Filling in the framework: Seasonality and Change

So when I set out my philosophical framework for fitness I built it up to a fairly vague sentiment that it had something to do with acknowledging our place within the ecosphere. I've also since referred to it as our strongest selves on our weakest days as well as our weakest selves on our strongest days. Not to mention a more literal prescription of activities that a 'fit' human should partake in. There are plenty of other people out there who will tell you exactly what you need to do day after day to be fit and healthy. What I find more commonly missing is that first point, and more specifically the influence of seasonality on what we do. Or to put it another way, fitness is inherently interlinked with change. Prescribing a single diet or exercise program is acknowledged to be flawed for a population, but people still seem to think they can find the one true answer for them while failing to account for the fact their environment is constantly changing - and if fitness is about resilience and coping with the unexpected or unusual then the lifestyle ought to reflect that.

So what does this mean? Basically I'm saying that doing the same thing all the time is not the healthiest, easiest or most effective approach. Our bodies are hugely complicated systems that have developed to handle changing conditions, both cyclic changes (such as seasonal or even diurnal climatic conditions) and unpredictable chaotic events. It's easy to see that a system that only experiences a constant steady-state input is incredibly vulnerable to changes to that input. I won't go further into chaos theory now but suffice to say the stronger system is one which is able to make compromises to adapt, and as a species our success is down to this ability. To be human is to be resilient to change. But if you try to achieve this by controlling your environment and holding the inputs steady, don't be surprised if things break down when you lose control. Better to learn how to work with your body on what it excels at.

I should probably bring this back to ground and focus back in on popular conceptions of fitness. From the training side, this isn't terribly controversial. Cyclic programs are many and varied, linear progression is accepted to be a reasonable model up to a point, but ultimately people are comfortable with the idea that they need 'rest' days (or days of varying intensity), that they generally require deload weeks, and beyond that athletes aim to peak for their competitive season. Sure, people dismiss random chaotic workouts designed to 'confuse' the muscle, but they do embrace progressive overload which is to say that performing that something should change from workout to workout. And then there are those who advocate sub-maximal loads, or fartlek runs (where you vary speed according to how you feel). There's no single right answer. As noted in my previous post, if you are doing this things, then you are fulfilling part of your fitness lifestyle. How you structure it, what goals you have to motivate you, whether you want to concentrate on perfecting the technique of a small number of exercises so that you can get an increased training effect or just want to get up every day and challenge yourself in new unexpected ways, it's all details. Trying to find the optimal workout is going to be different for every person, and for every day, and for every year. Perfection is only achievable for one specific set of circumstances at one moment in time. Be fit, not crazy.

It's one thing to be comfortable with the abstract idea of change and variation being the way we work, but is that really why I made such a fuss about nature? No, when it comes to aspects of lifestyle other than physical activity, considering the environment becomes a bigger issue. The other main pillars as far as fitness go are diet and sleep, and while some people are experimenting with these varying from day-to-day, fewer and fewer think about variations over the course of a year, except perhaps to entrain their habits with their competitive activity cycles. This is the cart driving the horse. I say fewer people think about this because in the past they had no option. In fact only going back 100 years we have people going to bed when it got dark, and eating only what was available locally and was in season. They slept more in winter, and ate more in summer. Ok, so seasonal variations are different from place to place and another remarkable faculty we have as a species is to have adapted to a fairly large range of ecosystems, but each of those is still internally consistent. Places where days are of fairly constant length still have different foods available than places nearer the poles where the seasons are more marked. And our expansion into these areas took time and has driven differences in genetics. And within a generation we have created a new, entirely artificial and inconsistent environment where the sun shines whenever we want and we can eat anything at any time. Naturally when faced with this choice we tend to always create the most favourable inputs, and as a consequence we become more vulnerable. I'll leave it here for now and pick it up again when I look at the evolution of nutrition in more detail.

