hike.

I want to say one thing before I finish this post up with a final point, and that is this -People seem to have a tendency to feel better once they talk about something. That is, they feel little compulsion to do anything about a problem once it’s been aired, once it’s out in the open. In fact, on a few occasions I’ve seen this behavior up close and in person. Let me give one example:

There was a family that I spent a lot of time with. Everyone was overweight in that family, and they were aware of it. In fact, they would almost always say things like “We’re all fat in this family.” Or “We need to lose weight.” Or “We need to throw out all of that junk food in the pantry, and just have a bowl of fruit out for snacks.”

One time, I actually offered to help with the clearing of the pantry. I said “Ok, that’s a good idea! Let’s do that now!” Well, the younger children of the household weren’t home, and the adults decided that it would be too traumatic to just throw everything out all of a sudden. So we didn’t clear out the pantry.

There is a reason we are not connecting to nature. That we are not making this connection. That we don’t go out into the woods and take a hike. There is a reason you don’t do it. What is that reason?

My final point is this – The above question seems a good question for science to ask. Why isn’t science asking that question?

Here’s my answer(s) to that question:

1. It’s not the job of science to do anything about it. It’s the job of science to ask questions and get answers. But science is not a field of activisim. It is a field of questioning and answering. That’s all. Expecting action based on gathered knowledge is a bad habit (one which I’m trying to get rid of).

2. Science doesn’t want to ask a question that invalidates itself. I think part of the answer, of why we are not connecting to nature, in spite of overwhelming evidence that we should, has to do with the fact that our culture is largely based in a scientific approach to things. That is, nature and science (at least, the way we’re accustomed to doing science) are largely contradictory. So, science might find its own relativism, and find its own value being questioned, were it to ask “Why aren’t we connecting to nature.”

A couple of possible answers…what do you think?!

Exercise – A dirty word?

Posted on February 13, 2010 by Josh

In the most recent Exuberant Animal blog post, head of EA, Frank Forencich, offers us a compelling question to ponder:

Is “exercise” part of the problem?

Frank says it is.

Exercise, he says, involves sets, reps, forced movements in unnatural or limited planes of motion, etc.

I think he’s right.

Nice gym.

The “Workout” Dilemma

For many of us, even the term “workout” fades into the single word “work.” It doesn’t sound like fun. What’s supposed to be enjoyable about it? Especially after you’ve already been working all week anyway?! Who wants more work?!

A Rose by Any Other Name

It’s important to remember where gyms came from. Original “gymnasiums” in Ancient Greece (the ones the European gymnasiums were modeled after, which are the gyms that ours were modeled after) consisted of an open sandy pit outside, and maybe a large, empty room, with some different apprati and weights to throw around. But mostly, you’d just throw yourself (or maybe another person) around.

In the process, you’d learn some things. Like how to deal with your own body. Or how to deal with disorientation (tumbling). Or how to deal with another person’s body (wrestling, boxing), or an external body of other sorts (shot put, weight, discus, javelin).

In the earlier part of the 20th Century, most American gyms still looked this way. They were mostly empty space, with some weights around the perimeter, and maybe some uneven bars and gymnastic rings. Maybe the gym would be totally outdoors. Or at least have some outdoor space to play around in.

Your “workout” would consist of a combination of strength-skill movements. Things that weren’t as simple as “just pick that up.” You’d have to think a little bit about what you were about to do.

You might even have done some gymnastic-type things in there.

Further, there would be a community of like-minded folks in there watching you, coaching you, helping one another out, and competing with each other. It wouldn’t be a line of hamsters on their wheels…excuse me, treadmills…

Oh The 80′s

In the 1980′s, the bodybuilding phenomenon really took off. Large chain gyms like Gold’s, Bally’s, etc., took advantage of, and fueled the craze.

Group exercise classes became modeled after school classes – One Teacher, Many Students.

People grew competition-crazed.

Muscles bulged and glistened.

And the nation continued to get fatter.

Please adopt a cardio machine...they're lonely

The True Cost of Fitness

And in the melee, we all were swept up.

But what was it all about, in the end? “Fitness?” Fitness to do what? For what purpose? To be able to do our jobs better? No, most likely not. To contribute to our communities? No. To hunt more effectively, or do something better?

