Russian push-ups: 25
-- supersetted with (SSW)
Bodyweight rows: 25
Ring push-ups: 20
-- SSW
Assisted pull-ups: 20
Feet elevated close grip push-ups: 15
--SSW
(Less) Assisted pull-ups: 15
Ring dips: 10
-- SSW
Pull-ups: 10
"One Arm" (the other hand touching the floor outstretched) push-ups: 5
-- SSW
"One Arm" (the other arm gripping the ring but not pulling) ring pull-ups: 5
Ring flyes: 9
-- SSW
Assisted pull-ups: 9
Russian push-ups: 25
-- SSW
Bodyweight rows: 25
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Leg Day
Each day is its own. In an attempt to avoid yet another regrettable trip down the rabbit hole (toward body-part split) and then the inevitable self correction (back to full body) I give myself a break. I realize I do this because I want to do more and get stronger and this is the only way. There is no set-it-and-forget-it. Each day is a new day; do something new!
With plenty of upper body light sets included, today I tried to do a "leg" day as close to that of the Old School (Golden Age) 70s Bodybuilders as I could get using body-weight only.
Squats: 25
Squats with 30 second pause on first rep: 20
Squats with 1 minute pause on first rep: 15
Split squat (back foot resting on floor): 12
Split squat (back foot off floor): 10
Assisted pistol squat: 8 x 2
Sissy squat: 10 x 2
One leg straight leg dead-lift: 10 x 2
Deep half squats: 30
Calf raises: 40 x 2
With plenty of upper body light sets included, today I tried to do a "leg" day as close to that of the Old School (Golden Age) 70s Bodybuilders as I could get using body-weight only.
Squats: 25
Squats with 30 second pause on first rep: 20
Squats with 1 minute pause on first rep: 15
Split squat (back foot resting on floor): 12
Split squat (back foot off floor): 10
Assisted pistol squat: 8 x 2
Sissy squat: 10 x 2
One leg straight leg dead-lift: 10 x 2
Deep half squats: 30
Calf raises: 40 x 2
Monday, December 19, 2016
The (Frothy) Elephant in the Room
On calories, alcohol and health and exercise efforts...
I tried beer a couple of times in high school and was unimpressed. In college I grew to love it and have maintained that sentiment ever since. I drink beer almost every day, sometimes in large quantities. In college I grew to love imports, now it's craft beer, mostly IPA.
Over the years my nightly totals have gradually increased, from 1-3 in the early days to 4-7 and even more now. I don't drink much else except for the occasional Irish whiskey. Whatever health or fitness program I've embarked upon over the years, I've always kept beer drinking more or less separate and tried to adjust other things in order to preserve this habit.
I was about 31 when I first noticed myself getting out of shape and middle aged looking. I've always been slim and never had a "weight problem". That is to say, I've always cut a narrow profile and don't seem to put on fat easily. But when I do it's all belly and seems to be almost all visceral as opposed to cutaneous. So I guess I put IN fat rather than put ON fat. I buy 33" waist pants and have for years and years, which is enviably small for a 51 year old man. And I have to wear a belt. However, if I wore my pants like my grandpa did (several inches above the belly button) I'd have to pick a much larger size.
At any rate, it's not a good look (although quite common) and not a good health attribute.
Selective Attention
When I was 31 and noticed the paunch for the first time, I decided to do two things about it:
1) I would adjust my diet so that I would eat all the same things I was currently eating, but less of it. Knowing I didn't want to count calories, I would "always leave the table a little bit hungry", as I always recalled my dad quoting that phrase with regard to his grandfather, who apparently said this a lot and was always thin and athletic and lived to be in his mid 90s. The main purpose of this approach is that you reduce your calories but don't have to change what you eat. Seems simple.
2) I would become "a runner". That is to say "a jogger". And I would do it every day. When I was young I was a runner, but only in the sense of trying to get to the finish line as fast as possible in a full sprint. I was pretty fast. I won a few 100 yard dashes in junior high and was also on the record-setting 400 m relay team. I never tried distance "running" then or any other time. For good reason.
The implied but not stated (but certainly thought) #3 in this strategy is "beer drinking gets to stay as it is".
At any rate, I suspect every person who ever decided they needed to lose weight and without much experience and without doing much soul searching or research on the subject and who is not obviously "fat" or obese and never has been, has tried some version of both of those two things. It's natural to think "oh, if I just eat less and run every day I'll be skinny." Runners are skinny, right?
Generally yes, runners are skinny, but it's largely NOT because running makes you skinny, but rather that skinny people run.
