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.