An exercise in bifurcation

It should come as no surprise that I could take issue with the definition of resistance training. Usually it's set up in dichotomy with 'cardio', which is really no better defined. Do they refer to different classes of exercise? Anyone who has ever done high volume barbell complexes or tried to run up a hill could tell you the limitations of that approach. Perhaps then we can define them by their impact on the body, but what physical activity doesn't involve muscle contraction or the cardio-vascular system? These terms have become shorthand for opposite ends of a spectrum that in reality has more than one dimension.

Now I could spend some time coming up with a handy graphic at this point, but what we're talking about here is strength, endurance, agility, technique etc. No training is going to exclusively affect only one of these areas. For the elite athlete this kind of reductionist approach may be necessary to beat the competition, but it's a complication we can do without. That's why I appreciate the step away from these terms in the Primal literature. Instead there is an identification of moving slowly a lot, moving quickly occasionally, and lifting (and moving) heavy things occasionally. If we allow that the body is a heavy object, then all of these can actually be fulfilled by moving around an appropriate environment (ie. one that includes climbing, gradients, the ideal obstacle course if you will). I'd recover our dichotomy by saying that we want to:

• be physically engaged most of the time - moving under our own power or just supporting our own weight, small details such as the mobility and strength involved in getting up and down from the floor
• occasionally exert ourselves beyond our comfort zone - stressing all our systems to trigger adaptation is how we grow, and in life we either grow or decline

All the scientific/ancestral/logical reasons for doing something can be fit to these without the negative connotations that cloud so much thinking.

Of course, these are still pretty vague, and as soon as we start talking about training strategies rather than being representations of normal day-to-day life then we do have to get more technical. The key here though is that fitness is not served simply through one thing or the other. However we go about it, whether regular walks, standing desks, sprawling in the floor instead of the couch, practising yoga or being a member of a nomadic tribe you will be missing out if you don't find ways to significantly increase the percentage of the waking day spent being awake - or to put it another way significantly decrease the time spent zoned out slumped in a chair. And similarly whether you sprint up hills, climb trees or rocks, do gymnastics, play rugby, or just find something really heavy and pick it up you need to include these sorts of activities to maintain a healthy body, preserve (or build) lean mass, strength, coordination.

It's increasingly popular to identify diet as the main factor behind fitness. More often than not, people are actually conflating fitness with fatness. Nutrition is obviously a massive issue, and will be addressed in later posts, but if a currently healthy person does the activities above then they would have to try very hard to sabotage their fitness. I don't really want to separate diet and exercise, I believe they're synergistic, I merely want to stress the point that fitness isn't necessarily a visual thing. For that matter, it's not always ideal to live by athletic goals. We define metrics to evaluate progress as a matter of necessity, much as we have training programs because our working lives don't provide the physical stimulation we need. But for my money, fitness is doing the right things however imperfectly, and growing as a person. An individual may pursue a specific activity to compete and excel, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more fit. If they do so without compromising anything else then great - many people need that drive and it's inspiring to see what can be achieved, but that doesn't have to be the target. Exertion is relative, and if done properly should naturally lead to progress.

Similarly, official guidelines of 30 minutes a day may be a useful strategy to get people started in the real world, but you need other changes to follow on to call it a truly fitter lifestyle. So, as far as exercise goes, is there more you could be doing throughout the day? Is there some aspect you're overlooking? Or does the idea of being able to cover 15 miles in a day, run up a hill, or lift your own bodyweight seem impossible to achieve? There's always something you can do however small to move forward - even if it starts with stepping back.

A disclaimer...of sorts

While a lot of what I talk about I express as fact, I'm aware that it's unsupported. It's not that I haven't read the research, but I'm not interested in trying to prove theories by citing internet articles. If people are interested in details, I'm happy to help point to things they can read which may help and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of sources. After all, as a scientist I have to be able to fit all observations to my theory. But people are generally far too inconsistent in how they apply scientific research to make their decisions and I don't want to contribute to that with a half-assed job. So I won't.

I'm not here to prove anything or sell anything. If I express something that triggers a though or more research of your own, I'd be glad, and if it provides a basis for initiating discussion so much the better.

