Fellow Toastmasters, guests, and judges,
I’ve often read that a leader's job, among other things, is to take responsibility. When things don’t go as planned, there can be a strong temptation to find someone to blame.
However, unless that information will form part of the solution, the energy spent assigning blame is a waste of time at best, and may well make things worse.
My wife and I have been ballroom dancing for a few years. Tonight, I would like to show the parallel between leadership in life and leading on the dance floor and how ballroom dancing is an amazing opportunity to learn and apply leadership principles that will apply to all aspects of life.
The thing about dancing is that the feedback as to whether you're an effective lead or not can be almost instantaneous. (if you avoid looking to blame someone else.)
When your role in business or as a parent for example demands leadership, your effectiveness in that role, or lack thereof, may not become obvious until you have the benefit of hindsight. By that time, it may be too late to correct your errors, or even to detect what errors you may have made.
Now, in ballroom dancing, I’ve often seen couples stopped on the floor, debating which of them is guilty of making a mistake. (I've actually seen people storm off the floor!)
As with levying blame in business.... this serves no purpose and only makes things worse. (Believe me on this, or if not, feel free to ask my wife.)
The true leader simply takes responsibility for the solution. If I'm leading, (and I maintain this proper frame of mind), and the dance isn't smooth, it's my job to correct it. Now some of you may suggest that I'm taking more than my share of responsiblity as perhaps my wife is, in fact, the one who has made the mistake.
I would respond to this in two ways..... firstly, who actually made the mistake is besides the point. Secondly, those who know a little about ballroom dancing (especially the ladies) will know that, if my lead is "perfect", my partner's role becomes much, much easier; actually, it will be more difficult for her to make a mistake then to do it right. To do it wrong would require that she go against my lead to do it incorrectly which will feel very unnatural and forced to her. Conversely, when my lead falls short, the result is not neutral for her, it is an added challenge over and above her just knowing her steps, and just as she would have to resist a good lead to do it wrong, she now has to compensate for my errant leadership in order to get it right. (Difficult if not impossible)
You see, , I'm always leading her in the right direction or in the wrong direction, never a neutral one. A leader is always helping or hurting... food for thought.
"Leadership would be easy if it weren't for people!"; "They're so irrational and difficult to deal with!". You may have heard these complaints, only half jokingly.
When a musician makes a mistake, he doesn't usually blame his instrument.... it is an inanimate object.... alternatively, dealing with people is very different because they are far less predictable.
Learning to play a musical instrument. although not easy may be more straightforward. A friend once told me, "my guitar is always in the mood".
But leadership is not about leading inanimate objects, it's about leading people with all their wonderful diversity of moods and motivations, and, in dancing, it is a wonderful opportunity (sometimes very humbling) to see just how good you really are with people. (as much or more so than how good you are at dancing.)
One of the things I’ve told men to encourage them to take ballroom dance lessons, is that ballroom dancing may be the last bastion of male dominance left in society. The man leads and the lady follows!
However, what I conveniently leave out at that stage, is that, as with the quote from the Spider Man movie, “with great power, comes great responsibility”.... there is very big catch to this...what do I mean? Simply, if I make a mistake, it’s my fault, if my partner makes a mistake, it’s still my fault, because my lead was bad.
In ballroom dancing, to be a good lead, which by the way, is very much of an aspirational goal for me with lots of work yet to do, you have to maintain a “good frame”.... in fact, in many ways, the lady is the beautiful painting, and the man’s job is to make her look good.
A good frame is akin to leading by example, being a good role model... it is essentially the opposite of don’t do what I do, do what I say!
If my frame is off, it’s like a leader who lacks integrity. My leaning over my wife, or pulling her out of her frame, can make her life very difficult.
Also, when my frame is proper, then my signals can be very subtle, so much so, that my partner is barely aware of being led, she simply perceives that she is doing what comes naturally as if any other alternative would seem odd. She feels inspired.
If my frame is not proper, I will tend to force my lead, literally using my strength to practically wrestle my partner into submission. It can appear to work, but it comes at a high price, and there is a very good chance you may soon be looking for a new partner. She feels manipulated.
It is easy to start a dance in frame, but forget about it, and start to slouch or lower your arms, part way through. Maintaining a good frame requires us to focus on being vigilant of it, even when we may feel overwhelmed by the new steps we are just learning at the time. Maintaining integrity in life also requires focused vigilance. You can do the right thing or the easy thing. They are never the same.
Regardless of any titles, we truly are all leading people in one direction or another. So, if I get frustrated with people I lead, I try to reflect whether their behaviour is a mirror of my own shortcomings as a leader, and how I can improve.
If I catch myself thinking “what wrong with THEM?”....is it an example of one finger pointing at them, and three pointing back at me?
Certainly human beings have free will, and I'm not suggesting that one take responsibility for everyone else's actions but.... as a leader, I can strive not to waste time on assigning blame, but to first look within when it comes to finding the solution.
A bumper sticker I once read, said: "Dancing is Life"... I think there is a whole lot of truth there...
Thanks for listening!
Posted by Richard Chartrand CFP, Certified Personal Trainer at 2:26 PM
Jan 2, 2019
SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS Safe Strength Training
Welcome to SUSTAINABLE SUCCESS. This article is to answer the following questions?
What is safe, sustainable strength training? What is the underlying philosophy/science it is based on? Who is this is for? Who might this not be for?
Safe Sustainable Strength Training, is based on concepts that have been around since at least the early 70's, popularized at that time by Arthur Jones, founder and inventor of Nautilus machines. His Nautilus bulletin #1 and #2 summarized his thoughts on the topic. Many of the general guidelines had been around long before Nautilus, and in many respects some have opined that this is a return to basics, while at the same time being reaffirmed by the latest in exercise research. Many have contributed over the years to either further popularizing or helping to evolve what is often referred to as High Intensity Training (HIT). In doing so, various branding has come to include Prescribed Exercise, Superslow, Slow Burn, and Renaissance to name but a few. Some of the originators of these modalities may readily acknowledge being under the umbrella of High Intensity Training, while others may feel the differences are sufficient to distinguish them as a separate and superior modality. Some years ago, Ken Hutchins defined proper exercise (see immediately below), and this does in fact still fit what we do.
In any case, common threads among each which are part and parcel of safe sustainable strength training include:
SAFETY: While the benefits of exercise have long been established, what gets less attention is the fact that the rate of injury, either chronic or acute, that results from so called fitness activities is extremely high. Unfortunately, in many cases, this is not only often accepted but sometimes even seen as some sort of macho badge of honour. Our facility seeks to administer exercise in a clinical setting, emphasizing low force, perfect form and posture, in order to first and foremost adhere to the medical imperative of "first, do no harm".
DOSE-RESPONSE: Another common error that is made in exercise as well as many other life aspects, is the assumption that if a little is good, then more is better. In fact, proper exercise is a form of stress, that is beneficial only as a result of the adaptations we are able to make to protect ourselves from such stress, which otherwise would threaten our survival. The ability for our bodies to make adaptations is often referred to as our "recovery ability" and is closely linked to our immune system. While the human body is amazingly adaptable, there are limits. Therefore, the goal with our facility is to provide adequate stimulus to have our bodies initiate these adaptations, but to regulate the stimulus, volume and frequency in such a way as to enable our bodies to actually recover and adapt, avoiding overtraining, which can result in long term detriment to our health. In fact, optimum health has been described as keeping proper balance between anabolism (building up) and catabolism (breaking down). Thus, DOSE-RESPONSE refers to the "therapeutic window" where, using the analogy of administering exercise as you would a drug; too little is ineffective, too much is toxic, but as with Goldilocks, the right balance will yield the best results. Recovery ability will vary greatly from individual to individual as well as within the same individual depending on nutrition, sleep, and other stresses that affect them.
EFFICIENCY and INTENSITY: Safety is of course, a critical advantage of this modality, as your physical conditioning will not improve if you are forced to stop exercising due to injury, or if, as you age, you are plagued with aches and pains as a result of wear and tear on your connective tissues. Another critical advantage is efficiency. Virtually all exercise modalities require you to be in the gym or out running for multiple weekly sessions ranging from 30 minutes to hours. This is one of the main reasons why people either don't start or do not continue long term with their program. While you may actually feel guilty that you are not prepared to make and stick to the necessary time commitment, the good news is that proper exercise only requires a few minutes a week. Also check this link. However, if this sounds too good to be true, there is, in fact a "catch": The intensity of effort needs to be very high, which means a level of discomfort that most people will not enjoy, however, it doesn't last long. Also, with some modalities that encourage higher intensity, they achieve this intensity by moving more quickly which can subject your body to forces that can create injury. In our facility, each exercise is carried to momentary muscular fatigue. This is done however utilizing low force slow movements, so that we achieve intensity (even higher because slower movement creates continuous tension whereas quick movement, uses momentum), while still maintaining maximum safety.
EXERCISE VS RECREATION: Most of our clients will spontaneously become more active as a result of the increased energy and functional ability which will be the result of the exercise they do with us. We encourage clients to be active between workouts with a few caveats.
While this may seem like splitting hairs, we do not necessarily encourage being active between workout because of the benefits of such activity, but rather to avoid the harm that can come from spending too much time stationery, whether in front of a computer screen or television. It is simply a matter of moving around regularly to avoid this.
If clients happen to enjoy running, biking or playing a sport (I play weekly hockey and my wife and I ballroom dance) than, again, some distinctions. We categorize these activities as "recreation" vs exercise, and this is not to downplay the value of recreation which can have some physical and especially psychological and quality of life benefits. It is simply not to confuse exercise vs recreation, with the former being simply a matter of maximum conditioning in the safest, most efficient manner, and the latter being what we may enjoy doing, and which, depending on the activity may carry a degree of injury risk. More good news in that your new found fitness will help you to minimize injury risk during these activities. One way of looking at it, is that you don't play sports to get in shape, you get in shape to improve your performance when playing sports and to help minimize the risk of injuries. It should be noted that if what you enjoy doing is reading or photography or some other sedentary activity, you have no need for additional exercise beyond your weekly or twice weekly exercise at our facility, along with just regularly moving around during the day.
In the event that you are an athlete, whether amateur or professional and part of your goal in coming to us is to improve your performance, then you will find our programs to be ideal. Because of the safety factor, you will avoid "hurting yourself in the weight room" plus the low time commitment will allow you spend more time practicing the specific skills of your chosen sport.
EXERCISE, FAT LOSS, NUTRITION: The role of exercise in fat loss, while important, has been dramatically overestimated. The simple truth is that you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. Proper strength training can help to ensure that the weight lost is more from fat than from muscle, which is, in itself, important as this will help with the appearance of the person losing weight. It will also help to keep metabolism high (perhaps not as much as once thought but every little bit helps) which is helpful in long term maintenance of weight loss. Another benefit is that it helps a person to burn calories long after the actual exercise. However, the calories burnt during and after any type of exercise plays a small role at best. Being active,(as long as not excessive) seems to signal the body that it is okay to give up some of the fat stores that it might otherwise hoard for survival purposes in anticipation of a coming famine. In the end, though, if your diet is bad, none of the above will be enough to offset this.
Nutrition itself is widely debated, to say the least, and can create a great deal of confusion. While the calories in calories out model has been challenged and or defended, it is widely agreed that overall calories do play a part to be sure. Macronutrient (protein, carbohydrates and fat) ratios have also been a huge source of confusion. In the end, where we come at it is summarized this way:
If you are eating a reasonably balanced diet with at least adequate complete protein from quality sources, with the balance coming from some of each of fat and carbohydrates, (again from quality sources) and that your overall food intake is not excessive, it is very unlikely that the amount of fat and or carbs you consume will be detrimental. In other words, for most people it is not so much that they consume too much fat and/or too many carbs, it is just that they are consuming too much food overall. The human body has shown that it can be very adaptable in utilizing either fat or carbs as energy. While science may eventually come up with some sort of optimal diet, and some people may do better with more of one or the other depending on how much and what type of activity they engage in, we believe that the above guidelines will result in a massive improvement for the vast majority of clients over the typical Canadian diet. In discussing nutrition with clients, we delve deeper into what we mean by quality sources.
The statistics with weight loss can be very daunting in that it has been estimated that the vast majority of people who lose weight, eventually gain all of it back and add even more. There are also some indications that losing and gaining throughout life repeatedly may actually be as harmful if not more harmful than simply being over fat. For this reason, anyone taking on the challenge of improving their body composition, must, as with many aspects of life, take on a long term SUSTAINABLE strategy to do so, and they must make daily commitments. For this reason, we highly recommend support systems, whether it be smartphone apps, support groups, or the use of quality meal replacements. Over the years, I've worked with many of these methods. Each client should choose whatever system they are comfortable with that includes accountability parameters, and some sort of support system.
I use a martial art analogy, in stating that if your goal is PERMANENT weight loss/maintenance, you are getting in the ring with a formidable adversary, and underestimating this opponent by going in with less than a well structured game plan taking into account lasting through an almost infinite (lifetime) number of rounds will in fact make you one more statistic among the yo yo dieters.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Is this for everyone? While my obvious bias would automatically answer yes, and I could make a case (as I've tried to do above) for the many benefits and advantages, there are definitely people who may not gravitate towards this methodology. They may include:
-People who genuinely enjoy spending a lot of the time in a gym, either because of the social aspect or just enjoy spending longer periods actually lifting weights.
-People who feel that their exercise needs to be "fun" for them to stick to it long term. (The intensity of effort will cause discomfort, however, it is brief and you will have more time and energy to devote to other "fun" activities.)
-People who simply would prefer not to work as hard as this modality requires i.e. going to momentary muscular fatigue/failure. (while the intensity can be reduced and compensated for by adding a degree of additional volume and/or frequency, results will not come without outright hard work; again the good news is that it is brief and relatively infrequent.)
-People who are looking to achieve fitness by practicing a sport and are motivated by a spirit of competition against others. While this is not necessarily exclusive to this type of conditioning, the two should not be confused. It is our view, as previously stated, that you get in shape to practice a sport, and not the other way around.
Much of the above and then some is very well summarized on a free e-book available on the HitUni site that provides certification courses for strength training.
I look forward to comments or questions.
What is safe, sustainable strength training? What is the underlying philosophy/science it is based on? Who is this is for? Who might this not be for?
Safe Sustainable Strength Training, is based on concepts that have been around since at least the early 70's, popularized at that time by Arthur Jones, founder and inventor of Nautilus machines. His Nautilus bulletin #1 and #2 summarized his thoughts on the topic. Many of the general guidelines had been around long before Nautilus, and in many respects some have opined that this is a return to basics, while at the same time being reaffirmed by the latest in exercise research. Many have contributed over the years to either further popularizing or helping to evolve what is often referred to as High Intensity Training (HIT). In doing so, various branding has come to include Prescribed Exercise, Superslow, Slow Burn, and Renaissance to name but a few. Some of the originators of these modalities may readily acknowledge being under the umbrella of High Intensity Training, while others may feel the differences are sufficient to distinguish them as a separate and superior modality. Some years ago, Ken Hutchins defined proper exercise (see immediately below), and this does in fact still fit what we do.
The Definition
Exercise is a process whereby the body performs work of a demanding nature, in accordance with muscle and joint function, in a clinically-controlled environment, within the constraints of safety, meaningfully loading the muscular structures to inroad their strength levels to stimulate a growth mechanism within minimum time.
In any case, common threads among each which are part and parcel of safe sustainable strength training include:
SAFETY: While the benefits of exercise have long been established, what gets less attention is the fact that the rate of injury, either chronic or acute, that results from so called fitness activities is extremely high. Unfortunately, in many cases, this is not only often accepted but sometimes even seen as some sort of macho badge of honour. Our facility seeks to administer exercise in a clinical setting, emphasizing low force, perfect form and posture, in order to first and foremost adhere to the medical imperative of "first, do no harm".
DOSE-RESPONSE: Another common error that is made in exercise as well as many other life aspects, is the assumption that if a little is good, then more is better. In fact, proper exercise is a form of stress, that is beneficial only as a result of the adaptations we are able to make to protect ourselves from such stress, which otherwise would threaten our survival. The ability for our bodies to make adaptations is often referred to as our "recovery ability" and is closely linked to our immune system. While the human body is amazingly adaptable, there are limits. Therefore, the goal with our facility is to provide adequate stimulus to have our bodies initiate these adaptations, but to regulate the stimulus, volume and frequency in such a way as to enable our bodies to actually recover and adapt, avoiding overtraining, which can result in long term detriment to our health. In fact, optimum health has been described as keeping proper balance between anabolism (building up) and catabolism (breaking down). Thus, DOSE-RESPONSE refers to the "therapeutic window" where, using the analogy of administering exercise as you would a drug; too little is ineffective, too much is toxic, but as with Goldilocks, the right balance will yield the best results. Recovery ability will vary greatly from individual to individual as well as within the same individual depending on nutrition, sleep, and other stresses that affect them.
EFFICIENCY and INTENSITY: Safety is of course, a critical advantage of this modality, as your physical conditioning will not improve if you are forced to stop exercising due to injury, or if, as you age, you are plagued with aches and pains as a result of wear and tear on your connective tissues. Another critical advantage is efficiency. Virtually all exercise modalities require you to be in the gym or out running for multiple weekly sessions ranging from 30 minutes to hours. This is one of the main reasons why people either don't start or do not continue long term with their program. While you may actually feel guilty that you are not prepared to make and stick to the necessary time commitment, the good news is that proper exercise only requires a few minutes a week. Also check this link. However, if this sounds too good to be true, there is, in fact a "catch": The intensity of effort needs to be very high, which means a level of discomfort that most people will not enjoy, however, it doesn't last long. Also, with some modalities that encourage higher intensity, they achieve this intensity by moving more quickly which can subject your body to forces that can create injury. In our facility, each exercise is carried to momentary muscular fatigue. This is done however utilizing low force slow movements, so that we achieve intensity (even higher because slower movement creates continuous tension whereas quick movement, uses momentum), while still maintaining maximum safety.
EXERCISE VS RECREATION: Most of our clients will spontaneously become more active as a result of the increased energy and functional ability which will be the result of the exercise they do with us. We encourage clients to be active between workouts with a few caveats.
While this may seem like splitting hairs, we do not necessarily encourage being active between workout because of the benefits of such activity, but rather to avoid the harm that can come from spending too much time stationery, whether in front of a computer screen or television. It is simply a matter of moving around regularly to avoid this.
