Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Barefoot Running - even more vid analysis sources
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
In case you were curious, here's some nice fine comparison work of barefoot and not foot striking. B2D readers know there have been many of us here for awhile, celebrating foot freedom with minimal footwear, or goodness, naked feet, (see the entire index of articles on same).
Some of us have been just waiting for the moment when barefooting or vff'ing would make it through to the mainstream. THis seems to have happened recently on the cover of nature, with DE Lieberman's research in praise of the unshod. The formal article title is "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners" The abstract reads:
Related Posts
CITATION
Lieberman, D., Venkadesan, M., Werbel, W., Daoud, A., D’Andrea, S., Davis, I., Mang’Eni, R., & Pitsiladis, Y. (2010). Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners Nature, 463 (7280), 531-535 DOI: 10.1038/nature08723 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
In case you were curious, here's some nice fine comparison work of barefoot and not foot striking. B2D readers know there have been many of us here for awhile, celebrating foot freedom with minimal footwear, or goodness, naked feet, (see the entire index of articles on same).Some of us have been just waiting for the moment when barefooting or vff'ing would make it through to the mainstream. THis seems to have happened recently on the cover of nature, with DE Lieberman's research in praise of the unshod. The formal article title is "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners" The abstract reads:
Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years1, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.As this work was covered broadly by the media, i haven't jumped in (just quietly celebrating ahead of the curveness), but wanted to foreground an associated resource that b2d reader Robert Cowham forwarded today, followed by one that's on the main vibram fivefingers page now. Enjoy.
Related Posts
- Running Shoes as Single Factor Thinking
- The neurological benefit of the thinly shod
- Review of wearing vff's five months on (it's been 15 months now)
- do YOUR shoes pass the twist test?
CITATION
Lieberman, D., Venkadesan, M., Werbel, W., Daoud, A., D’Andrea, S., Davis, I., Mang’Eni, R., & Pitsiladis, Y. (2010). Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners Nature, 463 (7280), 531-535 DOI: 10.1038/nature08723 Tweet Follow @begin2dig
PDF
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Hypoxia for Muscle Growth: Get Huge or Die?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
A recently accepted paper shows that working in an oxygen deprived environment can gosh darn it, build muscle when doing resistance work. WHile jokes might start about the variety of ways that one could replicate a near-asphyxiated space - from smoking to putting a plastic bag (with some holes) over one's head - i'm thinking that in the case of resistance training (as opposed to altitude/endurance where there's a definite blood/muscle adaptation), based on the findings, we're maybe seeing predictably heightened threat response brought on by 02 deprivation. Here's a look at the study in detail:
What is it with Japanese research and oxygen deprivation? They bring us the most amazing results of occlusion training (b2d discussion here). Now, how about whole body oxygen occlusion?
Some may argue that this seems to be similar to training at altitude, where the benefits are known. Indeed, the authors use a system that's used to generate Everest-like conditions, funnily enough called an "everest generator" and for 5K you can have one, too (shown left).
Thing is, this technique is most often used for endurance athletes (and we've also seen in cycling for instance blood doping associated cases of EPO enriched/adapted blood), and apparently the usual oxygen depletion levels are 20.9% o2 - with associated increased risks of overtraining. Here, in this resistance training study, the researchers use 13ish% o2.
Another unique aspect of this hypoxia study is it's the first time (to my knowledge anyway) researchers have formally looked at effects on resistance training - anaerobic effort as opposed to aerobic effort.
The Rationale: it IS occlusion training. The authors do indeed say yup well, LOW INTENSITY resistance training and partial occlusion has great effect, so how about "systemic hypoxia" - It's the next logical step, isn't it?
Set Up. 10 reps of bench and squat at 70% of tested 1RM in either normal room air or 13% O2. I'm only able to guess that 13% is some standard definition of "acute hypoxia" conditions that are still safe.
The authors alas don't formally justify either why they were going for this percentage or why this definitely NOT low resistance level (like occlusion training uses) was used.
All sorts of Measures. The purpose of the trials were so the researchers will have
And what all the lads love to hear: serum GH - significantly higher in the hypoxia case (potentially triggered, the researchers suppose by increased catecholamine release) Likewise IGF and of course yes the big T, testosterone. But so does cortisol.
And for those trying to burn fat? Not surprisingly to folks who see the world through the nervous system threat/no threat lense, those wonderful fight or flight catecholamines are of course elevated, too. These are the things that help fat mobilisation (discussed here in this b2d piece on HIIT). So gosh, let's see - challenge trying to breath - i'd say that's going to be perceived as a threat to one's system?
