Dog food GPP.  Doin’ my part to “Keep Austin Weird” by single-arm overhead strolling the few blocks from the pet shop to Efficient Exercise’s Rosedale studio with with a 50lb bag of mutt food.  Did I gather any looks?  Hell, this is Austin — no one even noticed

So we covered time in the last post, and this go ’round we’ll take a look at tools.  In other words, what S&C equipment you have (or don’t have) at your disposal.  Because the reality of life is this: if your goal is to be, say, an elite-level power lifter, but all you have access to is bodyweight and monkey bars, you’ve got a serious disconnect to contend with.

Now, maybe your answer to this disconnect is to “do whatever it friggin’ takes to gain access to the proper equipment“, and to that I say, rock on.  Don’t let anyone tell you anything is impossible.

But what you do in the meantime is also very important.  Because the ol’ “I’ll get started when….” mentality is death itself to any dream.  ”I’ll get started when I (fill in the blank)…have a real squat rack, my job lets up, the kids are older, it’s not so hot/cold/wet/windy outside….

You get the idea.

Dream kill…

Because the reality is that, in this scenario, your ass will be doing absolutely nothing.  You know this is true, so don’t fall into the trap.

But remember:  your goals are meant to be viewed through the lens of your five Ts.  There’s a natural give-and-take, Yin and Yang.  In other words, the internal discussion may go something like this -

My ultimate goal is to be an elite level power lifter.  However, right now I simply don’t have access to the proper equipment.  My first vow is that this is a temporary situation for which I will find a fix.  But until then, I do have access to my own bodyweight, a grass field and rudimentary bars and such.   As such, I’ll give serious effort toward building full range-of-motion strength and joint health, mobility, stability (i.e., core strength); I’ll become a master at controlling my body in space.

Sometimes the goal needs to be reduced to manageable pieces — something the five T’s can help you with for sure.  Because, remember: the goal + five Ts union is meant to be an on-going conversation — not just something that you revisit once a year.  I continuously (though I don’t even realize that I do it now) run through this check-and-balance daily.  And so should you.  Life is gonna throw you some curve balls, my friend; pure, unmitigated  junk, actually.  You can either be nimble and navigate accordingly…

…or quit training entirely, waiting for the next “I’ll get started when…” scenario to come together.  Here’s a bit of “I’ve been there” wisdom — it never will.  Something will always be in the way.  Your training situation, relative to your goals, will never be ideal.  Deal with it.

Skyler Tanner clued me in to the fact that this continual evaluation/re-evaluation process is very similar to Toyota’s “5 Whys” of problem solving.  And so it is.  And my Efficient Exercise partner Mark Alexander suggested I should add a 6th T — Trajectory — to cover the wash, rinse, repeat nature of this evaluation/re-evaluation process.  I like it, but damn!  Musashi wrote The Book of Five Rings…not six!  Ughhh, I’m not built to deal with branding problems… 

And as an aside, Ann Wendel suggested I add a 7th T — Tequila — to facilitate the all-important thinking outside of the box that’s required during the evaluation/re-evaluation process.  Right on!  An astute call, I think!  

Ok, back on track, now.  

Listen, I feel your pain on this “lack of resources” dilemma.   I’ve had the privilege of training in some of the finest S&C facilities of their time anywhere, and have either worked along side, or been coached by, the finest in the business.  But I’ve also trained with scant equipment aboard an underway US Naval warship (USS South Carolina, CGN 37) and continued training (months at a time, while on military deployment) when all I had available was my own bodyweight, rudimentary chinning bars, and a crude approximation of what would later be called a TRX system.  The food sucked, the stress was through the roof, and sleep was essentially non-existent.   I’ve got a nice little story of picking up the “mother of all bad-ass parasites” while in the middle-east, a bug that nearly killed me.  Buy me tequila sometime and I’ll tell you all about it

Anyway, the point is this: I used what I had at my disposal, re-adjusted my goals, and kept on training.  Where there is a will, there is a way.  It’s hackneyed all-to-hell phrase, but it’s true.  Through it all, I kept…friggin’… training.  I kept the table set, and I adjusted my goals to get good at what my tools dictated I could get good at.  These deployment periods weren’t the time to fret about upping my deadlift max.  It wasn’t going to happen.  But I could sure as hell get better at bodyweight exercises, and that’s exactly what I focused on.  And you know what?  Even though gymnastics is well outside of my wheelhouse, I got pretty damn good at bar and strap work.  And when I did get back to a real gym, not only did I appreciate the hell out of it, but I found that I’d lost very little conventional strength.  How the hell did that happen?

By keeping the table set, kiddos.  It works.  Really, it does.

And get this: to some extent, having narrow choices is a good thing.  Flip this around to the positive view that you won’t be stymied by excessive choice paralysis.   Less can be more.  Embrace it, and prosper.

Below is a nice little “time and tools” example.  Even though I have just about every imaginable tool available to me at Efficient Exercise (and time, these days, is not so much an issue for me), occasionally I do run into a jam.  Today my partner trainer, Lesley, was training clients during the only window in which I was going to be able to grab a quick workout.  I didn’t want to be in the way, so I relegated myself to a barbell and an out-of-the-way dip rack.  I could have gone a million ways here, but taking into account what I’d done the last couple of days, I did this very simple — though highly effective — combo.  It took all of twenty minutes, left me breathless, and put a big smile on my face.  Not the way Meesus TTP leaves me breathless and puts a smile on my face…but hey, I’ll take it  

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

After a long day of Grand Opening festivities; the nucleus of Efficient Exercise’s San Antonio gang.  Photo by Christopher Lazano.

It’s shocking, at times, when I come face-to-face with just how long I’ve been in this S&C arena.  Usually the question comes up in a new client consultation — or in the most recent instance, in discussions during our San Antonio Efficient Exercise studio grand opening.  ”So”, someone will ask, “how long have you been doing this?”

Yikes.  This is almost as disarming as when people ask how old I am.  I feel like I’m no more than twenty-five… but then — holly crap! — I do the math (involves finger-counting) and re-realize that I am, in fact, forty-friggin’-eight!  Where the hell has all the time gone?

