Blog

“I’ve been doing it for 20 years…” is a often heard statement used to support one’s beliefs in the way to do something and potentially a degree of hands-on knowledge forged in the most important aspect of the process of life-long learning that is mastery, mistakes followed by endless the process of attempted correction called trials and error. Doing something for 20 years can actually reinforce stupidity if the primary focus is not reassessment and modified reattempt.

“A moment’s insight is sometimes worth a life time of experience.”
                                                                        -Oliver Wendell Holmes

Experience (according to Webster’s):

• Observation or practice resulting in or tending toward knowledge
• An affecting event
• The state of being affected from without* [?]

 

“Two months of experience repeated sixty times does not make ten years of experience.
It just makes a beginner a decade older.”
                                                      -Tom Purvis

“Limitations in experience often create limitations in vision!”
“Ironically, a great deal of experience in only one area can create very limited vision.”
                                                          -Tom Purvis

 (intentionally focused may yield expertise; unintentionally blind can yield ignorance) 

“If you must make mistakes, it will be more to your credit if you make a new one each time.”
                                                                         -unknown

“Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practice makes perfect!”
                                                                        -Vince Lombardi

“Don’t practice until you get it right, practice until you cannot get it wrong”
                                  -George W. Loomis, 1902 (often attributed to Julie Andrews)

“Every experience serves.”
-David Hawkins, MD, PhD

Long after inventing the light bulb Thomas Edison was working to invent a storage device for electricity…the battery. At one point he had 25,000 failed attempts.
When asked by a reporter, “How does it feel… failing 25,000 times.” Edison replied, “Fail? Today I know 25,000 ways not to make a battery.”

Sound bite – A short, catchy statement that meets the minuscule attention span of the vast majority of the general public. Sound bites serve the needs of those who wish to generate bias and/or to appear intelligent without the burden of context or detailed understanding, both of which are requirements of truth. Sound bites are commonly repeated ad nauseum as “std’s” (socially transmitted disinformation). Sound bites are falsely empowering and offer no support or validation by which to generate a conclusion, or conduct a coherent debate. Sound bites are key to marketing, misinformation, and the generation and blind perpetuation of “belief teams”.

Truth requires context. When and with whom does it apply? In exercise, general statements are rarely accurate, especially as they may or many not apply to a given individual at a given point in progression. Many sound bites are void of mechanical accuracy. Many have almost become religious doctrine in what’s supposed to be a science-based industry.

Examples:

“Integrated exercise is functional”

“Isolation doesn’t transfer.”

 “Muscles don’t matter. It’s all about fascia.”

“Bones don’t even touch, they float.”

“The eccentric is stronger than the concentric contraction.”

“It’s bad for your knees!”

“The leg extension produces shear.”

“Tight hamstring can cause back pain.”

 

 

 

F.A.C.T. was a Chicago based fitness instructor education company that held a general fitness instructor event in Chicago annually (originally leaning toward group fitness) , and later added a Personal Trainer event that was usually on the East Coast. It was a regional version of I.D.E.A. (which later purchased F.A.C.T.)

I was asked to teach at the first FACT Personal Trainer event in NJ event in 1994 and then presented at both annual events through the mid 2000’s. In the late 90’s Paul Chek began speaking at the Chicago event. While walking through the expo, he entered the Bowflex® booth and proceeded to tell Brad Carlson (who started the Bowflex Trainer division in 1994) that the resistance of the Bowflex was opposite of the body because it got heavier the more the rods bent. Brad tried to explain that the as the moment arm to the joints changed it offset the tension of the rods in many exercises, depending upon how you set them up. Paul replied matter of factly, “That stuff doesn’t matter!”. Hmmm, mechanical reality doesn’t matter? The effectiveness of a force around a joint as measured by moment arm doesn’t matter? Moment arm is literally and mathematically 50% of what makes up the torque of resistance! Zero x anything is zero. That’s how influential it is! An exhibition of jaw-dropping overconfidence amidst mechanical ignorance.

I met John Blievernicht in October 1989 at the first NASM course where we were both presenting.

That particular course was a hodge-podge of presenters with no educational organization. Dr. Bob Goldman just wanted to start the first national personal training certification (ACE  came long after, about 1992) so he brought in about 2 dozen “names” and acquaintances to speak in 20-40 time slots across 2 days. Earlier, in August of that year he had asked me to present. I had no idea what to expect. It was a mess, but because the name sounded official and the promotion (including an add in Muscle and Fitness) it seemed at the time like a really big deal.