Even though it was 20 years ago, I recall quite clearly how both of these efforts went and how it felt to try them. If I went to Taco Bell for lunch (which I used to do) and would have ordered 3 hard tacos and 3 soft tacos (which I would have done), I would instead order 3/5 to half this, so maybe 2 of one and 1 of the other. I also cut out between meal snacking (except beer). Breakfast was usually two pieces of fruit and maybe a packet of Toastchee cheese crackers. I never ate until full. I was also vegetarian (which is not necessarily either here or there.)
I started jogging, limping really, in the neighborhood. I did it every day (that was my rule then as it is now) and in not too much time was up to somewhere around 4 or 5 slow miles a day. It was horrible.
On Calories
The days of thinking "all calories are created equal" are gone, thankfully. There may be some holdouts but most people now understand that "metabolically deranging" calories from sugar and fructose are worse than the same number of calories from protein or a good fat. So while the adage that you should take in fewer calories than you spend in order to lose weight is technically true, it's really not that simple. It works in theory but is difficult in practice. Nonetheless, my efforts 20 years ago I suppose were the most straightforward way I could think of to follow this dubious advice.
It worked. I lost at least fifteen pounds and looked better and started to notice abdominal muscles. I also met the woman who would become my wife. However, I was hungry all the time, and in short order (as luck would have it), I developed a nasty sciatica problem from all the running and no resting. I had to quit running and frankly I don't recall what happened after that aside from drifting back. But the sciatica went away and never came back. The gut, however, came back. And the beer drinking never went away so it didn't have to come back.
Nowadays I know that a simple focus on calories in and calories out is not sufficient. HOWEVER, I also understand that some knowledge of daily caloric requirements and intake is necessary in order to successfully lose fat. And it's extremely easy to under-estimate your daily calorie intake.
A good example of this problem is seen in my experience tracking calories using My Fitness Pal. I am told I need to stay in the low 2000s to achieve my goals given my exercise habits. This seems correct. And My Fitness Pal does a very good job of helping me estimate how many calories I've consumed every day. This, I believe, is its real value. Helping me estimate calories in. And for this reason it's worth using. I would like to get to the point, with enough practice, to be able to look at a meal and understand that it's 700 calories give or take, for example.
However, as far as exercise is concerned I believe that My Fitness Pal leads one astray. First, it doesn't seem to care about my body-weight calisthenics. It seems to want me to put in a "weight" before it does any calorie calculation at all. That's fine. It seems to be far more interested in "aerobic" or "cardio" type of exercise, leading me to believe that it's still in the old school in terms of burning calories and the benefit to weight loss. So, on days when I ride to work, which is 14.7 rather hilly miles each way (done a few days a week, up to four), for a total of almost 30 miles a day (and a total of 2.5 to 2.75 hours), it gives me roughly double the number of calories to maintain goal. And I'm not a be-spandexed carbon hero either. I'm as slow as they come out there, and proud of it. So I call it "slow biking" in My Fitness Pal. It seems to think that this gives me another 1800 or so calories per day. I just don't think that's accurate, yet it's tempting to look at and think "WOW, that means I can drink my body-weight in beer tonight and it's not going to make me fat(ter)!"
I've been recording my calories and exercise fairly consistently in My Fitness Pal over the last couple of weeks (and not lying about the beer), and I have consistently met the goals it tells me I need to meet in order to lose one pound a week. And although my exercise performance remains strong and consistent and my arm veins are visible and my push-up totals are increasing, my pants are uncomfortable, my gut is bloated and embarrassing when viewed from the side, and my body weight has not budged one iota. For a year, really.
Why? A number of reasons I suppose. Beer is more like sugar than whole wheat pasta? Beer drinking and weight loss goals do not get along and never will? I'm in a beer-fueled haze of self-deceit? Yes, yes, yes and yes. And I know this is one of those things that you could have guessed or said "I could have told you that 30 years ago and saved you all the trouble!" (but that just means that you're not a beer drinker!) and everyone's grandma always knew. I know, I know.
But this post, this BLOG, is about figuring things out for yourself and deconstructing the dogma.
So I've known for a long time without saying as much, and now I know for sure, WHILE saying as much, that consistent beer drinking and weight loss cannot coexist despite exercise volume and consistent calorie goals met. Just another example of the cruel world in which we live.
Next post: what to do about it.
I tried beer a couple of times in high school and was unimpressed. In college I grew to love it and have maintained that sentiment ever since. I drink beer almost every day, sometimes in large quantities. In college I grew to love imports, now it's craft beer, mostly IPA.