Because, damn — it seems like only yesterday when I was trying to keep up with older friends and cousins.  Push-ups, dips and pull-up challenges.  Footraces.  Wrestling.  Smear the queer (yeah, I know, I know…).  How far can you (fill in the blank…jump, climb, walk on your hands, heave a bale of hay [<--- redneck alert]…).  I remember dizzying, south Texas summer heat, a dirt floor outbuilding and a plastic-covered concrete weight set.  It seemed only natural that the kid who could put the most weight up overhead was to be revered…and targeted for eventual take-down.  I get now why Lord of the Flies was so unimpressive to me as a kid.  Hell, I didn’t have time to dwell on fictional tales of how brutal kids, left to their own devices, could be; I was living it.

And the thing was that the game never changed, it only became more intense.  Football camp *is* Lord of the Flies in a modern, sporting context.   Military training?  Same thing.

…And by the way — I did eventually come around to appreciate the literary aspects of Lord of the Flies.  It just took  a while, and some hand-holding by a fabulous Southwest Texas State PoliSci prof.

So, yeah — thirty-seven years, give or take?  thirty-seven years of trying to figure out how to get bigger, faster, and stronger…better than the next guy?  Damn.  Time flies.

But I’ve come to see that getting “better” than the next guy — or simply building a “better” you — boils down to juggling the same basics; and juggling those basics over and over and over again.

And by basics, I don’t mean compound movements and sprints — although those basics are important as well.  I’m talking about answering (and the constant reassessment of) basic questions regarding your training.  Those things that I like to call the Five Ts.

A quick rehash of the Five Ts:

Time – how much are you willing to invest, per week and per day?
Tools – what equipment/facilities do you have available to you?  Full-blown S&C facility, or nature’s playground?
Temperament (tenacity, intensity) – for instance are you more wood, fire or water?
Techniques – Oly lifts?  Gymnastic moves?  Can you pull-off a devastating set of JReps?  Can you effectively mix and match modalities, rep schemes and tempos?  Are you simply painting by numbers, or are you an artist?
Trade Mark (basecamp) – Ectomorph?  Mesomorph?  Ox, or gazelle?  John Henry, or Jack Be Nimble?

Now don’t get me wrong — all of these issues are vitally important vis-a-vis nailing one’s goals and objectives.  However, for just about everyone beyond college age, time becomes the most limiting factor in constructing a meaningful and effective exercise program.

In fact, time being the “trump factor” that it is, we at Efficient Exercise have built entire training concepts around optimizing that single, critical element.  My personal answer to the time-heavy, Five-Ts question is HIIRT (High Intensity Interval Resistance Training).  But our other trainers have come up with equally effective programming (Skyler Tanner, for instance) answers, and this is where EE’s true strength lay — not in top-down, Soviet-like compliance, but in bringing the best training minds in the business into our fold, and tasking them with answering the Five-Ts question for each and every one of their clients.  And yes, we provide those trainers with some amazing tools – but we require them to be innovative with the use of those tools.  And we’re constantly sharing, refining and evolving these answers.  Ossifying thought is not an option for us.   And because goals and life situations are constantly morphing, there is always a better way forward for any particular client.  It’s up to our trainers for find that better way.

But in most situations, time still the trump variable.  Because the simple fact of the matter is that you have to be realistic when balancing your goals relative to your available time commitment.  Want to be happy, healthy, have great body composition and still have time for demanding work and family commitments?  Yeah, I can give you that in as little as an hour per week.  Want to be a DI athlete and you’re not willing to give me a 12 hours/week commitment?  I’m going to tell you to re-think your priorities.  Simple as that.

These are extremes, of course, and there’s plenty of room to operate between those extremes.  But the Five-Ts trade-off still exists.

My personal workout time expenditure is probably, in an average week,  pretty close to 6 hours.  But of that 6 hours, probably only about one hour of that is spent in what I consider to be the upper-intensity ranges.  The balance is what I would consider “play”.

But then again, my “play” is what someone else might consider “super high intensity”, which leads us into the realm of “Temperament” and “Trademark”; subjects for subsequent, more in-depth posts on those Five T issues.

For instance, my “playout” this Sunday consisted of tire flips and broad jumps — 1 round consisting of 5 flips + 2 broad jumps over the tire.  I did 8 rounds of that, then moved on to hand stands, and a vast assortment of bar work — muscle-ups, monkey bars, parallel bars, etc.

But here’s the thing: you need to first place a priority on your high-intensity work.  If all you have is an hour a week to devote to exercise, make sure that hour is spent doing the highest intensity work you can handle.  Back-fill with lower intensity stuff as time permits.  And high intensity work doesn’t always have to include heaving iron — sprints can work well, too — but iron heaving *is* hugely effective, time efficient, and safe.  

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

Just another lazy Sunday afternoon at Efficient Exercise.  I thought that an old school squat clean paired with a new school ARXFit chest press would make for an interesting combo.  And hey, why not pull off an even 10 rounds of ‘em, right?

Yeah…..

So here’s what it looked like on the white board:

…and here’s a clip of round 6:

This was a pretty friggin’ brutal combo, to say the least.

You’ll notice two numbers listed under the ARXFit chest press — “Average” and “Max”.  The max represents the instantaneous maximum force generated during the repetition (always hit on the eccentric).  The average is just that — the average force generated over the 8 to 10 second TUL (time under load).  The goal, of course, is to generate the biggest numbers possible on each rep.  My average didn’t fall-off to the extent that my maximum did over the course of 10 rounds.  Not surprising,  as repeat power performance is right in my wheelhouse.  Not the fastest, nor the strongest — but I can hit 90% repeats on a consistent basis.  