After that course, I was asked to develop the biomechanics programming as well as organize the hands-on. John developed what was at the time one of the first “stability” orientated programs, a lecture he entitle “Structural Integrity) and an associated practical session via one of the hands-on rotations.

He was a masterful presenter. Dry humor, occasionally sarcastic (my favorite language). Among the many quote worthy statements he made over the decade we worked together, I have a few that I think of often:

“To progress in one area, you may have to temporarily regress in another.”

Regarding and to a friend of ours: “I have no doubt that you’d be the first one off the starting block, we just never know what lane you’re going to end up in.”

When talking to the class about training movement in all available directions (360°), a student blurted out “I tell my clients to think of it like a clock and move towards 1:00 or 3:00, etc.” He asked “Where are you from?” “Canada” she replied. With a perfectly straight face he said “We have digital clocks here.”

 

“I want to work with a pro team” is a common desire I hear from trainers. One question… WHY?

They don’t pay shit.

Even if you know something of value (i.e. your understanding includes but extends well beyond standard NSCA coaching traditions, quasi-research, numbers based measurements of success, and massive voids) there are a dozen other influences in what pros do, many of which will negate, limit, or prohibit the implementation or effects of your intelligence, wise decisions.

All too often pros don’t care and got to that level in spite of their training.

While the outcomes of a season will be influenced by hundreds of factors, losing seasons often lead to cleaning house and its not uncommon for training staff to be impacted. So for many reasons your best efforts, even if you improve one guys ability on paper, you can get canned.

With the level of tolerance, skill, and current conditioning of these players, you are unlikely to impact competitive performance. EVERYBODY seems to think improvement is a never-ending process and that regardless on ones current physical status, there is room for improvement. Well… grow up! I would go so far as to say that at that level your efforts are extremely likely to have only have one of two effects: benign or injurious. Having worked briefly with Tim Grover, Michael Jordan’s trainer in the 80’s, I heard him wisely state that his primary job was to not hurt him. At the level of demand often imposed, extra work can be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. What you do or add to whatever they are tolerating and barely recovering from week to week may be more than their immune system can handle. and while they may or may not have a negative localized orthopedic outcome, there is almost certain to be a systemic cost.

I would argue that the vast majority of those who want to work with pro athletes have a wannabe, workshipy motivation behind their goal.

Many grow out of that once they have the opportunity to live that dream. It ain’t all roses. In fact it’s mostly thorns. But maybe your ego can sustain you despite the impotence the situation befalls.

 

There are dozens of additional details and caveats required to truly understand anything related to exercise, especially sciences. But the addition of details in presentation or ingestion is best triaged and progressed… only added on top of the foundational fundamentals (satellite view) only when the fundamentals are actually solid as a rock, otherwise the details will serve to confuse rather than enlighten.

Details are one of two things required to actually become an expert. Many people in this industry with the biggest mouths on social media love to think and act like they know everything without the details. Details are required to become the expert they pretend to be without them. Everybody wants to be an expert, but no one does their homework. HOWEVER, it should be noted that details are of no real value without the skills of application: knowing which details apply to whom and when. This is part of what defines “appropriateness” to the true exercise professional.

Everybody wants to talk exercise like an expert, but nobody knows the “language”. By language I mean has enough fundamental knowledge like mechanics (physics, structural anatomy), tolerance for details,  word skills, appreciates the semantics (meanings of words), can organize thoughts and separate contexts, and stay on track.

Detailed discussions require a detailed understanding. Superficial discussions of substance still require a detailed understanding to make the simple accurate. Sound bites don’t even qualify as superficial discussions are not supported by details or understanding.

Honestly, people unknowingly say this for themselves, not for the person that are saying it to.

If a person is aware of the need to be careful, he/she is going to do it without advice.

(E.g., walking on ice, driving all night, handling cobras, performing heart surgery, etc.)

If they’re so blind, stupid, or careless that they don’t see the need to be careful, then telling them won’t matter.

It falls on deaf ears.

“Oh yeah! You’re right! It didn’t dawn on me to be careful with this cobra” is not going to be his/her response.

