A Case for Mindful Data-Based Training
Today's guest post comes from pro-triathlete Calah Schlabach. You can find her delightful writing over at her blog. In the era of ever-evolving technology and, especially, a dearth of fitness trackers, Calah makes the case for training the old fashioned way: by feel.
I once read a competitor’s race report and was shocked to read that she hadn’t had a great bike leg of her race because heart rate monitor malfunctioned, so she didn’t know how to pace herself.
At the time I was still new to, and not entirely sold on, the various data-monitoring gadgets so prevalent in endurance sport. I immediately judged her and thought, “Why didn’t she just ride really hard? Shouldn’t she know what riding hard is, even without her data--how can she be that dependent on it?”
Since that time, I got a power meter of my own and am sold on the benefits of this type of data. I even (grudgingly) admit the benefits of heart rate data, even though I complain to no end about how annoying it is to have a permanent abrasion in the middle of my chest where my monitor chafes me.
There are probably hundreds of articles out there about the benefits of heart-rate- and power-based training. I agree with them. That being said, this is my treatise in support of (sometimes) running and biking free of data, and (always) using data devices mindfully.
I am a runner from the era just before heart rate monitors and GPS watches became the norm. My college coaches were all about running by “feel,” and even had a scale for feel-based pace that ranged from “Sprint” to “Walk the Dog.”
Since starting triathlon, I have converted to wearing a Garmin and a heart-rate monitor for most of my training, but still prefer to go free, leaving all the gadgets at home when I can. However, I have found myself to be a loner among triathletes in this respect. Triathletes love their gadgets, and there is no harm in this. The problem comes, I believe, when we become so attached to our gadgets that we can’t live, train, or race without them.
There are two different problems here, I think. The first is fixation:
It’s easy to get so fixated on our goal paces/powers/etcetera, that we strive after them all the time, every workout, even when we shouldn’t be (and think we aren’t). In other words, easy days should be easy, but sometimes it is tempting to run the pace I think should be my easy pace, based on my Garmin and my goals, rather than the pace my body is screaming at me that it needs that day.
So, on days I know are meant to be easy or active recovery--and especially when my body is telling me it is particularly tired--I often run without my Garmin and slog along as slowly as my body wants/needs to. This way I’m not tempted to average a certain pace, and I won’t even know my pace; thus I can’t judge myself for it.
The other problem is a lack of feel due to not making the connection between your data and how your body feels when you achieve specific numbers.
Heart-rate monitors were made to help athletes dial in Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). However, they have instead developed into effort dictators. To fix this problem, it is imperative to use devices, but to be aware enough to match RPE with actual training ranges.
In other words, I shouldn’t check out mentally and focus solely on hitting a certain number. By taking note of how quick my breathing is and what my legs feel like when I am riding at threshold power, for example, I will have another method to gauge my effort if my power meter konks out during a race.
Furthermore, even if my power meter never ever malfunctions, I know that mindful training will make me a better athlete. At the same time, sometimes I need a break from the numbers, and those are the times when running free can give my body and mind the break it needs to come back and hit the right numbers on a quality workout.
Will Your Kid Be A Professional Athlete?
There is a great little article/news story on NPR today about SAPT's realm: sports and kids who play them! Here's is the full article (it also has the audio story so if you prefer to listen...)
The gist of the story is about the likelihood of kids making it to the professional level in sports. There was also mention of a growing number of parents who are going overboard, to the detriment of their kids and the family as a whole, with pushing their kids in sports.
Now granted, as Tom Farrey who is the director of the Sports and Society Program at the Aspen Institute pointed out, there are definitely talented kids out there who love their sports and should be encouraged and supported and will absolutely do fantastically well. Michael Jordan comes to my mind...
But the vast majority of kids aren't going to make it. Here's a quote from Tom Farrey which I totally agree with.
"But for the vast majority of [professional] athletes, that's not their path," Farrey says. "They played multiple sports when they were young. It was not about chasing the college scholarship or becoming a pro; they were just enjoying the games and falling in love with sports."
It's that love of sports, Farrey says, that drives kids to keep playing and to become successful — not just their parents' dreams."
Even more telling, the NCAA has a handy chart about the likelihood of children competing beyond high school in several sports.
I've written about early sport specialization before and golly days, and as a strength coach I see so many kids who would really benefit from playing multiple sports AND having at least one season off during the year.
If kids want to be successful in the sporting world I recommend:
1. Play multiple sports- specialize in mid- to late-high school.
2. Strength train- strong athletes beat the weaker ones every time.
3. Take an off-season!
In the end, I'm not trying to point accusatory fingers at parents- I know they just want the very best for their kids. But hopefully, as the detrimental effects of early sport specialization for the majority of kids gains more and more attention, we'll see that trend reverse itself.