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

By now I’m quite sure you’ve run across, in some form or fashion, Marlene Zuk’s work, Paleofantasy.  Now, I can’t claim to have actually read the book, but I have read a few interviews with her (here, and here, for example), and I’ve listened to Carl Lanore’s extensive Super Human Radio interview with her.  I think that’s a reasonable cross-sectional exposure to get the gist of what she’s implying in Paleofantasy — essentially, that we ought not try to emulate  our paleolithic ancestors because (a) we’ll get it hopelessly wrong, (b) we have only sketchy evidence at best as to what these people did eat much less how they actually lived their day-to-day lives, and (c) hey!  We haven’t stopped evolving, by the way!

And on those points, she is, of course, absolutely right.

But here’s the thing:  it seems to me that Marlene is stuck in 2009.  This essay (and the points iterated above) were certainly relevant then, but the Paleo movement has since addressed and moved well beyond those tired arguments.  And smartly so.  The caveman re-enactment thing was an easy target a few years back, but the Paleo argument has since been refined to address the fact that this lifestyle and way of eating  is still the most optimal human diet based on nutrient density, nutrient bioavailability, and the exclusion of “questionable” foods, compounds and chemicals.

The fact that we are still evolving, and that some of these evolutionary changes occur in a cosmic blink-of-an-eye (lactose tolerance, for instance), has little bearing on what we, as individuals, are best suited to consume today.  That my 50-thousand-year-hence ancestors may be fully grain adapted has (or should have) absolutely no bearing on what my optimal food choices are in the here-and-now.  I’ve often said that I am, in fact, a humanist — but I’m sure as hell not going to take a needle for team human on this one.  It seems that there are plenty of willing souls capable of forwarding this charitable, evolutionary work  

And look, I get it.  This book needed to be written — if for no other reason than to educate and prod those just now moving into the Paleo lifestyle to question authority; to think in a critical, non-compromising way.  And it’s not that Zuk’s science is wrong per se (it’s certainly not), it’s just that the practical application and direction of that science is a non-sequitur vis-a-vis the modern Paleo movement.  Those of us who have been entrenched in this movement from the get-go stress using the science of nutrient density, problematic proteins, inflammation and immune response rather than arguing the “caveman” theory.  What man ate prior to the rise of agriculture simply creates a basis from which to form testable hypotheses, noting more.  Novel foods are not evil, just suspect.  Guilty until proven innocent seems perfectly logical to me in this instance.

I certainly don’t begrudge Marlene Zuk’s making some descent money on this book, and I applaud her for forcing the masses to think critically.  Again, as far as the mainstream is concerned, it probably did need to be written.  I just wish that her arguments had been better directed.  And truth be told, Mat Lalonde already put this “Paleofantasy” argument to bed a few years back.  At Mat’s urging, we in the leading edge of the movement have since raised the bar.  Marlene is simply late to the game, taking haymakers at an opponent who’d already been deftly KO’d by the Kracken.  

Harnessing modern technology to advance ancestral wellbeing better describes the Paleo movement of 2013.  Finding the weak underbelly in this argument would have been a much better use of Ms. Zuk’s time.   

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith 

Whoa….

I’m still coming out of the whirlwind that was this past weekend’s uber-successful Paleo f(x) symposium.  The Paleosphere is rife with assessments, so no need for me to do one here.  Not only that, but mine would be a tad bit biased.  Not to mention, self-serving  ;)  

What I would like to express, though, is my utmost gratitude to those whom, without their dedication, sacrifice and support, would render a project of this magnitude little more than a mere pipe-dream.  The volunteers, the speakers, the vendors who took a chance on a fledgling symposium…to all of you, my heartfelt thanks and utmost gratitude for comprising the grassroots, heart-and-soul of this movement! 

And now we turn our Paleo movement attention to Denver, Colorado.  This fall (October, to be precise), we’ll have the first Paleo f(x) satellite symposium.  

Onward and upward.  Takin’ it to the masses, my friends.  And growing this movement one symposium at a time.  Stay tuned for details.

What activities lay at the intersection of strength and play?  Interesting question.  For me, things like sprinting and basic bar work come to mind.  Rope climbing, jumps, balls-out fixie riding.  One of my favorite “workouts” combines riding my fixed-speed as fast as possible through the streets of Austin to the University of Texas’ Clark field, reeling off a series of interval sprints, then hitting a combination of bar muscle-ups and box jump-overs.  Followed, of course, by the fixie huck back to home base — the Efficient Exercise Rosedale studio.

“Play” and “exercise”, of course, lay along points on a sliding scale.  One person’s “play” being another’s “thrashing”; someone’s “exercise” being another’s unattainable physical accomplishment.  The point being that play and exercise ought to be interspersed so as to encourage optimum health.  Unless, of course, we choose to divorce ourselves from the pursuit of “health”, and push the envelope toward “performance”.  A typical week for me might look something like 2 ball-busting exercise sessions, 4 “play-outs”, and 1 sloth-fest.

Skyler Tanner and friends — playing at this year’s Paleo f(x).  Photo by Jolly.

Challenges are another fun way to remain engaged in the physical culture scene; encouraging hard work without the practitioner even realizing it.  Isn’t this what kids do naturally?  Unfortunately, most of us “grow out of” this phase of life.  And what we “grow in to” is a zoo-like existence of little fun and too much rigor and formulation.  And very little, if any, play…much less, effective exercise.

For instance, Skyler and I are still playing with the idea of trying to hit 10, full ROM Russian leg curls.  I’ve worked my way up from 5 to 9 reps, with a 1-board spot.  Once I finally hit 10 with at the single board level, I’ll move on to attempting 10 of the real McCoy version.

And now there’s talk between Skyler and Clifton Harski of hitting a single-arm pull-up challenge.  Bastards!  But what the hell — I’m going to shut the frack up whining about my bodyweight disadvantage here and join in.  And as Skyler pointed out to Clifton and I, big guys can play at this game, too.  3 single-arm chins at 240 lbs?  Holy crap!  That and the climbing rope that Skyler hung at the Rosedale studio ought to at least have me at pseudo monkey-boy status by this summer’s AHS

And hell, you can “play” indoors as well.  Below is a picture of me messing around with my pops on the ARXFit vertical at Efficient Exercise’s new San Antonio studio.  Now, I can tell he’s playing, because the hat is still on.  When he tosses that bad-boy aside, watch out – things are about to get serious.

