Month: September 2017

High-intensity interval training is all the rage in fitness at the moment, but should you be doing it?  While there are benefits, HIIT is certainly not the holy grail that it is being presented as.  It is not for everyone—and, that’s O.K.

First off, let’s be clear, HIIT interval training is nothing new.  It has been around for as long as exercisers have been doing “intervals”.  By definition, HIIT is a form of interval training, an exercise strategy alternating short periods of intense anaerobic exercise with less-intense recovery periods. HIIT sessions can be quite short, usually last from 10–30 minutes.  Despite the brevity, these are purported to improved aerobic capacity, improve glucose metabolism, and improved fat burning.  Note that the only thing that distinguishes HIIT from other types of interval training is the intensity.  Protocols vary, but high-intensity is pretty much anything over 85% of maximum (VO2max, heart rate max, etc.).  Because the intensities are so high, they cannot be performed for very long (usually 20-seconds to one-minute intervals).

If you are going to a gym and doing cardio, you may have heard the name “Tabata”.  Tabata has erroneously become almost synonymous with HIIT.  The “Tabata Method” is based on a 1996 study by Izumi Tabata et al. that initially involved Olympic speed skaters.  The study used 20 seconds of ultra-intense exercise (at an intensity of about 170% of VO2max) followed by 10 seconds of rest, repeated continuously for 4 minutes (8 cycles). The exercise was performed on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer.  Tabata et al. called this the “IE1 protocol”.

In the original study, athletes using this method trained four times per week, plus another day of steady-state training (see below), and obtained gains similar to a group of athletes who did steady state training (70% VO2max) five times per week. The steady state group had a higher VO₂max at the end (from 52 to 57 ml/kg/min), but the Tabata group had started lower and gained more overall (from 48 to 55 ml/kg/min).  Also, only the Tabata group had gained anaerobic capacity benefits. It is important to note that in the original study from 1996, participants were disqualified if they could not keep a steady cycling pace of 85 RPM for the full 20 seconds of work—thus, if one cannot keep up with the prescribed intensity, they may not see the same results observed in the study.

Now, I don’t know about the reader, but the IE1 protocol is beyond tough.  So, if your trainer is calling a workout “Tabata”, it is probably much less than this.  Those <12-minute cardio sessions?  They are probably not enough to elicit a significant cardiorespiratory adaptation—especially if they are made up of a series of body weight exercises (e.g., burpees).  These have their place—primarily for calorie burn—but they are not likely to improve oxygen consumption.

HIIT—that is specific to the cardiorespiratory system—should be about 20-30 minutes of exercise with at least 8-16 minutes of high-intensity intervals, but this is my rule-of-thumb.  There are no defined rules.  Indeed, the whole notion of “HIIT” is a bit arbitrary.  Key is the “HI”—high-intensity (>85% maximum)—and “IT”—interval training.  In other words, high-intensity burst followed by recovery period; repeat.

HIIT gets all the glory, but let’s not forget about her little brother, “MIIT”.  Moderate-intensity interval training is pretty much the same, but lower exercise intensity (~70-85% of maximum) intervals.  These can be done for a longer exercise session and are a safer risk of injury.

If you prefer a less complicated—zone-out—kind of cardio, there is also “steady-state” cardiorespiratory exercise.  Here, one typically doesn’t vary the intensity of the exercise.  An example would be running 3 miles on a treadmill at 9 miles per hour.  It is great for binge-watching Netflix and burning some kcals.  It can also be more boring and time consuming.

Steady-state cardio can typically run the gamut of low-intensity (LISS) to moderate-intensity (MISS) depending on the intensity.  In general, there will be an inverse relationship between time and intensity.  Time versus intensity is really a matter of preference and “opportunity cost”.

The duration of a cardio session can be set based on a time or calorie goal.  I often prefer to monitor calories over time when doing cardio (because my cardio goals are more closely tied to my body composition goals).  I know that I am more likely to push a little longer to extend the calorie burn, whereas I will stop at a time goal.  Whatever one prefers.

