Author: armstrong.wou@gmail.com

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It’s not.”—The Lorax/Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

Change.  The world need more change-makers (and not of the cashier-type).  I wrote recently about standard operating procedures (something that might be better addressed as current operating procedures in business).  I don’t believe in the status quo.  I am a believer in constant improvement (kaizen)—not change for the sake of change, but change for the sake of improvement.  Personal and collective change is an essential part of growth.  In The World’s Most Powerful Leadership Principle, James C. Hunter posed the question: “’By definition, can you improve if you don’t change?’”, and, of course, we can’t improve without change.

I love reading Dr. Seuss.  The Lorax is a simple, yet powerful, book.  It is directed toward the preservation of the environment and physical resources, but another underlying theme is person responsibility. In the end, we are left with the very simple statement: “unless”.  Nothing in the world is going to get better unless someone cares—“a whole awful lot”.

We tend to underestimate our personal impact on the Universe.  After all, what can one person do.  In the end, though, the seed to the Truffula Trees was left to the care of just one.  We can and do have an impact.  This is the hope of the Commons.  Just as the taking of the individual has a negative impact on the Commons, so, then, does one’s input have a positive effect on the common.

All it takes is a mustard seed of concern and the willingness to care.  Change comes when we dare to care.  And–“Unless someone like you (and me) cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It’s not.”

Carpe momento!

Image Source: Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

Physiologically, and adaptation occurs when a stimulus is applied that is greater than that to which the body system is accustomed—greater but not too great.  This is the “overload principle”.  If, however, the stimulus is too great, the body system cannot adapt to the stress.  This is referred to “overtraining” in exercise physiology.

Hans Seyle pioneered our understanding of stress and developed what is known as the “general adaptation syndrome” (i.e., the idea that our response to stress involves three phases: alarm, resistance, exhaustion/recovery).  Stressor can be positive or negative, as well as real or imaginary, and we all respond differently—both physiologically and psychologically.

I am not prepared to provide a physiology lesson here.  My objective is not to discuss physiological stress/stressors.  Rather, I intend to address the Spiritual response to imposed stress—and there has been a lot of it lately in our society.

Now, first, let me remind the reader that the Spiritual dimension of wellness (of “well-centered fitness”) is the belief in something greater than oneself. Spiritual wellness is bigger than religion, but it also does not require that one have a specific religious faith or a religious faith at all.  Spiritual wellness, personally, is what makes us human.  Thus, no one can make the excuse: “He’s talking religion.  I am outta here.”  Indeed, I know a few “non-believers” who might get what I have to say better than some of my “believer” friends.

Spiritually, like physiologically, we respond to stress.  We have a Physical heart, and we have a Spiritual “heart”.  One is more tangible than the other, but nonetheless—I propose—they respond the same.

Spiritually, when we are exposed to new ideas or beliefs that are contrary to our current worldview, we respond—often with very Physical (physiological) responses.  It is called “growth”—sometimes, maturity.  But, like our physiological systems (e.g., skeletal muscle), growth takes time and the proper stimulus.  Too much or too soon, the natural response is to resist.  Unfortunately, too often, those who might “share” their ideas do so too forcefully.

Now there may be cause, in certain situations to “slam” a body system. (Talk to a serious bodybuilder about “leg day”.)  On occasion, this can be of benefit—if the appropriate recovery period is allowed.  That is, there needs to be time for adaptation to occur.  In exercise physiology, this is termed “overreaching”.  Such training is always followed with an extended period of recovery.  Otherwise, what is intended for good becomes something destructive.

Spiritual growth and change requires a stimulus—a positive stressor.  The stressor must be appropriate to stimulate change, and time must be allowed for recovery (healing?).

Society is at a serious juncture.   There is considerable opportunity for growth in so many ways.  Many have opted for the violent approach without restraint.  The “heart” does not respond well to this approach.  Hatred produces only more hatred.  This is not to say the alternative is passivity.  Indeed, not.  There is cause for “overload”.  The voice of right must be strong and forceful, but it must be tolerable.

