The Second Half of the Pre-Trip Workout Plan and, Some Excellent Travel Reading

So, in a supreme act of creative schedule juggling (*pats self on back*), I was actually able to push this workout out until Wednesday.  That’s a good thing on two counts, the first being that I would be better-off, following my last full-body beat-down, to take two days off free of intense weight training.  The second being off course that that I can push my recovery time out further into my travel period.

So, here we go with round 2 of the pre-travel, full-body, free-weight blitz (Compare to round 1, here) –

I started off with one of my favorite explosive movements: DB snatch (aka, the Cred) + single-arm DB split jerks:

65 x 3(3); 75 x 3(3); 85 x 3(3); 90 x 2(2), then 95 x 7 singles each arm (alternating arms).  Notation: Right arm (Left arm)

then the following superset:

front box squat (12” box): 135 x 3(3); 165 x 3(3); 185 x 2(2); 190 x 2(2)

parallel grip/reverse grip pull-up: 45 x 3(3); 70 x 3(3); 80 x 3(3), 3(3)

Compound sets again here; in other words, 3 reps, 5 – 10 second rest, then (3 more reps).  In the case of the pull-ups, I performed parallel grip pull-ups, 5 – 10 set rest, then (3 reverse grip reps).

Finished-up with a round of Nautilus 4-way neck: 55 lbs x 12, front, side, side; 65 lbs x 12, back.

That weight room bout pretty much totally zorched me, and oughta set me up for at least a chillaxin’ plane ride to Austin tonight.

And speaking of traveling: I ordered from Amazon and, just in time for my trip, received Doug McGuff and John Little’s The Body By Science Question and Answer Book.  I’m looking forward to really digging into this offering, as I appreciate and value Dr. McGuff’s intelligence and insight, especially in matters of diet and in those areas shaded by the “big, wide umbrella” of what I like to term “Physical Culture”.  Dr. McGuff and I are, for the most part, in agreement when it comes to exercise theory and prescription, and we’re totally in agreement with respect to what constitutes the optimum human diet.  I think where we have differences of opinion lay in how best to optimize the performance of the “upper outliers”, i.e., the natural athletes.  Disagreements are good, though, if the discussion is civil, and undertaken in the spirit, not of “winning the argument”, but of teasing-out the truth.  I think Doug would agree with me that our discussions have always been framed in this light.  Basically, the question boils down to:

Does the athlete make the exercise, or does the exercise make the athlete?

In a closely related vein – and in case you happen to have missed it — Vicki B asked this question in my last post:

Keith,

I was browsing the Conditioning Research site today and came across this interview:
http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-fred-fornicola.html
The part that raised a flag with me was when he went into lifting explosively. It seems as though he is saying lifting weights fast and explosively, as you do in your training, has no benefit.

Thoughts?

And my response –

Vicki,

What usually gets left out of the HIT/SS vs Explosive (Oly, Oly-derivatives, plos, etc.) training debates is a definition of just what training demographic we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the vast majority of everyday trainees, then I agree with Fred — there is no real need to train explosively; the risk/reward ratio for this demographic utilizing this manner of training simply isn’t there. The most bang-for-the-buck for this population is related to strength and hypertrophy gains that can be more than adequately achieved via HIT/SS protocols (for example). Now, if we’re talking about the small subset of trainees who are in fact athletes, however, then I have to respectfully disagree with Fred’s stance. Now, this of course leads into the age-old debate of “does explosive training make great athletes, or do great athletes make for impressive explosive training?” And my answer is yes…to both sides. To put it another way, it is my belief that good athletes are born, but better athletes can most certainly be made. So yes, it takes an innate athletic gift to pull this type of training off to begin with, but in a self-perpetuating, positive-feedback loop kind of a way, performing these lifts does make one a better athlete. Explosiveness, RFD, CNS efficiency — all of this can be trained for aside from actual sport participation. Deriving benefit from explosive lifting is kinda like hovering around the blackjack table — if ya wanna chance at winning, ya gotta ante up; the problem is, with this table you’re only admitted by legacy/birthright to even have the option of laying down an ante. At this table, though, the real odds-buster just getting the chance to play; if you’re at the point were you’re being dealt to, you’ll win more than you’ll lose. Does an athlete need to build a solid base of strength before engaging in explosive training? Oh hell yes absolutely! But once that is achieved, there’s no sense, in my mind, of pulling the plug there. Is there greater risk involved with this manner of training? To be sure, which is why every athlete’s needs to be weighed against the risk/reward ratio of the pending training method.

Let me just say, though, that this is a debate that could fill volumes, and that this is simply my personal opinion gleaned from what I’ve seen over the years.

One thing I’d add here is that the trainee will have a pretty good idea of what genetic hand has been dealt early on in the game.  Just as “natural athletes” are born, so too will basic strength and hypertrophy come fast and relatively easy to a certain subgroup.  This, by the way, is also the subgroup that can tolerate (and, in my opinion benefit from — if the risk/reward ratio is deemed appropriate) higher intensities dosed at more frequent intervals than ought to be delivered to the “average” trainee.  Know yourself, be honest about your abilities, direct your goals accordingly, and train smart/appropriately.  Everyone can benefit enormously from basic strength training; few need to dabble in the highly explosive, more skill-dependent movements.  Those for whom the risk/return ratio for explosive/skilled movements is justified, though, I believe can benefit greatly from this type of training.  The key, as always – from the beginning trainee to the most advanced — is constant evaluation and dedication to fixing the weak link.

Another little something to contemplate over the next few days-

I speak quite often of the notion that one need not be a slave to, or resigned to, the dictates of a particular genetic hand.  To be sure, everyone comes into this world saddled with certain limitations, both genetic and, we now know, epigenetic.  However, to a large extent, DNA need not be one’s destiny.  This, to me, is a fascinating revelation, and lends credence to the much parodied, self-help guru notion of mind-over-matter.  Seen in this light, old coots like Jack LaLanne and Paul Chek just might not be as “crazy” as some of their peers within the Physical Culture community paint them to be.

You are, to a very large degree, what you believe yourself to be.  Confidence, self-talk, and what you allow to enter your “temple” – whether sensory or nutritionally –matters greatly.   And we now know it matters greatly to your progeny as well.

Represent.

See y’all when I get back from Texas.

Activity, and the Biochemical/Hormonal Milieu

Just a little something to chew on here, folks; another from the “this I believe, but cannot prove” files.  As always, I’m open to fresh takes and opposing views.  Questions, comments, complaints?  The floor is yours, so by all means let me hear what you think!

