Does Poliquin Understand What He Critiques?

It’s clear that Poliquin doesn’t understand CrossFit’s goals or methods. CrossFit’s ultimate goal is not “optimal technique” or to “activate high-threshold motor units”- it is to develop work capacity across broad time and modal domains. We do this by moving large loads, long distances, quickly, in a variety of different ways. Since life often demands it, CrossFitters train explosive movement while both fresh and fatigued, and with every possible load and rep scheme.

What happens if an athlete only trains explosive movements (power cleans) while fresh, and never after strength and/or conditioning work? How will he do this in real life if he never does it in the gym? The ability to move explosively when fatigued is necessary in both life and sport.

As a trainer with so much experience training sport specific athletes, don’t Poliquin’s fighters, football players, soccer players, etc. need to be able to make big plays late in the game or fight? The development of this capacity, to move explosively while fatigued, is something that fighters, football players, hockey players, and other sport-specific CrossFit athletes always mention as a primary benefit of CrossFit.

http://therussellsblog.com/2012/02/23/charles-poliquin-likes-crossfit/

This is a tough thing for many who come from more traditional S&C background to understand.  They've spent their careers trying to do specific things - develop discrete strength and power objectives - so when they see someone who's not trying to do that, they criticize "they are not like us! They don't value what we value!"  Right.  Because we want a different outcome than you want.  My friend Russell explains the difference nicely.

If you think in terms of "deadlifts fatigue the lower back" and "cleans are for development of explosive power" and "optimal development of capacity is developed when making maximal lifts" - all of which may be true in the context they are used by traditional S&C folks and for CrossFitters too - but isn't true in the context of a metabolic conditioning WOD (aka METCON).  For a METCON, we want to find ways to work hard, and mix them in many ways, just as life, sport and combat demands.  In other words, the clean can be many tools, not just a way to develop maximally explosive hip extension.  

At some point, all the critics will "get it."  "Oh, I see what they are going for", and 1000s of pages of criticism will immediately go up in smoke.

212

I presented my training session on the Paleolithic Model of Nutrition recently (it was recorded - will have an online product available soon in conjunction with Faction Strength and Conditioning).  Getting ready to present, reviewing  my presentation, and refining it based on audience feedback is always fun; the most recent cycle of preparation was particularly fertile with ideas for how to tell the story with more impact, more clarity and more repetition.  It is, for example, really hard for people to believe you mean "eat more fat" or "eat a lot of fat".  If you say that once, or twice, it does not sink in.  Further, even if the whole point of the presentation is "if your diet produces wild excess in blood sugar, you are frocked" - I get questions about whole eggs v. whites only, or others that amount to a complete oblivion to the PRIMACY OF GLYCEMIC CONTROL. 
I should probably put "it's the blood sugar, stupid" on every slide.
You see articles all the time about one group or another's fears of "toxins" in the food supply.  Welcome to the industrial food chain, peeps, strap in and hold on. 
But that's not what is killing those who eat the Western diet.  What is killing you is the number one toxin, the undisputed killer toxin - blood sugar dis-regulated by diet (with compounding of the issue loop by lack of sleep and chronic stress). 
The good thing is that one does not have to take anyone else's word about which foods or meals will wreck your blood sugar - you can do that for yourself now, courtesy of a $100 (at most) investment in a glucose meter and test strips (go to Amazon or other web source for the strips!).  If you eat a meal with whole grain bagels or bread/pasta/orange juice, oatmeal - or whatever - when it spikes your blood sugar (on a whim I ate two doughnuts to test my glucose response, and it delivered an eye popping 212; I was back to 85 an hour later), it's not about dogma any longer.  It's about not killing yourself with high blood sugar.
This is, to me, a great development for the sake of less bickering, for one, and for the sake of less dependence on "experts" and their opinions.  More importantly, blood sugar meters, and blood tests being available on demand for a fee but without an MD's consent, means far more independence for those who wish to choose a safe, healthy path based on their own needs and values.
All of the arenas in which we find conflict are defined by the lack of definitive science.  The lack of certainty makes ego and opinion influential, and sometimes profitable.  Unfortunately, ego by its nature is unconcerned with the full picture of consequences - the greater the needs of the ego, the less likely the ego's owner will be able to see the victims of the contested ideology.
It dawned on me this weekend that many science of health and nutrition "experts" have for at least 40 years been saying the equivalent of:  "I think there's a (saturated fat) lion in the bushes over there", while ignoring the (excess blood sugar) alligator sitting in the boat.  It's taking them a long, long time to re-calibrate to the known killer vice the suspected.