So What's Different (than occlusion training)?
The authors suggest that while occlusion training has shown greater muscle growth, they haven't really known why. They put it down to the increased levels of GH noted in occlusion training at LOW REPS. Here they're saying
What they say their specific results also suggest is that IGF-1 may be indedpendent of GH levels. In other words, something else is going on to get a boost in IGF-1 than the presence of GH.
Likewise, they suggest that increases in serum testosterone may have more to do with intensity and muscle mass than "metabolic stress" - like hypoxia.
As for cortisol, another fight or flight hormone, that's also a known biproduct of resistance training. The researchers say they just don't know what the mechanism is such that these levels are particularly higher in this trial. Well heck, again, threat-related hormone; gonna asphixiate. Dunno. seems predictable when seen from that vantage?
Not Normal. The threat hormones did not return to normal levels within an hour after the trials either. Is that good? Not clear, but if overtraining is related to stressing they system, threatening it more than it can handle perhaps, then it's reasonable to see why this kind of training may need to be far more closely monitored for overtraining effects.
Openning New Doors. The biggest outcome it seems right now is the possible relationship of hypoxia to GH - at least in the authors' view:
hypoxic environment in anaerobic work like resistance training - hence the term anaerobic - so it's interesting to see therefore that the hypoxic effect seems to be perhaps on the recovery - where we usually pause between sets to catch our breath and re-oxygenate. Here, in this o2 deprived envrionment, that can't happen. Hence lactate it seems to me goes up. And GH switches in.
Why, when the nervous system might be percieved to be under threat, would the nervous system/brain see this as a good time to, er, grow? (For a review of the systems that get shut down under stress, see this overview of Zebras and Baboons and Stress.)
Again, what these researchers don't seem to clue into is that growth hormone is apparently known to be triggered by stress (and here's a pdf from 76 about how kind of cool this is, where only 1/3 of the sample group was shown to have this particular stress/GH release response). It's role this work shows, is not just to grow the body, but the brain. Is that what's going on? I'm about to die; i suddenly need a bigger brain?
Ramdoc, over at the dragondoor forum (thank you), made the intriguing connexion that GH is related to insulin. Here's 2005 paper outlining the human GH/insulin homeostasis, and that bigger hits of GH lead to a hyperinsulinism - elevated levels of insulin in the bloodstream. That's gonna trigger a temporary blood glucose surge. So if increased GH relates to a rush of glucose to the bloodstream, that certainly would have a survival effect. More fast energy, that means more ATP, more muscle can be recruited, more speed, steve. Cool.
We're about to Die; Let's get Huge?
Well who'd have thought even to test the effects of cutting off c
irculation to see what would happen to our bodies?
I suppose it's an interesting idea - take a process like anaerobic metabolism and string it out to see if by seeing what happens in a less natural environment, we get some better view into a natural environment. And heck, some folks might turn that practice into a way to rehab and train folks.
The responses seen in this environment - a big fat rush of fight or flight related responses - seem pretty predictable. That there's a positive payoff FROM that stress after the event is interesting: survive and get faster, stronger. Recovery means anabolism: more muscle, continued performance improvement. And who knows? Maybe a bigger smarter brain?
But in terms of pushing this principle that's being expressed in the large in this oxygen deprived space? The biggie that those stress levels don't go back to normal in normal time is a reminder that hypoxia work may just be super stressful to our CNS even if we mayn't perceive that directly ourselve - and this study doesn't tell us if it collected any of the athletes' responses to the protocol.
In the meantime, for those who are curious, how would one try this at home without an Hypoxia Generator? The mind reels at the possibilities.
Related Posts
A recently accepted paper shows that working in an oxygen deprived environment can gosh darn it, build muscle when doing resistance work. WHile jokes might start about the variety of ways that one could replicate a near-asphyxiated space - from smoking to putting a plastic bag (with some holes) over one's head - i'm thinking that in the case of resistance training (as opposed to altitude/endurance where there's a definite blood/muscle adaptation), based on the findings, we're maybe seeing predictably heightened threat response brought on by 02 deprivation. Here's a look at the study in detail:
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009 Dec 14. [Epub ahead of print]
Effects of Acute Hypoxia on Metabolic and Hormonal Responses to Resistance Exercise.
Kon M, Ikeda T, Homma T, Akimoto T, Suzuki Y, Kawahara T.
