Charlie Reid and I presented to some folks at Sports Basement in Potrero Hill last night. It was a one-hour talk on Play-Based Fitness Seminar (click the link for a PDF copy of the presentation).
Play-Based Fitness Seminar
While the first thing we learned was that we need to be better at marketing and advertising (I think only 5 people total showed up), we learned a lot more as well.
One of the most striking things that I learned was that Sports Basement seems to be like most corporations – focused on traditional ideas of work. I mean, the name is “SPORTS” Basement, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. But it was a little shocking to learn that they don’t have play-based teambuilding for their employees…especially considering all of the toys they have all around them all the time!
The second thing that really stood out for me was a realization I had during part of the talk. We were discussing “abstract” play – word-games, puns, imaginary play, etc., and I realized that no adults do this past a certain age. Sure, you might imagine that you had a different job. Or a professional athlete might use visualization techniques to help themselves perform better. But no adults engage in pure fantasy-play – creating imaginary surroundings, with imaginary characters (who may or may not represent real people), etc. I’m not sure why this is, but I’m going to start a regular practice of engaging in this behavior, and I’ll let you know how it goes!
Get out there and play!
Just had to post this little pic taken by my good friend Charlie Reid, in downtown SF, earlier this week.
Take it straight to heart – health: vitamins and candy
Real Health can be Bought Here
This isn’t a joke! You are going to die…someday.
I hope that it isn’t soon, and that it isn’t painful. But nevertheless, it will happen someday. That’s how life works.
What strikes me as strange is the obsessiveness with which we often approach our prejudices toward certain things. Specifically, for this blog, I’ll discuss this with relation to fitness – but it’s true of anything.
People in the fitness world have all sorts of “rules” that you’re supposed to follow. Eat this, don’t eat that. Exercise this much, but no more, and no less. Do this ten times a day. Do that once a month. Eat these pills once after every other meal on Wednesdays.
You’re supposed to “activate your core” and build [insert bodypart here] “of steel.” You should only drink non-flouridated water from a holy stream that trickles from the top of Everest for one month every Spring.
You need to “challenge your proprioception and balance.” You need to do “multiplanar exercise” and get into your “heart rate zone.”
And you do! You race around, doing all this stuff. You eat organic, you drink the Yogic water, you practice your Asana’s, you give your Pilates instructor a cash gift every Christmas.
Then you die.
And not only do you die, but you probably die roughly around the same age as everyone else in your generation. Maybe you live ten year longer than your fast-food-abusing classmates. And maybe not.
Maybe you live a couple of years less than the person who ate moderately well, and exercised moderately, all those years. And maybe not.
My point is this – there’s little credence to most of the bullshit we try to sell ourselves and each other every day.
Will fast food kill you? Yes, in excess. In excess anything will kill you. Unhappiness is a killer if sustained for too long. Too much sunlight (plus other environmental stressors…like sunscreen) will give you cancer. Too little, also, can kill you.
You are going to die. The most important thing is that, while you’re alive, you get the most out of it, and help others to do the same (so that they, in turn, will help you, etc.). Do things you love to do. Do things that make you really effing happy. I mean – EXUBERANT. DO THEM NOW! And help others to do the same.
And forget about all those bullshit “rules.” You know what’s good for you. Do it.
I’ve been incredibly busy with a lot of different things over the course of the past month or so. Things are finally starting to slow down a bit, which is great.
However, during the past two weeks or so, I stopped working out completely. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been active, practicing Bagua, walking all over the place, etc. But I hadn’t worked up a good sweat in two weeks, till yesterday.
My friend Charlie Reid invited me to workout with him. So, note number one is, if you’re feeling demotivated, find a friend who has some motivation at that moment and hang out with them!
The workout itself consisted of a descending ladder from 10, of low box squats, pullups, walkout pushups, and arms-overhead situps. That is, you start with 10 reps, do that on each exercise, then do 9, 8, etc., down to 1. You end up doing 55 reps in each exercise. Going continuously, as we did, gives you a little cardiovascular demand too.
In all, it was the kick-start I needed. Sometimes, its scheduling that gets in our way. Then it turns into something else. I often have Jimmy Carter’s problem when it comes to working out – inaction by possibilities…I get overwhelmed at times thinking about all of the exercise science I’ve learned, and forget that it’s okay just to go to the gym (or outside, or at home) and do whatever you feel like doing for thirty minutes or an hour…
Anyway, find a friend, and go do something you feel like doing that makes you sweat!
Become who you are.
First, understand that stress does not resolve itself, and energy expended to remove stress is actually giving energy to stress, so it increases stress.
