FITBUSTERS VOL 1 – the Reebok EasyTone Sneaker

My good friend Charlie Reid and I have put together a little video – the first in the FitBuster series – to discuss the new Reebok EasyTone shoe.

Apparently, the shoe creates “natural instability” by utilizing “exercise ball” technology in the soles.

But here, let a sexy woman tell you about it:

First of all, these claims are total bullshit, and Reebok should be sued for creating cripples. I’ve got an idea, let’s tie chapstick tubes to the bottom of babies’ feet to create more “natural” instability, so they learn to walk faster! Better still if the folks at Reebok installed electrical wires in the seats of their chairs (which they apparently are using far too often) to get some additional “glute recruitment” that way.

Secondly, and just as importantly – I’m not sure what the camerman keeps panning to. That girl has no ass at all. She’s completely ass-less. Her legs go right up to her neck. I’m not saying she’s unattractive, she’s very cute. But when all you have to “tone” is bone, it’s not too difficult. Bone naturally has a nice firm tonus. EasyTone…Bone. EasyBone. Okay…I’m getting carried away…

Chris Witty, Olympic Speedskater

In case you’re wondering how to build/tone your glutes and hamstrings, it’s simple.

HARD WORK

Yes, that’s right. You don’t get toned, firm, luscious buns of steel by walking on “naturally unstable” shoes. You get them by doing lots of sprinting, lunging, jumping, and squatting. Just like Chris Witty does for her sport. Please do more of those things.

The excuse-makers will claim “genetics!” about Witty’s gorgeous physique. But they’re always making claims about what’s impossible for them. Mostly because it’s easier to make claims than to get up and do something. So don’t claim genetics. Claim lots of ice cream and high volume squatting.

Anyway! Here’s the FitBuster Review of the Reebok EasyTone sneaker. Please enjoy:

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Backpedaling and, The Death of Reason

I posted a couple of days ago about Mike Boyle’s claim that people shouldn’t do bilateral barbell (especially, back) squats anymore.

His reasoning is that the back is a bad “transducer” of force from the legs to the upper body.

While I disagree with this use of the word “tranducer,” we won’t go into that here.

Instead, let’s talk about what Coach Boyle wrote on his blog today.  At the bottom, in the post script, it reads:

PS- We haven’t stopped doing bilateral exercises or, lifting heavy weights. We still Trap Bar Deadlift and Olympic lift. I also think that bilateral exercise is crucial for beginners. However, if you have experienced athletes and you want to keep them healthy and get them strong consider the Rear Foot Elevated Split Squat.

Wait Coach Boyle…your athletes still do the Olympic Lifts and deadlifts?!  But I thought the back was a bad “transducer” of force from lower to upper body – the limiting factor in people’s ability to move force with their legs!

What lift requires more “transduction” of power than the Olympic lifts?!  What lift requires more transduction of force than the deadlift?

So you don’t do backsquats anymore, because the back is the limiting factor in gaining leg strength?  So your athletes with weak backs go from their single-leg squats to deadlifts and O-lifts?

I’m confused.

For one thing, it’s potentially dangerous to have legs that are inordinately stronger than your back.  The back is the place where force is transferred from legs to upper body.

As anyone knows, who ever watched “The Weakest Link” – the weakest link goes first!

In this case, the weakest link is Coach Boyle.

I have nothing against you Coach, but it’s this type of thoughtless sensationalist self-aggrandizing bullshit that’s destr0ying the physical training industry in this country and getting people hurt!

So STOP IT.

1. Stop the reductionism.
The body is not a bunch of independently moving limbs connected by “transducers.”  The body is a single unit.  Any effect to one part of it, effects all of the rest of it.

2. Stop the stupid/sensationalist claims for specific exercises.
There’s no “magic exercise” for any bodypart or for the body as a whole.  The body cannot be pigeonholed, as much as you might like to do that.  You have to work the whole thing, you have to do it all, you have to figure it out.  You have to break it down and let it rebuild itself.  Strictly “anaerobic” training (which is a misnomer anyway) will make you a fumbling oaf.  Strictly “aerobic” training will make you a sickly Auschwitz-victim-looking ghost of a human being.

