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.”

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

A recent article in the New York Times called “O.K. Russia, Time to Work It,” talks about a trainer in Moscow, Alex Reznik, who is in charge of the gym in the Moscow Ritz Carlton.

When I was a kid, when the Soviet Union still existed, and Communism was still the Red Scare, the Russians were terrible monsters of strength, crushing opponents in the ‘80 Olympics, and in movies like Rocky 3.

The Ruskies Are Coming!
Granted, the US didn’t participate in that Olympic games, protesting the USSR’s involvement in Afghanistan. But (after the Russians boycotted the ‘84 games in Los Angeles) they crushed the 1988 games.

As long as I’ve been around, though, the Russians have had a reputation for toughness. Even in the recent past, guys like Pavel Tsatsouline have guided American fitness enthusiasts by a tough-as-nails rubric, and fighters like Fedor Emelianenko have shown what slugging it out with sledgehammers pullups and pushups can do in the Octogon.

Wah Happan…?
The article points out the old Soviet value of physical education and fitness. This new gym culture, it says, is really only representative of the ultra-elite. It also says that even some of Reznik’s ultra-rich clients still show up with alcohol on their breath (and that some of them are seeking additional “supplementation” still legal in Russia).

But what has happened?

I imagine it’s the same thing that’s happened over here, in the Capitalist US. With prosperity comes laziness. Is that true? When calories are cheap, it doesn’t really matter how long you hit the treadmill.

What I wonder most about, is the “newsworthiness” of the story itself. What are supposed to learn by reading this piece of journalism? What is being communicated? Why is it important?

You tell me.

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

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

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

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

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

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!!!

A relatively recent research study reveals a connection (of some sort) between muscular strength and longevity.

The article, “Association between muscular strength and mortality  in men: prospective cohort study,” says that “Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.”

This is not an insignificant study.  The researchers used data from the Cooper Institute in Texas, and included 8762 men aged 20-80 in the study.

Why might muscular strength be correlated with longevity?  Well, there are a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head.  Here’s one:

For one, balance is highly correlated with muscular strength.  While the “scientists” among us will argue about “tonic” (the so-called “anti-gravity” muscles), and “phasic” (the “mover” muscles) muscles, I can tell you from personal experience that, when someone isn’t very strong, they aren’t very stable – and that “working on stability” (as much “functional training” does nowadays) by balancing on one leg on a Bosu ball, is the long, slow, hard road to stability…working on “gross strength” has much faster and better results.

Anyway, as we get older, we tend to lose muscle mass, strength, and with it, balance and proprioception (spatial awareness).  A lot of this has to do with lack of use in old age.  Some of it is “programmed.”  That being said, falls and related fractures, etc., can lead to death, or can lead to further lack of movement, which becomes more and more fatal the older we get.

The bottom line – get stronger.  My next post will be about this…

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…

The first person I ever saw use the phrase “strength is a skill,” was Pavel Tsatsouline.  His method of “greasing the groove” – repeating a movement pattern (like a pullup, for instance) very frequently throughout the day, but with very low duration/repetitions – summarizes this idea, and has helped a lot of people achieve levels of strength they thought were impossible.

It struck me today, after my workout, that this is really true, but in a different way than I had understood before.

It seems like the type of strength you practice is a skill.  I mean, like a skill, strength is highly specific.

I’ve long been an admirer of Digby and Sale’s SAID Principle – Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand.  But I guess I never really felt it in my own training till today.

I started a weightlifting program about a month ago.  Specifically, DeFranco’s “Built Like a Badass” program (more on that later).  It had been a while since I’d done any regular, scheduled weightlifting.  My workouts for the past six months or so have been bodyweight stuff.

Today I was doing some heavy one-arm rows, and realized how different I felt versus the first week of the program.  It wasn’t just strength-gain/adaptation.  I felt accustomed to the whole thing – the movement pattern, the intensity, the stance, etc.  It was something I haven’t felt for a few years…since the last time I did one-arm rows on a regular basis.

I realized that that type of strength was a skill I had stopped practicing.

And I know that when I go back to bodyweight movements, there will be a (re-)learning curve there as well.

Seems like Pavel, Digby, Sales, and everyone else who said it was right…strength is a highly specific skill.

My friend JR Atwood recently posted about the synchronous increase in American waistlines, and decrease in American intellect.

He was responding to an article by David Rock, called “Are Our Minds Going the Way of Our Waists?”

David’s point is that new technologies are providing distractions (mental calories) in much the same way that industrial agriculture has provided physical calories – in abundance, and with little concern for quality or nutritive value.

Are we becoming fat-heads?

In the end, David asks us to consider evaluating new technologies for their effect, before embracing them wholeheartedly.

While it’s a useful exercise to do personally, no group will ever do this, and if they do, they will never successfully enact changes to behavior based on their findings.

The nature of life is to expand.  People will always seek the newer, better, faster, crazier thing out there.  Depending, I think, on how their culture defines those terms.

What “causes” obesity?  Is it simply “overeating,” or “an overabundance of cheap calories?”

I don’t think so.  Many “indigenous” peoples throughout history have had access to an overabundance of cheap calories all the time (fruits, grains, etc.), yet didn’t tend toward obesity.

Similarly, what causes “fat-headedness?”  Is it the availability of blogs, tweets, commercial television, etc.?