The only way to pause stress is to remove activity – autogenic programming
After activity is removed, real action can be taken to help to return the system to normal function/remove the stress.
When that has been done, ask yourself what it is that you know you need. What do you know in your heart is right for you?
Then ask yourself, with relation to that topic, what is your current reality?
The difference between those two things is the amount of stress you experience. The greater the distance between what you know in your heart is right for you and what your actual situation is, is stress.
Once you know that difference, it’s up to you to act on it. Move toward the side of the continuum that is you, and away from the side that is not-you.
I’ll be honest. I haven’t read John Ratey’s book “Spark.” I’d like to, but I have a few others on the list ahead of it. But I’m looking forward to it!
At the same time, I have to share my misgivings about the book. Especially in light of my recent experiences with pop-science books about talent.
Dr. Ratey is a scientist. But he’s not a medical doctor. Or a movement scientist. Or a physical educator. He’s a psychiatrist. That shouldn’t detract from his message, its importance, or its timeliness. The book is no less important because of his qualifications. However, I think it is slightly misguided.
I’ve read an article by Jacob Sattelmair (a doctoral student in epidemiology at Harvard, where Dr. Ratey teaches) and Dr. Ratey, called “Physically Active Play and Cognition, An Academic Matter?” In it, they describe some of the argument for physical activity, in however a reductionist and atomistic manner. I don’t want to deal with the entire article, but would like to focus on one point made in it. Particularly, that “Animal and human research primarily supports the importance of aerobic activity to enhance cognitive function” (pg 369). There are no references provided to support this statement, and it seems very strange to me.
My question relates to the specification for aerobic activity versus anaerobic activity to realize the vast number of benefits afforded by exercise, or, really, where the distinction or line is drawn between aerobic and anaerobic play for the purposes of this paper.
My understanding of the concept is that there are three types or “levels” of respiration that occur in the human body – cellular (intra-cell, glucose-to-energy), internal (inter-cell), and external (air-to-lungs). As far as I know, “aerobic” means that metabolic processes occur using oxygen, while “anaerobic” processes occur in the absence of oxygen molecules.
In exercise physiology (particularly, for me, when working with my clients), there are two ways that I recognize whether or not someone is training “aerobically” or not – 1. They’re able to pass the “talk test” – that is, they can keep up a conversation with me while they’re working; and 2. They can maintain their level of exertion for 30 seconds or more.
While the talk test isn’t always accurate, it appears to be fairly reliable. The second method is a little more “scientific,” since I’m relying on my understanding of cellular (particularly muscle-cell) energetics. As the intensity increases (either the frequency or severity of contractions), metabolism works to maintain the homeostasis of the cell. When metabolism can’t keep up, and oxygen is unable to make it into the cell at a sufficient rate to fuel cellular reactions, it goes into “anaerobic” metabolism. 30 seconds is an arbitrary number, but seems to work for most of my clients.
The common understanding of “aerobics” is long, slow, distance exercise, that can be maintained for up to an hour or more – such as jogging, aerobics/group-exercise classes, etc.
However, weightlifting activity can be maintained during aerobic cellular action. This is often done using weightlifting circuits, where exertion is circulated among different muscle groups throughout the exercise session to avoid total fatigue of a particular group. Also, heavy bouts of anaerobic weightlifting result in increased post-exercise oxygen consumption (aerobic metabolism) over/above the increase experienced from a similar-duration aerobic activity.
In light of my understanding of human evolution, every type of muscular action or metabolism has its place. As animals, we had to be able to sprint, sometimes for long distances, to avoid danger. Similarly, we had to be able to maintain long-duration activity when tracking animals, or moving to new territories. We had to be capable of lifting very heavy things at times, as well as lifting or carrying light things for long periods. Is there evidence to support strictly “aerobic” activity as a sole or preferential stimulus for brain development? It seems to me that the activity shaped the brain. And if that’s the case, then the same rules for growth now would apply as then – the rules that determine growth in anything – the more varied the stimulus (before sheer erratic randomness), with sufficient time for recovery (here – mental and physical, if you have to make that distinction, which I think is arbitrary), over a sufficient period of time, the more adaptation (”learning”) occurs.
The Talent Code is a book by Daniel Coyle. It’s got some good stories in it. But I think it’s terribly misleading.
For one thing, Coyle tries to make a case for myelination of nerve circuits as being a key to talent. But that’s actually backwardly-causal. An increase in practice causes increased myelination of nerve circuits, not vice versa. Myelination of nervous cells is essentially similar to the formation of callouses on palms after repeated heavy labor. The repeated exposure to stress causes the cells to protect themselves by increasing their buffer. It’s adaptation…but not causation.