No, just fitness. To be fit.

Many of the aspects of our lives have turned into this in the past twenty years – to do something, simply to do it.

No value other than the doing of it. Which is fine, but weird.

Those massive gyms, with all of their equipment, and the fees people pay to belong to those gyms…what is that about?

It isn’t about fitness.

What is your goal? Why do you do it? And wouldn’t you want it to be enjoyable?

Another beauty...

Exercise, Fitness, and Movement

Frank insists that what people need is more movement. I agree with him 100%. But I also see that people must be coerced to move. Calling it one thing or another doesn’t mean much. Changing the way it looks, its external appearance, attracts attention.

All animals are attracted by the new, the novel. They require what is familiar, but they are attracted to what is different.

So while I agree, that people need to move more, and that “exercise” may inhibit them, I think the means to get ourselves moving will come from different sources than from symantics.

We need more toys.

Worlds that change toys.

Toys That Change Worlds

Toys That Change Worlds is the subheader of one of my all-time favorite blogs (linked to the first few words in this sentence). It’s not for everyone. It’s very philosophical…just warning you.

But the point of that blog is that it’s possible to change your perception of reality, to change yourself, deeply and meaningfully, by playing with a new toy.

That’s why I’m not against things like Wii Fit, or the vibrating health saddle, kettlebells, bodyblades, or anything else.

In fact, I wish there were more of them! And I wish that more groups of people would get together on a regular basis to play with all of those great toys.

Imagine if you had a block party, where everyone went around the block, into everyone’s house, and had to use the workout toys in that house for at least 5 minutes. Then you all rotated. Heck, what if you raced from house to house?

Sounds like fun!

And I think there’d be a lot of exercise equipment that would get dusted off, and have the hanging clothes taken off it.

Sure, strong. Sure, flexible. Sure...

Real Strength

In the end, true strength is total-person strength. It is strength of will, strength of character, strength of judgment, strength of muscles, lungs, heart, mind, connections. Real strength knows no bounds. It spills over and out of the individual, into everything they do and touch. It extends beyond them, into their friends, family and community.

Real strength also accepts no limits. It seeks constantly to improve itself, to become more, to become stronger still.

Real strength is flexible. It does not break, it bends, and then springs back into place. It flows like water, wearing away even the hardest material over time.

To be truly strong, you must cultivate yourself. You must accept who you are. You must come to learn and embrace your greatest gift to humanity, and act to express that gift in every word, thought, and deed.

You must “workout.” You must “exercise.” You must “play.” You must “stretch.” You must do it all, and do it from the core of your being, for all you are worth, every day, tirelessly, until your time has run its course.

That is real strength.

The Rules of Muscle Physiology – All You Need to Know

Posted on February 10, 2010 by Josh

I’ve said this for a long time now – that someone, somewhere, needs to put “the rules” of muscle physiology down in plain language, so that everyone can have a fair shake at strength, endurance, and physical health.

So I’ll do it here, now.

The Four Horsemen

There are only four rules that you really need to understand in order to exercise properly. They are:

1. Specificity

2. Progression/Overload

3. Acute Variables – Intensity/Volume/Frequency

4. Form/Technique

Let’s go over each.

Specifically nauseating

1. Specificity – I’ve S.A.I.D. It All Before

The first rule of physical training or conditioning is the SAID principle, coined by Digby and Sale, I think back in 1984. SAID stands for “Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands.”

The concept is this – the body is an incredibly efficient system. It will only respond to what it must, in exactly the degree it must, and only for as long as is absolutely necessary.

Therefore, you must train specifically, for the specific outcomes you wish to attain.

This is true in all of life. If you want a cheese sandwich, don’t get the peanut butter out of the cabinet.

Specificity applies not just to the type of movement you do, the muscles used, or to the type and amount of weight you use, but also to the metabolic demands placed on the body as a whole.

If you want to be a marathon runner, lifting very heavy weights is not going to help you. That is, depending upon how quickly you want to run that marathon. If speed isn’t an issue, but slowness is, maybe lifting weights is a good idea!

Blindfolding increases neural drive to muscles

2. Progression/Overload

The next principle to understand is progression/overload…or, let’s call it “the progressive overload principle.” Actually, that’s what Thomas Delorme called it in his book “Progressive Resistance Exercise,” back in 1951.