Time to play!  

…Seriously

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

 We’re in the final run-up to the awesome, 3-day Paleo f(x) symposium this week — 80 speakers, 700+ attendees, approximately 100 volunteers, S&C workshops, cooking demos, a huge expo area, after-hours dinners and parties — a true, 3-day, not-to-be-missed, ultimate wellness, uber-event.  Can’t make it to The Epicenter of Physical Culture (Austin, Texas) for the big show?  Don’t fret — we’re now set up to live stream a good portion of the presentations.  Discount knowledge is a good thing, kids!

The Paleo f(x) symposium is the physical manifestation of the over-arching Ancestral Momentum – Theory to Practice premise: that we are who we are as a species today, because we evolved as obligate movers and opportunistic feeders.  The modern manifestation of which is that you can’t out-train a crappy diet any more than you can out-diet a non-physical lifestyle.  True wellness is the proper merging of a sensible diet, smart fitness, and intelligent lifestyle choices (adequate sleep and sun sun exposure, stress management, etc.).  We don’t advocate a return to the spear and stone age, mind you, but rather cultivating the fine art of leveraging of modern technology to achieve ancestral wellness.

But this movement (and Paleo is a full-fledged movement now) is so much more than the simple diet and fitness tweaks that can be performed to optimize one’s own health.  No, this is also about what can be done to better the environment, the public policy landscape, one’s every, day-in and day-out interaction to facilitate an optimum lifestyle.  A tall order?  Yeah, it is — but we’ve never backed away from a challenge.  And this movement is a magnet for folks of the same, tenacious mindset.

Paleo f(x) is also a testament to what can be done when a critical mass of people truly believe in a movement’s  core principles.  This symposium would never have gained traction without the tireless, dedicated efforts of close to 100 volunteers.  And we do ask A LOT from these folks, both in terms of time and effort.

Michelle and I are truly blessed to be in a position now in our lives where we can devote the time, energy and money toward a project that truly inspires us.  Quite literally, we’ve gambled the coconut farm on this one.  But in our eyes, it’s a hell of a lot more fulfilling route than taking the easy way.  What more exciting way (than the possibility of losing your shirt) to affect positive change?  :) And, as a bonus, being in this position allows us to interact daily with folks who are exceedingly intelligent and overtly passionate about affecting the same positive change we believe in.  Both individual change, and change in the world as a whole.  

So come check us out at the big show, March 28th, 29th and 30th, in the epicenter of physical culture, Austin, Texas.  If you can’t make it out to Austin, get a taste for the event via livestream.  It was one hell of a party last year, and we’re doubling-down for the 2013 iteration.

The great Russian leg curl-off, Efficient Exercise style -

So it’s not enough that Skyler has enticed me to destroy my arms on a routine basis by hanging a climbing rope at the Rosedale studio; now he’s ramped things up a notch with an RLC challenge.   The goal?  The first knucklehead to reach 10, full ROM, no cheat, RLCs (Russian leg curls) is the “king of hams”.  Where to beyond that?  Incline the bench, of course!  Add a weight vest!

So if you see me hobbling around the Paleo f(x) symposium, unable to lift my arms, you’ll know what’s up.  Yep, 48 years old, and still acting like I was 20.  That’s PAF (Paleo as F*ck) in my book

The first salvo – 5 with a one-board cheat:

I’ll see you all after the big show!  And if you attend, please come up and say “howdy”!

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

Many people new to training, or new to healthy dieting — or even new to the whole ancestral wellness idea — are, by necessity, driven to emulate the actions of those who have forged a path ahead of them.  This is the early part of any new learning curve, and will produce some decent results in the very beginning of the process.  However, “emulating” rarely produces continuing, long-term change and continued progress.  Why?  Because each individual is just that — an individual, with a unique set of genetics and epigenetics that must be managed relative to our interaction in the modern world.

So emulating those who have been successful on a particular path is a great place to start, if for no other reason than to kindle inspiration and forward momentum.  To succeed beyond the “inspiration” honeymoon though, requires other skill-sets.  Most importantly, you’ll need the ability to observe and assess, to intuit, to rationalize and reason.  And maybe even more importantly, you’ll have to be able to determine when you have enough information to act.  Essentially, you’ll have to trust your gut and intuition on some things and forge ahead with less-than-adequate knowledge.  But here’s the thing: actions that are “directionally accurate” are a hell of a lot more productive than sitting on your ass and waiting for someone (or some perfect piece of science) to point the perfect way ahead.  Because “perfect” may never arrive in this lifetime.  Get over it, and do the best you can with the available mix of observational and sound scientific information you have.  And be amendable to changing your mind in light of new information!  For God’s sake, don’t let your opinions ossify!

And because as much as I love and geek-out on science (and I do!), it’s only one tool in the overall kit.  You have to understand the inherent limitations of any tool in order to use that tool appropriately and efficiently.  Same with experience, accumulated (group) wisdom, gut instinct, n=1 experimentation and observation. 

Also, one has to be comfortable asking the question: did the successful person I’m emulating achieve those desired results due to “luck of the genetic/epigenetic draw”, or due to the observance of some sound, scientific principle that can be applied across the board?  Or, was it due to some combination thereof?  And will it apply to me and my circumstance?  And I say “comfortable” because rarely will you be offered a definitive answer. 

Look, my workout regimen cannot be your workout regimen.  My workouts differ greatly from what I prescribe to my Efficient Exercise clients, and each of my clients’ programming is individual unto them.  I ingest a crap-ton of raw, unpasteurized dairy, drink coffee by the gallon (somewhat kidding), and behind-the-neck press and dip with heavy-ass poundages.  Does that mean you should?  No, it only means that I’ve done my due diligence with these movements and substances, assessing my unique, n=1 relationship with them.  Same with my overall workout protocols.  Learn from science.  Learn from others and from observation.  But at the end of the day you have to do your own n=1/Five Ts due diligence with that information.  Be a citizen scientist!