So, which type is best for you?  That is for you to answer.  It all depends on goals and opportunity.  If you are looking to burn calories and are limited on time, HIIT is probably the way to go—at least a couple of sessions per week (more in a moment).  If you have time and want to burn calories, then LISS might be best.  If your goals are improving oxygen consumption and performance (e.g., running a 5-K), MISS might be preferable.

The folks at Renaissance Periodization have published a pretty good pros and cons comparison chart:

More than likely, you will want to mix it up little bit—especially if your goals are mixed.  The most important thing is to do something.  Secondly, whatever you do, do it well.  If you are focused on building muscle, but want to live to show it off, I’d recommend HIIT a few sessions per week.  If you want to run a marathon, you are going to need to include some LISS in there—and find some time to squeeze some weight training in there, as well.

Remember: opportunity costs.  Manage your exercise time effectively.  Don’t put effort (and time) into what does not further your goals.  Time is precious.  Use it wisely!  Carpe momento!

It was a sad loss for country music yesterday with the passing of Don Williams.  The Gentle Giant was always my favorite country music artist.  In part, because I always thought he looked like my high school Physics and Geology teacher—Mr. Ian Smith, one of my favorite teachers.  Mostly, it was soft, deep voice and relevant lyrics that I loved the most.

I trust that the clock in heaven are now set to Tulsa time.

I can’t say I have a favorite Don Williams song—because they are all great—but “I Believe in Love” always strikes a chord.  It is still significant today as it was when he first released the recording in 1980.  So, I share the lyrics here and hope they resonate.

“I don’t believe in superstars
Organic food and foreign cars
I don’t believe the price of gold
The certainty of growing old
That right is right and left is wrong
That north and south can’t get along
That east is east and west is west
And bein’ first is always best.

But I believe in love
I believe in babies
I believe in mom and dad
And I believe in you.

Well, I dont believe that heaven waits
For only those who congregate
I’d like to think of God as love
He’s down below 
He’s up above
He’s watchin’ people everywhere
He knows who does and doesn’t care
And I’m an ordinary man
Sometimes I wonder who I am.

But I believe in love
I believe in music
I believe in magic
And I believe in you.

I know with all my certainty 
What’s goin’ on with you and me
Is a good thing 
It’s true
I believe in you.

I dont believe virginity 
Is as common as it used be
In workin’ days and sleepin’ nights
That black is black and white is white
That Superman and Robinhood
Are still alive in Hollywood
That gasoline’s in short supply
The risin’ cost of gettin’ by

But I believe in love 
I believe in old folks 
I believe in children 
I believe in you.

I believe in love
I believe in babies
I believe in mom and dad
And I believe in you.”

Image source: http://img.wennermedia.com/social/rs-226487-don-original.jpg

We’ve all heard the fable about the tortoise and the hare—slow and steady wins the race.  Is this necessarily the case, though?  The hare, after all, lost because it got lazy and cocky—not because it couldn’t be a slow tortoise!

I preach “consistency” to my son in football, but sometimes that translates: “complacency”.  What I want from him (and demand of myself) is “one-hundred percent effort, one-hundred percent of the time”.  I don’t get it from him or myself.

“Slow and steady” should suggest rather constant progression and improvement—i.e., “Be your best today; be better tomorrow.”  It should not imply a casual approach to self-improvement.  The tortoise won the race, not because it should have, but because it gave a consistent, best-effort.

Some change should not be rushed.  Weight-loss (i.e., fat­-loss) should be slow (1-2 pounds per week).  Other things should be as fast as possible (e.g., smoking cessation).  Overall, though, we should be steadily improving ourselves (Spiritually, Physically, Intellectually, Emotionally, and Socially).

Speed should always win races.  I will never beat Usain Bolt in a 100-m dash!  If you have the ability, don’t relax.  Always give your best effort.

My son is fast (he did not get the speed gene from me!).  Nonetheless, he rarely turns it on.  Honestly, it is frustrating.  It frustrates me, not because I want him to win every sprint in practice for my ego, but because I know he is not giving his best.  When we don’t give our best, we don’t improve.  It is the basic “overload principle”—If we don’t do more than that to which we are accustomed, there is not adaptation.  If we consistently do less we can lose our progress—the “principle of reversibility” (better known as “use it or lose it”).

