Embrace the mistakes.

“If you so choose, every mistake can lead to greater understanding and effectiveness. If you so choose, every frustration can help you to be more patient and more persistent.”
–Ralph Marston

I have often compared life to wrestling. I frequently share the statement that “in wrestling there are no losers, only winners and learners”. This is, of course, true in life, as well. We learn and grow from our failures. This is, however, a choice we make. We can certainly choose to see our losses as negatives, but to what gain? Learn. Grow. Make changes. Learn and grow some more. This is the victory in life.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

Higher aspirations.

“Far away there in the sunshine are my highest aspirations. I may not reach them, but I can look up and see their beauty, believe in them, and try to follow where they lead.”
–Louisa May Alcott

(Extra)ordinary reaches beyond the everyday. High aspirations are not necessarily celebrity, wealth, or power. They are the determination to make the most of what we are given—the grow our talents and improve our circumstances for the benefit of others.

See the beauty in and believe in who and what you can become. Reach beyond the everyday—everyday.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

Evolve.

“Don’t live the same day over and over again and call that a life. Life is about evolving mentally, spiritually, and emotionally.” 
–Germany Kent

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Well-centered living is about growth—about constant change (kaizen). I would add to Germany Kent’s words by saying that life is about evolving Spiritually, Physically, Intellectually, Emotionally, and Social. In exercise science, we refer to this as “progressive overload”.

“In this world you’re either growing or you’re dying, so get in motion and grow.”—Lou Holtz

So….

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

Discussing the ‘Tragedy’.

“The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.”—Garrett Hardin

Global climate change. Carbon footprints. Petroleum. Batteries. Health care. Education. Etc. We dance around these and other such topics with strong opinions and weak political will. The discussion always takes me back to an assignment I completed in a Geography elective in college some 35+ years ago. We were asked to read Garrett Hardin’s classic 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Few other writings (other than perhaps the Bible and some classic interpretations of the Bible) have had such an impact on my worldview.

I wholeheartedly believe that the essay should be required reading in high school civics. Hardin’s focus was on population growth—as sensitive a topic today (when the global population has exceeded 7.7 billion) as it was in the late ‘60s (when the global population was a mere 3.6 billion). While many issues of human population growth can be tempered with technological advances, many (perhaps most) cannot be fixed without addressing the consumption (the over-exploitation) of limited resource problem.

The article comes to mind in almost every political discussion. It was awakened this morning by an article addressing the “tightening nickel supply” and electric cars2. The solution isn’t drilling for more oil or creating better batteries (as all batteries will require access to some limited resource and there are issues that go along with the mining and production processes that go along with these).

I see the article in the discussion of “free” and open access to health care. Indeed, I am surprised that the essay (or the concept of the “negative commons”) doesn’t come up in the discussion about health care.

I see global climate change as an issue related to global population whether one determines that it of natural or man-made origins. Glacial ice has advanced and receded countless times over Earth’s history. It is only a problem now as it affects man directly—as it displaces and inconveniences us individually and collectively. There are only hard answers to the questions of climate change. As with most of the issues that might bring up the “tragedy of the commons”, we have to come to the realization that our lives are impacted.

Perhaps science can fix some of the problems facing humankind. In general, though, we are faced with a Spiritual problem. The tragedy of the commons is an ethical, moral, and Spiritual dilemma. The issues are complex and require everyone to consider his or her role in the commons. We have a choice whether we are to be governed by conscience or governed by regulation. Understanding the “tragedy of the commons” is a step toward understanding our role in the solution to global problems. Character must supersede self-interests. Substituting consumption for breeding in Hardin’s essay, I would share his concluding remarks:

“The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to (consume), and that very soon. ‘Freedom is the recognition of necessity’—and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to (consume). Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.”—Garrett Hardin.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

1 https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/kharms/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/04/HardinG_1968_Science.pdf

2 https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-08/tightening-nickel-supply-threatens-electric-vehicle-boom?fbclid=IwAR3WQrIOU9eENyliNPC4_avTIAlw762-rv24vUmI5WrPl8QSS3Od4vVVeXo

Expect more.

“We tend to live up to our expectations.
–Earl Nightingale

We will live up to our own expectation. Set the bar low, and you will reach it. Set the bar high, and with proper effort you will achieve. At the very least you will achieve more than had you set the bar lower.

Don’t let others set the bar for you. Let your supporters encourage you. Ignore the naysayers.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

When to stop deadlifting.

A friend asked me the other day how long it is reasonable to deadlift (meaning: is there an age limit to deadlifting). He has some friends his age who decided that they were no longer going to do squats or deadlifts after one of them had successful back surgery. (I don’t know whether the back surgery was related to squatting or deadlifting. Perhaps that is there apprehension.) I am not sure or the ages, but I am pretty certain that they are under 50 years of age.

So, to answer my friend’s question, I don’t believe there is any age at which one should stop squatting or deadlifting (or lifting weights, in general). I also don’t believe it is ever too late to start.