Somewhat within the same realm is something I’ve written on before — that of being completely hamstrung into inaction from lack of credible (read, Randomized Controlled Trials, or RCT) scientific supporting evidence.  Or worse yet, ambiguous evidence.  Or worst of all — being held captive by the yammerings of educated idiots.  Ok, so “idiot” is a pretty strong word; “unwise” is probably a better choice, but you get the idea.

Robb Wolf has written a great piece, here, opining on the same topic.  Quoting from that piece (one of Robb’s best, in my opinion):

…what I AM, is skeptical of the skeptics, the folks who live and die by what is (or is not) in PubMed. Mainstream medicine got itself into a bit of a pickle a few years ago when holding “complimentary and alternative medicine” to some pretty high standards of research validation. I forget the exact number, but 70-80% of what is practiced in your standard hospital or medical office has NO randomized controlled trial (RCT) establishing efficacy. I cannot tell you how many people I’ve run across who will dismiss things like Ancestral Health or gluten free eating due to a paucity of RCT’s , the “gold standard” in medicine… (although even these frequently have huge methodological problems like not keeping people in a metabolic ward for the duration of the study…). These same people think nothing of using methodology which lacks RCT backing (most of standard medical care), yet shoot down new therapy using the same criteria. What they are relying on is, GASP! Observation! That dirty, dirty word to the EBM crowd, yet the very thing which forms a remarkable chunk of the foundation of their practice. I’d call this a double standard but usually that term implies some degree of awareness on the part of the perpetrator. In this situation, there is NO awareness, just an assumption that what makes up current medical practice has been “rigorously studied” when in fact most of medicine has simply been observed to “work” and that was the end of that…

and -

…the Paleo Diet/Ancestral Health concepts were born of observation, an observation that pre-industrial societies show a remarkable absence of the degenerative diseases which plague the developed world. From this observation, various theories have sprung forth (immunologically reactive plant proteins causing Leptin resistance, changes in activity levels altering gene activity, maladaptive sleep patterns,  gut dysbiosis and insulin sensitivity, etc.). We are now in the beginning stages of investigating some of these big picture hypotheses, and using the findings to refine our understanding of human health. It is humorous when I hear people dismiss “observational findings”, as these are the seed-crystal of ALL of science. We observe phenomena 1st, endeavor to construct predictive models 2^nd…

and -

..modern physics was born a little over a century ago when phenomena were observed that had no model of prediction or explanation. Shallow thinkers with names like Bohr, Einstein, De Broglei, Planck, and Schrodinger hashed out what would become the modern field (no pun intended) of quantum mechanics. It is worthwhile to do a little reading about this time, and the interpersonal conflicts that arose in the physics research community. It was a blood-bath. Personal attack’s, attempts at subterfuge.  Substitute “quantum mechanics” for “paleo diet” or “evolutionary medicine” and we can largely transfer these stories of a century ago to our modern equivalent of the emerging science of Darwinian Medicine…

This is largely in response to the Salon.com article, “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions; Paleofantasy being a book largely dismissive of the Paleo movement, by Marlene Zuk .  Fair enough; we all need to be held accountable, and a large part of that is responding responsibly to criticism.  It keeps us on our toes, and for that I am thankful.

Ms Zuk, though, is apparently incapable of making any real-world decision without benefit of a definitive scientific study to back it up.  This is classic, academic, “failure to launch”.  She’s obviously highly educated and intelligent — but is she in any way wise?  Since she is so dismissive of the Paleo lifestyle, it would be interesting for her to lay-out her own diet and workout regimen.  Backing up her choices, of course, with solid, RCT-backed, scientific study.

And yes, simple observation alone can get you in trouble.  Admiring the finalists in a swim meet, for instance, then thinking that to get a swimmers body you’ll need to training like a swimmer dismisses the genetic element and self-selection at work in the sport itself.  Observe, test, then assess.  Is it really so complicated that we cannot first delve in on our own without specific and “solid” (Evidence Based!) science to cut the path first?

We do have to be careful, as well, not to become mired in minutia.  I can find a bazillion scientific studies/agruments advising against the overhead press, not to mention the (gasp!) behind the neck version — and heavily loaded at that!  And yet, properly performed, and with the right combination of intensity, rep scheme, etc, I’ve found it to be one of the best overall exercises to perform.  Observe, test, re-assess.

Toward that end, here’s an excellent clip from Mike T Nelson discussing, essentially, the paradox of choice.

Because here’s the thing — eventually, you have to eat.  And if you want to grow, you’ve eventually got to get your ass under a bar and lift some heavy-ass weight.  That you might not be doing the exact perfect thing is ok — it’s still a hell of a lot better than being stymied by indecision, and doing nothing at all.

Albert Einstein nailed it in this regard when he said, ”logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere” 

 In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

Seriously?  Thirty snatches?  What the fu…..?  

Well, I Think we all know where this post is going.  But let me preface things first by saying that I am absolutely *not* a CrossFit hater.  I’ve stated routinely that I appreciate CrossFit’s sense of community, competitive atmosphere, and the fact that CrossFit provides a competitive outlet to those who would otherwise not be able to compete in much of anything else — not for lack of drive or lack of talent, but for lack of outlets.  People like me.  And when programmed correctly, it can be one hell of an effective overall program (just look at some of my own programming).  I will, however, ping on shoddy, senseless programming when I see it, and the following is one of the most egregious examples of “shoddy and senseless” that I have ever seen:   

The CrossFit Games Open, workout 13.1 (Mens open)

17 minutes, AMPAP:

40 Burpees

75 pound Snatch, 30 reps

30 Burpees

135 pound Snatch, 30 reps

20 Burpees

165 pound Snatch, 30 reps

10 Burpees

210 pound Snatch, as many reps as possible  

Yeah, wow.  And yes, I get the 17-minute, built-in “safety valve” here, but still.  This is some of what I posted in a Facebook discussion on the same:

…It’s not that I dislike CrossFit per se (I actually appreciate it for the reasons you cite), however, where I feel they go off the grid is with poor programming of the sort demonstrated in this particular WOD. It’s [CrossFit's] wild popularity does not infer solid S&C underpinnings, and those not steeped in S&C need to know that. What is the point of performing a highly technical lift, under fatigue, 90+ times? I get the MetCon thing, and repeat power production under fatigue — but for the love of God choose a sane demonstration of that. Repeat med ball caber tosses for height/distance, for instance. Just because I can throw a 16 lb shot, baseball style, a few feet proves nothing…other than I’d be an idiot to include it in my programming.