Change comes when the affected “feel the burn” and are able to recover.  “No pain, no gain”, right?  But, the wrong pain signals injury to one physically.  Spiritually, we are not near the point of being “well-centered”.  That is, we are not to the point of full release of self for the welfare of all.  Thus, change—the stressor applied to the growing self—requires time for adaptation to occur.  It is true that for some we could say “How much time does this idiot need?”, but, for those of us so enlightened, we need to understand that change is not so simple as we would think.  Just as we see physiologically, there are high responders and low responders.  Some, then, might never change.  Most, will change for the better.  They just might need a better approach.

If you consider yourself a leader for change, and you are not seeing the results you seek, consider your methods.  Consider the intensity to which you are directing your stimulus for change.  And, certainly, consider the change which you are attempting to force.  Is it your will or the greater will?

Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind as I consider the violent rhetoric that as erupted on both ends of the political and social spectrum (with no particular cause of ideology in mind here).  I searched for an ideal quote of his and found that there are far too many from which to choose.  I find particular relevance to his statement: “Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.”

Carpe momento!

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” .”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Image source: http://1heurf2kk91pad4b23w0jddl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/42903361_m.jpg

“I meant no harm, I most truly did not.  But I had to grow bigger.  So bigger I got.”—The Onceler/Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

We like things big in the U.S.  We like extremes—and it is likely killing us.

I saw a posting on social media of a greasy donut cheese burger.  I couldn’t tell if it was a double or triple burger.  It was such a disgusting mess.  It was a sugar-laden donut (the kind that looks really good, but after the first bite or two has you saying: “Why did I do this?”, and you finish anyways) with greasy cooked beef, cheese, and bacon.  Sadly, it is not the worst of extreme foods I have seen.

Now, I like food.  I like to eat.  I have done my share of food challenges—especially when my metabolism could handle it.  As a high school sophomore, I used to get an over-sized “Mighty Mountaineer” at Chico’s Dairy in Morgantown, WV when I would visit my older sister at WVU.  I recall it had 9 or 11 scoops of ice cream.  (I know better now than I did then!)  Then, there was the challenge at McGuire’s Pub in Pensacola, FL—three massive burgers for a free t-shirt.  (My friends and I not only completed the challenge but asked to see the desert menu.  We were famous for a day.)  My extremes have shifted more to hot sauce challenges in my “wiser” years.  Nonetheless, I understand the appeal of the challenges.  Unfortunately, normal has shifted toward the extremes.

We seem to be okay with the biggering.  We keep biggering and biggering—food, SUVs, and people.  Now at 6’5”, I don’t mind bigger vehicles—within limits.  Sadly, though, bigger car exteriors don’t seem to translate to bigger car interiors for some reason.  (A topic/rant for another day, I suppose?) 

When it comes to food, I do often wince at the price of eating out (especially with a near-teen who is biggering everyday).  It should perhaps be reassuring when the food arrives that the ample portion sizes are a bit more ‘bang for the buck’.  (And of course, I should make it a habit of dividing my food and taking half home in a doggie bag, but I rarely do.  Instead, personally, I am trying to make the healthier choices and consider the calories and quality of food I am consuming.)  Bang for the buck aside, food portions are just getting too big and too unhealthy.  As a result, Americans are getting too big and too unhealthy.

Obesity is a tremendous health issue in this country (and a growing issue abroad, as well).  There will be no “fat bashing” here.  I understand the plethora of issues underlying the individual battles with weight, and I have compassion for those in the fight.  Still, as we contest over who pays for health care in this country, there is the unavoidable discussion of personal responsibility and what society can do to oppose the obesity epidemic.

We have no issues with limiting smoking, because smoking has an obvious impact on those in proximity of the smoker.  Obesity, however, is considered an issue of personal choice and the impact is often seen as insensitivity on the part of the person being imposed upon.  (And to a degree it is, however….)