My son is just a kid.  It is my role as a parent to be the example.  It is on me then to “be my best today; be better tomorrow”.  I must be working on constant improvement—constantly.  I must acknowledge my failings and give the same “one-hundred percent effort, one-hundred percent of the time” that I demand in others.

I have written before on the notion of “leave it all in this room” (a life lesson taught by wrestling).  When I teach, I expect to be drained by the end of class.  I know when my effort is subpar (as I am sure my students do, as well).  A favorite bible verse is “whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10, NIV).  In other words, don’t be the hare.

Slow and steady does not win races.  Best effort doesn’t always win races.  In life, however, as in sport, best effort produces the best result.  At the end of the day, it is not whether we win or lose, it is whether we had the will and the effort to win.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

“Continuous effort – not strength or intelligence – is the key to unlocking our potential.”—Winston Churchill

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, Joel Osteen has become the poster-child for what is wrong with the Christian faith.  Whether the scorn is deserved or not need not be debated here.  What matters (or should matter) to any of us, who profess to be followers of Christ, is whether he is merely a scapegoat for our own misguided example.

I don’t have the wealth or prestige of Mr. Osteen, but that does not give me excuse to point along with others without questioning my own actions and intentions.  Rather, it has given me pause.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  (I am not picking up any rocks.)

The tide of scorn toward Joel Osteen and professing Christians should refer us to the parable of the so-called “Good Samaritan”.  Even the non-churchgoer is familiar with the story—where a man, whose identity appears irrelevant, is robbed, beaten, and left for dead.  A priest and a Levite see the man, yet pass by (“on the other side”, which seems to reveal a sarcastic/humorous side to Jesus, as the road was too narrow to have an “other side”).  It is the Samaritan, one who would be bitterly hated by the lawyer—an expert of Jewish law—to whom the parable is being told, who stops and helps the man.   This is who is identified as the “neighbor” (as in “love your neighbor”!).  This is who we, as professing Christians—i.e., followers of Christ, are called to love: our neighbors, the ones we hate and despise.

Now, the parable of the good Samaritan has been watered down over the years of Sunday school.  We are taught that we are to help people who are in trouble.  Easy, right?  Easy until the person who is in trouble starts to look differently than you or me.

Maybe this is why the priest and the Levite passed by—the victim was not of their kind.  Maybe the Samaritan helped because the victim was another Samaritan.  It doesn’t matter, because the whole point of the parable is that we are to love our neighbor and “our neighbor” includes even the one we most hate (think of the kinds of people you find to be utterly despicable).

Before I question anyone’s motives, I must first make sure that my motives are right.  We are not, after all, responsible for anyone other than ourselves.  I am sure I have yet to ace the test.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

Image source: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/GettyImages-840239148-800×534.jpg

“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”—Albert Einstein

It is that time of year.  School has begun or is beginning across the nation.  Young minds are becoming “educated”.  What exactly “educated” means is up for debate.

In my humble opinion—as an educator—I believe that, overall, education has become a checklist.  It is a series of completed courses and grade levels with “satisfactory” grades or scores.  Now, there are many reasons for this, including politicians, unions, budgets, administrators, teachers, and parents.  There is as much blame to go around as there are things to be celebrated.  (I certainly don’t want to come across as unsupportive—especially of the countless well-meaning and effective teachers that make tremendous contributions in our communities.  There are even some good college professors. **wink**)  I do, however, believe we can do education better.  We do better by understanding what education is and what it is not.

Education is not:

A diploma.  Because someone possesses a piece of paper that says they have completed the requirements toward a degree does not mean one is educated.  It is like the joke: “What do you call a medical student who gets all C’s? —Doctor.”  Or like the saying: “a B.S. degree is bullsh**, a M.S. degree is more sh**, and a Ph.D. is piled higher and deeper.”  Or my favorite: “A Ph.D. is where you learn more and more about less and less until you know everything about absolutely nothing.”  I can go on.  (I love these.)  The point is that education is not an endpoint or a completed coursework.

