The Science of Running – Preventing Running Injuries

Posted on June 8, 2011 by Josh

The Science of Running blog posted a link to a great paper that every runner should read.

To help to avoid injury:
Manage your bodyweight – lighter = less impact force
Practice good running form – mid-foot strike has less impact and less tibial-musculature strain)
Mange your volume (total running mileage/week) properly – both to avoid running under fatigue (which increases risk of injury), and to avoid repetitive strain and impact effects.
Do some strength training to augment your running – focus on stability and maximal strength (rather than hypertrophy, as the article suggests for reasons unexplained).

The authors don’t mention barefoot running as a way to improve technique, but it definitely works. Regarding form/technique, I’d also add an “upright” posture, though there’s some debate about this.

Continuing education should be on there as well. If you’re any type of dedicated athlete, you should constantly be striving to contact, meet, and train with dedicated coaches and experts in your sport or event.

Copenhagen Summer School 2010

Posted on August 30, 2010 by Josh

Hi all!

Yes, it’s been quite a while! Good to be back. I’m planning on getting back to my old level of activity here in the blogosphere, starting, immediately.

This post is about the Summer School at the School of Exercise and Sport Science that I attended last week. It was held at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. It was fantastic!

The school started (for me) with a 17-hour day of travel, that took me across several time zones, and resulted in my arriving in Copenhagen Sunday the 22nd. Two days after I left!!!

The first day was marked by torrential downpours, which I think are relatively normal in Copenhagen. I made it to a restaurant for some lunch – a salmon club sandwich! – and a large Carlsberg beer.

I was staying at the DGI-Byen Hostel, on Hans Christian Andersen Ave. It was a great hostel, and my three roommates were hilarious – two from Taiwan, and one from Spain.

Only one of my roommates was around in the afternoon, so he and I decided to head out to try to find the University in time for the check-in. After a little negotiating of bus stops, and talking to a couple of the incredibly helpful bus drivers, we managed to find the right bus, and get to the school. That night we had a short orientation, and then a nice dinner at the University.

Each day consisted of two presentations by experts in the field (sport sociology) with group discussions of those afterward, lunch, two student presentations (mostly PhD theses, but some masters-level work, like mine), a brief coffee break, a workshop by one of the experts, and then a short break before dinner during which you could do whatever you want, or meet with one of the experts for one-on-one supervision and discussion.

We had talks, and the opportunity to meet with (and to talk informally with) Gertrud Pfister, Laila Ottesen, Annette Hofmann, Reinhard Stelter, Anne-Marie Elbe, Jim Denison, Fabien Ohl, Pirkko Markula, Holly Thorpe, and Lone Thing. All incredibly knowledgeable experts in the field!

The discussions by the experts, and the work of the students, was all amazing. It was such an incredible experience to meet 29 other students from all over the world who are passionate and excited about their work in sport sociology. Our conversations were enlightening, to say the least!

I’m really grateful to have had the opportunity to attend such a great event, and to have met so many wonderful people. If you’re interested in attending next year, I highly encourage you to try! If you want any information about it, let me know, and I’ll be happy to help as much as I can!

Laugh Fest

Posted on June 30, 2010 by Josh

For this post, I’m going to keep it simple. If you read the post on training crying patterns, you already know what I’m recommending here…if not, go read the crying post!

Once you’ve done that, watch this for inspiration:

Feel Like Crying…

Posted on June 30, 2010 by Josh

Among the emotions to play with is Sadness.

Specifically, we can play with the overt expression of sadness – crying.

When I worked at Harvard Pilgrim HealthCare in Boston, MA, my boss and I came up with a crying competition. We would come in to work every morning armed with a new “cry.”

We did the “man” cry. We did the “baby” cry, the “little kid who cries so hard they don’t make any sound” cry, the “silent tear” cry so common in movies.

By the end of the year, I think we had accumulated about 15 unique cries.