Of course, we have the opposite extreme (why are we also going to extremes?) of excessive leanness, as well.  So many now perceive “fit” as having “six-pack abs”.  (I like to say “I have six-pack abs, but I keep them in a soft cooler”—wink.)  Now, both extremes involve distorted body images.  One can certainly take “healthy” to an unhealthy level.

One can take biggering too far with regards to muscle, as well as fat.  Typically, I would say this is not quite the problem as obesity.  It, nonetheless, does come with its share of health issues.

I had a conversation the other day with a friend about body mass index (BMI), which is calculated as the body weight in kilograms divided by the body mass in kilograms squared.  It is being used increasingly as a measure of health.  A BMI of >29 m·kg² is considered “obese”.  The problem is that this value does not take into account the amount of fat v. muscle.  It is true that body size, whether fat or muscle, does present some health issues—e.g., stress on the heart and on the joints.  These issues are not the same for the muscular “obese” as the fat “obese”.  We could also have a discussion about “fit and fat” (another time).  There is, however, one area of body size that I feel warrants some discussion regarding limits.  That is…

FOOTBALL.

It is the start of the football season.  The NFL preseason is underway.  College starts in a matter of weeks, and youth football will be underway when this is published.

If the reader hasn’t noticed, football players are biggering.  The average weight of the Minnesota Vikings’ offensive unit in 2016 was 279 lb, the heaviest in the NFC.  The Buffalo Bills, in the AFC, were a mere 278 lb.  (My Steelers were a puny 266 lb.)  These may not seem so big (and the averages were surprisingly less than I expected), but one might want to consider that the biggest player on the Bills line, Mike Williams, tipped the scales at 360 lb.  The averages for the offensive lines are of, course, much heavier.  The heaviest in the AFC is the Baltimore Ravens at 327 lb (my Steelers’ line averages only 309 lb).  The Vikings are again the heaviest in the NFC at 331 lb.

When I was a kid, Doug Cursan, who played tackle for the 1972 Super Bowl Champion Miami Dolphins, worked in the off-season for my dad.  To me, he was massive.  His arms were so big he had trouble reaching the belt of his overcoat (men wore overcoats back then).  He was a first-round draft pick (1968) and a starter for the Dolphins.  His playing weight was… 250 lbs!!!  In college football, in the 1980’s, D-I lineman were “big” in the 280 lb range.  Remember the ‘Fridge, William Perry, for the Super Bowl XX Champion Chicago Bears?  He was an anomaly at roughly 350 lb.

Today, there are high school linemen tipping the scales well over 300 lb!  Talk about biggering.

Let’s talk concussions.  Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, is getting a lot of press and raises concerns for sports like American football.  Mike Webster, a childhood hero, was at the center of the movie Concussion.  The impact of CTE on one of the greatest centers to play the game and numerous other great and near-great players is tragic.  Webster, by the way, played at 255 lb.  It brings tears to my eyes to think how his life ended.

Concussions are basic physics.  The brain “floats” inside the skull.  Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until acted upon by an external force (Newton’s First Law).  Thus, is the brain in football.  Helmets cushion the blow, but only some—and help best with helmet to helmet contact.  Force, remember, is mass times acceleration.  The bigger the object, the more force.  The bigger the player, the bigger the hit.

There are a few things that can help make football safer.  Already, teams like the Seattle Seahawks and head coach, Pete Carroll are emphasizing changes in how players tackle.  “Hawk drills” are practiced to encourage players to tackle more like rugby players.

