Easter Sunday and What it Sadly Reveals About American Culture

Last year, as part of a larger effort, I committed myself to attending church regularly, a promise my grandparents welcomed.  The impetus was to improve personal accountability, and lend shape to my formless religious views.  The ongoing experience has taught me much, but what Easter Sunday revealed gives me cause for concern.  Far from the exception, the behavior displaced that Sunday contributes to why the United States holds the following world rankings:

·      11^th in “working hard";

·      12^th in prosperity;

·      14^th in education and 17^th in education performance;

·       19^th in national satisfaction and

·       24^th in literacy.

(Don’t worry, the United States still leads the world in the following: incarcerations, death by violence, wine consumption and breast augmentation).

Allow me to explain.

Too many “Christians” allow their “faith” to revolve around three days – Christmas, Palm Sunday and Easter – while relegating the remaining days to an afterthought.  For these persons, attendance at three services marks them “good Christians,” the quintessential “check the box” exercise.  Three out of fifty-two – 5%.  No one experiences success with 5% attendance!  Looking more broadly, this behavior is but a sad reflection of a larger societal problem.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that an estimated 5 million to 7.5 million American students miss nearly a month of school each year, a phenomenon known as “chronic absenteeism.”   According to the group “Attendance Works” a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, the consequences of missed school days are apparent when analyzing student test scores.  Case in point, fourth grade absentee students scored, on average, 12 points lower on reading assessments, and the threat posed by chronic absenteeism only becomes more serious as children age, correlating to higher dropout rates and failure to complete college.  And while there is plenty of blame to go around, the fact remains that society, as a whole, is also at fault.

It is time to rethink the example we are setting, and demonstrate higher levels of commitment.  Visiting the gym for two weeks in January and two weeks in March – to fulfill New Year’s Resolutions and prepare for spring break vacations, respectively – is insufficient.  So is attending church three times a year, “only when it matters.”

Every.  Day.  Matters.

Sun Tzu Didn’t Encourage Coddling or Cuddling

A colleague recently forwarded me a somewhat dated article from The Atlantic entitled, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” which explains a new breed of political correctness is gaining momentum on American college and university campuses.  The student-led movement is driven by an avert desire to avoid the “triggering” of negative emotional responses, whether in lecture or during student-life.  Though conceived surely with the best of intentions, the movement is devolving into a monster that would repulse even Victor Frankenstein (“Accursed creator!  Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?”).

Indeed, as the article explains, during the 2014-2015 school year, the deans and department chairs at the ten University of California schools were presented with examples of “microaggressions,” defined as “small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought as a kind of violence nonetheless.”  Such inflammatory rhetoric included, “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” two pillars of the U.S. identity.

Maybe former Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight should have yelled "trigger warning" before turning his chair into a projectile. 

Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist and philosopher stresses the importance of “know[ing] yourself” in the “Art of War,” while cautioning “if you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”  As evident from The Atlantic article, a certain portion of college students are sadly unaware of the qualities that made – and make – the United States an economic and political superpower.

Capitalism, for all its faults, is the superior modality for producing economic and political growth, yet its success demands persons challenge convention and embrace competition.  American icons like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Thomas Edison, Martin Luther King, Jr., Walt Disney and Steve Jobs recognized this – they pushed limits, suffered setbacks and pressed onward.   The idea that college campuses must become “safe spaces” “where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable” is a direct affront to American capitalism.  General George S. Patton said it best when addressing the Third Army, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.  Americans play to win all the time.  I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lose and laughed.  That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war, because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.”

Are there times when sensitivity is required?  Absolutely.  “Zero tolerance” policies are needed to clamp down on bullying, both in the school yard and on social media.  Triggering warnings are necessary on forums where victims of traumatic events, like sexual assault, gather.  But to apply these practices perpetually serves only to promote a culture of emotional, intellectual and likely physical weakness.  “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”  Proverb 27:17.

If future generations of Americans desire to compete in the ever-expanding global workplace, this movement must be abandoned, and replaced with Sun Tzu’s teachings.  The strength of the United States and American capitalism rests not in its political correctness, but in its immigrant past, where men and women strove to create better lives for themselves and their families.  And to their credit this they achieved, but the younger generation owes it to the “tired . . . poor . . . [and] huddle masses,” who worked in the coal mines, steel mills and textile factories to build this nation, to advance their legacy.  The United States is the greatest country on earth, but “uneasy lies that head that wears a crown.”

“Sometimes You Gotta Say, 'What the Fuck?'”