Stop pushing this bullshit information.  Learn the basics.  Practice the basics.  Preach the basics.

In case you don’t know what I mean, I’ll give you a brief outline of what the basics are here:

Basic Human Anatomy/Physiology – learn it.

Basic Biomechanics – force-transfers

Basic Exercise Physiology – things like “progressive resistance,” allo-/homeo-stasis, overload, adaptation, etc.

Basic Dietary Facts – so simple that a child knows them naturally…

Basic Games, Basic Play – if you shut your chattering brain down for a few minutes, you’ll be able to remember these yourself…you don’t have to pay anyone or read anything.

Basic Psychology – Know Thyself.

Six things.  Figure them out.  Take a class.  You can download/view/listen to most of that information for free on the internet (check out Wikipedia, and the iTunes University site).

I think that’s it.  Is there anything else?  Anyone out there in Readerland?

Ethics in Science

Ethical considerations are very important in the design, practice, and reporting of scientific research.

However, I think there is something else behind the need for a document like the APA’s extensive manual.  A quote from the Tao Teh Ching will help to illustrate this:

Chapter 18
When the great Dao is lost to sight,
codes of goodness and morality appear.
When cleverness and shrewdness are produced,
massive hypocrisy appears.
When family relationships lose natural harmony,
“filial piety” and “devoted parenthood” arise.
When there is strife and anarchy within the state,
“loyal patriots” abound.
(trans. Chilcott, 2009).

I don’t think that a manual like the APA’s points, necessarily, to rampant unethical behavior.  As one of my graduate professors pointed out, ethical “breaches” are reportedly around 1-2%.  But the manual does point to something, which is the issue related to the field of kinesiology, and ethics in science that I’d like to address here.

It is the habit we have gotten into as scientists of investigating symptoms, instead of causes.

The first example that comes to mind is that of modern gait research.  Modern gait research studies the human foot in a shoe.  However, “The human foot was anatomically modern, and therefore fully functional for bipedal walking and endurance running, more than 100,000 years ago” (D’Aout, et al., 2009, pg. 103).  The use of footwear in general has only been seen in the fossil record as early as 30,000 years ago (Trinkaus, 2005, pg. 1516).  Habitual use of the type of rigid footwear in vogue in our current culture extends back to the 17th century – and at that time was seen mostly in wealthy, or aristocratic populations.  Widespread use of rigid footwear by a majority of Western Europeans probably began only around the time of industrialization – about 150 years ago.

As reported in D’Aout, et al. (2009) – “Habitually shod Indians wear less often, and less constricting shoes than Western people.  Yet, we found significant differences with their habitually barefoot peers, both in foot shape and in pressure distribution” (D’Aout, et al., pg. 104).  This shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Modifications of tissue morphology following the use of a plaster cast are well known to anyone who has ever had to wear one.  Modern footwear, or even sandals (as shown by D’Aout), alters truly normal (as opposed to an “observed” or “cultural normal”) foot kinematics in much the same way as a plaster cast.

In Western European culture (or those of Western European descent), which have generated the majority of gait research in the past 100 years, the large majority of research has been on individuals who habitually wear shoes.

Can we safely say, then, after 100 years of research, that we truly have a good understanding of normal human gait (as in “physiologically normal” – concerning the human animal as a species that has existed without footwear for roughly 100,000 years)?

Further, if, as Booth and Laye point out, it is true “that removal of 8500 steps (dropping from ~10,000 to ~1500) in the absence of a structured exercise program for two weeks results in abnormal physiological changes in healthy young men” (Booth and Laye, 2009, pg. 2), and we have not noted the daily activity levels of participants in gait research studies, can we claim to have studied “physiologically normal” human gait at all (with or without shoes)?!

First, we are studying an abnormal population in terms of morphology and kinematics, due to the use of footwear (both the restrictive effect of footwear on truly normal movement of the foot, and the accompanying loss of tissue tonus and function accompanying that loss of normal movement).  Then, we are studying a potentially (in terms of gross physiology) abnormal population (in terms of evolutionary history of the animal) due to lack of sufficient movement in general, and the accompanying loss of proprioception and tissue strength/tonus.