Over the years my nightly totals have gradually increased, from 1-3 in the early days to 4-7 and even more now. I don't drink much else except for the occasional Irish whiskey. Whatever health or fitness program I've embarked upon over the years, I've always kept beer drinking more or less separate and tried to adjust other things in order to preserve this habit.
I was about 31 when I first noticed myself getting out of shape and middle aged looking. I've always been slim and never had a "weight problem". That is to say, I've always cut a narrow profile and don't seem to put on fat easily. But when I do it's all belly and seems to be almost all visceral as opposed to cutaneous. So I guess I put IN fat rather than put ON fat. I buy 33" waist pants and have for years and years, which is enviably small for a 51 year old man. And I have to wear a belt. However, if I wore my pants like my grandpa did (several inches above the belly button) I'd have to pick a much larger size.
At any rate, it's not a good look (although quite common) and not a good health attribute.
Selective Attention
When I was 31 and noticed the paunch for the first time, I decided to do two things about it:
1) I would adjust my diet so that I would eat all the same things I was currently eating, but less of it. Knowing I didn't want to count calories, I would "always leave the table a little bit hungry", as I always recalled my dad quoting that phrase with regard to his grandfather, who apparently said this a lot and was always thin and athletic and lived to be in his mid 90s. The main purpose of this approach is that you reduce your calories but don't have to change what you eat. Seems simple.
2) I would become "a runner". That is to say "a jogger". And I would do it every day. When I was young I was a runner, but only in the sense of trying to get to the finish line as fast as possible in a full sprint. I was pretty fast. I won a few 100 yard dashes in junior high and was also on the record-setting 400 m relay team. I never tried distance "running" then or any other time. For good reason.
The implied but not stated (but certainly thought) #3 in this strategy is "beer drinking gets to stay as it is".
At any rate, I suspect every person who ever decided they needed to lose weight and without much experience and without doing much soul searching or research on the subject and who is not obviously "fat" or obese and never has been, has tried some version of both of those two things. It's natural to think "oh, if I just eat less and run every day I'll be skinny." Runners are skinny, right?
Generally yes, runners are skinny, but it's largely NOT because running makes you skinny, but rather that skinny people run.
Even though it was 20 years ago, I recall quite clearly how both of these efforts went and how it felt to try them. If I went to Taco Bell for lunch (which I used to do) and would have ordered 3 hard tacos and 3 soft tacos (which I would have done), I would instead order 3/5 to half this, so maybe 2 of one and 1 of the other. I also cut out between meal snacking (except beer). Breakfast was usually two pieces of fruit and maybe a packet of Toastchee cheese crackers. I never ate until full. I was also vegetarian (which is not necessarily either here or there.)
I started jogging, limping really, in the neighborhood. I did it every day (that was my rule then as it is now) and in not too much time was up to somewhere around 4 or 5 slow miles a day. It was horrible.
On Calories
The days of thinking "all calories are created equal" are gone, thankfully. There may be some holdouts but most people now understand that "metabolically deranging" calories from sugar and fructose are worse than the same number of calories from protein or a good fat. So while the adage that you should take in fewer calories than you spend in order to lose weight is technically true, it's really not that simple. It works in theory but is difficult in practice. Nonetheless, my efforts 20 years ago I suppose were the most straightforward way I could think of to follow this dubious advice.
It worked. I lost at least fifteen pounds and looked better and started to notice abdominal muscles. I also met the woman who would become my wife. However, I was hungry all the time, and in short order (as luck would have it), I developed a nasty sciatica problem from all the running and no resting. I had to quit running and frankly I don't recall what happened after that aside from drifting back. But the sciatica went away and never came back. The gut, however, came back. And the beer drinking never went away so it didn't have to come back.
Nowadays I know that a simple focus on calories in and calories out is not sufficient. HOWEVER, I also understand that some knowledge of daily caloric requirements and intake is necessary in order to successfully lose fat. And it's extremely easy to under-estimate your daily calorie intake.
A good example of this problem is seen in my experience tracking calories using My Fitness Pal. I am told I need to stay in the low 2000s to achieve my goals given my exercise habits. This seems correct. And My Fitness Pal does a very good job of helping me estimate how many calories I've consumed every day. This, I believe, is its real value. Helping me estimate calories in. And for this reason it's worth using. I would like to get to the point, with enough practice, to be able to look at a meal and understand that it's 700 calories give or take, for example.