If clients happen to enjoy running, biking or playing a sport (I play weekly hockey and my wife and I ballroom dance) than, again, some distinctions. We categorize these activities as "recreation" vs exercise, and this is not to downplay the value of recreation which can have some physical and especially psychological and quality of life benefits. It is simply not to confuse exercise vs recreation, with the former being simply a matter of maximum conditioning in the safest, most efficient manner, and the latter being what we may enjoy doing, and which, depending on the activity may carry a degree of injury risk. More good news in that your new found fitness will help you to minimize injury risk during these activities. One way of looking at it, is that you don't play sports to get in shape, you get in shape to improve your performance when playing sports and to help minimize the risk of injuries. It should be noted that if what you enjoy doing is reading or photography or some other sedentary activity, you have no need for additional exercise beyond your weekly or twice weekly exercise at our facility, along with just regularly moving around during the day.
In the event that you are an athlete, whether amateur or professional and part of your goal in coming to us is to improve your performance, then you will find our programs to be ideal. Because of the safety factor, you will avoid "hurting yourself in the weight room" plus the low time commitment will allow you spend more time practicing the specific skills of your chosen sport.
EXERCISE, FAT LOSS, NUTRITION: The role of exercise in fat loss, while important, has been dramatically overestimated. The simple truth is that you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet. Proper strength training can help to ensure that the weight lost is more from fat than from muscle, which is, in itself, important as this will help with the appearance of the person losing weight. It will also help to keep metabolism high (perhaps not as much as once thought but every little bit helps) which is helpful in long term maintenance of weight loss. Another benefit is that it helps a person to burn calories long after the actual exercise. However, the calories burnt during and after any type of exercise plays a small role at best. Being active,(as long as not excessive) seems to signal the body that it is okay to give up some of the fat stores that it might otherwise hoard for survival purposes in anticipation of a coming famine. In the end, though, if your diet is bad, none of the above will be enough to offset this.
Nutrition itself is widely debated, to say the least, and can create a great deal of confusion. While the calories in calories out model has been challenged and or defended, it is widely agreed that overall calories do play a part to be sure. Macronutrient (protein, carbohydrates and fat) ratios have also been a huge source of confusion. In the end, where we come at it is summarized this way:
If you are eating a reasonably balanced diet with at least adequate complete protein from quality sources, with the balance coming from some of each of fat and carbohydrates, (again from quality sources) and that your overall food intake is not excessive, it is very unlikely that the amount of fat and or carbs you consume will be detrimental. In other words, for most people it is not so much that they consume too much fat and/or too many carbs, it is just that they are consuming too much food overall. The human body has shown that it can be very adaptable in utilizing either fat or carbs as energy. While science may eventually come up with some sort of optimal diet, and some people may do better with more of one or the other depending on how much and what type of activity they engage in, we believe that the above guidelines will result in a massive improvement for the vast majority of clients over the typical Canadian diet. In discussing nutrition with clients, we delve deeper into what we mean by quality sources.
The statistics with weight loss can be very daunting in that it has been estimated that the vast majority of people who lose weight, eventually gain all of it back and add even more. There are also some indications that losing and gaining throughout life repeatedly may actually be as harmful if not more harmful than simply being over fat. For this reason, anyone taking on the challenge of improving their body composition, must, as with many aspects of life, take on a long term SUSTAINABLE strategy to do so, and they must make daily commitments. For this reason, we highly recommend support systems, whether it be smartphone apps, support groups, or the use of quality meal replacements. Over the years, I've worked with many of these methods. Each client should choose whatever system they are comfortable with that includes accountability parameters, and some sort of support system.
I use a martial art analogy, in stating that if your goal is PERMANENT weight loss/maintenance, you are getting in the ring with a formidable adversary, and underestimating this opponent by going in with less than a well structured game plan taking into account lasting through an almost infinite (lifetime) number of rounds will in fact make you one more statistic among the yo yo dieters.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Is this for everyone? While my obvious bias would automatically answer yes, and I could make a case (as I've tried to do above) for the many benefits and advantages, there are definitely people who may not gravitate towards this methodology. They may include:
-People who genuinely enjoy spending a lot of the time in a gym, either because of the social aspect or just enjoy spending longer periods actually lifting weights.
-People who feel that their exercise needs to be "fun" for them to stick to it long term. (The intensity of effort will cause discomfort, however, it is brief and you will have more time and energy to devote to other "fun" activities.)
-People who simply would prefer not to work as hard as this modality requires i.e. going to momentary muscular fatigue/failure. (while the intensity can be reduced and compensated for by adding a degree of additional volume and/or frequency, results will not come without outright hard work; again the good news is that it is brief and relatively infrequent.)
-People who are looking to achieve fitness by practicing a sport and are motivated by a spirit of competition against others. While this is not necessarily exclusive to this type of conditioning, the two should not be confused. It is our view, as previously stated, that you get in shape to practice a sport, and not the other way around.
Much of the above and then some is very well summarized on a free e-book available on the HitUni site that provides certification courses for strength training.
I look forward to comments or questions.
Dec 29, 2018
Exercise and Investing..... or Health and Financial Planning.... Different but Many Similarities.... and How They Overlap
In the book, "Body by Science" by Doug McGuff and John Little, the basic starting exercise routine that is suggested, is referred to as a "Big 5". This consists of 2 upper body pulling movements (some sort of pull down and some sort of row), 2 upper body pushing movements (usually a vertical shoulder press and a horizontal chest press) and 1 lower body movement (leg press) that targets most if not all of the musculature in the lower body.
Some love and swear by the "Big 5" and others have pointed out its shortcomings, in not addressing all body parts or how it can be improved. The authors, however, do not claim it to be the perfect exercise routine or be all, end all, but rather a good starting point, and for many people will indeed serve them well for a lifetime with little variety. They draw the analogy to a good mutual fund, which for the majority of investors will get the job done, while acknowledging that some will have better results by stepping outside these parameters, whether it be with the investment of their money or the investment of the time and effort they put into their physical conditioning.
As someone who has been a student of both financial planning and exercise, (having worked with an insurance/investment company for over 30 years, plus having studied and practiced strength training for over 35 years), I might add that, many people, however, will also get "hurt" physically or financially by trying to overcomplicate things.
There are some basic requirements for success in both fields. In finances, the main rule is to spend less than you make, and with exercise, at a minimum, you have to engage in some form of physical conditioning, and in both cases, you have to maintain these over time.
Neither of these will guarantee success in either area, however, without these basics, success is impossible.
You could spend less than you make, but squander your savings in get rich quick schemes on the one hand, or in investments that don't even keep up with inflation on the other.
Unfortunately, in the case of exercise, much of what has been promoted over the years, while providing some sort of stimulus for your body to create adaptations and improve, has done so, in manners that have been extremely inefficient, making the time commitment impractical for most to sustain when juggling careers, family and other obligations, or worse, outrightly dangerous, creating either acute or chronic physical problems.
Just as with the "get rich quick" mentality, the idea of "looking good at the beach THIS summer" or "fitting into a dress for a wedding", leads people to short term thinking that prevent them from reaching what should be their long term goals.
Neither financial planning or exercise should be about impressing people, but rather the achievement of life quality. (that is not to say that vanity cannot play a part in motivating us, and there is nothing wrong with taking pride in our appearance or our financial success)
By the way, my definition of quality of life is just two words: "having choices". Without adequate financial and functional ability, your life will consist of doing "what you can" rather than "what you choose."
A financial investment can be evaluated based on three or four aspects. They are
1. Liquidity.
2. Safety of Capital.
3. Rate of Return.
4. Tax Efficiency.
If you can find an investment where you didn't need to tie up your money (liquidity), there was 0 chance of losing a penny (safety), you could make double digit returns (rate of return), and the government allowed you to keep most if not all of your returns (tax efficiency), that would pretty much be the perfect investment. Please let me know if you hear of such an investment. I am unaware of any on this particular planet.
The reality however is that, in general, if you want more liquidity you need to give up some of either returns, safety or both. Same thing if you want higher returns and or more safety... you have to give up some of one or both of the other two.
Kind of like the restaurant, where you are told, you can have it cheap and good, but it won't be fast; or you can have it cheap and fast, but it won't be good; or you can have it fast and good, but it won't be cheap. Take your pick.
In exercise, the comparison would be.
1. Time commitment (how much liquidity of your other time will you still have after you're through in the gym)
2. Safety: avoiding chronic or acute injuries.
3. Results: How much will your physical condition actually improve over time.
4. Genetics: This tax analogy doesn't match as well, because there is something you can do about taxes, but depending on what jurisdiction you live in, that may be limited by your local or national tax schemes. In the case of genetics, you are not totally at the mercy of your genes, but the degree to which you can influence this is much smaller.
5. Effort: the level of intensity with which you exercise.
The good news, and this is borne out by the latest research, is that if you are able to put in enough of #5, (effort: momentary muscular fatigue) then you may not have to have to put in much of #1,(time commitment, literally only minutes a week) and you can achieve #3 (results) safely, if you use proper form and low force, #2 (safety). Your return on investment of time will be phenomenal, but the catch is that this only works if you are prepared to put in a large investment of effort. (i.e. discomfort) Of course, you could put in less effort and more time, but the research is clearly on the side of effort, because of two reasons. First off the additional time equates to a greater volume of exercise, which over time can lead to over use injuries, and secondly, because that commitment of time is not practical for most people, and this is one the main reasons why so many people give up on exercise programs after a relatively short time.
#4 genetics, will limit your results, but that is only a concern IF you get caught up comparing yourself to elite athletes or champion bodybuilders, which is like an investor comparing himself to a lottery winner, and wondering what he is doing wrong. Incidentally, even most models on magazine covers, don't look as good in real life as they do on the cover. For the purpose of quality of life, your goal should be to extend functional ability (health span vs life span) for as long as you can. Believe me, as you get older, maintaining your physical independence, without the use of a walker or long term care nurses to help you with basic activities of daily living (think toileting, feeding, dressing, bathing etc) will mean a lot more to you than being able to answer with a big number when someone asks, "How much do you bench?"
Note: perhaps you are a genetic lottery winner or are preparing for competition at an elite level. For the purpose of conditioning, effort is still your best bet, however for the purpose of skill development, there is likely little substitute for a large time commitment but even this can be somewhat mitigated by utilizing "perfect practice". Perhaps more on this in another post, but for now, I'll just leave you with the fact that skill practice and physical conditioning are distinct and should rarely if ever be combined. Minimizing the time commitment for conditioning will allow more time for skill practice and that is a very good thing for someone who aspires to elite performance.
Context: When it comes to investing your money, there is another factor that is often overlooked, and that is how much of a return to do you actually need to make in order to meet your goals. Depending on how much you wish to spend in your retirement and how much you have been able to accumulate, one person may be in a position of surplus, where they already have more wealth than they are likely to spend in their lifetime, in which case financial planning becomes concerned with leaving a legacy to the next generation, assuming that is a priority for that particular individual. (of course, spending more, or giving some away during your lifetime could be just two other options for someone in that position). For these individuals, taking on market volatility in order to get a better return, will at best, benefit the next generation so there is no real need to take on risk. Of course, each individual will seek various lifestyle levels, and as long as the method of doing so consists of honestly earning money, and the motivation for doing so, has nothing to do with simply impressing others, whatever lifestyle level one may choose to reach will be legitimate for that person or couple. Similarly, for a professional athlete, they may well push their body to limits that could actually jeopardize health and risk serious injury, and they are free to make those choices based on their chosen priorities, but for most of us, the goal is to unload groceries from the car without undue effort, and there is no need or benefit for us to expose ourselves to these risks.
If, on the other hand, someone's financial situation, is such that they are in, or are heading for a shortfall, whereas, they will outlive their money rather than the other way around, then strategies, unfortunately will have to involve a combination of either
1. Retiring later.
2. Spending less in retirement.
3. Saving more now. (reducing current lifestyle or seeking out greater income)
4. Getting a better return on investments. (see above.... want a higher return? How much liquidity or safety are you prepared to give up?)
To some extent, this is similar on the physical side, but often not to the same extent. Here there is a good news, bad news story. Bad news first: no matter how much fitness you've accumulated, you never get to stop and live "off your savings". Good news: Even if you are older and have never exercised, or have not done so for decades, there is a very good chance that you can regain the muscle you had in your youth, in a relatively short time. (doesn't work that way with savings, unfortunately). Research has shown that it is remarkable how much the gradual loss of muscle (sarcopenia) can be reversed, even with people in their seventies, eighties and nineties, and the literature is rife with seniors giving up their walkers, canes and reducing or eliminating medication, so generally, whether it is finances or physical conditioning, you always have options, no matter how late in the game, but with fitness, that may likely be much truer than with finances.
Overlap: Getting sick or losing functional ability is EXPENSIVE. When planning for your retirement, you must estimate your spending requirements, and what very frequently throws off these estimates is the need for additional medical and long term care expenses. Would you rather spend your money on cruises, fishing trips, and going to the theatre or on wheelchairs and someone to change your diaper? In other words, this blog post is not just about showing the similarities between two seemingly separate parts of our lives but showing that these are intrinsically connected. If I remain functionally able, even if I do have a shortfall of savings, I can prolong my ability to actually earn money longer. On the other hand the exorbitant cost of health care has bankrupted many people who worked and save their whole lives, only to have their plans derailed by a stroke, broken hip or dementia. (not to mention they are no longer have the physical ability to earn money)
Insurance obviously plays a part in mitigating the effects of death and illness, and that is called "transferring the risk" from yourself to an insurance company. (which I strongly recommend exploring because you can "influence but not control your health") However, in insurance parlance, there is also something called "risk avoidance", which means doing whatever you can to delay or avoid these occurrences if possible, which is where proper exercise can play a critical role.
What I have not discussed are two other pillars to health which are sleep hygiene and nutrition. In an upcoming blog post, I plan to draw the analogy on how these align, in the financial realm, to how we can create incomes for ourselves. This post talked about investment income, obviously, but also our choice of careers, employment or self employment can make a huge difference as well (just as sleep and nutrition do). Stay tuned.
Thanks for reading.
Some love and swear by the "Big 5" and others have pointed out its shortcomings, in not addressing all body parts or how it can be improved. The authors, however, do not claim it to be the perfect exercise routine or be all, end all, but rather a good starting point, and for many people will indeed serve them well for a lifetime with little variety. They draw the analogy to a good mutual fund, which for the majority of investors will get the job done, while acknowledging that some will have better results by stepping outside these parameters, whether it be with the investment of their money or the investment of the time and effort they put into their physical conditioning.
As someone who has been a student of both financial planning and exercise, (having worked with an insurance/investment company for over 30 years, plus having studied and practiced strength training for over 35 years), I might add that, many people, however, will also get "hurt" physically or financially by trying to overcomplicate things.
There are some basic requirements for success in both fields. In finances, the main rule is to spend less than you make, and with exercise, at a minimum, you have to engage in some form of physical conditioning, and in both cases, you have to maintain these over time.
Neither of these will guarantee success in either area, however, without these basics, success is impossible.
You could spend less than you make, but squander your savings in get rich quick schemes on the one hand, or in investments that don't even keep up with inflation on the other.
Unfortunately, in the case of exercise, much of what has been promoted over the years, while providing some sort of stimulus for your body to create adaptations and improve, has done so, in manners that have been extremely inefficient, making the time commitment impractical for most to sustain when juggling careers, family and other obligations, or worse, outrightly dangerous, creating either acute or chronic physical problems.
Just as with the "get rich quick" mentality, the idea of "looking good at the beach THIS summer" or "fitting into a dress for a wedding", leads people to short term thinking that prevent them from reaching what should be their long term goals.
Neither financial planning or exercise should be about impressing people, but rather the achievement of life quality. (that is not to say that vanity cannot play a part in motivating us, and there is nothing wrong with taking pride in our appearance or our financial success)
By the way, my definition of quality of life is just two words: "having choices". Without adequate financial and functional ability, your life will consist of doing "what you can" rather than "what you choose."
A financial investment can be evaluated based on three or four aspects. They are
1. Liquidity.
2. Safety of Capital.
3. Rate of Return.
4. Tax Efficiency.
If you can find an investment where you didn't need to tie up your money (liquidity), there was 0 chance of losing a penny (safety), you could make double digit returns (rate of return), and the government allowed you to keep most if not all of your returns (tax efficiency), that would pretty much be the perfect investment. Please let me know if you hear of such an investment. I am unaware of any on this particular planet.
The reality however is that, in general, if you want more liquidity you need to give up some of either returns, safety or both. Same thing if you want higher returns and or more safety... you have to give up some of one or both of the other two.
Kind of like the restaurant, where you are told, you can have it cheap and good, but it won't be fast; or you can have it cheap and fast, but it won't be good; or you can have it fast and good, but it won't be cheap. Take your pick.
In exercise, the comparison would be.
1. Time commitment (how much liquidity of your other time will you still have after you're through in the gym)
2. Safety: avoiding chronic or acute injuries.
3. Results: How much will your physical condition actually improve over time.
4. Genetics: This tax analogy doesn't match as well, because there is something you can do about taxes, but depending on what jurisdiction you live in, that may be limited by your local or national tax schemes. In the case of genetics, you are not totally at the mercy of your genes, but the degree to which you can influence this is much smaller.
5. Effort: the level of intensity with which you exercise.
The good news, and this is borne out by the latest research, is that if you are able to put in enough of #5, (effort: momentary muscular fatigue) then you may not have to have to put in much of #1,(time commitment, literally only minutes a week) and you can achieve #3 (results) safely, if you use proper form and low force, #2 (safety). Your return on investment of time will be phenomenal, but the catch is that this only works if you are prepared to put in a large investment of effort. (i.e. discomfort) Of course, you could put in less effort and more time, but the research is clearly on the side of effort, because of two reasons. First off the additional time equates to a greater volume of exercise, which over time can lead to over use injuries, and secondly, because that commitment of time is not practical for most people, and this is one the main reasons why so many people give up on exercise programs after a relatively short time.
#4 genetics, will limit your results, but that is only a concern IF you get caught up comparing yourself to elite athletes or champion bodybuilders, which is like an investor comparing himself to a lottery winner, and wondering what he is doing wrong. Incidentally, even most models on magazine covers, don't look as good in real life as they do on the cover. For the purpose of quality of life, your goal should be to extend functional ability (health span vs life span) for as long as you can. Believe me, as you get older, maintaining your physical independence, without the use of a walker or long term care nurses to help you with basic activities of daily living (think toileting, feeding, dressing, bathing etc) will mean a lot more to you than being able to answer with a big number when someone asks, "How much do you bench?"
Note: perhaps you are a genetic lottery winner or are preparing for competition at an elite level. For the purpose of conditioning, effort is still your best bet, however for the purpose of skill development, there is likely little substitute for a large time commitment but even this can be somewhat mitigated by utilizing "perfect practice". Perhaps more on this in another post, but for now, I'll just leave you with the fact that skill practice and physical conditioning are distinct and should rarely if ever be combined. Minimizing the time commitment for conditioning will allow more time for skill practice and that is a very good thing for someone who aspires to elite performance.
