You know... if you put enough weight on a sled being pushed on a rubber floor, the floor will start to burn. As the runners heat up, they also start to stick more, meaning that each successive attempt to move the sled gets harder. At a certain point, the sled can no longer be moved, despite the load staying the same. This is a bit like pushing/pulling a heavy tire on its side on asphalt. It gets worse the more work done. This becomes an exercise in mental fortitude as much as it is physical work. The task becomes harder the more you do.
I don't really care that much about how someone pushes a sled. Change the way you push it to gain a mechanical advantage and we simply increase the load until you hate yourself. If you want to challenge the posterior chain, and the muscles involved in hauling dead weight through snow... use whatever position allows you to load that tissue and then maintain a lot of time under tension. The real issue is trying to make it easy and call it the same work.
Though personally, I take more issue with the fact that most sleds are pushed on turf. Or they get wheels.
Let's start with the fact that we are having a heated agreement about this, "trying to make it easy and call it the same work".
I could note the difference between supervised/ coached training where you (as coach) notice a postural change that offers advantage and increase the load to address that, and unsupervised training where human nature is the coach and unconscious attempts to gain advantage go unnoticed. But you already understand that distinction.
The last gym I built was 50/50 turf/mats because that distribution was appropriate for the clients and the objective, and admittedly, my personal bias as the guy running the operation at that time. I would lay it out differently if the tasks changed ... or I might get stuck in the certainty of an adopted position because that's human nature too.
In a similar vein: recently, a beta breaking approach to a somewhat classic local bouldering problem was found. This is not surprising, as youth raised on gym climbing have a very different and gymnastic style compared to classic thuggery. The new approach made the problem much easier, and is now the standard way people tick it off. However, no downgrade has happened as the old problem is still very much an option, and a lot of climbers still want to tick the climb and claim the harder grade. Leaving aside the fact that these climbers get the beta by watching a video, and not by figuring out the movement puzzle themselves(I mean, what is the fun in problem solving?), I am mostly left with one question: why are people doing any of this?
Nobody gives a fuck how much weight you pull or push on a sled. Or how fast you do a workout. Even fewer people care about the fact that you wrestled your way up a dumb pebble in a field.
Isn't the whole point of going and doing hard things so that you yourself are changed by them?
But... this is the real crux of the whole issue: we now have a culture that wants to change the world/the exercise/the difficulty/the rules in a way that they can claim to have done work that is capable of being transformational, without having to undergo any actual change themselves. It is value signalling of transformation. With the irony being that those people who are still actually out there looking to be changed, are a) not talking about it, and b) aren't paying attention to anyone else's claims of having done so.
I think it’s important not to lose sight of what’s the individual’s purpose is for the exercise. In example you use, Those Burpees Suck, I think there are several ways to approach the exercise. Given that form should be correct in all cases, there are “ranges” of correct that make it more or less difficult. For example, you could do hand release push-ups that’ll slow you down, but it also makes the push-up harder so you’re getting more of a strength workout than you might otherwise. For the burpees you can work on mobility by getting your feet further under you, and be more explosive by jumping higher. For the box jump, you can either do just what it takes to clear 24 inches or you can look for maximum vertical height. It certainly will negatively impact your overall time and sure as hell makes it more difficult. Granted however, you do it it’s going to be challenging. If you’re going for time, you want to do the minimum possible, if you’re going for a strength workout, well that’s a different story.
This post had me thinking about my competitive life, and my post competition life. And the really specific pieces. I am 55, and towards the end of high school and in college swimming, THE TAPER became a big giant deal. And if when I talked to my D1 volleyball playing partner about my life in taper and outside of taper, she thought I was nuts. They played several times a week, and all of that. We built performance (maybe competition?) over time, and hoped to find it toward the end. I do not imagine any sort of way that the taper of the early to mid 90s could be applied to my 55 year old self. Also, maybe the differnce (not taper related) is mindset. Maybe those people who play pickleball at the Y have some connection to COMPETING that I do not since the closest I get to competition…well…I do not know that I compete physically any longer. The specificity of competetion has been fun to think about today.
At 58, my philosophy these day has been "I'm training for 60" so that I can maintain my 'fun' level activities. After reading this I'm asking myself am I selling myself short by having such a vague and quasi specific goal that keeps me from embracing training beyond 'maintenance ' level? Thanks again Mark!
In some seasons of life I think vague is just fine because it produces (or maintains) a foundation from which we might focus if an appropriately inciting opportunity presents itself. That said, we should question everything, especially what we, ourselves are doing.
Yeah, in engaging our own 'central scrutinizer', we can theoretically, relatively and appropriately always improve our shit to achieve some version of progress to enrich existence with some version of satisfaction :-)
Glad you're on substack.
You had a profoundly positive influence on my life as far back as 2008, when you recommended reading Good Calories, Bad Calories.
I enjoy your writing because it applies to a lot more than physical training.
Thank you.
That book opened a lot of eyes, especially in the moment of its publication.