The principle is this (and is directly related to the SAID principle) – by allowing a muscle or system to grow accustomed to a stimulus, you have made it stronger. To continue making it stronger, you have to continue to increase the resistance the system must overcome.

Bam.

So, basically, keep adding weight. When it gets easier (and it will), add more weight.

Yeah? Ok then.

Now that's loading! What?!

3. Loading – Reps/Sets/Intensity/Volume/Frequency

This principle is, again, related to the SAID and Progressive Overload principles. Most people refer to this as “Periodization” – or the planning of loading based on some sort of organized schema.

First, for the sets/reps portion of this discussion, take a look at the chart below:

waryables

I made it really big on purpose. So you can see all the pretty things in there. Feel free to print this chart out and put it on your fridge, or wherever you’d like. This chart represents, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate depiction of how your muscles will respond, for the most part, to resistance based work. There are some exceptions. For instance, you can experience quite a bit of hypertrophy from high-repetition bodyweight work. Just look at a gymnast.

Further, people will differ in their responses. I, for instance, respond to 8-10 reps with hypertrophy. I’ve known some people for whom that wasn’t true. And, finally, strength itself is the combination of all of those factors – endurance, hypertrophy, maximal, and explosive strengths. Most athletes will benefit from following the 80/20 rule in their training – training 80% of the time in ways very specific to their sport, with the other 20% of the time spent in non-specific “crosstraining” type activities.

Intensity is next.

Intensity is defined as the percentage of a person’s 1-rep maximum being moved. You can see the “Load % 1RM” in column two in the chart above. That is, what % of a person’s 1-rep maximum is optimal to achieve the desired response in the muscle. It’s also directly related to how much weight a person will actually be capable of doing a certain contraction-type with. For instance, you can’t do 15 reps with 100% of your 1-rep max, by definition.

Isometrics and Explosive Work

I’ve seen people who have lifted incredible amounts of weight on their first-ever attempt at a particular weightlifting exercise, simply because they have always trained isometric (where you contract a muscle against an immovable object or opposing force – the muscle doesn’t change length during the contraction) and explosive strength.

Does that destroy the SAID principle? No, because these people also used progressive resistance in their isometric and explosive training. In fact, they were preparing their musculature in the same way that someone doing heavy lifts might, just from the other side.

So there’s another strength type to add – static/isometric strength. Train isometric strength with one set of 6-10 contractions of 6-8 seconds, anywhere between 60 and 100% of maximal contraction force – at the specific joint angle you want to increase strength in. For instance, a great use of isometrics is to get past “sticking points” in exercises. Let’s say you can’t do a pullup, you always get stuck halfway up. Start training isometrics at the end of your normal workout in that specific joint angle. Progress by adding more sets of contractions, but go slowly!

Finally, for this mini-section, the best training of explosive work is with ballistic movements – where the weight is actually physically thrown – or with plyometrics/shock-training. For ballistics, it’s fun to go to a field with a weight of some sort and just throw the hell out of it. Do squat-jump-throws, etc. For plyometrics, follow guidelines on plyo’s before beginning. Running around and jumping off and on things is not the same as plyometrics. Plyo’s are typically very specific, and involve progression to depth-jumps, and, sometimes, loaded depth-jumps. If you want more information on plyometrics, send me an email.

The last part of Number 3 here is training volume.

Volume (frequently expressed as “total sets x total weight”) is better-seen in A.S. Prilepin’s chart for training weightlifters:

Go Ask Prilepin, When He Was 10 Feet TAAAAAAALLLLLLL

Prilepin’s chart was compiled after years of charting elite weightlifters in the Soviet Union. But it works pretty well for the rest of us.

Basically, the higher the intensity (the more weight/explosiveness) of the lift, the fewer the total repetitions you do during a set, the fewer the total repetitions you do during a workout, and the fewer workouts you do during a week.

That being said, total training volume may be the same regardless of what intensity you’re training at. Total training volume is usually related to an athlete’s (or exerciser’s) level of experience with the type of training they’re doing. If you’re really experienced, you can handle a much larger total training volume (though, often, you don’t need to) than a less-experienced athlete.

