Month: April 2016

I can’t say I have ever seen a time in the U.S. when people have been so absolutely polarized. Yes, there have always been differences on political issues and some have divided the nation (e.g., the Civil War); but, what we seem to be experiencing is a social rift on so many levels. It seems as though we are dominated by our extreme differences and blinded to those things that unite us.

For many, there seems to be only two possible options: passivity or aggression. We can be permissive and allow the world around us to “go to hell”, or we can be angry and force our way on the world. These are the way of the world. I am right; you are wrong. Period.

Where does this leave us, though? It leaves us bitter and further divided. It also leaves a lot of innocent people hurt in the process.

Could there be another way? I believe so. I believe this to be at the heart of my faith. As a follower of Christ, I not only believe it to be possible, but believe this is the core of the “love your neighbor like yourself” command. I believe the “third way” is the only way.

I was fortunate to have been taught by the controversial Rob Bell for my last two years in Michigan. In one particularly memorable message, he spoke on “turn the other cheek”. In the Sermon on the Mount, we are instructed to “turn the other cheek”, to “give up our tunic”, and to “walk the extra mile.” So, to be passive, right? No! To the point (because I could never make the point as eloquently as Rob Bell), we go above and beyond to make our opponent be totally embarrassed and ridiculed by our actions. I particularly liked his depiction of the Roman soldier commanding one to carry his pack. The soldiers could compel a citizen to carry his pack for one mile, no more. One could refuse. One could passively comply. Or, one could follow the third way—keep carrying the pack for two miles! The vision of the soldier pleading “No! Stop! P-l-e-a-s-e, stop!” was hilariously to the point.

We can have strong opinions about what matters in the world. We don’t have to be so divided, however. We don’t have to fight bloody battles over our principles. We don’t have to compromise our principles and morals. If we consider a third way, right will always win.

So, where do we stand on the polarized issue? What are our options? Considering that the first two options only seem to further divide us, what is the third way?

Carpe momento!

“Don’t have $100.00 shoes and a 10 cent Squat” – Louie Simmons

The squat is one of the most common and effective movements in weightlifting. It incorporates almost all of the major muscles to some degree. It is efficient in overloading the lower body muscles–the quadriceps, the hamstrings, the gluteals, and the calves. Yet, the squat is also probably the most underutilized and improperly executed lift by beginner and novice lifters (and the less serious lifters).

The squat can be scary. Loading the back with heavy weights and sitting down into a squatting position is hard. But, as Nietzsche is quoted as saying: “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” Such is the squat.

“But,” you might say,” squats are bad for the knees and back.” No, poorly performed squats are bad for the knees. “Oh,” you say,” You mean deep squats?” No, I mean “poorly performed squats.”

I used to consider partial, half, and full squats as variations of the squat until a student set me straight. In class, I mentioned doing “deep squats”. Sam, who is now a strength and conditioning coach, asked what I meant. After I explained, he responded, “Oh, we just call those ‘squats’.” In high school, we called that a “burn.” Sam wasn’t being disrespectful. On the contrary, he was just being his natural matter-of-fact kind of guy, and I was convicted.

I had allowed myself to be convinced that, because I was 6’5″ and despite being a wrestler trapped in a basketball player body, I could not squat deep. I was content with hitting nearly parallel. The trouble was that I would soon reach a weight that would strain my back (and not a really impressive weight at that). So, I challenged myself to learn to deep squat.

“Ass-to-grass” (ATG) is the colorful phase used by lifters to describe a truly deep squat movement. This was my goal, but, as I would learn, it is not quite practical…for me.

While there is a tendency to have an all-or-nothing approach to deep squatting–i.e., you either buy in to deep squatting or you think it is dangerous, I have to say that I think both approaches are wrong. And, perhaps, the problem relates to the terminology used. I have heard the phrase “proper squat” used in relation to the deep squat, thus implying that, if you can’t squat the way the guy in the video squats, you can’t squat. Maybe, instead of saying “deep squat”, we should use the phrase: “full range of motion squat”?