However, as far as exercise is concerned I believe that My Fitness Pal leads one astray. First, it doesn't seem to care about my body-weight calisthenics. It seems to want me to put in a "weight" before it does any calorie calculation at all. That's fine. It seems to be far more interested in "aerobic" or "cardio" type of exercise, leading me to believe that it's still in the old school in terms of burning calories and the benefit to weight loss. So, on days when I ride to work, which is 14.7 rather hilly miles each way (done a few days a week, up to four), for a total of almost 30 miles a day (and a total of 2.5 to 2.75 hours), it gives me roughly double the number of calories to maintain goal. And I'm not a be-spandexed carbon hero either. I'm as slow as they come out there, and proud of it. So I call it "slow biking" in My Fitness Pal. It seems to think that this gives me another 1800 or so calories per day. I just don't think that's accurate, yet it's tempting to look at and think "WOW, that means I can drink my body-weight in beer tonight and it's not going to make me fat(ter)!"
I've been recording my calories and exercise fairly consistently in My Fitness Pal over the last couple of weeks (and not lying about the beer), and I have consistently met the goals it tells me I need to meet in order to lose one pound a week. And although my exercise performance remains strong and consistent and my arm veins are visible and my push-up totals are increasing, my pants are uncomfortable, my gut is bloated and embarrassing when viewed from the side, and my body weight has not budged one iota. For a year, really.
Why? A number of reasons I suppose. Beer is more like sugar than whole wheat pasta? Beer drinking and weight loss goals do not get along and never will? I'm in a beer-fueled haze of self-deceit? Yes, yes, yes and yes. And I know this is one of those things that you could have guessed or said "I could have told you that 30 years ago and saved you all the trouble!" (but that just means that you're not a beer drinker!) and everyone's grandma always knew. I know, I know.
But this post, this BLOG, is about figuring things out for yourself and deconstructing the dogma.
So I've known for a long time without saying as much, and now I know for sure, WHILE saying as much, that consistent beer drinking and weight loss cannot coexist despite exercise volume and consistent calorie goals met. Just another example of the cruel world in which we live.
Next post: what to do about it.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Trends and Trendiness, Paleo, and Minimalist/Barefoot Shoes, With Recommendations
Trends can be fine, as long is there is something valid or important behind them. Dietary trends ostensibly at least are important as long as health and well-being are mostly behind them. And although I recall as a kid in the 70s feeling almost nauseated at the thought of a straight legged pant, and as a young adult in the 80s the thought of a wide tie, mostly I would say that the widths of pant legs and ties are not important. Well, important, but in a different way that I'm not entirely able to comment on.
Trendiness? Now *that's* horrible. Because when something becomes trendy it loses its original meaning and becomes important just because it's popular. When marketers get hold of it rationality and objective validity get ignored. There's something very very very powerful behind markets and trends. I just finished typing that pant leg width is not important, yet I'd probably take bullet before wearing bell bottoms right now. But skinny jeans are also horrible, and yet I've worn them and liked them. Now I hate them. Not to the point of wearing bell bottoms, but rather to a degree that says the extreme for its own sake is what's wrong here but it makes sense to have a smaller legged pant. This stuff is complicated.
Paleo Cornfusion
I hate the paleo diet. I hate the word "paleo". Makes my skin crawl. Yet I basically follow this diet. Why? NOT because I think I'm mimicking what the caveman did. I've railed on this before so I'll save it here except to say I hate it because of the trendiness and how people can't or won't think clearly and rationally about why it might be good, or not, to do. Trendiness takes over. The word "paleo" needs to go away because we couldn't possibly eat as the caveman did. The muffin made from almond flour is not paleo. Neither is the steak from Costco. A large chunk of Mammoth meat that's half rotten? Now THAT'S paleo. Can't eat it, though. See my point? People get confused about something that's not at all confusing or complicated. They don't think. They (and by they I don't just mean laymen, but even "experts") routinely equate paleo with low carb. They're not the same, at all. Just the other day I saw a very maddening headline. From The Smithsonian to boot. It said the paleo diet may need a rewrite. The gist was the paleo diet is wrong because Neanderthals actually ate a wide variety of plants. Ugh! If there's any diet besides vegan or vegetarianism that advocates eating lots of plants, it's the paleo diet! We know the caveman ate lots of plants, but even the experts can't seem to get around the over-simplified and over-emphasized meat focus. To the point that actual "experts" think the paleo diet is all meat. Ugh.
Anyway, I do generally follow the paleo diet and have benefited greatly, and I don't do it because I have caveman fantasies or even have the slightest idea what the caveman ate. But I've thought about what's at the core when you strip away the fad and trend, and it's eating whole foods close to their source with as little screwing with (processing) as possible, and with a wariness of sugar and sweetness and "recent" foods that may cause problems (grains, dairy), because they're "recent" or because the way they're grown and brought to market makes them unhealthy, or both, and a with critical eye to the likely overstated and incorrect "importance" of such things as whole grains. So I don't necessarily think that whole grains are bad for most people but they probably aren't good, certainly aren't great, and should probably be avoided, or viewed critically (and rationally). And I'm not dragging my knuckles on purpose when I say this.