1Department of Sports Sciences, Japan Institute of Sports Sciences, 3-15-1 Nishigaoka, Kita, Tokyo, 115-0056, Japan; 2Laboratory of Regenerative Medical Engineering, Center for Disease Biology and Integrative Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
INTRODUCTION:: Several recent studies have shown that resistance exercise combined with vascular occlusion effectively causes increases in muscular size and strength. Researchers speculated that the vascular occlusion-induced local hypoxia may contribute to the adaptations via promoting anabolic hormone secretions stimulated by local accumulation of metabolic subproducts. Here we examined whether acute systemic hypoxia affects metabolic and hormonal responses to resistance exercise. METHODS:: Twelve male subjects participated in two experimental trials: 1) resistance exercise while breathing normoxic air [normoxic resistance exercise (NR)], 2) resistance exercise while breathing 13 % oxygen [hypoxic resistance exercise (HR)]. The resistance exercises (bench-press and leg-press) consisted of 10 repetitions for five sets at 70 % of maximum strength with 1-min rest between sets. Blood lactate, serum growth hormone (GH), epinephrine (E), norepinephrine (NE), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), testosterone, and cortisol concentrations were measured before normoxia and hypoxia exposures, 15-min after the exposures, and at 0, 15, 30, 60 min after the exercises. RESULTS:: Lactate significantly increased after exercises in both trials (p < style="color: rgb(153, 51, 0);">These findings suggest that resistance exercise in hypoxic condition caused greater accumulation of metabolites, and strong anabolic hormone response.
What is it with Japanese research and oxygen deprivation? They bring us the most amazing results of occlusion training (b2d discussion here). Now, how about whole body oxygen occlusion?
Some may argue that this seems to be similar to training at altitude, where the benefits are known. Indeed, the authors use a system that's used to generate Everest-like conditions, funnily enough called an "everest generator" and for 5K you can have one, too (shown left).Thing is, this technique is most often used for endurance athletes (and we've also seen in cycling for instance blood doping associated cases of EPO enriched/adapted blood), and apparently the usual oxygen depletion levels are 20.9% o2 - with associated increased risks of overtraining. Here, in this resistance training study, the researchers use 13ish% o2.
Another unique aspect of this hypoxia study is it's the first time (to my knowledge anyway) researchers have formally looked at effects on resistance training - anaerobic effort as opposed to aerobic effort.
The Rationale: it IS occlusion training. The authors do indeed say yup well, LOW INTENSITY resistance training and partial occlusion has great effect, so how about "systemic hypoxia" - It's the next logical step, isn't it?
Set Up. 10 reps of bench and squat at 70% of tested 1RM in either normal room air or 13% O2. I'm only able to guess that 13% is some standard definition of "acute hypoxia" conditions that are still safe.
The authors alas don't formally justify either why they were going for this percentage or why this definitely NOT low resistance level (like occlusion training uses) was used.
All sorts of Measures. The purpose of the trials were so the researchers will have
examined the effects of resistance exercise on metabolic and hormonal responses under acute systemic hypoxia. We hypothesized that the resistance exercise in hypoxic condition would cause greater accumulation of metabolic subproducts, and greater responses of anabolic hormones.To this end, a lot of measures were taken of muscle oxidation, hormones, fuel produced (like lactate). As the abstract says, blood lactate levels were significantly higher in the hypoxia trial than in the normal air trial. This isn't much of a surprise, given that lactate tends to kick in as it gets harder for the body to oxidize fuel in the mitochondria. A goal of Vo2max training (like viking warrior conditioning, reviewed here) is to increase the lactate threshold - the level of effort and time before which bi products of lactate production (H+ ions) can no longer be buffered out of the blood.
And what all the lads love to hear: serum GH - significantly higher in the hypoxia case (potentially triggered, the researchers suppose by increased catecholamine release) Likewise IGF and of course yes the big T, testosterone. But so does cortisol.
And for those trying to burn fat? Not surprisingly to folks who see the world through the nervous system threat/no threat lense, those wonderful fight or flight catecholamines are of course elevated, too. These are the things that help fat mobilisation (discussed here in this b2d piece on HIIT). So gosh, let's see - challenge trying to breath - i'd say that's going to be perceived as a threat to one's system?
So What's Different (than occlusion training)?
