Einstein Von Smartypants

This post came to life after I read an email from my homeboy Jason Struck. He sent me a solid, detailed critique of my squat and DL videos from the weekend, which I found very helpful. It was less what he said and more how he SAID IT, though, that stuck with me. Jason wrote, in part, “I hate seeing excess (squat) hip flexion, because nine times out of ten it's just a matter of time before you get taco'd”.

YES. I can see how too much hip flexion would potentially lead to a taco-ing. And I understand that becoming a human barbell taco is not desirable. That concept will stay with me the next time I squat, and I guarantee my lift will be better for it. See, aside from the fact that Jason is a good coach, I send him all my videos because I really like the way he SAYS things.

I do a lot of reading and research on subjects of interest - diet, programming, exercises, anatomy. I talk to many different people, too, on all kinds of fitness related subjects. But I tend to keep coming back to advice, feedback and recommendations from the same two or three people. And that has less to do with how well spoken they are, or how smart, or how much coaching experience they have... it comes down to how they TALK to me. Let me give you an example.

When I first started to intermittent fast (IF), I did a lot of reading on the subject. Two web sites in particular offered very good introductions to the concept of IF. The first was from Scott Kustes of the Modern Forager, who offered a series of posts on the basics of Intermittent Fasting. The second was from Mike O’Donnell of The IF Life, who ran a post called “Intermittent Fasting 101”.

I read both Scott and Mike’s posts in full*.

*PANTS ON FIRE. I read about six sentences of the Modern Forager post before something shiny stole my attention. I think, specifically, it was this sentence that did me in: “Due to the lack of the glucose-6-phosphatase enzyme, muscle glycogen is only available to the muscle in which it is stored… but liver glycogen is readily available to any body cells.” Now, I started out as a biology major in college. I had three years of endocrinology, physiology and other various –ologies before I switched over to business. It’s not that I don’t understand the science behind a post like this.

I just get bored. I don’t care about the science behind it, and I don’t care about why it works - I just want to know how to MAKE IT WORK (and then Black Box it for myself). When I headed over to The IF Life… bingo. Nothing technical, nothing in-your-face smartypants, just stuff like this: “Intermittent fasting is just taking times of fast (no food) and working them into your lifestyle. Benefits include improving insulin resistance … and giving the body a chance to do some internal cleaning (or housework), which can lead to improved immune function and overall health.” And then Mike gave me a link to scientific studies, in case I wanted to read more. Which I did not.

Now, Scott Kustes is one of the smartest and most respected health and fitness bloggers on the web. I’ve read plenty of his posts. But I tend to read the simple ones, not the science-y ones. That’s just how I operate. And not just with research – I respond the same way to lots of things, like training feedback. Which brings me back to why I gravitate towards certain people when seeking training help.

As another example, I’ve read lots of "how to squat" articles. LOTS. And I've received tons of feedback about how to improve my squat. One such tip focused on the knees: “The knees buckle not because the abductors are weak and can’t pull the knees out to the side, but because the adductors are weak and can’t assist to lift the weight.So the knees narrow to compensate for these weak adductors by allowing the quads to do more work.” Excellent, on-point commentary… that made my eyes glaze over. I mean, I read it, and it made sense, but the statement is just too damn intellectual for its own good. I completely forgot the entire substance (and the point) four seconds later, and it certainly didn’t stay with me during my next squat workout.

As compared to direction that DID stick with me, from Jon Gilson: “Push your fucking knees out.”

Now THAT, I get. He didn’t get into the anatomy and physiology the squat, but I also didn’t ask him about that, because I really didn't care. I just want to know what it is, and how to apply it. And Jon told me what it is (knees out) and how to apply it (push). That advice has stuck with me for months now, and I think about it every time I get under the bar.

Now there is a common thread here – I must have read enough or researched enough ahead of time to know that there is at least SOME evidential scientific support for the things I’m doing. I’m not just trying IF on a whim, I’d read enough to know there were potential benefits. And I’m not just going to do whatever a trainer tells me – I knew from reading SS that “knees out” was a valid squat cue. My point is that AFTER the fact, give it to me straight and simple, and don’t start mucking it up by throwing in big words or mathematical equations.

I envy people that can get into the more scientific, technical aspects of exercise theory. In fact, I NEED to pay more attention to that aspect of my training, if for no other reason than some of my clients are going to demand this level and quality of information from me. There is no question that if I had asked Jon, “Why?” he would have been able to explain, in detail, why he was giving me that cue. I need to be able to do that too – I can’t just say, “Because that’s what Jon told ME to do”.

So to that end, I am going back and re-reading some of the studies I’ve passed over, and paying more attention to those people who offer me technical feedback and advice. It’s not that Fun for me, but I’m treating it like school – like studying. This is just another way I can turn myself into a better coach. So please, continue to wax all scientific-y about whatever subjects you wish. Send me links, give me details, expound on theories. But don’t be offended if I’ve tuned you out by the time you can say, “glycogen replenishment”. It’s still a work in progress.

Buy-in

• Jump rope, 1:37
• Cough, 0:58 straight (PR)
• KTEs x 10

I decided to take an easy day, as I'm still not feeling 100%. This gave me the opportunity to try something I've been meaning to try for weeks now - the high-bar back squat. Per my trainer's instructions, sets of 5, take video, and don't go above 100#. SWEET.

High-Bar BS 5x5

• Warm-up 10@45#, 5@65#

• 5@75@
• 5@85#
• 5@95#
• 5@95#
• 5@100#

This. Felt. Awesome. There is NO doubt about my depth here, video showed every rep was way below parallel. Chest was up, far less hip flexion, it was easier to P.M.F.K.O. (thanks, Jon) and I was able to drive with my heels very effectively. I might be in love.

And by the way - I'm not looking for a single piece of advice on this topic - high bar vs. low bar. I've read, I've researched, and what it comes down to is this - whatever feels better is what I'll end up doing. I am a 34 year old woman training for NOTHING, so as long as I'm squatting in some fashion, I am 100% satisfied.

Bench Press, 3x5

• Warm-up 10@45#, 5@55#

• 5@70#
• 5@75#
• 5@75#

I've never done a bench press 1RM. Maybe I should.

Cash out:

• Pistols (unweighted), 5L/5R (trailing foot never hits the ground)
• Sots pistols (15# DB), 3L/3R
• 1,000 shrugs (not really, but if I keep high-bar squatting, I'm gonna need some more meat up there)