Oh, and don't forget that your mileage may vary.
It's Minimalist to Take Off Your Shoes, It's Trendy to Pretend You're Barefoot
"Minimalist" or "Barefoot" shoes are another yet quite similar topic that I think is headed in the same direction as the paleo diet. They often accompany each other. It's another idea rooted in the caveman fantasy. It's ridiculously annoying and I hate the word "minimalist" with regard to footwear as much as I hate the word "paleo" with regard to diet. First of all, why is it called "minimalist" and not "minimal"? Do I need to sell all of my worldly possessions if I decide to wear these shoes? "Barefoot" is a more tolerable term, albeit contradictory, as you cannot possibly be barefoot while wearing shoes. Feel a headache coming on?
Anyway, the point of this podiatric "diet", or its contention, is that the more support and artificial posturing a shoe provides, the less your foot is able to do its natural thing to support your body and your movements, and therefore the less healthy our foot becomes over time. And of course modern shoes tout support and protection and all have heals and most have narrow fronts. Things like being able to feel the terrain in your feet, allowing your toes to flare out to support you, allowing free ankle movement and foot movement, and a natural foot posture are all things "normal" shoes don't allow and "barefoot" shoes do. Barefoot shoes don't elevate your heal ("zero drop"), they allow you to feel the ground (single digit millimeters thick very pliable sole), and allow your toes room to spread (wide "toe box").
Like the paleo diet I do mostly wear barefoot shoes, I have noticed positive changes in my feet, and do feel like the core idea behind the value of barefootedness and the danger of modern shoes is a valid one and I do believe keeping my feet and their job natural and strong will benefit me as I age. But the trends are as annoying here as they are in the diet realm. Plus, there's one step that I think the paleo diet has taken that the barefoot shoe world needs to mimic in order to gain any kind of foothold, so to speak, in the modern world and the market. In a word, style! Or maybe familiarity. Er... something!
Many people would never consider the paleo diet. "GIVE UP BREAD? NO WAY!" So paleo "marketers" and other shrewd business people have figured out a way to make something bread-like, at least enough bread-like that skeptics might try it. Yes, this is what I'm railing on here, but it's also the thing I see as the necessary step to help the movement gain acceptance. Paleo will never exist without almond-flour-based muffins, the very thing that makes the diet NOT paleo. The best way to follow the paleo diet would be to only eat meat, fish, fowl, eggs, seeds, nuts, vegetables and fruit (a recipe for extreme health!), with not much more "fixing" than cooking and seasoning. Yet most people can't do this and won't do this and have to have their pizza or pasta or cake or sandwich, etc. Yes, this is confusing. The main point for me is that almond flour based muffins are way better for me than wheat flour based muffins, and they're muffin-like enough for me to feel like this is not too weird and I can stick with it, provided that no-muffins are a deal-breaker for me (they're not). And as long as I ignore the word "paleo", I can handle it.
Most barefoot shoes are weird, and that's their problem. They look weird, dorkie, silly, and nothing like the shoes I'm used to. Sometimes I think barefoot shoe makers do this on purpose because they consider themselves just that radical, but I'm here to tell you unless you make a shoe that looks like something I have been wearing all my life, and LOVE, you ain't gonna get much market. I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you're interested, but the problem is most pronounced in the "sneaker-like" realm. Barefoot shoes designed to replace sneakers or sports shoes are all function and no form and don't remotely resemble a sneaker that I would wear for something other than sports or performance. And of course you realize I am wearing a sneaker for something other than sports or athletic performance MOST of the time.
Some examples
and let's not forget the weirdest of the weird:
Ick, yuck, ish, ugh, yack...
The Vivobarefoot Bannister is about the best I've found:
So I need a barefoot equivalent of the almond-flour muffin. I need a barefoot Chuck Taylor or Vans Old Skool. Then I might make the switch all the way.
Trendiness? Now *that's* horrible. Because when something becomes trendy it loses its original meaning and becomes important just because it's popular. When marketers get hold of it rationality and objective validity get ignored. There's something very very very powerful behind markets and trends. I just finished typing that pant leg width is not important, yet I'd probably take bullet before wearing bell bottoms right now. But skinny jeans are also horrible, and yet I've worn them and liked them. Now I hate them. Not to the point of wearing bell bottoms, but rather to a degree that says the extreme for its own sake is what's wrong here but it makes sense to have a smaller legged pant. This stuff is complicated.