When we then begin to recommend “orthotic inserts” as solutions to musculoskeletal or movement impairments, based on those studies of “normal” human gait, are we treating the problem(s) itself (or themselves – namely, lack of physiologically-normal movement, both in quality and quantity), or are we treating the symptom of the problem (i.e., dysfunction caused by lack of physiologically-normal, not culturally-normal, movement)?

What are the ethical implications of pursuing science in this manner?  And shouldn’t the discussion and resolution of this ethical issue precede the practice of designing, performing, and reporting scientific research?

 

 

Booth, F.W., Laye, M.J.  (2009).  Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise’s complexitiescan pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery.  Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Chilcott, T.  (2009).  Daode Jing.  http://www.tclt.org.uk/translations.html

D’Aout, K., Pataky, T.C., De Ciercq, D., & Aerts, P.  (2009).  Plantar pressures in habitually barefoot walkers.  Footwear Science, 1(1), pp. 103-105.

Trinkaus, E.  (2005).  Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use.  Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, pp. 1515-1526.

The game doesn’t matter as much as the fun

I stole this post heading directly from Bernie DeKoven, because I think it’s right on!

So much emphasis is given to reps, sets, weight, calories, and other “measurements of performance,” that we forget the true reason for playing – TO HAVE FUN!

Don’t forget the real reason behind your actions!

The Life We Are Given

Just finished reading “The Life We Are Given” by George Leonard and Michael Murphy.

I found this book after reading Murphy’s “The Future of the Body,” which is an extensive documentation of the “meta-normal” capacities recognized as having occurred in human beings (such as esp, telekinesis, faith healing, the placebo effect, etc.) which appear to be more normal, and therefore, attainable by everyone, than we give them credit for.

The subtitle of “The Life We Are Given” is “A Long-Term Program for Realizing the Potential of Body, Mind, Heart, and Soul.”  I had hoped to find just that.  Instead, I was a little disappointed.

After a very good section on the use of positive visualization and daily affirmations (which I’m using now), the book goes into some redundant sections (redundant to what is covered in the introduction or earlier chapters) on physical activity (including a prescribed movement set), diet, community, etc.

In that, it was very similar to a book I read some years ago – “The Scholar Warrior,” by Deng Ming-Dao.  I actually liked Deng’s book better, with it’s Taoist bent.

Don’t write this book off, though!  If you’ve never been down this path, of self-exploration, development, and transformative practice, it could be just what you need!

The book follows the method used by Leonard and Murphy in their 92 and 93 classes held at the Esalen institute called “Integral Transformative Practice” (ITP).

I think what they did was very good.  And they came up with some great (and in some cases astounding) results occurring in the participants.  But I find the method outlined in the book too restrictive.

Instead, I think one should create their own “transformative practice” – relevant to who they are, their preferences, their individual needs/desires/circumstances.

Following Leonard and Murphy, such a practice should consist of the following:

1. An assessment of your current state – where are you starting from?  What is happening, what has happened in your life?

2. The creation of a relaxation practice in your life.

3. The combination of that relaxation practice (once established), with visualization and affirmation.  The visualizations/affirmations should be goal-states.  Leonard and Murphy say that affirmations should be stated in the present tense – as in “I am at a weight of 165″ (which would actually be your target weight).  I’ve seen different authors recommend different things with regard to this.  Some say you should say “I WANT to weigh 165″ – that fuels the desire.  I think it’s probably personality-dependent.  Do what works best for you.

4. The development of a health and long-term exercise/physical activity practice.  It could be anything, but it should be regular, and progressive – that is, it should adapt as you do, becoming more challenging as you become more able.

5. Finding, or creating, a community of supportive, like-minded individuals, with whom you regularly meet and discuss your progress, trade ideas, learn with/from, etc.

6. Committing to long-term practice of the above steps.

Each of us is on their own path, and there are a million and one ways to do all of the things above.  I think starting is huge in itself.

Consider this book, and Scholar Warrior, if you’re interested in pursuing a “transformative practice” of your own.