Neolithic Deficiency

One of the side effects of being a fitness coach is that when looking at a human, I notice things I never used to.  What I notice these days - aside from how many people don't seem to know how or what to eat and are therefore either obese, or just 'heavy', or skinny but sick - is how many of us don't have any awareness of, or strength in, our hips and our backs. 

When you climb a flight of stairs, what muscles feel fatigue in the effort?  If you sit, stand or walk, where are your shoulders in relationship to an imaginary line rising through the center of your torso? 
________________________________________________________________________________
A Fitness Coach is a person aspiring to be expert in;
-how humans exert force
-how to help humans exert more force with less effort (aka "how to move well")
-how to develop a comprehensive training approach that enables training adaptation in strength, speed, endurance, stamina, flexibility, power, speed, coordination, agility, balance and accuracy, by definition maximizing fitness
_________________________________________________________________________________
Watching a movie last night, it was apparent that the leading man was very attentive to his appearance - why not?  He was apparently taking good care of himself based on his ability to look like a movie star.  But it was also apparent that his phyisical training was all about the appearance side of the body, not the performance side.  That is to say, he had body builder pecs and abs, but neolithic-chair-sitting man's back and hips.  His shoulders were rounded (shoulders pulled forward to tight pecs, and ignored upper back muscles).  The minimal hip function was like most every person over college age (and many under college age) that we see -the hips appear to generate very little force as the person with the diminished hip function will do all of their 'work' with their quads, which have smaller levers and less force generating capacity.  In other words, the quad dominant human works harder to create the same force, and becomes force limited sooner.  Generally, quad dominance accompanies hamstring and glute deficiency, and often spinal erector deficiency.  Wrap up the whole package - suboptimal hip function, weak back muscles from the hips to the shoulders - and you get folks who have pain in their knees, backs, shoulders and necks.  When and if they exercise - jogging, cyling, swimming, sport, or just yard work - they face increased risk of injury. 

Everything is growth or death, and I know of no exception.  And this is why you care.  You don't have to be that guy/gal with the stooped, rounded shoulders, shuffling along trying to take it easy on your knees/back, wondering why they call that post-retirement life "the golden years." 

What to do to remain physically vibrant as you age - that is the question. 

Dance?  Heck yes.  Swim?  Of course.  Ride a bike and jog and play around on a eliptical trainer?  Those things are a good start, but if you've lost your hip function and the strength in your torso, these activities will not repair those deficiencies.

Do what you were built for - run, climb, pick up heavy stuff, move it around, throw things, jump and play physical games.  Think you are too old for that stuff?  Tell that to these ladies (60+ female contenders for the CrossFit Games Open):  http://games.crossfit.com/content/scoreboard 
Or this gent:  http://games.crossfit.com/features/videos/preparing-masters-jacinto-bonilla

Many Ways Up The Mountain

Before he embraced natural movement, the founder of R. E. Taylor Associates Inc., a sales and consulting firm for the hospitality furniture- and fixture-manufacturing industry, logged about 70 miles a week training for marathons and ultramarathons (races longer than 26.2 miles). After nearly seven years of marathon training, Mr. Taylor had developed plantar fasciitis, an irritation of the thick tissue on the bottom of the foot that causes heel pain. He also had constant pain in his shins.
In December, Mr. Taylor got a wake-up call after a pick-up basketball game with friends. "I had crazy blisters, and my legs were killing me," he says. Despite his prime cardiovascular shape, he realized the long-distance running only worked a few muscles. "If I wanted to be a well-rounded athlete, I had to focus more on the rest of my body," he says."
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303745304576357341289831146-lMyQjAxMTAxMDAwNjEwNDYyWj.html

MovNat is hardly part of CrossFit, but what is clear from the post above is that there are many ways up the mountain, but eventually they all converge - as my martial arts instructor used to like to say.