Context: When it comes to investing your money, there is another factor that is often overlooked, and that is how much of a return to do you actually need to make in order to meet your goals. Depending on how much you wish to spend in your retirement and how much you have been able to accumulate, one person may be in a position of surplus, where they already have more wealth than they are likely to spend in their lifetime, in which case financial planning becomes concerned with leaving a legacy to the next generation, assuming that is a priority for that particular individual. (of course, spending more, or giving some away during your lifetime could be just two other options for someone in that position). For these individuals, taking on market volatility in order to get a better return, will at best, benefit the next generation so there is no real need to take on risk. Of course, each individual will seek various lifestyle levels, and as long as the method of doing so consists of honestly earning money, and the motivation for doing so, has nothing to do with simply impressing others, whatever lifestyle level one may choose to reach will be legitimate for that person or couple. Similarly, for a professional athlete, they may well push their body to limits that could actually jeopardize health and risk serious injury, and they are free to make those choices based on their chosen priorities, but for most of us, the goal is to unload groceries from the car without undue effort, and there is no need or benefit for us to expose ourselves to these risks.
If, on the other hand, someone's financial situation, is such that they are in, or are heading for a shortfall, whereas, they will outlive their money rather than the other way around, then strategies, unfortunately will have to involve a combination of either
1. Retiring later.
2. Spending less in retirement.
3. Saving more now. (reducing current lifestyle or seeking out greater income)
4. Getting a better return on investments. (see above.... want a higher return? How much liquidity or safety are you prepared to give up?)
To some extent, this is similar on the physical side, but often not to the same extent. Here there is a good news, bad news story. Bad news first: no matter how much fitness you've accumulated, you never get to stop and live "off your savings". Good news: Even if you are older and have never exercised, or have not done so for decades, there is a very good chance that you can regain the muscle you had in your youth, in a relatively short time. (doesn't work that way with savings, unfortunately). Research has shown that it is remarkable how much the gradual loss of muscle (sarcopenia) can be reversed, even with people in their seventies, eighties and nineties, and the literature is rife with seniors giving up their walkers, canes and reducing or eliminating medication, so generally, whether it is finances or physical conditioning, you always have options, no matter how late in the game, but with fitness, that may likely be much truer than with finances.
Overlap: Getting sick or losing functional ability is EXPENSIVE. When planning for your retirement, you must estimate your spending requirements, and what very frequently throws off these estimates is the need for additional medical and long term care expenses. Would you rather spend your money on cruises, fishing trips, and going to the theatre or on wheelchairs and someone to change your diaper? In other words, this blog post is not just about showing the similarities between two seemingly separate parts of our lives but showing that these are intrinsically connected. If I remain functionally able, even if I do have a shortfall of savings, I can prolong my ability to actually earn money longer. On the other hand the exorbitant cost of health care has bankrupted many people who worked and save their whole lives, only to have their plans derailed by a stroke, broken hip or dementia. (not to mention they are no longer have the physical ability to earn money)
Insurance obviously plays a part in mitigating the effects of death and illness, and that is called "transferring the risk" from yourself to an insurance company. (which I strongly recommend exploring because you can "influence but not control your health") However, in insurance parlance, there is also something called "risk avoidance", which means doing whatever you can to delay or avoid these occurrences if possible, which is where proper exercise can play a critical role.
What I have not discussed are two other pillars to health which are sleep hygiene and nutrition. In an upcoming blog post, I plan to draw the analogy on how these align, in the financial realm, to how we can create incomes for ourselves. This post talked about investment income, obviously, but also our choice of careers, employment or self employment can make a huge difference as well (just as sleep and nutrition do). Stay tuned.
Thanks for reading.
Nov 22, 2018
My Isagenix Essay
This post is part of the challenge that I engaged in as part of starting a dietary program through a company called Isagenix. My wife began this about three and a half months ago, in a quest to lose some weight.
I initially joined her in order to be supportive. Also, I was curious, as, having been a long time fitness enthusiast, I was intrigued by the program.
My wife has successfully lost over 45 pounds so far, and is more motivated than I've seen her in a long time. She has also begun strength training again, and is often the one initiating the suggestion to do a workout, which is exciting to see.
When I began my program, my goal was not weight loss. In fact, I joined mid-stream to working towards the goal of increasing my body weight over a 30 month period from 170 to 180 lbs, with that increase being in the form of muscle.
I have been monitoring my progress utilizing bod pod measurements, and so far the gain has been in the form of muscle. This is based on gaining 1 pound per quarter for 10 quarters. The bod pod measurements are to ensure that the gain, is in fact, muscle. Should future bod pod measurements indicate that I am gaining fat rather than muscle, then I will change my goal accordingly, as the over arching goal is to gain muscle while maintaining either the same or even more favourable body composition.
When I first began this challenge, I had allowed myself to slip off my chosen path and was at 178.2 when the target at that point would have been 173. As of this quarter, my goal is to be at 174, and, as of this morning my weight is at 174.2.
Previously, I would have been very skeptical of meal replacement programs such as this, and my preaching would have consisted of eating "real food". I would also have been pointing out that these types of programs fail to have someone learn about nutrition and develop habits that can be kept for a lifetime, and thus, dooming them to gain all the weight back and then some, as soon as they fell off the program.
My thoughts have changed somewhat (see a previous blog post entitled "In Defense of Fad Diets") in that, the idea of worrying about gaining weight back before you've even lost it in the first place, now seems to me to be a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Also, the regaining of weight, I now feel is as a direct result of going back to old habits, and not, as a result of the diet itself. Also, I've come to think that the criticism of any program on this basis, is somewhat unfair, as statistics show that 95% of all people who lose weight, regardless of method, eventually gain it all back and then some. So, virtually any program could be criticized for this.
What I would now tell people, is that when you begin any journey that involves formidable challenges, you should not underestimate your challenge, and you should go in, knowing that the odds are not in your favour, and that the commitment that it will take to reach your goal, one day at a time, will be both one of the hardest things you will ever do, and for the same reason, the most rewarding. However, anyone looking for any kind of quick fix, is doomed to failure before they start.
I would also like to touch on my earlier point, about such programs not allowing someone to become sufficiently knowledgeable about nutrition. In my case, I already had a much better understanding of this, than most people before going in.
For this reason, I've already had considerable success, but despite this knowledge, my success was often a case of falling off the wagon, and then getting back on, albeit, not allowing myself to stay off too long. Nevertheless inconsistency was my constant nemesis.
What this program has allowed me to do is create far greater consistency in my results, and really level out the up and down pattern that had been my previous experience.
And what my previous knowledge has allowed me to assess is that the program espoused by Isagenix, is in fact based on much of the same science that I had been previously pursuing, but with the added benefit of making much of it "automatic". The simpler a program, I believe, the greater the odds of compliance.
I particularly like the "cleansing" portion, which I think of as their version of intermittent fasting, which I believe is one of the key pieces of the program.
I cannot make any kind of an evaluation of all of the various ingredients, herbal and otherwise, contained in all the Isagenix products, as I am not qualified to do so, but I have no reason to believe that anything is harmful, and that it is, in fact a program that overall, is a quantum leap of improvement over the way most people eat. (wish list: wish there were bars that did not contain any sugar alcohols as sweeteners, as those do not agree with me)
I've combined this with proper high intensity strength training, which I'd already been doing for 35 years. I am particularly enthused by the pre workout supplements, that I know have allowed me to do better in exercises, and I am anxious to see, with my next bod pod reading, whether all this will translate into added muscle. Of course, Isagenix is only one variable that could affect my body composition. Other factors, such as what I eat over and above Isagenix, as well as my sleep patterns and workout designs (frequency, volume, intensity variables) can play significant roles in this as well.
I plan to continue my Isagenix journey, and am grateful for both my progress and for my wife's success.
This challenge itself, involving the before and after photos and this essay, is in itself part of the success formula. This is one part of a very impressive support group, that naturally comes with the program, as you can track the success of others on an ongoing basis, and support groups have been proven to be pivotal in any life long change. I am looking forward to the next challenge.
I initially joined her in order to be supportive. Also, I was curious, as, having been a long time fitness enthusiast, I was intrigued by the program.
My wife has successfully lost over 45 pounds so far, and is more motivated than I've seen her in a long time. She has also begun strength training again, and is often the one initiating the suggestion to do a workout, which is exciting to see.
When I began my program, my goal was not weight loss. In fact, I joined mid-stream to working towards the goal of increasing my body weight over a 30 month period from 170 to 180 lbs, with that increase being in the form of muscle.
I have been monitoring my progress utilizing bod pod measurements, and so far the gain has been in the form of muscle. This is based on gaining 1 pound per quarter for 10 quarters. The bod pod measurements are to ensure that the gain, is in fact, muscle. Should future bod pod measurements indicate that I am gaining fat rather than muscle, then I will change my goal accordingly, as the over arching goal is to gain muscle while maintaining either the same or even more favourable body composition.
When I first began this challenge, I had allowed myself to slip off my chosen path and was at 178.2 when the target at that point would have been 173. As of this quarter, my goal is to be at 174, and, as of this morning my weight is at 174.2.
Previously, I would have been very skeptical of meal replacement programs such as this, and my preaching would have consisted of eating "real food". I would also have been pointing out that these types of programs fail to have someone learn about nutrition and develop habits that can be kept for a lifetime, and thus, dooming them to gain all the weight back and then some, as soon as they fell off the program.
My thoughts have changed somewhat (see a previous blog post entitled "In Defense of Fad Diets") in that, the idea of worrying about gaining weight back before you've even lost it in the first place, now seems to me to be a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Also, the regaining of weight, I now feel is as a direct result of going back to old habits, and not, as a result of the diet itself. Also, I've come to think that the criticism of any program on this basis, is somewhat unfair, as statistics show that 95% of all people who lose weight, regardless of method, eventually gain it all back and then some. So, virtually any program could be criticized for this.
What I would now tell people, is that when you begin any journey that involves formidable challenges, you should not underestimate your challenge, and you should go in, knowing that the odds are not in your favour, and that the commitment that it will take to reach your goal, one day at a time, will be both one of the hardest things you will ever do, and for the same reason, the most rewarding. However, anyone looking for any kind of quick fix, is doomed to failure before they start.
I would also like to touch on my earlier point, about such programs not allowing someone to become sufficiently knowledgeable about nutrition. In my case, I already had a much better understanding of this, than most people before going in.
For this reason, I've already had considerable success, but despite this knowledge, my success was often a case of falling off the wagon, and then getting back on, albeit, not allowing myself to stay off too long. Nevertheless inconsistency was my constant nemesis.
What this program has allowed me to do is create far greater consistency in my results, and really level out the up and down pattern that had been my previous experience.
And what my previous knowledge has allowed me to assess is that the program espoused by Isagenix, is in fact based on much of the same science that I had been previously pursuing, but with the added benefit of making much of it "automatic". The simpler a program, I believe, the greater the odds of compliance.
I particularly like the "cleansing" portion, which I think of as their version of intermittent fasting, which I believe is one of the key pieces of the program.
I cannot make any kind of an evaluation of all of the various ingredients, herbal and otherwise, contained in all the Isagenix products, as I am not qualified to do so, but I have no reason to believe that anything is harmful, and that it is, in fact a program that overall, is a quantum leap of improvement over the way most people eat. (wish list: wish there were bars that did not contain any sugar alcohols as sweeteners, as those do not agree with me)
I've combined this with proper high intensity strength training, which I'd already been doing for 35 years. I am particularly enthused by the pre workout supplements, that I know have allowed me to do better in exercises, and I am anxious to see, with my next bod pod reading, whether all this will translate into added muscle. Of course, Isagenix is only one variable that could affect my body composition. Other factors, such as what I eat over and above Isagenix, as well as my sleep patterns and workout designs (frequency, volume, intensity variables) can play significant roles in this as well.
I plan to continue my Isagenix journey, and am grateful for both my progress and for my wife's success.
This challenge itself, involving the before and after photos and this essay, is in itself part of the success formula. This is one part of a very impressive support group, that naturally comes with the program, as you can track the success of others on an ongoing basis, and support groups have been proven to be pivotal in any life long change. I am looking forward to the next challenge.
Oct 1, 2018
Beware the Self-evident
“Beware the ‘self-evident’” or “The importance of ‘critical thinking’”
Most people do not think for themselves. They prefer to have other people do their thinking for them.
Perhaps this is the result of being raised to “listen to their parents (or teachers, clergy, elders, fill in the blank)”…. whereas they develop the habit of conceding to whatever authority figure whose knowledge they consider superior to their own.
It may also involve laziness: one less thing to do, as it seems that other people are more than willing to do it for you.
It is actually also rewarding (in the short term), as thinking things through can often get in the way of satisfying whims, such as passing quick judgments on others, or indulging in behavior that provides short term pleasure, without having to ponder the long term consequences.
A few other people are somewhat aware of this, and are more than willing to take advantage of this situation, knowing that swaying opinions is relatively easy with sheep who are just looking for some person or set of ideas to follow. These people could be dictators, or other power seekers, or advertisers, who cannot help but seize what they consider an excellent opportunity. Ironically, even these parties are only somewhat aware….as they are not actually thinking things all the way through either, otherwise they would realize that exploitation, while providing short-term gain, will ultimately be detrimental to themselves as well.
At this point, it is probably helpful to define what I mean by “thinking”. Our waking moments are filled with “thoughts”, however what I am referring to is the asking and answering of questions such as:
“What is this?”
“What does it mean?”
“What are the short term and long term consequences of taking a specific action (or not doing so)?”
“How do I know X is actually true? (Or not)?
In other words, I am referring to the full use of the unique human faculty of utilizing our intellect to the extent of our individual ability. (Which is how human beings survive and achieve happiness)
None of us is omniscient or even anywhere close to being fully knowledgeable in the countless subjects that we will need to deal with in our lifetimes, and, while we will consult with others who have specialized knowledge on a regular basis, this is quite different from simply accepting those views uncritically. (letting so called experts do our thinking for us.)
One of the methods by which exploiters do the exploiting is by giving you part of the truth that appears to be “self-evident” counting on the fact, that this will be enough to gain your support, because it just seems too counterintuitive to challenge, and possibly very unpopular as well.
On this last point (popularity), I should add that another powerful motivation for “group-think” is to “fit in”. While this has been criticized as “second handed thinking”, which I agree with, I believe there is an evolutionary explanation as to why this behavior appears to be so ingrained.
In primitive times, being part of the “tribe” (safety in numbers, division of labour, relative safety from hostile tribes or predators, ability to hunt as a group), the reality of being ostracized from the tribe was very likely to be a life and death issue. Witch doctors and tyrannical “chiefs” took good advantage of this to their own short-term advantage. This does not justify groupthink, but for me it makes it more understandable that thinking for yourself can involve resisting powerful evolutionary influences.
Getting back to the partial “self-evident” truth strategy used to exploit you, some examples of what has been considered to be above questioning include:
“The common good”
“Helping the poor”
“Peace is better than war”
“Being green”
“You have a ‘right’ to a basic standard of living”
“Religion is morality”
All of the above have been the “ends” that have justified many of history’s bloodiest atrocities (the means), not to mention simply depriving people of legitimate human rights. Top of the list “the common good”, I believe is the one that often encompasses all the others and millions upon millions have had their rights taken away, including their right to life, with this as a justification.
Whether “self-evident” equals “true” depends on context…..
The common good is a value, but it cannot justify the sacrifice of even one individual, so ask yourself if you also agree with human sacrifice before you accept this wholesale.
Helping the poor is also a value, but it does not represent an obligation or a duty, or a justification to take by force from one to give to another. Proper charity must be voluntary, so again, ask yourself if you also agree with the use of force.
Peace IS definitely better than war, but appeasing a tiger when you have your head in his mouth, is not really a great option. Threrefore, also ask yourself, if you agree that it is proper to deprive someone of the right to self-defense.
Being green (whatever that actually means), in the context of not polluting unnecessarily is also a proper value, but it does not justify restricting life giving and life saving technology to do so.
Having a “right to a basic standard of living” is a contradiction in terms. We have a right to take action, but not a right to outcomes, because a right to any “outcome value” must, by definition, take away the right of whoever actually produces that value, making that person a slave.
While religion may (or may not) have started out as a form of philosophy that did deal with ethical concerns, and it is an attempt by many to reach for the highest within themselves, it has shown to have countless contradictions and has resulted in a myriad of atrocities throughout history and still today. It is, at best, misguided, and at worse, a tool to simply achieve power over others.
Ethics involves rational self-interest in which individuals recognize logically, that living in harmony with one’s fellow men, respecting everyone’s proper rights, especially the right to fully develop and practice the virtue of productivity to everyone’s own individual ability is obviously desirable. Productivity benefits the producer, which is his rightful motive, but also, by definition, benefits everyone else, so that a rational code of morality creates no conflicts between anyone.
These are just a handful of examples, and a fuller explanation of each is beyond the scope of a brief blog entry. However, I’m hoping I’ve given the reader something to “think for themselves” about.
I will end by paraphrasing Mark Twain’s quote…”if you find yourself, agreeing with the majority, it’s time to questions your beliefs.”
Thanks for reading.
Most people do not think for themselves. They prefer to have other people do their thinking for them.
Perhaps this is the result of being raised to “listen to their parents (or teachers, clergy, elders, fill in the blank)”…. whereas they develop the habit of conceding to whatever authority figure whose knowledge they consider superior to their own.
It may also involve laziness: one less thing to do, as it seems that other people are more than willing to do it for you.
It is actually also rewarding (in the short term), as thinking things through can often get in the way of satisfying whims, such as passing quick judgments on others, or indulging in behavior that provides short term pleasure, without having to ponder the long term consequences.
A few other people are somewhat aware of this, and are more than willing to take advantage of this situation, knowing that swaying opinions is relatively easy with sheep who are just looking for some person or set of ideas to follow. These people could be dictators, or other power seekers, or advertisers, who cannot help but seize what they consider an excellent opportunity. Ironically, even these parties are only somewhat aware….as they are not actually thinking things all the way through either, otherwise they would realize that exploitation, while providing short-term gain, will ultimately be detrimental to themselves as well.
At this point, it is probably helpful to define what I mean by “thinking”. Our waking moments are filled with “thoughts”, however what I am referring to is the asking and answering of questions such as:
“What is this?”
“What does it mean?”
“What are the short term and long term consequences of taking a specific action (or not doing so)?”