Ok, so here’s an interesting bit: now, once again we must keep in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, however, this study (and this supporting NYT article) seem to support the idea of engaging in low-intensity “play” (or such activities as walking, for example) in addition to intermittent, high-intensity workouts as being a positive lifestyle approach.  My (albeit, purely empirical) observations of myself and of others totally align with this notion, and I structure my own lifestyle according to this underpinning.

The ideal, I believe, is not the alternating between two extremes (either red-line/balls-to-the-wall, or complete engine shutdown), but a fractal, long-tail distribution mix of (including, but certainly not limited to) intensity and volume.  We require a good bit of low-idle time, some active “putter about” time as well, to compliment our sporadic bouts of high intensity effort.   What exactly is the proper distribution for you – in other words, what should your “fat-tail” look like?  That’s a question only intelligent n=1 investigation and observation can answer.  However, I would suggest that this is another instance where learning to listen to your body becomes an extremely valuable commodity indeed.

Dr.  Robert Lustig tells of how the obese kids that he treats in his practice — once he manages to normalize their biochemical/hormonal milieu, as a result of proper dietary intervention — “spontaneously” become much more active.  They haven’t yet lost any appreciable weight, yet they suddenly turn from indolent to active.  The moral of the story here is that these kids aren’t obese because they are inactive, they are inactive due the biochemical/hormonal milieu that, in turn, drives their obesity.  And this is not just some fancy, verbal slight-of-hand either.  These kids are, in fact, malnourished; obese, yes – but in fact, starving for adequate nutrition.  Their biochemical/hormonal milieu is FUBAR to the point that their bodies receive the same “signal” as that of a starving man; “we’re in metabolic shutdown here, buddy – park that ass and conserve energy until the storm passes.”

So how does this relate to approximating, via n=1 experimentation, the trainee’s ratio of workout volume and intensity, and with the amount, duration and volume of low-intensity activity?  Well, it’s my belief that not only is this biochemical/hormonal “urge to activity” milieu driven in a positive way by proper nutrition, but that it’s also positively effected by present conditioning level and recuperative abilities and present-case standings (i.e., is the trainee, at this point-in-time, supercompensated, at baseline, or still wallowing around somewhere down in the ol’ “in-road” hole?).  It is also my belief that these two broad categories (present conditioning level and present recuperative standing) form a positive-feedback loop.  In other words, the better one’s conditioning and the better one’s recuperative ability/current standing, the more one is “urged” – in a biochemical and hormonal sense — to activity.  This is the “itch” that healthy, fit people have to “get out and do something”.   Could it also be that these people are simply adrenalin and/or endorphin junkies?  I have no doubt that this is part of the mix as well; if I’ve learned anything in 30+ years of navigating the Physical Culture scene it’s that very little to do with human physiology or psychology can be answered in a simple yes or no.  But then again, I suppose that all of life is this way.

Shifting gears a bit: so I’m packin’-up to leave town (here I come, Austin and Hunt, Texas!) and I’ll be away the better part of next week and rolling right on into the week following.   That said, my plan is to hit two, tough-ass, full-body workouts before I hit the road on Wednesday.  Unfortunately, a Wednesday workout prior to traveling won’t be a viable option (due to work and travel itinerary), so my plan is to hit the first of these two workouts on Sunday, with the follow-up workout to fall on Tuesday.  I’m looking to create some serious in-road with these two workouts – enough, possibly, to blunt any serious “intensity itch” for a week or so.

Here’s Sunday’s full-body blitz:

clean-grip power snatch: 95 x 5; 115 x 3; 135 x 7 singles

Then a superset of the following:

weighted dips: 45 x 6; 70 x 3(3); 80 x 3(3); 90 x 3(3) x 4 sets

clean-grip low pull (from the floor): 185 x 3; 205 x 3; 225 x 3; 250 x 3(3) x 4 sets

*the 3(3) annotation denotes a compound set.  In other words, I performed three reps, paused for approximately 5 seconds, then hit another 3 reps.  No hoo-doo magic implied, just a different flavor of the rest-pause method.

I put a premium on rep speed in the dips and low pulls.  And of course the power snatches were done explosively, though they were light enough to be not too terribly taxing.

Now I know from past experience that no matter the in-road hole that I dig for myself — and my aim is to dig a pretty deep one before I head out – that by Saturday I will be itchy as all hell to do something much more aggressive than, for example, a long, fast-paced walk.  This gets back to what I was discussing earlier – the biochemical/hormonal milieu being optimized via fitness level and health status providing an impetus to “perform”.  Hopefully, I’ll have the opportunity for plenty of physical recreation, and that that will help keep me in check.  I’m notorious (Meesus TTP can testify!) for not handling “itchy” very well at all 

Of Routines, Ruts, and Habitual Eating

In case you missed it, TTP reader Mike asked the following in response to my “Quick and Dirty on Calorie Intake” post:

…My problem is I think I hit bottom on the lean out and was wondering if calorie restriction is in order?

I was curious about your comment “to eat more in order to go down in weight.” Sorry to bore you but I would like to lean out more but what in your opinion would I be giving up to get it, strength, stamina etc., on the calorie restricted approach? Unfortunately I can’t swing a long trip abroad to lean out.

I’m pretty pleased with where I am and don’t want to get greedy on leaning out but I liked your take on the calorie restriction issue so I thought I would ask for your opinion. Thanks for your thoughts.

This is the blah blah blah part . . .
I have been unweighed unmeasured gluten-free paleo, low carb (sub 50 per day), 1oz nuts a day, no dairy (except heavy cream in decaf coffee) keeping a food journal for 6 months. My cheats are protein style double doubles (1 x per week), chicken nachos (1x every 2 weeks). (I’m trying to be honest with what goes in my mouth per Skyler’s related blog post).

I have dropped about 40 pounds in the past six months on the strict paleo, did the water tank body fat measurement and came out at 16% in April. The BF % scale at home would seem to indicate this is going down still and my weight is staying the same at around 220 for the past month, which is good (muscle?). Activity level is strength biased xfit 3 times a week, longer outdoor activities (biking stairs etc) at least once per week, sleep good but could be better…

And what follows is my rather abbreviated answer:

Here’s the thing with calorie restriction, Mike: your metabolism will slow (thereby reducing the effectiveness of said cal. restriction), and your workouts will begin to suck. Not right off, of course, but pretty damn quick thereafter. Short bursts of slight — and in some cases large — over-eating interspersed with a few days of under-eating & IF seem to help most people punch beyond sticking points. I do this quite naturally, and in a random manner — I very rarely think “gee, I haven’t hit an IF in a while”, rather, it just comes about organically. Same with the “eat like a starved hyena” days. Until you really learn to listen to your body, though, a 5-day restricted/2-day re-fuel might be appropriate. Personally, though, I’m not good with schedules like that, preferring the more organic, fractal method.

