Matt Metzgar

Primitive Strength

I recently saw a magazine that had a cover story on "Primitive Strength".  When I flipped inside, it had a routine based on free weight exercises (squat, deadlift, etc.) for 3 sets of 10 repetitions.  While this routine is fine, it's not very creative or unique (or primitive).  I am sure you could find a muscle magazine from the 1920s that says about the same thing.

Based on things I've read and discussed in the blog, I feel there must be better ways to gain primitive strength.  For example, I think MovNat has a lot of potential once it gets fleshed out more.  We know that hunter-gatherers didn't go around doing 3 sets of 10, and yet they were muscular.  I just keep thinking there is a better approach than traditional lifting - one that better mimics how our ancestors lifted things. 

One problem is that most people get sucked into gym workouts because they are easy.  Gyms are everywhere, and anyone can create a basic routine that will give some results.  If more people were thinking outside the box, I think better ways to gain primitive strength would develop.  For example, if you have millions of people all experimenting with pulling logs, carrying rocks, etc., then all this experimentation would eventually yield some pretty effective routines.  You would have a large number of people sharing their results and building on what others have done.  However, if you only have a few thousand people doing this, it's going to take a while.

Vibrams Here and Gone

I got my Vibram shoes in the mail yesterday, but I think they are the wrong size.  The heel part of the shoe is rubbing against my Achilles tendon.  Looking at the shoe design, I 'm not sure why the heel even has to be that high.  With the rest of the foot well-secured, I don't think you need much a heel cup.

I was looking forward to running in the Vibrams, but it looks like it will have to wait.  I am going to exchange them for the next size up.

Twitter Resistant

It looks like Twitter is gaining in popularity by the day.  Now you have football coaches, U.S. Senators, and millions of others using Twitter.  I remember seeing Twitter way back, a year or two ago and not really getting it.

Currently, I don't have any plans to use the service.  Something about it just doesn't jive with me.  I think the problem is that it would force me to make my ideas concrete on a more regular basis.  I feel a lot of ideas need time to simmer.  Sometimes you get an idea but it's only part way developed, and so you put it on the shelf and come back to it later.  The brain may even be working on it "in the background" during this time, so to speak.  Other times, you realize the idea wasn't so great and then you ditch it.  Either way, I like to work through good ideas and then put them on the blog rather than twitter a bunch of half-ideas.

This blog software has a feature that can create a Twitter update any time a new post is published.  That's probably as far as I want to go with it. 

Teens and Technology

I read this interesting article yesterday.  It shows that teens with late bedtimes (who don't get enough sleep) are much more likely to get depressed and even have suicidal thoughts.  The article points out that the growing reach of technology (Facebook, texting, etc.) may lead to teens staying up too late.

This is just another example of what happens when people try to go against natural patterns.  Daytime is for activity, nighttime is for sleep.  This has been the way for millions of years.  If you try to go against these natural circadian rhythms, you pay the price in one way or another. 

The Magic Running Pace, Part II

In the last post, I talked about how there may be an optimal running pace.  Now let's say a person wants to start running.  Let's look at two different approaches:

• Program 1: run at a slow pace, gradually adding distance and eventually hoping to get faster
• Program 2: do small chunks of running at the optimal pace (7 to 8 minutes per mile) - intervals, short runs, etc., and gradually build up stamina at this pace

Program 1 is more of the usual prescription.  Program 2 is more of a Crossfit Endurance program.  Of course, some programs are a mix of the two methods.

Of the these two programs, I am really starting to think that the second program is superior.  

I think another key is to to realize that while running slower than optimal is bad for training purposes, so is running faster than optimal.  In other words, after a person is running in the sweet spot, the goal is not do training runs at a faster and faster pace.

As support for this, I would point to Masters runner and record holder Nolan Shaheed.  Almost all of his training is just doing 7-minute miles.  (There is that magic pace again!)  He rarely does speed work yet holds masters records at 800m and 1500m.

