Matt Metzgar

Training Adaptation

If you give the body a new exercise stimulus, it will try to adapt.  This adaptation takes calories, more calories than usual.  This effect is temporary, however, as once the body adapts to the new stimulus, these extra calories will not be burned.

Here's an example.  Let's say a person runs 2 days a week.  Now they are going to add a third day of either running or biking.  Either choice will burn more calories and contribute to weight loss.  Yet if the person chooses biking, they will burn an extra dose of calories because the body is not accustomed to biking.

Now a person may think they have found the answer: biking = fat loss.  Yet over the course of several weeks, the body adapts to biking, and this "extra" fat loss disappears.  It gets to the point that whether the person chooses running or biking on the third day, the calories burned are roughly the same.

What to do about this?  In theory, a person could continually switch activities and always chase this extra calorie burn.  I know Jack La Lanne still changes his exercise routine every 30 days. 

Another option is to stick to the same activities but increase the volume.  If a person walks, runs, or lifts weights enough, they will lose weight.

Cars

Vehicles are big-time out here in Las Vegas.  Hummers, Monster Trucks, huge SUVs - everyone likes to go big here.  Yet I really can't figure out the motivation behind this.  If a person is young and single, I can understand.  They're in the mating game, trying to draw attention.  But I see many middle-aged people, people with kids, piling their families into these ridiculous contraptions.

Here's something else I noticed: the people who are the most into cars are also the ones who aren't really "with it" socially.  It's like they've poured all their energies into cars, and have forgotten about things that actually matter.  People matter, values matter.  Cars do not.

Livin' La Vida Loca

The other day was strange because I saw 5 different incidents involving police within a short time.  On the way to work, I saw someone pulled over for speeding, which in itself is unusual since I hardly ever see that here in Vegas. 

Next up was a three-car accident that shut down a highway.  After that, there was a serious pileup by the interstate exit ramp.

On the way back, the police had two guys in handcuffs outside a motel.  Then on the interstate, two police cars had another guy in handcuffs.

Why do cities seemingly turn a blind eye to crime?  I'm sure the police force is working hard and all, but why aren't there any crime initiatives on the ballot?  I always see levies for education or sports stadiums; why not ones for reducing crime?  Surely, there are expert sociologists and criminologists out there who could come up with plans to reduce crime.  Yet many cities seemingly expect that people in impoverished, crime-ridden areas will not only solve their own personal problems, but the community's ones as well. 

Vegas is strange because you can see billion-dollar casinos, and yet a few miles away you're in poverty.  And no one seems to care!  Most of the tourists don't make it off the Strip, so the mirage continues.  Come spend your money in Las Vegas, but don't expect it to help anyone but the casinos.

Talent vs Work

The self-improvement industry generates billions in dollars each year.  The message behind all of this is, of course, "you can be better."  But how much better can a person get at things?  And is it worthwhile to try in some cases?

There are some who believe that expertise in an area is due almost exclusively to the work put in.  A part of this makes sense, as a person has to work to improve their skills and develop.  But how much of expertise is work, and how much is just pure talent?

Thinking about this issue in genetic terms helps clear things up.  Let's say a person could put in x hours and become a top performer.  It could almost be viewed as a formula, if you put so mnay hours in, you will achieve a certain level of expertise. 

Yet if this were true, it would be impossible to distinguish the "genetic quality" of a person, and therefore be of no help in the mating game.  And the mating game is where talent is of utmost importance - because talent can't be faked or earned through hours of work, and because talent is heritable. 

When a person is looking for a mate, they naturally want someone who has good genetic stock and can help produce a healthy child.  And this is why I think expertise is largely due to talent and not due to the amount of work put in.  If someone is a top performer in athletics, music, etc., it is a good bet that they are genetically talented, and hence the children they help produce will be talented as well.  This is why you see the sons and daughters of many pro athletes also excelling in sports. I think this is heavily due to genetics and not because they were brought up in a sports environment or anything else.  Michael Jordan's sons appear to be pretty good at basketball and will likely get college scholarships to play - yet this is would have been easy to predict given that the sons would inherit at least some of Jordan's physical talents.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of industries prey on the belief of unlimited self-improvement.  Sure, each person can get better in different areas.  Yet their performance may still be dwarfed by someone with great talent who puts in only a little work.  A person can always get better at something, but hard work doesn't guarantee that they will surpass others with genetic gifts in that area.

Hydration

Another item I found interesting from the Doug McGuff interview was his ideas on hydration.  Here's the quote:

"Being adequately hydrated is also very important.  Drought always precedes famine in an evolutionary sense.  When you become dehydrated, it sends an alarm system to the organism that it is in a low-energy environment, and the organism will slow its metabolism including the metabolic pathways necessary for muscle growth."

I had previously never thought about hydration too much, but this argument certainly makes sense to me.  I then did some digging and found supporting research for this theory.  This study shows that dehydrated subjects had a higher cortisol response to exercise compared to those who were properly hydrated.  It looks like it pays to stay hydrated.