Paleo Cornfusion
I hate the paleo diet. I hate the word "paleo". Makes my skin crawl. Yet I basically follow this diet. Why? NOT because I think I'm mimicking what the caveman did. I've railed on this before so I'll save it here except to say I hate it because of the trendiness and how people can't or won't think clearly and rationally about why it might be good, or not, to do. Trendiness takes over. The word "paleo" needs to go away because we couldn't possibly eat as the caveman did. The muffin made from almond flour is not paleo. Neither is the steak from Costco. A large chunk of Mammoth meat that's half rotten? Now THAT'S paleo. Can't eat it, though. See my point? People get confused about something that's not at all confusing or complicated. They don't think. They (and by they I don't just mean laymen, but even "experts") routinely equate paleo with low carb. They're not the same, at all. Just the other day I saw a very maddening headline. From The Smithsonian to boot. It said the paleo diet may need a rewrite. The gist was the paleo diet is wrong because Neanderthals actually ate a wide variety of plants. Ugh! If there's any diet besides vegan or vegetarianism that advocates eating lots of plants, it's the paleo diet! We know the caveman ate lots of plants, but even the experts can't seem to get around the over-simplified and over-emphasized meat focus. To the point that actual "experts" think the paleo diet is all meat. Ugh.
Anyway, I do generally follow the paleo diet and have benefited greatly, and I don't do it because I have caveman fantasies or even have the slightest idea what the caveman ate. But I've thought about what's at the core when you strip away the fad and trend, and it's eating whole foods close to their source with as little screwing with (processing) as possible, and with a wariness of sugar and sweetness and "recent" foods that may cause problems (grains, dairy), because they're "recent" or because the way they're grown and brought to market makes them unhealthy, or both, and a with critical eye to the likely overstated and incorrect "importance" of such things as whole grains. So I don't necessarily think that whole grains are bad for most people but they probably aren't good, certainly aren't great, and should probably be avoided, or viewed critically (and rationally). And I'm not dragging my knuckles on purpose when I say this.
Oh, and don't forget that your mileage may vary.
It's Minimalist to Take Off Your Shoes, It's Trendy to Pretend You're Barefoot
"Minimalist" or "Barefoot" shoes are another yet quite similar topic that I think is headed in the same direction as the paleo diet. They often accompany each other. It's another idea rooted in the caveman fantasy. It's ridiculously annoying and I hate the word "minimalist" with regard to footwear as much as I hate the word "paleo" with regard to diet. First of all, why is it called "minimalist" and not "minimal"? Do I need to sell all of my worldly possessions if I decide to wear these shoes? "Barefoot" is a more tolerable term, albeit contradictory, as you cannot possibly be barefoot while wearing shoes. Feel a headache coming on?
Anyway, the point of this podiatric "diet", or its contention, is that the more support and artificial posturing a shoe provides, the less your foot is able to do its natural thing to support your body and your movements, and therefore the less healthy our foot becomes over time. And of course modern shoes tout support and protection and all have heals and most have narrow fronts. Things like being able to feel the terrain in your feet, allowing your toes to flare out to support you, allowing free ankle movement and foot movement, and a natural foot posture are all things "normal" shoes don't allow and "barefoot" shoes do. Barefoot shoes don't elevate your heal ("zero drop"), they allow you to feel the ground (single digit millimeters thick very pliable sole), and allow your toes room to spread (wide "toe box").
Like the paleo diet I do mostly wear barefoot shoes, I have noticed positive changes in my feet, and do feel like the core idea behind the value of barefootedness and the danger of modern shoes is a valid one and I do believe keeping my feet and their job natural and strong will benefit me as I age. But the trends are as annoying here as they are in the diet realm. Plus, there's one step that I think the paleo diet has taken that the barefoot shoe world needs to mimic in order to gain any kind of foothold, so to speak, in the modern world and the market. In a word, style! Or maybe familiarity. Er... something!
Many people would never consider the paleo diet. "GIVE UP BREAD? NO WAY!" So paleo "marketers" and other shrewd business people have figured out a way to make something bread-like, at least enough bread-like that skeptics might try it. Yes, this is what I'm railing on here, but it's also the thing I see as the necessary step to help the movement gain acceptance. Paleo will never exist without almond-flour-based muffins, the very thing that makes the diet NOT paleo. The best way to follow the paleo diet would be to only eat meat, fish, fowl, eggs, seeds, nuts, vegetables and fruit (a recipe for extreme health!), with not much more "fixing" than cooking and seasoning. Yet most people can't do this and won't do this and have to have their pizza or pasta or cake or sandwich, etc. Yes, this is confusing. The main point for me is that almond flour based muffins are way better for me than wheat flour based muffins, and they're muffin-like enough for me to feel like this is not too weird and I can stick with it, provided that no-muffins are a deal-breaker for me (they're not). And as long as I ignore the word "paleo", I can handle it.