You know... if you put enough weight on a sled being pushed on a rubber floor, the floor will start to burn. As the runners heat up, they also start to stick more, meaning that each successive attempt to move the sled gets harder. At a certain point, the sled can no longer be moved, despite the load staying the same. This is a bit like pushing/pulling a heavy tire on its side on asphalt. It gets worse the more work done. This becomes an exercise in mental fortitude as much as it is physical work. The task becomes harder the more you do.
I don't really care that much about how someone pushes a sled. Change the way you push it to gain a mechanical advantage and we simply increase the load until you hate yourself. If you want to challenge the posterior chain, and the muscles involved in hauling dead weight through snow... use whatever position allows you to load that tissue and then maintain a lot of time under tension. The real issue is trying to make it easy and call it the same work.
Though personally, I take more issue with the fact that most sleds are pushed on turf. Or they get wheels.
Let's start with the fact that we are having a heated agreement about this, "trying to make it easy and call it the same work".
I could note the difference between supervised/ coached training where you (as coach) notice a postural change that offers advantage and increase the load to address that, and unsupervised training where human nature is the coach and unconscious attempts to gain advantage go unnoticed. But you already understand that distinction.
The last gym I built was 50/50 turf/mats because that distribution was appropriate for the clients and the objective, and admittedly, my personal bias as the guy running the operation at that time. I would lay it out differently if the tasks changed ... or I might get stuck in the certainty of an adopted position because that's human nature too.
In a similar vein: recently, a beta breaking approach to a somewhat classic local bouldering problem was found. This is not surprising, as youth raised on gym climbing have a very different and gymnastic style compared to classic thuggery. The new approach made the problem much easier, and is now the standard way people tick it off. However, no downgrade has happened as the old problem is still very much an option, and a lot of climbers still want to tick the climb and claim the harder grade. Leaving aside the fact that these climbers get the beta by watching a video, and not by figuring out the movement puzzle themselves(I mean, what is the fun in problem solving?), I am mostly left with one question: why are people doing any of this?
Nobody gives a fuck how much weight you pull or push on a sled. Or how fast you do a workout. Even fewer people care about the fact that you wrestled your way up a dumb pebble in a field.
Isn't the whole point of going and doing hard things so that you yourself are changed by them?
But... this is the real crux of the whole issue: we now have a culture that wants to change the world/the exercise/the difficulty/the rules in a way that they can claim to have done work that is capable of being transformational, without having to undergo any actual change themselves. It is value signalling of transformation. With the irony being that those people who are still actually out there looking to be changed, are a) not talking about it, and b) aren't paying attention to anyone else's claims of having done so.
Thanks for this.
The daily fist fight with human nature. Thanks Mark.
Wake up, warm up, get in the ring ... same as it ever was!
I think it’s important not to lose sight of what’s the individual’s purpose is for the exercise. In example you use, Those Burpees Suck, I think there are several ways to approach the exercise. Given that form should be correct in all cases, there are “ranges” of correct that make it more or less difficult. For example, you could do hand release push-ups that’ll slow you down, but it also makes the push-up harder so you’re getting more of a strength workout than you might otherwise. For the burpees you can work on mobility by getting your feet further under you, and be more explosive by jumping higher. For the box jump, you can either do just what it takes to clear 24 inches or you can look for maximum vertical height. It certainly will negatively impact your overall time and sure as hell makes it more difficult. Granted however, you do it it’s going to be challenging. If you’re going for time, you want to do the minimum possible, if you’re going for a strength workout, well that’s a different story.
Finding pieces like this is why I love substack. Great writing.
Thank you 🙏🏻
I think the conflict between training and competition, especially mindset of them both, will be fertile ground for you.
I'll have to sit with this idea for a bit. Thank you for nudging me to look this direction.
This post had me thinking about my competitive life, and my post competition life. And the really specific pieces. I am 55, and towards the end of high school and in college swimming, THE TAPER became a big giant deal. And if when I talked to my D1 volleyball playing partner about my life in taper and outside of taper, she thought I was nuts. They played several times a week, and all of that. We built performance (maybe competition?) over time, and hoped to find it toward the end. I do not imagine any sort of way that the taper of the early to mid 90s could be applied to my 55 year old self. Also, maybe the differnce (not taper related) is mindset. Maybe those people who play pickleball at the Y have some connection to COMPETING that I do not since the closest I get to competition…well…I do not know that I compete physically any longer. The specificity of competetion has been fun to think about today.
At 58, my philosophy these day has been "I'm training for 60" so that I can maintain my 'fun' level activities. After reading this I'm asking myself am I selling myself short by having such a vague and quasi specific goal that keeps me from embracing training beyond 'maintenance ' level? Thanks again Mark!
In some seasons of life I think vague is just fine because it produces (or maintains) a foundation from which we might focus if an appropriately inciting opportunity presents itself. That said, we should question everything, especially what we, ourselves are doing.
Yeah, in engaging our own 'central scrutinizer', we can theoretically, relatively and appropriately always improve our shit to achieve some version of progress to enrich existence with some version of satisfaction :-)