L.I.F.T.

Chris at Conditioning Research posted a great entry about the different benefits of squatting and deadlifting.

What really caught my attention was this quote from Matt Metzgar, taken from a post on his blog:

“Toddlers squat constantly, but it is all “mobility” work. The squats are done for the purposes of movement, not for the purposes of lifting a weight. If a toddler wants to lift a weight, they shift into a deadlift position.”

we all used to do it...what happened?!

The Back Squat

As far as squatting goes, there are a ton of squatting types/forms.  What the authors above are talking about is a natural full-squat position, similar to the resting/seated position used by most people in most “undeveloped” countries:

many still do...

The exercise called “the back squat” involves placing a bar across your upper back, and squatting with it.  As the authors mention (and Mike Boyle harps on), this can cause injury if proper form isn’t maintained – that is, if you progress too fast in weight.

The body is only as strong as its weakest link, and, in most “modern” people the lower back is a very weak link.  When you put that weight on your shoulders, and squat down, if your mobility sucks, you bend forward, and all of that weight goes to your weak link.

Then the weak link breaks.

The “back squat” though, is called the “back squat” not just because you put the weight on your back, but because it is a back exercise.  The back squat, traditionally, was thought of more as a strengthener of the back than of the legs.  The deadlift, as the authors above mention as well, was traditionally a leg exercise – though not even the “predominant” leg exercise…that was the “front squat.”

The Front Squat

The front squat involves supporting a bar across the front of your shoulders, and squatting with the weight held there.

The front squat usually allows for a much greater range of motion than the back squat, because the weight is ahead of the individual.  It also uses the quadriceps much more than the back squat, and can take a lot of the loading off of the lower back, as the back is necessarily kept in a more upright position (to avoid falling over).

This is the squat used in Olympic lifting, where lifters frequently achieve weights in excess of 3 or 4 times their bodyweight.  And it uses the “full squat” (“mobility”) position.

The Deadlift

The deadlift was called “The Health Lift” by most writers before 1970.  It was considered the single best lift for achieving total body strength.  I think it still is.

However, the deadlift has its own problems, which are, or can be, very similar to those encountered in the back squat.

If form is sacrificed in the traditional deadlift, and the lumbar spine rounds, the load, again, is transferred to that spot, and the weakest link goes.

The Goal – Maximal Strength within Proper Technique

The problem with all of these discussions is that they try to make a claim that one exercise is “better” than another.  That “better” can mean “builds more strength,” or “is less dangerous,” or “has a higher functional carryover.”

But there is no absolute truth…except, maybe, this:

If you do any exercise with proper technique, to the current limit at which you can sustain proper technique, and progress as you are able, you will be fine.

No exercise is “better” than any other.  They’re all good.  They all have their time and place.

The problem happens when people try to rush things, and sacrifice technique for “success.”

Sacrificing technique for success = failure.

Write that on your whiteboard.

“Have you ever been the ‘fat kid’?”

I had a reader ask me this after my most recent blog post, and, coincidentally, had asked another blog writer whether or not they’d ever been the “fat kid” after reading an incendiary attack on fat people on their blog.

My reader sent this article – From Hunk to Chunk and Back Again.

It details the journey of Australian personal trainer P.J. James, who decided to gain 90 pounds (he actually put on 88) so he could better relate to his clients.

He noticed muscle pains, blood sugar spikes, and other physical maladies, but the most difficult ills were psychological.

“The transition back into training was the hardest moment for me because I just didn’t have any desire to train at all, and I was addicted to fat and sugar at the same time so my motivation was at an all-time low.”

He’s lost some of the weight now, and is planning on losing it all by January 1, 2010, which will give him six months of experience with being overweight.

The short answer to the question posed by my reader is “no.”

I’ve never been the “fat kid.”  In BMI terms, I’m currently “overweight,” at a BMI of 27.  However most of that overweight is muscle.  Science says that it doesn’t matter…that a certain height can only support a certain amount of mass (there’s a ratio they’ve worked out).  Only time will tell…

The reader’s comment was specifically in response to my saying that we need an “anti-fatness” campaign.