Take the Good With the Bad

I am, according to Jonathan Goodair, arguably the most revolutionary fitness trainer working in Britain today, a classic example of where most people go wrong. 'All you have been doing is exercising the same muscles again and again in the same way. In running you overwork your quads and underwork your gluts [that's thighs and bottom to you and me]. The body is a very clever machine. It adapts specifically to what you do to it, so it will find the easiest possible way to find fuel for that - in other words the most calorie sparing.'
Which is why at the heart of the Goodair Total Body Plan - a five- or six-week programme of between four and six 90-minute sessions a week - is what he calls treadmill aerobics. 'I want to work someone in the most challenging way possible, and put in as much variety as possible. I don't just make someone run, I make them skip or walk sideways or backwards, and then put in other movements that challenge their balance, and stimulate lots of muscles, not just the quadriceps.'
http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/article/TMG8217206/A-fitness-revolutionary-meet-Jonathan-Goodair.html

What's good about this?  The understanding that we're all - Americans, Brits, any neolithic society - frontal plane dominant, and inadequately developed in the glutes, hams and in the spinal erectors.

Imagine walking fast on a treadmill, then imagine lifting your knees high, like a little girl skipping down the street, then imagine doing that backwards, and sideways, and adding in lunges and squats and crossover steps, and sudden direction changes. This is what Goodair means by treadmill aerobics, and it's exhausting stuff.
What's the bad about this?  Well, first off, you don't need to work for 90 minutes!  If the athlete works hard enough, 10 minutes will buy more adaptation than will 90.  Intensity trumps duration!

Second, reading the above description, the athlete is not required to develop the two foundational attributes - powerful hip extension in combination with the capacity to sustain spinal integrity under load.    In short, this treadmill training is great for working "not very hard for a long time" but will not help the athlete generate force or power through hip extension, or transmit that power through a rigid spine.

Goodair says this engagement of the brain is key. 'Fitness isn't just about having a healthy heart and strong lungs and muscles,' he tells me in his soft Sheffield brogue. 'It is about co-ordination, about neural pathways, about the fact that your brain is connected to your muscles so you know where your feet are going, where your hands are going. If you do this kind of work you end up feeling much more coordinated, your body is much more connected even when you walk down the street.'


This is all fine - but coordination to what end?  Coordination so that you can walk the streets?  Can you lift your children?  Can you lift a suitcase when you are 60 or 80?

This approach continues in the resistance work, in which weights are largely eschewed in favour of stretchy bands attached to the ceiling, a giant pilates machine-cum-torture instrument otherwise known as the Garuda, and a series of free movements - arm swoops and leg swoops in every direction imaginable - that are incomprehensibly exhausting.
The author is overly impressed with exhaustion.  It's fine, it's far better than nothing, but more important is - what physical capacities are you cultivating?  If you can do that in 10 minutes, why waste 90?

Again, Goodair's chief concern is to avoid his client putting on muscle bulk; to encourage instead the development of the long, lean muscle we all covet these days.
This is nearly comic!  Look, guys can hardly put on all the muscle they want to, much less women - you can count on one hand all the women who will have to worry about gaining too much bulk in muscles!!  If you eat right and gain the benefit of an optimized metabolism, you will enjoy every strong muscle you can get, male or female.

However, here's some additional good:  'It is sugars that transport fat into fat cells, that disturb your body's metabolism, stopping it from burning fat,' says Goodair. 'Sugars make your body a less efficient fat-burning machine.' There is no calorie-counting on the programme, but all high-carbohydrate foodstuffs, be it bread or potatoes or pasta, are verboten.
Right as rain.

'If you are training consistently, yes, the ageing process will take effect, but the difference you can make is enormous. The less we do, the less we can do. The body adapts very specifically to what you do to it. You can stay supple and fluid.
There's aging, and there's quitting entirely.  The latter results in a rapid diminution of life, the former a very, very slight diminution of life.  You finish the race in casket either way, but the life lived can be remarkably different.

'You need to do 40 minutes of cardio three times a week minimum, ideally four, plus follow my resistance programme for 50 minutes four times a week [ see the video here ]. 
That's ridiculous - far too much time spent for way too little benefit gained.  Go short, go hard!  Intensity trumps duration.

Bass Courage

http://www.cbass.com/Dietandcholesterol.htm
First off, to be clear, I have a lot of respect for Clarence Bass.  You can't help but notice his intellect, passion and drive if you read any of his work from cbass.com.  I don't consider what follows to be a criticism of him, rather, I consider it a compliment to his integrity and character to note his disclosure and the questions it raises about his published work and beliefs.  There's no certainty as regards diet, science and health, we're all betting our lives on our best efforts to understand an incomplete and confusing world of partial science and colossal political and food industry agendas.  One would think that if a lesson could be learned from Mr. Bass' experience, he'd like that to happen.


