True Or False: Anything Short Of Perfection Is Failure

Serious training + half arsed
dietary consistency = results I'm
not entirely unsatisfied with.

Perfect adherence. Perfect discipline. Perfect ripped, shredded, lean and muscular physique. Anything less just aint good enough, right?

False.

A couple of things have got me thinking. You know that's always a recipe for trouble, me + thinking.

There's a movement on one of the industry groups in my facebook feed, and for once it's actually a good thing. It is PTs posting HONEST photos of themselves... like, no myspace angles, no convenient lighting. The real picture.

And it's like... body acceptance, right? And satisfactory results through sensible and moderate approaches; nothing restrictive or extreme. I'm all on board with that. But... at the same time it could be taken the wrong way. I'm for body acceptance in terms of "sure I could still go a little further but actually I'm quite happy where I am for now", rather than "this is as far as I can go and I am learning to accept that", as if people are REALLY at the limit of their potential and anything further is an unreasonable expectation akin to the promotion of unhealthy approaches.

They aint. The difference between where one person is at and where another is at comes down to how tight their targets are, how consistently they adhere to those targets, how consistently they hit the gym, and how long they've been at it. Oh and a better training strategy always makes a big difference too. Genetic potential though? Very few of us are anywhere near the limit of our genetic potential. That's something that only comes into it at advanced, competitive levels.

So the other thing is my feed is frequently full of idiots talking about for example "any sugar intake will spike your insulin levels, which puts you into fat storage mode for the day!" that's a cut n paste from some dumb idiot answering a question about which fruits not to eat.

The problem is... sometimes these orthorexic broscientist types are actually in killer, advanced level shape. So there's a tendency for the uneducated observer to assume the super ripped person obviously knows better about this stuff. It does seem to make sense, the person in killer shape saying "this is what it takes" would know, right? More so than the person in just "quite good" shape.

Not necessarily though. Just because what you're doing is working, doesn't necessarily mean it is working for the reasons you think it is. On the nutrition side, it is working because at the end of the day what you DO eat brings you to a suitable total intake... not because the stuff you DON'T eat would spell instant doom. When people start splitting hairs about which fruits and which vegetables are the "good" ones and which ones you need limit... jesus christ man, it is getting beyond a joke. That sort of nonsense is clearly not in anyone's best interests, least of all the general public who already think that success in weight loss is an unlikely goal requiring an unreasonable level of effort.

My own physique is down to a fairly half arsed adherence to hitting suitable targets with a mix of processed and fresh foods subject to my tastes. There are times I feel like maybe I should step it up, hit my optimal targets accurately and consistently and really prove how far you can go with flexible dieting without having to develop a paranoia about processed foods, grains, the "wrong" fruits and so on.

A couple of things about that though. Number One; do I really care enough about what fkn idiots think, to push myself beyond what I'm enthusiastic about just to prove that I'm right? And more importantly, Number Two; is that the message that I want to send to my clients and followers? That it's "not good enough" until your haters reluctantly concede that it is good enough? Number Three... actually I'll come back to Number Three a little later.

Screw that. I am about providing that balance, between LEGITIMATELY achieving great results through an effective training program, while still enjoying life outside of the gym and not have to stress out about your food choices. You do need to be a little bit mindful and organised in order to hit reasonably close to your targets, but that's not a lot to ask of yourself.

I believe people are only limited by their level of enthusiasm. Do the very bare minimum of turning up to training regularly and hitting reasonably close to your targets with the foods you were going to eat anyway, plus a little more of the good fresh stuff (fruit and veg) and you will be amazed with the results. If you then become enthusiastic enough to do a little more, provided you fuel up appropriately you'll see even better, next level results.

There's a massive difference though, in doing what you're enthusiastic about versus reluctantly doing what you feel obligated or pressured to do.

Oh I almost forgot! Number Three is that plenty of guys and girls do take this "flexible dieting" approach all the way to competitive level of body building and figure modeling. At the end of the day, it's about total intake and optimal macro ratios. Some choices of foods will fit easier into those targets than others, but nothing needs to be excluded outright because there's something "bad" about it that instantly means you won't be successful.

Read More

Establishing healthy eating habits for success in your weight loss and fitness goals.

Here's something I posted elsewhere last night, along with a link to my "Just eat healthy. What does that mean?" entry from a while back.

Don't set the standard too high as to what level of "healthy eating habits" you need to adhere to. Appropriate total intake, enough protein and fiber, your required serves of fruit and veg... other choices as best suits you. That's healthy enough. 