Now, I’m still good with what I’d originally put out to Mike, however, there are a couple of things that I’d like to add to that.  First off, a 40-lb fat depletion in a 6-month span is rockin’ (though not at all unexpected), and it sounds as if Mike hasn’t actually stalled in his fat loss, but simply slowed a bit.  I don’t know exactly where Mike is on the ol’ look, feel and perform scale (maybe he can elaborate), but if “feel” and “perform” are spot-on, and what we’re wanting to come around is the “look” aspect, it may just be what we need is a tad bit more patience.  I’m not sure what another 6-ish percent bodyfat equates to (weight-wise) in Mike’s case, but it might be helpful to relate that amount of fat to where he was 6 months ago.  A little perspective sometimes works wonders.

And now for a bit of psychology…

I’ve always maintained that training, diet – well, all of Physical Culture, in fact – is largely mental in nature.  The best trainers, the best S&C coaches, and the most successful practitioners are not only technically proficient, but masterful motivators and – to but it bluntly – skilled shrinks…artful manipulators of the human psyche!  Wild animals left to their own devices exhibit perfect phenotypical expressions representative of their particular species.  They eat when hungry and of what is correct for their nature, move when necessary, and otherwise mindlessly attend to their survival.  Not so we humans, who are encumbered by ego, self-reflection and that ever-present self-chatter.  Our mind is constantly wanting, grasping, and left unbridled, this gets us in a world of self-made trouble.  One tiny aspect of this, as it relates to Mike’s case, may be the ol’ bug-a-boo of habitual eating.

In a way, food journals can be your best friend; or, too, they can be your worst enemy.  On the positive side, a journal allows for the exposure of what one actually consumes in a day, and in what ratios and, in some cases, this can be enlightening (i.e., the “damn!  I had no idea I ate that much [fill in the blank]! scenario).  In some cases, though, I have seen keeping a journal completely backfire.  The outward manifestations might have varied, but the causation usually boiled-down to one thing: compulsion.

Take for instance Mike’s “1oz of nuts per day”.  Now, 1oz of nuts is not going to make or break anyone’s fat loss attempts, however, it may be indicative of the larger issue of habitual eating.  That particular calorie intake may simply be a feel-good psychological crutch – something akin to, say, those who only smoke when they drink.  Situational is the key word here.  This is why I am so big on people learning to really listen to their bodies — an entity, by the way, that is in continual flux.   The body doesn’t ever “always” need 3 eggs and 2 strips of bacon for breakfast – some mornings it may want/need/require half a fatted hog, and other mornings (or days, even), it may not need anything at all.  This folds directly into the downside of routine, the downside of schedule.  Much better, I think, to learn to listen past the mind’s dictates, and for the body’s actual requests.  Where does the mind come in handy?  In the deciphering addiction as opposed to need.  The topic of another subject entirely, and beyond today’s scope.

Skyler Tanner discusses, in this recent post, the suppressive action of unusual foods upon the overall appetite, and this is certainly true.  The other aspect of this, though, is the fact that one is forced out of a set routine – a perfect, dietary, one-two punch, if you will.  In this circumstance, one may not be at the point of being able to fully listen to the body, but at least that ability to “mentally dictate” has been somewhat blunted by the unusual circumstance.  This, in fact, is the “magic” behind bootcamp-like transformations, and is a big reason behind why sporting teams hold training camps away from home base.  The real trick, then, is to learn the art of non-routine even as you navigate the work-a-day (and highly scheduled, routine oriented) world that we all must live in.

Much more on this at another time.  Now on to the physical side of things…

Friday night’s gym session –

This explosive-movement-heavy session followed a good bit of fixie riding, so my legs were good and warm (if not a wee bit zorched) by the time I hit the gym.  As it was, I dove right into this explosive superset:

kneeling DB jumps: 20lbs x 5, 25lbs x 5 sets of 3

straight bar muscle-ups: bw x 2, each round

Following that I rolled right into this superset:

military front press: 95 x 10; 135 x 6; 150 x 6, 6

snatch grip high-pull: 95 x 10; 135 x 6; 150 x 6, 6

Here’s a Joe DeFranco clip of a barbell kneeling jump demonstration.

I prefer to use DBs for this exercise, but it really doesn’t make much difference.  The key is to really engage the hips in the movement.  If you’ve got sleepy hips in the Oly movements, this exercise will help fix that.  Also, if you use DBs for this movement, be sure to explosively shrug the weight up (as you would in a normal Oly/Oly derivative lift), as opposed to “arcing” the DBs outward and forward so as to provide upward momentum.

The Human as an Endurance Athlete?

Is it just me, or is there something missing in the whole “humans evolved as endurance athletes” story?  To wit, here’s an interesting story from the folks at NPR.  Interesting, no doubt – however, there’s an obvious (and, in my mind, at least) whole other half of the story that’s continually left unexplored.  And not only unexplored, but seemingly unacknowledged.

No doubt some humans are superbly suited for endurance endeavors; whippet-thin, slow-twitch dominant – all lungs, ligament, tendon and bone – and part of the problem here may be that the researchers themselves are, for the most part, (1) put together thusly, and (2) are themselves, endurance athletes.  Confirmation bias, anyone?  Seen through the prism of the endurance enthusiast, all of mankind is either a well trained, severely untrained, or badly trained, distance athlete.  And sprinters?  Simply a forced phenotypical expression (read ”ill-advised” and “ill-conceived”) that an underlying elegant and — quite natural! — endurance chassis must endure.

Now, I’m certainly not a trained professional in this line of study, but this “endurance” line of logic just doesn’t resonate with me.  Something, my logic tells me, is badly amiss.

Of course, I could be accused of the same manner of confirmation bias in my own insistence that there also had to be an evolutionary niche for the powerful, sprinting human, a niche that “endurance man” simply could not fill.

And, too, the idea of the “persistence hunt theory” – though no doubt part of the overall human evolution story – simply cannot be the whole, end-all of the story.  These “sprinting types” peppered about humanity had to have evolved from a set of specific evolutionary pressures that had little to do with endurance and persistence, and more to do with swift, powerful and lethal.

It seems to me that the energy expenditure to energy pay-off for persistence hunting (as defined in the “endurance” theory) has to be dreadfully low – even if we are to consider exceptional running mechanics.  I have no doubt that in some niches that this was necessary – surely, though we co-evolved in diverse settings that required a diverse set of evolutionary skills.