Overall, I think this hypothesis can explain a lot about low-heart rate training.  It may work successfully for the top runners because low-intensity for them slows them down to the 7 - 8 minute per mile zone.  For example, I found this on a discussion board: "My uneducated guess about why it (Maffetone method) worked for people like Mark Allen is because he did years of speedwork first."

This hypothesis can also explain why you see legions of slow runners who never seem to get any faster.  If you go to any marathon, you'll see people who are capable of running 26 miles but who aren't fast.  Why aren't they fast after putting in all the mileage?  Because they were training too slow - below the optimal running pace.

The Magic Running Pace

I have been working on trying to reconcile some different schools of thought in running.  Previously, I have discussed Maffetone low-heart rate training and how it may be effective.  However, what I find is that it seems to work well for some people and not very well for others.  Rather than chalking this up to "everyone is different," I want to propose a hypothesis.

For a positive example of low-heart rate training, you have people like Mark Allen who have said they've benefited from the program.  You also have evidence that top runners spend the majority of their training time running at easy paces.  In one study, top runners ran 71% of their mileage at a low-intensity.  

On the other hand, you have many people who are critical of low-heart training.  You can have to look at the growing popularity of websites like Crossfit Endurance, for example.  These websites attract those who have not done well with LSD training.  The popularity of these sites suggests that low heart-rate training isn't working for a number of people.

You also have the personal accounts of those who have tried low-heart training but it hasn't worked for them.  For example, here is a quote from the Fitness Intuition website:

"I spent years training slowly for ultramarathons. Ten-minute miles were typical, 9 minutes was fast. My goal was to finish.  I occasionally wondered if upping my mileage would improve my race times. Yet the thought of piling up more miles of slogging was appalling.  Here’s a funny thing. From the first day I began training faster, my enthusiasm soared, and I found it easy, even exciting, to pack on the miles."

I also have my own personal experience.  During my training for my one and only marathon, I just did a bunch of slow miles.  I didn't get any faster, and in fact I got a little slower.  So why didn't the approach work for me either?

I think the key to all this is the new research on the optimal running speed of humans.  In the study, it showed that for a group of runners, the most energy efficient pace was between 7 and 8 minutes per mile.  (This study was done on a treadmill, so the optimal pace may be different if there are hills or if the running is done on a trail.)  At this pace, humans have the lowest energy expenditure compared to faster or slower paces. 

What I'm thinking is that this pace represents a "sweet spot" that generates the most benefits from distance running.  For an elite runner who can run 5 minute miles, 7 to 8 minutes probably qualifies as low-intensity.  Therefore, an elite runner can run at this low-intensity and increase aerobic fitness.

For a slow runner, running at a low-intensity means running at 10 or 12 minute miles (or slower).  At these slow speeds, a runner is not in the sweet spot and therefore is laboring (expending excessive energy) to perform the running.  The next question is, will training at these slower paces ever lead to a person improving and being able to run at 7 or 8 minute miles?  I am starting to think the answer is no, or at the very least it is a long, slow process that may not be the right way to do it.

Worst Weight Loss Strategy of the Year Nominee

I read this absurd letter to the editor in USA Today the other day:

"USA TODAY's article "Toughest bounce of all" covered an important issue in weight loss: the struggle with yo-yo dieting. The overriding theme? Don't stop. As a person who has twice lost more than 150 pounds, I can testify to the importance of that mantra (Cover story, Life, May 27).

Weight loss is a three-step process:

• The declaration of war. You begin the journey, set goals, and compose your diet and exercise routine.
• The battle. You fight, win the battle and reach your goals.
• The peace treaty. After reaching your goal, the real test begins, and you find it's never over. Now you have to stretch your goal, making it a lifetime commitment to health and fitness. Another lesson is to keep it simple. Forget the TV ads and the fads. Find out what works for you."

A declaration of war to lose weight???  Notice what this person said - he has "twice lost more than 150 pounds".  It will hopefully occur to him that if it didn't work the first time as a long-term solution, then it probably won't work the second time.