While this particular version of Prilepin’s chart does not include weekly, monthly, or yearly values, you – I hope – get the idea. You can only overload the muscle so far, till it breaks. There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.”

For the purposes of this post, it’s helpful just to remember this – the more difficult, demanding, or stressful a lift, exercise, or workout is, the more time you need for recovery.

The Soviets were, I think, the first to really emphasize the importance of recovery (physical, nervous system, and psychological) to the degree that it’s only starting to receive today.

So recover!

The Skeleton Man deadlifts!!!

4. Form/Technique

The final chapter in our list of things to know in order to succeed is this – perhaps the keystone of the four.

Form/Technique assumes, to some degree, a certain knowledge of how the body works. This is particularly true for heavy weightlifting, but can be just as true for things like Yoga and Pilates, where small, difficult movements, can cause big problems if not done correctly.

The best thing you can do is to learn how your body works. This is a fantastic book that covers just about everything you could ever need to know about this topic.

Doing, is another issue, though. When first learning how to do a particular exercise, movement, or technique, it is really important that you have a good instructor there.

As the old saying goes – Never Trust A Bald Barber.

If someone tells you they know everything about exercise and will help you to learn, but they have neither the credentials nor the physique to prove it, don’t trust them. Find someone who does. Preferably, find someone with both the physique and credentials, and a cheerful, sunny demeanor. That’ll make it easier on everyone.

Your Turn

Now go out there and do it!!!

: waryables

Return of the Caveman

Posted on February 6, 2010 by Josh

While I am an advocate for all things “natural,” I also am an advocate for thinking – using the brain.

A friend recently sent me the link to the site “Hunter-Gatherer.com.” I’m not providing a hot-link to you, because it’s a front-site, with a signup form if you’re “interested.” Put your email in the box and hit send, and Hunter-Gatherer will inform you when there’s something happening there.

The site was setup by John Durant, a 26-year old internet marketing professional.

Grog like SEO! Grog like Stumbleupon! Grog like Affiliate Marketing!

What Is This Paleo Stuff All About?

The “paleo” movement basically states that our species, homo sapiens, has not evolved very much over the past 200,000 years, since it branched off the tree of Homo (that sounds silly! tee hee!).

Anyway, these folks say that the diseases of modern civilization arise largely from us acting like a bunch of fat agriculturalists – eating too many and the wrong kinds of calories, not moving/exercising enough (and sucking at it when we do), and basically being too smart to realize how dumb we are.

This movement has been around for a long long time. Roughly 35 years now. It’s not new.

Not only is it not new. It’s not hard to understand. You can get any of a number of books on Amazon.com, used, for less than the price of your non-paleo mocha latte. If you want.

You can erect my homo anytime...wait...what? I mean, "Ug."

The Caveman Speaks!

You can watch John on the Colbert Report – here.

If you don’t have the time, let me sum it up for you – John says that “human beings have been around for a half or a million years in our current form,” (Which is technically incorrect. Homo Sapiens, which is what we are, is about 200,000 years old) and that it would behoove us to eat and move like we did during that part of our evolutionary history.

John also says that hunter gatherer societies live(d) to about the same ages that we do now. From everything I’ve ever read, this is completely untrue. Average maximum lifespan is usually listed between 35-55 years in anything I’ve read about pre-agricultural humans.

Further, life expectancy increased significantly after the advent of agriculture. Maximum lifespan increased significantly again after the advent of modern medicine.

Apparently, John has taken some notes from Art DeVany, an economist-turned-physiology-expert, who runs his own “paleo” blog and internet business. DeVany chapped my ass a few years ago when I posted a question about one of his (then free-to-all) workouts, and the rationale behind his set/rep scheme. He didn’t publish the post. I deleted his blog from my roll.

Wherefore Art Thou, Customer?

Internet marketers are savvy. They will often put up a “test” website (such as John’s) with a signup form (such as John’s) to see what size audience they can get, before investing time, money, and effort in building an actual site.

They also jump on popular bandwagons. I’m not saying that John Durant doesn’t live, eat, and breathe Paleo. I believe that he does. I’m just saying that this Caveman is no dummy. He’s a smart Caveman. He’s a Caveman with internet access. He’s a Caveman with deer in his apartment.

Beatrice de Gea's photo of John from the NYT article

What Do You Care, Josh?