And possibly endurance evolved among humans, not for the purpose of persistence hunting, but for the purpose of scouting for the tribe?  Think overall calorie intake for the communal band as a whole – women and children included — not simply a few runners and one (relatively) small, and no doubt lean, animal.  A band of humans might more effectively and efficiently deploy scouts in numerous directions to locate promising hunting grounds and/or rich scavenging/gathering sources, allowing the tribe as a whole to find the best options within a large range. This method would, it seems to me, maximize caloric intake at a minimum of total communal expenditure, as the specialization within a group allows several to run for scouting/exploring purposes while the remainder can conserve energy for hunting (sprinting?) and gathering purposes once the most promising site has been found.

Again, this is not to say that I dismiss the “endurance theory” out of hand, but simply to state that I know there has to be a “rest of the story” left to be uncovered.  Simply put, I just don’t believe that the sprinting/power-inclined phenotype can be overlooked in an evolutionary sense, especially vis-à-vis the endurance path.  Of course, this opens up the debate about genetics in sport; a debate that either focuses on the “endurance gene” (what makes Kenyans and Ethiopians so dominant?) or on the “speed gene” (West Africans, Jamaica and the USA).  To be sure, it’s a debate that is heated, because it has anthropological, racial, cultural undertones.  It’s a debate for another time, though, and a bit beyond the scope of today’s post.

One thing that all runners benefit from though, is the superb spring/recoil characteristics of the foot structure.  For more on that most interesting story, check this out.

Ok, so in my humble opinion, not every human is naturally wired for efficient endurance endeavors, however, listening to Dr. Lieberman, though, would lead one to believe it so.  I think I’ve established here that I have to disagree with the good doctor’s stance – I do, however, think that Dr. Lieberman’s choice in footwear absolutely rocks!    Now if he’d just give my power/sprint-inclined phenotypical brothers some well-deserved love, already!

Moving on to Tuesday Evening‘s Iron Session –

I began this session with squat cleans – “greasin’ the groove” with 25 perfect rep singles at 135 lbs, with an approximate 7-second recovery between reps.  I returned the weight to the floor (i.e., no drop) after each repetition, took my hands off the bar, stood up straight, took a breath, re-gripped and hit the next rep.  Each rep was with perfect form, and as fast as I could make it.   The first 12 or so will make you feel like a well tuned machine; the second half of the set will make you feel as though you’re quickly coming apart at the seams.  This is a good, explosive lead-in to the meat of the evening’s workout.  Next up was a superset of the following:

reverse-grip pull-ups: 40 x 10; 60 x 6; 80 x 6, 5

barbell muscle-ups: 135 x 5; 145 x 4, 4, 4

A black-sky storm was rolling in, so I left the gym immediately following that superset.  Not that I would have done much else anyway, though; I was pretty well zorched after the chin/muscle-up pairing.  And lemme tell ya, there’s nothing like close proximity lightning strikes to put a little *umph* in your fixie get-along.  Holy sprint-wasted legs by the time I got home.  And by the way, I did beat the rain – again!  Still battin’ a thousand for this summer. I know this rain-dodge cockiness is going to do nothing but get me drenched here before long 

…Which Leads Us to Wednesday’s Bout with the Iron…

Same idea as with Tuesday’s “greasin’ the groove” power cleans, only today’s lead-in exercise of choice was the whip snatch to overhead squat; 115 lbs x 15 singles, 7-seconds between reps.  Again, I went to the floor between each rep, then re-gripped & pulled easy to the power position, then hit it.  The ol’ PC was feeling it for sure by the end of this.  From here, I hit a superset of barbell lunges and btn jerks:

reverse barbell lunge: 115 x 10 (10); 135 x 6 (6); 185 x 5 (5), 5 (5)    Left leg(Right leg)

btn jerk: 115 x 5; 135 x 5; 185 x 2, 2;

Then, following the superset, I continued on with the btn jerk, 200 x 5 rest-pause singles.

Shaky, post beat-down hands make for a lousy picture, but here’s a shot of my lunge/btn jerk set-up -

The problem that I have to deal with here of course is the lack of bumper plates and a lifting platform.  But, I do the best I can with what I’ve got to work with; that’s all any of us can hope to do.

Anyhow, put a fork in me after this workout – I was damn well done.  A well deserved and much appreciated off day is on tap for tomorrow; some light riding, maybe some barefooted strides, depending on the weather.

Ceviche…for Breakfast? You Bet! And a Couple of Workouts, Too

Oh yeah, I’ll take Ceviche anytime…so why the hell not for breakfast?

Now this dish might be a little fruit-heavy for some of my more fructose-avoiding friends, but really, the amount of fruit per serving here is not all that much.  And, too, we’re talking whole fruit here, not the bereft-of-fiber, liver-hammering (and insulin spiking) fruit juice.  That said, the total fruit (read fructose) content of this meal is of little real worry to me, and so this dish – with it’s wholesome, fresh ingredients and very little prep time — is way high on my Paleo grub list.  By the way, I picked up the sea scallops for this dish from my local farmer’s market – another perk of living near the North Carolina coast.

And there is absolutely nothing to making good Ceviche; I followed this basic recipe (though I did add a ripe mango to the mix) from the New York Times’ Mark Bittman.

Simple, yeah – but damn friggin’ good 

Relentless TV –

I’d like to give a shout-out to my friend Roger Dickerman, host of the new (at least to me) and uber-cool Relentless TV website.  I must say, I really like Roger’s concept here – kinda reminds me of a Physical Culturalist’s Sports Center (duh nuh-nuh, duh nuh-nuh!).  And Roger has a wonderful “screen presence” — intelligent, witty, animated — which makes each episode (they’re usually about 15 minutes, or so) a real treat.  Make sure you check him out, and see what you think.  And especially so, check out episode #3, where Roger covers my post in reference to the mental side of training, and especially so, HIT.

And speaking of recent TTP-press, check out episode #36 of the Paleolithic Solution, where the dynamic duo (Robb Wolf and Andy Deas) tackle my question in reference to the mainstream’s implication of testosterone and DHT as being potentiators of prostrate cancer.   This is a complicated subject, no doubt – props to Robb for taking it on.

On to the workouts…

Friday Night Iron –

whip snatch-to-overhead squat: 95 x 8; 115 x 3 sets of 5

~ straight bar muscle-ups x 2 for each round, in superset with both the whip snatch/OHSs and deadlifts~

sumo deadlift: 155 x 10; 235 x 6; 305 x 7, 6

then, a couple of sets of Bradford presses, 100 lbs x 12 and 10.  1 rep = front-to-back.

Sunday Iron –

Sunday’s workout is a prime example of where being at least somewhat proficient at the Autoregulation process can pay some serious dividends.  Between Friday night’s gym session and this Sunday afternoon session, I did A LOT of fixed-speed biking, sprinting (running), plyos…just a hell of lot of non-quantifiable, though tiring, stuff.  And even this session itself occurred on the tail end of a good deal of hard saddle time.  In fact, my original plan was to perform this particular gym session tomorrow, but as I was out riding, the weather started to turn a bit sketchy, so I altered course and made a bee-line for the gym.  What ensued was short, sweet and heavy.  Then I saddled back up and busted-ass to get home before the rain hit.