A few years ago I stumbled across an article Dan John wrote entitled, “The ‘One Lift a Day’ Program.”  The unconventional philosophy John advocated therein, specifically the uber simplicity and greater emphasis on recovery, captured my attention.  Explaining the program’s roots lie “in the dim past of Olympic lifting,” John warned the program is void of excuses, “relief” and diversity.  “If you choose to do squats, it’s a squat day,” he writes.

Having experimented with John’s philosophy for almost six months now, I guarantee I will never train differently.  But as the author eluded, this program is rugged.  Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays are particularly brutal in my schedule, as those are my “squat day[s].”  Tuesdays and Saturdays are reserved for Olympic lifting and heavier pulling, while Thursdays and Sundays are focused on upper body strength.  My basic template is outlined below.  I concede a few days include multiple lifts, but there is a reason for this approach.

Monday – Back Squat

Tuesday – Snatch

Wednesday – Front Squat and Back Squat

Thursday – Press, Weighted Pull-up

Friday – Back Squat

Saturday – Clean, Deadlift

Sunday “Funday” – Overhead Squat or Bench

Coming from an Olympic weightlifting background, I believe the squat – particularly the back squat – is the basis for all strength, hence its title the “King of All Exercises.”  To paraphrase John Broz, squatting makes your entire organism strong.  Thus, my program reflects this wisdom.  On Monday, for example, I may program pause back squats for sets of five, either working up to the heaviest five-rep maximum (“5rm”) achievable that day or preforming multiple sets at between 85-90% of my current 5rm.  Assuming I work up in progressively heavier sets to chase the heaviest possible load, I will then drop down to 80% and perform several “down sets” or “back-offs.”  The purpose of these lighter sets is to groove better positions and accumulate additional training volume.  By the end of an average session, I have usually compiled 10-12 total sets, with at least six over 80% of my daily maximum or all-time 5rm.  After squats are complete, I will perform 3-5 sets of glute ham raises or reverse hypers, typical “assistance lifts.”

Other training days tend to follow a similar pattern, albeit lower volume for pressing exercises – my upper body simply cannot handle the same training volume as my legs.  I have also experimented with super-setting vertical pressing with vertical pulling, i.e. “standing military” presses and weighted pull-ups.  Coupling exercises in this fashion was a favorite of Arnold’s, and “the Governor” knows a thing or two about getting yacked.  Alternating back and forth between pulling and pressing movements provides excellent “density” to my training and increases my work capacity, especially when rest periods are capped at two minutes.

Repetitions on the Olympic lifts are usually limited to three or less, but I have experimented with fives in both the power clean and power snatch.  I paired deadlifts with cleans, because I find the latter optimally primes my nervous system for heavier pulls.  The “pump” I feel in my spinal erectors following thirty minutes of power cleans gives me greater confidence to attempt heavier deadlifts, and it eliminates the need to “warm up” a second exercise.  Again, this approach optimizes my time spent in the gym.

If I work at a reasonable pace, keeping rest times under three minutes – until the heaviest sets – I can complete a high volume of strength work in 45 minutes.  This leaves me 15 minutes to condition, more than enough time to punish myself on the airdyne, rowing machine or ski erg.

Since adopting this training philosophy, my strength has increased significantly – 50# on my back squat and 45# on my front squat, for example – but more importantly, I look forward to lifting each day.  Gone are the days of “snatch, clean and jerk, back squat, push press, etc.”  True to his word, John’s approach allows more time for mobility and recovery, which are becoming ever more important for me now that I’m in my 30’s.  If you find your lifting has plateaued and your enthusiasm has waned, you must consider experimenting with the “One Lift a Day” Program.

Russian Cosmonauts, Daily Maximums and Kenny Rogers

Legend has it that the American government spent millions of taxpayer dollars developing the fabled “space pen” after discovering conventional, ink-based writing instruments fail to function properly in the absence of gravity.  Needless to say, this issue took on heightened importance amid the space race in the 1960s.  The legend goes to claim the Russians circumvented this obstacle by simply providing their cosmonauts with pencils.  Though this story is but pure myth, it underscores the importance of simplicity and relying on the optimal tool(s) for completing a task.

The same lesson is applicable to the programming of weightlifting and strength training.  Far too many athletes yearn to follow programs that are entirely inappropriate for their ability levels – cough, Smolov, cough.  Indeed, Smolov and other Russian, percentage-based programs are not appropriate for “beginners” or “intermediates,” as defined loosely by Mark Rippetoe’s “Starting Strength” standards, i.e. those not yet capable of squatting double bodyweight or pressing bodyweight-plus.  The argument for putting an intermediate on Smolov makes as much sense as trying to kill an ant with a trebuchet. 