Rugby does not require helmets, and it is often considered to be “safer” than American football.  A 2011 study at the Auckland University of Technology, however, compared the number of catastrophic incidents (i.e., resulting in paralysis or death) in rugby with other sports between 1975 and 2005*. The study reported 4.6 catastrophic injuries for every 100,000 rugby players annually.  The same study reported that American football resulting in 1.0 catastrophic incidents per every 100,000 players during the years studied. That’s more than 75% fewer incidents than in rugby, however, is should be noted that concussions in football often go unreported and catastrophic injuries in rugby are often spinal injuries.  It is also of note that CTE has a cumulative effect.  Now, going back to the old leather helmets might reduce the head impacts in football (one is less likely to use the head as a weapon, per se), and better tackling techniques (Hawk tackling deemphasizes placement of the head in front of the ball carrier and emphasizes tracking the near the hip, maintaining leverage, hitting the thighs of the ball carrier with the leverage shoulder, wrapping up and driving through the hit.  Think rolling into a fall.) can help as well.  The biggest (no pun intended) change that might limit CTE—and injuries in general—in football might be to put a cap on playing weights.

In my son’s little league, there are weight restrictions.  Players over the weight limit are not permitted to advance the ball.  In the NFL, this might not be possible—let alone desirable—but, unquestionably, a cap on maximum playing weight can be beneficial.

I would place a limit of 300 lb on NFL players (perhaps less in collegiate football—and certainly less in high school).  One would be hard pressed to find an athlete who, at a naturally lean bodyweight, must be over 300 lb.  The result would be better health for the players and less compulsion for “bigger is better”.  It may not eradicate CTE (and it is worth noting that the generation who is presently seeing the impacts of CTE are the players who played at smaller weights), but weight limits could have a positive effect on the game—and, certainly, the long-term health of the players.  Wrestling caps at 285 lb.  It is possible for football to have a weight limit.

Something to consider….

Image: https://seussblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/thneeds.jpg?w=640

*http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/latest-news/head-injuries-rugby-vs-football/

As Christians and non-Christians, alike, are often told by Christians that we need to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”.  Now, at some point in this post, I am likely going to offend some of my Christian friends and, perhaps, some of my non-Christian friends.  This is not my intent, but if it begins to offend at all, just hear me through.

Let me begin by stating that the phrase “a personal relationship with Jesus” is not found in the Bible. (There, I lost my first couple readers, and some of my non-believing readers are saying “Ah ha!  See I told you!)  So, if it not in the bible, why has it become so central to the teachings and activities of many (most) Christian denominations? (Good question.  I don’t know.)

With all that has been going on the world—and particularly the U.S.—I have been pondering this notion of a “a personal relationship with God”.  What does it mean?  And is there relevance for the non-believer?

The first question I consider is: “What does it mean to be ‘in a relationship’?”

Maybe, for some, the term “relationship” is taken lightly.  After all, there are many who seem to change their “relationship status” on Facebook nearly every other day.  Relationship is certainly a continuum ranging from “some guy I met, but I can’t remember his name” to “soul mate”.  So, it is not unusual for people to get confused by the notion of a relationship with God—some intangible, infinite, construct.

Relationship is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the state of being related or interrelated…, the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship…, a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings.”  So, in consideration of “well-centered fitness”, all relationships are Spiritual.  In other words, to be in a relationship with someone there has to be a connection, a sense of participation, and, above all, a sense that one is bound to something greater than self.

God, to the believer, is Eternal and Infinite.  God is Creator and is contained within all of Creation.  Whether one believes or does not—or how one believes—matters much less than we tend to espouse.  If we dismiss our theologies for a moment and consider only that which connects us all, then the notion of “a personal relationship” is relevant to all.

Many, who view themselves as having “a personal relationship” with God or Jesus, are really in much more of a one-sided relationship.  It is kind of like the “friend” you have because he/she can do something for you.  Jesus is my Savior.  God provides. Etc.  This is not relationship!  This is using someone for one’s personal benefit.

Relationship counsellors will often stress that marriage is not 50-50.  Marriage, they explain, is 100% on the part of both parties.  So, if our relationship with Jesus is described as a marriage, then shouldn’t we give our 100%?  (“Oh, but we do”, replies the faithful follower.)  But, do we?—Really?