On a side note: so here it is the middle of July, and I’ve yet to be caught in the middle of a ride and in the middle of a downpour yet this year *knocks on wood*.  For those of you unfamiliar with the south-east US of A coastal plains, severe downpours can crop-up in the blink of an eye around here, and every evening carries about an even chance of just that happening.  Anyway, so I’ve yet to come home this summer looking like a drowned rat.  Maybe I need to buy that ticket to Vegas right about now?

Ok, enough blather – here’s the session; a superset of the following –

close-grip floor press: 135 x 10; 165 x 6; 215 x 5 (2), 5 (2, 2)

bent-over row: 135 x 10; 255 x 5; 300 x 4, 3

*The numbers in parentheses indicate rest-pause repetitions.   So, on the final set of CGFPs, I performed a set of 5 straight reps, racked the weight for a moment, hit 2 rest-pause reps, racked the bar again for a moment, then hit 2 more res-pause reps.

I then finished-up with some Nautilus 4-way neck work: front/side/side – 55lbs x 10, 65lbs x 12 (last 2 reps rest-pause).

A Quick Q & A, and an Upright Press-Centered Workout

Q & A Time –

TTP reader Tony asks the following questions in reference to my recent Autoregulation post.  A quick disclaimer, though, before we delve in: First off, I am an unabashed generalist athlete; if I were training for a specific event, my work would be much more directed and precise.  As it is, my personal training methods are more along the lines of “free-lance” than the 9-5 type work that is required of a sport-specific athlete.  I use the terms “generally”, “most times”, etc., not to be vague or flippant, but because I may very well change direction – and 180-degrees so – on a dime.  I continually self-evaluate, and may shift gears and enter a “specialized” phase that totally negates all I’ve written here.  The answers below reflect my “holding pattern” training, those times when I seem to be firing on all cylinders; no glaring chinks in the armor, as it were.  That said, here we go with a few quick questions:

“What five base movement patterns do you identify? I’m guessing push, pull, squat, lunge, and….?”

For my purposes, I roll with the following: (1) overhead push/press, (2) overhead pull/pull-up variation, (3) vertical push/dip, (4) pull from the ground/deadlift, and (5) squat variation.

“In what framework within your base patterns do you integrate your ancillary movements? In what way do you seek to compliment the base movements?”

*Most* ancillary work that I do is done under a higher repetition scheme (i.e., the repetition method) with the specific goals being (1) the development of another (of among many) aspect of strength, (2) – and this is especially so far arm work – tendon, ligament (and maybe even fascia) work, and (3) – and related to “other aspects of strength” — as a means to induce more work load without overtraing a movement pattern, via the hypothesis that the same movement pattern can be trained in close proximity, so long as the same modality (i.e., set, rep, tempo, etc. schemes) are not repeated.  See the note below Wednesday’s workout explanation for one example.

For ancillary work, I generally look back to what muscle groups were most recently worked (base-loading wise), and compare this to what I think I might do in the immediate future (i. e., the next immediate workout), then I pick my ancillary work according to what has had the least amount of directed work.  For instance, I rarely do any ancillary leg work, since I engage in so much sprinting, biking and plyos.  Most of my ancillary work is therefore upper body, push and pull centered.  To a lesser extent, I work-in arms as an ancillary-type movement.

“How do you integrate your Metcon/explosive movements within this construct?”

I engage in a good deal of MetCon work in the form of running and biking, High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT).  I don’t usually post on these sessions (the bulk of which take place on non-lifting days), unless I happen to engage in a dedicated, or out-of-the-ordinary, HIIT-type session that I think people may be able to get some useful information from.  I don’t ever train specifically for endurance work, however, I do engage in extended (hours-long) mountain or fixie rides now and again.  By the way, I can more than hold my own, even at a beef-a-loe hefty weight (for a cyclist), in these endurance outings, even as my conditioning training is specifically geared to mimic that of a sprinter.  That’s a topic for another time, though.

I *usually* try to perform an explosive Oly-derivative to lead-off each weight lifting session, and I’ll feather-in plyometrics work and/or other explosive elements where and when I see fit.   There are phases where I’ll concentrate on Oly work (and/or the derivatives) and/or explosives and plyos and back-off on the “traditional” weight training.  This all depends on what I see in my continual self-assessment – if I notice some lack, I’ll immediately begin to ping on it.  Right now, I seem to be pretty well centered — however, experience has taught me that that “centeredness” won’t last for long.  Maintaining good athletic balance is akin to herding cats — you’d better be on top of your game,  and ready to alter course at a moment’s notice to bring in the strays.  My last glitch was a fairly big discrepancy in single leg strength (both in the press/squat and in the pull).  I managed to clear that up in short order with dedicated unilateral work; during that period, though, my overall training plan resembled little of what my plan looks like today.  Anyway, all is cruising right on along at the moment — something else, though, is bound to crop up soon.  And this isn’t my expression of abject pessimism, it’s simply the nature of physical preparation.

On to Wednesday’s, Upright Press-Centered Workout –

power snatch: 95 x 5; 115 x 5; 135 x 4 sets of 3

~ superset both the power snatches, and then the military presses, with straight-bar muscle-ups (the pull-up variety), bw x 2, each round ~

military front press: 95 x 10; 115 x 6; 155 x 5+, 4+

Then, utilizing the repetition method, the following superset:

standing bicep curl: EZ bar + 50 x 15; bar + 70 x 12; bar + 90 x 12

laying tri extension: EZ bar + 50 x 15; bar + 70 x 12; bar + 90 x 11+

Note: as an example, one option in my next workout, for ancillary upright pressing work, might be high repetition Bradford presses.  Heavy shoulder work today, followed by more work of a differing modality in the next follow-up session.  Note that I performed btn jerks in the previous workout.  So, in very short order, I will have performed btn jerks, military presses and (most likely) Bradford presses – all upright pressing movements, but all requiring different aspects of strength.  This is my nod to Simmons’ Conjugate methodology, and its cycling, within the same training week, of max effort, speed, and repetition work.

The Quick-and-Dirty on Calorie Intake, and an Evening Iron Session

Calorie intake as it relates to phenotypical expression; to cop a phrase from Robb Wolf: “Holy Cats!”  I really have nothing but the deepest of sympathies for people who do not happen to make Paleo/Primal, Physical Culture their geek-out hobby – I can only imagine what it’s like to stumble into this arena trying to find a sane voice.  Who to believe?