Describing the “proper” squat as a “full range of motion” squat would allow one to determine what the proper squat movement is for the individual. Each individual is, after all, quite different from the next. I watched a clip recently of Dr. Stuart McGill, Director of the Spine Biomechanics Laboratory at the University of Waterloo, discussing genetic differences in the anatomy of the femoral neck among populations—specifically, comparing the structure of the hips of persons of Polish versus persons of Celtic and Norman decent. By comparison, the hip structures of the Polish group favored a deep ATG squat over the hips of peoples from Scotland/Ireland and Normandy (no surprise from where my ancestors came!). My take from the video was not that we should exclude any from squatting, rather we should consider each person’s proper full range of motion (ROM) squat.

I prefer, now, before beginning anyone with the squat, to have the exerciser stand with the feet about shoulder-width and squat down into the deepest, pain-free, squatting position they can comfortably hold. Most will be able to find a position, though it may not necessarily be ATG. From here it can be ascertained how wide the stance should be, how the feet should be positioned, and how deep the target should be. The mobility issues to address are generally going to be found in the hips and ankles. Tightness in either will affect the proper full ROM for the individual. If the hips and ankles can be stretched into a greater ROM, then joint structure is not a limiting factor, and a stretching (and proper warm-up) routine is warranted.

Barring any physical limitation that is contraindicating to performing squats (this would essentially be one’s doctor saying “your body cannot or should not move into this position”), any one can perform some variation of the squat. When squatting, it is my opinion that everyone should move within the full ROM that is specific to the individual. Thus, when considering the squat, two important things must occur: 1) the proper full ROM squat movement must be demonstrated before adding weight; and 2) the ego must be checked at the door. Adding weight at the expense of form is dangerous. One must realize (as I have) that not everyone is capable of squatting hundreds of pounds. Powerlifters are only successful if they first have the body structure to lift heavy weights. So, it is better to lift less properly than to convince yourself that loading the bar and doing a quarter squat impresses anyone.

If you don’t like back squats (i.e., squatting with the barbell on the back) try goblet squats (holding a dumbbell at the upper chest while squatting) or a plié squat (holding the dumbbell between the legs). These are great starters to begin to get the technique down and gain confidence. Eventually, back squats will become more comfortable.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

“And this dietin’, dietin’, dietin’, dietin’
Sure is a rough way to die…”

Bobby Bare, ‘Diet Song’

Losing weight is complicated, right? Well, maybe not as confounding as sorting through the endless supply of diet books and fad diets (most of which are basically the same nonsense repackaged and rebranded for the next up-and-coming celebrity fitness “expert” to sell). Truth be told—and the truth is hard to come by—the basic concepts of weight management are easy. It is filtering out the nonsense that people find most challenging.

So, what is it? High carbs? Low Carbs? High Fat? Low Fat? High-frequency meals? Intermittent fasting? Do calories really matter? etc. ….

I listened to an “expert” address two “myths” of dieting, and, like every “expert”, he had some things right and many more things wrong. Funny the guy’s podcasts are supposed to be simplifying nutrition when in reality it is the same over-complication of the same basic principles of human nutrition.

