PrimalPerformance

Human Nature Running Wild

Part 2. (MDA)

Could You Save Your Own Life?

help2(This is the second part of a four part series on fitness. Part 1: What Does it Mean to Be Fit?, Part 3: Modern Fitness Standards)

Yesterday, I explored the malleable meaning of fitness, including how our ideas of fitness (both reproductive and physical alike) have drastically changed over history. What began as a reliable indicator of a person’s ability to survive and provide for his or her family or tribe has lost its urgency, and becoming fit in the modern world is now a choice, rather than a necessity for reproductive survival.

Or is it?

 

Putting aside the potential long-term health and longevity benefits conferred by optimum human fitness (to be discussed later), there are still certain timeless, universal advantages to being fit. And no, I’m not talking about stuff like tool making, hunting, interpersonal combat, hard physical labor – all classic human activities that undoubtedly see a boost when the actor is fit, but they aren’t exactly ubiquitous in 2009. I’m talking about those fight-or-flight moments, those instances where time slows down and you’ve got to act – NOW – or risk probable death. Grok faced these moments, probably on a regular basis, and it was his level of physical fitness that determined whether he’d escape unscathed or lose his life. We face these moments, too, though perhaps not as regularly as Grok (though this depends on our station in life), and the survival mechanisms are exactly the same.

You can’t always reach for your cell phone and call the authorities, and sometimes you just can’t wait to be rescued. In these situations, the abilities to maneuver your body with precision, manipulate/lift/push/pull your own bodyweight without tiring too quickly, jump high and far enough to clear a few feet, swim for a few hundred meters, and maintain top running speed for a couple hundred meters are crucial for survival.

  • Grok might have ascended a tree to escape a massive grizzly bear who cannot follow, whereas I might climb the nearest tree to escape a rabid dog that’s off its lead. In both situations, you’d have to be able to pull your own bodyweight up to survive. Practice your pull-ups!
  • The rain gods were overly generous this season – the hills have turned to mud and the creek’s trickle has grown to a torrent. A flash flood strikes camp, and Grok has under a minute to gather his family and get to higher ground. If he were a bachelor without dependents, escape would require little fitness; as it stands now, he’s got to carry the remains of last night’s kill over one shoulder and his little scamp of a son in the other, and haul ass to higher ground with over a hundred pounds of added weight headed up an incline. A strong core and lower body are absolute essentials.
  • Natural disasters and other incidentals might be less devastating with our modern infrastructure in place (although that can’t always be relied upon; see Katrina, Hurricane), but there will always be occasion to carry something precious and heavy to safety (if not a bloody bison, perhaps a flatscreen, or your chest freezer full of grass fed meat) under extreme physical duress. Imagine being out on a hike with your significant other, and he or she breaks a bone, gets bitten by a venomous snake, or is knocked unconscious. Your cell phone has no reception and your partner’s losing blood fast. What do you do? You’d better hope you can support their weight and make the hike back out.
  • And if Grok gets swept away in the flood? He’d better be a strong swimmer. Same goes for you, modern Grok. You can’t always expect a lifeguard to be on duty and, unless a life vest is part of your daily attire, you should know how to tread water and swim. Oh, and swimming fully clothed is a little different than swimming in shorts, so plan for that.
  • A couple of unsavory-looking fellows are trailing you on the street, and you know something isn’t right. Rather than let them catch up and (possibly) brandish weaponry, you decide to make your getaway at the next intersection. If you’ve been doing your sprints, you could turn the corner and take off. By the time they turned the corner, you’d be long gone. If you’re just waddling along, though, unable to run, you’re a sitting duck.
  • Then there’s the “organ reserve” aspect which argues that as you become more fit (read in this case: have more muscle) your organs (heart, lungs, kidney, liver, immune system, etc) must keep pace with that fitness and improve in their own functionality. Imagine, despite your hypervigilance, you fall off a ladder or are involved in a car crash and suffer severe injuries. Your fitness – and your organ reserve – may make the difference between your making it to the hospital or not. That same fitness would also play a role in the speed and quality of your recovery.

These are, of course, extreme examples. Most of them are unlikely to ever befall us, and I seriously hope they never do. But that doesn’t diminish the fact that these have happened, do happen, and will probably happen again, or that they negatively impact our survival – our reproductive fitness. One commenter on yesterday’s post asked about competency in fitness – “What’s ‘competent’ to mean these days, anyway?” – and I think the ability to save your own life in an immediate (however rare) crisis should be the absolute baseline for general competency. After all, what’s more truly indicative of one’s fitness (the ability to survive and reproduce) than being able to call upon said fitness to extricate oneself from a dangerous situation. That should be the absolute minimum.