BLUF of the article linked above:  Clarence Bass, legendary for his physique as a 70 year old, and a long, successful career in the fitness business, discovers he's suffering from calcification in his arteries.  He's been given a number of "all systems go" check ups over the years, and is struck with cognitive dissonance:  "I did everything right and I'm sick."  How could this be?  Excerpts from his tale of the events:
Dr. Arnie Jensen wrote in my report: “I wish we knew why some people develop calcification in the arteries in spite of a wonderful lifestyle like you have, or why some people can completely ignore lifestyle and have a zero calcium score."

That’s when Dr. McFarlin suggested that I add Zetia, to insure that we finally have the process under control.  I’ve never let up on my diet and exercise program. If anything, finding the calcified plaque in my coronary arteries strengthen my resolve. It took a combination of lifestyle and drugs to (hopefully) get my situation under control. Arnie Jensen says we can do more for ourselves than any doctor can do for us. I believe that and I’m doing all I can to help myself. Still, sometimes it takes you and the doctor working together to get the job done.


Data points of one are meaningless, but I can't help but think of Jimmy Moore's example.  Jimmy was a 400+ pounder, he was so sick he was on statins in his thirties, and apparently on the track to follow his brother who died in his forties from heart disease.  Jimmy started losing weight via low carb, lost over a 140 pounds (livinlavidalowcarb.com), and reports his heart scan shows zero calcium.

What was Bass' concept of "doing all I can to help myself"?
Essentially, following the conventional wisdom (really, the fad diet of the last 30-40 years) of eating a low fat, very low saturated fat, low cholesterol diet based around consumption of fruits, vegetables and all those servings of whole grains the USDA is telling us we need (http://www.cbass.com/WholeGrains.htm ).


For more than 20 years I've eaten a low fat, medium protein, high complex-carbohydrate diet. I've also exercised regularly, both weight training and aerobics.
http://www.cbass.com/TRIGLYCE.HTM


Interestingly, he describes the results of his fasting lipid profile, and they are in line with what one would expect from someone who's eating too much carbohydrate:
In the first visit, in 1988, my cholesterol was normal at 216 and my total cholesterol/HDL risk ratio was 3.7 (normal is 5.0 and below 4.0 is considered very good). My triglycerides, however, have always been slightly elevated. In 1988, they were 153, slightly above the normal range of 40-150. The pattern was the same in subsequent visits: my cholesterol ranged up to 228 (1992) and my triglycerides were 157 and 155 in 1989 and 1992, respectively.


He also describes how he thinks he fixed his high triglyceride problem:
...my research suggests that the addition of only a little over one tablespoon of oil (total) caused the small, but significant improvement in my cholesterol - and the profound reduction in my blood triglycerides. (he reports a reduction to 72)
This is, as he points out in the link above, a very significant reduction - 150s to 70s!  However, many of us who use carb restriction get our triglycerides in the 70s with ease, while maintaining the high HDL that makes for a good ratio of either total cholesterol to HDL, or triglycerides to HDL (both are far better indicators of health than is measuring simple LDL numbers).  All those years of running with a high fat level in the blood may have taken their toll - or perhaps the genetic cards were just stacked against Mr. Bass, there's no way to know.


Either way, Mr. Bass' results are a predictable outcome of the carbohydrate hypothesis - which is that excess carbohydrate consumption drives the majority if not all of the diseases of civilization, including coronary artery disease.  Each of those doses of high carb, low fat meals likely spiked his blood sugar, resulting in the inflammation cascade which many think is causal for atherosclerotic disease.


Later in the article, Bass describes a study by Christopher D. Gardner, which shows that not all low fat diets are equal in their impact on blood lipids.  It's clear he's wrestling with the cognitive disconnect, sorting out why he could be sick when he's followed the dietary 'wisdom' so carefully.  Even more interesting though, is a more recent study by a Chris Gardner (don't know if it's the same one) which showed that a low carb diet improved fasting lipids even more than a competing low fat diet.
A Vegetarian Examines Evidence For/Against High Carb/Low Carb


Bass' article closes with a discussion of the facts of cholesterol lowering via low fat diets, including the fact that they don't really do the job well (not to mention they are hard to stay on), and thus many doctors will advise statins to "get the cholesterol under control."  In other words, he describes a crazy train of low fat insanity going strait into prescription medication hell.