The authors suggest that while occlusion training has shown greater muscle growth, they haven't really known why. They put it down to the increased levels of GH noted in occlusion training at LOW REPS. Here they're saying
In the present study, we revealed that systemic hypoxia was actually associated with greater GH response to resistance exercise for the first time. The hypoxia may play a key role in the low intensity resistance training with vascularInteresting that systemic hypoxia is being used to understand the mechanisms of a more local phenomena like Kaatsu cuffing.
occlusion-induced muscular hypertrophy
What they say their specific results also suggest is that IGF-1 may be indedpendent of GH levels. In other words, something else is going on to get a boost in IGF-1 than the presence of GH.
Likewise, they suggest that increases in serum testosterone may have more to do with intensity and muscle mass than "metabolic stress" - like hypoxia.
As for cortisol, another fight or flight hormone, that's also a known biproduct of resistance training. The researchers say they just don't know what the mechanism is such that these levels are particularly higher in this trial. Well heck, again, threat-related hormone; gonna asphixiate. Dunno. seems predictable when seen from that vantage?
Not Normal. The threat hormones did not return to normal levels within an hour after the trials either. Is that good? Not clear, but if overtraining is related to stressing they system, threatening it more than it can handle perhaps, then it's reasonable to see why this kind of training may need to be far more closely monitored for overtraining effects.
Openning New Doors. The biggest outcome it seems right now is the possible relationship of hypoxia to GH - at least in the authors' view:
... it is necessary to investigate whether hypoxic exposure plays an important role for the expressions of genes involving muscular hypertrophy in the future...Our data suggest that hypoxia is a potent factor for the enhancements of anabolic hormone (GH) response to resistanceWhy when fleeing the Tiger does GH turn on? Intriguingly, we already induce a kind of
hypoxic environment in anaerobic work like resistance training - hence the term anaerobic - so it's interesting to see therefore that the hypoxic effect seems to be perhaps on the recovery - where we usually pause between sets to catch our breath and re-oxygenate. Here, in this o2 deprived envrionment, that can't happen. Hence lactate it seems to me goes up. And GH switches in.Why, when the nervous system might be percieved to be under threat, would the nervous system/brain see this as a good time to, er, grow? (For a review of the systems that get shut down under stress, see this overview of Zebras and Baboons and Stress.)
Again, what these researchers don't seem to clue into is that growth hormone is apparently known to be triggered by stress (and here's a pdf from 76 about how kind of cool this is, where only 1/3 of the sample group was shown to have this particular stress/GH release response). It's role this work shows, is not just to grow the body, but the brain. Is that what's going on? I'm about to die; i suddenly need a bigger brain?
Ramdoc, over at the dragondoor forum (thank you), made the intriguing connexion that GH is related to insulin. Here's 2005 paper outlining the human GH/insulin homeostasis, and that bigger hits of GH lead to a hyperinsulinism - elevated levels of insulin in the bloodstream. That's gonna trigger a temporary blood glucose surge. So if increased GH relates to a rush of glucose to the bloodstream, that certainly would have a survival effect. More fast energy, that means more ATP, more muscle can be recruited, more speed, steve. Cool.
We're about to Die; Let's get Huge?
Well who'd have thought even to test the effects of cutting off c
irculation to see what would happen to our bodies?I suppose it's an interesting idea - take a process like anaerobic metabolism and string it out to see if by seeing what happens in a less natural environment, we get some better view into a natural environment. And heck, some folks might turn that practice into a way to rehab and train folks.
The responses seen in this environment - a big fat rush of fight or flight related responses - seem pretty predictable. That there's a positive payoff FROM that stress after the event is interesting: survive and get faster, stronger. Recovery means anabolism: more muscle, continued performance improvement. And who knows? Maybe a bigger smarter brain?
But in terms of pushing this principle that's being expressed in the large in this oxygen deprived space? The biggie that those stress levels don't go back to normal in normal time is a reminder that hypoxia work may just be super stressful to our CNS even if we mayn't perceive that directly ourselve - and this study doesn't tell us if it collected any of the athletes' responses to the protocol.
In the meantime, for those who are curious, how would one try this at home without an Hypoxia Generator? The mind reels at the possibilities.
Related Posts
- Threat response - movement
- Catecholamines release in HIIT
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Simple Ab Workout: Double KB Heavy-ish Swings for Sets
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Last night, paying particular attention to form, i think i found what's likely been 
obvious to many folks who focus on kettlebell swings:
These short heavier 10 sets of 10reps also made doing two sets of fifty swings with just one of those bells, double handed, a far nicer experience - by which i mean going to one bell let me focus far more on form than control + form simply because the sets are longer, and i can get into them more to compare and contrast what i was just doing in the heavier sets - if that makes sense.
If you give this protocol a try, let me know what you find.