Only accomplished in ivy covered buildings.  (Truth be told, I don’t think I ever took a course in a building with ivy growing on the walls.)  Education is not only accomplished in classrooms.  Consider that one of America’s greatest presidents, Abraham Lincoln, was largely self-taught.  Many (probably most) of the smartest and wisest people I know do not have advanced degrees.  Education can be accessed through books and experience.  Libraries, museums, television, and the Internet are pretty much universally accessible—and should be.  This was the philosophy behind the Carnegie library system.  Andrew Carnegie believed that such access should not be limited and that everyone should have the opportunity to help better themselves.  Given that such access has grown dramatically in the last hundred-plus years, we should be the most educated of generations.

Education is:

Lifelong.  Education does not end with the diploma or degree.  It is a process that continues to be refined with time.

An open door.  Education is only beneficial if it is used.  The end of a course or degree program is a beginning.  In other words, education leads to further learning.  The notion of a “terminal degree” does not imply an end to learning.  Rather a terminal degree concludes a formal process that enables one to lead the process in others.

The very basis of a liberal education is defined by the Association of American Universities and Colleges as “an approach to learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest.”  Such does not require a formal institution.  It does suggest, however, that it is the learning skills themselves that “empowers individuals”.

For everyone.  Education must be accessible for all.  Critical to the success of our nation is that everyone have a foundational education—in science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics…and physical education.  This does not, however, mean that college is for everyone.  Indeed, there is a greater need to qualified tradespeople.  We must not suggest that education begins and ends in the classroom.

Unbiased.  Education should not be limited by the opinions or knowledge of the teacher.  Certainly, there are foundations and facts upon which learning is built—e.g., mathematical theorems, grammatical rules, scientific principles, etc.—but educators must be open to challenge.  It is my personal philosophy that respectful discourse is the foundation of a liberal education.  Questioning to the status quo is what progresses knowledge.  Querying should be encouraged.  Einstein, one of the most brilliant minds of all times, underscores this point when he said: “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.”  A teacher who does not believe that he or she has more to learn ceases to be an educator.  Likewise, none of us should be biased by what we were taught.  Rather, should be open to the challenge of expanding our worldview.

I believe there are Universal truths.  Our understanding of these, however, are often limited to the boxes that our present understanding (or lack thereof) creates.  Thus, to be truly learned, we must challenge the existence of even a box.  When Walt Disney said, “Don’t think outside the box! Once you say that, you’ve established that there is a box.”, I don’t believe he was inferring that there are no absolutes.  I believe his intention—and, surely, it is my intention here—was to say that such absolutes are not to be framed in our own minds or on the basis of our limited knowledge.  Anything that is absolute—or Universal—will stand the test of inquiry.  Thus, we should have no fear of ideas and opinions that challenge or “offend” us.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow!

Carpe momento!

“To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.”–Socrates

“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.”—Proverbs 18:15, NIV

Do you live to work, work to live, or live to work?  I know, the question doesn’t sound right, but, trust me, it is what I meant to write.  These are questions of our approach to work and to life.

For, possibly, the majority of people the answer is: “I work to live.”  This is a reasonable answer.  After all, our work should not consume us.  It should provide for the essentials of life—which includes food, housing, clothing, education, recreation, etc.  As the question is traditionally posed—i.e., “Do you live to work or work to live?”—this is the favored response.

Why then do I present “live to work” as two alternatives?  Because, the English language allows for the same words to have different meanings on the basis of emphasis and context.

“Live to work” usually refers to someone whose life centers around his or her work.  On one hand, this can be seen as good—one takes pleasure in going to work.  On the other hand, this can be seen as more of a negative—all one does is work.  This “live to work” is the classic “workaholic”.  One may be driven by the prestige, the money, work ethic, etc.  For such people, there is little time for anything else—family, relationships, exercise, leisure, faith/spirituality, etc.