While I can’t think of an historical corollary here (a time when information was overabundant), there’s probably one to be had – and one where the individuals didn’t turn into snippet-junkies, but used that abundance of information to create wonderful new things.  Maybe the Renaissance, following Gutenberg’s printing press, would be a good comparison.

The common denominator underlying these attitudes or approaches – the things that guide action – is the cultural context that the individual identifies with.

Identifies with – not that they are “within.”  There are sub-cultures within every larger culture, and there are “iconoclasts” within every culture – people who do not go along with the larger push of that culture.

The distribution of individuals’ cultural-adherence within their culture probably follows the bell curve.  Most people most likely tend to follow the status quo within the culture (hence the existence of the culture…if they didn’t, it wouldn’t exist!), and then there are people on either end of the spectrum, fewer and fewer the further away you get from the culture’s main mores and values.

Most of the modern “healthcare debate” fascinates me for precisely this reason.  None of it addresses the creation of a culture of physical health.

Why is that?  I asked this recently, following another author’s lead.  Why is America terrified of physical education?

I’m not sure what the answer is to that question.

When you consider the power of culture, however, it becomes clear that any other action, any action that doesn’t seek to create a culture of physical health/education, is merely lip-service…it’s just talk.

Examples of cultures that valued physical strength, health, or education (in an “external” fashion…cultures that valued the above in an “internal” fashion are even more numerous, but because they never explicitly stated their mores with regard to the subject, it’s much more difficult to pinpoint why they valued physical health, etc.):

• Ancient Greece
• Ancient Rome (pre-Republic)
• Sparta
• Viking culture
• Soviet culture

These are mostly totalitarian-type cultures.  Or at least, cultures that demand a high degree of self-sufficiency from their populace.

Is there a link?  Does “Democracy” breed fatness?

I’m interested to find out.

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.

A recent New York Times article, Phys Ed: The Best Exercises for Healthy Bones (thanks for passing it along, Mary) declares that “the best exercise is to simply jump up and down, for as long as the downstairs neighbor will tolerate.”

Well…maybe.  But who the hell wants to do that?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  I’m really sick of reporters with no experience in the field having free reign to write whatever they want about health and exercise.

If you read the article, you’ll find that “scientists” are in dispute about how bones respond to exercise, and what type of exercise is best to build bone.

Except, that is, that explosive/heavy weightlifting builds bone well.

But cycling and running are in dispute.  In fact, running might even cause the loss of bone, when calcium lost through sweat or in metabolic processes is replaced by bone material.

Wait…hold on reporterer…go back a step…

Explosive movements and heavy weightlifting build bone.

Ok.  Well then why the heck aren’t we recommending those activities?

The best thing to do, instead, is to make a joke out of it.  “The best exercise is to simply jump up and down, for as long as the downstairs neighbor will tolerate.”

Why make a joke out of it?  “For as long as the downstairs neighbors will tolerate?”  Why are you jumping indoors?  Why aren’t you going outside and jumping?  Why are you jumping in place?  Why aren’t you running around and jumping onto and over obstacles of varying heights?

That activity also builds the skills of balance and proprioception, which might help to prevent hip fractures even more than the concomitant building of the bone itself!  If you never fall, you don’t need rock-hard hip bones.

And that’s not why I have my clients jump, and lift heavy stuff.  I’m not concerned with their bone density.  That’s a bizarre, reductionist view of the body that I don’t want to buy into.

I have them do those activities because that’s what human bodies are meant to do.

For the last time – YOU ARE AN ANIMAL! You respond best to what all animals best respond to – sunlight, clean water, un-molested foods straight from nature, and lots and lots of physical activity of all types.

The thing all of these “scientists” miss is the big picture – the human body as a whole, as an animal.

If you sit all day, your bones get weak.  If you eat a crappy diet, your bones get weak.  If you run for a long time, and don’t replenish the nutrients you’ve lost, your bones get weak.  Cycling isn’t even a weight-bearing activity, so I’m not sure why the article focuses on it so much…

Also, in response to one of the comments made by a researcher quoted in the article, I’m pretty sure there’s been research that shows that calcium lost during endurance exercise is compensated for by bone if it’s not replaced soon.  I’ll have to double-check that.  I wouldn’t be surprised, though – most researchers are so caught up in trying to keep grants rolling, etc., they don’t even know the research that has been done in the area they themselves are studying.

Which speaks to another issue I have with this type of reporting.  Science is a process of exploration.  It is curiosity.  It is asking questions and trying to find the answers.

IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF SCIENCE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

We put science in such a place of authority in our country that brains shut off like lights in a blackout.  I can see them all the way down the street, blinking off.  No thinking required.  Science has me covered.  The scientists will tell me the right thing to do.  The government will talk to the scientists and protect me.

Bullshit.  Turn your brain back on.

I take such offense to this, because people who don’t know any better are going to read this article, and others like it.

What is someone going to do who reads this article?  They’re going to say, “oh to hell with it…exercise isn’t helping my bones…” or “I need to jump up and down more!”  Which is silly!!!  I mean, if you’re just jumping up and down in place…ridiculous.  See the above comments about balance and proprioception and nature and the requirements of a healthy animal.

And what about the bones in your arms?  How do you get those stronger?  Jumping up and down doesn’t put any strain on your arms.

How about crawling?  Explosive pushups?  Heavy bench pressing?

Oh no…we shouldn’t do that!  Let’s just play patty-cake until the downstairs neighbors complain!