..Also, I played football for 12 years without serious injury….until I got seriously injured. Serious enough that it ended my career. All it takes is one misstep. Risk/benefit ought to be first and foremost in any S&C program…

And so I ask: is there any sane justification for doing this workout?  

And I get that it’s not a workout per se, but a competitive test.  And that entertainment is part of the deal.  And the element of surprise.  And the wow factor.  But isn’t there a better way to test an athlete’s repeat power production?  Even while maintaining the “thrills and skills” element?  Of course there is.  

Again, from my Facebook discussion:

I think the fact that this *is* a Games WOD confuses me all the more. Any legitimate sport (and yes, I do consider CrossFit the “sport” of S&C) has to look out for the health of its athletes, given that athletics of any kind is already inherently risky. Obviously this was a WOD designed to demonstrate repeat power production (power endurance) under fatigue – which I can totally relate to (even more so because it’s in my wheelhouse). But why pick such a risky combo to do so? Does CrossFit owe no allegiance to the health of their competitors? Football — hell, even MMA — has rules in place to mitigate potential damage to athletes even while maintaining the integrity and competitive nature of the sport. I mean, really – I don’t have a dog in the hunt here – but I just hate to see athletes of any type get needlessly hurt in the pursuit of their passion.

…I would just much rather test fitness with sane tests. Nike SPARQ or RealFit, for instance. And I don’t think it takes away from the sport to know the tests well in advance, if that were the case. I can just say this: if I’d have trained my ass off for the games like these competitors have done, and was then given this WOD as the opener, I’d be severely pissed. I wonder how many potential and legit overall winners won’t even make it to round 2 because of needless injury. And I get that the “anything out of the hopper” part of the sport, but there’s a huge difference between training for a life/death situation, and actually reacting to one. One does not train for a 700 lb squat by actually attempting to squat 700 lb routinely…

I know some great Crossfit coaches who would never program this kind of insanity.  I also know some outstanding athletes who are passionate about busting ass in the games.  Programming and/or testing like this makes me angry for all of these folks.

It’s almost as if HQ said, “all you bitches cryin’ about crazy-ass programming?  Yeah?  Well check this shit out!”

Nice.  Meanwhile there’s a potential games winner not going on to round two because of fuggled-up shoulders or elbows.  And if that’s just “part of the game”, that’s a game I want absolutely nothing to do with.

In health, fitness, and ancestral wellness -

Keith 

Time…or more aptly, lack thereof.  When discussing the Five Ts with my clients – or even when evaluating my own program – time is more often than not found to be the most restrictive obstacle to overcome.  Whether it be time available to devote per workout, or cumulatively throughout the week, time is over and again the most restrictive factor standing between a client and his or her fitness goals.

Or so it would seem.

Because the fact of the matter is that a hell of a lot can be accomplished in as little as one hour (two, smartly-programmed, 30-minute sessions) per week.  In my post Managing the Variables, I wrote:

…If you’re looking to be a high level, competitive athlete, days off are going to be few and far between.  Get over it — that’s just part of the Faustian bargain.  Great health, on the other hand, can be accomplished in as little as 1 hour of smartly-programmed training (plus some daily movement) a week.  You’ll have to find your “home” somewhere within that wide spectrum, depending upon what you want out of the S&C game.  And depending upon how much time you’re willing to invest in the process.  Diminished returns is the name of the game here.  Of course I don’t have any verified numbers to offer you, but I’d say a pretty solid, in-the-park swag is to say that you could reach, with smart programming, maybe 80% of your genetic hypertrophy potential in as little as an hour per week. Want to bump it to 90%?  Better invest another 3 hours per week.  Trying to top out?  Better be willing to throw another 7 hours on top of that.  And be damn sure your nutrition, sleep, recovery and stress management is flawless.  You get the idea.  And this is just the hypertrophy side of things.  Sport-specific technique is another issue entirely, though the diminished returns idea is applicable here as well.

100% of the health benefits and 80% of the phenotypical expression in 1 hour per week.  Not too shabby.

Okay, so let’s say that you’ve bought into the idea that an hour per week of intense exercise is a pretty damn good return on investment.  And let’s say that, although 90% might be more to your liking, you’re just not willing or able to part with the additional 3 hours per week required to get there.  I get it.  I’m just happen to be one of those freaks who does have the time, inclination and recuperative ability to push that 90% threshold and beyond.  My clients, for the most part, do not have the time, inclination or recuperative ability, and it’s my responsibility to give them as much as possible in that one hour per week that they are able to commit.

So, how about some specifics?  How would one go about attempting to program a 1 hour per week, solid template?

Well, let’s first assume the that body performs 8 basic movements — vertical push, vertical pull, horizontal push, horizontal pull, squat, hinge and (the wildcards) sprint and/or carry.  There are a million angles and variations on these themes, of course, but these are the basics that we’ll need to cover.

Next, let’s agree that we should touch on (“surf”) as many portions of the force-velocity curve as possible — for the sake of both enhanced hypertrophy and enhanced health and wellness.  That means that over a number of workouts, we’ll hit on as many varieties of rep tempos, intensities (in the academic sense of the term) and time-under-load (or rep count) variants per movement as possible.

Third, let’s agree that Autoregulation will be the overriding modality that we’ll follow.  And that we’ll strive for some kind of a  PR (volume, density load, etc.) in every movement, every workout.

And finally, let’s just assume that the intensity (common use of the term) — or “temperament/tenacity” according to my Five Ts — should always be sky-high.  Not artificially/stimulant/face-slapping high, mind you, but steely focused.  Or in the immortal words of CT Fletcher, an “it’s still your mutha fuckin’ set!” brand of intense.