Running: the technical part

Few things catch me off guard as much as the ongoing debate about footwear and running form. While I don't intend to try to provide comprehensive guides or repeat work presented better elsewhere on the internet, it is in keeping with my basic principles that there be a simple, accessible approach if something is considered natural. So how does fixing running form tie in to our basic animal nature? Remove your shoes. Given time, you should be able to develop a robust, efficient and effective running style. But that would make for a short post, so let's talk a little more.

Heel-striking. The balance of discussion is certainly shifting, but even those with some experience are hesitant to commit fully to arguing against it, and all the technical papers and biomechanical analysis make little impact because even when scientists can draw conclusions with high certainty they are not invested in mass marketing. And this confusion then allows new runners to be misled. There should be no debate. Heel striking was an artificial invention by a man who thought he saw an opportunity to make some money. It may look like running but it really isn't the same thing. It's only possible by designing heavily padded shoes. And the same trend has progressed to 'fix' a litany of problems, orthotics, stability control, coil springs in the soles. The answer has always been more technology. This is the guy who founded Nike. Similarly people have since benefited from this trend by selling machines such as ellipticals, which are intended to mimic aspects of running while fixing issues that didn't exist. Heel striking is not a natural activity. All the benefits and discussions on the utility of running are thrown out the window if someone insists on heel striking. It's like using a Smith machine to squat. It may look like squatting but it's really not the same and when it comes to injury prevention all bets are off. In fact it's like doing squat mornings on the Smith machine with the pussy pad on a bosu ball.

The studies are there, the more expensive and 'advanced' your running shoe, the more likely you are to get injured. 80% of runners get injured every year as it is. And somehow we have a generation who accepts this as normal and still believes and trusts capitalism to provide the solution if only they pay enough money and put in enough technology and expertise. Are entire body has evolved to be able to run. This is why we stand upright. This is why we have big glutes. This is why we have fantastically complicated feet full of bones and tendons. Take a look at our progress so far at re-engineering this with running bipedal robots. There's no contest.

Ok, so if going barefoot is self-correcting, what can we do to merge this with the real world? Well still nothing is as instructive as doing it yourself, even if it's not all the time your body can learn a lot from its own feedback mechanisms, and you can learn how it feels to run short distances barefoot - and if it's on concrete you'll learn quickly! The basics of form follow fairly naturally. Compared to the cushioned jogger, there will be higher foot turnover, you'll land around the midfoot, pronate naturally as the foot and leg absorbs the impact directly beneath your body. Any lengthening of the stride comes from the legs stretching behind you rather than stretching in front, but it's not efficient to do so at the cost of fewer steps. Compare the effort of pressing 100lb overhead 50 times or an empty barbell 100 times. For sprints, sure, use the strength and push harder, but otherwise it's an endurance game, and if you keep your feet moving it's very hard to go wrong. Take the time to build the strength, and your ankles, arches, achilles, calves, quads, hamstrings, glutes, hips, abs arms and neck and more will all develop to do their job of keeping you on your feet. Go on uneven, varied terrain and the return will be increased exponentially. You may not be going as fast, but you'll be able to keep going, and that's the aim. To keep going, not get injured, and be able to tackle anything that comes at you after a long run.

Running: the rambling part

Running. It holds a strange place in the national psyche. It's generally perceived as the entry-level exercise. Taking a brisk walk every day is a good start, but for those who decide they really want to improve their fitness and lose weight I'd bet more take up jogging than anything else. But it's usually a hate-hate relationship. People struggle their way through uncomfortable and sweaty sessions, slogging their wheezing bodies round the block before collapsing back home to nurse their blisters. It can be a high barrier to entry - while many believe this is the price they must pay and continue to put themselves through it, others move on to 'more advanced' fitness activities or abandon their hopes altogether. After all, if they can't even hack going for a little jog what business do they have running at all?