We thought it was hilarious, and there it ended. I didn’t think of it again till recently, when posting about playing with smack-talk and/or competitiveness in order to explore affective states and performance.

At my friend Steven Stanfield‘s birthday party this past weekend, we resurrected this old game. We must have had over 20 cries by the end of the weekend.

But why, you may ask? What’s the point?

Well, part of the point is to explore your capacity for make-believe.

Part of it is to feel deep within your body the effect that different types of facial expression, breathing, and emoting have on you.

Part of it may be to experience the somatic-psychic connection…that is, how bodily behavior can trigger psychological states or memories. Trying your different cries, do memories pop up unexpectedly? They likely will, since there’s no separation between your body and mind.

So, there it is…the suggestion. Play with crying. You’ll notice when you do that different types of crying (with their accompanying breathing patterns) elicit different feelings in the body.

Competitiveness

Posted on June 13, 2010 by Josh

Some folks appear to be very competitive at first, but change when things go south.

For instance, you may encounter someone who talks smack when you do poorly at a skill (and, of course, this person rarely offers any kind of assistance or coaching to help you to correct your form).

But then, when the tables are turned, and they are behind in points, or start to slip up in performance, they start the victim/blame game – “you changed the rules,” “the rules aren’t fair,” “my shoes are too small”…whatever.

The excuses start to flow, and the “competitiveness” has turned against the game itself, instead of against the other team.

Why? Well, if the person is still competitive against the other team, they have to admit that they are not good enough to win in that particular situation. They can no longer talk smack against anything – not the other team, not the game itself, not the equipment…maybe themselves.

The best coaches tend to nip this type of behavior in the bud. “Don’t blame the equipment,” they’ll say, “it’s just doing what you tell it to.”

The point of this post, however, is that I think competitiveness is important and necessary. It’s a part of every well-played game. If one player is not invested or interested in winning, the game as a whole suffers. No one can excel, no one can do their best, or be stretched to the limits of their ability.

The difference, I think, lies in how the person playing perceives the game.

If the game is undertaken in a win/lose mentality, where winning is all that matters, and each game is its own war, competitiveness breaks down into desperation. The player is no longer free to learn, no longer free to expand. They must win at all costs.

This type of player is often “extrinsically motivated.” They want to beat the other players, they want to win against them, they may feel the need to prove themselves in comparison to the other person.

As James Carse says – “If a person must play, they cannot play.”

This, I think, is what separates the athletes I’ve always respected and admired from the rest. The athletes I’ve always looked up to saw their life as the game. Their entire life…and each individual game or match as a single training session in that long game.

This type of player is often intrinsically motivated. They want to be better than they were last time. They are in relationship with the other player. They want that player to be at their best, so that they can find out where the flaws in their game lies, and better themselves.

The perspective shifts. Intensity overtakes competitiveness. Winning against another person becomes much less significant than becoming the vision we see in our own mind – of striving to become the best that we can become. And often, we want the other person to become the best that they can become – either through selfish (I want them to become the best they can so I have the best opponent) or unselfish (I want them to realize their full potential for themselves) motives.

In your play, play with competitiveness. Assume different competitive roles, to get a feel for what each is like…become the super-aggressive win-at-all-costs athlete…then become the crafty trickster/cheater…play with competitiveness, and feel the versions that suit you, and especially the ones that don’t. Why don’t they? What assumptions do you make about those roles?

Have fun!

Playing with smack-talk

Posted on June 12, 2010 by Josh

In the physiology tracking arena open to us in play are many areas where we’ve experienced trauma in our lives – whether that’s negative emotions or feelings, or physical trauma.

An emotionally sensitive place that many of us may be familiar with is trash-talk on the playground or in sport.

While it occurs, and many folks approach it from the perspective of – “why is the other person trash-talking…maybe they’re insecure/abused/etc.” – I prefer to take a different tack.

Specifically, what is happening inside you when someone talks smack to you? How are you reacting? What does that represent for you?