So what is the alternative for these training populations?  Instead of adhering to percentages, I prescribe daily training maximums, with a wide variety of repetition ranges (3-20, depending on the exercise).  I believe this “looser” philosophy offers the following advantages:

(1) Flexibility.  It stands to reason no one reading this blog is a professional athlete, thus all are juggling multiple responsibilities: work, school, the dreaded “work-and-school” combination, family, social obligations, etc.  The commitments and stress stemming from these obligations impacts training and recovery, almost always for the worse.  Building in the flexibility to account for a weekend business trip or a long night in the office is prudent when thinking long-term.  Otherwise an athlete runs the risk of going too heavy – or even maximum – under less than optimal conditions.

(2) Enthusiasms.  A positive attitude is important for maintaining consistency in the training hall, and without consistency, progress cannot occur.  To upregulate enthusiasm, I recommend taking heavier-than-planned attempts, provided the mind and body are aligned.  Many coaches I have trained under subscribe to a similar philosophy, and that's the magic of training with someone in the flesh, as opposed to over the Internet.  More often than not, the days I expect the least are the days I enjoy the best results – and not necessarily personal records, just better-than-expected.

(3) Kenny Rogers.  Everyone knows the song, “The Gambler,” and its prose carry over to weightlifting and strength training – “You’ve got to know when to hold’em, Know when to fold’em, Known when to walk away, And know when to run.”  There are days when all aspects of training are on-point – asleep before ten, feast on a bevy of nutrient-dense foods, warm-up properly, etc. – but as weight is added to the bar, a problem emerges.  There is no “pop” or “zip” in the lifts; the bar speed is wanting.  It is just a bad day.  When faced with such diabolical luck, have the maturity to stop at 70-80% and the discipline to return the next day.

"Upgrading your software without damaging your hardware."

The title of this post comes courtesy of UFC champion fighter, Conor McGregor (above).

Scientific study confirms that aerobic exercise yields the following positive adaptations in athletes – reduced body fat levels, improved capillary function – the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to the heart and skeletal muscle, enhanced fat vs. carbohydrate metabolism and reduced mental health disorders, e.g., attention deficit disorder, depression, stress, anxiety and sleep deprivation.  Thus, all athletes stand to benefit from incorporating some form of conditioning in their training program.

“Conditioning” has taken many forms.  According to the Roman historian Vegetius, the legions were required to complete an eighteen-plus-mile march in less than five hours (mid-summer, in full battle gear).  He also writes of the recruiters proving their swimming abilities in nearby lakes or rivers.  In the more recent 20^th century, boxing trainers used “roadwork” – jogs at a slow, steady pace for 3-5 miles, 3-5 times per week – to condition fighters.  Now, with the explosion of Crossfit, and its philosophy of “increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains,” strength coaches are experimenting with all sorts of new approaches to conditioning.  Irrespective of philosophical differences, the common denominator behind all these approaches should be keeping the athlete healthy.  After all, an injured soldier cannot fight at full capacity, nor can an injured athlete compete at their highest level.

Running is indeed the most potent tool for conditioning the athlete – much like the back squat is for strength training – but faulty mechanisms can wreak havoc on the body, e.g., hamstrings, Achilles and shin splints, among others.  Concerns over how excessive volume might impair strength gains are also valid.  For these reasons, I prefer the C2 rower, airdyne and ski erg for monostructural metabolic conditioning.  All three implements allow for integral programming, which research has shown to be superior to “steady state” efforts.  In practice, the goal of conditioning is to drive the athlete’s heart rate north of 180 beats per minute for an extended period of time through shorter, intense bursts of effort.  The “secret ingredient” to maximizing effectiveness is – drum roll, please – hard work.  If the athlete does not reach beyond their comfort zone, the full benefits will not materialize.

For those unfamiliar with the airdyne, it is a truly brutal piece of conditioning equipment.  Completing 300 calories in less than ten minutes is widely considered an impressive level of conditioning for any athlete, though I would argue anything more than 225-250 is very good and likely more than sufficient.

To gain a better understanding of the intervals I program, I have included several examples below:

(1) One-minute sprint, one-minute rest, two-minute sprint, two-minute rest, three-minute sprint.  Done.

(2) Ten Rounds – one-minute sprint, one-minute rest.  (To survive, only perform the first 5-7 rounds at 90%).

(3) Two-minute sprint, four-minute rest, two-minute sprint.  Done.

(4) Three-minute effort at 90% negative split (perform the second half faster than the first), six-minute rest, three-minute sprint.

Additionally, here a few other workouts I program on the airdyne: (1) ten-minute effort for maximum calories, (2) 100 calories all out for time – goal is completing three minutes or less and (3) 3 Rounds: 50 calories as fast as possible, three-minute rest.