Bottom line, folks:  calories do matter – they’re just not the end-all, not the full story.  Taube’s axiom of “a calorie is not a calorie” is true, to be sure; it should not, however, be considered as license to unmitigated gluttony, free of consequences (especially fat gain).  Calories ought to be considered as the co-stars of a jam-packed, star-studded stage, wherein insulin could be considered the production’s glamorous diva.  Ok, that’s about enough of that analogy…

Skyler Tanner has posted a nice observation on gross calorie intake vis-à-vis its effect on body composition, with some poignant takes on how his own body reacted to a few weeks worth of decreased caloric intake as a result of his recent vagabonding expedition around central America.  Now, I don’t bring this up to throw Skyler under the H8R bus (don’t be hatin’!) – being the naturally lean guy he is, who’s free to engage in extended leisure travel – no, the reason I bring this up is that it’s a perfect example of the fact that as people drop weight, at a certain point, calories will have to be restricted to reach ultra-low body fat levels.  Now, we can prompt this calorie restriction in a number of different ways, the easiest being to severely restrict all carbs (to the point of going zero carb in some cases) and increase the fat intake.  This approach offers a nice one-two punch, in that fat tends to satiate one’s appetite quickly, and we get a lower insulin response to boot.  Now, at what point calorie restriction  is required to spur further weight drop is dependent upon a multitude of factors, not the least of which are sex, hormone/biochemical milieu, activity level…and on and on it goes.  Sometimes one might even need to increase calorie intake for a short period (to re-vamp the metabolism), then return to a decreased level.  One thing is for certain, though: drill down just a bit, and the weight loss/weight gain game becomes a highly n=1 affair.  For more on that, check out this story, from my friends at Efficient Exercise, in Austin, Texas.

Another reason I bring up the calorie issue is that I have received quite a few questions as of late specifically asking about lean mass gain.  Skyler has stated that he intends to engage in a little n=1, weight-gain experimentation of his own.  And he’s in a perfect position right now to do so, having dropped down to a single-digit body fat percentage.  And again I ask: how friggin’ fair is that?  The guy returns from an extended vacation to find his bodyfat chillin’ in the single-digits?  Ok, so how about we drop the hate-fest for the lucky guy, and set about monitoring his upcoming weight-gain technique and following his progress?  Can he pull-off some sizable lean gains without tacking-on too much in the way fat gain and/or water retention?  I’ll bet the (organic) farm that he can.  Skyler is an experienced trainer and, bottom line, he knows what in the hell he’s doing.  I think we’ll all learn a thing or two from his experiment.

And along those lines, here’s a way-cool web-based BMI, Waist/Height Ratio, BMR, %BF, Surface Area, and Willoughby Ideal Weight and Waist calculator that Skyler alerted me to.  My own numbers (6’-0”, 205lbs, 33” waist) equate to a pretty good return, especially if I focus on the “Willoughby Ideal”, and ignore the “establishment’s” BMI recommendations.

Tuesday Evening’s Workout –

reverse lunge + (btn jerk): 95 x 10 (10); 165 x 6 (6); 175 x 5 (3).  I then put 195 on the bar and hit 3 more sets of 2 in the btn jerks.  On each set, I completed the lunge reps on each leg, then, after a quick breather, moved into the btn jerk reps.

Notice I only did three sets of lunges.  This is in deference to the amount of biking and sprinting (coupled with the hip-dominant Oly-derivatives) I do during the spring, summer and fall; I don’t want to tumble into the dreaded overtraining hole, so *usually* I’ll opt to drop the 2^nd “to failure” set if I’m following a classic APRE leg scheme.

Following the lunge/btn jerk combo, I played around with some single leg good mornings into a high box step-up – just some explosive, bw stuff.  My legs were pretty well dusted from the lunges and jerks, though, so I kept things quick & explosive and didn’t add any additional loading.  I did a total of maybe 20 reps each leg, at bw.  I really love this movement, though I haven’t done them in quite a while.  Check out coach Jimmy Radcliffe explaining and demonstrating the movement progression here (via Jason Glass Performance Lab):

I’ve been doing a lot of high-rep, feet elevated, push-ups lately, so I decided to throw the body a curveball and hit it with something I do rarely – machine flyes.  This particular pec-deck is of the “straight arm” variety (versus the variety which places the arm/elbow at a 90-degree position).   Anyway, it offers a nice change-up every now and again.  Consistency of movement, especially within the same rep range and intensity, is just another of the many factors that can lead to overtraining, and just the kind of easy-to-fall-into rut that I avoid like the plague.

Atlantis pec-deck: 150 x 12; 210 x 7; 225 x 7+; 225 x 5+

Vindication, “Maps”, and the Athletic Vagabond

I suppose it could be said that serendipity has been the theme for the last couple of days.  I rather enjoy it when findings and properly conducted science validate those things I believe in my gut to be true; and now, if I were a bit more smug, I’d pump my fist and proclaim vindication!, but that’s just not my way.

First off, although we in the Paleo community had long-ago brushed off T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study as, at best, a work of poorly conducted science – and, at worst, intentional data manipulation for the sake profit – we were treated late in the week to an epic dismantling of Campbell’s study (links here) by Denise Minger, of the Raw Foods SOS blog.  Denise has produced an erudite body of work that ought to keep all the Campbell apologists out there busy for a while.  My hope going forward is that solid, smack-down call-outs of the likes that Denise has provided to the “esteemed scientist” Dr. Campbell, will give other like-minded researchers pause before knowingly propagating such poorly-performed (or purposefully “massaged”), pseudo-science.  Be forewarned, researchers: the Paleo-Primal patrol is ever-vigilant, and demonstrates little in the way of mercy when abject fraud is detected.  Finding one’s self, for instance, on the wrong end of a verbal beat-down from Paleo hit-man, Richard Nicoley could be a sever jolt to one’s self-esteem.  Not to mention the fact that it’ll totally blow your cover.  Ah how I love the transparency of the internet!  If free-will is the interaction of DNA and epigenetics, then knowledge truly is unimpeded freedom’s intersection with that free-will.

Next up I was treated to the following study by way of one of my favorite collegiate-level Strength & Conditioning blogs, Zack Dechant’s Sports Performance Training :

The Effect of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise vs. Linear Periodization on Strength Improvements in College Athletes.

See Zack’s take on the study, here.