“How do I know X is actually true? (Or not)?
In other words, I am referring to the full use of the unique human faculty of utilizing our intellect to the extent of our individual ability. (Which is how human beings survive and achieve happiness)
None of us is omniscient or even anywhere close to being fully knowledgeable in the countless subjects that we will need to deal with in our lifetimes, and, while we will consult with others who have specialized knowledge on a regular basis, this is quite different from simply accepting those views uncritically. (letting so called experts do our thinking for us.)
One of the methods by which exploiters do the exploiting is by giving you part of the truth that appears to be “self-evident” counting on the fact, that this will be enough to gain your support, because it just seems too counterintuitive to challenge, and possibly very unpopular as well.
On this last point (popularity), I should add that another powerful motivation for “group-think” is to “fit in”. While this has been criticized as “second handed thinking”, which I agree with, I believe there is an evolutionary explanation as to why this behavior appears to be so ingrained.
In primitive times, being part of the “tribe” (safety in numbers, division of labour, relative safety from hostile tribes or predators, ability to hunt as a group), the reality of being ostracized from the tribe was very likely to be a life and death issue. Witch doctors and tyrannical “chiefs” took good advantage of this to their own short-term advantage. This does not justify groupthink, but for me it makes it more understandable that thinking for yourself can involve resisting powerful evolutionary influences.
Getting back to the partial “self-evident” truth strategy used to exploit you, some examples of what has been considered to be above questioning include:
“The common good”
“Helping the poor”
“Peace is better than war”
“Being green”
“You have a ‘right’ to a basic standard of living”
“Religion is morality”
All of the above have been the “ends” that have justified many of history’s bloodiest atrocities (the means), not to mention simply depriving people of legitimate human rights. Top of the list “the common good”, I believe is the one that often encompasses all the others and millions upon millions have had their rights taken away, including their right to life, with this as a justification.
Whether “self-evident” equals “true” depends on context…..
The common good is a value, but it cannot justify the sacrifice of even one individual, so ask yourself if you also agree with human sacrifice before you accept this wholesale.
Helping the poor is also a value, but it does not represent an obligation or a duty, or a justification to take by force from one to give to another. Proper charity must be voluntary, so again, ask yourself if you also agree with the use of force.
Peace IS definitely better than war, but appeasing a tiger when you have your head in his mouth, is not really a great option. Threrefore, also ask yourself, if you agree that it is proper to deprive someone of the right to self-defense.
Being green (whatever that actually means), in the context of not polluting unnecessarily is also a proper value, but it does not justify restricting life giving and life saving technology to do so.
Having a “right to a basic standard of living” is a contradiction in terms. We have a right to take action, but not a right to outcomes, because a right to any “outcome value” must, by definition, take away the right of whoever actually produces that value, making that person a slave.
While religion may (or may not) have started out as a form of philosophy that did deal with ethical concerns, and it is an attempt by many to reach for the highest within themselves, it has shown to have countless contradictions and has resulted in a myriad of atrocities throughout history and still today. It is, at best, misguided, and at worse, a tool to simply achieve power over others.
Ethics involves rational self-interest in which individuals recognize logically, that living in harmony with one’s fellow men, respecting everyone’s proper rights, especially the right to fully develop and practice the virtue of productivity to everyone’s own individual ability is obviously desirable. Productivity benefits the producer, which is his rightful motive, but also, by definition, benefits everyone else, so that a rational code of morality creates no conflicts between anyone.
These are just a handful of examples, and a fuller explanation of each is beyond the scope of a brief blog entry. However, I’m hoping I’ve given the reader something to “think for themselves” about.
I will end by paraphrasing Mark Twain’s quote…”if you find yourself, agreeing with the majority, it’s time to questions your beliefs.”
Thanks for reading.
Aug 18, 2018
Random: Scrooge/Frankenstein movies, false dichotomies and Moochers, Looters and producers
There have been 2 movie themes that have been done over and over again by Hollywood, ad nauseam.
Scrooge theme: greedy selfish business man who cares not for family or values and is obsessed with money... and learns the error of his ways, and finishes with him realizing money is evil and higher "spiritual values" are superior. Examples: "It's a wonderful life" "The Family Man" and countless others. Same story, different specifics.
Frankenstein theme: Man thinks he's too smart for his own good, and through technology tampers with nature, and to put him in his place, nature bites him in the face. Examples: Jurassic series, China Syndrome, Avatar, and again, countless others.
In both cases, western capitalistic values are inherently attacked.
False dichotomy: In both of these themes, what is so misleading and malevolent, is that is presented as self-evident that it is either/or.... Family vs material success/achievement or Technology and man vs. nature. This is a con job.
Material success/achievement enhances family, self esteem and quality of life. Technology is what took us from a life of daily struggle for survival to a quality of life that allows us to pursue arts, spend time with family and offer opportunities for loved ones, not to mention substantially reducing disease and suffering and providing for medical care, reducing child birth death of children and mothers and extending life. Classic throwing out baby with bath water.
Survival on desert island called Earth:
Those damned in movies above are PRODUCERS of material wealth. Alone on a desert island, I have two alternatives: survival or death. To the extent that I am able and willing to take the correct actions that will lead to my survival, I can survive, and presumably also achieve happiness. If I fail to do so, either by choice or inability, I I die. If I choose to do so, I am a PRODUCER.
If there are two of us on island and we are both PRODUCERS, we can pool our efforts and synergistically enhance our existence. However if one of us is a LOOTER, someone who decides that, rather than PRODUCE, they will use force or fraud to steal the product of the PRODUCER, then odds of survival will be compromised. Either the PRODUCER gives in to LOOTER and attempts to produce for two, or he chooses to defend his rights, if he can, and the LOOTER can either perish or realize that he too, needs to become a PRODUCER if he wants to survive.
Also, if one of us is a MOOCHER, who again, decides that, rather than PRODUCE, they will appeal to the PRODUCER'S pity, and try to convince him that he owes a duty to provide for the MOOCHER. Again the odds of survival will be compromised, and the PRODUCER either gives in and attempts to produce for two, or through "tough love" if you will, let the MOOCHER know that he has to fend for himself. The MOOCHER then can choose to perish or also become a PRODUCER.
Well, the movie themes above are essentially condemning the PRODUCER.... which is essentially biting the hand that feeds us. If you doubt the hypocrisy of these movies, remember that they extensively use technology in order to make millions of dollars, while condemning the characters doing exactly the same. Why does this work? Because, we've been conned for centuries with these false dichotomies.
On this desert island, called EARTH, you are either a PRODUCER (who does the best he can to the limits of his ability while revering those of greater ability who produce on a wider scale and make all our lives better), or you are a MOOCHER or a LOOTER. The choice should be obvious.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. There are a few (a very few) people who legitimately need help without being moochers, and a PRODUCER can and should help in those instances, because it is to his benefit to alleviate general unearned human suffering. Keep in mind though, that even challenged individuals of character will always want an opportunity to PRODUCE if at all possible, rather than accept handouts, as what they want even more than alleviating suffering, is dignity, a sense of independence and self-esteem.
P.S. (2) If someone loses perspective and pursues material goods in order to impress other people, or ignores his health or his family in the process, that person has also made an error of reasoning, but that is a separate issue.
Scrooge theme: greedy selfish business man who cares not for family or values and is obsessed with money... and learns the error of his ways, and finishes with him realizing money is evil and higher "spiritual values" are superior. Examples: "It's a wonderful life" "The Family Man" and countless others. Same story, different specifics.
Frankenstein theme: Man thinks he's too smart for his own good, and through technology tampers with nature, and to put him in his place, nature bites him in the face. Examples: Jurassic series, China Syndrome, Avatar, and again, countless others.
In both cases, western capitalistic values are inherently attacked.
False dichotomy: In both of these themes, what is so misleading and malevolent, is that is presented as self-evident that it is either/or.... Family vs material success/achievement or Technology and man vs. nature. This is a con job.
Material success/achievement enhances family, self esteem and quality of life. Technology is what took us from a life of daily struggle for survival to a quality of life that allows us to pursue arts, spend time with family and offer opportunities for loved ones, not to mention substantially reducing disease and suffering and providing for medical care, reducing child birth death of children and mothers and extending life. Classic throwing out baby with bath water.
Survival on desert island called Earth:
Those damned in movies above are PRODUCERS of material wealth. Alone on a desert island, I have two alternatives: survival or death. To the extent that I am able and willing to take the correct actions that will lead to my survival, I can survive, and presumably also achieve happiness. If I fail to do so, either by choice or inability, I I die. If I choose to do so, I am a PRODUCER.
If there are two of us on island and we are both PRODUCERS, we can pool our efforts and synergistically enhance our existence. However if one of us is a LOOTER, someone who decides that, rather than PRODUCE, they will use force or fraud to steal the product of the PRODUCER, then odds of survival will be compromised. Either the PRODUCER gives in to LOOTER and attempts to produce for two, or he chooses to defend his rights, if he can, and the LOOTER can either perish or realize that he too, needs to become a PRODUCER if he wants to survive.
Also, if one of us is a MOOCHER, who again, decides that, rather than PRODUCE, they will appeal to the PRODUCER'S pity, and try to convince him that he owes a duty to provide for the MOOCHER. Again the odds of survival will be compromised, and the PRODUCER either gives in and attempts to produce for two, or through "tough love" if you will, let the MOOCHER know that he has to fend for himself. The MOOCHER then can choose to perish or also become a PRODUCER.
Well, the movie themes above are essentially condemning the PRODUCER.... which is essentially biting the hand that feeds us. If you doubt the hypocrisy of these movies, remember that they extensively use technology in order to make millions of dollars, while condemning the characters doing exactly the same. Why does this work? Because, we've been conned for centuries with these false dichotomies.
On this desert island, called EARTH, you are either a PRODUCER (who does the best he can to the limits of his ability while revering those of greater ability who produce on a wider scale and make all our lives better), or you are a MOOCHER or a LOOTER. The choice should be obvious.
Thanks for reading.
P.S. There are a few (a very few) people who legitimately need help without being moochers, and a PRODUCER can and should help in those instances, because it is to his benefit to alleviate general unearned human suffering. Keep in mind though, that even challenged individuals of character will always want an opportunity to PRODUCE if at all possible, rather than accept handouts, as what they want even more than alleviating suffering, is dignity, a sense of independence and self-esteem.
P.S. (2) If someone loses perspective and pursues material goods in order to impress other people, or ignores his health or his family in the process, that person has also made an error of reasoning, but that is a separate issue.
Feb 25, 2018
Is HIT superior or not? Is new "evidence" convincing or are we losing track of some fundamentals in quest for magic pill?
Hats off to Lawrence Neal for his excellent podcasts. I have not been finding sufficient time to catch all of them, but have caught several and find very interesting. I believe he is providing a valuable service and I regularly share his links on social media and have decided in a small way to support him through Patreon, and encourage others to do so.
I sincerely wish him great success, (selfishly as well as for him.)
However, I'm seeing a trend in both some of the opinions shared by some of his guests, and also in some of the dialogue I'm reading from various social media sources that seems to point to a change in thinking.
What has long been a mainstay of HIT, (dogma, some would say) which is that brief, intense, infrequent training is the superior methodology overall, and now there appears by some to be a concession, that it may not be "optimal" but simply "most efficient" and "safest", however, optimal results will be obtained by greater volume and or frequency and or variety.
Most, however do admit that there is a major application of the law of diminishing returns here, and that HIT will provide 90-95% of available benefits from strength training and that any alleged additional benefits may make little difference to the vast majority of population, however, for elite athletes, bodybuilders or people who are seeking to reach 100% of their genetic potential in terms of muscle hypertrophy, HIT will simply not get you all the way there. (hate labels, but for purpose of blog, I will assume HIT to mean "brief, infrequent, intense, and in good form to properly target muscles and avoid injury from excessive force from momentum or in overstretched positions".)
On this alone, one could term HIT to be "best" for sheer safety, efficiency and sustainability, as a recent guest of Lawrence has stated, "the best workout is the one you actually do". One will not continue a lifelong exercise program if time constraints make it impossible or overly disruptive to lifestyle, or obviously, if acutely or chronically injured. (see link to previous blog). The only people who will devote the extra time, if that is indeed, optimal, are people for whom conditioning is in fact directly, or indirectly what they do for a living, (models, athletes, trainers) or obsessive types who have little else going on in their lives outside the gym (careers, relationships, etc)
However, one of the general premises, as I interpreted the writings of Arthur Jones, was that, although genetically gifted and or drug aided specimens could obviously achieve spectacular results on high volume * programs, they did so, DESPITE their methodologies and not BECAUSE of them, and would have achieved superior results following HIT principles, or the same results in less time.
In the end, the debate should be, in my opinion, whether the above underlined statement is true, or whether the previous assertion referring to HIT only getting you part way, albeit more efficiently is true. It must be one or the other; it can't be both.
Now there are a number of confounding issues that are major obstacles in determining the answer to the above.
No clear definitions or delineation between HIT and HVT: Long before the term HIT was even coined, traditional strength training, was of a relatively lower volume and frequency and consisted primarily of 3 full body routines per week. Early iterations of HIT as per early Darden books advocated 20 set workouts including 2 sets of 20 squats in the same workout, and performing these 3 times per week, which would be considered very high volume compared to most of the more abbreviated routines that purport to be HIT today. If you were to time the actual time under load of so called HVT practitioners, you would find in many and perhaps most cases, that, after taking away, socializing, water drinking, and endless warm up sets with insignificant loads, and rapid cadences that enable a 10 rep set to be done in 20-30 seconds, that HIT practitioners, actually have more volume in their methodology than otherwise.
Selection bias: virtually no one is satisfied with their results, including genetically gifted drug using freaks and certainly not natural, genetically average and genetically below average people, (in terms of response to exercise and potential to have excessively large muscles) and as such we are ripe to be exploited. We know that extremely small percentages of the population even exercise consistently. One of the main reasons for this is that people who tend to get quick results tend to stick with it, and those who don't, tend to move on to other activities. Of those who do exercise consistently, a significant number do not even have muscle hypertrophy as a goal, and may find large muscles unsightly, Also, many world class athletes who are, by definition several degrees to the right of the bell curve, do not have very large muscles, and yet, when we see photos, or just the guy next to us, at the local gym with big muscles, we find it very difficult to remain objective, and wonder whether we've missed out on something that would be the recipe for greater success, (seemingly forgetting that we did exactly what this individual is doing, years ago and didn't get good results..)
Results subjective.... I listen to many of the guests on Lawrence's podcasts from both the HIT and HVT camps and I'm very disappointed to hear them refer to results using terminology such as "muscles feeling fuller"..... "looking better", increases in reps/tul's or weight lifted. With the possible exception of the latter, these terms are of no use to me at all in evaluating whether said source is making a valid point or not. And even performance can be extremely subjective, unless reps are standardized. Gary Knight made a good point of only counting reps that are 4 second up or 4 seconds down or 4 seconds up, 2 second hold and 4 seconds down. (I assume the former is where the upper turnaround has no resistance such as a leg or chest press and latter is where there is resistance at upper turnaround, such as a pulldown or row.) I personally like 10 seconds up and 4-5 seconds down on conventional equipment, but the long positive does give one the opportunity to linger in the easy part of the rep and move quickly out of the tough part, which is more difficult with a 4 second positive. Nonetheless, even with standard cadence, there is still a fair amount of subjectivity. (skill acquisition vs strength gains) When I first began this blog, my main argument was to be that only a dexa scan or bod pod measurement should be used to determine whether a given method was superior or not, because this presumably would tell you whether or not you are actually adding lean muscle mass. However, apparently even these methods may be subjective. More on this later.
How results of studies can be exaggerated based on small sample sizes (link to last McGuff podcast)
Perhaps a final definite answer is not even possible. As has been pointed out, exercise research is generally very poorly done, with small samples (both in terms of time and number of participants) and poor measuring tools. Gary Knight also pointed out that quite a large majority of folks will simply never put in the required effort that HIT demands, and Doug McGuff has suggested that certain individuals may be literally unable to "go to failure" but can still get good results.
So here is where I land: First of all, rather than speak of HIT or HVT as polarities, I think it is more helpful to think of things as a continuum, or perhaps a number of continuums that will likely involve most if not all of the list below. (several of which overlap each other)
Volume
Intensity
Frequency
Variety
Load/Progression
Form.
Sleep.
Nutrition.
Non exercise activity.
Volume: We can agree there is a limit, however what that limit is will vary greatly from individual and affected by intensity, sleep and nutrition, in that order. Exceed the volume you can recover from and results will stall or regress. While I disagree with the idea of doing the least amount needed, I simply don't think this is where I would put my money in terms of which factor to increase to make any measurable difference. I would add that greater volume may, in some individuals, for some periods of time, produce marginally greater results, it may do so at the cost of increasing chronic overuse injuries.
Intensity: Hard work, which may or may not involve failure, going beyond failure, negatives, jreps, x-force etc., is critical and I don't think any camps dispute this. Again, though there is a limit and while this is one of the areas, I would suggest can be pivotal in making a difference, one should be careful to not fall into the "more is better" mistake here either.
Frequency: This is likely the area, that I have, using Lawrence's standard, "what have you changed your mind about?" question, become far more open minded. I no longer believe that one must necessarily wait X number of days to be fully recovered. Analogies have been drawn between suntans (Mike Mentzer) and the forming of callouses (Darden) and, as a wannabe guitar player, I know that callouses grow from daily low intensity practice. Again, this likely varies from individual to individual, but I can see where greater frequency may well benefit some, even if they do lower intensity (ntf workouts?).... Bringing volume back into the equation.... an example: If someone does work out 4, 5 or even 7 days a week, but the total number of intense sets are still moderate to low, then I do think the greater frequency can be beneficial to some, but even if not, I can't see how it would be detrimental. Perhaps my bias, but I also find a set of push ups or chin ups is a great way to start my day, and my own experience has been that I often increase the number of reps I do of the same exercise even repeating it 2, 3 or even 4 days in a row. Certainly skill acquisition could explain partially, and I will concede that reps are not standardized, but it does seem to contradict the idea that I need to be fully recovered, which would suggest that my performance should regress rather than progress.
Variety: Going back to measuring, I think a combination of standardized reps and bod pod measurements may be as close as we can get to objectively measuring results short of a muscle biopsy. While standardized reps offer an excellent measuring tool, I do believe variety helps me to keep intensity high because I train myself. When being trained by someone else, standardized reps to positive failure seem far more intense than when I train myself. However, by adding things like breakdowns, jreps, myo reps, rest pause, negatives, I make it impossible for me to "wimp out". There is evidence that different individuals will benefit more from lighter or heavier loads, shorter or longer sets etc, and some have suggested ways of determining this, but I'm not sure how accurate those methods, are, and I also suspect that they change over time, so I see no harm in adding variety and I think there would be a benefit in ensuring different fiber types are all getting stimulus.