The first “myth” was that calories in = calories out. He was right in pointing out that this isn’t true per se. It isn’t a simple matter of counting how many calories I consume and how many calories I expend (i.e., basal metabolic rate + physical activity). There is a lot more going on—much of which we can’t easily get a handle on. There is the thermogenic effect of food (i.e., the energy cost of processing the foods we eat—roughly 10-15% of the calories we consume). We are learning that the actual usable calories from certain foods are not what we find on the food label. This varies by food—almonds, for example, apparently, only provide 70% of the actual calories stored in the nut (thus, when eating some foods we may not be eating as much as we think). This varies, as well, on the individual digestive system. Bacteria in the gut, for example, vary among individuals leading to variability in the amount of food energy that actually gets absorbed. (My students and I had a very unpleasant and enlightening discussion about “fecal transplants” recently. The Only Human podcast had an insightful discussion on the “calorie” that is worth the listen: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/only-human/id1042116072?mt=2&i=362497112.) In addition, the method of cooking may also impact the calories that get absorbed. Basal metabolic rate (BMR) is measurable, but is not something that is easily obtained (precisely, at least). BMR can be estimated, however. I recommend most any online calorie counter. Caloric expenditure through physical activity can vary, also. At best, we are usually only estimating caloric intake and expenditure. So, in a general sense, “calories in” does not necessarily equal “calories out”, but this is splitting hairs. All things considered, if you consume more than you expend (on average), you will gain weight, and vice versa. A big question remains: What kind of weight do you want to gain/lose? Are you gaining/losing muscle or fat?

The second “myth” addressed was that carbohydrates are the preferred fuel source in humans. It is true that fat is not the evil that nutritionists and cardiologists have painted it to be in recent years, but…. What is false is that we can adapt our diet to make fat our primary fuel source…and still perform.

From a weight-loss perspective, true, one can lose a significant amount of body fat by eating a high-fat diet (75-80% fat). This is called a ketogenic diet. It works because fat can’t be metabolized effectively. You see, fats need carbohydrates to be fully metabolized—to obtain all of the available stored energy. It is beyond the scope of this blog, but, essentially, when glucose is not available, fat cannot effectively enter the oxidative energy systems (the Krebs or tricarboxylic acid cycle, to be specific) and gets converted to ketones, wasting much of the stored energy. (Think of it as putting premium gasoline in you ’73 Dodge Dart.) This is great for burning fat, but poor for performance.

Bodybuilders often use a ketogenic diet in the final stages of cutting. Notice, I wrote “final stages”. A bodybuilder would never consider a fat adapted (i.e., ketogenic diet) long-term. Why? Because muscle demands carbohydrate to perform! Fats only can fuel muscle at rather low intensities. Muscle needs glycogen (stored glucose). One can build muscle only through intense effort, and such effort needs carbohydrates.

So, while it is possible for someone to be “fat-adapted”, it is important to understand that they will only function well in a more sedentary state—and possibly with low intensity aerobic physical activity. If one is exercising regularly, they will need some carbohydrates. I mentioned these numbers previously, but, in case you haven’t been following this blog, here they are again:

• 0.5 g/lb for non-training days (and, by extension, I would say for sedentary individuals
• 1.0 g/lb on light training days (for people with sedentary jobs and who exercise more moderately)
• 1.5 g/lb on moderate training days
• ≥2.0 g/lb on heavy training days (Source: Dr. Mike Israetel, The Renaissance Diet).

Notice that carbohydrate intake is relative to activity level. So, true, when we are sedentary fewer carbs are necessary, and we can manage with more of our calories coming from fat. (But, be aware that on non-exercise days our calorie requirements are lower, so cutting carbs is, first, cutting caloric intake. Increased fats will help curb hunger, but should still fall within our daily requirement.)

Carbohydrates (especially sugars) can be bad in excess. A diet too high in sugars is certainly unhealthy (everyone: say “diabetes” with me….). One should be careful with what carbohydrates they do eat.

Fats are also a necessary component of our diet. We need fats to function. In fact, cholesterol—in moderation—is an essential component of the diet. Important hormones, e.g., testosterone, are made of cholesterol. We can’t (nor should we) avoid fats entirely.

Rather than try to be “fat adapted”, I suggest, we:

1) limit our caloric intact to promote a modest fat loss (and add muscle according to one’s taste and commitment to exercise);

2) eat a moderate amount of fat (30-50% of the total calories seems near ideal);

3) cut out sugary foods as near to completely as is reasonable (I mean, come on, we all love desserts at least occasionally);

4) eat complex (i.e., slow digesting) carbohydrates to avoid insulin spikes that are associated with gains in body fat; and, of course,

5) exercise regularly.

