7 Lies About Fitness

You'll notice I didn't use the word "myth".  When someone knowingly proffers false information, they are lying.  These lies are not harmless and every January, they cause an epidemic of disappointment.

I am not a medical professional or a "fitness expert", but you need not be.  The information is readily available at this point.  One need only look for sources without a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

1. In just 30 minutes a day, you can...
   This should be fairly obvious from the fact it is a sales pitch, but in truth most of the entries on this list are actually sales pitches of some type.  Actually going to the gym will always take longer than 30 minutes. 
   
   But, if we assume that you are working out and home, and already wearing whatever you are going to work out in, and are not stiff, injured, or doing something that should be preceded by a warm-up... then, yes, 30 minutes of physical activity will be helpful.  A good cardio session shouldn't really last longer than 30 minutes or so.
   
2. "targeted fat loss"
   This is simple not possible.  Your body stores fat where it does.  Primarily, fat is stored in locations where it is unlikely to impede movement.  Storing fat is a survival mechanism for mammals.  Your body will do whenever given the opportunity.  Evolution was far more concerned about living to spring than it was about looking good in summer.
   
3. "miracle food", superfood, "this one food", etc.
   Although advertisers change the nomenclature every few years as one phrase becomes an obvious lie, one food will never make up for an otherwise bad nutritional intake.  There are micro-nutrients that will improve your health, some foods have a slightly higher percentage of said micro-nutrients than others.  However, if your macro-nutrients are not inline with your lifestyle, no micro-nutrient is going to help.
   
4. "Ideal weight"
   Your body weight has nothing to do with your fitness level.  If you have not seen comparative pictures of different people with the same weight and height at different fitness levels, I recommend Google.  As many BMI calculators only use these two numbers, "ideal BMI" is also a lie.
   
   Humans do not have an "ideal weight".  Body weight is simply the easiest measurement to get.  The mirror, the tape measure, and a body fat percentage measurement are all far better metrics.  Consistently taking these measurements can be difficult, but it is certainly better than the negative feedback loop the scale too often causes.  We also overlook the inconsistency of body weight measurements.  Your body weight fluctuates during the day.  If you want to track that measurement, do so with the same attention to detail as they other measurements (i.e. at the same of day with the same timeframe since your last meal).
   
5. Any "diet"
   The word diet has too meanings: the useful one and the label given to a plan to ruin lives.  Often, those with good intentions will simply stop using the word and instead use the word "nutrition".  A diet is the combination of calorie sources and their amounts that an individual consumes.  If you want to lose weight, you maintain a caloric deficit, you do not "diet".  A caloric deficit cannot be maintained without causing harm, period.
   
   Diet and exercise cannot be separated.  "Caloric deficit" and "caloric surplus" cannot be calculated without knowing both caloric intake and caloric expenditure.  There is not a set number of calories a human should consume a day.  The calculators that are available make many assumptions.  Know what those assumptions are.  Know your body.  Know your resting heart rate.  Know your lifestyle.  There is a possibility that you are somewhere near the averages used.  Probability distributions are exactly that.  Find your point on the curve.
   
6. "X is only y calories"
   I am not going to assume anything about an individuals dietary preferences.  I think we have all witnessed someone that eats poorly while discussing weight loss or "getting in shape".  You can eat whatever you wish.  However, if your goals and your actions are contradictory, change one of them.
   
   "Cheat meals", "rewards", etc. can only be effectively used by people with very good self control.  They are not a step in the path between a bad diet and a good one.
   
   In many cases, the number of calories is simply a matter of some nonsensical serving size.  There are some regulations in this regard, but it is still easy to find labels with 2 or 3 on packages obviously designed for individual consumption.
   
   However, even if you find a 100 calorie brownie.  Don't eat it.  There is nothing good about it.  If you manage to bake a 100 calorie brownie, call me.  If you want a brownie/doughnut/nutrient-low, fat or sugar source, eat one.  Don't rationalize it.  Own it.  Add it into your caloric intake and adjust accordingly.
   
7. Cardio, cardio, cardio...
   This does not effect as many people, but it is insipid.  In the beginning of January, thousands of people go to the gym and get on treadmills.  "Cardio" is usually a mislabeling.  Improving your cardiovascular conditioning is important.  However, it is only one part of a fitness regimen.  By all means get on that treadmill.  Spend 30 minutes with an elevated heart rate.
   
   However, I have never met a person that likes steady-state cardio.  It is boring.  It has many positive effects, but has limits.  It simply can't be the sum total of your caloric expenditures.

In short there isn't an easy answer, and there isn't an answer that works for everyone.  If someone claims otherwise, they are lying to you.