Load/Progression: Recently evidence has been presented that one can get good results with lighter loads as long as they go to failure. That actually does make sense to me. In fact, if it is the last rep or three that is the actual stimulus, the number of reps that precede it, are likely not that relevant. Having said that, again, this will vary from individual to individual so to repeat my comments in variety, why not vary loads so that all fiber types can be stimulated. As for progression, not sure how much that matters other than as a measuring tool. I stated that measuring would be a combination of standardized reps and body composition measurements but the challenge I've long had with progression is that even very modest increases over a period of years quickly become huge numbers. If I do 10 reps in the pulldown with 100 lbs using the 4 seconds up, 2 second hold and 4 seconds down cadence, and I progress at the agonizingly slow pace of 1 lb per month, a 20 year old person would be using 340 lbs by the time he/she was 40. I don't know of too many people who can do that. Not really making a hard point here, but just stating that I take progression with a grain of salt.
Form: Critical for three reasons, the first being the most vital: Safety: Doesn't matter whether you agree with me on anything else, if you injure yourself, your results will suck. Secondly, effectiveness of an exercise by properly working the targeted muscles; important but probably overly emphasized, and I base this simply on the fact that big compound movements tend to work your body as a whole, however, back to point one safety, and thirdly for measurement: see previous comments on measuring progress in conjunction with measuring body composition. And, in defense, of loosening form... I have also speculated the following: while fully acknowledging the dangers inherent in bad form for the sake of more weight and/or reps, I have also considered that when focusing on form and "feeling" the burn, a set may be ended prematurely ended because one fully senses the effort, whereas someone fully focused on reaching a pre determined number of reps, may be more apt to ignore the pain, as they single mindedly drive towards their target.... also placebo effect: when people hit measurable targets, they believe in their progress, and albeit, it may be in large part be skill acquisition, the power of belief (placebo) may also contribute to actual progress. A balance between the two?
Sleep: Likely should be at the top of the list. All the research, the anecdotes, the arguments etc etc. are largely being done on a sleep deprived population. No matter what else you may be doing right, it is straightening chairs on the Titanic if you are actually sleep deprived. (in my not so humble opinion)
Nutrition: Can I summarize in one paragraph? Here goes: get enough protein, depending on your current size, gender, etc....between 120-220 grams per day most of it from animal sources. If your goal is muscle gain, then calories should be in a slight surplus, and if your goal is fat loss, then a slight deficit. Somewhere in that range, I do believe you can achieve both simultaneously. A wide variety of food from unprocessed sources including fruits and vegetables. (though I don't see a problem with carnivore diets) Breakdown of fat and/or carbs within these parameters likely not that big a deal. Your body can deal with either if total calories are as stated above, and you are getting from good sources. Don't seek to eliminate or overemphasize either. (carnivore? still thinking that one over) Grains are not the devil but I don't think the majority of your carbs should come from them. Processed vegetable oils are bad. Fasting, intermittent or occasional water fasts are good, and this could include potato hacks (google it), which in my opinion is just a variation on fasting, where the main benefit is to give your body a protein break. Most of the above is about health rather than hypertrophy, though obviously the two overlap.... for directly related to hypertrophy, it is about protein and calories. (speculation: alternating between carnivore and potato hacks?)
Non exercise activity: The idea that you need to do nothing between workouts in order to avoid interfering with your recovery is neither practical or advisable and I believe that is now generally accepted as having been early hit dogma. The logic seemed to make sense at the time, but new research shows differently. There are a myriad of health benefits from just moving a lot especially for those of us who are desk bound. It might make sense for a construction worker or an athlete. Taking the stairs, parking a block away and getting up and stretching, arm circles etc throughout the day, can enhance recovery, and in any case, what is the point of getting a stronger body if you don't take it out for a spin. Again, another thing I've changed my mind about.
So is HIT superior? I don't really know, or can't prove, but assuming you can find the optimal spot on all the continuums above, I suspect what you will end up with, whatever you choose to label it, will involve a greater emphasis on intensity than it will on volume and will by necessity, due to Arthur's principle that you can work hard but not very much, or you can work long but not very hard.
Thanks for reading.
I sincerely wish him great success, (selfishly as well as for him.)
However, I'm seeing a trend in both some of the opinions shared by some of his guests, and also in some of the dialogue I'm reading from various social media sources that seems to point to a change in thinking.
What has long been a mainstay of HIT, (dogma, some would say) which is that brief, intense, infrequent training is the superior methodology overall, and now there appears by some to be a concession, that it may not be "optimal" but simply "most efficient" and "safest", however, optimal results will be obtained by greater volume and or frequency and or variety.
Most, however do admit that there is a major application of the law of diminishing returns here, and that HIT will provide 90-95% of available benefits from strength training and that any alleged additional benefits may make little difference to the vast majority of population, however, for elite athletes, bodybuilders or people who are seeking to reach 100% of their genetic potential in terms of muscle hypertrophy, HIT will simply not get you all the way there. (hate labels, but for purpose of blog, I will assume HIT to mean "brief, infrequent, intense, and in good form to properly target muscles and avoid injury from excessive force from momentum or in overstretched positions".)
On this alone, one could term HIT to be "best" for sheer safety, efficiency and sustainability, as a recent guest of Lawrence has stated, "the best workout is the one you actually do". One will not continue a lifelong exercise program if time constraints make it impossible or overly disruptive to lifestyle, or obviously, if acutely or chronically injured. (see link to previous blog). The only people who will devote the extra time, if that is indeed, optimal, are people for whom conditioning is in fact directly, or indirectly what they do for a living, (models, athletes, trainers) or obsessive types who have little else going on in their lives outside the gym (careers, relationships, etc)
However, one of the general premises, as I interpreted the writings of Arthur Jones, was that, although genetically gifted and or drug aided specimens could obviously achieve spectacular results on high volume * programs, they did so, DESPITE their methodologies and not BECAUSE of them, and would have achieved superior results following HIT principles, or the same results in less time.
In the end, the debate should be, in my opinion, whether the above underlined statement is true, or whether the previous assertion referring to HIT only getting you part way, albeit more efficiently is true. It must be one or the other; it can't be both.
Now there are a number of confounding issues that are major obstacles in determining the answer to the above.
No clear definitions or delineation between HIT and HVT: Long before the term HIT was even coined, traditional strength training, was of a relatively lower volume and frequency and consisted primarily of 3 full body routines per week. Early iterations of HIT as per early Darden books advocated 20 set workouts including 2 sets of 20 squats in the same workout, and performing these 3 times per week, which would be considered very high volume compared to most of the more abbreviated routines that purport to be HIT today. If you were to time the actual time under load of so called HVT practitioners, you would find in many and perhaps most cases, that, after taking away, socializing, water drinking, and endless warm up sets with insignificant loads, and rapid cadences that enable a 10 rep set to be done in 20-30 seconds, that HIT practitioners, actually have more volume in their methodology than otherwise.
Selection bias: virtually no one is satisfied with their results, including genetically gifted drug using freaks and certainly not natural, genetically average and genetically below average people, (in terms of response to exercise and potential to have excessively large muscles) and as such we are ripe to be exploited. We know that extremely small percentages of the population even exercise consistently. One of the main reasons for this is that people who tend to get quick results tend to stick with it, and those who don't, tend to move on to other activities. Of those who do exercise consistently, a significant number do not even have muscle hypertrophy as a goal, and may find large muscles unsightly, Also, many world class athletes who are, by definition several degrees to the right of the bell curve, do not have very large muscles, and yet, when we see photos, or just the guy next to us, at the local gym with big muscles, we find it very difficult to remain objective, and wonder whether we've missed out on something that would be the recipe for greater success, (seemingly forgetting that we did exactly what this individual is doing, years ago and didn't get good results..)
Results subjective.... I listen to many of the guests on Lawrence's podcasts from both the HIT and HVT camps and I'm very disappointed to hear them refer to results using terminology such as "muscles feeling fuller"..... "looking better", increases in reps/tul's or weight lifted. With the possible exception of the latter, these terms are of no use to me at all in evaluating whether said source is making a valid point or not. And even performance can be extremely subjective, unless reps are standardized. Gary Knight made a good point of only counting reps that are 4 second up or 4 seconds down or 4 seconds up, 2 second hold and 4 seconds down. (I assume the former is where the upper turnaround has no resistance such as a leg or chest press and latter is where there is resistance at upper turnaround, such as a pulldown or row.) I personally like 10 seconds up and 4-5 seconds down on conventional equipment, but the long positive does give one the opportunity to linger in the easy part of the rep and move quickly out of the tough part, which is more difficult with a 4 second positive. Nonetheless, even with standard cadence, there is still a fair amount of subjectivity. (skill acquisition vs strength gains) When I first began this blog, my main argument was to be that only a dexa scan or bod pod measurement should be used to determine whether a given method was superior or not, because this presumably would tell you whether or not you are actually adding lean muscle mass. However, apparently even these methods may be subjective. More on this later.
How results of studies can be exaggerated based on small sample sizes (link to last McGuff podcast)
Perhaps a final definite answer is not even possible. As has been pointed out, exercise research is generally very poorly done, with small samples (both in terms of time and number of participants) and poor measuring tools. Gary Knight also pointed out that quite a large majority of folks will simply never put in the required effort that HIT demands, and Doug McGuff has suggested that certain individuals may be literally unable to "go to failure" but can still get good results.
So here is where I land: First of all, rather than speak of HIT or HVT as polarities, I think it is more helpful to think of things as a continuum, or perhaps a number of continuums that will likely involve most if not all of the list below. (several of which overlap each other)
Volume
Intensity
Frequency
Variety
Load/Progression
Form.
Sleep.
Nutrition.
Non exercise activity.
Volume: We can agree there is a limit, however what that limit is will vary greatly from individual and affected by intensity, sleep and nutrition, in that order. Exceed the volume you can recover from and results will stall or regress. While I disagree with the idea of doing the least amount needed, I simply don't think this is where I would put my money in terms of which factor to increase to make any measurable difference. I would add that greater volume may, in some individuals, for some periods of time, produce marginally greater results, it may do so at the cost of increasing chronic overuse injuries.
Intensity: Hard work, which may or may not involve failure, going beyond failure, negatives, jreps, x-force etc., is critical and I don't think any camps dispute this. Again, though there is a limit and while this is one of the areas, I would suggest can be pivotal in making a difference, one should be careful to not fall into the "more is better" mistake here either.
Frequency: This is likely the area, that I have, using Lawrence's standard, "what have you changed your mind about?" question, become far more open minded. I no longer believe that one must necessarily wait X number of days to be fully recovered. Analogies have been drawn between suntans (Mike Mentzer) and the forming of callouses (Darden) and, as a wannabe guitar player, I know that callouses grow from daily low intensity practice. Again, this likely varies from individual to individual, but I can see where greater frequency may well benefit some, even if they do lower intensity (ntf workouts?).... Bringing volume back into the equation.... an example: If someone does work out 4, 5 or even 7 days a week, but the total number of intense sets are still moderate to low, then I do think the greater frequency can be beneficial to some, but even if not, I can't see how it would be detrimental. Perhaps my bias, but I also find a set of push ups or chin ups is a great way to start my day, and my own experience has been that I often increase the number of reps I do of the same exercise even repeating it 2, 3 or even 4 days in a row. Certainly skill acquisition could explain partially, and I will concede that reps are not standardized, but it does seem to contradict the idea that I need to be fully recovered, which would suggest that my performance should regress rather than progress.
Variety: Going back to measuring, I think a combination of standardized reps and bod pod measurements may be as close as we can get to objectively measuring results short of a muscle biopsy. While standardized reps offer an excellent measuring tool, I do believe variety helps me to keep intensity high because I train myself. When being trained by someone else, standardized reps to positive failure seem far more intense than when I train myself. However, by adding things like breakdowns, jreps, myo reps, rest pause, negatives, I make it impossible for me to "wimp out". There is evidence that different individuals will benefit more from lighter or heavier loads, shorter or longer sets etc, and some have suggested ways of determining this, but I'm not sure how accurate those methods, are, and I also suspect that they change over time, so I see no harm in adding variety and I think there would be a benefit in ensuring different fiber types are all getting stimulus.
Load/Progression: Recently evidence has been presented that one can get good results with lighter loads as long as they go to failure. That actually does make sense to me. In fact, if it is the last rep or three that is the actual stimulus, the number of reps that precede it, are likely not that relevant. Having said that, again, this will vary from individual to individual so to repeat my comments in variety, why not vary loads so that all fiber types can be stimulated. As for progression, not sure how much that matters other than as a measuring tool. I stated that measuring would be a combination of standardized reps and body composition measurements but the challenge I've long had with progression is that even very modest increases over a period of years quickly become huge numbers. If I do 10 reps in the pulldown with 100 lbs using the 4 seconds up, 2 second hold and 4 seconds down cadence, and I progress at the agonizingly slow pace of 1 lb per month, a 20 year old person would be using 340 lbs by the time he/she was 40. I don't know of too many people who can do that. Not really making a hard point here, but just stating that I take progression with a grain of salt.
Form: Critical for three reasons, the first being the most vital: Safety: Doesn't matter whether you agree with me on anything else, if you injure yourself, your results will suck. Secondly, effectiveness of an exercise by properly working the targeted muscles; important but probably overly emphasized, and I base this simply on the fact that big compound movements tend to work your body as a whole, however, back to point one safety, and thirdly for measurement: see previous comments on measuring progress in conjunction with measuring body composition. And, in defense, of loosening form... I have also speculated the following: while fully acknowledging the dangers inherent in bad form for the sake of more weight and/or reps, I have also considered that when focusing on form and "feeling" the burn, a set may be ended prematurely ended because one fully senses the effort, whereas someone fully focused on reaching a pre determined number of reps, may be more apt to ignore the pain, as they single mindedly drive towards their target.... also placebo effect: when people hit measurable targets, they believe in their progress, and albeit, it may be in large part be skill acquisition, the power of belief (placebo) may also contribute to actual progress. A balance between the two?
Sleep: Likely should be at the top of the list. All the research, the anecdotes, the arguments etc etc. are largely being done on a sleep deprived population. No matter what else you may be doing right, it is straightening chairs on the Titanic if you are actually sleep deprived. (in my not so humble opinion)
Nutrition: Can I summarize in one paragraph? Here goes: get enough protein, depending on your current size, gender, etc....between 120-220 grams per day most of it from animal sources. If your goal is muscle gain, then calories should be in a slight surplus, and if your goal is fat loss, then a slight deficit. Somewhere in that range, I do believe you can achieve both simultaneously. A wide variety of food from unprocessed sources including fruits and vegetables. (though I don't see a problem with carnivore diets) Breakdown of fat and/or carbs within these parameters likely not that big a deal. Your body can deal with either if total calories are as stated above, and you are getting from good sources. Don't seek to eliminate or overemphasize either. (carnivore? still thinking that one over) Grains are not the devil but I don't think the majority of your carbs should come from them. Processed vegetable oils are bad. Fasting, intermittent or occasional water fasts are good, and this could include potato hacks (google it), which in my opinion is just a variation on fasting, where the main benefit is to give your body a protein break. Most of the above is about health rather than hypertrophy, though obviously the two overlap.... for directly related to hypertrophy, it is about protein and calories. (speculation: alternating between carnivore and potato hacks?)
Non exercise activity: The idea that you need to do nothing between workouts in order to avoid interfering with your recovery is neither practical or advisable and I believe that is now generally accepted as having been early hit dogma. The logic seemed to make sense at the time, but new research shows differently. There are a myriad of health benefits from just moving a lot especially for those of us who are desk bound. It might make sense for a construction worker or an athlete. Taking the stairs, parking a block away and getting up and stretching, arm circles etc throughout the day, can enhance recovery, and in any case, what is the point of getting a stronger body if you don't take it out for a spin. Again, another thing I've changed my mind about.
So is HIT superior? I don't really know, or can't prove, but assuming you can find the optimal spot on all the continuums above, I suspect what you will end up with, whatever you choose to label it, will involve a greater emphasis on intensity than it will on volume and will by necessity, due to Arthur's principle that you can work hard but not very much, or you can work long but not very hard.
Thanks for reading.
Aug 6, 2017
EFFECTIVE, SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE EXERCISE
As anyone who knows me, has read my blog or is connected to me via social media would probably know, I am an exercise enthusiast.
I've read well over 100 exercise related books by now, countless articles, participated in numerous online forums, attended seminars, been to personal trainers, paid for phone consultations, have trained others and even took a shot at competitive bodybuilding.
I started exercising regularly about 1981.
While not claiming that an of this makes me an expert, I do feel my opinions are somewhat informed.
So as my title indicates, I want to talk about effectiveness, safety and sustainability when it comes to exercise and how, without all three, your exercise program may, if not in the short term, than definitely in the long term, do you more harm than good.
So first, effectiveness because, believe it or not, I think that's the easy one. Virtually every "exercise like activity" will produce results. Note that doesn't mean that anything is better than doing nothing but I will come back to that when I get to safety and sustainability.
Some benefits will be derived from walking programs, running and other steady state activities, and I believe even far more significant benefits will come from resistance training whether it be calisthenics, free weights or machine based. Playing sports will also yield conditioning benefits as will gardening or other manual labour. Obviously the variation in effectiveness from this list will be quite broad.
Next I'm going to point out that the actual benefits of even the best exercise, have been vastly exaggerated and/or misrepresented. This is either from cognitive errors (selection bias) or commercial interests/unethical motives.
Selection bias, in that we make the natural mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Very fit people, including world class athletes, body building champions and magazine cover models do exercise, however their superlative results have more to do with having the right parents than their specific exercise regimens, and copying their programs will not yield anywhere near the same results for the genetically average or below average. They are, by definition, extreme outliers. In fact, I think a strong argument could be made that their results, in many cases are achieved DESPITE the programs they espouse rather than BECAUSE of them. (The evidence you see vs the evidence you don't see: We see the gold medalist, we don't see the dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of others who suffered acute or chronic career ending injuries as a result of trying to follow similar programs). As far as commercial interests coupled with lack of ethics, these outliers can and have been paraded as examples of what you can achieve if you only buy the right supplement, or use the right machine, etc.
Having said that, the actual results that can be achieved from exercise are truly impressive and may be even more important to each of us individually.
Exercise ranks in importance with proper sleep and nutrition, in that it truly is necessary for life, but for 90% or more of us (99%?) , it will not turn us into magazine cover material or make us impervious to disease, injury or old age.
