TRX…Kicked My Butt

Posted on February 12, 2010 by Josh

I’m no stranger to the TRX. I’ve been using one off and on for years. But yesterday, I was given a glimpse into the use of the TRX that I’d never seen.

One of many training centers...

I signed up online for the TRX Circuit Training class, with Flavien as the instructor. The class was at 6:15 a.m., which wasn’t a big deal for me, I’m an early riser anyway.

The next day, I got up early, had a cup of coffee and a delicious piece of high-protein/high-fiber Johnny Cake, and went to the TRX Training Center, which is here in San Francisco, on Pacific St., between Van Ness and Polk.

Since it was so early, I was able to park right outside. The center is only two miles from my house, but I wasn’t sure what to expect, and had a full client list for the rest of that day. I had considered running to the center at first, but then thought better of it.

Boy am I glad I did!

A portable Par-Course

There were about 7 or 8 of us at the center, which looks like it can handle roughly double that number. Flavien started off by describing how to use the TRX, and some of the principles behind the use of leverage to make the exercises more or less challenging.

He then started us off with some basic warmups. We did squats, high pushups and rows, and a couple of other exercises.

Then he turned on the heat.

Flavien basically went back through each exercise for the body and progressively made it more and more challenging. At the end of a circuit, we’d jump rope for a minute or two. He did give us a little rest, but it was tough!

Now, granted, you can go as hard or as easy as you want in the class, but Flavien was a persistent coach, and convinced me on several occasions to go harder than I was. Thanks Flavien!

When all was said and done, I was dripping in sweat (probably the sweatiest guy there), breathing hard, and had a big smile on my face.

I highly recommend this to anyone who can get to one. I know that there are many gyms around the country now that are offering TRX group exercise classes.

One of the TRX kits you can get

Between the ability to progressively increase challenge, to generate more strength, or more endurance; the bodyweight-based resistance and portability of the TRX; the incredible range of movements and creativity that you can generate with the thing; the challenge to stabilization, and whole-body workout; and the (maybe most important) community-based nature of group exercise, I think it’s got to be one of the best choices you can make for your health and fitness.

Try it out, and let me know what you think!

A smattering of TRXercises for you..

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.

Spark! – Play, and pop-science

Posted on June 16, 2009 by Josh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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