I don’t care that much. I actually think it’s pretty cool. But I’d really like for people to be well-informed about this stuff, and be listening to people who know what they’re talking about, rather than internet marketers with a caveman fetish, or retired economics professors who like to boost their testosterone levels a lot.

The caveman thing, like all things, will come and go. In the meantime, many people will get caught up in the wave, and ride the diet rollercoaster for a while, messing their physiology up so bad that they’ll actually shave years off in the long run. But as long as it’s a fun ride, that’s all that matters!

Which reveals something about human nature. And about why you like to buy things.

Why You Like to Buy Things

Virginia Satir is said to have said (you like that?) – “The most basic instinct of human beings is not the instinct for survival, but the need to experience the familiar.”

Maybe she’s right. Maybe not.

But right around the same level of that instinct is the need for the unfamiliar. Human beings have a desperate, unquenchable thirst for what is novel. It’s like a drug. Start showing people one new thing, and they want another, then another, and then another…

This is your brain on advertising

The Bottom Line

Be critical. Death is lurking. In fact, you might die right now. I hope not, but you might!

If you are a caveman, or follow a caveman lifestyle, you might live longer. Maybe. Or you might not. The hope of longer life may be part of what John is selling to you. That and novelty. And “happiness.” The old hag in a new dress.

It’s catching, this “paleo” thing. I don’t think it’s entirely wrong, or misguided, but I want you to be sure that it is being sold to you.

The line just above the death one, the penultimate line, is your physiology – the way the human body functions. Knowing more about that is useful knowledge. Then you have a solid baseline by which to judge any diet, any exercise routine, or anything else in your life.

Beyond that, the Caveman movement should be seen for what it is – fun. It’s just play. Play Caveman if you want.

I’ll play Dinosaur, and come to your cave and eat your head.

GRRR!! Now THIS IS REAL!! GRRRR!! snarfsnarf

2010 Resolutions – Best of 2009 Fitness List

Posted on January 4, 2010 by Josh

It’s that time of year…or slightly past it! Time to make resolutions.

I used not to be one of those people who made resolutions. I wasn’t very goal-oriented. I was more interested in focusing on the moment.

But sacrificing long-term planning for the moment, I came to find, is as misguided as losing your now-focus for lots of pie-in-the-sky long-term plans. Both, in equal measure, lead to the best results.

With that said, I’d like to say this – whatever your specific goals for 2010, have the general goal of getting in shape. And, as far as that’s concerned, do anything!

Don’t lose your “now-focus” for long-term planning about what you want to do fitness-wise.

Here are a few ideas that might help – my review of the “best fitness stuff” of 2009.

Exuberant Animal

Jump for Joy!

While my career with Exuberant Animal and play-based fitness started in 2008 at the first EA conference, I wasn’t certified as an EA trainer till 2009, and didn’t start my foot camp till last summer.

I highly recommend any of Frank Forencich’s books, and incorporating play into your exercise routine and your life. If you want ideas for how to do this, go to any local playground and watch what the kids are doing. Better yet, join them! Alternatively, for you readers out there, you can go to the EA games page.

Vibram FiveFingers

I was introduced to the concept of “minimalist footwear” and barefoot training this year, first, by Barefoot Ted McDonald. Then, through Chris McDougall’s great book “Born to Run” (which is later on the list).

The FiveFinger shoes offer a fantastic new way to train, with a barefoot feel. I highly recommend these to anyone. Ease into their use. If you haven’t been barefoot much in the past few years, start off by wearing them for short walks, or during your regular workout, and then going back to your normal footwear.

Injinji Toe-Socks

Monkey Socks, Anyone?

Also, I highly recommend buying the Injini socks. My first pair of Vibrams got a little stinky (which is why I recommend the KSO’s over the Flow model). My second pair I ordered with about four pair of Injini toe-socks. So far so good!

The only thing about the toe-socks is, they don’t keep your feet very warm. So, if you’re in a cold climate, you might put off till later in the springtime to try these first two suggestions out – unless you’re an indoor exerciser.

Chris McDougall’s Book – Born to Run

Great Book!

While it isn’t necessarily a piece of “fitness equipment,” everyone I’ve known who has read this book has been so inspired by it that they’ve at least tried barefoot walks (if not runs, or workouts in Vibrams). I highly recommend this book!