“Be careful” is not an awareness generating warning. However, stating the reason to be careful is a helpful, if the person is unaware of the situation or danger.

“If you haven’t been out, you should know it’s really icy now” is a helpful statement. It doesn’t need to be followed by “be careful”. That’s just so YOU feel like you did your part in making them careful. But if the “icy” doesn’t do it, then the “be careful” won’t either!

This won’t stop anyone from saying “be careful”, and many will likely disagree and say it helps.

Ego is powerful. Self-examination rarely objective. Social media proves it every second of every day.

If you feel the need to say something, try more of a well-wishing statement than a warning. “Safe travels”, or “travel safely”,  maybe. Or “safe cobra-ing” as the case may be.

Watching others express their version of genius can be inspiring, but you’ll never explore, clarify, hone, or express your genius while watching them express theirs. You’ll never live your genius watching others live theirs. Being a spectator will only get you so far.

 

1. “Dumb questions”…

Remember, when your elementary school teachers told you “there are no dumb questions”? Well there can definitely be “dumbness” involved, but it’s not the question, it’s the asker. In essence, any question asked without first contemplating the possible answers is, well, dumb.

ANY and ALL questions are valuable and worth contemplating, in fact, people don’t ask enough questions!

But when they do, their questions often suck.

They don’t ask the right questions to give them the answers they seek.

They ask general questions hoping for specific answers.

At best, the quality of the answer will be proportional to the quality of the question.

It’s smart for a student to ask for help in formulating his/her question, because if you are lost you may not even know what question to ask.

Many times people ask questions to which the answer would be obvious if they had just looked around.

A former business partner said that while in the Navy his CO barked, “Don’t come into my office with a question unless you have already come up with at least three possible answers! Now get out of my office!”

That’s all I’m asking for… at least attempt to consider the possibilities before asking another person. At least try to improve your skills in problem solving and deductive reasoning. Those are minimum requirements for any professional worth hiring. And it starts with taking responsibility.

Now back to the context of elementary school. It is in fact ideal to entertain all questions, but not just for an answer (unless the question is “may I go the restroom?” or “where is the restroom?”). The question should be used as a chance for a teacher to help the student come up with a list of options, and then to step by step consider the viability of each.

 

2. A teacher said, “never answer a question with a question.” This teacher was either idiotic or tyrannical.

In many cases the BEST answer is a question! A question to further identify the specifics or to clarify context. In fact without clarity of context, no question can be correctly answered. Only math is free of context.

For both the prevention and treatment of acute, recurrent, and/or chronic “hamstring pulls”, “hamstring tears”, etc. the recommendation of medical, rehab, and training professionals (as well as the common knowledge of the populace) is “you need to stretch them”!

The irony (and shear lunacy) is that stretching the one thing that athletes, especially injured ones do more than anything else! Before, during, and after a game; before, during, and after training; before, during, and after practice; before, during, and after cardio; before, during, and after lifting; before, during, and after rehab sessions. The world of medicine and rehab is committed to “evidence based practice”, yet they are ignoring the only vital and valuable evidence… the responses of the individual in front of you! Yes, it’s anecdotal. But the recommendations to stretch have neither empirical or anecdotal evidence. Only tradition.

“It is historical continuity that maintains most assumptions,
not repeated assessment of their validity.”
-Edward de Bono

“Although the human mind likes to believe that it is ‘of course’ dedicated to truth,
in reality, what it really seeks is confirmation of what it already believes.”
–David Hawkins, MD, PhD

“It is human nature to support our current positions rather
than modify, expand, or reverse them.”
-David Hawkins, MD, PhD

Let’s explore:

The correlation is undeniable. It is probably safe to say that virtually everyone with what we might call a “hamstring issue” of any degree is concurrently engaging in some form of stretching. Realize that correlation does not imply causation. It is simply “a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone” (Merriam-Webster).

Restated, stretching and hamstring issues appear to co-exist. And within this correlation we seem to only see this relationship as “the hamstring issue is the reason we stretch”. Yet we seem to ignore that virtually every athlete who developed a hamstring issue was already stretching… as prevention. We don’t seem to question whether or not the treatment is ineffective, and we certainly never even wonder, much less explore, if it’s possible that stretching (or the way it was performed) was one of the influences that precipitated the injury (rarely is there ever just one, lone cause for anything; it’s often the proverbial perfect storm).