“Live to work” can, however, present a third approach to work.  It presents what I would petition is the healthiest approach to our work.  It is the “well-centered” approach.

One can emphasize the “work”—as in “live to work”—or one can emphasize the “live”—as in “work to live”.  Alternatively, one can “live to work”.  In other words, one can serve one’s Purpose—or greater calling—in one’s work.

Remember, well-centered fitness includes growth and balance in one’s Spiritual, Physical, Intellectual, Emotional, and Social dimensions.  If we are not living to work—i.e., living Purposefully—we are lacking in one or more dimension.

It is often easy to enjoy the Physical, Intellectual, and/or Emotional aspects of our work.  These are the creative aspect of work. Where we tend to lack most in our work is in the Spiritual and Social dimensions.

Spiritual, remember, is the sense that there is more than self.  So, Spiritually, our work—knowingly or unknowingly—affects countless people beyond ourselves.  This goes far beyond the fact that our work has an immediate effect on someone—a customer/consumer.  This alone can be rewarding, but there is far more satisfaction in work when we recognize that what we are doing can (and does) have far greater impact on others and has a rippling effect (you know, that whole “six-degrees of separation” thing).

One may consider their work insignificant (I only attach doohickeys to whatchamacallits on an assembly line.), but consider who is the recipient of your work—the usefulness of the product, the joy it might bring, the benefits of your employment, etc.  Your work is only as insignificant as you make it.  Sure, it may not come with prestige or a big paycheck, but that does not make it any less important.  The line between ordinary and (extra)ordinary is drawn by our actions.

Somewhere in one’s work, one must interact with someone.  Thus, there is a Social component to our work.  Sometimes interacting with the people at your work—be they bosses, coworkers, or customers—can be the worst part of your job.  It is our choice, however, how we respond to the actions of others.  We must see the opportunities in interacting with difficult people.  Rising above a negative social environment is far more satisfying than getting sucked into it (or letting it suck the life out of you).  Let’s face it.  The work environment often sucks, but we don’t have to be its victims.  Challenging as it may be, we can choose to be positive even among the most negative people.  In doing so, we rob them of power over us—and it seriously messes with them!

Then, of course, there are the social benefits outside of the workplace.  Our income provides us the means to live outside of work.  True, the benefits for some will be much greater than for others.  If we “live to work”, we will miss out of the relational opportunities—in our marriage, family, relationships, community, etc.—if our work takes priority.  As well, our relationships in the workplace will suffer, because it is all about the work itself and not the Purpose of the work.  If we “work to live”, we will likewise miss out on the relational opportunities.  If we are working only to live, we will be driven to work more because we will always want to “live” more.  Thus, we miss making time for others, believing that we are sacrificing for them.  I am sure there is not a spouse or child who has ever said of an employed relation that they wish their husband/wife or father/mother worked more.

Our lives and work lose value when they don’t consider the Spiritual and Social impact of our actions.  It is when we consider our lives and work as Purposeful, however, that we become truly (extra)ordinary.

When given the choice—and you are, after all, given the choice—of whether to live to work, to work to live, or to live to work, choose to live to work!

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

“Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.”—Albert Einstein

I like to relate my attitude toward exercise to the story of the man who is seen hitting himself in the head with a 2×4.  When asked why he is doing this, he responds: “Because it feels so good when I stop.”  Yes, I am an exercise physiologist who doesn’t enjoy exercise.  I used to think (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that people who claimed to enjoy exercise were either not working hard enough or had a screw loose.  Researching for a course I am teaching and reading The Sports Gene, it appears I need to reconsider.

My preparation reminded me of James “Iron Cowboy” Lawrence, who recently completed fifty Ironman distances in fifty states in fifty days.  If you don’t know, an Ironman race includes a 2.4-mile swim, a 112-mile bicycle ride, and a marathon 26.2 mile run.  In total, he swam 120 miles, biked 5,600 miles, and ran 1,311 miles.  That is a total of 7,031 miles.  For comparison, the distance from New York City to Portland, Oregon is 2,896 miles.  So, the Iron Cowboy traveled the distance from NYC to Portland and back and nearly to Omaha, Nebraska!!!  Unbelievable, indeed.