Joe DeFranco’s Built Like a Badass Program

Meatheads Unite!

I’ve written about this program several times in the past couple of months. It is far and away the best “cookie-cutter” weight training program I’ve ever seen or used. If you’re a moderately-experienced weight trainer, buy the program and use it this year.

Kettlebells

Cannonballs with Handles

I had never been a big fan of kettlebells or kettlebell training till I used them for my Highland Games training this year. Now, I’m a firm believer in the efficacy of this training tool.

While the kettlebells are “just another tool in the toolbox,” or “just another type of load,” they offer such a diverse array of possibilities that few other “stand alone” tools can compare in the diversity of movement (except maybe one, which I’ll be unveiling in another week or so!!).

If you’re interested in kettlebells, find a good instructor to work with. Someone who is RKC, AKC, Steve Maxwell, or Steve Cotter certified will be able to get you started with great technique, and a kettlebell weight and program that are appropriate for your body.

Is that it?!

Bare-bones and Barefoot

Unless you can make it up to Whidbey Island, WA, to train with the Barefoot Sensei…yeah, that’s it! I’m not reviewing every exercise program or technique I’ve ever used here, just the ones I found especially good from 2009. If you want other ideas, recommendations, or sources, drop me a line. I’m more than happy to help!

Have fun everyone!!!

Take it easy…

Posted on December 3, 2009 by Josh

Not sure if I’ve said this before, but it’s a good idea to take it easy when doing new things.

Kids will “go for broke” a lot of times, but because they’re so small, and still so resilient, the injuries that result from that exuberance are usually relatively minor (scratched knees), and heal relatively quickly.

The bigger and older you get, the harder it is.

I want to relate this to the barefooting experience, but first, a personal anecdote:

Back in 2001, when I was just starting out as a trainer, I decided it was a great time to try skateboarding. That was when I was 28, and weighed a good 200-210 pounds.

I bought all the gear, and started going to the skate park regularly. I also started to appreciate ice.

When a little kid falls, they fall from a distance of one, or maybe two feet. When I was falling, it was from a distance of three or so feet (as the skateboard shot out from under my feet).

What’s the difference? Well, a 90k (roughly 200lbs) mass falling from a height of 1 meter (roughly three feet), will have an impact force of 17640 Newtons. A 23k (roughly 50 pound) kid, falling from a height of .6m (roughly 2 feet), will have an impact force of 1352 Newtons.

I’m hitting the ground with a magnitude greater force than that kid is!

And that hurts.

Probably could’ve spent some more time getting familiar with the board. Acquainting myself with standing on it on a carpet for a couple of weeks. Progressing to using it in a parking lot or someplace very flat, but not very fast. I maybe could’ve spent a few weeks or months in that environment, before moving into the very fast environment of the skate park.

But that’s not what I did!

Barefooters (or anyone doing something new) will experience similar problems in this regard, and it will pay huge dividends to think about this before you start your new exercise program or routine, rather than contemplating it from the recovery room later.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. If you’ve been predominantly shoe-bound most of your life, your foot and leg musculature are most likely not ready for a full-on barefoot (or Vibram FiveFinger) onslaught.

Keep your shoes!

Cycle the new activity in to your normal routine. Do it in small doses at first. Gradually build up your activity in that new pattern. And by gradually, I mean, consider how long you’ve not been doing that activity. Give yourself at least an equal number of years to be perfectly comfortable in the new activity.

This relates to weight-loss as well. I have people ask me how long it will take them to lose a certain amount of weight. My immediate response always is – How long did it take you to put that weight on, and how long have you been maintaining that weight? Once they answer, they’ve answered their own question.

Plan on it taking you just as long to take off weight as you’ve been carrying it around with you.

While it’s possible to lose weight very quickly, such fast change is rarely permanent. Your body adjusts its levels of (internal or external) activity to the ongoing demand it experiences.

This is like habit. You have to form a new pattern of activity for your body to adjust to. And then you have to maintain that pattern…

Anyway, the point is this – Take it easy. Take it slow. Take your time. Pay attention to the process. Feel the things happening in the moment. Don’t rush by them. Then you’ll be able to appreciate the end-result that much more.