Yesterday, a student asked me how I would respond to a woman who doesn’t want to put on a lot of muscle? The answer struck me as simple: “Tell her she isn’t willing to put in the work to get that big!” In the past, I have addressed the comment (every fitness professional will be told by more than one woman that she doesn’t want to get big muscles) by explaining that women generally don’t put on a lot of muscle mass unless they are genetically predisposed or take hormones, but my response appears to have matured. The reality is: male or female it takes a lot of work to pack on muscle. If a woman can easily gain muscle and doesn’t want to, lucky her! She doesn’t have to work as hard to make reasonable gains. She can focus her time in other areas.

Gaining muscle mass takes significant effort. My bodybuilding friends put in a tremendous amount of time at the gym. On top of this, they are beyond meticulous in regulating the diet—counting calories, counting macros, nutrient timing, etc. Building muscle is much more than just picking up a dumbbell. Most average lifters, being meticulous about these things, won’t gain more than 1-1.5 pounds of muscle per month. So, ladies, if you are worried about weight training building bulky muscle, don’t.

Lifting weights has benefits well beyond muscle hypertrophy. Muscle needs fuel and expends calories. Adding a little more muscle means more fat gets metabolized with less effort. Weight training, itself, may not expend as many calories as does a bout of cardio, but, because of the extended repair process post-exercise, it actually expends a greater amount of calories for, possibly, days after the exercise session. So, really, if you want to lose fat beyond dieting, weight training is a must.

Lifting weights also has health advantages. Muscle activity facilitates healthy bone. Added muscle strength increases the level of recreational activity we can enjoy. The list continues.

So, if you are willing to put in at least 10 hours a week in the gym, you might get big muscles. If not, you can still lift weights a more modest amount and improve your body composition—improve the ratio of fat-to-lean tissue—and still look great. Ladies, don’t be afraid to add weight to the machine or barbell. Chances are good that you are not going to look like She-Hulk (who, by the way, doesn’t have such an unappealing physique as compared to the Hulk). No offense, but I don’t think most of you (us) have it in us—genetically, as well as, the self-discipline and self-determination—to build really big muscles.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

We all lead pretty busy lives. These are further complicated by all the “essential” time-wasters. We have so much we want to do, but so little time to do these things. Life is, essentially, a to-do list that we need to prioritize. We need to identify the things that make little or no contribution to our success and well-being.

I recently heard Rory Vaden (author of Procrastinate on Purpose) make a convincing argument for procrastinating (http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/How-To-Multiply-Your-Time-Rory). I believe he called it “productive procrastination. He built off of Stephen Covey’s two-dimensional time-management grid (importance x urgency), adding a third dimension (significance). Beyond prioritizing to for efficiency, he suggests we prioritize according to how long something matters. This is not unlike the idea of “opportunity cost”—everything we do will be done at the expense of something that is left undone.

In managing ourselves, we need to always consider the cost-benefit ratio of our decisions. Brendon Burchard (The Charged Life podcast) pointed out that the person who watches four hours of television a day (currently, the national average!) spends roughly 13 years of his or her life watching television!! Surely, we can make better use of our time.

So, what do you want to do with the time you have? Certain things are a necessity—e.g., sleep. (Arnold Schwarzenegger says: “if you are sleeping more than 6 hours, sleep faster.”—Six to eight hours is, probably, ideal.) Some things should not be rushed—e.g., meals (particularly dinner). Eating is best done slowly, and I am a great proponent of family dinner together at the dinner table. Indeed, meals should, as often as is possible, be social events. Then, there are the things that we can’t change—e.g., the time spent commuting or at work. Nonetheless, there is a substantial amount of time spent doing things that run the gamut of significance—from family to computer apps.