For folks less familiar with kettlebells, they are an awesome tool for fitness - especially perhaps for folks not inclined towards heading to the gym. There are a bunch of posts sited below to help get an overview of KB's if you're interested.
Related Posts
obvious to many folks who focus on kettlebell swings:- swinging two bells is very different from swinging one in two hands or one, hand to hand - the stance is different, the feel is just different.
- getting bells that add up to a challenging weight can be well, challenging, physically and mentally
- Doing short intense sets (like 10) - really works the abs - especially in putting the bells down in a controlled way at the end of each set. now that's a surprise.
These short heavier 10 sets of 10reps also made doing two sets of fifty swings with just one of those bells, double handed, a far nicer experience - by which i mean going to one bell let me focus far more on form than control + form simply because the sets are longer, and i can get into them more to compare and contrast what i was just doing in the heavier sets - if that makes sense.
If you give this protocol a try, let me know what you find.
For folks less familiar with kettlebells, they are an awesome tool for fitness - especially perhaps for folks not inclined towards heading to the gym. There are a bunch of posts sited below to help get an overview of KB's if you're interested.
Related Posts
- pelvis power: getting more from swing, snatch, dead, squat - easy potent tweak
- perfect rep quest
- rannoch's 100's
- the Return of the Kettlebell series (top of post)
- interested in an intro to kb's? review of Enter the Kettlebell
Friday, February 12, 2010
(Why) Do we get Protective of our Pain?
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
When i was at my worst with chronic back pain, i was, i think, pretty durn open to hearing about approaches that promised redress. Better than weeping if i picked up a sock and actually didn't hurt - the rarity induced the tears, knowing this would be fleeting; wishing it weren't.
So i've been surprised when i get chatting with folks, and as they hear
about what i do with respect to movement and health coaching, that they start to tell me about their various (often chronic) experiences with their own pain. After the usual "how's it going with your doctor" and "oh they're useless it's just drugs or surgery so i've seen [insert manual therapist here]."
If that's followed with "and how's that going for you?" the reply may vary. Sometimes it's - "oh i have this great therapist i see once a month or once a week and i feel great after those sessions"
And sometimes the follow up discussion is about, why do you think you need to keep going back? - just to explore what the beliefs are that have seemingly come to accept that this is their new fate: to be committed to perpetual treatment. Sometimes, they're open to other models.
An alternate reply is the constant seeker - i can relate - "oh well i try 'em all; i'm still looking for a better [insert therapist type here] i used to have a great one - i've heard [insert other therapy here] is good, so i'm thinking of trying that" Sometimes this leads to a discussion of what these therapies might have in common, such that the approach may be leaving the person wanting; that something might be getting overlooked in the focus on the site of pain rather than perhaps on interrelated movements. Maybe it's not the right model for the circumstances. I do wish someone had offered me that observation sooner than later.
I'm Happy with my Condition. But these two responses are as nothing to this other, rarer
response. The, well, i like the therapy i have now for X. I'm not better, and i don't get too much worse, but it's ok." A few times i have asked "but don't you want to get to a place where you don't need to see Y for X? where X is just better?"
Often the response to such a query is surprisingly protective. I can see the person pulling back almost physically towards that area of specialness, getting it as far away from me as they politely can. Their words in reply to my query are generally awkward and non-specific, indicating they'd just rather change the subject - at least with me, at that time and place.
I realize now, since learning more about motivational interviewing, that my attempt at engagement while feeling incredulous could be better framed as "that's great. sounds like that management of flareups, adapting your workspaces, is working for you. if you learned of an approach that would likely diminish X, rather than manage it, would you explore it?"
Other circumstances, though, are similar. Someone told me recently that they suffer from a particular condition. I'd just seen some research looking at this from an alternative cause perspective, and so asked this person recently if they were aware of it, and that the results seemed promising. The person couldn't have been more luke warm to learning more. And i'm thinking what's up? don't you WANT to get well?
The Value of The Condition. And then it finally hit me, well, maybe not. And then i thought, duh. Physical limitations can be convenient; they can help deal with fears. One person i know is in a constant state about getting back to the Fat Kid stage (he's now skeletal) and happens to have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) - a recent development, and we're talking a fellow in his late 20's. The biggie that can't get handled with IBS? Fat. Another person i know has "bad knees" and travels a lot, overeating poor food, but is quite content with being overweight - reflecting that for "her age" she's in good shape, don't i think. And with the knees, well, can't really go to the gym now.