Now... we can think of any number of extra "but shouldn't they also?" type points as well, which are probably advisable. There's probably no limit on the amount of suggestions we could make for eating habits what would be helpful, beneficial and just simply put "a pretty damn good idea". Does that mean that any, much less all of them are crucial, though? Will the whole house of cards come tumbling down if we slip on just one these beneficial points, resulting in chronic ill health and out of control weight gain?

Absolutely not. Bizarre though, that we see such suggestions made so often and so frivolously on so many health and fitness type blogs and pages. It is highly irresponsible.

In my professional experience, I don't ask for any more than those few points listed in the first paragraph, and I consistently find that people will naturally gravitate towards including a greater amount and variety of the healthier choices of their own accord. As they see results from training due to now being adequately fueled, enthusiasm and self belief increases, so they start to adhere even more consistently, and start aiming for more "optimal" targets rather than merely "adequate". This is clearly a much better situation than clients being bullied and badgered into eating things they are not enthusiastic about, and made to feel guilty or ashamed if they fail to adhere.

My observation is that many coaches (or individuals without coaches) set impossible (and unnecessary) standards, and the end result is the opposite of what anyone wants. There are studies (damned if i can find the link right now) that confirm this; the more restrictions you put on people, the more likely they are to end up binging on one or more of the banned choices. This is counter productive, obviously.

Now if you are in the habit of "by default" hitting that appropriate total intake mostly from the more healthy choices that you find suitable... you're going to get results. You're meeting your requirements, so you're not going hungry and likely to give in and over eat later. You're meeting your requirements from choices that appeal to you, so you're not testing your willpower needlessly abstaining from enjoyable meals. It is merely a matter of getting organised, planning a day in advance, and before long your habits are in line with your requirements and you can do it on the fly by intuition. The odd day when you do go off the plan due to whatever circumstances is irrelevant in the context of habitually meeting appropriate intake by default the majority of the time.

In other words don't psych yourself out treating every choice, every aspect of your nutritional habits as "make or break, do or die". Set out to do the bare minimum, and you will succeed in your goals.

Read More

Science vs opinion

i was just thinking about the Large Hadron Collider. It took 10 years to build, and according to wikipedia

The LHC was built in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.^[3] It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference, as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland.

That's a lot of time and expense and effort, to find this "higgs particle". I have tried and failed to understand exactly (or even approximately) what that is, but you've gotta think if they've gone to all that effort and expense they've gotta be pretty damn certain of success.

in which case... wouldn't that be proof enough? "We are so sure this is what's up, we're going to spend 10 years and however much money it takes to build this thing to prove it". To me that's like... you know what? That's good enough for me. I'll take your word for it.

That's not how science works though. They have to prove it. And from time to time you'll read where they were sure of something, set out to prove it, actually discovered it was something else and they aren't even sure why just yet but they're going to try to figure it out.

You read about studies too, where the result is "a suggestion" that something is plausible enough to warrant a more stringent study to make absolutely sure. And sometimes the more stringent study actually suggests the opposite.That study might be carried out by the same people, or by others. The prime example would be when the researchers who provided key evidence of gluten sensitivity thoroughly showed that it does not exist, in a later study. Still, I've observed several people dismissing the later study in preference of the first one, which better suits their confirmation bias.

So... when you think about all this. When science says "we know this to be true", or "we have established that this is a fact", the standard is really as high as high could be. It's not just "here's the idea we're going to run with" and no one wanting to throw a spanner in the works with an opposing theory. That's the thing, they actually TEST those theories so they KNOW if they're right or not.

And yet...

Whether it is self appointed nutrition experts, anti vaccine campaigners or whoever else... there are so many big mouths out there who'll completely reject all of that on the basis of "well, I thought about it for a few minutes and this is what seems most likely to me". That'd be fine and there'd be a cause for debate, if it was on a topic that had never been tested.

When something has been tested, the method scrutinised, retested again, and the findings are consistent with our observations... there' s no shame in being corrected if you're an untrained person who had speculated on the topic and come to a different conclusion.

To insist that you're still correct though in defiance of the body of evidence though? To insist that your personal speculation be considered as a valid alternative to tested and proven theories? That is sheer arrogance and belligerently willful ignorance.

While we do all have a right to an opinion, in cases where presenting that opinion as fact can impact the wellbeing of others, we have a moral obligation to ensure that this opinion is accurate and factual, based on the best available evidence.

Read More