So, I count manipulating your own weight (including pulling, climbing, pushing), supporting someone else’s weight while walking, swimming, and sprinting as the fundamental abilities any competently fit person interested in surviving dangerous situations should possess. I’m sure I’m missing at least a few more, though, so I’d love to hear from readers: what other physical abilities do you consider crucial for survival, especially in this modern world?

Now that I’ve established a tentative baseline standard for human fitness, tomorrow I’ll be exploring the other ways we can classify and compartmentalize effective, proper physical fitness. Is there an ultimate standard for optimum fitness? Check back tomorrow!

January 29, 2011 Posted by | Fairway | Leave a comment

Mark Sisson: What Does it Mean to Be Fit?

What Does it Mean to Be Fit?

modernathlete(This is the first part of a four part series on fitness. Part 2: Could You Save Your Own Life?, Part 3: Modern Fitness Standards)

fit-ness

\ˈfit-ness\

n.

  1. The capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms
  2. The ability to conduct oneself in physically demanding situations; to function effectively in emergencies; to display superior body composition and aptitude in matters of strength, cardiovascular capacity, power expression, reaction time, speed, agility, flexibility; to evince generally superior health and resistance to injury and disease

 

In Grok’s time, both definitions of fitness were inextricably linked. In fact, I’d argue a Paleolithic hominid organism’s reproductive fitness almost completely relied upon his physical fitness level, whereas today’s humans wield various currencies, both immaterial and tangible, that predict their reproductive fitness irrespective of their physical strength, stamina, or endurance. A person’s bank account, education, or employment status are all considered to be better predictors of reproductive fitness. The ability to whip out a debit card and pay for a cart full of groceries matters more than the ability to kill, butcher, and carry a deer. We pay monthly rent to a landlord rather than having to build a domicile out of heavy stones with our own two hands. With regard to reproductive fitness understand that evolution doesn’t so much care how strong you are or how fast you can run when all of your needs are met. Another way to illustrate this is to look at early examples of agrarian societies (e.g. Egyptians). You find that as soon as Homo sapiens had abundant sources of calories that were easy to cultivate and store (read grains) they became shorter, and exhibited bad teeth, decreased bone density and diseases that weren’t seen prior. The irony is that the cheap sources of calories that enabled us to easily reach reproductive age and eventually populate the world with billions upon billions of people is the root cause of modern man’s ill health and poor fitness. I could go on with examples, of course, but my main point is this: physical fitness no longer determines reproductive fitness. It has changed from requirement to elective. Being big, strong, fast, and agile is certainly beneficial to us (and even attractive to the opposite sex), but it isn’t necessary – let alone expected.

What, then, happens to our definition of physical fitness? If physical fitness is no longer a vital aspect of our essential humanness, what does it mean, exactly, to be fit?

I often talk about “functional fitness,” or fitness that enhances one’s ability to effectively function in a given environment. But that functionality is malleable, and the form it assumes is totally dependent on the environmental pressures being exerted. In other words, the required “functions” are always changing based on circumstance, and the “fitness” that allows these functions to be performed must change along with them.

I’ll give an example to illustrate my point. The body compositions of Roman gladiators were actually a far cry from those of the sub-10% BF, muscle-bound model-actors depicting them in movies; helped along by a diet high in barley and other grains, real Roman gladiators were sheathed in a substantial protective layer of subcutaneous body fat. To us, they would have looked like your average CW-touting slob, but in reality, they possessed incredible functional fitness – it’s just that they existed in an extremely narrow environmental niche, wherein the right amount of adipose tissue protected against serious wounds without compromising one’s ability to swing a mace or thrust a trident. Thus, a functionally fit body composition, for the Roman gladiators, was pudgy, bulky, and dense. But were they fit, in the broader sense? They might survive the arena, but would they reach old age, or would the effects of a grain-based diet eventually catch up with them?

That opens up another can of worms: isn’t overall health an aspect of fitness? The gladiator example is an extreme one (heck, their entire fitness regimen was predicated upon the assumption that they would be bludgeoned, stabbed, and sliced on a regular basis; these guys weren’t exactly thinking about their long term health!), but the extreme endurance athlete might be more suitable and applicable. As you guys know, I used to be one of them, running a hundred miles a week and training for hours daily at my peak. And unlike the gladiators, I actually looked to be in great physical health. I had almost no body fat, an impeccable resting heart rate (38 bpm), a relatively high VO2 max and I qualified for the 1980 Olympic trials as a marathoner, but I wasn’t healthy. I was constantly sick, my joints ached, my feet hurt, and my body was inflamed from all the simple carbs I had to eat to support my training. For my environment niche (endurance training), yeah, I was fit, even functionally so. But in terms of that other, somewhat wider environmental niche, the one that encompasses health, happiness, longevity, physical strength, agility, power, and resistance to disease? I was a mess. I wasn’t fit at all. Grok would have kicked me out when he saw I couldn’t haul a hundred pounds of bison back to camp without wincing and complaining about my knees.