I did a quick scan of verses—looking for one that supported the need to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”.  It all looked pretty one-sided to me.  In Revelations 3:20, it is God who comes knocking.  1 John 4:10, 19 tells us that it is God who first loved us.  God is love, we are told (1 John 4:8).  The great commands are love God and love your neighbor (Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27).  Is sounds like love is at the center of this relationship thing.  And, if we are to love God and our neighbor (which, by the way, includes our enemy—Matthew 5:44), that pretty much covers everything and everyone, doesn’t it.

My faith always takes me back to the idea that I am connected on a very Spiritual and Physical level with everyone and everything.  If I am to have a “personal relationship with God” there can be no room for division—of any kind—in my life.  This is not to say that there can’t be disagreement (even the best of friendships and marriages have conflict).  It just means that we take to heart what is meant by the statement: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).  This should hold especially true for those of us who profess to be Christians, i.e., followers of Christ, but it is no less true for any who belong to humankind.

The divisive nature of society today is disheartening.  We are divided along every line that makes us unique and diverse.  Rather than embracing and celebrating our diversity, we use it for cause to label and separate.  (Yes, even those who claim to celebrate diversity create division.)  There is no relationship when there is us and them.  Diversity must not imply division.

So, if we claim a “personal relationship” with God and/or Jesus, we must own up to what that means.  It is not that Jesus is my pass to eternal life.  It is that we lead the way to inclusion and acceptance.  It is that we care for all persons—and things.  It means loving even those who don’t love us or agree with us.

If you are not religious or don’t believe in God, you are not free of the Spiritual dimension.  Higher Power or no Higher Power, we are all connected on the deepest level.  The carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements that make up our physical being are the same elements that make up the plants and animals that feed us.  What once made the structure of my cells might tomorrow be a component of you.  The energy that runs through the Universe runs through us all.  We are one whether we like the other or not.  Get over yourself!

I have not arrived at that place where I can say, “I have a personal relationship with God.”  I want to be.  I believe that God is patiently waiting, but I have a way to go.  If you don’t believe like I do, that is okay.  If you understand, however, that we are bound in relationship at a profoundly deep level, then we are actually much more alike than different.

Carpe momento!

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”—John Quincy Adams

I am following up yesterday with another questioning of a friend’s post on social media.  This friend, known for her positive attitude, asked of her friends: “Do you enjoy my inspirational posts?”  I don’t know what motivated the question.  Apparently, she needed to know.  My immediate response was “Well, duh.  Of course, I do.”  How could anyone not?  (If somebody would actually answer “No”, I would have to question whether they are human.)

There is so much negativity on social media.  I have fallen into negativity from time to time, myself.  There needs to be a concerted effort to establish a more positive, inspirational presence on social media—and more so in the real face-to-face world.  I have a number of people whose posts I consciously look for on Facebook.  I need and want to be inspired.  In turn, I recognize that others need inspiration.

When I am in my frequent cynical and negative frames of mind, I find it essential to stop and seek out inspiration.  I like to share positive quotes—in part, because I know that they are a benefit to others—mostly because they are a benefit to me.

Don’t question the positive messages you share.  If no one likes them (and I doubt this is the case), so be it.  If it helps you, it helps others.

Taking a cue from my friend, Andy, I get to be positive and have an impact on the lives of others.

Carpe momento!

My younger sister recently posted the following on social media: “Have you ever questioned major decisions you made in your life? Have you settled or acknowledged that you made a major mistake?”  I have written on this before, but it is something I often like to consider—especially since I know the answers that some might provide.

Me?

Have I ever questioned major decisions I made in my life?  Have I settled or acknowledged that I made a major mistake?  In the past, yes.  I have learned, however, that to do so is fruitless.

I have questioned major decisions before, but as I have learned to view my life from higher up, I have determined that there are no regrets.  Could I have made better decisions in the past?  Maybe in a couple instances.  (Ha! Ha!—In far more instances than I am able to recount or am willing to admit.)  Of course, I have made bad decisions.  I acknowledge from the standpoint that I accept responsibility.  I am not sure that I would consider this “settling”.  To settle is to resign one’s self to the circumstances that said decision brought.  Resignation is not the same as accepting responsibility.  Acceptance is to view one’s circumstances as an opportunity.