The problem is that, when people think of squatting or deadlifting, the picture powerlifters—the big burly kind—with wraps and belts and bars bending under huge amounts of weight. Now, these lifters, at some point in their careers, will have to back off from squatting and deadlifting such loads. They probably won’t stop altogether, though. Lifting massive amounts of weight competitively will take a toll on the body, and maintaining such strength is simple not possible. But, for the average lifter, there is little reason to stop.

Let me, first, be clear. Squatting and deadlifting are not bad for the back or (*insert joint*). Squatting or deadlifting incorrectly, however, IS bad for the back and the body, in general. The important thing is to master and maintain correct technique as the intensity progresses. This is not age-related. People can get hurt squatting and deadlifting at any age. Likewise, they can benefit from proper squatting and deadlifting at any age.

I don’t know the specifics of the friend of my friend’s back surgery, but I take “successful” to mean that it fixed the problem. Now, while the individual may have lost some mobility with surgery (perhaps some vertebrae were fused), successful surgery suggests that the vertebra are correctly aligned allowing the vertebral column to stack and support the weight of the trunk. If this is the case, the individual can squat and deadlift.

The squat and deadlift need not (and, as a general rule, should not) involve any movement of the vertebral joints. These movements involve movement at the hips, knees, and ankles. The back and upper extremities act to stabilize the weight. Mobility and stability are inversely related. If the discs, then, are moving, there is a lack of proper stability. So, as long as there is no risk of the vertebrae crumbling under the weight (and there are bone and medical conditions where this might be the case) the back squat will actually serve to strengthen the bone and reduce age-related mineral loss.

If the squat and deadlift are causing pain, evaluate the root cause. Most likely, too much weight is being attempted and form is being sacrificed. Mobility of the hips, knees, and/or ankles might also be a problem. Poor technique or a lack of emphasis of foundational strength may also have caused correctable muscle imbalances.

Before you give up on the squat, deadlift, or any exercise because of age and/or fear of injury, consider the benefits to be lost. The squat and deadlift use a tremendous amount of muscle and are truly functional exercises. We sit/stand regularly—squat. We pick things up from the ground—deadlift (at least we should be lifting with deadlift mechanics—i.e., “lift with the legs”). It stands to reason that we would want to build and maintain strength in these movements as we age.

Don’t look at some 30-year-old deadlifting 1000 lbs and determine that it isn’t for you. Look instead at the 80- or 90-year-old deadlifting 400 lbs and remind yourself that it is possible to get stronger as you age. A 400-lb deadlift may not be your goal, but having a greater work capacity than your lifestyle demands should be a goal.

Start light and progressively add weight (i.e., progressive overload) as you are—with proper technique—able. Proper technique requires a tightly stacked vertebral column and solid hip hinge. If you can sit to a chair and stand without assistance, you are on your way to squatting. If you can sit into a squatting position and hold there comfortably for 30 seconds or so, you are ready to add weight. Learn how to control the core and, with a deep breath into the abdomen, brace the spine. If you can do these things, you can deadlift, as well. Simply never attempt more than you are capable of doing.

There are many variations to the back squat that might help build to heavier weights and a loaded spine (e.g., goblet squats). Likewise, the deadlift can start off of blocks (or a rack of sorts) until the range of motion is sufficient to lift the barbell from the floor. Again, master technique and range of motion before adding weight.

I am hesitant to suggest a weight belt for the squat and deadlift. I believe that stability should first come from the core and proper bracing (i.e., using intra-abdominal and thoracic pressure to support the spine). As the weights become much more significant and one is training closer to their maximum (i.e., their one-repetition maximum or 1-RM), then the assistance of a properly fitted weight belt might be warranted—for added protection.

Focus on core muscle strength as technique is being mastered. Skip the crunches and focus on trunk stability. Planks, and anti-rotational/anti-flexion (e.g., Pallof presses) are a great start. There are a variety of great exercises to strengthen the core for solid squats and deadlifts. Include them in your regular workout.

If you are just getting started with squats and deadlifts—or finally trying to make safe progress—I recommend the StrongLifts 5×5 program1 or some suitable variation. Start light and progress gradually. Changes are you (or I) are not able to lift enough to impress the strong men and women at the gym. So, don’t try. Show off your masterful technique and focus only on how your numbers are progressing. Have fun and don’t stop.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

1 https://stronglifts.com/5×5/#gref

Sometimes it is okay to be “rude”

 

“People really will stop their cars when they shouldn’t to let a pedestrian or bicyclist cross the street. They will also try to wave you through an intersection when they have the right of way. They legitimately find the zipper merge to be rude.”—Lizzy Acker, The Oregonian/OregonLive

I grew up in Pittsburgh where I got my driver’s license at 16. I honed my driving skills by living for a period on Long Island and working in the New York Metropolitan area. Still, after 11 years in Oregon, I am not used to the drivers. I came across the above quote, and, honestly, it only captures a glimpse of the “too-polite drivers” in Portland. No ill toward Portlanders, but they have to stop believing they are being “polite” and realize that this only contributes to the growing traffic problems.