That's cheap psychologizing on my part, isn't it? And i don't mean it as a judgement of any of these folks; more a revelation for me (i'm a bit slow sometimes). We likely all have things we use as ways to legitimize choices or limits we put on ourselves that work for ourselves as an optimal strategy, based on the best of our understanding. And i mean that: we're busy people. We only have so many cycles on a day to focus on learning new stuff.
So let's say my cheap psychologizing is right and that IBS person has the best tool they can imagine for maintaining the thin physique they wish. Health is not their priority; not ever getting fat again is. IBS is working. They have the protection of a Condition to justify their very restricted and to me frighteningly low cal way of eating.
Likewise, when my back was killing me, i admit to using it not to go to Event X as i couldn't stay on my feet that long (so true) but did i want to explore alternatives? Hmm.
How Might Our Approach Change? What this dim insight into our attraction some of us have to our own pain may mean is a question mark in terms of better designing delivery of proactive health care/support for well being.
It's a sort of the site of the pain isn't the source of the pain necessarily. To trainers, i might ask, how often do we when taking a history ask about how things are at home? How stressed at work? About general happiness? Generally for me, my focus is on past injuries, surgeries, current training, supplements/medication. I'm a coach, after all, not a doctor, right? Other state checks have only come up if an athlete tells me they've been having a hard time sleeping. But what if i asked "are you happy, stressed, getting enough sleep" or related up front?
I don't have to have the answers if they tell me they're really depressed, actually. But at least that's a sign to say, maybe consider a coach that can help navigate that path, too?
These aren't answers that are complete; its just to highlight that perhaps the way we do health, well being, as only treating an illness is not so useful, especially when that illness may be valued and protected in a person's world.
Still a bit muzzy about the point of all this, but maybe there's a bit of an ah ha in here. let me know what you think. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
So i've been surprised when i get chatting with folks, and as they hear
about what i do with respect to movement and health coaching, that they start to tell me about their various (often chronic) experiences with their own pain. After the usual "how's it going with your doctor" and "oh they're useless it's just drugs or surgery so i've seen [insert manual therapist here]."If that's followed with "and how's that going for you?" the reply may vary. Sometimes it's - "oh i have this great therapist i see once a month or once a week and i feel great after those sessions"
And sometimes the follow up discussion is about, why do you think you need to keep going back? - just to explore what the beliefs are that have seemingly come to accept that this is their new fate: to be committed to perpetual treatment. Sometimes, they're open to other models.
An alternate reply is the constant seeker - i can relate - "oh well i try 'em all; i'm still looking for a better [insert therapist type here] i used to have a great one - i've heard [insert other therapy here] is good, so i'm thinking of trying that" Sometimes this leads to a discussion of what these therapies might have in common, such that the approach may be leaving the person wanting; that something might be getting overlooked in the focus on the site of pain rather than perhaps on interrelated movements. Maybe it's not the right model for the circumstances. I do wish someone had offered me that observation sooner than later.
I'm Happy with my Condition. But these two responses are as nothing to this other, rarer
response. The, well, i like the therapy i have now for X. I'm not better, and i don't get too much worse, but it's ok." A few times i have asked "but don't you want to get to a place where you don't need to see Y for X? where X is just better?"Often the response to such a query is surprisingly protective. I can see the person pulling back almost physically towards that area of specialness, getting it as far away from me as they politely can. Their words in reply to my query are generally awkward and non-specific, indicating they'd just rather change the subject - at least with me, at that time and place.
I realize now, since learning more about motivational interviewing, that my attempt at engagement while feeling incredulous could be better framed as "that's great. sounds like that management of flareups, adapting your workspaces, is working for you. if you learned of an approach that would likely diminish X, rather than manage it, would you explore it?"
Other circumstances, though, are similar. Someone told me recently that they suffer from a particular condition. I'd just seen some research looking at this from an alternative cause perspective, and so asked this person recently if they were aware of it, and that the results seemed promising. The person couldn't have been more luke warm to learning more. And i'm thinking what's up? don't you WANT to get well?
The Value of The Condition. And then it finally hit me, well, maybe not. And then i thought, duh. Physical limitations can be convenient; they can help deal with fears. One person i know is in a constant state about getting back to the Fat Kid stage (he's now skeletal) and happens to have irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) - a recent development, and we're talking a fellow in his late 20's. The biggie that can't get handled with IBS? Fat. Another person i know has "bad knees" and travels a lot, overeating poor food, but is quite content with being overweight - reflecting that for "her age" she's in good shape, don't i think. And with the knees, well, can't really go to the gym now.