I have written about my response to the question: “If you could go back in time and change one thing…?”  A twist on this question is something like: “If you could go back in time and give advice to your 20-year-old self…?  In either situation, I would not wish to go back.  I don’t wish to mess the slightest bit with the time-continuum.  (We’ve seen the science fiction movies.)

What good does it do to question major decisions one has made in the past?  These decisions were made.  They can’t be changed.  Some of the consequences might be less than favorable, but one must consider the unexpected good that has come out of our decisions.  One must also consider how many live have been affected both directly and indirectly as a consequence of our questionable decision.

With regards to my sister, I wouldn’t even wish to speculate what major decision she might be questioning at this point.  There is no need.  I know all the great things she has done on her current path.  I know countless lives would be affected negatively, if she deviated even slightly from the course she has taken.

In my own life, I could spend (i.e., waste) a significant amount of time belaboring the bad decisions I have made.  What I have realized, however, is that I am where I am right now because of the decisions (good or bad) I have made in the past.  I have a wonderful wife and two incredible children who would not be in my life if our paths did not align perfectly.

I might say it was destiny that my wife and I came together.  We could have met 15 years earlier when we worked within blocks of each other in NYC, but we didn’t.  It took us both going different paths for our destinies to cross.  I found myself in Michigan.  She was in Virginia when we finally met.  How?  Perhaps, only because my dad and his wife move a short distance from her in Alexandria.  Because her job was bringing her to Michigan and I had reason to visit Virginia, we met—through Match.com, of all places.

Had we met 15 years earlier, my children’s lives would not be the same (even it would be possible that they would be genetically the same).  Their lives are, likewise, a consequence of the “major decisions” I have made in the past.

What matters for us, today, is not the decisions we made in the past.  Instead, what matters is what we do now.  The past is history.  The future will be affected by what we do today.  If we have made questionable or regrettable decisions in the past, c’est la vie—which, in Brooklyn, they translate: “Forget about it” (it sounds better in a Brooklyn accent).  Make better decisions, today!  Carpe momento!

Image source: Groundhog Day

The thing I hate most to hear is: “that’s the way we have always done it.”  Standard operating procedure.  SOP for short.

Hey, if it has worked for us in the past, what could be wrong with it?  Well….

I have been faced with a lot of defensive walls when I have moved into new situations with new people.  I like change.  Growth, after all, cannot occur without change.  Change need not imply that what we have done in the past was wrong or that the people who implemented the procedures were less than effective.  Quite the opposite.  I trust that what has become SOP was once cutting edge.  The problem with SOP is that stuff happens.  Things change around us, and change does not consider our standard operating procedures.

I teach.  I am a college professor.  I teach exercise physiology.  Human physiology really hasn’t changed over the millennia.  True, our understanding has grown, but basic physiology hasn’t.  So, I really shouldn’t have to change my course much from term-to-term, right?  I wish!   (Well, technically, I might get away with it.  We have all, after all, had teachers who have used the same dated teaching tools.)  The thing is, even though the material changes only minimally, the students change.  I have to adapt to their needs.  (Notice, I didn’t say “wants”.)  And, personally, as I enter my 20^th year of university teaching, I am still my worst critic.  I don’t want to approach each term as I did the term before.  SOP doesn’t work for me.

There are few things that I can’t do better.  (O.K., everything I do can be done better.)  I want to do better.  I can’t admonish my children and my readers to “do your best today; do better tomorrow” and turn around and approach today the same as I did yesterday.  If there should be any standard operating procedure it should be that today is an improvement on yesterday.  Kaizen—constant improvement.  Growth.  Adaptation to the evolving circumstances in our world.

Every day is an opportunity to go better.  We might have gotten it “right” yesterday, but today is different.

Don’t tell me that “this is the way we have always done it”.  Tell me how I can help do it better today.

I love what Vince Lombardi said about perfection: “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.”  If we pursue perfection, we come a little closer most days (with occasion setbacks, of course).