You start with one unproven conjecture - high fat, high cholesterol diets cause a problematic increase in cholesterol - and follow with another - high cholesterol causes atherosclerotic damage.  Proposed solution: eat more carbs, less fat, and less meat.  When that doesn't work, partly because so few patients can or will comply with such a diet, and the disease process accelerates.  Even those who do comply often find their disease process is worsening (as Mr. Bass did).  Thus, the 'medical establishment' emerged with a drug, statins, to treat a problem it invented and exacerbated.  This starts the final steep descent into the inferno, because the medical field is so desperate to find a cure for rampant heart disease, they fall for a drug that's not been proven to benefit anyone but a small group, males under age 65 who have already had heart disease (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm), and start dealing statins to what can seem like anyone over 40 with less than perfect cholesterol profiles.


So what I suggest is that before you let them take on you on the low-fat-to-statin hell ride, get your carbohydrate intake under control and most likely, your doc will never have to have the statin discussion with you (and you'll know what to say anyway).


And you won't have to be as strikingly lean, muscular, and fit as Mr. Bass has been all these years to wind up healthier than he is.  That said, there's no reason why you couldn't follow his example with regard to disciplined training and careful, thoughtful eating, but modified by what you can learn from the Paleolithic model.  Walking in Mr. Bass' lean, fit, well aged footsteps would be like a dream for most of us. 

Lastly, I wish Mr. Bass well in his battle with atherosclerosis and look forward to benefitting from the many positive examples he sets for all of us who aspire to aging gracefully, with an active enjoyable life.

(minor edits for content and grammar, 8.31 AM, January 26, 2011)

Review: "Insanity"

BLUF:  Insanity (http://www.beachbody.com/) is far better than nothing.  It will generate many of the benefits folks seek from a work out and requires no equipment, little space, and no movement coaching or skill.

I walked into a class to watch a couple folks doing "Insanity" and this was almost the first thing I heard (at least, words this effect):  "Aerobics is the best thing you can do to change your body".  I think you can walk into any aerobics class and satisfy yourself as to whether or not that is true.  I didn't write the line, but I believe it - "you cannot out train a bad diet."  If you want to change your body, you must eat the right food.  Exercise can certainly add muscle, make you feel better, make you healthier, reduce your rate of aging, reduce chronic pain, and make your body more capable of living a life like you want to live ... but there's very little evidence that exercise alone will "change your body."  Most exercise results in increased hunger, to one degree or another, and that's a good thing - else every lumber jack would have died of starvation.

Insanity looks like aerobics.  It may differ from aerobics in that it claims to be based on intervals, in which, presumably, activity becomes intense enough to work the anaerobic energy system.  Watching the video, I saw folks working very, very hard.  The participants in the room were also working hard.  The question is - to what end?

In terms of what physical capacities they were developing:
They were not developing speed.  They were not developing power.  They were perhaps improving range of motion for those who were ROM limited, to some degree.  They were developing cardiovascular endurance, and stamina (the ability to get oxygen and fuel to working muscles).  There was a minor strength component, depending upon how prescisely you define 'strength' (some say it's only 'strength' development if one is working with a weight they can use for ten reps or less).  There were some elements of coordination, agility (ability to change direction), balance and accuracy, but to an unmeasurable degree (no way to determine improvement objectively since there was no objective outcome of their movement).

In terms of what work capacities they were developing:
They were not developing the ability to pull things to them, or to climb (for example as pullups would).  They were not developing the ability to powerfully open the hip (as for example the clean, or squat would).  They were developing the ability to stabilize the spine under load to a minimal degree (pushups and planks), relative to loaded cleans, jerks, squats or deadlifts (as examples of some but not all of the modalities which might have this effect).  They were developing some ability to push, and to open the hip with minimal loads and range of motion, but with sub-maximal power and/or strength.

Primarily, Insanity looks like a lot of moving around.  It will make a participant sweat.  It will result in the psychological benefits of hard physical labor.  Doing Insanity will be infinitely better than doing nothing.  It has the benefit of requiring little equipment, and of allowing many participants in a small space, and it would be possible to get a reasonably high percentage of the possible benefits with absolutly no skill or coaching in how to move.  It lacks what I would like to see in measurably objective outcomes, but it will no doubt increase a person's ability to sustain an elevated work output over a period of time. 

Athletes need to develop above all else the ability to powerfully open the hip, in combination with the ability to stabilize the spine under a load (so that the spine may serve as a transmitter for the forces generated by the opening of the hip).  These two capacities underlie virtually all athletic activity - running, jumping, throwing, punching, kicking, or swinging a stick (sword, staff, bat or club).  From this perspective, I would not recommend Insanity as a strength and conditioning program for athletes, warriors or first responders - unless, the choice is Insanity or nothing.  Additionally, if all one does for strength and conditioning is jogging or some other aerobic activity, and there's no motivation to get real strength and conditioning equipment or coaching, Insanity would be a great addition.