For my part, I’d just like to point-out that I’ve been singing in the autoregulatory choir for quite a while (to wit: here, here, and here are just a few examples) .  There, that’s my attempt at being smug 

In my mind, the overriding reason behind the success of Autoregulatory Progressive Resistance (APRE) stems from the fact that it is simply impossible for any trainee (highly-trained athlete, or otherwise) to adequately account for the total net impact on the body and CNS, at the onset of any particular training session, of all outside stressors.  Nor can adequate (or inadequate, as the case may be) recuperation be effectively accounted for.  Maybe a simpler way of saying this is that one’s readiness at the onset of a particular training session is a direct result of a commingling of disparate “forces”, including but certainly not limited to:

• Total stressors (physical, mental, CNS-related, etc.)
• Proper dose/response timing (am I in the super-compensation “crest”, “trough”, or somewhere in between?)
• Total recuperation (related to the two prior bullets, but let’s include here diet/nutrient absorption, adequate sleep, hydration, electrolyte balance, etc.)

Hell, something as simple as training at one’s particular “peak” time of day vs training when one can “get it in” can make a profound difference.

And it is precisely via the utilization of Autoregulation, by the way, that I can claim – and emphatically so — that an endurance athlete can be trained for much-needed strength without compromising that athlete’s endurance-related training.  Give me a willing endurance athlete and access to an Efficient Exercise – like facility and, by utilizing Autoregulation techniques, I guarantee I can improve that athlete’s performance in his/her chosen endeavor.  Simple as that.

Linear Periodization, in the old-school “command and control” mindset (hat tip to Art DeVany), dismisses the above-mentioned day-to-day (hell, minute-by-minute) variances as something that the athlete will just have to “tough-out”, with the implication being that (1) the athlete cannot be trusted to push himself adequately, and, given the option, will surely slough-off, and (2) that the body is no more than a mechanical machine, impervious to these “petty” perturbations.  Any weakness (i.e., inability to make pre-ordained weights/reps/numbers) can only be attributed, then, to weakness in the trainee’s mind, spirit, or both.  In my mind, this goes beyond simple-minded, and into the realm of being destructive.

Let me give Linear Periodization apologists their due, though.  APRE’s efficacy lay in direct proportion to the trainee’s ability to push him/herself, both mentally and physically.  And, too, there is a certain amount of art involved with this method that lay beyond the grasp of a trainee of a relatively young training age (unless they have access to a knowledgeable coach).  APRE in the toolbox of a non-dedicated trainee is just as useless as any other tool that might be employed.  The key here being, for the S&C coach, is trust.  Trust in the athlete’s – or, for the personal trainer, his client’s – desire for greatness.

More serendipity?  Yep, it’s been flung at me from all sides the past few days.  Within an hour or so of having devoured the APRE study, Skyler Tanner posted the following TED clip on his Facebook wall; Barry Schwartz opines on wisdom:

What the hell does this have to do with Physical Culture, you might ask – and legitimately so.  Well, in my mind, it’s extremely relevant.  One particular part of Barry’s talk that really resonated with me was his reference to the Chicago school system’s reliance upon teaching “scripts”, thereby stymieing the emergence of any creative genius within the system’s teaching force.   While this highly top-down controlled scripting of lesson plans may well, as Mr Schwartz notes, serve as a kind of insurance against disaster (read, “lawsuit”), it also, just as effectively guarantees against the achievement of greatness.  By “working with a net” we resign ourselves to mediocrity.  Linear Periodization, in my humble opinion, is analogous here to a scripted lesson plan, with the difference being that in lieu of “lawsuit”, one might substitute the notion of the athlete/trainee becoming “appreciably weaker”.  In employing Linear Periodization, the S&C coach and/or personal trainer can shield themselves from negative scrutiny, much in the same way that dietitians save themselves negative scrutiny in pushing the food pyramid scam, in that a particular “theory” has been top-down reviewed and deemed “safe” by some governing organization.  Hamstrung by “scripts”, then, mediocrity rules the day.

Real World Implementation –

Above is a picture of my whiteboard workout “map”.  My use of the term “map” here is more in line with how a vagabond might consider the term – i.e., a vague, loosely-adhered-to directional guide – as opposed to, say, a Google Maps, step-by-step procedural on how best to get from point A to B.

What you see represented here is my workout base: elements of Windler’s 5/3/1 program, Conjugate methodology, and HIT/BBS (Body By Science)-like protocols that I’ve morphed into a system that works for me, given my goals, my unique set of particulars, and the equipment that I have at my disposal.  What you don’t see here is a listing of all of my ancillary work – the ballistics, the bike riding, the sprints, the additional repetition method work, the explosive Oly-derivatives and such – all of which I track in my workout journal.  The whole of this “program”, of course, falls under the dictates of Autoregulation.  If the above chart represents my athletic “vagabond’s map”, Autoregulation is my guiding, North Star; my Polaris, if you will.

The scribblings of a madman…it’s a scary place in there!

The core exercises depicted in the chart (in red) are the exercises I’ve chosen to work each one of the particular, corresponding, base human movement patterns, of which (for my purposes) there are five total.  Each base exercise is assigned a 3-week block.  By the end of a 3-week block (usually), it’s time to shift particulars within a movement pattern, as I’ve wrung all I can from the exercise.  Sometimes, though, I’ll ditch an exercise after 2 weeks, at other times, I’ll carry-on with a particular exercise for an addition couple of weeks.  Most times (but again, not always), I’ll also shift the ancillary work that has accompanied the base exercise across the 3-week block, as these, too, will have run their course.

While I acknowledge that all of this vagueness is probably maddening to those who desire a laid-out, top-to-bottom, cookie-cutter program, I assure you that I’m not intentionally attempting to veil my “methods” in some kind of mystic, hoo-doo shroud.  The fact of the matter, though, is that truly effective training is as much art as it is proper application of science.  There is a place for scientific research, to be sure; our society, however, has the tendency to diminish the importance of the intuitive.  “Art” cannot be readily defined, categorized – or more importantly taught in a formal educational setting (apprenticeship is most effective for this, but sadly out of vogue).  The inability to pin-down the intuitive drives profiteers snake-shit, of course, and so we immediately hear the cries of illegitimacy.  If you can’t measure it, stamp a label on it, quantify or certify the action, how can any top-down organization profit from it?

At any rate, there are no truly effective, Physical Culture “scripts”, only helpful signposts, and this chart simply keeps me in the right general coordinates of my choosing.  I give myself the latitude to take detours and prolonged side-trips whenever I feel it is necessary; these ad-libs, of course could never be built into a “script”.  But it is precisely because I subscribe to the theory of Autoregulation that I can continue to make progress in each of the core human movement patterns, even as I routinely take side-expeditions.