I enjoy being around high-level coaches and athletes.  Why?  Because they always talk in terms of PRs (i.e., personal records) and getting better.  None of my strength and conditioning coaching friends are going to have their athletes train with the same weights session after session through the off-season.  Heck, no!  They are pushing the athletes to progress.  Overload—more weight, faster, longer—every day.  Push!  Reach for perfection.  Be better tomorrow than you were today.

Why, then, do we accept SOP in business, politics, education, etc.??  I would expect that we would want to keep bettering and bettering (to sound a bit like Dr. Suess).

The opportunity presents itself to be better today.  It is a choice.  The choice belongs to us.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow!

Carpe momento!

 

“If there is a lesson to be gleaned from this branch of exercise genetics, it’s that there is no one-size-fits-all training plan. If you suspect that you aren’t responding as well to a particular training stimulus as your training partner, you might be right. Rather than giving up, try something different.”–David Epstein, The Sports Gene

So, the media has you convinced that all you have to do to get six-pack abs all you have to is ______? The reality is (sadly) you might not have that washboard stomach no matter what you do. If it were all a matter of training, diet, and/or supplementation, more of us would have Hollywood bodies. (I don’t.)

If you are working your tail off and not getting the results you want, you have only yourself to blame. Yes, I said it. It is your fault. Either you chose your parents poorly, or you are pursuing the wrong goals.

Of course, there is always the possibility that one’s training, diet, etc. are not perfectly suited to one’s goals. If this is the case with you, modifications are in order. No training program is perfect. Exercise is, after all, individualized. Adaptations are specific—in other words, a body system make specific adaptations to imposed demands.

No matter what our genetics, we can always see improvement—or maybe not. Yes, sadly, there are “non-responders”, as well as “responders” when it comes to exercise. In addition, it has been well documented that we don’t all begin at the same level. Some begin with a high level of fitness. Others start with a low level of fitness. Where they end up? That also depends on genes.

Swedish physiologist, Per-Olof Åstrand, has said: “Anyone interested in winning Olympic gold medals must select his or her parents very carefully”. You may not be interested an Olympic gold. You may ….only want to get into a little better shape, like most of us. What is important is that you train such that you get the most out of your training.

Your genes may keep you from being the best there is, but only you can prevent you from being the best you. If you are not your best when you are working your hardest, perhaps you are working hard at the wrong thing. Change your methods. If whatever you are doing is leading to marginal results, perhaps it is time to change the goal(s).

Genes are never an excuse. They should guide our goals and efforts, but never justification for not trying. Just be realistic.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

Image source: http://mymodernmet.com/howard-schatz-beverly-ornstein-athlete/

“The law of harvest is to reap more than you sow. Sow an act, and you reap a habit. Sow a habit and you reap a character. Sow a character and you reap a destiny.”–James Allen

Do we really reap more than we sow?  Sometimes—dare I say most times—it seems like we don’t.  Note, I am saying that it seems like we don’t.  Why does it seem sometimes like we are getting short-changed in the harvest?  If you are like me, it is because you are expecting the wrong return on your efforts.

We expect that if we do the right thing–if we work hard—good will come our way.  And, I believe, it does.  It just might not be the “good things” we are wanting.
I struggle with this reality sometimes (truth be told, I struggle with it a lot), but the return on our effort is not always the kind of success that is measured in digits after the dollar sign.  It does not always result in promotions, pay raises, celebrity, championships, etc.  If fact, sometimes we work our asses off and end up with “nothing”.  Former Buffalo Bill, Jim Kelly, was one of the best quarterbacks ever to play the game.  Kelly led the Bills to the playoffs in eight of his 11 seasons as their starting quarterback–six divisional championships from 1988 to 1995 and four consecutive Super Bowl appearances.  But Jim Kelly doesn’t have a Super Bowl ring.  Jim Kelly is certainly not a failure.  No one would dare say he was never worthy of the Lombardi Trophy.  Kelly’s career stats are beyond impressive.  He has also been inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame.  So, maybe he did reap what he sowed?  I would dare say that, where it really matters, Kelly did reap what he sowed and more.