In virtually any other discipline (engineering, electronics, sociology, et al.) a reasonable person would recognize the existence of such a correlation… AND QUESTION IT! Very few are willing to question a belief system due to the risk of it being wrong… which would in turn make them wrong. The ones that willingly question such beliefs are those that have not intertwined their identities with the information and have no allegiance or emotional attachment to anything they’ve learned or done (e.g., Galileo, Semmelweis, et al.). Similarly, we are attached to massage, ice, heat, foam rolling, etc. despite the lack of evidence of a direct physiological effect (vs. indirect physiological responses to sensations and perceptions). 

Further exploration:

Perspective via principles
“Stretch” is commonly associated with the property of elasticity… it’s “stretchy”. Elasticity is by definition “the ability of a material to immediately deform under stress, and upon its removal, immediately return to its original shape.” Every tissue has a varying coefficient of elasticity (stretchiness; capacity to deform and return) based largely part upon the composition of the material or tissue and which is hopefully consistent with the role that it plays in mechanical function both locally and/or grossly.

Consideration #1: Improving range of motion
Laymen and practitioners alike seem to think one of the purpose for stretching is to “lengthen tissue”. Which tissue? And relative to ROM the hope often is that if range increases in the very short term, that it will remain for the long term. Wait… so in essence the goal is to reduce or eliminate the elasticity of the tissue? We no longer want it to return, but to deform and stay? We no longer want it to function normally? No matter how small a tissue’s coefficient of elasticity (and while it varies in our tissues, it is generally very small), the degree of elasticity is required in order to do its job. So let’s reconsider that one.

Consideration #2: Reducing tension
Active tension is produced by muscle (as opposed to passive tension which is imposed within connective tissues). Tension production is “orchestrated” by the brain and/or reflexive mechanisms. Either way it is stimulated by electrical excitation producing microscopic “crossbridges” (all of this is painfully oversimplified). The more connections (related to crossbridging opportunity and excitation) the more tension that may be developed. Ultimately, tension is employed to produce movement… or prevent further movement… or prevent any movement at all.

Somehow we have come to see unexpected, uncomfortable, or motion-hindering tension as pathological and wrong, as if the body screwed up. Certainly there is tension associated with CNS pathology like cerebral palsy, etc. But it seems we childishly never consider general muscular tension to be purposeful, because we don’t like it. We might want to consider it not only a key to movement, but also a key to protection. So maybe in this way we view the annoyance and a symptom, for which we should consider exploring what requires the protection, rather than blindly imposing our wills and attempting to eliminating it through direct means.

It seems that directly addressing the tension all too often leads the body reinstate it a few hours later if it’s still required. Conversely, identifying and addressing the source will often alleviate the need for tension and indirectly alleviate the tension itself as it is no longer required. (It should be noted that that time period is rarely immediate and not up our desires and expectations, only the effectiveness of and response time to our efforts to manage the cause). So maybe we stop imposing our wills, stop beating the shit out of things, and learn appropriate progression as well as its signs, and maybe internal protection will no longer be required?

Consideration #3: “Acute conditioning”, “preparatory regulation”, and “current settings”
“Acute Conditioning” describes the relatively short term response to a current activity or lack thereof. Sitting for periods of time encourages an appropriate reduction in available muscle lengths to meet the current needs/requirements.

“Preparatory Regulation” is way of describing the purpose of acute conditioning. Consider the toll if your body were to remain in a constant state of readiness for any activity or challenge of any form or severity. Heart rate elevated, neurological activity heightened, hormones, etc. all prepared to immediately produce maximal muscular response. Not very energy efficient. If energy of every form is drained, then how prepared are we? It is more efficient to make short term adjustments in those factors that are consistent with the current needs.

This regulation of internal readiness in essence prepares us for more of what we’ve been doing, whether that be a down-regulated state or an up-regulated state. This creates our “current settings” of muscular tension and length availability, heart rate, nervous system function, endocrine function, etc. Additionally, protective tension would likely influence the settings as part of an involuntary preparation to protect… just in case you hop up.

So back to the sitting for which you have been “reset”. Does it require aggressive stretching or simply revisiting former ranges, i.e. resetting things. Cats and dogs do it when they get up from a nap, and people do it upon awakening aw well. That first morning movement is often called “stretching”, but is simply active movement to the full available active ranges to “reset” tensions, etc.