Yet still there are people lacing up their shoes every day and hitting the road, with varying degrees of success. Something drives them, some basic belief that running is good for you. It can be surprising how negative non-runners can be about the activity, until you realise that most of these people are actually failed runners. Whatever arguments or reasons they throw out against the utility of running, you can be pretty sure they still tried it at some point and weren't happy with the results. The flipside of this most natural form of exercise is that people expect it to come naturally. You are either a runner or you're not. People resist the idea that it is something they should have to learn. And our society reinforces that, one way or another. Whether it's acceptance of a sedentary life (which is slowly changing) or the belief that 'cardio' and fitness are mutually exclusive, there are plenty of facilitators out there who will let you slink away and take the shortcut on that cross-country run.

I was there. Nothing was as bad for my asthma as trying to run through the mud in winter as we circled the school, and nothing as embarrassing as the showers afterwards. Through my teenage years I'd wheeze and rattle over short distances, and stop before my legs literally burned to nothing. Shin splints were most common ailment, even through that period at university where I tried committing to jogging regularly. And oh the chafing. Once a week was all I did because that's how long it took to recover. There would be occasional bright spots. When the sun came out and I could bounce along and feel ready to take on the world, but by the time I rounded the next corner and saw how much farther I still had to go my spirit would dip and my legs would grow heavy. It was boring, it was uncomfortable, it left me struggling to walk one time in three and it didn't seem to be having a magnificent impact on my waistline.

Even later, after I'd overcome my asthmatic tendencies, gotten stronger, healthier, fitter, I still struggled. That last summer of my PhD, when I cycled, walked or ran to campus 5 miles away 3 days of the week and swam the other days. When I could play badminton or frisbee for hours on end, darting about the court or field, when I could hike in the mountains all day. I don't think I ran that whole 5 miles once. I would manage a mile or two then need to walk, my legs and my lungs conspiring against me. And through all this not once did it occur to me that I didn't know how to run. I was willing to accept my physical limitations. I thought that if I kept trying I would find it easier, it's not as if I never enjoyed it after all. But those moments of pleasure were rare. Too often all I got was the satisfaction of having made the effort. I figured that would have to be enough. 10 years of voluntarily, albeit sporadically, exercising to become fitter and healthier still left me uncomfortable running much more than 400m. I never got seriously injured, but I would credit that to never having been so committed as to put in the mileage many novice runners do in their attempts to improve.

So where am I now, barely a year after I read a book that changed my perception of running so entirely as to blow away all those years as a failed runner, all the excuses and half-truths I'd whispered to myself? In some ways I had been lucky, I'd stumbled on to discussions about correct running form 2 years ago and could finally see that technique isn't something that only matters in separating elite sprinters by hundredths of a second. Whatever level you're at, technique matters. I can only suppose I'd blinded myself up until this point as I was well aware that I had had to learn some things about how to walk if I was going to cover 25 steep miles without joints seizing up, why should running come any more naturally? So I had begun the work of actively trying to correct the physical and postural problems inflicted by our manmade environment. I still felt that there was no need to run any great distances. Short sprints were fine, there was always time to catch your breath in sport and so many other things to do. And besides, running properly required commitment, training, its own rest days and recovery right? You couldn't expect to go out every day, especially not if you were doing other physical activities.

Well that all depends on what's important to you. Of course you can go run every day, if you choose to do it right. You can deadlift without breaking your back or squat without ruining your knees, if you take the time to learn how and to build the strength, stability and mobility you once had as a child and lost as you graduated to the desk. There is no greater functional movement, and it is a shame to see the misinformation that holds people back, just as it is to see the litany of excuses from people who are otherwise well educated about fitness and equipped to perform well. As my previous posts have explained, fitness to me is not judged in a single moment or on a single action. If you can't drop everything and run at a moment's notice, and more specifically if you don't know your body well enough to know how to do it safely, what speed is maintainable, how to surge past obstacles or recharge your batteries all while on the move, then while I may be impressed by your dedication, strength or skill at a particular activity don't expect me to be impressed by your fitness. For me it's still a work in progress, but in that year I've gone from being that person who needed a week or more of recovery after pushing to run more than half a mile to being able to stroll out the door with no intention other than to enjoy the outdoors and end up going 7 miles and wondering later that day if I wouldn't like to go out and play some more. It is natural. There's a reason why people keep trying to do it. There's also a reason why so many fail, and we'll get to that in the next post.