James Allen’s comment that “the law of harvest is to reap more than you sow” by no means is intended to suggest that we should something in return for our effort.  Note that the quote continues: “Sow an act, and you reap a habit. Sow a habit and you reap a character. Sow a character and you reap a destiny.”  When we sow the right seeds, we reap a destiny—we fulfill our Purpose and reap a legacy.

The best of a farmer’s seed is reserved for future seasons.  Likewise, we have the opportunity in whatever we do to sow a legacy—to pass forward the fruit (seeds) of our efforts.  It may not be clear to us at the time, but we must trust than when we do the right thing—when we act with discipline and character—we pass this on to other.

The law of harvest is to habitually act with good character and yield a bountiful harvest for others.

“At the end of our life, we ought to be able to look back over it from our deathbed and know somehow the world is a better place because we lived, we loved, we were other-centered, other-focused.”—Joe Ehrmann

Image source: https://cbsmiami.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/71395878.jpg?w=640&h=360&crop=1

I appreciate the dry wit of comedian J.P. Sears.  I recently enjoyed a video he created on functional training (https://www.youtube.com/user/AwakenWithJP).  I have to say, “Well done.”

Now, I am not opposed to “functional training”, per se.  I think it is a phrase that is often misused or overused.  In my humble and informed opinion, all training is “functional” to some extent.  The problem I have is when functional training defies the principle of specificity and “opportunity” cost.  If it is what you enjoy and it has you exercising, enjoy it.  If you are specific about your fitness goals and are limited on time (and who isn’t pressed for time?), though, it might not be your best use of gym time.

A brother of a friend of mine made a very astute comment about the J.P. Sears video.  He wrote: “When this guy gets done with his workout, he takes a shower and goes home. When I get done with my workout, I step back and look at how much bigger my woodpile got.”  He certainly made me think of all the personal training clients who pay a premium to swing a sledgehammer on a truck tire.

When exactly did physical activity become exercise??  It is called “functional training” because it basically patterns exercise after movements that one might do in more functional living (in our “unfunctional life”, as J.P. Sears puts it).

A popular functional exercise is the farmer’s carry—carrying a heavy weight in each hand and walking for some distance.  Well, I remember doing those carrying groceries home as a kid—uphill!

How many people are driving to the gym to walk on a treadmill?  How many are paying a landscaper to tend to the yard while they go to the gym?  I am sure there are more than a few.

Gyms are great.  I am certainly not bashing personal trainers, gyms, or the people who use them.  I think we might just reconsider how we use them.  Weight lifting is a core (no pun intended) part of my exercise.

My recommendation for most—i.e., us average weightlifters—is train the basic lifts–e.g., squat, deadlift, bench, press, and rows–to build muscle (for show), do some cardio (especially, if your life and job are otherwise rather sedentary), then get out and use your physical fitness. Be active.  We’ve built an industry charging people to do what they should be doing in their normal lives.  We shouldn’t need gyms for functional training.  Personally, I think more gym space needs to be devoted to weight training than anything else.

The five basic lifts will give you “functional” strength.  These will provide a reasonable amount of hypertrophy.  If you are an athlete, additional lifts might be warranted—such as power cleans.  The athlete might also need exercises to counter imbalances, and bodybuilders and strength athletes will certainly need more specific training.  For most, though, we should invest some time building muscle (i.e., hypertrophy) and spend more of our leisure time playing and working outdoors.

Next time you are inclined to try some functional exercise, consider what it is you are trying to accomplish.  Ask yourself: “Is this something I could be doing outside of the gym?”  If you are an athlete, ask: “How is this going to make me a better athlete?”  All exercise is well and good.  So, by all means, be active.  My cautionary conclusion, however, is that time is precious.  Use it wisely.  Set goals, and be efficient and effective in attaining these goals.  Specificity is the word of the day.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!