I think we have to include health in the definition of proper fitness, especially if we’re talking about Primal fitness. There’s no point to lifting twice your body weight, running a sub-6 minute mile, and doing twenty consecutive pull-ups if you aren’t going to live a long, full life. With that in mind, I think true physical fitness must be functional across a broad spectrum of environmental pressures – no highly specialized gladiators or marathoners allowed – while still promoting optimum health and longevity. And I’ll admit – I can’t think of a time period in which greater varieties of functional abilities were demanded than the thousands of years before agriculture. Grok and company were the ultimate practitioners of a type of functional fitness that encompassed most, if not all of the parameters laid out in the dictionary definition up above. Competent strength, power, speed, agility, balance, flexibility, and cardiovascular endurance were essential attributes for our hunter-gatherer ancestors as they hunted, stalked, foraged, lifted, hauled, threw, climbed, and jumped. They were essential attributes for reproductive fitness and survival of the species.

Okay, but we don’t live in the Paleolithic anymore and, as I said earlier, we don’t have those same environmental pressures demanding we be able to jump high, run fast, and lift heavy things. How, then, has fitness changed from the theoretical past to the present?

Isn’t fitness, in an objective sense, entirely dependent on environment? If finances matter more than might, and education predicts success more often than does foot speed, does that render the old ideals of fitness irrelevant?

Or has the objectively ideal physical fitness remained the same? Just as our bodies do better when we eat, sleep, and mitigate stress like our Primal ancestors, do they also improve when we achieve Grok’s physical fitness? Is a balanced, measured, all-around competency suited for a wide range of environments and experiences the best marker for general fitness, regardless of financial status?

Is physical fitness truly necessary, or is it just another form of tourism?

I think you probably know my answers to all these questions. I’m eager to hear your thoughts, so hit me up with a comment. Thanks, everyone!

January 29, 2011 Posted by | Fairway | Leave a comment

New Experiment Starts Soon!

Back Squat Babyback

This will be a 4 or 5 week experiment involving the Back Squat. Here is just a hint but we will be combining the Fod. sequence with some of Louie Simmons’ D.E. % training. The main Goal of this experiment to increase the the absolute strength of the back squat. Eyes Open. 🙂

January 25, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jan 24 2011

Skill

Running 360 change up x 10

WOD

A)

800m AFAP

B)

FOD BenchPress

13 – 8 – 5 – 3 – 2 – 1 – 1

C)

75 Sit Ups For Time

January 24, 2011 Posted by | Fairway, Primal WOW | Leave a comment

Bench Mark Workout #1

WOD

Max Rds in 24 min:

400m run

10 Burpees

5 Power Clean and Jerk @ 95/65

 

Standings:

Ian – 6 rds

Becky – 3 rds + 400m + 10b

Massie – 3 rds + 400m + 10b

Greg – 5 rds + 400m

Dereck – 5 rds

Kathaleen – 1 rd + 400m +10b

January 24, 2011 Posted by | Bench Mark Workouts, Fairway, Primal WOW | Leave a comment

Updates!

coming tomorrow… ;p

January 18, 2011 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jan 10 2011

Skill:

Super Slow Push Ups

2 x 3 (10:1:10)

WOD

Fib. Deadlift

13(vl) – 8 – 5 – 3 – 2(h) – 1(h) – 1(h)

Rest only as long as is required

January 10, 2011 Posted by | Fairway, Primal WOW | Leave a comment

Jan 7 2011

Skill

Handstand Push Ups Extended ROM (For Body Control)

3 x 3 x 3

WOD

A)

“Jack” (Modified)

Max Rds in 15 minutes:

10 Push Press (95/65)

10 KB Swings

10 Obstacle Jumps

B)

Sprint Exp.

1 x 60m @ 80%

1 x 100m @ 80%

1 x 60m @ 95%

R.A.N.

January 10, 2011 Posted by | Fairway, Primal WOW | Leave a comment

Jan 5 2011

Skill:

Weighted Push Ups

1 x 2 x 3 x 4

WOD

A)

D.E. Back Squat @ 60%

10 x 2 on the minute

B)

Survival Pull Up Hold

5 x 20 seconds

January 10, 2011 Posted by | Fairway, Primal WOW | Leave a comment

Jan 3 2011

Skill:

OH Barbell Walk x 50m @ 45-105

WOD

A)

7 Rds For Time

3 Front Squats (Bergner Style) @ 95/65

7 Horizontal Pull Ups

B)

Sprint Exp.

1 x 100m

2 x 200m Shuttle (50m/150m)

R.A.N.

January 3, 2011 Posted by | Fairway, Primal WOW | Leave a comment