I just want to be clear – I’m not against people who are fat.

I am against people whose minds are “fat.” And by that, I mean, lazy.  Is it not PC to connect those two terms?  Am I contradicting myself?  Well…okay.

This is why, though, my Surgeon General’s Warning warns against laziness…not fatness.

For my money, being physically active takes precedence over bodyweight.  Though, again, science would disagree.  A few recent studies show that you need to do both.  There is definitely a “safe range” for overweight in the human animal.

However, our culture focuses on physical form to a large degree, so concerns over image often come first in people’s minds.

While it may seem that I’m one of those, for whatever reason – I’m not.

My concern is with function.  Initially, in organisms, function follows form (structure), and then, during the course of the organism’s life form follows function.

That is a restating of “nature and nurture.”  However, there has to be a “nature” there to “nurture” first.  Form/structure comes before and mediates function.

And no, I’m not going to do the P.J. James experiment.

But I will watch my use of language more closely in the future.  Thanks for the note!

Yes, I’m skipping straight to bones.  This isn’t an anatomy course.  It’s better!

I had to start with cells, because that’s what you’re made of.  Rather, they make you.

But now that we’ve discussed that, I think the next best place to go is Bones.  Bones provide a framework for the rest of you to operate from.  They are the Earth to the other elements in your body.  They are the ground from which you move.  Without them, you’d be a quivering sack of jelly.

Bones are composed of cells.  In the center of your bones are cells that produce the red and white blood cells in your body.  Your blood (liquid), comes from your bones (“solid”).

Actually, your bones aren’t “solid.”  They’re composed of cells that are constantly reshaping your bones based upon the stresses placed on them.

That’s right, your bones re-form along lines of stress.  The stress can be from weightlifting (which is why the recommend weight training for women after menopause – bones will try to get stronger), or from any type of use (also why people get bunions – bones forming along improper lines of strain).

It is important to provide good strain to your bones.  It will keep them growing, shaping, and building, for your entire life.

Bones are also piezoelectric.  That means that they produce electrical impulses along the lines of stress that they undergo.  When you put stress on your bone, the cells create an electrical current along that line of stress.  This helps the bone to reconfigure along that line.  It might also do other things…

You should know all of the bones in your body.  You don’t necessarily have to know their names, but it might not hurt.

My advice is that you start with your feet.  Here is Wikipedia’s page for the human foot.  Print it out.  Every day, sit down with your feet for a few minutes, and feel along the bones.  Name them as you feel them.  Get to know the bones in your foot.  Once you know those bones, work your way up the rest of your body.  10 minutes a day is all it takes.

I want to start this as simply as possible, and build up from there.  The most basic structure of your form is a cell.  So let’s talk about cells for a post.

Cells are what make up “you.”  They store all of the information (DNA) needed for “you.”  They do all the work to make sure “you” continues.

Cells are like little bodies themselves.  They contain their own organs, which maintain their structure, function, and life.

Cells perform different, specific, functions, depending upon what kinds of cell they came from.  Cells don’t come from nowhere.  In fact, all cells come from other cells.  “You” came from the combination of your mother’s (ovum) and father’s (sperm) cells.  Those cells met, and began reproducing, making more cells.  Those cells reproduced.

In fact, “reproduction” never stops, till you die.  The cells of your body continue to reproduce.  Reproduction is still occurring within you as you read this.

Everything that is “you” is comprised of a cell.

While this is a very simplified description of what a “cell” is, I think it is, in some ways, more accurate than the definitions we often receive.  It will make it easier later, down the road, when I ask you to communicate with the cells of your body, to understand that they are all directly connected, that you are the collection and cooperation of them.

I think there are a few ways you can begin to understand your body, they are:

Formally – the form or structure of your body (anatomy)

Functionally – the functions your body performs (physiology)

Psychologically – the mental structure of what is “you,” which is ill-defined by anatomy or physiology, and

Spiritually – the “extra” thing that is uniquely “you,” that is associated with Everything Else, and referred to in any religious tradition that has ever existed, and which is similarly ill-defined or -described by anatomical, physiological, or psychological explanations.

I think the easiest place to start is with Form.