If you think a gym (and the associated equipment) is the answer to you gaining muscle, losing fat, gaining health, or achieving athletic goals (or a combination of), then you are likely to be very disappointed from your membership. The reason is that going to the gym and doing the appropriate exercises does not automatically happen from having a membership!

Motivation, desire, and well formed habits are the key to you achieving your goals.

Home exercises are excellent if you have the aforementioned traits. The problem with exercising from home is that the same ‘gym’ mistakes are made. Making my point are the Ab Flexes, Home Gyms, and Swiss Balls gathering dust in garages around the world right now.

If you are interested in exercise from home then check out this exercise that I saw recently on Coach Dos‘ blog: a ‘Spiderman’ Push Up.

10 of those will be enough to push all but well trained individuals. For most building up to more than two will take time.

If you do find that version too difficult then try doing it without moving the starting point of your hands. If that is still too difficult then no need to raise your knee towards your elbow.

This is not to say don’t buy home exercise equipment. My point is that by doing exercises that require no equipment you can test yourself to see if exercising from home is really a good, sustainable option for you.

Great news out today for London tourists, cyclists, and greenies. London is to follow many other cities throughout Europe, and have 6,000 bikes available for hire from 2010.

Obviously you could hire a bike in London today if you wished, but this scheme should make cycling much more accessible, cheaper, and provide increased infrastructure (bike lanes, stands, pumps etc).

Alwyn Cosgrove wonders today what it is we will be looking back on in 10 or 20 years time with disbelief…

Could it be our desire to find the answer to obesity in a pill?

i think in 10 years we will still be looking back with disbelief on the smoking issue. The fact cigarettes/smoking is so conclusively bad, yet still “accepted” will make us shake our heads in years to come…

Eating Quickly and Until Full Triples Risk of Being Overweight.

Title says it all really.

Makes you think about the commonly uttered words: “I feel like something else, I’m not full yet”

In case you are reading this from outside of New Zealand, there has been a long lasting (anti-) binge drinking promotion here with the catch line: It’s not the drinking, it’s how we’re drinking.

I think a similar thing could be said about eating: It’s not the eating, it’s how we’re eating. More specifically, it is the amount we are eating, not the eating that is the main problem. And like drinking, it has a lot to do with culture.

I was reminded of this recently when I saw a man in the States had eaten a 20lb burger. The fact this is something society needs to celebrate and reward is funny for all the wrong reasons.

He won USD$400, and three t-shirts!!! Would the public tolerate drinking 2 crates of beer as we do this? I doubt it.

I am sure we have totally gorged ourselves on a food or meal that we love at one time, eating way more than we need just to satisfy our short term wants.

Feels good at the time, but soon after you get the eaters remorse! I don’t know about you but I find the marginal benefit I get from foods I love tends to decrease significantly the more I eat.

So what’s my point?

Rather than setting the totally unrealistic goal of never again eating (insert a food you love that you know is not ideal for you here) you should instead set realistic aims around exactly how much to eat. Realise that eating a smaller volume than your volume craving brain is telling you may be a good idea.

Press This

In case you are interested here are three of the ALAC ads:

The “Lisa” ad:

The “Dave” ad:

And the worst of the lot, the “Mark” ad:

Here is another easy, versatile meal you can prepare, clean up and eat within 30mins!

See what you think:

Part One:

Part Two:

Stuck for time, or too ‘busy’ to make a decent (nutritious, tasty) breakfast?

Here is a nice easy, quick recipe for porridge. Give it a go!

Hockey Combine Physical Testing

Here is a great talk by Malcolm Gladwell speaking on how to hire the right person. What interested me was his analysis of the draft systems in professional sports.

The ‘draft’ is where professional sports teams choose who to sign onto a professional contract from a group of young up-and-coming players. Teams spend large sums of money looking at potential players, and send scouts to the ‘combine’ where they view and analyse physical data on the young men.

Check out this clip to see a little of what goes on at the combine:

This is something young athletes train very hard for as it is believed the higher score you get, the better player you will be, and the better contract you will sign.

But is this the case? Gladwell’s analysis would suggest no.

Two interesting points from the talk if you don’t have time to watch the whole video:

• NBA Rookie of the year for 2008 ranked 78th out of 81 Basketball prospects on physical testing in his year.
• IQ testing for Quarterbacks (NFL) show similar results: The most successful players ranked lowest on the intelligence test.

It seems scouts tend to test physical measures because it gives them an objective result to base their decision on. But many of the testing criteria are negatively correlated with performance in the professional leagues - based on history, if you were interested in recruiting a good Basketball player in the NBA you should choose an athlete who scores low on physical testing, and if you are interested in recruiting a successful professional quarterback you should choose one that scores low on the IQ test.

Gladwell seems to have analysed the NFL and IQ score over a number of years. I would be interested to see if this was the case over longer periods of time in the NHL performance and physical testing also.

If he is right it would seem being strong, good endurance, power etc is pointless once you get to the draft stage. So is there a need for physical conditioning at all?

When it comes to judging how good a player will be it may be best to simply look at how well they do on the field (ice, court, pitch etc). Other measures may be appropriate to see how the player will fit into the team environment etc, but by far the previous success of the athlete in a game situation is the important factor.

So if physical conditioning is so un-important then why do so many athletes credit it with their improved performance?

It is a chicken and the egg scenario: In this case the chicken comes well before the egg - that is to say physical conditioning makes a huge difference to the professional athlete, but it does not turn an ordinary athlete into a great one.

It is similar to the train your weakness theory - to become a better athlete you should train your weakness.

Players entering the draft who are not well physically conditioned have made it as far as they have on ’skill’. Once they get into professional team environments where they will come under the supervision of full time conditioning coaches, strength coaches etc then they can become even better athletes/players - that is they have the most room to improve, and so may represent the best buys for the scouts.

The reverse may be true for the kids testing high on these physical tests: They have gotten as far as they have (partly) because they are so well conditioned physically - they have been boxing above their weight and have less room for improvement in the professional environment.

Of course I am a big advocate for conditioning beyond the direct needs of the sport you play. Undoubtedly a stronger athlete is less likely to get injured would be the most obvious benefit of strength and conditioning.

I think the take home message is that it is great to measure things - but only if you can use that information to your benefit. I think the smart scouts should actually be looking for athletes that are weak, inflexible, have low lactate thresholds, VO2max, and power levels because it is these athletes that are the ones they could make into the next great one.

The Gospel of Food

The Gospel of Food is an interesting book by Barry Glassner that goes against conventional wisdom when it comes to giving advice on what you should eat.

His message: enjoy what you eat, and eat what you enjoy.

Because much of what we are constantly told about food is overstated - especially in relation to how much of a difference food can make in preventing diseases such as cancer, strokes, and heart disease - we should look upon food as something to get pleasure out of.

A good read, and reinforces the message that avoidance of foods you love and eating excessively are things you should not be doing.