Most barefoot shoes are weird, and that's their problem. They look weird, dorkie, silly, and nothing like the shoes I'm used to. Sometimes I think barefoot shoe makers do this on purpose because they consider themselves just that radical, but I'm here to tell you unless you make a shoe that looks like something I have been wearing all my life, and LOVE, you ain't gonna get much market. I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you're interested, but the problem is most pronounced in the "sneaker-like" realm. Barefoot shoes designed to replace sneakers or sports shoes are all function and no form and don't remotely resemble a sneaker that I would wear for something other than sports or performance. And of course you realize I am wearing a sneaker for something other than sports or athletic performance MOST of the time.
Some examples
and let's not forget the weirdest of the weird:
Ick, yuck, ish, ugh, yack...
The Vivobarefoot Bannister is about the best I've found:
So I need a barefoot equivalent of the almond-flour muffin. I need a barefoot Chuck Taylor or Vans Old Skool. Then I might make the switch all the way.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Strength Gains, Some Wandering. Engagement.
My last two posts were about the "reverse pyramid" or "right triangle" (because I got tired of hitting the space bar) approach to push-ups, pull (chin) - ups and squats. This is a scheme where you start with one rep and then add a rep each set until you can't do it any more. You record the rep count for the last completed set and that's your max. In my last post I beat my max on all three exercise, and beat it significantly. So my strength increased and I think I know why. And it's NOT because I've been doing the reverse pyramid a lot lately. In fact, if you just consider the last few posts you'd think I've concentrated on the reverse pyramid almost exclusively, but actually I haven't at all. Two months separated the last two posts and I hadn't tried the reverse pyramid during that period at all, so there were two months between efforts. Why the significant strength gains? Was it rest? Body-part splits? Training to failure? No!
Instead, during that two months I did a bit of misguided wandering down old, familiar, and dubious (at least for me) paths. It's no fun to post about such things, but I'll explain it here. Basically I can't quit thinking that I should maybe do body-part split workouts to failure with days off. I guess if you start out as a weightlifter, you just can't completely get this mentality out of your head, even though you spend so much time touting (and practicing!) whole body every day routines as I have done here. So I tried push/pull/legs splits and going to failure (briefly, like twice), again, and AGAIN, I don't like them.
Then I thought of a different and much newer and better idea. I wondered how I could make the exercises more effective and difficult without slowing them down (intentionally for its own sake), pausing, changing the angles, changing the rest, or doing things with one side of my body at a time. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, and I still do these things. But I wanted to make the move harder within itself.
That got me to the idea of engagement. One thing I've often heard bodybuilders talk about is squeeze. Squeezing the muscle as you are performing the movement. It's engagement, really. Rather than throwing the weight up, or half-assing it like the people curling 5 lbs while talking on the phone, they really squeeze. Engage all the muscles, and especially the ones performing the movement. They also point out that if you do this, you'll have to decrease the weight. Most people don't want to do this. They'd really rather press 225 crappily and half-way than get a good set with 185. And then drop on the ground loudly the weight and hoot and grunt like a primitive.
The other thing you may notice if you pay attention is that there are lot of big guys lifting small weights, and lot of small guys trying to lift big ones. I've also started to notice that there are a lot of big guys who lifted big weights in the past and who are now in surgery for hip replacement or who can't touch the tops of their heads because of permanent shoulder problems or can't do any squats at all because of knee and/or back problems.
All of this led me to ask how I could translate this idea of making a set of bench press with 185 or even 135 more difficult AND more effective than a set of bench press with 225 without slowing it down or pausing or changing the angle, to body weight calisthenics. Squeeze. Engage.
In a set of regular push-ups: try to imagine and flex each muscle in the upper body on each rep, try to push yourself all the way up until you are almost arching your back, with the heels of your hands imagine that you are pushing the entire planet away from you, don't stop pushing when you get near the top or bottom of the movement... pause at the top or bottom if you want to but that's not necessary. Squeeze, try to get every fiber of ever muscle involved.