Why Don't Women Wear Shirts in Magazines? Women in the Media and How We Should Respond
SAPT receives all kinds of magazines for free. I’m not really sure how we acquired such a privilege, but magazines grace our mailbox every week. We, unsurprisingly, receive magazines related to health, fitness, and (oddly) fashion. GQ, Men’s Health, Muscle and Fitness, Vogue, Glamor and that ilk show up at regular intervals. Last week, Muscle and Fitness for Her arrived.
I glanced through it for the sole purpose of finding the recipes that are hidden amidst the ads for various products I don’t need and articles that merely repackage the same information month after month. As I flipped through the pages, it dawned on me: 99.9% of the women in it were in a sports bra (no shirt) and booty shorts. (The only woman with a shirt on was the feature in an article about her sailing endeavor.)
The following rant is not directed at the women in the magazine. They look fantastic and I know they put in a LOT of work to achieve and maintain their physique.
The following rant is directed at the rest of us.
Why do we, as a society, continue to elevate a woman’s look over her accomplishments? Granted, I know that a fitness magazine will have the aesthetic slant, but really? 168 pages with only one shirted-woman???
I’ve written before about the movement “Strong is the New Skinny,” in relation to marketing to women. I applaud the thought to promote strength training and muscles over stick-like physiques and eschewing all exercise.
However, when you search images for the phrase “strong is the new skinny” most of the pictures are of muscular women, yes, but they’re also incredibly lean, long-legged, and (usually) well-endowed in their bosom region.
Ultimately, the pictures are still focused on how our bodies look not on what they can accomplish. Women are still portrayed as sex symbols.
To me, being strong is more than having 10% body fat and wearing sexy clothes so you can see my abdominals. Being strong, I think, is harder to portray than what we see in staged “fitness” poses.
The most obvious is physical strength- you can easily see this if you watch an Olympic weightlifting competition, a track and field meet, or a women’s rugby match (they are amazing athletes) to name but a few instances.
(listen for it… at the 52 second mark)
Speaking of physical strength, women grow, carry, and bring forth human beings for crying out loud! You don’t see any pictures portraying a pregnant woman touting “strong is the new skinny.” Better yet, a pregnant woman with her toddlers running around- that is strength. I am amazed at moms who care for their young children while carrying one inside.
Strength is also more than how many muscles we can see or how lean our waists are. Strength is showing up for practice or training even when you don’t feel like it. Strength is putting forth your best effort at work even when it goes unnoticed. Strength is getting up for the umpteenth time in the night to care for a crying child even when you're total sleep for the week is less than three hours. Strength is consoling your best friend for hours when her heart is broken even though you have a thousand other things vying for your attention.
Strong has always been the “new skinny.” As women, we are imbued with strength and ladies, we are so, so, SO much more than our physical appearance.
Believe me my compadres, it’s tempting to point the finger at the guys (and we can all instantly conjure up a dozen reasons why men are to blame for the state of women in society- blame shifting is easy). Unfortunately, as the saying goes, “sex sells,” and we can rage and protest all we want, but that won’t necessarily foster drastic change overnight.
But we can change our society incrementally. How?
We can change the way we respond.
Will we let the societal expectation to be a “sex symbol” the raison d’etre? Or, will we embrace the strength we’ve been given, build upon it through training, life experiences, and encouraging one another? (and maybe stop posting workout selfies that are provocative...? That's a whole 'nother can of worms!)
It’s our responsibility to teach our daughters, sisters, and nieces to embrace their abilities and pursue growth in them and not in their dress sizes. And we must teach our sons, brothers, and nephews to respect women and seek relationships based on the whole package- not just female anatomy.
We can rail against the media, we can blame men for our problems, we can fume and storm at the way women are viewed, but until we, women, change the way we respond and teach our children to do so, the cycle will continue. Therefore, my challenge to us is to start that change, today.
How To Eat for Injury Recovery
Quick post today because it's Friday.
The good folks over at Precision Nutrition produced a handy infographic of nutrition strategies for injury recovery. We've all heard about R.I.C.E (rest, ice, compression, elevation) and how to physically care for an injury, so why wouldn't there be a way to do so with nutrition?
I actually wrote a similar post two years go when I had jaw surgery. I was pleased to see I wasn't off-base!
Find the Infographic HERE.
Enjoy the weekend!
Regulations For Personal Trainers? Good or Bad Idea?D.C. Considers New Rules for Trainers
The Washington Post ran an article this week about proposed regulations- which will include licensure- for personal trainers/coaches in D.C. You can read the full article HERE.
They haven’t set anything in stone yet, but the regulations might become a model for the rest of the country to follow.
From my perspective, as a strength coach, this is what the fitness industry desperately needs. Our industry has no standard for certifications, no licensing procedure, and little to no standard regulations between gyms and their training staff.