That's cheap psychologizing on my part, isn't it? And i don't mean it as a judgement of any of these folks; more a revelation for me (i'm a bit slow sometimes). We likely all have things we use as ways to legitimize choices or limits we put on ourselves that work for ourselves as an optimal strategy, based on the best of our understanding. And i mean that: we're busy people. We only have so many cycles on a day to focus on learning new stuff.
So let's say my cheap psychologizing is right and that IBS person has the best tool they can imagine for maintaining the thin physique they wish. Health is not their priority; not ever getting fat again is. IBS is working. They have the protection of a Condition to justify their very restricted and to me frighteningly low cal way of eating.
Likewise, when my back was killing me, i admit to using it not to go to Event X as i couldn't stay on my feet that long (so true) but did i want to explore alternatives? Hmm.
How Might Our Approach Change? What this dim insight into our attraction some of us have to our own pain may mean is a question mark in terms of better designing delivery of proactive health care/support for well being.
It's a sort of the site of the pain isn't the source of the pain necessarily. To trainers, i might ask, how often do we when taking a history ask about how things are at home? How stressed at work? About general happiness? Generally for me, my focus is on past injuries, surgeries, current training, supplements/medication. I'm a coach, after all, not a doctor, right? Other state checks have only come up if an athlete tells me they've been having a hard time sleeping. But what if i asked "are you happy, stressed, getting enough sleep" or related up front?
I don't have to have the answers if they tell me they're really depressed, actually. But at least that's a sign to say, maybe consider a coach that can help navigate that path, too?
These aren't answers that are complete; its just to highlight that perhaps the way we do health, well being, as only treating an illness is not so useful, especially when that illness may be valued and protected in a person's world.
Still a bit muzzy about the point of all this, but maybe there's a bit of an ah ha in here. let me know what you think. Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Preview Gym Movement: Immediate Performance Improvement with Real Time, on the spot, Self Assessment Strategies
Follow @mcphoo
Tweet
Recently i've been looking at biometrics like heart rate variability as a marker of fatigue: to see if today is the right day for that heavy workout or not (scroll down in this post for more). I've been intrigued lately by work folks i trust have been trying to bring that kind of macro daily check to the more micro level: is this the right movement for you to be doing in this workout, right now.
The folks call the approach Gym Movement: Perpetual Progress, and it's key proponents are Adam T Glass and Mike T Nelson, while it's founder as i understand it is Frankie Fairies (no T middle initial).
The premise as i understand it so far is that we can readily test each move we may want to carry out in a workout to see if it, or a variant of it is more appropriate for where our nervous system is at right at that moment. The following is the intro video by Frankie Faires and Craig Keaton.
However you may find that demo vids of the approach in progress by Adam are more illustrative
There's even more by adam at his new site here. I'm definitely intrigued by how this approach may improve within-workout performance.
My current experience has been to use z-health mobility work to address performance weaknesses - when a lift doesn't feel right, or isn't performing right, use appropriate i-phase drills (usually it's i-phase stuff as sport specific mobility/opening work) and go at it again. Usually this produces a good response and immediate change.
What Gym Movement seems to be suggesting is that - and i interpolate here - while you might tune a movement, there may be a more optimal movement for you to do that day. This is where i'm currently unsure. And i suppose the response from anyone in this space - especially in z-health - would be to say, "just test it"
In other words, go ahead and tune the movement, then test myself using these assessments demo'd above in Gym Movement to see if even tuned, they're the optimal ones for me to make progress. These assessments will seem familiar to folks who have done z-health certs or the elite performance workshop. Indeed, i've asked how this is not a repackaging of z-health assessments; here's Master Trainer Mike T Nelson's reply. Faires, a level 4 Z-health instructor, notes in his reply to my query, that he brought these moves to the Z-Health community.
What may be particular about his approach is this location of test everything before you do it to find what's optimal in the moment. That's interesting, don't you think? Though again this does seem to resonate with the R-phase certification in Z-Health. So, the deeper question for me, is what happens when taking a suite of assessments to be combined - as they're presented in Z-Health in anywhere from a 3-6 day workshop/cert context - and factoring out just a couple of them into a self-assessment 40min DVD?
The last move is not always best. One thing watching some of the vids by adam is that ya might think oh well the second or third move will always have a better range of motion because you've been moving more. Not so. Try it for yourself. I definitely found yesterday that my second move of choice consistently tested poorer than the alternate - no matter where in the sequence it was. Relationship to arthrokinetic reflex perhaps?