A couple of examples –

Friday, 7/9/10 workout

First, a superset of cgfp and bor (see the chart, listed under “Horizontal Upper Push”).  Note: my use of the term “week” is rather nebulous; this might refer to a 4-day span, or 14…it just depends.  Also, each movement pattern is tracked independent of the other patterns; in other words, when I swap-out a particular exercise, I don’t necessarily swap-out every other movement pattern’s exercises.  Each movement pattern operates as its own little, independent entity; I may be on the first week in one movement pattern, and in another, I may have drifted into to 5th week.  All is dependent upon my progress in a given exercise, and mt estimation at future progress.

close-grip barbell floor press: 165 x 3; 190 x 3; 210 x 5 + 5 rest-pause reps

barbell bent-over row: 255 x 5; 280 x 5; 300 x 4

then, an explosive movement, the Cred –

65 x 3 (each side); 75 x 3; 85 x 2; 90 x 1; 95 x 1

…which I super-setted with straight-bar muscle-ups (the pull-up variety) x 2 each round.

The Saturday, 7/10/10 workout was a typical “off the chart” day.  A good deal of time spent biking (with plenty of interval sprints), and a long plyometrics session with waist-high box jumps, depth drops, drop/reaction broad jumps, etc.

Then Sunday, 7/11/10, I performed the following:

overhead squats – (done more so as a warm-up, and as a way to loosen-up some rather tight legs): bar x 10; 95 x 6; 115 x 5; 135 x 5

then, a superset of the following; note that the target exercise her is the rev-grip pull-ups.  I consider the barbell muscle-ups as (1) ancillary work, and (2) as a set-up for the pull-ups.

reverse-grip pull-ups: 40 x 8; 65 x 5; 80 x 6, 5

barbell muscle-ups: 95 x8; 105 x 5; 135 x 5, 5

then some Nautilus 4-way neck work – front, side, side: 50 x 15 (rest-pause); back: 60 x 15 (rest-pause)

From this, I can see that 80 lbs is a good 5/6 RM reverse-grip pull-up gauge for the next time I perform the movement.  Now, I have absolutely no clue as to what particulars will surround my next go-round with this exercise – an 80 lb 5/6 RM may be way too high, or way too low an estimate from which to gauge my loading for that particular day.  And that’s exactly when Autoregulation works its magic.  As long as my loading is in the ball park initially, I can adjust, following the first set, and rock on.

So feel free to ask any directed questions you might have.  I’ll do my damnedest to answer them, with the caveat being that any answer I give my have that “hoo-doo” feel to it, as the art of Physical Culture always plays a tremendous part in my workout compositions.  Theory to Practice truly is an n=1 expression.  In order to be great, you must learn to be the captain of your own, n=1 ship.  Or, if you’re lucky, you can apprentice with such a captain and, in time, learn your own, unique version of the art.   The process is ever-evolving, even for me.  After 30+ years of practicing the Physical Culture art, I still learn something new – about myself, and about the craft — every day.  This area of study never grows stale, stagnates, or runs out of “secrets” to reveal.  It is always the student, the practitioner who looses interest, stagnates, or who begins to accept mediocrity.  My challenge to each of you is to rise above that simpleton mentality.  Aspire to greatness, each and every day.  It is truly your birthright to do so.

Pork Chops, Beet Greens, a Nice Iron Session, and “The China Study”, Debunked

So here are the greens from the beets that I made on Wednesday night, making an appearance alongside Thursday night’s totally awesome, locally/pasture-raised cut of smoked pork.  Damn fine eats, I gotta say.  The greens were sautéed with onions in a liberal amount of coconut oil, then splashed with a bit of coconut vinegar, salt and pepper.  I made two same-size chops (the other is going with me to work this morning).  Actually, all I had to do with these was heat them up in a coconut-oiled pan, as they’d been smoked previously by my supplier.  How cool is that?

Thursday night iron games –

I reeled-off a good bit of hard riding before I hit the gym which skewed my deadlift numbers substantially.  I’m shifting to a sumo stance for a while, for no other reason than to do something that I suck at.  I never have felt comfortable, or been able to pull well from a sumo stance.  That doesn’t mean that it’s not a super exercise, though – the weakness is all mine.  We’ll see about fixing that over the next few weeks.

Sumo deadlift (clean grip): 245 x 5; 275 x 5; 300 x 7

Then,

btn jerk : 115 x 3; 135 x 3; 165 x 3; 185 x 1; 195 x 1, 1, 1

then a superset of,

feet-elevated push-ups (24” box): bw x 50, 40, 31

parallel-grip pull-ups: be x 15, 16, 13

Just a quick thought on what I’m sure by now everyone has had a chance to look at.  If anyone can take T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study as anything even remotely resembling serious, quality, ethically-performed science after considering Denise Minger’s complete dismantling of the work…well, there’s just not much hope for them.  And I use the term “work” loosely, here.  Agenda-influenced farce is more like it.  But, hey, some folks still believe that the earth is 6,000 years-old, too.  So it goes.  Anyway, be sure to check out Denise’s exhaustive work.  All I can say is, wow , well friggin done, Denise.  And thanks to Richard, of Free the Animal, for giving Denise’s work the exposure it deserves.

The following paragraph, taken from Denise’s conclusion, really struck a cord with me (emphasis mine):

In rebuttals to previous criticism on “The China Study,” Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the “Trust me, I’m a scientist” argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesn’t require a PhD to be a critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.

Question authority (or supposed authority, as the case may be).  That single attitude will serve you well.  “Show me the properly performed science!!” doesn’t exactly have the same ring, but our enthusiasm in requiring it should be no less emphatic.

Have a great weekend, folks.

Paleo on the Fly

OK, so I’m much more creative in the gym than in the kitchen, but I don’t exactly starve, either.  Most times I don’t plan my meals so much as I throw them together at the last minute; maintaining a strict Paleo household saves me from doing something (eating something) stupid.  I guess my point with these food post is to show that one needen’t be a master chef — or even a decent chef — to thrive in the Paleo world.  That’s not to say that I don’t appreciate finely crafted meals — I love Meesus TTP’s knocked-out creations! — but left to my own devises, I eat pretty damn basic.  It boils down to this: after a long work day, I just don’t have all that much free time, and the free time I do have, I choose to spend on the bike, in the gym, or engaged in Vibram-shod “play”.

Anyway, here we go -

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Got a couple of shots here of a brunch I made of sweet potato, bacon and grass-fed beef sausage.  The other meal you see here carries the sweet potato theme forward by roasting some chicken quarters over a bed of sliced sweet potatoes.  On the side, we have some boiled beets, the greens of which I’ll saute tonight and have along side some pork chops.  The white plate contains a “salad” of apricot, walnuts, crumbled bleu cheese and vinaigrette.

By the way, If you haven’t done so, make sure you check-out Jimmy Moore’s interview with Dr. Robert Lustig of Sugar: the Bitter Truth fame.  It’s a fantastic, informative, and fast-paced nutritional and biochemical romp.  Grab a notebook, check out Jimmy’s show, and come on back in a couple of days to check-out my take on the good doctor’s message.