The pedestrian crosswalk law drives me insane. The law itself is reasonable—stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. No brainer there. Where the crazy sets in is when people stop and resist you waving them on. Personally, when I see a car coming to a cross walk (where there is no stop sign), I stand back from the curb and expect them to pass. Nevertheless, most will still stop. I wave again, and they still insist that I go. In the time they spent arguing with me (“being polite”), they could be well on their way and I would be across the street.

There is some basic physics, here. I am a brisk walker. With my long stride, I can walk 4-5 miles per hour without breaking a sweat. A car with even the crappiest of engines can go faster. So, go when I wave you on. You are not out-politing me. You are being stupid (if I can be so blunt). If there are cars behind you, you are delaying them more than you are delaying me. If you want to be polite, wave “thank you” and proceed.

Much the same goes for waving someone through an intersection when they have the right of way. Now, I am familiar with the “Pittsburgh left”. Understand why this is different. The Pittsburgh left is offered to an oncoming driver who is turning left when a traffic signal turns green or when two cars arrive at a stop sign at the same time. This can actually serve to speed traffic along and is actually a polite thing to do. In Portland, I have often experienced someone—who is already stopped at a stop sign when I arrive—motion me on when there is no question that they have the right of way. Personally, it makes me feel rushed and uncomfortable. It might make the other driver feel good, but….

About bikes…. Bikes are not pedestrians. Unless you are a child, you should not be biking on the sidewalks, and the crosswalk law (in my non-legal opinion) does not apply. Drivers also do not have to follow cyclists up a hill. You may safely pass! (And, personally, I find that many—certainly, not all—Portland cyclists are void of the “too-polite” trait.)

The blatant refusal to obey the “zipper merge” is most significant contribution to traffic problems in Portland (other than poor urban growth planning). There is nothing rude about using two lanes of traffic effectively up to the merge point! Also, there is no need to stop before merging onto a highway or to slow down to change lanes to get off the highway.

The “too-polite” example I think is missing from the article is the tendency to stop rather than yield before entering a round-about (traffic circle). As an extension of the zipper merge, it is no surprise that Portlanders do this. A traffic circle, however, is intended to speed traffic flow. They should not be treated as four-way stops. (And, to the drivers who speed up to prevent one from zipper merging, your passive-aggressiveness does not go unnoticed.)

I don’t know from where the practice of driving the speed limit in the passing lane comes, but this, too, adds to the traffic problems. Perhaps, like zipper merge, people legitimately think they are making a better world by slowing traffic (i.e., preventing cars from passing). I don’t know.

It is not my intent to Portland bash. My intent is more to suggest that what one considers “polite” may be another’s “rude”. If we truly want to be nice and make the world a better place (not just our definition of a better place), we need to be considerate. Considerate is defined as “always thinking of other people’s wishes and feelings; careful not to hurt or upset others” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary). It is as simple as the “Golden Rule”: do unto others as you would have done to you. Frankly, it just requires a little logic and common sense. Ask yourself: “Am I doing this to make me feel better, or am I actually benefitting my neighbor?”

I am certain that more than a few Portland drivers have found me “rude”. I am okay with that. If I wave you through a crosswalk, understand that I trust that you can pass the two parallel white lines faster than I can cross them and that I, too, am attempting to be courteous. If I speed up to merge, it is your speeding up to prevent me that is “rude”, and I am not cutting you off in a traffic circle I am “merging”. Use the passing lane to pass. If I or another driver am passing at a speed too fast for the posted speed limit, trust that our State Troopers will do the fine job that they do. (Forcing the California drivers to pass on the right creates a greater safety issue—just teasing, my California friends.) The roads are safest and most efficient when everyone drives considerately.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

1https://expo.oregonlive.com/life-and-culture/g66l-2019/08/4c2ae917ae89/27-things-no-one-tells-you-before-moving-to-portland.html

(Image source: National Association of City Transportation Officials)

Geno-diet.

I think we might be jumping the gun on genetic testing. More specifically, we are being suckered by marketers that inexpensive home genetic tests can give us specific information about human performance. Recently, for example, I have seen an increasing number of advertisements for genetic tests to determine our best diet. Now, there may be some information to be gained by these, but I suspect this is minimally likely. The genetic code is tremendously complex and the multitude of genes are interactive. As well, there is increasing evidence (epigenetics) that our genetic code may be affected by external factors—e.g., our parents’ and grandparents’ experiences. So, if you want to know what diet is best for you, observe your own history and that of your siblings and parents. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out what works or doesn’t work.

No list of three, five, or eight foods you should/shouldn’t eat to lose fat are going to be specific to you. Even going off of commercial DNA testing, there is going to be variations among individuals have specific genes. Even within identical twins we can see some variations in how genes are switched on and off. Genes by themselves are complex. Coupled with other genes and how genes interact with our environment, we are still probably best to look at our personal performance and at our families to predict what genetics are in effect.

The principles of weight loss are pretty simple. Create habits that work for you and your goals. Prioritize caloric balance, and half the battle is fought. The bulk of the rest of the fight is in macro balance and nutrient timing. Start with these and refine your efforts until you find what works best for you. Once this is discovered, be consistent. At best, your DNA might save a few steps in tweaking. Chances are that you already have a sense of where to start. Just start!

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!