I still have questions. For instance, i might test better with my toes turned out for a squat than in, but is that what i want? or do i want to get better at toes more neutral? Perhaps the answer is keep practicing the Z-health mobilty drills or FMS movements to enhance better dorsiflexion or whatever, but work with what's optimal that day and see how it improves - or not - over time. And if it doesn't improve, that ought no doubt to be a sign of something.
More To Come. So i have the DVD coming, and Frankie has kindly agreed to have a sit down with me after i've had a chance to digest it and chat here at b2d about it, but i wanted to alert you b2d readers to this seemingly extremely simple approach to get optimal. There's so much available on the web by these guys, i'm really intrigued to see what's left on the DVD. IT seems they're really motivated to let folks test the waters themselves. So that if you want the DVD great, but you can get going without it. That's pretty durn intriguing.
Personally, i'd check out the site, because there are even more free videos there - even if it looks like your typical health marketing site. alas - but push a little beyond that and you'll be happy to have done so.
Please let me know if you've been playing with this approach and what you think, and i'll be back with a deeper review here in the next month or so.
best
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
The folks call the approach Gym Movement: Perpetual Progress, and it's key proponents are Adam T Glass and Mike T Nelson, while it's founder as i understand it is Frankie Fairies (no T middle initial).
The premise as i understand it so far is that we can readily test each move we may want to carry out in a workout to see if it, or a variant of it is more appropriate for where our nervous system is at right at that moment. The following is the intro video by Frankie Faires and Craig Keaton.
However you may find that demo vids of the approach in progress by Adam are more illustrative
There's even more by adam at his new site here. I'm definitely intrigued by how this approach may improve within-workout performance.
My current experience has been to use z-health mobility work to address performance weaknesses - when a lift doesn't feel right, or isn't performing right, use appropriate i-phase drills (usually it's i-phase stuff as sport specific mobility/opening work) and go at it again. Usually this produces a good response and immediate change.
What Gym Movement seems to be suggesting is that - and i interpolate here - while you might tune a movement, there may be a more optimal movement for you to do that day. This is where i'm currently unsure. And i suppose the response from anyone in this space - especially in z-health - would be to say, "just test it"
In other words, go ahead and tune the movement, then test myself using these assessments demo'd above in Gym Movement to see if even tuned, they're the optimal ones for me to make progress. These assessments will seem familiar to folks who have done z-health certs or the elite performance workshop. Indeed, i've asked how this is not a repackaging of z-health assessments; here's Master Trainer Mike T Nelson's reply. Faires, a level 4 Z-health instructor, notes in his reply to my query, that he brought these moves to the Z-Health community.
What may be particular about his approach is this location of test everything before you do it to find what's optimal in the moment. That's interesting, don't you think? Though again this does seem to resonate with the R-phase certification in Z-Health. So, the deeper question for me, is what happens when taking a suite of assessments to be combined - as they're presented in Z-Health in anywhere from a 3-6 day workshop/cert context - and factoring out just a couple of them into a self-assessment 40min DVD?
The last move is not always best. One thing watching some of the vids by adam is that ya might think oh well the second or third move will always have a better range of motion because you've been moving more. Not so. Try it for yourself. I definitely found yesterday that my second move of choice consistently tested poorer than the alternate - no matter where in the sequence it was. Relationship to arthrokinetic reflex perhaps?
I still have questions. For instance, i might test better with my toes turned out for a squat than in, but is that what i want? or do i want to get better at toes more neutral? Perhaps the answer is keep practicing the Z-health mobilty drills or FMS movements to enhance better dorsiflexion or whatever, but work with what's optimal that day and see how it improves - or not - over time. And if it doesn't improve, that ought no doubt to be a sign of something.
More To Come. So i have the DVD coming, and Frankie has kindly agreed to have a sit down with me after i've had a chance to digest it and chat here at b2d about it, but i wanted to alert you b2d readers to this seemingly extremely simple approach to get optimal. There's so much available on the web by these guys, i'm really intrigued to see what's left on the DVD. IT seems they're really motivated to let folks test the waters themselves. So that if you want the DVD great, but you can get going without it. That's pretty durn intriguing.
Personally, i'd check out the site, because there are even more free videos there - even if it looks like your typical health marketing site. alas - but push a little beyond that and you'll be happy to have done so.
Please let me know if you've been playing with this approach and what you think, and i'll be back with a deeper review here in the next month or so.
best
mc Tweet Follow @begin2dig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
COACHING with dr. m.c. 