So, what this tells us is that we tolerate exercise differently and vary in our motivation (or lack thereof) to exercise.  Interestingly, research has demonstrated that work ethic may be, in part, genetic.  For some, in fact, exercise may border on addiction.  Others, of course, prefer to be couch potatoes.  Most of us are somewhere in-between.

So, whether you struggle to find the time to exercise or to make the time to exercise, exercise!  Your health doesn’t require 7,031 miles in 50 days.  Just do as much activity as you can, when you can, and as well as you can.  Remember that Kenneth Cooper, the “father of aerobics”, said that “if you run more than 15 miles a week, it’s for something other than aerobic fitness.”

“Exercise is medicine” is a campaign by the American College of Sports Medicine.  For most it means that exercise is the prevention/treatment for hypokinetic diseases like obesity and diabetes.  For others, it is the “drug” of their addiction. 

What this also says is that we recover at quite individual rates.  Thus, for some, long frequent exercise will melt you like a Popsicle in August while others are just warming up.

James Lawrence is an unusual specimen.  He has the drive and the stamina to push through the pain and endure a tremendous amount of physical effort.  He has also developed the recoverability necessary to do something as amazing as run the 50-50-50.  It is interesting that he noted that for the half or so of his fifty Ironman distances in fifty days his body adjusted to the stress and the pain of the exercise.  In the later half or so of the fifty Iron man distances, his performances actually improved.  In other words, he was adapting to the overload—he was able to recover from an incredible amount of work in a short time (traveling from state to state on top of completing his swimming, biking, and running—and consuming the necessary calories—left less than “optimal” time for sleep).

The concept of “maximal recoverable volume”, then, is not only individualized, but seemingly fluid.  Thus, there are no charts or specifics to follow.  One just needs to know and understand his or her body.

Obviously, the Iron Cowboys of the world are quite rare.  Most of us are lucky if we can get out of bed and do some sort of effective exercise.  For these, motivation is the greatest challenge.  Or others, the motivation is there, but there is just not the time to do everything we might want to do.  Wherever you find yourself on the exerciser continuum make yourself exercise—at least minimally.  Do what you enjoy, and do it “reasonably” often.

Exercise can be fun.  If not?  Well, that is no excuse.  Do what you need to be healthy and enjoy the rest of your time.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

“People who wonder if the glass is half empty or half full miss the point.  The glass is refillable.”—Unknown

I saw the above as a meme on social media.  I suspect it was meant to be more social than philosophical (e.g., fill that glass, enjoy, and fill again), but it struck a nerve and inspired me on the tail of yesterday’s post.

We have all pondered the glass half empty or glass half full question.  (Or maybe you have seen the meme that includes the realist?)  But, let’s consider that “the glass is refillable”.  Sure, it means something to the effect of “drink up and pour another”, but I want to dissect the statement.

“The glass is refillable” means:

There is more in the bottle. Joy and blessings are renewable resources.

Our current status is temporary. If we are feeling pessimistic, we need not worry. Things will get better.  If we are feeling optimistic, we are right in feeling so.  Things will get better.

We have a glass. As long as we have a glass to fill, something can go in it. There is opportunity.

I think it is the opportunist who recognizes that “the glass is refillable”.  As I have written several times before, we have three possible responses to our circumstances.  We can view them as 1) burdens (the glass is half empty), 2) challenges (the glass is half full), or opportunities (the glass is refillable).  It is a matter of perspective.  It is a matter of choice.

The glass half empty philosophy carries a negative attitude.  It is the pessimist’s view.

The glass half full is positive, but it is limiting.  It prohibits us from experiencing all the fullness and richness that life has to offer. 

The glass that is refillable offers abundant and infinite enjoyment.  This is the attitude of gratitude.  Gratitude is the alternative to pessimism, optimism, and realism.  Be thankful for what you have and where you are.  Know that the glass is, indeed, “refillable”.