Coyle tries to attach early-childhood experience to increased myelination, which would lead to increased activity. But his arguments are incredibly weak, statistically speaking. He says that highly motivated people in history lost a parent at an early age, hence their heightened drive to survive. However, up until the advent of modern medicine, many people (I’d like to say “most”) lost a parent at an early age, either through war, illness, or the labor of childbirth itself. How meaningful is the statement?
Coyle also suggests that perhaps it’s the child’s place in the family. Younger children have to “keep up” with their elder siblings. Maybe. But how many successful only children have there been?
While he admits that his approach isn’t scientific, it leads me to wonder, then, exactly what his approach is, and how and why it got published.
It seems that these types of science books come out in waves. Some journalist catches onto a nice idea, gets approval for a book deal, and other publishers jump on the bandwagon. Coyle’s book is one of three that I have read in the past three years about talent – the other two being Gladwell’s “Outliers,” and “Talent is Overrated,” by Geoff Colvin.
Gladwell’s book presented some interesting stories about the amount of luck behind the life-history of the people we often think were “born great” think of as “successful.” Colvin’s book places the entire onus of greatness on practice.
All three books were released within a year of each other, and all three suffer from the same problem – none of them were written by anyone with expertise (or “talent”) in the field of motor learning, learning, or movement science.
What you get are some vague ideas about what talent might be. You’re told to practice more. And even then, you might not be in the right place at the right time, or get the right breaks to really “succeed.”
In the end, it’s completely meaningless. While you may be enlightened about the factors contributing to what you used to attribute to “talent” (maybe some genetic predispositions, deliberate practice over years, lucky breaks through life), you leave with no specific understanding of how to increase your own talent at the things you want to do.
I highly recommend all three of these books. I thought they were each great in their own way. But if you’re looking to improve your talent at something, go out and find a good teacher, and start practicing.
Does that title sound convoluted?
Yes. I think so.
A little redundant?
Indeed.
Why the redundancy, you ask?
To prove a point!
To me, it seems that we have taken a very simple thing – the health of the human being – and turned it into an incredibly convoluted, complex thing.
Here’s how simple health is:
Move often, in as many ways as possible. Exert yourself, and then give yourself rest. Rest as much as you need to, so that you can do as much as you can physically. Eat till you’re full, and stick to food that’s been handled by human hands as little as necessary.
That’s it.
No reps. No sets. No diets. No calorie-counting. No restrictions. No prescriptions. Move vigorously in as many ways as possible, rest fully, eat unprocessed foods till you’re full – repeat.
Yes, it’s just that simple.
It’s how we evolved. It’s why your great- or great-great grandparents could live for 80+ years eating bacon and eggs for breakfast every day. They worked hard. Physically.
If there was one thing I might add, one prescription, it would be this – Do all of those things with joyful companionship.
All of the rest is gravy, or icing, or lard – whatever you like best. Rep it out. Calculate sets till your hands fall off. Track volume. Measure joint range of motion and flexibility with fifty goniometers. Active release-, ballistic-, and static-stretch the shit out of yourself. But remember, that’s all just extra. The only thing you really need to be happy and healthy, is the most basic, is free, is accessible now – move, eat, laugh, share – but above all – MOVE
Frank Forencich posted an article from the Mayo Clinic on the Exuberant Animal Blog today.
The article is about walking, and how frequent walking is just as effective (if not more effective) at improving health as “heavy” exercise. Not only is it just as effective, but there’s also significantly lower risk of injury in walking than in other types of “work out.”
Walking is part of our evolutionary heritage. Bipedal locomotion (walking on two legs) is one of the things that sets us apart from the other primates, and one of the things that enabled the rapid growth of our brain. We could do more things while we were moving – hold weapons, carry food, fix tools or clothing, etc. This increased effeciency definitely helped us to create neural pathways that didn’t exist in our primate brethren, and may have helped us to get the enormous amount of calories needed to fuel that growing brain.
There is one comment I’d like to make about the article, though, that the author misses. That is, the communal nature of human “exercise” through history.
We never walked alone.
But most gyms are set up in a way that forces people to work alone. All machine-based exercise equipment is made for one person. Sure, people have conversations next to each other on their stationary bikes, but where’s the creative problem solving? The space for play? It isn’t there.
For those of you reading this post, or the Mayo Clinic article – find a friend to walk with, and play some games along the way…
Yo!
I hope everyone’s doing well. I realized the other day that many of my posts on this site have little to do with training, so I started a new blog for all of my philosophical ramblings – http://nonaction.wordpress.com/
From now on, the LIFT blog will be devoted to training methods, ideas, etc. All other goodies will go to nonaction.