Lastly, if you want to lose body fat, don't even think of Insanity as a solution.  For that result, you will have to re-educate yourself on how to eat.

Well, Can You?

"You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do something about its width and depth."
- Shira Tehrani
This one reminds me of the bumper sticker: "Eat right, exercise, die anyway."
I think this reflects a disconnect.  Yes, I hope that how I eat and how I work out will help me live longer - but the best reason to eat well and be fit is the benefit in quality of life I get right now, today, this minute.  I don't look at fitness as depriving myself now to have something good later - I look at fitness as the means by which to best enjoy all the other moments of life.  I don't think "the fit life" is the only way to enjoy life, but it is a way that works for me. 
I work with people several times a week who are struggling to stay out of the grip of diabetes, who are struggling to recover functional strength, who are struggling to build strength and functionality into weak backs and hips.  For those folks, the truth is they can exercise and eat well or they can be sick - that's an entirely different prospect. 
Where are you on the wellness continuum?  Can your back safely bear a moderate load?  Can you walk while bearing that load?  Can you set it down on the ground without injury?  Does your back, neck or knees hurt due to muscle imbalance and plain old weakness?  Can you sprint?  Crawl?  Throw?  Jump?  You should be able to do all of these things, but unless you do them, you won't be able to do them!  That means you lose capacity, you lose options for how you live, every day.  Humans were not made to be inactive and the studies show it - the positive emotional benefit of exercise is a virtual certainty for most if not all of us.
A life of unnecessary limitation is worse than living a short life.  Thoughtful eating and exercise is part and parcel of providing width and depth to life.

Stuck on the Wrong Model

http://www.self.com/fooddiet/blogs/nutritiondata-dieting-weight-loss/2010/07/quick-tip-on-intervals-vs-stea.html
The evidence that exercise contributes to weight loss is contradictory, as is the concept.  I think that if exercise contributed to weight loss, all lumberjacks would have died.  In other words, we know that the body includes many feedback mechanisms that help keep a person who's eating 'food' (not to be confused with bread, rice, pasta, and the processed products of the undustrial food chain) from eating too little or too much.  If you eat non-food and try to work it off, fine, go ahead but I can guarantee you'll get a better result if you eat the right food, and exercise for the physical capacities that will serve you best in sport, life and combat. 

That said, this is an interesting quote:
"It's often said that the best program you could be doing right now is the one you're not currently on... What that means is that once your body adapts to certain stimulus it is time to switch up your routine.

This is why my quick tip for you today would be to take your current cardio program and turn it on its head. If you're doing mostly longer distance, steady state cardio then switch over the majority of these workouts to interval based routines. Likewise, if you're big into interval based sprints I would try adding in a few longer endurance based sessions."

This idea is embodied in CrossFit's prescription:  "Constantly varied functional movements, executed at high intensity."  There's almost no case for which the variation does not make sense.  One exception - some people will exercise more if all they are doing is putting on some shoes and going outside to walk/run.  They don't want to think about what they will do, they just want a routine to escape to, the benefits are often a meditative process as much as anything else.  For those folks, variation by result in less activity.