In a set of regular squats: push yourself up in such a way that it feels like you might launch yourself into the air (but make sure your feet don't leave the ground), feel it in every muscle of the lower body, including the muscles right above your knees, which you may have previously thought you can only work by doing leg raises or sissy squats, dig your heels in and try to imagine that you are attempting to push the entire planet away from you....
Pulling exercises: this one is fun. Why? For one, pull-ups and related moves where the entire body is lifted are difficult on their own and don't necessarily need to be made more difficult. But they can be, and it's certainly worth trying this approach for a set of five if you can normally get 14. Engaging every muscle in the upper body and making sure the full range of motion in the back is achieved (around the scapula) are important. But what I also like about this approach is that it makes body-weight rows a new and exciting option. I've always sort of found them to be too easy and not really worth doing for anything other than warm up. But they ARE a different movement and deserve this treatment. Imagine you are pulling the entire world toward you. Engage every muscle. Really stretch when you go down so that it looks like you are really reaching for the bar or the tree limb.
If nothing else this approach gives you a renewed focus on what you're actually trying to do here. It gets you away from being caught up in high set and rep count goals. If you do this, you'll be hanging out around 10-12 reps per set, if not even fewer, which for me is low. Good stuff.
Instead, during that two months I did a bit of misguided wandering down old, familiar, and dubious (at least for me) paths. It's no fun to post about such things, but I'll explain it here. Basically I can't quit thinking that I should maybe do body-part split workouts to failure with days off. I guess if you start out as a weightlifter, you just can't completely get this mentality out of your head, even though you spend so much time touting (and practicing!) whole body every day routines as I have done here. So I tried push/pull/legs splits and going to failure (briefly, like twice), again, and AGAIN, I don't like them.
Then I thought of a different and much newer and better idea. I wondered how I could make the exercises more effective and difficult without slowing them down (intentionally for its own sake), pausing, changing the angles, changing the rest, or doing things with one side of my body at a time. Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, and I still do these things. But I wanted to make the move harder within itself.
That got me to the idea of engagement. One thing I've often heard bodybuilders talk about is squeeze. Squeezing the muscle as you are performing the movement. It's engagement, really. Rather than throwing the weight up, or half-assing it like the people curling 5 lbs while talking on the phone, they really squeeze. Engage all the muscles, and especially the ones performing the movement. They also point out that if you do this, you'll have to decrease the weight. Most people don't want to do this. They'd really rather press 225 crappily and half-way than get a good set with 185. And then drop on the ground loudly the weight and hoot and grunt like a primitive.
The other thing you may notice if you pay attention is that there are lot of big guys lifting small weights, and lot of small guys trying to lift big ones. I've also started to notice that there are a lot of big guys who lifted big weights in the past and who are now in surgery for hip replacement or who can't touch the tops of their heads because of permanent shoulder problems or can't do any squats at all because of knee and/or back problems.
All of this led me to ask how I could translate this idea of making a set of bench press with 185 or even 135 more difficult AND more effective than a set of bench press with 225 without slowing it down or pausing or changing the angle, to body weight calisthenics. Squeeze. Engage.
In a set of regular push-ups: try to imagine and flex each muscle in the upper body on each rep, try to push yourself all the way up until you are almost arching your back, with the heels of your hands imagine that you are pushing the entire planet away from you, don't stop pushing when you get near the top or bottom of the movement... pause at the top or bottom if you want to but that's not necessary. Squeeze, try to get every fiber of ever muscle involved.
In a set of regular squats: push yourself up in such a way that it feels like you might launch yourself into the air (but make sure your feet don't leave the ground), feel it in every muscle of the lower body, including the muscles right above your knees, which you may have previously thought you can only work by doing leg raises or sissy squats, dig your heels in and try to imagine that you are attempting to push the entire planet away from you....
Pulling exercises: this one is fun. Why? For one, pull-ups and related moves where the entire body is lifted are difficult on their own and don't necessarily need to be made more difficult. But they can be, and it's certainly worth trying this approach for a set of five if you can normally get 14. Engaging every muscle in the upper body and making sure the full range of motion in the back is achieved (around the scapula) are important. But what I also like about this approach is that it makes body-weight rows a new and exciting option. I've always sort of found them to be too easy and not really worth doing for anything other than warm up. But they ARE a different movement and deserve this treatment. Imagine you are pulling the entire world toward you. Engage every muscle. Really stretch when you go down so that it looks like you are really reaching for the bar or the tree limb.
If nothing else this approach gives you a renewed focus on what you're actually trying to do here. It gets you away from being caught up in high set and rep count goals. If you do this, you'll be hanging out around 10-12 reps per set, if not even fewer, which for me is low. Good stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)