Carpe momento!

 

Image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AA_glass_of_red_wine.jpg

“The shortest distance between a crap day and a great day is a decision to adjust your attitude.”—Isaiah Hankel

I love Isaiah Hankel’s frankness.  Many of us will complain today of having a lousy day.  Others will be celebrating the wonderful day they are having.  In both cases, it will probably be attributed to luck or coincidence.  After all, one cannot control the circumstances of one’s day.

It is true that we have little or no control over the events of the day.  We do, however, have control over our response to our circumstances.  Moreover, we have control over how we enter into our circumstances from the start.  How we start out day makes all the difference—between a “crap day” and a “great day”.  The choice is ours.

The decision to adjust our attitude begins with our morning routine—the side of the bed we elect to get up on, so to speak—but it is also a decision that must be repeated countless times throughout the day.  We begin with journaling, positive affirmations, motivational thoughts, etc. to put us is a positive frame of mind.  If you are like me, however, that “positive frame of mind” is quickly challenged as soon as you get into traffic—or sooner (especially if you have children to get off to school *wink*).

Certainly, we get the day we expect.  If you begin the day expecting a “crap day”, it will be a lousy day.  Indeed, it will likely snowball into a worse day.  If we expect a “great day”, it is more likely that we will at least have a good day.  Stuff is going to happen to challenge us.  Expect it.  Deal with it positively.

If we expect a “crap day”, we will likely respond to the most minor of inconveniences with: “See.  I knew it was going to be a bad day.”  Conversely, when we expect a “great day”, we will see the opportunity in the minor inconveniences.  We will see the kismet.  (That is a word that has not popped into my head in a while—it refers to “fate” or “destiny”.)  In other words, we will see the purpose of an event and make the most of it—allow it to work for the good.

It all comes down to decisions.  Viktor Frankel wrote that “between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”  Stephen Covey wrote about expanding this space—allowing more time to determine our response.  If we “adjust our attitude” at the start of the day, it requires only minor tweaks throughout the day to readjust.  (On occasion, circumstances might require a more major adjustment, but, if our mind is right from the start, the correction will be easier than if our mind is otherwise.)

Attitude has a set-point (like the temperature setting on the thermostat).  Where we set it at the start of the day will have a tremendous impact on where we remain for the day.  Sure, we will have our ups and downs, but we determine whether such ups and downs will fluctuate around “crap day” or “great day”.  If you start your week with “rainy days and Mondays always get me down”, guess what…?

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.  And….

Carpe momento!

Another important principle in exercise is “maximal recoverable volume”.  This is the maximal amount of any exercise one can do in a given workout and adequately recover by the next workout (or set).

Why do I say “adequately”?  This is where the concept of overload comes into play.  Overload, remember, is the principle that in order for a body system to adapt it must be stressed to a level greater than that to which it is accustomed.  In general, we need to keep doing a little more—but not too much—every exercise session.  Herein is where overloading/underloading, over-reaching, and over-training come into play.

I would argue that most of us are under-training.  In other words, we could potentially be doing more—under the right conditions.  It is more likely that we are doing less (much less) than our maximal recoverable volume.  Unless we are an athlete with an extensive practice schedule on top of training and a stressful private life (e.g., the college student-athlete), we are not doing enough to adequately train, let alone overtrain.

Let’s consider overload within the frame of maximal recoverable volume (MRV) as “adequate” training.  Overtraining is where MRV is exceeded beyond (nearly) return.  Too much too quickly or in a short span of time is acute overtraining—overdoing or over-reaching, more specifically.  Yes, we have all been there; done that.  In these cases, a few extra days rest and modifications in programming will be the fix.  Real over-training is the ongoing excessive overload from which one cannot recover—chronic over-training.  Signs of overtraining include: decreased performance, lethargy, irritability, depression, insomnia, suppressed immune system, loss of motivation, etc.  Few of us every really reach this point.