We need to plan our day with the idea of significance in mind. The significance of an event trumps importance and urgency. It accounts for not only what is important and urgent for us, but also for what is important and urgent for the other parties involved. In some cases, something that is seemingly unimportant to us of maybe important but not urgent is extremely important and urgent to another and is, thus, highly significant to us. An example is certainly the time spent with our children and partners.   As much as we can be “more productive” if you didn’t have to take time away from work to attend a performance at our child’s school, the impact of being there for the child is immeasurable. The opportunities are abundant and easily overlooked, but they are always time well spent.

It is of great importance to me to start my day prayerfully and considerate of my need to be “well-centered”. Waking up a half-hour earlier permits me to consider my day and establish goals in the spiritual, physical, intellectual, emotional, and social dimensions. Important—but rarely done well—are my efforts to approach each of these with specific goals. I need to plan time for prayerful reflection and meditation, for exercise, for purposeful reading and learning, and for family and friends (note time spent on these feeds my emotional well-being, so there is no real need for scheduling time specific to my emotional dimension). The ease with which I am able to make time for these dimensions s always indicative of the extent to which these are “centered”. For me: am I making time for prayer, bible study, meditation, etc.? Am I making time to exercise such as is consistent with my goals? Am I reading and appropriate amount? Am I setting aside time for each member of my family? Etc.

What garbage fills our day? Are we spending too much time in activities that drain us physically and emotionally? Are we spending too much time with the wrong people? Are we spending too much time doing “unproductive” things? If we are, take out the garbage. Eliminate the activities that would fall in the insignificant quadrant. Emphasize those things with the highest significance. Count the cost for the choices you have for using your time.

What is most important to you? What is the cost of prioritizing these things?

In the days and weeks to come, I plan to add to this post with regards to exercise. As well, I will share more of how this relates to me with regards to family, as well as the other dimension in addition to social well-centeredness. Until then, use your television time and time on social media wisely and purposefully.

Carpe momento!

As an academic, the rather new trend toward “safe-zones” on college campuses has been on my mind lately. First, let it be clear that I am not a fan of bullying or harassment of any kind. We should respect all persons and be considerate of opposing views. There is, however, something quite disheartening about this trend.

Of all places, academia should be the place where individuals are free to discuss ideas, no matter how uncomfortable they might make us feel. This is, indeed, the stimulus for growth. Sure, ideas are scary. Sure, we may feel threatened and even hated by ideas that are contrary to our belief system. But, this should be okay.

We are becoming a society that is overly protective of feelings and “self-esteem.” We are offended and on guard against causing offense at every turn. No longer does the playground saying apply: “Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” This is not healthy! This is not emotional well-centeredness.

Initially, to my understanding, the concept of a “safe-zone” on a college campus was to provide a safe, welcoming, and inclusive environment for the LBGTQ community. This is great. Everyone should feel safe and included. Where I become troubled is where campuses shut down free thought. We need to open the flow of ideas and learn to be inclusive through the challenges of being diverse communities. Ignorance is a reality. It is not a disease or something of which we should be afraid. Truth be told, we are all ignorant in our own ways.   All too often, I see people who consider themselves “open-minded” but are no less ignorant than those they label as “intolerant.”   Paradoxically, these people are so open-minded that they become close-minded to views that are less progressive.

If we are to call ourselves “well-centered”—spiritually, physically, intellectually, emotionally, and socially—we must allow ideas (no matter how offensive) to be discussed openly—and civilly. If we oppose a view, then it is on us to win people to our point of view or tolerate the views of others. Society cannot endure the increasing barriers that divide us. We need to have our ideas challenged. We need to be hurt at times and to be moderately offended. We need to be free to cause the occasional offend (that is, the honest, unintentional offense) so that we may learn and grow. We need to learn to have less fragile egos.

Let us not need safe-zones; because, we value life and love our neighbor. Let us neither cause offense nor be offended. Let education be a space where ideas flow and minds are developed. Let’s not become so open-minded that we become closed to alternative ideas (or close-minded that we can’t be open to alternative ideas).

Be your best today; be better tomorrow!