For some of us, talking smack was just part of the experience. It’s nothing weird, or out of the ordinary. Sometimes it results in fist fights or hurt feelings, other times in heightened aggressiveness in the game or nothing at all.

For others, it was anything from insulting and aggravating, to a deeply humiliating experience.

Many people may have experienced both feelings at different times and in different situations.

The Bard of Trash-Talk

Some of the experience has to do with our own perceived level of competence (or lack thereof) in the game being played. Some of it has to do with simple social dynamics – not wanting to feel less powerful than another person. Some still to do with our level of commitment or connection to the game – if we’re not invested in it, it doesn’t really matter.

But none of that has anything to do with how we experience those feelings, and how we use that emotional energy to get what we really want out of the game.

Instead, most of us in life fall prey to those feelings. Yes, the other person triggers them, but once they are in us, they are our responsibility.

So how do you do that?

This is a little biased, but I think play is an excellent way to confront these feelings, to work into them, to acknowledge them as part of ourselves, and then to find a way to use them to get what we want from the game.

Try playing “the smack-talk game.” In this game, we play whatever other game we want, but when one person “loses” the other person rags on them relentlessly.

Just as with any other game, communication is key. Both parties need to be able to say “a little less rough,” or “a little more rough,” if their partner/opponent is not giving them what they need to grow.

There should also be a way to call timeout or uncle, if things get too crazy. These rules should be stated up front and agreed upon.

As with all games, once the players have bowed in, everything from there on out is play. It is supportive, aimed at learning and growth, and done in the spirit of wanting to continue the play.

Your momma sucks eggs!

Football, the Superbowl, Physical Activity, and You

Posted on February 9, 2010 by Josh

Watching the Superbowl, I was reminded of my experience playing football as a 13 year old kid.

It wasn’t fun. It was competitive.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I mean, I didn’t stop playing. I played the whole season. But I didn’t want to go back. Something was wrong there. Seriously wrong.

BARBARBARBARBAR!

Leave My Mother Out of It

The coach, one practice, said nasty things to me about my mother to psyche me up. I was too passive. That was his answer to my passivity.

He was a nice guy. I was a little surprised by this tactic.

I love the smell of gridiron in the daytime

The Good in There

It was also amazing. The smells, of the field, of my stinky uniform. Everything had a special smell, a different smell, different from anything you’d ever smelled before. The uniforms were like armor. You were invincible inside those things, mostly. The feel of the dirt, of impact, of rain and mud, of the ball when you caught an interception…

It wasn’t all bad, though I wasn’t in a place to really appreciate the complexity of the game. The coach never went over the playbook. He expected us to study it at home, on our own. I had better things to do with my free time. Like playing.

MORE?!

The Sup’bowl

Does that color my perception of the Superbowl? Yes, it does. So does everything else I’ve ever experienced. I enjoyed watching the game. The tradition of getting together around a central event is common in our human ancestry. It has deep roots. That’s why we love it so much.

It has deep roots in my childhood. We used to gather around every Sunday, often with friends, to watch the games.

War has similarly deep roots in the human psyche. We love to pick sides, to fight others now and then – hopefully, on a regular or predictable basis. Surprise-attacks are no fun…they’re too stressful. Football has been called “preparation for military service.” The first organized sports were often touted as enhancing “manly virtue.”

I'm going to steal some steak while these guys look for my contact lens...

American Idle-Worship

Worship is also a human trait. And I couldn’t help but think of worship when the trophy was being carried through the ranks of the 49′ers players, who all reached out to touch, rub, kiss, or lick it as it went past. As it was carried up onto the raised dais, I saw a God among us, being elevated for us to worship, the heroes sanctified by the God, and we, the winners, sanctified through association.

The commercials were ok. I’ve seen better. The one thing that stood out to me was that there were a lot of commercials featuring slapping or hitting. Not sure why that was.

In all, the community was the only important thing to me about the whole event. Hanging out, having some laughs, breaking bread together. That was meaningful, and fulfilling. And I’d go back again…Superbowl or not.