Sure, there are definitely some certs that are more “respectable” than others, for example certifications from NSCA, ACSM, USAW, or RKC are widely recognized in the field as certifications that have a higher level of education (typically a four-year degree) and experience (i.e. RKC is a mentally and physically demanding course) required to pass. However, Joe Schmoe who’s looking for some training has no idea the difference between someone who has one of those certs vs. someone who took an online course of the weekend and can now call themselves a “trainer.” Those types of “certs” have a ridiculous low-barrier to entry (do you have a computer?) and since there is no governing body for the fitness industry, the quality of those certification’s information is on the same level as poop.
In part, regulations will protect the consumer from trainers who, really, have no true understanding of strength training and will more than likely wind up hurting people inadvertently. From the article:
“First and foremost, the purpose of the law is to enhance consumer protection for the residents of the District of Columbia,” he said. Melstrand said industry estimates show 40 percent of all trainers have no gym affiliation, meaning they are accountable to no one even though they are often in positions of authority with clients… “We all have heard anecdotal reports of injuries, sexual misconduct and misrepresentation of titles by persons claiming to be competent in that area,” Simpson testified before a D.C. Council committee. She called the lack of any registration or licensure of personal trainers “a nationwide failure.”
I could not agree more! The regulations can at least propose and uphold a standardized amount of knowledge and understanding in order to be a licensed trainer.
In contrast to those low-barrier certifications, the coaches at SAPT all have four-year degrees in exercise science, have undergone internships, and at least have 2-3 specialized certifications. The top names in our field (Eric Cressy and Co., Mike Robertson, Alwyn Cosgrove, Dan John, Bret Contreas, Jen Sinkler… the list can go on) all have degrees, numerous certifications, and hours upon hour upon HOURS working with people and honing their craft. There needs to be a way to identify those trainers who take an online, weekend course and those of us who truly own this profession and take pride in continuing our education.
The most outspoken opponents of these regulations: Greg Glassman, CEO of Crossfit (and I imagine many his affiliates).
Do NOT read the following statements as a “let’s bash Crossfit” fest; Crossfit has many positive attributes. However, the fact that they’re strongly opposing regulation sounds fishy to me. Why wouldn’t we want this industry regulated like physical therapy or doctors? We work with injured people, healthy people, we offer nutrition advice, and we evaluate and correct movement dysfunctions. When I see a physical therapist, I have the peace of mind knowing that they’ve had to pass a licensing exam and they at least have a basic working knowledge of the body. Why wouldn’t we want this for trainers too?
And we work with the little ones too!
suspect it comes down to money.
The tab for revamping CrossFit’s training courses could run into the tens of millions of dollars if the company is forced to do so nationwide, says its chief executive.
Hmmm. They don’t want to change their training course? I think that would, actually, be a stupendous idea.
Here’s an example: Crossfit utilizes olympic lifts in most of their workouts. O-lifts are extremely technical, take years to perform or coach well, and should NOT be programmed for the masses especially in the context of a WOD or AMRAP (as many reps as possible). Yet, Crossfit claims that their Level 1 coaches are fit enough to teach the O-lifts. I would beg to differ by the plethora of YouTube videos of athletes with atrocious form (while being cheered on by the coaches…).
Slightly unrelated note: I read an article by Dr. Adam Schulte and his review of the Crossfit Games and the appalling and dangerous treatment of their athletes during the Games. This definitely bolsters my confidence in Glassman’s “emphasis on safety” claim. (that was sarcasm)
Again, I’m not trying to bash Crossfit, but I think there NEEDS to be more regulation in the fitness industry. There NEEDS to be a standardized, minimum level of education for trainers.
Do I think that everyone needs a 4-year degree? No, in fact Eric Cressey wrote a good article about it HERE. However, if we can create a licensing procedure for trainers that requires pertinent educational courses (like anatomy, exercise physiology, kinesiology etc), number of hours interning under professional coaches, and a set amount of continuing education credits it will raise the bar of our industry. I’ll let Graham Melstrand sum it up:
Melstrand said the issue is bigger than concerns about CrossFit. It’s about finding ways for the profession of personal trainers to mature into more respected health-care roles.
“At the end of the day, all of the fitness organizations are looking for the respect of practitioners,” he said. “As our space is maturing, there have to be greater expectations around the people who are practicing our craft.”
I want to be taken seriously and I want my clients to know that I take my job seriously.
Training with Joint Laxity- Been There, Done That
Joint hypermobility or joint laxity (the terms are used interchangeably) is the ability of a joint to move beyond the usual range of motion. Typically this is because the ligaments are looser than “normal” the due to either genetics or injury....
I had the chance to write a post for Tony Gentilcore. Read the rest HERE.