Now, let’s walk through the construction of a couple of half-hour workouts, seeing if we can both hit all the basic movement patterns, and do a little intense, force-velocity “curve surfing” along the way.  Here is how I programmed one particular Efficient Exercise client last week; we’ll deconstruct these two workouts in a moment:

Monday -
A1 Powermax 360 cross-punch x 30 secs.  15 sec pause, then
A2 75 lb T-bar swing x 20
3 rounds
B1 ARXFit chin x 5 reps
B2 Hanging (stirrups)  knees-to-elbows.  “Pin” knees to elbows for a “beat”, then lower slowly. 5002 tempo
2 rounds
C1 ARXFit incline press x 5
C2 Pendulum Hip press x 21.  1st round -7-rep rest-pause, increase weight at each 7-rep pause.  2nd round, Rest-pause sets of 7,6,5,4 and 3 with top-out weight of round 1. 10 second pause between sets
2 rounds  

Thursday -
A1 Powermax 360 cross-punch x 30 secs.  15 sec pause, then flye/reverse flye x 30 secs
A2 55 lb T-bar swing x 20, pause 15 secs, another 20
2 rounds
B1 ARXFit leg press x 5
B2 Russian leg curl x 10
2 rounds
C1 Dips x 7 reps, pause 15 sec, 5 reps (same weight)
C2 ARXFit row x 5
2 rounds

Ok, so a couple of things stand out here.  First off, I have access to some specialized equipment that helps me hit the extremes of the force-velocity curve — ARXFit, for the high force/low velocity portion, and the powermax 360 allows me to hit the high velocity/low force section.  I can utilize what I feel is the best leg press on the market – the Pendulum hip press – to safely scorch the lower body when the client is already in a highly fatigued state.  You will just have to plug-and-play according to what you have available to you (another of the Five T tenants .  For instance, ballistic push-ups could be used in lieu of the 360, and barbell equivalents could be used in lieu of the ARXFit work.  Not perfect, but nothing in life ever is.  Doing the best you can with what you have is the name of the game.

Now, you might be asking where the overhead and heavy hinge work is.  Yes, these movements will be cycled through in subsequent workouts.  In other words, this is not a simple A, B repeating workout setup — it just one small part of a larger, overall, constantly-changing whole.

And so the theme of each workout is to find some way to PR on each and every movement and/or exercise grouping.  Or, we can benchmark numbers in a novel move or combo.  For instance, let’s consider the Dip/ARXFit row combo in Thursday’s workout.  We could shoot for an out-and-out load PR (in the dip), or maybe a rep PR at an established load in each exercise.  Total work output or max average force output would work in the row.  Or maybe we could look at this from a combined density (or work output) standpoint…you get the idea.  Lots of exciting options, here.  And not as complicated as it might sound, either, if you keep a good set of PR-specific notes.  

The goal is to constantly change challenges, and keep things fresh.  Give the mind and body something new to conquer.  It’s been my experience that insofar as linear periodization works (and it does), it does so in specialized instances.  It works, ironically, for rank beginners.  And it works, too, for those specialized athletes whose life revolves around the sport of lifting (be it power or Olympic).  This is probably a subject for another post, as fleshing it out gets a bit convoluted.

Autoregulation, on the other hand, works exceedingly well for those whose life, health or sport is augmented by weight training, and/or for those who are unable to devote their every waking moment to either working out or maximizing recovery.  We’d all love to be (and live like) Olympic caliber athletes, but alas that’s not the case.  We’ve got to somehow account for all those other stressors in our lives (not to mention the missed workouts, etc.) that would jack with our pretty and clean, linear progression calculations.

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -

Keith

Ever wonder what the relationship is, in a practical sense, between systemic fatigue, workout-induced muscular failure, workout volume, and that oftentimes misinterpreted word, “intensity”?  And, more to the point, what is the interplay between these factors and workout frequency?  And what about the impact of these factors upon performance (whether athletic or body composition)?  And for that matter, overall health?

Well, before we even begin let’s agree to approach this question from a real world perspective.  In other words, let’s simply consider how one looks, feels, and/or performs.  Somewhat subjective, yes (the look and feel part, at least).  But the reality is that unless you are a monitored, high level athlete, or under some pretty intense medical scrutiny, looking, feeling and performing will be the only parameters you’ll realistically have access to…or even really care about.

Let’s first consider the term “intensity”.  And right out of the box, we need to understand that there are two definitions of this term in the S&C world — one of them academic, and the other more generally understood.  The academic definition of the term describes a percentage of one’s 1 RM in a particular lift; the higher the percentage, the higher the intensity.  The more generally understood term relates to level of focus, desire, drive — or my go-to (and Five Ts) word, tenacity.

So while a few sets of high intensity (high percentage of 1 RM) squats will certainly require a high level of intensity (in the generally understood sense), does that then imply that 10 sets of 10 at a low intensity weight is not extremely intense?  

Of course not.  The 10 x 10 just doesn’t produce the same degree or manner of physiological “hit” to the system.  Now, I don’t claim to know exactly what constitutes this so-called “physiological hit” — other than it’s more muscular in nature vs the more CNS centered hit delivered by busting through some high percentage lifts — but I do know that it’s (the more “muscular” hit) much easier to recover from.  And hence I could, if I wanted to, workout a different body part (or movement pattern) the following day.  Systemic recovery from such a workout (no matter how “intense”) can be that quick.  Welcome to the origins of the traditional bodybuilding splits.

So the muscular fatigue produced via a more traditional lower-intensity/higher volume bodybuilding workout does not elicit the same, devastating systemic fatigue that a more comprehensive, higher-intensity throwdown produces.  The sliding-scale, systemic fatigue producing nature of these two types of workouts then dictates the frequency at which these two types of workouts may be undertaken.  It also dictates the proper mix-and-match between an athlete’s “in-the-gym” and “on-the-field” work.