Some recent lessons

Posted on December 21, 2009 by Josh

I haven’t done a “cookie-cutter” weightlifting program in years. Probably not since I bought Ross Enamait’s excellent book “Never Gymless.” I think that was in 2006.

Since then, I’ve created my own training programs. I’ve vacillated wildly between types of training – weightlifting, bodyweight, o-lifts, Crossfit and Crossfit-style workouts, rings/gymnastics, etc.

Too much stuff!

I feel like I’ve learned some things since then, and figured I’d share some of those lessons.

1. Cookie-cutter programs aren’t all bad. Hell, I and most of my friends learned everything we knew about the gym from magazines, and from trying out programs in those magazines. I still like to try people’s programs, to see how they affect my body. While I might fiddle with them a little, I try to adhere as closely as possible to the program as-is, to see what happens.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll pitch it again, because I think the guy has a ton of integrity. DeFranco’s “Built Like a Badass” program is fantastic. It’s based on the “core lifts” (bench press, deadlift, squat, overhead press), is based around the individual’s current single-rep maximum, and progresses up nicely. I don’t know how it would work with a pure “beginner,” but it’s working great for me. Try it out if you’re looking for something new.

2. Related to the above, I feel more and more like strength is built in the gym, but skill is built on the field of practice. Modern “functional training” has athletes doing a lot of stuff that is not related to strength training in the gym.

3. Strength is best built using the “classic lifts”/”fundamental movement patterns,” and adhering to the guidelines of good form.

4. This is where “functional training” or “corrective exercise” come in. When an individual has a limitation that doesn’t allow them to perform the “classic lifts” or fundamental movement patterns in a way that is biomechanically sound for them, you have to start incorporating the lessons from functional/corrective training methodologies.

5. If the individual’s form is breaking down because the weight is too heavy for them, you have to evaluate the risk/reward equation for them. Is it worth it to possibly get injured in the gym, in order to lift more weight that day? Maybe. Maybe not.

6. There is no “perfect” anything. There’s no “perfect” form. There’s really good form for a particular individual at a particular time. There’s no “perfect” program. There’s a really good program for an individual at that time.

7. Athletes need specificity. The general person needs general movement.

Let me be more clear. When you have specific tasks or demands that you have to accomplish, you have to be very specific with the type, frequency, and intensity of the movements you engage in. When you don’t have anything so specific, you have free reign to do whatever you want to.

That being said, while the athlete’s “skill” training (aside from the “skill” of strength) will be specific to their sport, position, or event, the general gym-goer will benefit from playing more to develop skill.

8. Rhythm is critical to success. As the saying goes, “timing is everything.” I’d make it more specific – “rhythm is everything.” Find the rhythms in your life and synchronize them to your best advantage. Use rhythm in your training, both in terms of programming, and in terms of practice itself – engage in rhythmical movement more frequently.

Ok, that’s all folks…more later. Appreciate any thoughts on the above…

Train within yourself – or – There are no shortcuts

Posted on December 19, 2009 by Josh

When you’re training, anything – martial arts, weightlifting, tae bo, Pilates, etc. - it’s important to train within yourself.

What do I mean by that?

I mean, be fully present in your body, in the experience in the immediate moment. Be as aware as you can of what you’re doing, what’s happening inside your body, and how that is expressing into the environment around you.

But why is that important?

There are a few reasons. The first is, that no real progress is made by ignoring the body. You may see changes, but those changes will be divorced from you, separate. They’ll be ephemeral, unreal.

It’s like Maxwell Maltz says in the book “Psycho-Cybernetics.” He had patients come to him for plastic surgery. After the procedure, once they’d healed, they would all say “Yes, I can see that I look different…but I don’t feel any different.”

They had succeeded in changing their form, but had been divorced from the process of that change.

And that’s where shortcuts come in.

When you train properly, within yourself, as a method of realizing your full potential – as “self-actualization” – there are no shortcuts in that method.