I say “adequately” recover because there are times when we might want to train beyond the ability to completely recover—when we push the load to a point of over-reaching with the intention of following with a period of deload.  A deload is a planned period of reduced load (there are countless theories on how to best accomplish this) with the intent of maximizing recovery.  Over-reaching is, thus, often used to prompt a state of what might be called “hyper-adaptability”.

If all this is confusing (it can be), don’t let it worry you.  The key is to find the training progression that works for you.  Over-training, after all, is really more of an issue of poor planning.  But, so is under-training.  So, what do we do??  How do we make the most of the time we have for training??

We cut out the nonsense and focus on the essentials.  What are the essentials?  First, these are the things that most effectively (and efficiently—remember “opportunity cost”) affect our goals.  The essentials also follow the “K.I.S.S” principle.

It is easy to say “keep it simple”, but fitness is as complex as it is simple.  The complexity is wadding through the trends and marketing so rampant in the fitness industry.  In its simplicity, we start at the health- and motor skill-related components of physical fitness.

Cardiorespiratory fitness.   Years ago, the “Father of Aerobics”, Kenneth Cooper, said “if you are running for more than 30 minutes, you are doing it for more than your health.”  So, how much, depends on goals.  What we do for aerobic fitness depends our “why”.  For example, a marathoner or triathlete will certainly have to train longer and more frequently than one who is interested only in heart health.  There is much evidence that short sessions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) can improve maximal oxygen consumption and other factors related to cardiorespiratory fitness.  We can’t confuse our cardiorespiratory goals and our body composition goals, however.  Calories burned during aerobic exercise is a consideration for improving body composition rather than cardiorespiratory performance.  Indeed, it is better for the endurance athlete to minimize the energy used in competition.

Muscle strength/endurance.  I have come to the conclusion that strength/endurance programs begin with the ‘basic 5’.  The Basic 5 are the squat, the deadlift, the bench press, overhead presses, and rows.  These are the essentials.

What about biceps, triceps, abdominals, etc.?  These are not the essentials.  Wait, abdominal exercises are “not essential”?  Not really.  That is, not if we are doing the ‘basic 5’ effectively.  The abdominals—the rectus abdominus, transverse abdominus, and the internal/external obliques—are only part of what are considered the “core”.  The core includes all of the muscles that support the spine—the low back and mid-thoracic region—and, thus, stabilize the trunk.  When we lift weights (like the ‘basic 5’) we use the core to “brace the spine”.  (Here is a good read: https://renaissanceperiodization.com/core-bracing/.)  So, if we are lifting weights using exercises that require core bracing, we are thus strengthening the core.

“Excessive” core training is of no real benefit until the body composition is sufficiently low—e.g., with bodybuilders.  In other terms, as long as there is fat there is no real concerns about abdominal muscle “definition”.  So, spending more than a few minutes on abdominal exercise is not the best use of time.  The top priority is first body composition.

Now some can certainly benefit from “core training”.  This would include, of course, beginning exercisers with a weak core.  It also includes athletes.  For the athlete, dynamic core training exercise is ideal—multi-directional movements that involve acceleration and deceleration of the core muscles can improve agility, balance, etc.  Sit-up and crunches, etc. are, for most sports, non-athletic.  Overall, though, it need not take a predominate place in our exercise session.

Flexibility.  Stretching is important.  The time we spend, however, should be driven by opportunity cost.  It should not be ignored (like I often ignore my stretching exercises), but is, likewise, need not take an excessive amount of time.  Focus on your limitations.  For most, 5-10 minutes at the end of the training session (or a brief period of warm-up) is sufficient.

Body Composition.  We know that body composition depends on how much fat we have relative to our lean tissue.  Our approach to improving body composition depends on our specific goals.  Are we interested only in losing fat?  Are we mostly interested in increasing muscle mass?  Or are we interested in having a competitive physique?  Whatever the goals, it all comes down to the management of our diet and exercise.  The best approach is the K.I.S.S. principle, of course.  Small consistent changes have big effects.  The key here is consistency.  Consistency and individuality.  (More of this to come.)

Fitness need not be overwhelming.  Keep it simple and keep it practical.  Keep it specific and effective.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!