My own per-workout construction and overall workout frequency is an outcropping of this concept.  How is it that I’m able to workout 5 or 6 days a week?  Systemic fatigue and overall stress management via intensity (in the academic sense) manipulation is the answer.  Two CNS-draining barnburners a week plus 3 or 4 “bodybuilding” workouts a week and I’m looking, feeling and performing good.  I also realize that all stress — whether physical, mental, you name it — adds to the overall stress account.  Going through a hellish week at work is not the time for a brutalizing string of workouts.  Pick the right tool (modality), and a mix of lesser intensity and volume, keep the table set, and live to fight another week.

Now, I love working out.  And I prefer the more high-intensity, CNS-depleting efforts to traditional bodybuilding — that’s just how I’m wired.  But too many of those barnburners in a week and I’m hammered for sure.  So what if I want to throwdown in this manner 3 or even 4 times in a week?  Simple — I have to say goodby to my more bodybuilding-oriented workouts that week.  And I’ll have to be even more coo-coo-ca-choo than I normally am.  Sometimes I’ll purposely over-reach so as to push the work capacity/stress tolerance envelope (a topic for another post), but since I’m not currently training for competition, I don’t see the need for that now.

Also note that I don’t need to make room in my program for sport-specific technique development.  This is a huge issue to have to consider when putting together an overall program for an athlete.  I’ve written on this interplay before (here and here). 

So while I wouldn’t normally recommend say, a single-set-to-failure protocol for optimum hypertrophy development, I’d for sure (depending upon the circumstance) recommend it for certain other applications.  Context matters, for sure.  So does choosing the best tool for the job.

Which brings us to the topic of work capacity, or the ability to both sustain a high degree of effort within an individual workout, and recovery quickly (and fully) from repeated, high-effort workouts.  And like any other quality, this can be improved via smart programming.

When I was younger and had all the time in the world, I trained most every day and with brutalizing throwdowns that, on paper at least, looked like a direct highway to adrenal meltdown.  This was on top of (during the summers, at least), working a demanding concrete construction job.  I can’t even imagine what the critique of the internet overtraining police would have been.  Anyway, so did I wind-up careening over the meltdown cliff?  Leave my adrenals in a smoldering heap?  Hardly.  

What actually happened was that my work capacity skyrocketed, and I got progressively bigger, faster and stronger.  Of course I had zero stress at the time.  And was in my hormonal prime, so to speak.  But still…

Now this is going to sound very hackneyed, but I came of age and was coached by those who lived and operated by the creed that “there is no overtraining, only under recovery”.

Maybe not as explicit as CT, but you get the idea

Now, I’m aware that this may sound very bro-science to the enlightened, but there’s actually plenty of wisdom here.  Because the same coaches who taught me to go balls-out in every, 6-day-per-week workout, also programmed accordingly (via the academic sense of the word intensity), and hammered home the fine art of proper refueling, sleep and stress and fatigue management.

But here’s the thing: just because you can bring up your work capacity to the point where training 6 days a week is a reality, does that imply that you should train 6 days per week?  I mean I was competing at this point in my life, and health was just a vague concept that I figured I’d always have.

Well, boosting work capacity totally depends upon your goals.  If you’re looking to be a high level, competitive athlete, days off are going to be few and far between.  Get over it — that’s just part of the Faustian bargain.  Great health, on the other hand, can be accomplished in as little as 1 hour of smartly-programmed training (plus some daily movement) a week.  You’ll have to find your “home” somewhere within that wide spectrum, depending upon what you want out of the S&C game.  And depending upon how much time you’re willing to invest in the process.  Diminished returns is the name of the game here.  Of course I don’t have any verified numbers to offer you, but I’d say a pretty solid, in-the-park swag is to say that you could reach, with smart programming, maybe 80% of your genetic hypertrophy potential in as little as an hour per week. Want to bump it to 90%?  Better invest another 3 hours per week.  Trying to top out?  Better be willing to throw another 7 hours on top of that.  And be damn sure your nutrition, sleep, recovery and stress management is flawless.  You get the idea.  And this is just the hypertrophy side of things.  Sport-specific technique is another issue entirely, though the diminished returns idea is applicable here as well.  

One other variable we also need to consider is muscular failure.  And more to the point (and from a performance standpoint), does momentary muscular failure in any way correlate to the optimum amount of stimulus within a muscle for a given workout session?  Yet another way to frame this is to ask if single-set-to-failure is an optimum training regimen. Well, in my experience, though the premise of training the target muscle to it’s breaking point (and no more), then backing off and recovering seems logical enough, it simply isn’t the entire answer.  But then again, no single program is.  Hypertrophy is a multi-faceted phenomenon, as is athletic betterment.  Again, I’m considering this question purely through a performance lens.  Health is another matter entirely.  As is the aforementioned idea of diminished returns.

That being said, I don’t believe that per-set, momentary muscular failure constitutes the final word on optimum muscle “inroading”; i.e., that amount of work that will produce optimum results.  I think it is but one factor in a multitude of modality-specific indicators that must be considered.  And here is where art and experience comes into play.  How much is enough?  I can’t say exactly, but I know it when I see it in those I train, or feel it in myself.  I realize this is not an acceptable answer to the more literal/science-minded, but until we do have a definitive answer (and we can correlate it in an n=1 sense), it is simply the nature of the beast.  And this in no way implies that we should give up searching for the answer, either.  

But back to muscular failure.  Simply put, “failure” has just as much of a  psychological element to it as a physiological one.  So this is where experience comes into play — experience in manipulating intensity and volume in such a way as to maximize the desired outcome.  Because the truth of the matter is that the mix is going to be entirely different depending upon what goal we’re chasing (hypertrophy, strength, athletic performance, etc.).  It’s also going to shift person-to-person.

Be comfortable with this mix of art and science.  Become comfortable, too, with balancing fatigue, stress, intensity and volume.  Learn to be a true chef vs reheating someone else’s leftovers.  Or worse yet, relying on prepackaged, frozen dinners.

In health, fitness and ancestral wellness -
Keith