So with that in mind, what about “warming up” for a greater challenge like a workout or competition?

Consideration #4: “Progressive preparation for challenge” (or activity)
First of all, let’s get rid of the limited vision, irrelevant term “warm up”, okay? Heat is not the goal. Blood flow is not the goal. Those are products of our motors/muscles being serviced and our internal temperature being regulated. A “warm-up” should be considered for its influence in preparing neuromuscular function (contractile readiness) as well as the orchestration of contraction, in other words, preparation for tension development and the organization thereof.

The lengthening of a muscle that is producing tension alters the available overlap for crossbridging and therein is a reduction in tension (commonly termed eccentric; introducing various degrees of relaxation). Furthermore, when stretching to increase “range of motion” and/or warm up we are commonly encouraged to “try to relax”… to let go of the residual muscular tension from previous activity… or even protection (?). But consider the basic rationale here: prepare for greater muscular demand/challenge by attempting to reduce tension. And the reduction is imposed… artificial if you will, meaning not in response to the body’s own assessment of changing requirements or needs for protection. It seems as though preparation for activity might be best achieved via activity that is appropriately progressed from the current state of rest, step by step, up to the level of that required of the upcoming activity. To borrow a term that I normally find misused and misinterpreted… encouraging a reduction in tension to prepare for developing tension is not remotely “functional” in any sense of the word.

Consideration #5: Injury prevention
Why do we think lengthening tissue will prevent injury? Muscle’s tear mid-range all the time. Of my three hamstring tears two were mid-range concentric with the lightest weight of the day. The other was actually during stretching… and I have always had “normal” (or “better than”) “hamstring flexibility”. Not scientific, but true.

Misinterpretation #1: Am I saying stretching is bad?
Of course not. But it seems that most people are too lazy, don’t have the intellect to get beyond an “either-or”, have no ability to make contextual and detailed decisions and adjustments in application, or they have been so conditioned by a “team” mentality that they demand all information in the form of “good for you” or “bad for you” with no awareness of the vast variety of scenario specific circumstances influencing outcomes.

As with any form of exercise or imposition of force on the body the keys are: who is being stretched? What is the goal? HOW are they being stretched? What are the individual’s range influencing barriers in this specific joint in this specific direction? What is the current status of the joints? What is the current status of the tissue? What are the current protective requirements that the nervous system has put in place? And why the hell would we blindly following tradition and people who don’t ask these questions?

Misinterpretation #2: “Purvis doesn’t like stretching”
Start by re-viewing misinterpretation 1. Then say this over and over until you live it: “Like” and “dislike” have absolutely nothing to do with what a professional recommends to or utilizes for another person. Personal preferences are entirely irrelevant! If you can’t do this, do not counsel others. Only the needs of the individual matter!

The ultimate and primary question: What is “stretching”?
How? How aggressive? How is it progressed? And its name (branding) means and tell us nothing!
There are approximately six general factors that can and should be manipulated in any exercise, and stretching is no exception. And under each of these are numerous decisions and adjustments to be considered and strategically explored, all of which can’t even be considered without the answers to five questions that require ongoing investigation to answer.

Without getting side tracked in these topics, it’s safe to say most “experts” have a very limited perception of the expanse of issues and options, not to mention the tremendous skill required in implementing any of them. And we mustn’t ignore the professional responsibility and liability of imposing forces, ranges, etc. without awareness of the details and individual considerations.

In the end there are about a couple dozen ways to do what people should stop calling “stretching.” Why stop? Because the word conjures up mental images and protocols that have limited and biased our experiences. Experiences that do not include skilled thinking or questioning, rather blind following of those who are also biased either for or against something. The substitution of marketing sound bites and neat, simple packaging for real education and the wisdom to apply it, creates a facade of knowledge.

What I might do now to satisfy the goals for stretching is not based upon what I learned in PT school 35 years ago, nor on any of the articles and journals I’ve read, nor upon the continuing education and conferences I’ve attended over the decades, and certainly not on the latest trendy marketing crap. It’s based upon what I’ve learned through relentless questioning, trial and error (including details that are the opposites of what I learned), and having no allegiance to anything except the outcomes of the individual … and if you observe, you wouldn’t consider to be stretching at all!