I don't see how battling your body is a good method to lose weight.  It's entirely the wrong approach in my opinion.  This person should try a simpler approach:

• Eat natural foods
• Perform natural movements
• Relax and be nice to yourself

I'll put my money on this strategy any day.

Running the Natural Way, Part II

Previously, I talked about how minimal shoes or barefoot running can improve technique and reduce injuries.  In the last post, another question came up: even with minimal footwear, does easy running turn into chronic cardio (and its associated problems)?

In this interview, Christopher McDougall addresses this topic:

Q: "A lot of people out there argue against aerobic exercise in favor of short sprints and strength training. Why is it such a heated debate?"

A: "People become attached to whatever they believe in. It's almost inarguable that distance running, as a starting point, is good. If you want to add in resistance training—sure! And as far as the way we do endurance sports, I agree [with the critics]. The way we measure how we run is to hit the stopwatch and go hard for two hours. When modern people try to use that technique in a persistence hunt, they collapse. But look at ultra runners. They walk up hills. When you're on a trail, the footing is unsure, you have to leap over trees. The terrain forces you to, on occasion, slow down. I suspect it's much more in line with how our bodies were designed to operate, never going into oxygen depletion or experiencing low sugar. The Tarahumara go very long on very little fuel. They're burning fats, not sugar. And they work as a team. There's this huge schism between running as something natural and this solitary thing you do yourself, as work."

This is why I think minimal footwear/barefoot is only half of the running equation.  The other half is running in a pattern similar to that of the hunter-gatherers.  As McDougall pointed out, trail running forces a runner to run in a different way than running on flat pavement.  Trail running could lead to a running pattern that contains:

• Short steps to avoid falling or injury
• Walk breaks when the slope is too severe
• Stopping to jump or climb over objects

This pattern is much different than running at one speed on flat pavement.  I still think there is room for Zen-like paces in trail running.  There wouldn't be much sense in going all-out on a trail for the above reasons.  It's probably more efficient to motor along at a moderate pace that would keep the heart rate low.

The Evolution of Human Running

The book "Born to Run" discusses the theory that humans evolved as long-distance runners.  As far as the science goes, I feel it is a work in progress.  As time goes by and more studies are done, we may have more evidence one way or another about the role of running in human evolution.

Until then, you can always look at the practical experience of people to gain insight.  There were a few things about distance running in the book that I didn't know.  First, distance running is the number one participation sport worldwide.  I think this tells you something in itself.  In the book this is explained by the statement, "recreation has its reasons."  In other words, there is some biological drive behind millions of people making the decision to run.

Second, the book talks about how much of the running done for persistence hunts was at an aerobic pace.  In one section of the book, it talks about a 10-minute mile pace on the trails as a pace that will allow humans to keep up with and outlast game.  It is interesting that this moderate paced running is a central part of many successful running systems, like Arthur Lydiard's.  Lydiard prescribed runs of up to two hours to build an aerobic base, and unless you're an elite athlete, you will end up running this at a moderate pace.

I did some experimenting with different paces at the track tonight.  I went faster and slower to see what paces felt comfortable and could be sustained over long periods.  I wasn't timing it exactly, but it was fairly close to 10-minute miles (barefoot, on grass).  There are certain paces in running that you can lock in and it feels like you can run forever.  If you are on a persistence hunt and you don't know how long it will last, this is the type of pace you want.  If running was central to human evolution, my bet is that these moderate, Zen-like paces were part of it.

There is also the nutrition aspect.  If you lock in these moderate paces, there is no big drain on glucose, and you won't need more carbs to sustain the effort.  Mark Sisson has talked about this in his piece on Chronic Cardio.

I think the key is accepting these moderate paces as being okay.  Everyone wants to race and get faster, but to do so you many people end up doing long runs at higher intensities.  It is this combination of intensity and distance that can lead to trouble.

Pain-Free Back On Tour

I wanted to mention that Esther Gokhale, author of "8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back" will be holding workshops across the country this summer.  Check out her site for details.

There is also a new forum that is now available on her site.  So if you have any specific questions for Esther, check out the forum.