The method of shortcuts, shortcuts you out of the equation. It creates a thing. A thing that is, by definition, not you.

Feel more deeply within. Observe that within interacting with what is “outside.”

For guides, go find a good Autogenic Training program. I’m going to put on one iTunes within the next couple of months. You can buy that one. Or, go get Eckhart Tolle’s book “The Power of Now,” and do it.

The trick is, neither shortcuts nor process matter if you don’t do them. Do nothing…get nothing.

GO!

Goal- or Process-Orientation

Posted on December 11, 2009 by Josh

My response to a reader about my most recent blog post sparked something in my brain. I remembered having read something about the difference between what I referred to as “goal” and “process” orientations.

That is, whether you’re the type of person who likes to focus on the long-term (or short-term) definite goals, or whether you’re the type who likes to focus on the process itself.

Turns out, my terminology was off. Both “types” are goal orientations. That is, there is a “goal” in both cases (though I slightly disagree with this…more about that in a second). The difference is whether you are “outcome” focused, or “process” focused on the path to your goal.

My disagreement with the terminology is this – an “outcome” is a desired end-state. A “goal” is a particular moment/achievement in time. There are ultimately “final outcomes” for both “types,” and different ways of keeping the individual on track toward those outcomes. But one type focuses on finite “goals” to get to their desired outcome, and the other focuses on process.

Now, I will say this – I think that people who are “process” focused are rarely “goal-thinkers.” That is, they are immersed in the flow of the process. They don’t tend to see the big goal as a point-in-space/time.

And definitely not the way what I would call the goal-focused (“outcome-oriented”) people are. Those folks need goals – long-term, short-term, mid-term – to help themselves feel “on track.” The process folks are much more “along for the ride.”

In my experience, everyone is different, and responds predominantly to one or the other of these approaches. Trying to get someone who is goal-oriented to focus on immediate processes is like pulling teeth. Instead, you set smaller, more immediate (mid- and short-term, goals for those people.

Similarly, trying to get a process-person focused on goals is like getting an ADHD kid to focus on building a model airplane. Hard to do, and the results will be less than optimal. Instead, make sure the process person is always checking in with their course of action in reference to a desired end-state (still a goal, but not a permanent, looming object…something that can shift a bit).

A lot of research has been done on these two types of people, and their tendencies in different situations. This paper, in particular, focuses on these two types in conflict situations, stating that:

“Outcome oriented parties tend to focus on positions, often becoming increasingly locked in to one position. Process oriented parties tend to focus on finding the best negotiation strategy to resolve the conflict.”

One of my reasons for writing this post is that it has been a topic of discussion between me and a few friends quite a bit recently. The topic of those conversations has largely had to do with the physical training of clients/students, and ways to get them motivated and keep them on track.

Standard training methodology says you set goals. “I want to bench press 2x bodyweight,” etc. “I want to run a sub 4-second 40.” You set your goal, write it on your forehead, write it on the mirror in the gym, write it on a 3×5 card that you keep in your wallet, write it on your wife and kids, etc. then you go for it.

You “keep your eyes on the prize,” as they say. Stay focused on the goal.

But I think something, or several things, get lost with this approach.

The goal-focused lose track, oftentimes, of how their body is actually feeling. They’re so focused on the end-state that they forget to check in. They go too hard, too fast. They break down. The process folks can, sometimes, be the opposite.

I might even classify these orientations by the types of activities the person chooses. Most goal-oriented folks are hard-driven. They prefer competitive environments, sport leagues, and all-out-effort activities. Process-oriented folks tend to prefer cooperative environments, group/community settings, and longer/slower activities.

However, the goal-orientation tends to be more of a finite-game player. That is, they tend to play to win. Process-oriented people, in my experience, are much more infinite-game players. They tend to play to keep playing.

The question, ultimately, is how to manage both types of person, and whether or not it’s in the interest of anyone to try to change a person from one type of orientation to another.

I’ll leave that up to you.