Life is not a Spectator Sport

"We are constantly being warned to check with our physicians before beginning athletics. Play and games evidently can be risky business. What we are not told are the risks of not beginning athletics-that the most dangerous sport of all is watching it from the stands.
           The weakest among us can become some kind of athlete, but only the strongest can survive as spectators. Only the hardiest can withstand the perils of inertia, inactivity, and immobility. Only the most resilient can cope with the squandering of time, the deterioration in fitness, the loss of creativity, the frustration of emotions, and the dulling of moral sense that can afflict the dedicated spectator.
           Physiologists have suggested that only those who can pass the most rigorous physical examination can safely follow the sedentary life. Man was not made to remain at rest. Inactivity is completely unnatural to the body. And what follows is a breakdown of the body's equilibrium.
           When the beneficial effects of activity on the heart and circulation and indeed on all the body's systems are absent, everything measurable begins to go awry.
           Up goes the girth of the waist and the body weight. Up goes blood pressure and heart rate. Up goes cholesterol and triglycerides. Up goes everything you would like to go down and down everything you would like to go up. Down goes vital capacity and oxygen consumption. Down goes flexibility and efficiency, stamina and strength. Fitness fast becomes a memory.
           The seated spectator is not a thinker, he is a knower. Unlike the athlete who is still seeking his own experience, who leaves himself open to truth, the spectator has closed the ring. His thinking has become rigid knowing. He has enclosed himself in bias and partisanship and prejudice. He has ceased to grow.
           And it is growth he needs most to handle the emotions thrust upon him, emotions he cannot act out in any satisfactory way. He is , you see, an incurable distance from the athlete and participation in the effort is the athlete's release, the athlete's catharsis. He is watching people who have everything he wants and cannot get. They are having all the fun: the fun of playing, the fun of winning, even the fun of losing. They are having the physical exhaustion which is the quickest way to fraternity and equality, the exhaustion which permits you to be not only a good winner but a good loser.
           Because the spectator cannot experience what the athlete is experiencing, the fan is seldom a good loser. The emphasis on winning is therefore much more of a problem for the spectator than the athlete. The losing fan, filled with emotions which have no healthy outlet, is likely to take it out on his neighbor, the nearest inanimate object, the umpires, the stadium or the game itself. It is easier to dry out a drunk, take someone off hard drugs or watch a three-pack-a-day smoker go cold turkey than live with a fan during a long losing streak.
           Should a spectator pass all these physical and mental and emotional tests, he still has another supreme challenge to his integrity. He is part of a crowd, part of a mob. He is with those the coach in The Games called, "The nothingmen, those oafs in the stands filling their bellies." And when someone is in a crowd, out go his individual standards of conduct and morality. He acts in concert with his fellow spectators and descends two or three rungs on the evolutionary ladder. He slips backward down the development tree.
           From the moment you become a spectator, everything is downhill."
http://www.georgesheehan.com/essays/essay17.html

Profile: CrossFit Endurance

"Gone are the days of two-plus hour runs or six hour block sessions. With this program you can safely train for an Ironman or ultra marathon on less than eight hours a week, so imagine what you can do if all you want to do is a marathon or less. All you have to be willing to give is, well, everything you’ve got for the Workout of the Day (WOD) for four (to no more than six) days a week. You will be taxed, you will be sore, but also true to CrossFit form, you will reduce the chances for over use injuries and burnout, and you will see measurable results fast."

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/LASF_XFIT_ENDURANCE_SUMMER10.pdf

Do You Want A Pill?

Do you want a pill to make you skinny so you don't have to exercise?

I know some of us would rather not - but exercise is integrated into my life.  I don't exercise to be thin.  I eat for thin, exercise to feel and be fit.
But, for those who'd rather have a pill, read on.
http://news.discovery.com/human/exercise-fat-calorie-burn.html

Evidence Of High Intensity Benefit

In the CrossFit world, intensity is defined by the work performed and the take it takes to complete that work.  IOW, if you move a specified weight a specified distance as fast as you can, you are producing a measure of work that may be calculated as horsepower (or any other measure of power).  The more horsepower generated in a workout, the better, with the caveat that variety in modalities (weights, running, gymnastics) and workout duration (some short, some long, most 10-15 minutes) will be necessary to become fit (in the CrossFit sense of fit; which is fit for the unknown and unknowable). 

This study shows some correlation of CF's premise that high intensity is beneficial to health.  Other correlates of high intensity workouts include better faster lipid profiles, better bone density, and the reversibility of anaerobic work - that is to say, working in the anaerobic/glycolitic energy pathway will sustain and contribute to work in the aerobic/oxidative energy pathway, but the reverse is not true (with the exception of those who are so de-conditioned they cannot perform anerobic work).

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/39799/Study_reveals_how_blood_flow_force_prevents_clogged_arteries.html

Still Love to Run Long?

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):  Another reason why long slow distance running should not be considered 'healthy', and another reason to keep the bulk of your training short and intense.  If you want to be able to go long, without burning up hours and your health training that way, I recommend this approach:  http://www.crossfitendurance.com/.

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/21/still-not-born-to-run.html
"My three hypotheses all remain viable:
Weak form: Chronic Steady state aerobic training* (CSSAT) does nothing to prevent or reverse atherosclerosis.
Mild Form: Some effects of CSSAT may be beneficial or neutral, but they are overridden by the inflammation promoting effects of the diets favored by those who train this way.
Strong Form: CSSAT itself promotes the inflammatory state via cortisol, cytokines, inadequate recovery, etc."

Hooverball!