It can, however, from a a health standpoint, put the odds in our favour, and dramatically improve our appearance. (Diet is obviously also important but will leave for another post)
Side note: I will be honest, and I doubt I'm alone, health should be my primary motivator, but I don't kid myself, appearance is a bigger source of motivation for me, and the health benefits are an extremely nice bonus. (Read book "The Red Queen" and see how sex is central to almost all motivation)
Back to health, let's say that some genetic test was suggested you had a very high likelihood of getting heart disease, say 2 out of 3 odds in your lifetime. Perhaps (I'm using numbers to make a point and making no claims as to their specific validity) exercise could improve that to 1 out of 3. 1 out of 3 still sucks and is far from invincibility but that is still a dramatic improvement. And maybe the first heart attack, if it comes, will do so a decade later, be less life threatening and your recovery may be quicker.
These are important benefits despite nowhere near the invincibility that is too often implied and leads people to delusional assumptions. "But I work out regularly, how could this happen to me?"
Most importantly, in my opinion, is the extension of years of functional ability that can be obtained from proper exercise. Using the washroom unaided and being able to play with your grandchildren is pretty amazing and something you would really miss. (My personal goal is to dance at my great grandson's wedding. I have a 19 year old grandson now, and at 58, this goal is possible)
As for looks, my advice is, don't compare with magazine cover models or elite professional athletes, which is unattainable for almost everyone (including many of the actual models who are photo shopped or hit a "peak" they do not come close to maintaining all year round, not to mention drug use).
Rather, sit in a mall and watch how many people are in horrible condition and focus on how much better you can look from that standard! Almost everyone CAN attain this.
(Note: you should really only compare to yourself at another point in time as, whether it is fitness, financial success or any other aspect of life, it is much healthier to just strive to be your best rather than trying to "beat others". I'm just using comparisons to provide context and manage expectations.)
So, how does exercise actually provide benefits, and what are those benefits.... that is a complex question, and I am going to offer an admittedly oversimplified answer. That answer is: either by producing muscle hypertrophy or preventing sarcopenia..... in other words building muscle or preventing you from losing it as you age. Now muscle is both a benefit and a cause of other benefits.
Muscle provides the "shape" that improves appearance, the functional ability that will allow me to dance at my great grandson's wedding, and it has many hormonal effects that produce a myriad of health benefits. (beyond the scope of a blog post)
(Note: in this blog, I will not engage in a lengthy discussion of strength vs so called cardiovascular fitness vs flexibility but I will acknowledge I'm oversimplifying, albeit, building muscle, I submit, should always be a central if not THE central goal of exercise. I may elaborate more in a future blog post)
So in the end, an exercise program's effectiveness for the purpose of this particular post, will be defined simply by its potential for building or maintaining muscle. A bed ridden hospital patient loses muscle to the point of not being able to walk, and for that individual, recovering that lost muscle will come from extremely minimal exercise. Anything above being bed ridden will have some benefit in that sense.
Different modalities will be more or less efficient in building muscle. Walking or running will make your legs stronger, but nowhere near as efficiently as leg presses, squats or some other targeted strength training. I doubt this point is very controversial.
So strength training typically has some basic tenets that most people can agree on. (here I'm ignoring safety, or sustainability and simply focusing on the potential to build or maintain muscle)
It should involve significant effort. In other words, it should feel like hard work, therefore providing a stimulus for the body to adapt.
It should allow for sufficient recovery between workouts, therefore allowing the body to actualize the adaptation to above stimulus.
Any program, I suggest that has the above will build muscle. Most programs will get people to 90% or more of their genetic potential in a relatively short time, perhaps in the first year or two. For all but competitive athletes 90-95% of your potential is all you will ever need to look better, feel better and be functional into your old age. The other 5-10% can make the difference in a competition, or, for people who just want to be the very best they can be, it can provide an ongoing goal that motivates them, but is not necessary for most of us.
In fact, in the quest for that last bit of improvement, there is significant evidence to suggest that fitness and health may in fact start going in different directions. Elite athletes may in fact pay a very high price for that extra fraction of a second that may win them a gold medal or a lucrative professional contract.
Of course the caveat, to my earlier statement that virtually any reasonably sensible strength training program will get you to 90-95% of your potential is, that it will only do so if you actually stick to it. That is where I move to the aspects of safety and sustainability.
Safety obviously means avoiding injury, but I will go further and specify that injuries can be acute (damaging your lower back while doing deadlifts) or chronic, (destroying your knees from repetitive impacts from running). The latter of course will have to do with sustainability which I will discuss shortly. Ironically, I mentioned earlier that one of the major benefits of exercise is the extension of the functional ability into our senior years. If I've wrecked my spine or my knees, it will likely be impossible for me to dance at my great grandson's wedding. So unsafe exercise practices may help you look better for the beach next summer, but that won't mean much if you need help going to the washroom in your senior years.
So, one of the main ways that injury occurs is when the force exerted on either a muscle, tendon or ligament surpasses its structural integrity. This excessive force can be caused by either improper leverage, (poor form), excessively fast movements (which increase force) or too heavy a load. Often an injury results from one or combination of two of the three factors mentioned, and of course how often (repetitiveness) the connective tissue is exposed to such, either in a given workout or exercise, or cumulatively over time, will compound the risks.
Ideally, one would have great form, and low momentum, which will allow for a lighter load to be more challenging and thus be safer. Unfortunately, in many cases, one or two of these is emphasized in order to counter the lack of the other one or two.
For example with certain sports such as powerlifting or olympic weight lifting, the goal is to have maximum load, and the execution requires momentum, so the safety factor depends solely on proper form, but the degree of safety in this or any activity will be compromised to the extent that any one or more of these factors is missing. With all three missing, it is a recipe for disaster. It should also be noted that even with all three addressed, we are minimizing but not eliminating the chances of injury. However, not exercising at all, is the greater risk, so the idea is to put the risk/benefit ratio as much in our favour as possible.
Interestingly, modalities that may seem diametrically opposed are often wholly condemned by opposing "camps", but I would suggest that each might learn from the other. Crossfit (which often involves high loads and high momentum) could learn from Superslow/HIT enthusiasts who emphasize minimizing momentum, but by the same token, I believe that conversely SS/HIT practitioners (particularly when they train themselves) are able to seemingly "get away" with less than ideal form because the low momentum and load is more forgiving and seems to allow for this.
Anecdotally, while there are fewer injuries during actual execution of SS/HIT workouts, some have reported hurting themselves more easily during recreational or sports activities, if they haven't engaged in these previously. I speculate this may be because they (I) may have been performing exercise over years with improper shoulder positions (just one example) unwittingly creating a weak link.
Because of the high load and momentum, many Crossfit coaches have had to, by necessity, focus on very specific details on form and I believe, the empasis on reducing the high incidence of injury may result in giving the rest of us additional information on how to even further minimize injuries by ensuring we haven't fallen into a rut, due to low momentum/load allowing us to have our form degrade over time.
(Side note: advice to HIT/SS folks who train themselves:
either reduce your weight and focus on being so strict that you achieve momentary muscular fatigue as quickly as possible despite the light load or
have a knowledgeable trainer at least occasionally supervise your workout and point out discrepancies.)
I speculate there may be an argument to be made for engaging in some degree of high force activities to strengthen certain connective tissue, but I'm not convinced the risk/benefit ratio warrants this, and at best I would suggest to proceed with extreme caution as I'm really not sure about this, but just thinking out loud.
Having said that, one may play sports or participate in other activities, either for recreation or because their jobs require it, or just because you need to help someone move furniture. Taking out your high performance car onto a track and driving it at maximum speed occasionally will stress that car, and potentially cause it problems, but then, what's the point of having that car if you just keep it in the garage?
So if you do play a sport because you enjoy it, or your work requires a higher risk activity, I would suggest that maximizing your strength with a safe program will have a protective feature in minimizing injury during those activities, and if there is some benefit from high force, that may be a side benefit, but I would hesitate to encourage anyone from exposing themselves to high force, unless there is an activity they enjoy enough to knowingly take the risk (I play hockey once a week) or because it is necessary for your occupation.
As a side note before moving to sustainability, material for a future blog post might be also to emphasize frequent movement during the day, being very careful of posture, and excessive sitting, particularly when staring at a computer screen, or when using mobile devices, as I believe that additional attention over and above proper exercise is required or one may wind up with chronic issues despite the very best exercise programs, in this world of spending too much time at a desk. I like the book: "Deskbound: Standing up to a Sitting World" which I'm in the middle of reading.
As far as sustainability goes, first of all, there is a major overlap with safety which should be self-evident, in that, if you have an acute or chronic injury, not only will your ability to exercise over time be compromised but may be negated altogether. It is pretty obvious that this will not only negate any benefits but in the end, mean that you may have been better off never taking it on in the first place.
The fact is that most exercise modalities that are popular today will almost inevitably lead to acute or chronic injury. Ironically, most people's adherence to programs is terrible, so most people give up before, at least the chronic injuries.
Everyone knows about the new year's resolution syndrome where commercial gym parking lots are full in January, but by March or April are often empty. I don't know the actual numbers but I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of the population does not exercise regularly. (and most of those who do will tell you about their shoulder, knee or low back issues, it they're honest)
Some will suggest that the low adherence to regular exercise, is a reflection on people's lack of commitment and discipline, I think, this is a very incomplete answer, that best serves to make self-righteous fitness buffs feel superior.
Most programs suggest that you exercise several times a week and do so for an hour or more each time. It is my strong opinion, that the vast majority of people with significant family and career commitments will not stick to this over time.
Even if it could be shown that such programs were vastly superior, what would it really matter if people couldn't stick to them?
My earlier point that virtually any relatively sensible resistance exercise will bring everyone to 90-95% of your genetic potential within a year or two, means that "superior" or "inferior" results, really only means that one would reach their genetic potential earlier or later, but since, by definition you cannot exceed your genetic potential, and the goal is to exercise for life, how much does this really matter? (yes, epigenetics suggests that we may be able to influence our genetic potential to some degree, but the extent to which this is possible is still limited)
So, all else being equal, if your program requires minimum time investment it will, obviously be more sustainable than one that requires a large time investment.
Correspondingly, if your program emphasizes the minimization of acute and chronic injuries, it will obviously be more sustainable than one with a higher risk of injury.
The overlap between the top two points also is that minimal time commitment also means less injuries from repetitive movements over time. On this point, a side note on skill acquisition. If one practices a sport, skill practice almost surely requires a large time commitment, and one should recognize that this will increase odds of chronic injury and do their best to alleviate this. One obvious way, in my opinion is to minimize the odds of injury from ensuring one's actual conditioning program be as brief as possible, thus keeping overall repetitiveness lower. For this reason, your conditioning should be distinct from your skill acquisition.
So, in the end, what do I do? I exercise once a week, doing 3-7 exercises for one set to momentary muscular fatigue, with an emphasis on proper form and minimizing momentum by moving slowly and paying specific attention to turnarounds (the part of a repetition where you change directions which is where injury potential is highest). I would also encourage taking minimal rest between sets to have a greater metabolic benefit.
I also play hockey once a week but this is for recreation, and while I know I'm exposing myself to risk of injury, I enjoy this, and I believe hockey was all about HIIT before High Intensity Interval Training was cool, and it has been shown that short bursts of intense exercise provide equal or similar benefits than drawn out steady state activities. Doing it on a hockey rink is far riskier than just taking minimal rest between sets in my strength training program, but hockey is something I love and willingly and knowingly take on the additional risk to participate in.
I occasionally will do a second weekly workout or a set of pushups, chins etc. Not sure I derive any benefit from this, but I do like "testing" my strength by seeing how many I can do. This is likely more about ego than anything else.
Now, if you work out several hours per week, (and have been doing so consistently for at least 10 years), and you feel that what you are doing is "effective, safe and sustainable" than great, and more power to you. If you feel that you are getting good ROI for that extra time, (and "just because you enjoy it" is good enough for me) than it is not my intention to tell you what you're doing is wrong, but perhaps just to give you some food for thought.
As a final note, I believe, even among proponents of what I've described as sensible exercise, there is an immense amount of "hair splitting" where people debate the relative value of different tools (various machines or free weights), exercise details (how many reps, sets, etc., use of forced reps and ad nauseum), the relative need of for variety or lack thereof.
At the end of the day, if some of these things keep things interesting and help people stick to their program, then I'm all in favour, and of course, if they contribute to safety than, I'm even more in favour, but I've long since stopped caring if, for example, a machine has an ideal strength curve, or is lower friction than another.
Doug McGuff has said, "Just Lift Weights".... which to me indicates, he has come to similar conclusions.... while he hasn't added it, I'm sure he would agree, if I added, "Just lift weights.... safely"....
In any case, if you made it this far, thanks for reading.
Recommendation: check out these links:
http://www.ren-ex.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/The-Assumed-vs.-The-Real-Objective-of-Exercise1.pdf
http://www.ren-ex.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Exercise-vs-Recreation.pdf
I've read well over 100 exercise related books by now, countless articles, participated in numerous online forums, attended seminars, been to personal trainers, paid for phone consultations, have trained others and even took a shot at competitive bodybuilding.
I started exercising regularly about 1981.
While not claiming that an of this makes me an expert, I do feel my opinions are somewhat informed.
So as my title indicates, I want to talk about effectiveness, safety and sustainability when it comes to exercise and how, without all three, your exercise program may, if not in the short term, than definitely in the long term, do you more harm than good.
So first, effectiveness because, believe it or not, I think that's the easy one. Virtually every "exercise like activity" will produce results. Note that doesn't mean that anything is better than doing nothing but I will come back to that when I get to safety and sustainability.
Some benefits will be derived from walking programs, running and other steady state activities, and I believe even far more significant benefits will come from resistance training whether it be calisthenics, free weights or machine based. Playing sports will also yield conditioning benefits as will gardening or other manual labour. Obviously the variation in effectiveness from this list will be quite broad.
Next I'm going to point out that the actual benefits of even the best exercise, have been vastly exaggerated and/or misrepresented. This is either from cognitive errors (selection bias) or commercial interests/unethical motives.
Selection bias, in that we make the natural mistake of confusing correlation with causation. Very fit people, including world class athletes, body building champions and magazine cover models do exercise, however their superlative results have more to do with having the right parents than their specific exercise regimens, and copying their programs will not yield anywhere near the same results for the genetically average or below average. They are, by definition, extreme outliers. In fact, I think a strong argument could be made that their results, in many cases are achieved DESPITE the programs they espouse rather than BECAUSE of them. (The evidence you see vs the evidence you don't see: We see the gold medalist, we don't see the dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of others who suffered acute or chronic career ending injuries as a result of trying to follow similar programs). As far as commercial interests coupled with lack of ethics, these outliers can and have been paraded as examples of what you can achieve if you only buy the right supplement, or use the right machine, etc.
Having said that, the actual results that can be achieved from exercise are truly impressive and may be even more important to each of us individually.
Exercise ranks in importance with proper sleep and nutrition, in that it truly is necessary for life, but for 90% or more of us (99%?) , it will not turn us into magazine cover material or make us impervious to disease, injury or old age.
It can, however, from a a health standpoint, put the odds in our favour, and dramatically improve our appearance. (Diet is obviously also important but will leave for another post)
Side note: I will be honest, and I doubt I'm alone, health should be my primary motivator, but I don't kid myself, appearance is a bigger source of motivation for me, and the health benefits are an extremely nice bonus. (Read book "The Red Queen" and see how sex is central to almost all motivation)
Back to health, let's say that some genetic test was suggested you had a very high likelihood of getting heart disease, say 2 out of 3 odds in your lifetime. Perhaps (I'm using numbers to make a point and making no claims as to their specific validity) exercise could improve that to 1 out of 3. 1 out of 3 still sucks and is far from invincibility but that is still a dramatic improvement. And maybe the first heart attack, if it comes, will do so a decade later, be less life threatening and your recovery may be quicker.
These are important benefits despite nowhere near the invincibility that is too often implied and leads people to delusional assumptions. "But I work out regularly, how could this happen to me?"
Most importantly, in my opinion, is the extension of years of functional ability that can be obtained from proper exercise. Using the washroom unaided and being able to play with your grandchildren is pretty amazing and something you would really miss. (My personal goal is to dance at my great grandson's wedding. I have a 19 year old grandson now, and at 58, this goal is possible)
As for looks, my advice is, don't compare with magazine cover models or elite professional athletes, which is unattainable for almost everyone (including many of the actual models who are photo shopped or hit a "peak" they do not come close to maintaining all year round, not to mention drug use).
Rather, sit in a mall and watch how many people are in horrible condition and focus on how much better you can look from that standard! Almost everyone CAN attain this.
(Note: you should really only compare to yourself at another point in time as, whether it is fitness, financial success or any other aspect of life, it is much healthier to just strive to be your best rather than trying to "beat others". I'm just using comparisons to provide context and manage expectations.)
So, how does exercise actually provide benefits, and what are those benefits.... that is a complex question, and I am going to offer an admittedly oversimplified answer. That answer is: either by producing muscle hypertrophy or preventing sarcopenia..... in other words building muscle or preventing you from losing it as you age. Now muscle is both a benefit and a cause of other benefits.
Muscle provides the "shape" that improves appearance, the functional ability that will allow me to dance at my great grandson's wedding, and it has many hormonal effects that produce a myriad of health benefits. (beyond the scope of a blog post)
(Note: in this blog, I will not engage in a lengthy discussion of strength vs so called cardiovascular fitness vs flexibility but I will acknowledge I'm oversimplifying, albeit, building muscle, I submit, should always be a central if not THE central goal of exercise. I may elaborate more in a future blog post)
So in the end, an exercise program's effectiveness for the purpose of this particular post, will be defined simply by its potential for building or maintaining muscle. A bed ridden hospital patient loses muscle to the point of not being able to walk, and for that individual, recovering that lost muscle will come from extremely minimal exercise. Anything above being bed ridden will have some benefit in that sense.
Different modalities will be more or less efficient in building muscle. Walking or running will make your legs stronger, but nowhere near as efficiently as leg presses, squats or some other targeted strength training. I doubt this point is very controversial.
So strength training typically has some basic tenets that most people can agree on. (here I'm ignoring safety, or sustainability and simply focusing on the potential to build or maintain muscle)
It should involve significant effort. In other words, it should feel like hard work, therefore providing a stimulus for the body to adapt.
It should allow for sufficient recovery between workouts, therefore allowing the body to actualize the adaptation to above stimulus.