What is fitness?

So, let's talk fitness. Most of my posts seems to start with some sort of caveat and this will be no different as fitness is a somewhat nebulous concept.

(yup, random pictures are back to hold your attention)

So here I'm just looking at the outputs, the final expression of being fit. Which for now means physical activity. Different people will have different priorities: strength, speed, agility, stamina... For a long time after I started making the effort, I considered myself relatively fit. I could hike all day, every day for a week over mountainous terrain. I could run endless sprints in an Ultimate tournament for 5-6 hours and come back the next day and do it again. I'd even been able to throw in respectable numbers of pushups - at least I kept them strict! But as far as basic measures of physical accomplishment go I had always struggled with the fact I couldn't even begin to do a pull-up. Strength gains can seem an open-ended goal, but while I prefer to focus on 'functional' activities there are undeniably some basic minimum levels I think a fit person should be able to achieve.

I think fit people should be able to get about. To support their own weight, pull themselves up, be able to lift and carry a 'reasonable' weight, to be able to get up and down from the ground or a chair, to sprint short distances, to run 10k and all of this on the spur of the moment without special preparation or warming up, and achievable into old age. Some of these are hard to achieve with a typical lifestyle, sat at a desk all day, driving from place to place etc. While this concept of fitness stems from our animal selves the reality is that we have to try and marry that innate heritage with all the other aspects of our life that seem to demand time and energy.

There are lots of ways to approach training with different levels of efficiency and efficacy to get in a physically fit state, and there are elements of technique or skill that need to be learned to be able to safely move around without injury - in truth these are aspects that should become so deeply ingrained that you don't have to think about it. But the hidden depths here go to maintaining a strong, healthy environment where you don't suffer in your efforts from exhaustion, hunger, injury, stress or weakness. Being fit isn't about breaking records. It's not what you can achieve on your best day, it's who you are on your worst.

The Manifesto

When I try to decide what to write next, I keep ending up looking for a higher level of abstraction. I can't talk about meals until I've talked about diet. I can't talk about exercise until I've talked about fitness. I can't talk about fitness until I've defined health. It's difficult even to talk about what's normal any more. In the US at least, being overweight is 'normal'. Looking to the general population to determine what is typical doesn't seem too smart to me. There is a distinction that is gaining traction between surviving and thriving. I seek to thrive. So what 'truths' do I hold to be self-evident?

• We need not become crippled as we age
• Illness is minor or rare
• You can lose weight and not be hungry
• You can build strength and not be sore
• You can always walk
• You can run for hours every day without injury
• The only things you need for sure are sun, sleep and water
• Performance need not be coupled with eating
• You can lift things every day, and recover rapidly from extreme effort
• You can maintain a calm, balanced mood
• You can find a way to include any vice
• Being healthy means being able to cope with occasional adversity
• Life is variable and multi-objective, there are no definitive optima
• Early-afternoon fatigue is not inevitable, nor any fatigue
• Most weather doesn't need to be avoided
• You don't have to crash or hit the wall when being active

I'm sure I can (and will) add more, but this seems the best way to get started on what I consider to be normal for me, and what I think is achievable by the vast majority of people. I also think, taken as a whole, the benefits of such a lifestyle often fulfil the deepest desires of many, while making a mockery of the excuses employed to avoid change. I know there are different challenges for different people, but I don't like to see people affirm their own helplessness for lack of information. So many messages are pervasive in our culture to the point where they aren't even questioned, but you can gain without pain, you can make a difference, you can have your cake and eat it. And if any of these things aren't true for you, that's your choice.