This AM's activity at NSA Millington - good fun hurling a 4 pound ball at each other across a volleyball net (look for the yellow/grey ball where the gentleman in the red shirt is reaching - and he caught it!). Google "Hooverball" for the rules and history. This game demands and enhances strength, speed, agility, coordination, accuracy, flexibility, balance, and stamina - perhaps even some endurance. It is also a superb way to evaluate how our 'constantly varied functional movements executed at high intensity' translate to to a real world - can you throw the huge ball farther and faster? Can you react better, move faster, reach and catch? Best of all - we had a grand time!

Lovin' Me Some Hills

"The training
As often as possible during the off-season, James Upham, U.S. Biathlon's development coach, points his athletes in one direction: up. Hill work is the fastest way to push into the range of your max heart rate while simultaneously building strength, power, and technique. "One legendary drill is the whiteface workout," Upham says with a devilish laugh. "It's really fun for coaches to watch. You bound straight uphill for 12 minutes, alternating 15 seconds of moving with 15 seconds of rest. Then you take 5 minutes off and do it again.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35239197/ns/health-fitness/?ns=health-fitness&pg=4#Health_MH_GoldStandard

See With Your Feet

See with your feet
"Rob Roy, the veteran coach who oversees Chris Klug's training, uses an obstacle course to teach snowboarders to look ahead instead of down at their feet. If you play basketball or soccer, you can benefit, too. Try the sidewinder, from plyometrics expert Donald Chu, Ph.D. Line up three cones 3 to 4 feet apart. Set up a fourth cone 20 yards away. Keeping your eyes ahead, shuffle sideways, weaving through the first three cones from left to right, and then back from right to left. Now pivot and sprint 20 yards to the fourth cone. Return to the obstacle course using a quick, sideways shuffle. Repeat 3 times."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35239197/ns/health-fitness/?ns=health-fitness&pg=3#Health_MH_GoldStandard
Also a good summary of plank variants for someone who's looking for an unloaded approach to building or rebuilding core strength.

Train Like An Olympian

Jump higher
Jason Hartman likes to wow new bobsledders with his magical jumping drill. First, he tests their maximum vertical leap. Then he has them do a set of heavy squats before jumping again. Without fail, they'll jump several inches higher after blasting their legs with the squats.

"It's called post-activation potentiation," Hartman explains. The theory is that the squat activates bands of last-resort muscle fibers called "high-threshold motor units." Your body keeps HTMU fibers in reserve for emergencies and only the most strenuous jobs, so the trick is to recruit them voluntarily.
Unlike with the training regimen Hartman typically uses, you don't want a lot of reps here. "I tend to make sure the resistance is high but not maxed out. Just do a small amount of volume to wake up your muscles." And once you've recruited that HTMU oomph to leap those extra inches, Hartman says, the gains remain; after your body learns that it can jump 32 inches instead of 30, you can do it all the time, even without the squat-rack warmup.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35239197/ns/health-fitness/?ns=health-fitness&pg=2#Health_MH_GoldStandard

Intensity Trumps Duration, Part 2

The piece that follows is still too lukewarm to satisfy me, but at least the basic point is correct - intensity trumps duration when it comes to cultivating fitness. There is an exception to that rule of course - if you want to be able to work not-very-hard for hours, you will have to suffer long, low intensity workouts. Good luck, hope you enjoy them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35581793/ns/health-fitness/
""High-intensity interval training is twice as effective as normal exercise," said Jan Helgerud, an exercise expert at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. "This is like finding a new pill that works twice as well ... we should immediately throw out the old way of exercising."
Intense interval training means working very hard for a few minutes, with rest periods in between sets. Experts have mostly tested people running or biking, but other sports like rowing or swimming should also work.
Helgerud recommends people try four sessions lasting four minutes each, with three minutes of recovery time in between. Unless you're an elite athlete, it shouldn't be an all-out effort.
"You should be a little out of breath, but you shouldn't have the obvious feeling of exhaustion," Helgerud said.""

Endurance Training is Good For You, Right?

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/


BLUF:  Burning up time doing cardio work is a bad deal for your strength, your health and likely also for your longevity.  Why?  it's well known that heavy duty cardio is muscle consuming, and makes you weaker.  It also subjects you to oxidative stresses that you can live better without.  There's not really an upside - weak core, flexibility challenges, and all you gain for all that time spent is the ability to work not very hard (maximum of 40% of your total output) for a long time.  


THere's only one reason to do this to yourself - you just love it.  Otherwise, go for high intensity and lower duration; 20 minutes max!