Know your goals.  Find people that have accomplished those goals.  Try to follow the plan those people used.  It may not work for you.  Adapt.  If your goal is to look athletic, do athletic things.  If you are trying a routine, plan, whatever, and you hate it, it's not going to work for you.  You can find a way to enjoy it.  I have often commented on the "level up" mentality I use.  That might not appeal to you.  Try something else.  Try several things.

When the fangs come out

In the last few weeks, I have been reminded of something. I have a very unenlightened reaction to certain stimuli. Of particular note, my reaction to a male attacking a female is barbaric.

And so, I am writing to my brothers.

Perhaps your reactions are different than mine.  Let me put it simply.  I am far from a violent man.  However, a male that raises his hand to a female is not a man; he is something to be knocked down.  If a male would dare to force himself upon a female, he has turned against himself and against us all.

I am very capable of embracing vengeance.  I am very capable of giving in to anger.  I am very capable of turning a blind eye to vigilante justice.  I am very capable of considering horrible treatment of other human beings.  A male attacking a female causes all of these effects.

We need to remember what we are. When a predator appears, we don't invite it in. We stand between it and what we hold dear.  We stand up so that others have the courage to.  We stand up so that those that can't are protected.  We stand because it is what we are.


Perhaps my views are antiquated.  I accept that and embrace them.  I know very well my sisters are not waiting for some "white knight".  I have no desire to be anyone's "white knight".  I want us all to be better.  I want us to weed out those that make us lesser.  I want to live in a world where I can call all men my brothers.

The myth of millenials

I think it's time we start talking about something so we can stop talking about it.  The term "generation" as a macro-unit has no real basis.  There are historical events that contribute to the collection experience of a group of people.  However, if we think about that for a moment, we will realize why the term "generation" is of little use.

Let us take the "Greatest Generation".  Now depending on what system you use for breaking up "generations" (after all it's completely arbitrary), you may choose to group everyone born between 1910 and 1924 in this group.  You can choose large and smaller groups if you wish.  The grouping does not separate into socioeconomic background, locality, or any other measure.

If we choose to consider this "group", it includes a male born in Harlem, New York in 1924 and a female born in Oklahoma in 1910.  Is there any way we can realistically consider this the same group of people?  However, as everyone else seems to be, let's continue.  The defining historical events in the United States that would have effected these people's lives were the Great Depression and two world wars.  Someone born in 1910 may very well have seen their older siblings leave for the Great War.  Their childhood would have been peppered with influenza outbreaks.  In 1929, when they were just starting to build their adult life, the economy and agriculture would collapse.  A person born in 1924 would be 4 or 5.

A child growing up hungry or with parents looking for work would not remember much else.  They would not look upon the New Deal as an uplifting, they would be children.  We must also remember that not everyone was out of work.  Millions of people all having their own experiences.  Even labeling them the "Greatest Generation" it is still a disservice.

And so let us, go forward.  A male born in 1924 would likely have been headed to war.  Again, however, not everyone did.  Let us, however, assume that somewhere between 1941 and 1945 this individual was shipped out.  Did he volunteer?  Was he an officer or enlisted?  Which front did he serve on?  I think we can all agree that the experiences of a fighter pilot stationed in Europe and a Marine sent to Okinawa would tell two very different stories with the commonality of "awful".

Even if we consider all war stories equivalent.  A women born in 1910 would have experienced the war very differently.  She would probably have children by 1941.  She may have even had teenagers talking about the war in her living room by the time it ended.  I can only guess at this woman's story and hope that she has gotten the opportunity to tell it.

Now, it is 2017.  The number of people in the United States and on the planet has skyrocketed in the last 50 years.  People who like labels are now grouping the people born between 1980 and 1994.  Again, there is no separation based on socioeconomic group or any other measure.  People write articles about this "group" as if they all share one personality.  It is as asinine as astrology and has as little actual data to back it up.

Why would anyone claim that a child growing up impoverished and a child of the aristocracy ever have the same experience?  Why would you pay for this "market research"?  How can someone who was 7 years old have had the same reaction to 2001 as someone who was 21?  How can you compare the reactions of someone that watched the Internet take shape to someone that has always had access to it?

And what has this "market research" brought us?  All I've seen is a collection of stereotypes thrown around.  The same stereotypes that have been thrown at the young for generation after generation.  I was born in 1976.  Depending on which arbitrary nomenclature you use, I am either Generation X or Generation Y.  In either case, we were "self-entitled" or "self-absorbed" just 15 years ago.  15 years before that, a group of people were labeled the "Me Generation".  You can find op-ed pieces penned in the 1920's that indicate the same about our forebears (although with some Puritan rhetoric thrown in).

People are not different simply based on the year they were born, anymore than they are different based on the month they were born.  I am not Gen X or Gen Y anymore than I a WASP or a Gemini.

You want to know what an individual born between 1980 and 1994 is like?  Talk to that individual.