While not comprehensive, I hope this piece provides helpful information as to how an athlete might improve aerobic fitness, and potentially anaerobic fitness, without subjecting their body to unnecessary risks of injury.

“ . . . big hitter, the Lama . . .”

Mahatma Ghandi could have been a great squatter.  His lower body was "supple leopard-like" as Kelly Starrett would say, and he possessed great mental toughness, remarking famously,

"Strength does not come from physical capacity.  It comes from an indomitable will." Unfortunately, Ghandi's weightlifting career never materialized as he was preoccupied with leading the independence movement in then-British-controlled India.

But the idea of forging an "indomitable spirit" continues to swirl around in my head.  At the time of this writing, my streak of consecutive days squatting stands at thirty, and while progress has been alinear, my numbers are improving.  Last Monday, for example, my heaviest single was ten kilograms below my personal record (still over 90%), but four minutes later I set a personal record in the ten-rep max.  The daily challenge lies not just in squatting the heavy singles, but in performing the requisite back-off sets thereafter.  But when faced with adversity, I remember Ghandi's "indomitable spirit," and dig deep to finish the workout.

The next day, however, a new challenge awaits.  From my stool adjacent to the squat rack, I gaze upwards at the barbell, and whisper, "Hello, old friend. Care to dance?"

"Experts" – or “the keyboard samurai,” as I refer to them – routinely dismiss daily squat programs, pointing out most of athletes following such concepts are aided by performance-enhancing drugs.  In their view, this “revelation” undermines – and invalidates – the daily squat program in its entirety.  I have long disagreed with their conclusion, and rather than hide behind the safety of a computer screen and the anonymity of a username, I experimented.  The results were striking even without a seven-day-per-week commitment.

Cory Gregory of MusclePharm is preaching the gospel over at Bodybuilding.com, and his growing notoriety is well-deserved – the guy has squatted something like 500 days consecutively!  Take a look at his program with an open mind, and challenge your preconceived notions.

By happenstance, I caught an interview with entrepreneur Peter Sage who said, "A ship in a harbor is a safe ship, but that is not what ships are built for."  So true.  More men and women need to venture outside their comfort zone, and discover what Socrates meant by “the beauty and strength of which [their] body is capable.”  Only when faced with consistent adversity can an individual forge Ghandi’s “indomitable spirit” and gain true strength.

Men Embrace "the Strenuous Life"

Far too many in contemporary America equate beards and flannel with "manliness," but alas, a beard and flannel shirt do not a man make.  Though both are well-suited for Paul Bunyan and his fellow lumberjacks, neither have a place in the D.C. summer heat.  And while I'm at it, I implore all these "men" to donate their jeans to their local battered women's shelter.  They don't fit you, after all.

More manly?  I leave it to you to decide.

It is the opinion of the author that manliness necessitates an embracing of challenges, both intellectual and physical.  Callused hands and broken book bindings serve as sources of pride, the scars of battles waged and won.  In the song "Mountain Man," Alabama sings of climbing mountains, skinning cats and swimming rivers, not man-scaping beards and buying flannels at Urban Outfitters. 

It is Theodore Roosevelt, who best exemplifies manliness.  Blessed with possibly a photographic memory, Roosevelt demonstrated throughout his life a tremendous capacity for intellectual study.  While President, he regaled dinner guests with stories of the Hittite Empire or engaged them in discussions of the natural world, often quoting lengthy texts from memory.  But while his bottomless intellectual capacity was evident from an early age, his physical capacities languished behind.  At age eleven, Roosevelt's father admonished him, "Theodore, you have the mind but you have not the body, and without help of the body the mind cannot go as far as it should.  You must make your body.  It is hard drudgery to make one's body, but I know you will do it."  And so he did, or as Doris Kearns Goodwin writes, the name Theodore Roosevelt "became the synonym of virile health and vigor."

Over the course of his life, Roosevelt felled trees in the Maine backwoods, rounded up stray cattle in the Dakota Badlands, charged up San Juan Hill leading his Rough Riders and otherwise lived what his father called "the strenuous life."  All the while he toting his library, a book or two clenched under his arm.

Present-day America continues to deviate far from the course Roosevelt charted some hundred years ago.  We, as men, must return to living the strenuous life – challenging ourselves daily to reach new intellectual and physical heights.  It is not enough to squat the bar or skim the pages of "US Weekly," if we are capable of more.  No, the challenges must be formidable.  They must be capable of teaching us the lessons we cannot learn.

Present the mind and body with formidable challenges daily.