I’ve never been the “fat kid”

“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!

The Difference Between Strength and Skill

While guys like Pavel will claim that “strength is a skill” – it’s true only to a point, and I think that the point is largely misunderstood or misinterpreted nowadays.

Doing strength-building movements – especially and particularly the classic lifts: deadlift, squat, overhead press, clean, chins (weighted), dips (weighted), bench, maybe row – require some “skill,” but I wouldn’t classify them as “motor skills” in the typical sense.

Those are “strength skills.”  They are practiced in a certain way (with ever increasing load/intensity) in order to disrupt homeostasis and create adaptations in the body.

That is, simply repeating the movements involved in strength exercises will not get you stronger.  Practice the movement all you want, but if you don’t add weight (progressively over time), you won’t get any stronger.  You might, however, get more skilled.

The first example that comes to mind that allows for a nice comparison of these two types of “skill” development is the sport of Olympic weightlifting.

In the Soviet Union, and I think in many Eastern Bloc countries with state-funded Olympic training programs, children would be chosen to begin training for their sport at a very young age…perhaps around 5 years old.

For the first three to five years of the child’s training career, they would never touch a real barbell, let alone a weighted barbell.  Instead, they’d practice with a towel, or a wooden dowel.

They’d practice the motor skill of the Olympic lifts – which is a very very specific motor skill (hence those lifts being a sport unto themselves).

Around the age of 10, the child might be allowed to begin practicing with a lightweight barbell, and from there, ever so gradually, progressively add weight – always making sure that they maintained the highest level of motor skill in the execution of the movement.

While a lot of this has to do with children simply being ill-suited for progressive weight training, because they’re still growing at a rapid rate, much of it also has to do with getting a person at a young enough age that they can accumulate 10,000 hours of practice at the skill before they achieve full developmental maturity.

This hearkens back to my old blog posts on skill and skill development.  Skill is problem solving.  It’s the ability to creatively solve problems given the resources available.  “Talent” is what we call “inborn skill.”  And, it seems, that it doesn’t really exist.

While some people may be more uniquely suited for expertise at certain skills (say, because of limb/torso ratios, etc.), the expression of that “talent” is all that really matters.

So, it’s impossible for us to know how real, frequent, or infrequent “inborn” talent is or is not – that is, until every child is given equal access to every musical instrument, athletic sport, computer program, or whatever other skill you want to measure, from the age of 2 on.  Not only that, but they need also be given the freedom, time, money, and emotional support to continue.  Got that?  Great, now tell me how “talented” someone is.

But this post isn’t about talent.  It’s about STRENGTH and SKILL.

The truth is, we all need both.

It’s just that I see so little focus on the real training of EITHER these days.

Most folks in the gym go in and pump some iron to look good.  They don’t try to lift heavy poundages.  They don’t do the classic lifts at all.

They also do bizarre skill-based workouts…things you might do for fun if you were a little kid, but that are treated with unsettling seriousness in an “adult” gym.  Things like balancing on a stability ball on your knees while you move the medicine balls you’re holding in each hand in strange patterns, or while catching and throwing a medicine ball.  Not a lot of laughter…a lot of grimacing.

But what’s the point of that?  I mean what’s the point both of the seriousness with which it’s undertaken, and of the “exercise” itself.  It doesn’t build strength.  There’s no progressing it.  There’s no overload to it.  The body is in too unstable a position to overload.  And it only builds the strangest type of “skill” possible…one divorced from anything you might encounter in life at all.

If you’re going to be performing that trick on a stage, or a streetcorner, for your paycheck, it’s important to practice that.

But if not – what the hell are you doing?

The saddest thing of all is that the trainers aren’t even laughing.  I mean, not the ones who are making the people do it.

Take a look at your programming, ye trainers and trainees.  Return to the basics.

Train STRENGTH with heavy stuff, progressively made heavier, and predominantly with “traditional” (bilateral, barbell) movements.

Train SKILL outside, or wherever you exercise that skill, and try to make it as absolutely perfect as possible…

Go to the source…

In all things, go to the source.

It’s extremely popular these days for people to treat symptoms of disease, or to address perceived causes of illness, without digging deeper to find out what the real source of the problem is.

Coach Mike Boyle recently posted about ditching back squats in athletic training programs in favor of single-leg squats (thanks, Aaron, for linking to this).  His reasoning?  The low back is the limiting factor for building strength in the legs of athletes.

While that sounds really good, it ignores an important point.  THE LOW BACK IS THE PLACE WHERE LEG POWER TRANSFERS TO UPPER BODY POWER-EXPRESSION AND MOVEMENT.

Coach Boyle is saying that his athletes don’t back squat because it’s dangerous for their low backs, or that their low-backs can’t tolerate it.

Well, yes, if they’re substituting hip mobility for low-back mobility.  Or if their thoracic spines are so inflexible that they can’t rack a bar on their traps properly.  Or if their hamstrings are so tight that their hips dive under when they sit down.

Thing is, the problem could be any OR ALL of those.  Or it could be calf/ankle ROM limitations.  Or it could be that they just have poor motor-patterning.  Etc. etc. etc.

Bypassing the back squat because an athlete has functional limitations is like staying away from vegetables because they’re hard to chew.

You aren’t solving the problem.  If anything, you’re going to make it worse!

You have to address the problems before you start loading the body.  You can’t slap load on a dysfunctional frame and expect it to iron itself out.

If anyone wants to know how to fix their dysfunctions, go get Pete Egoscue’s book “Pain Free” and read it and apply it to yourself.  Or, go to an Egoscue clinic and get a e-cise menu from one of their practitioners.  DO IT.  It works.

I’m not saying single-leg exercises are bad.  I think they’re great!  Taking an athlete who is fully capable of deep (full) and heavy back, front, or overhead squats, and putting them through a rotation of single-leg squats, is a wonderful idea!

Just don’t try to shortcut dysfunction by creating new exercises and making dogmatic statements about “always” and “never.”

Change Starts with the Body

If you think about it, change really starts by doing things.  Rarely, if ever, do we change by thinking about something first, and then doing it.

Usually, we’ll start doing things, and realize that our minds have changed.

Or, we’ll start doing something we’ve done before, and someone will show us a different way, and our mind will change.

Seek to change your actions first, and your mind will change with them.

1. Understanding your body

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.