Social media ads rarely fail to give me something to rant, I mean write, about. Recently, I saw an advertisement titled: “A comprehensive 6-week program for being good at everything.” It was essentially advertising a Cross-HIIT type of program, but the thing that struck me most was that it promised the impossible and that they promised it in only six week. (It was actually a 7-week program—??)
No one can be good at everything. Aston Eaton, one of the all-time best Olympic decathletes, is very good at the ten decathlon events, but even he is not good at everything.
Now, to be fair, the advertisers weren’t clear on what they meant by “everything”. Surely, they we limiting the hyperbole to the physical dimension of fitness. As well, “good” is not defined. Good relative to whom or by what standards? Good as in “functional”. Of course, “functional” is an elusive term, as well. So, I am honestly not sure just what “good” means.
One of the most basic concepts in exercise science is that of “specificity”—i.e., the body makes specific adaptations to imposed demands (hence, it is often refer to as the “S.A.I.D. principle”). It is a foundational physiological concept. It is “so simple a caveman can get it” (as the old GIECO commercial would say). In fact, the caveman did get it, as did every species that adapted to its environment over time. Still, fitness pros often don’t get it.
If one could be good at everything, Aston Eaton would be great at the ten decathlon events. He is, indeed, great at the decathlon (the combined ten events). Individually, he is good at these events, but individually he would probably not have made the US Olympic team—unless he concentrated his efforts on that one event. Instead, training to be the best at the decathlon required that he train for very different events simultaneously. Each event requires its own set of training stimuli and recovery periods. The decathlon requires the most careful management of training and the maximal recoverable volumes are reduced by the increased number of training stimuli. This is the reality behind “opportunity costs”.
Any training we do that is specialized—specific—takes training time away from something else. The more things that we want to be “good” at the more time and management it will require. Unless one is training professionally, there is just not enough time in the day.
Alex Viada, in The Hybrid Athlete, makes a very solid case for multiple dimensional training, but he is clear that there is a sacrifice to the level of performance. For example, I can significantly improve my 5-K time and my squat, but neither performance will be maximized with concurrent training. The more dimensions added to the training, the greater the constraints on improvement and the more complicated the management of stimulus and recovery becomes.
In training age, 6 weeks is nothing. The amount of measurable progress one can expect in 6 weeks is small. Perhaps, one with minimal training experience will experience “large” gains in strength (these will be almost entirely neurological adaptations, by the way) and “large” losses in body fat (because of the initial abrupt lifestyle change), but these will slow over the course of progression. By no means, could be say that these adaptations have made the exerciser “good”. Real progression takes time—a lot of time.
The “10,000 hours rule”, attributed to the researcher of Anders Ericsson and promoted by Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Outliers, would suggest that it takes years of practice and training to become “good” at anything—let alone everything. For full disclosure, Ericsson never actually concluded that 10,000 hours of practice is a rule, and there are countless factors that contribute to the mastery of any skill. Now, even if one trained for 3 hours a day for 6 weeks (i.e., 42 straight days), this is only 126 hours of training—nowhere near the time required to get good at something, let alone everything.
We want fast results. I get it. But, “fast” is not six weeks! Don’t buy into the fast hype. Be patient and be willing to put in the necessary effort. Realize, too, that no matter how much effort you put into anything, you won’t be good at everything. Strengthen your weaknesses, of course, but embrace your strengths. When I say “be your best today; be better tomorrow”, I am not suggesting that you can or will be the best. I am suggesting that you can be your best. Likewise, remember, that “’Can’t’ never did anything”, so I am also not suggesting that you can’t be “good” at everything. Try and you will. I just want to be clear on the commitment and the effort that will be required—and the significant amount of time it will take. Remember: opportunity costs. You will have to lower your standards in how you define “good”.
Carpe momento!
Photo source: USA Today