Any program, I suggest that has the above will build muscle. Most programs will get people to 90% or more of their genetic potential in a relatively short time, perhaps in the first year or two. For all but competitive athletes 90-95% of your potential is all you will ever need to look better, feel better and be functional into your old age. The other 5-10% can make the difference in a competition, or, for people who just want to be the very best they can be, it can provide an ongoing goal that motivates them, but is not necessary for most of us.
In fact, in the quest for that last bit of improvement, there is significant evidence to suggest that fitness and health may in fact start going in different directions. Elite athletes may in fact pay a very high price for that extra fraction of a second that may win them a gold medal or a lucrative professional contract.
Of course the caveat, to my earlier statement that virtually any reasonably sensible strength training program will get you to 90-95% of your potential is, that it will only do so if you actually stick to it. That is where I move to the aspects of safety and sustainability.
Safety obviously means avoiding injury, but I will go further and specify that injuries can be acute (damaging your lower back while doing deadlifts) or chronic, (destroying your knees from repetitive impacts from running). The latter of course will have to do with sustainability which I will discuss shortly. Ironically, I mentioned earlier that one of the major benefits of exercise is the extension of the functional ability into our senior years. If I've wrecked my spine or my knees, it will likely be impossible for me to dance at my great grandson's wedding. So unsafe exercise practices may help you look better for the beach next summer, but that won't mean much if you need help going to the washroom in your senior years.
So, one of the main ways that injury occurs is when the force exerted on either a muscle, tendon or ligament surpasses its structural integrity. This excessive force can be caused by either improper leverage, (poor form), excessively fast movements (which increase force) or too heavy a load. Often an injury results from one or combination of two of the three factors mentioned, and of course how often (repetitiveness) the connective tissue is exposed to such, either in a given workout or exercise, or cumulatively over time, will compound the risks.
Ideally, one would have great form, and low momentum, which will allow for a lighter load to be more challenging and thus be safer. Unfortunately, in many cases, one or two of these is emphasized in order to counter the lack of the other one or two.
For example with certain sports such as powerlifting or olympic weight lifting, the goal is to have maximum load, and the execution requires momentum, so the safety factor depends solely on proper form, but the degree of safety in this or any activity will be compromised to the extent that any one or more of these factors is missing. With all three missing, it is a recipe for disaster. It should also be noted that even with all three addressed, we are minimizing but not eliminating the chances of injury. However, not exercising at all, is the greater risk, so the idea is to put the risk/benefit ratio as much in our favour as possible.
Interestingly, modalities that may seem diametrically opposed are often wholly condemned by opposing "camps", but I would suggest that each might learn from the other. Crossfit (which often involves high loads and high momentum) could learn from Superslow/HIT enthusiasts who emphasize minimizing momentum, but by the same token, I believe that conversely SS/HIT practitioners (particularly when they train themselves) are able to seemingly "get away" with less than ideal form because the low momentum and load is more forgiving and seems to allow for this.
Anecdotally, while there are fewer injuries during actual execution of SS/HIT workouts, some have reported hurting themselves more easily during recreational or sports activities, if they haven't engaged in these previously. I speculate this may be because they (I) may have been performing exercise over years with improper shoulder positions (just one example) unwittingly creating a weak link.
Because of the high load and momentum, many Crossfit coaches have had to, by necessity, focus on very specific details on form and I believe, the empasis on reducing the high incidence of injury may result in giving the rest of us additional information on how to even further minimize injuries by ensuring we haven't fallen into a rut, due to low momentum/load allowing us to have our form degrade over time.
(Side note: advice to HIT/SS folks who train themselves:
either reduce your weight and focus on being so strict that you achieve momentary muscular fatigue as quickly as possible despite the light load or
have a knowledgeable trainer at least occasionally supervise your workout and point out discrepancies.)
I speculate there may be an argument to be made for engaging in some degree of high force activities to strengthen certain connective tissue, but I'm not convinced the risk/benefit ratio warrants this, and at best I would suggest to proceed with extreme caution as I'm really not sure about this, but just thinking out loud.
Having said that, one may play sports or participate in other activities, either for recreation or because their jobs require it, or just because you need to help someone move furniture. Taking out your high performance car onto a track and driving it at maximum speed occasionally will stress that car, and potentially cause it problems, but then, what's the point of having that car if you just keep it in the garage?
So if you do play a sport because you enjoy it, or your work requires a higher risk activity, I would suggest that maximizing your strength with a safe program will have a protective feature in minimizing injury during those activities, and if there is some benefit from high force, that may be a side benefit, but I would hesitate to encourage anyone from exposing themselves to high force, unless there is an activity they enjoy enough to knowingly take the risk (I play hockey once a week) or because it is necessary for your occupation.
As a side note before moving to sustainability, material for a future blog post might be also to emphasize frequent movement during the day, being very careful of posture, and excessive sitting, particularly when staring at a computer screen, or when using mobile devices, as I believe that additional attention over and above proper exercise is required or one may wind up with chronic issues despite the very best exercise programs, in this world of spending too much time at a desk. I like the book: "Deskbound: Standing up to a Sitting World" which I'm in the middle of reading.
As far as sustainability goes, first of all, there is a major overlap with safety which should be self-evident, in that, if you have an acute or chronic injury, not only will your ability to exercise over time be compromised but may be negated altogether. It is pretty obvious that this will not only negate any benefits but in the end, mean that you may have been better off never taking it on in the first place.
The fact is that most exercise modalities that are popular today will almost inevitably lead to acute or chronic injury. Ironically, most people's adherence to programs is terrible, so most people give up before, at least the chronic injuries.
Everyone knows about the new year's resolution syndrome where commercial gym parking lots are full in January, but by March or April are often empty. I don't know the actual numbers but I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of the population does not exercise regularly. (and most of those who do will tell you about their shoulder, knee or low back issues, it they're honest)
Some will suggest that the low adherence to regular exercise, is a reflection on people's lack of commitment and discipline, I think, this is a very incomplete answer, that best serves to make self-righteous fitness buffs feel superior.
Most programs suggest that you exercise several times a week and do so for an hour or more each time. It is my strong opinion, that the vast majority of people with significant family and career commitments will not stick to this over time.
Even if it could be shown that such programs were vastly superior, what would it really matter if people couldn't stick to them?
My earlier point that virtually any relatively sensible resistance exercise will bring everyone to 90-95% of your genetic potential within a year or two, means that "superior" or "inferior" results, really only means that one would reach their genetic potential earlier or later, but since, by definition you cannot exceed your genetic potential, and the goal is to exercise for life, how much does this really matter? (yes, epigenetics suggests that we may be able to influence our genetic potential to some degree, but the extent to which this is possible is still limited)
So, all else being equal, if your program requires minimum time investment it will, obviously be more sustainable than one that requires a large time investment.
Correspondingly, if your program emphasizes the minimization of acute and chronic injuries, it will obviously be more sustainable than one with a higher risk of injury.
The overlap between the top two points also is that minimal time commitment also means less injuries from repetitive movements over time. On this point, a side note on skill acquisition. If one practices a sport, skill practice almost surely requires a large time commitment, and one should recognize that this will increase odds of chronic injury and do their best to alleviate this. One obvious way, in my opinion is to minimize the odds of injury from ensuring one's actual conditioning program be as brief as possible, thus keeping overall repetitiveness lower. For this reason, your conditioning should be distinct from your skill acquisition.
So, in the end, what do I do? I exercise once a week, doing 3-7 exercises for one set to momentary muscular fatigue, with an emphasis on proper form and minimizing momentum by moving slowly and paying specific attention to turnarounds (the part of a repetition where you change directions which is where injury potential is highest). I would also encourage taking minimal rest between sets to have a greater metabolic benefit.
I also play hockey once a week but this is for recreation, and while I know I'm exposing myself to risk of injury, I enjoy this, and I believe hockey was all about HIIT before High Intensity Interval Training was cool, and it has been shown that short bursts of intense exercise provide equal or similar benefits than drawn out steady state activities. Doing it on a hockey rink is far riskier than just taking minimal rest between sets in my strength training program, but hockey is something I love and willingly and knowingly take on the additional risk to participate in.
I occasionally will do a second weekly workout or a set of pushups, chins etc. Not sure I derive any benefit from this, but I do like "testing" my strength by seeing how many I can do. This is likely more about ego than anything else.
Now, if you work out several hours per week, (and have been doing so consistently for at least 10 years), and you feel that what you are doing is "effective, safe and sustainable" than great, and more power to you. If you feel that you are getting good ROI for that extra time, (and "just because you enjoy it" is good enough for me) than it is not my intention to tell you what you're doing is wrong, but perhaps just to give you some food for thought.
As a final note, I believe, even among proponents of what I've described as sensible exercise, there is an immense amount of "hair splitting" where people debate the relative value of different tools (various machines or free weights), exercise details (how many reps, sets, etc., use of forced reps and ad nauseum), the relative need of for variety or lack thereof.
At the end of the day, if some of these things keep things interesting and help people stick to their program, then I'm all in favour, and of course, if they contribute to safety than, I'm even more in favour, but I've long since stopped caring if, for example, a machine has an ideal strength curve, or is lower friction than another.
Doug McGuff has said, "Just Lift Weights".... which to me indicates, he has come to similar conclusions.... while he hasn't added it, I'm sure he would agree, if I added, "Just lift weights.... safely"....
In any case, if you made it this far, thanks for reading.
Recommendation: check out these links:
http://www.ren-ex.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/The-Assumed-vs.-The-Real-Objective-of-Exercise1.pdf
http://www.ren-ex.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Exercise-vs-Recreation.pdf
Jul 1, 2017
True, False or Incomplete Part 3
GOOD FOR YOU VS BAD FOR YOU and
TRUE OR FALSE VS CONCLUSION OR OBSERVATION
***********
Part 1
Part 2
Undoubtedly anecdotal or empirical evidence is fraught with potential for inaccuracies and without actual scientific basis must always be viewed skeptically.
Some may have heard the story about great grandma's amazing ham recipe that illustrates this.
Part of her written instructions included cutting a few inches off from each end of the ham before cooking it.
This recipe was passed down two generations and often resulted in requests for the recipe. When people noted the instructions to trim the ends, puzzled questions resulted as to why. The answer basically came down to, "that's how my mother did it." When mother was asked about it, she replied similarly that her mother had always done it that way as well. When grandma was finally asked, she laughed and said, when your grandfather and I were young, we couldn't afford much and the only cookware we had wasn't big enough so I would cut it to make it fit into the pot!
Similarly, many "old wives' tales" or in sports circles, "old coaches' tales", get passed down and the only rationale seems to be something to the effect of "that's the way the old timers did it" or "if it's not broken..."
Still before throwing out the baby with the bath water, I have to note that there are cases where science catches up with the anecdotal evidence. In fact, much research starts out with the goal of testing a hypothesis that has come from anecdotal evidence.
One example that comes to mind is the recommendation to have a nice bowl of chicken soup when not feeling well. While undoubtedly being ridiculed as an "old wives' tale", there is apparently now a lot of evidence that bone broth which gives us access to collagen and many other nutrients not available when only consuming muscle meat, is in fact highly desirable from a health standpoint.
Another thing I find somewhat humorous is the expression, "snake oil salesman".
This has become synonymous with charlatanism. However, we now know that having the wrong balance of omega 3 and omega 6 fats is detrimental and this is why the advice to eat more fish or even take that cod liver oil your mother used to force on you. I've read that the original claims made for snake oil were based on sea snakes (eels?) which were likely great sources of omega 3.
As demand grew so did profit potential so either ignorance or lack of scruples led to the sale of snake oil that was not rich in Omega 3. No doubt, hucksters also vastly exaggerated benefits but that is not to say there were not any benefits if from the right source and taken by someone whose omega's were out of balance.
Fasting in various forms has long been practiced for religious or health reasons but only recently has research shown tangible significant benefits. Up until recently, advocates were of course written off as quacks. More on this later. "Detoxing" has been ridiculed as one of the supposed benefits of fasting, but I suspect that what may have been wrongly described as "detoxing" may actually be "autophagy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy
As previously, I discussed the limitations of the scientific method, which I described as the gold standard, the limitations of anecdotal evidence are potentially far greater.
As per some of my examples above failure to even consider variables much less make attempts to replicate them will inevitably lead to many generalizations that will not be universally applicable and may not apply more often than they do.
While maintaining a healthy skepticism for above reasons, I think it's a mistake to equate "lack of scientific basis" or "not backed up by research" with "false".
When I see something traditional that has stood the test of time over decades, centuries or more, rather than ridicule what I don't understand, I'm more prone to wonder in what context this may have been applicable and see whether there might be an opportunity to learn something useful.
Of course, on either side there is also massive potential for misrepresentation either motivated by wanting to exploit and done purposefully, or with good intention in honest error but especially due to the error of premature extrapolation of information to apply in cases where it is not applicable.
Then there is the media (advertising and news) and second handedness.
Most of us get our health information on a food label, a commercial or a news bit reporting a new study reporting an "indication" of a "possible link" that "could be linked".... but extremely few ever peruse actual studies or research how traditional practices started or what their basis is.
However many and probably most of us make and or believe blanket statements about something being true or false because it is presumably
"Scientifically proven"
"Everyone knows it's true"
"An old wives' tale"
"Heard it on the news"
"Read it in a fitness publication"
Etc etc
By the way, one of my distinctions has been to replace "I believe this is true (or false)" with "this is what seems to make the most sense to me at this time based on the available information that I'm aware of."
Please note, I'm not equating this with, "who am I to know?" as I believe in thinking for myself, and so this is the exact opposite of this, but it is merely acknowledging that many issues are extremely complex and much more research is needed before drawing any final conclusions.
So what prompted this particular blog post?
So here are a list of "outside the nine dots" thoughts that I have. Several may fall under "seem to make sense but can't prove."
*******************************************************************************
Hormesis and therapeutic window:
A definition I found through Google by
Merriam-Webster:
Medical Definition of hormesis:
"a theoretical phenomenon of dose-response relationships in which something (as a heavy metal or ionizing radiation) that produces harmful biological effects at moderate to high doses may produce beneficial effects at low doses"
The above definition refers to heavy metal and ionizing radiation but it seems logical to me that it would also apply to things that are considered good for you such as exercise or sleep as well as things that are bad for you such as smoking or alcohol.
*******************************************************************************************
Being too sedentary or too active takes you out of therapeutic window.
In fitness circles, a ubiquitous error has been to assume more is better. This error is often reinforced by the training regimens of elite athletes who are by definition extreme outliers. Drugs are often a factor as well.
Even in their case, their success may be caused despite their overtraining and not because of it. (note that skill training does require countless hours of practice while actual conditioning may require adequate recovery, and balancing both becomes a challenge, part of the reason, in my opinion why the highest levels of success are the domain of extreme outliers, who can withstand and recover from hours of skill practice and still maintain conditioning. Unfortunately, the distinction between skill practice and conditioning is often missed, and hours are spent on both.)
Also, I understand there is good evidence that superior performance and health track together fairly well to a point however to be competitive at a world class level, athletes may go well beyond that point and pay a heavy price for the tiny extra that can take them from the middle of the pack to the podium (perhaps far before that point, just to be in contention to make the Olympic team).
We know that being bed ridden due to illness has an extreme deconditioning effect, but too much activity can be toxic as well.
*******************************************************************************************
Could moderate smoking make you more resistant to other air pollutants? In this example would the risk of finding the proper therapeutic window outweigh the potential benefits? I personally doubt it, which is why the idea of hormesis may help to explain the benefits of existing activities or substances such as exercise and certain vitamins, I don't believe it follows, that we should necessarily seek out potentially toxic factors because of their potential benefit. Note that there is a growing body of research that shows benefit from exposing one to relatively extreme cold (cold showers to ice baths) or relatively extreme heat (saunas)
Ayn Rand has been quoted as saying something to the effect that in a compromise between poison and non poison, poison will always prevail. While I take the point to heart, the analogy fails to consider that toxicity is not a matter of substance but rather of concentration.
Perhaps exposure to potentially toxic ideas can help us to develop philosophical defenses against bad ideas in general?
*************************************************************************************************
Low carb, fasting, potato hacks all seem to be contradictory approaches to claimed health benefits? Could they all be different routes to the same goal, i.e. helping your digestive system and metabolism to an optimal state by temporarily inducing fat burning and autophagy?
*******************************************************************************************************
The whole anti-vax controversy. All I will say here, and I paraphrase Dr. Doug McGuff in that, if a drug or treatment of any type has a therapeutic effect, then by definition it will also have a side effect. This will be true of vaccination as well. Dr. McGuff, who is an emergency room physician has shared with me that he has personally witnessed an extreme reaction in a child who was vaccinated that morning. While he doesn't claim proof that it was caused by this, when he reported it, it was ignored. That is the danger of ridiculing something, is that, as new evidence becomes known, it is ignored due to being immediately written off as quackery. Obviously, the case for the benefits of vaccination outweighing the harm is strong, especially in large populations, but does that mean it will always be the case for individuals, or that further research should be ignored. "Settled science" is an oxymoron. I will update this paragraph with a link, as soon as I can find a site that can tell you the probability of a drug helping vs harming.
************************************************************************************************************
GMO's benefits outweigh the risks however both sides are overly polarized in my opinion, in that while I don't believe genetic modification is dangerous per se, I do believe caution should be taken before assuming complete safety. Margarine is a modified food and trans fats have now been shown to be very unhealthy. (Is there a therapeutic window for trans fats?)
************************************************************************************************************
It would appear that one of the, if not the only consistent lifestyle links to longevity is caloric deprivation. Various experiments with animals have shown as much as a 20% increase in longevity when exposing them to lifelong slight caloric deficit. While, this might require feeling some hunger throughout life, there is promising research that suggests that much of the same results can be achieved through intermittent fasting. There is another school of thought that suggests that lowering our heart rate can improve longevity...(and other research that seems to show the opposite), but one thing my fitbit has shown me pretty consistently is that when I am strict with my dieting and or do intermittent fasting, my resting heart rate goes down, and at times like the holidays when my discipline wanes, my resting heart rate goes up.
*****************************************************************************************************************
In 1968, Kenneth Cooper wrote the book Aerobics, at which time, this term was first coined in relationship to exercise. His findings were largely based on anecdotal, or empirical evidence. For example, he pointed out that bus drivers (who sat most of the day) in Britain, had much more obesity and heart disease than the individuals who stood all day to collect the fares. From this, he extrapolated that being sedentary was bad, and being active was good. The conclusion was the more active you were the better, and he developed a point system, and encouraged people to achieve a given number of points per day or per week, with the strong implication that more was better. With this, came the running craze, and he was hailed and the "man who would save America's hearts". A few decades letter, and with many orthopedic surgeons getting quite wealthy fixing knees, hips and low backs, some suggested, he might turn out to be remembered as the "man who ruined America's knees". He conceded later that more was not better, and even suggested that too much activity might even make one more prone to cancer.
Strength training, as it is now more commonly known, but had long been called weight lifting or bodybuilding had been around forever, but it was considered that training muscles had more to do with vanity, and that actual health benefits had to focus on the heart and lungs. In fact, it was widely believed that large muscles could interfere with sports performance, and even put a strain on your heart. Over time, however, these myths went by the wayside, and strength training became more recognized, for both performance and overall health. Today, we see that muscles are very active metabolically, and that strength training stimulates the production of myokines which are apparently linked to a myriad of health benefits, and have even been compared to the closest thing to the fountain of youth yet.
So "aerobics" or "cardio" advocated low intensity, frequent, long duration exercise, while "strength training" generally advocated briefer, higher intensity, and less frequent exercise. Of course, many people tried to combine both, in order to get all benefits simultaneously, however it was thought that doing so would make it difficult if not impossible to properly recover from that much exercise, not to mention that few people with family and career responsibilities could keep a long term commitment to that much exercise.
Arthur Jones, the creator of Nautilus machines, and later MedX, claimed, and the science now seems to confirm, that all benefits could be had from a properly designed strength training program, and further advocated that the intensity be very high, and thus the frequency and volume be kept very low in order to maximize recovery, in some cases, admonising people from any type of exertion between workouts, claiming that this would interfere with recovery and limit results or even bring them to a halt. Pendulums tend to swing far as we know. Today, where I've landed with all this, is that proper strength training should be the cornerstone of an exercise regimens, and while I agree with Jones that so called "cardio" is unnecessary, there is another aspect which is now coming to light; going back to our sedentary bus driver from Ken Cooper's book, it would seem that the actual sitting or not moving around much all day, is, in itself hazardous to your health. So, the ticket collector wasn't jogging or running marathons, but he was up and about regularly. Cooper, assumed more was better, and Jones assumed less (or none) was better. My recommendation (what makes the most sense to me right now: do proper strength training for conditioning, and just make sure you regularly move around, each hour for example, and for recreation if desired, engage in whatever sport or activity enhances your life (mental/spiritual) accordingly. (more on safety later)
*********************************************************************************************
Obesity has long been associated as a health risk for multiple ailments. I have pondered, that obsesity per se, may only be a part of the issue. I suspect strongly, that what we do to become obese, (overeating, and being in a constanntly overfed state, (see caloric deprivation above) making poor food choices and being extremely sedentary (see above as well)) puts a lot of negative stress on the body distinct from the actual added fat that it makes us carry. Carrying fat, historically, has helped us to survive famines, and the ability to store and retain fat has been very desirable from an evolutionary standpoint. I do concede that being fat, in and of itself, does create issues such as strain on knees, lower backs etc, which will almost surely compromise our functional ability as we age, and that will at the very least reduce quality of life, and most likely longevity. Being fat also wreaks havoc with hormones, and there is evidence that being fat, leads us to overeating and being sedentary, as much as the vice versa. My point here is that the health hazards are not just about being fat, but the stress we put on our bodies in the process of getting fat.
***************************************************************************************************
In exercise, and other activities, it is obvious that safety is paramount, both from the point of view of avoiding acute injuries or long term debilities from overuse. Much has been written and discussed about high impact, low impact, proper posture, lifting technique (both in sport and every day activities). With the forementioned aerobics craze and the accompanying injuries, we have seen an entire industry created to provide products either designed to prevent or treat fitness related injuries such as properly cushioned shoes and a new branch of medicine referred to as "sports medicine". (Arthur Jones stated that if the number of emergency room visits called by so called fitness activities were due to some new disease, a national outcry of a crisis would be heard and there would be much research and or fund raising done to stem this terrible threat.)
We've also seen "low impact" and, in strength training, as a result of research done by Nautilus on how to safely train elderly people suffering from osteoporosis (who could benefit greatly from strength training, but whose fragility made that very challenging), the advent of "Superslow" strength training, which advocates moving extremely slowly in order to minimize force on joints, tendons and ligaments. There is much evidence that this method of training also more effectively loads the targeted musculature and produces better results for the general population in a safer manner. High intensity is still a major component of Superslow (which has gone through different monikers over time) as participants are instructed to continue an exercise until "momentary muscular failure, or fatigue".
Conversely, a current very popular fitness trend is crossfit, which definitely embraces high intensity, but seems to have little or no regard for "low impact" or "minimizing force" as it involves rapid movements as well as plyometric (jumping) activities. Superslow proponents consider this insanity and a recipe for disaster, whereas many crossfit enthusiasts (assuming they've even heard of Superslow) would argue that slow movements are inadequate to build speed and so called explosive strength. I have strong opinions (convictions?) on much of this....
(to be continued in Part 4)
TRUE OR FALSE VS CONCLUSION OR OBSERVATION
***********
Part 1
Part 2
Undoubtedly anecdotal or empirical evidence is fraught with potential for inaccuracies and without actual scientific basis must always be viewed skeptically.
Some may have heard the story about great grandma's amazing ham recipe that illustrates this.
Part of her written instructions included cutting a few inches off from each end of the ham before cooking it.
This recipe was passed down two generations and often resulted in requests for the recipe. When people noted the instructions to trim the ends, puzzled questions resulted as to why. The answer basically came down to, "that's how my mother did it." When mother was asked about it, she replied similarly that her mother had always done it that way as well. When grandma was finally asked, she laughed and said, when your grandfather and I were young, we couldn't afford much and the only cookware we had wasn't big enough so I would cut it to make it fit into the pot!
Similarly, many "old wives' tales" or in sports circles, "old coaches' tales", get passed down and the only rationale seems to be something to the effect of "that's the way the old timers did it" or "if it's not broken..."
Still before throwing out the baby with the bath water, I have to note that there are cases where science catches up with the anecdotal evidence. In fact, much research starts out with the goal of testing a hypothesis that has come from anecdotal evidence.
One example that comes to mind is the recommendation to have a nice bowl of chicken soup when not feeling well. While undoubtedly being ridiculed as an "old wives' tale", there is apparently now a lot of evidence that bone broth which gives us access to collagen and many other nutrients not available when only consuming muscle meat, is in fact highly desirable from a health standpoint.
Another thing I find somewhat humorous is the expression, "snake oil salesman".
This has become synonymous with charlatanism. However, we now know that having the wrong balance of omega 3 and omega 6 fats is detrimental and this is why the advice to eat more fish or even take that cod liver oil your mother used to force on you. I've read that the original claims made for snake oil were based on sea snakes (eels?) which were likely great sources of omega 3.
As demand grew so did profit potential so either ignorance or lack of scruples led to the sale of snake oil that was not rich in Omega 3. No doubt, hucksters also vastly exaggerated benefits but that is not to say there were not any benefits if from the right source and taken by someone whose omega's were out of balance.
Fasting in various forms has long been practiced for religious or health reasons but only recently has research shown tangible significant benefits. Up until recently, advocates were of course written off as quacks. More on this later. "Detoxing" has been ridiculed as one of the supposed benefits of fasting, but I suspect that what may have been wrongly described as "detoxing" may actually be "autophagy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autophagy
As previously, I discussed the limitations of the scientific method, which I described as the gold standard, the limitations of anecdotal evidence are potentially far greater.
As per some of my examples above failure to even consider variables much less make attempts to replicate them will inevitably lead to many generalizations that will not be universally applicable and may not apply more often than they do.
While maintaining a healthy skepticism for above reasons, I think it's a mistake to equate "lack of scientific basis" or "not backed up by research" with "false".
When I see something traditional that has stood the test of time over decades, centuries or more, rather than ridicule what I don't understand, I'm more prone to wonder in what context this may have been applicable and see whether there might be an opportunity to learn something useful.
Of course, on either side there is also massive potential for misrepresentation either motivated by wanting to exploit and done purposefully, or with good intention in honest error but especially due to the error of premature extrapolation of information to apply in cases where it is not applicable.
Then there is the media (advertising and news) and second handedness.
Most of us get our health information on a food label, a commercial or a news bit reporting a new study reporting an "indication" of a "possible link" that "could be linked".... but extremely few ever peruse actual studies or research how traditional practices started or what their basis is.
However many and probably most of us make and or believe blanket statements about something being true or false because it is presumably
"Scientifically proven"
"Everyone knows it's true"
"An old wives' tale"
"Heard it on the news"
"Read it in a fitness publication"
Etc etc
By the way, one of my distinctions has been to replace "I believe this is true (or false)" with "this is what seems to make the most sense to me at this time based on the available information that I'm aware of."
Please note, I'm not equating this with, "who am I to know?" as I believe in thinking for myself, and so this is the exact opposite of this, but it is merely acknowledging that many issues are extremely complex and much more research is needed before drawing any final conclusions.
So what prompted this particular blog post?
So here are a list of "outside the nine dots" thoughts that I have. Several may fall under "seem to make sense but can't prove."
*******************************************************************************
Hormesis and therapeutic window:
A definition I found through Google by
Merriam-Webster:
Medical Definition of hormesis:
"a theoretical phenomenon of dose-response relationships in which something (as a heavy metal or ionizing radiation) that produces harmful biological effects at moderate to high doses may produce beneficial effects at low doses"
The above definition refers to heavy metal and ionizing radiation but it seems logical to me that it would also apply to things that are considered good for you such as exercise or sleep as well as things that are bad for you such as smoking or alcohol.
*******************************************************************************************
Being too sedentary or too active takes you out of therapeutic window.
In fitness circles, a ubiquitous error has been to assume more is better. This error is often reinforced by the training regimens of elite athletes who are by definition extreme outliers. Drugs are often a factor as well.
Even in their case, their success may be caused despite their overtraining and not because of it. (note that skill training does require countless hours of practice while actual conditioning may require adequate recovery, and balancing both becomes a challenge, part of the reason, in my opinion why the highest levels of success are the domain of extreme outliers, who can withstand and recover from hours of skill practice and still maintain conditioning. Unfortunately, the distinction between skill practice and conditioning is often missed, and hours are spent on both.)
Also, I understand there is good evidence that superior performance and health track together fairly well to a point however to be competitive at a world class level, athletes may go well beyond that point and pay a heavy price for the tiny extra that can take them from the middle of the pack to the podium (perhaps far before that point, just to be in contention to make the Olympic team).
We know that being bed ridden due to illness has an extreme deconditioning effect, but too much activity can be toxic as well.
*******************************************************************************************
Could moderate smoking make you more resistant to other air pollutants? In this example would the risk of finding the proper therapeutic window outweigh the potential benefits? I personally doubt it, which is why the idea of hormesis may help to explain the benefits of existing activities or substances such as exercise and certain vitamins, I don't believe it follows, that we should necessarily seek out potentially toxic factors because of their potential benefit. Note that there is a growing body of research that shows benefit from exposing one to relatively extreme cold (cold showers to ice baths) or relatively extreme heat (saunas)
Ayn Rand has been quoted as saying something to the effect that in a compromise between poison and non poison, poison will always prevail. While I take the point to heart, the analogy fails to consider that toxicity is not a matter of substance but rather of concentration.
Perhaps exposure to potentially toxic ideas can help us to develop philosophical defenses against bad ideas in general?
*************************************************************************************************
Low carb, fasting, potato hacks all seem to be contradictory approaches to claimed health benefits? Could they all be different routes to the same goal, i.e. helping your digestive system and metabolism to an optimal state by temporarily inducing fat burning and autophagy?
*******************************************************************************************************
The whole anti-vax controversy. All I will say here, and I paraphrase Dr. Doug McGuff in that, if a drug or treatment of any type has a therapeutic effect, then by definition it will also have a side effect. This will be true of vaccination as well. Dr. McGuff, who is an emergency room physician has shared with me that he has personally witnessed an extreme reaction in a child who was vaccinated that morning. While he doesn't claim proof that it was caused by this, when he reported it, it was ignored. That is the danger of ridiculing something, is that, as new evidence becomes known, it is ignored due to being immediately written off as quackery. Obviously, the case for the benefits of vaccination outweighing the harm is strong, especially in large populations, but does that mean it will always be the case for individuals, or that further research should be ignored. "Settled science" is an oxymoron. I will update this paragraph with a link, as soon as I can find a site that can tell you the probability of a drug helping vs harming.
************************************************************************************************************
GMO's benefits outweigh the risks however both sides are overly polarized in my opinion, in that while I don't believe genetic modification is dangerous per se, I do believe caution should be taken before assuming complete safety. Margarine is a modified food and trans fats have now been shown to be very unhealthy. (Is there a therapeutic window for trans fats?)
************************************************************************************************************
It would appear that one of the, if not the only consistent lifestyle links to longevity is caloric deprivation. Various experiments with animals have shown as much as a 20% increase in longevity when exposing them to lifelong slight caloric deficit. While, this might require feeling some hunger throughout life, there is promising research that suggests that much of the same results can be achieved through intermittent fasting. There is another school of thought that suggests that lowering our heart rate can improve longevity...(and other research that seems to show the opposite), but one thing my fitbit has shown me pretty consistently is that when I am strict with my dieting and or do intermittent fasting, my resting heart rate goes down, and at times like the holidays when my discipline wanes, my resting heart rate goes up.
*****************************************************************************************************************
In 1968, Kenneth Cooper wrote the book Aerobics, at which time, this term was first coined in relationship to exercise. His findings were largely based on anecdotal, or empirical evidence. For example, he pointed out that bus drivers (who sat most of the day) in Britain, had much more obesity and heart disease than the individuals who stood all day to collect the fares. From this, he extrapolated that being sedentary was bad, and being active was good. The conclusion was the more active you were the better, and he developed a point system, and encouraged people to achieve a given number of points per day or per week, with the strong implication that more was better. With this, came the running craze, and he was hailed and the "man who would save America's hearts". A few decades letter, and with many orthopedic surgeons getting quite wealthy fixing knees, hips and low backs, some suggested, he might turn out to be remembered as the "man who ruined America's knees". He conceded later that more was not better, and even suggested that too much activity might even make one more prone to cancer.
Strength training, as it is now more commonly known, but had long been called weight lifting or bodybuilding had been around forever, but it was considered that training muscles had more to do with vanity, and that actual health benefits had to focus on the heart and lungs. In fact, it was widely believed that large muscles could interfere with sports performance, and even put a strain on your heart. Over time, however, these myths went by the wayside, and strength training became more recognized, for both performance and overall health. Today, we see that muscles are very active metabolically, and that strength training stimulates the production of myokines which are apparently linked to a myriad of health benefits, and have even been compared to the closest thing to the fountain of youth yet.
So "aerobics" or "cardio" advocated low intensity, frequent, long duration exercise, while "strength training" generally advocated briefer, higher intensity, and less frequent exercise. Of course, many people tried to combine both, in order to get all benefits simultaneously, however it was thought that doing so would make it difficult if not impossible to properly recover from that much exercise, not to mention that few people with family and career responsibilities could keep a long term commitment to that much exercise.
Arthur Jones, the creator of Nautilus machines, and later MedX, claimed, and the science now seems to confirm, that all benefits could be had from a properly designed strength training program, and further advocated that the intensity be very high, and thus the frequency and volume be kept very low in order to maximize recovery, in some cases, admonising people from any type of exertion between workouts, claiming that this would interfere with recovery and limit results or even bring them to a halt. Pendulums tend to swing far as we know. Today, where I've landed with all this, is that proper strength training should be the cornerstone of an exercise regimens, and while I agree with Jones that so called "cardio" is unnecessary, there is another aspect which is now coming to light; going back to our sedentary bus driver from Ken Cooper's book, it would seem that the actual sitting or not moving around much all day, is, in itself hazardous to your health. So, the ticket collector wasn't jogging or running marathons, but he was up and about regularly. Cooper, assumed more was better, and Jones assumed less (or none) was better. My recommendation (what makes the most sense to me right now: do proper strength training for conditioning, and just make sure you regularly move around, each hour for example, and for recreation if desired, engage in whatever sport or activity enhances your life (mental/spiritual) accordingly. (more on safety later)
*********************************************************************************************
Obesity has long been associated as a health risk for multiple ailments. I have pondered, that obsesity per se, may only be a part of the issue. I suspect strongly, that what we do to become obese, (overeating, and being in a constanntly overfed state, (see caloric deprivation above) making poor food choices and being extremely sedentary (see above as well)) puts a lot of negative stress on the body distinct from the actual added fat that it makes us carry. Carrying fat, historically, has helped us to survive famines, and the ability to store and retain fat has been very desirable from an evolutionary standpoint. I do concede that being fat, in and of itself, does create issues such as strain on knees, lower backs etc, which will almost surely compromise our functional ability as we age, and that will at the very least reduce quality of life, and most likely longevity. Being fat also wreaks havoc with hormones, and there is evidence that being fat, leads us to overeating and being sedentary, as much as the vice versa. My point here is that the health hazards are not just about being fat, but the stress we put on our bodies in the process of getting fat.
***************************************************************************************************
In exercise, and other activities, it is obvious that safety is paramount, both from the point of view of avoiding acute injuries or long term debilities from overuse. Much has been written and discussed about high impact, low impact, proper posture, lifting technique (both in sport and every day activities). With the forementioned aerobics craze and the accompanying injuries, we have seen an entire industry created to provide products either designed to prevent or treat fitness related injuries such as properly cushioned shoes and a new branch of medicine referred to as "sports medicine". (Arthur Jones stated that if the number of emergency room visits called by so called fitness activities were due to some new disease, a national outcry of a crisis would be heard and there would be much research and or fund raising done to stem this terrible threat.)
We've also seen "low impact" and, in strength training, as a result of research done by Nautilus on how to safely train elderly people suffering from osteoporosis (who could benefit greatly from strength training, but whose fragility made that very challenging), the advent of "Superslow" strength training, which advocates moving extremely slowly in order to minimize force on joints, tendons and ligaments. There is much evidence that this method of training also more effectively loads the targeted musculature and produces better results for the general population in a safer manner. High intensity is still a major component of Superslow (which has gone through different monikers over time) as participants are instructed to continue an exercise until "momentary muscular failure, or fatigue".
Conversely, a current very popular fitness trend is crossfit, which definitely embraces high intensity, but seems to have little or no regard for "low impact" or "minimizing force" as it involves rapid movements as well as plyometric (jumping) activities. Superslow proponents consider this insanity and a recipe for disaster, whereas many crossfit enthusiasts (assuming they've even heard of Superslow) would argue that slow movements are inadequate to build speed and so called explosive strength. I have strong opinions (convictions?) on much of this....
(to be continued in Part 4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
