There are a lot of ways to think about your martial art - is it a form of physical culture, a means of learning self defense, a cultural/ historical preservation activity, etc. None of these are wrong, and in many ways they aren't exclusive - you can train to get in shape AND to preserve a part of history that you find valuable, for example. The way you think of your art will, however, shape your training in many ways (if you train to preserve a cultural artifact you're less likely to incorporate techniques from other arts, for example), as well as shaping your marketing (sales pitch) and the way you may structure activities around your dojo.
I've already written about how I think we can benefit from regarding our training from a physical culture perspective (and I stand by what I wrote there). I have another perspective to share today.
I tend to do the bulk of my training alone. I go to class when I can, which is often just once a week, but I'll practice kata and kihon or do my conditioning by myself several other times a week (by the way, this is probably a bad idea for any beginner, but I've got many years of supervised training under my belt). There are advantages to this approach. I have less travel time. I can train whenever I want - I'm never late for class! I can focus on the skills I need most and on the exercises that work best for me.
There are also some pretty obvious disadvantages. You can't do partner drills by yourself. It's very difficult to work on many key skills without a partner - you can get clean technique, but how do you develop your timing? It's even harder in grappling arts, I'm sure - how do you even practice throws, holds, and locks without another body to toss around?
I think that many people will also suffer from a motivation gap. I'm not that way personally, but for many people it's easier to show up to a class and train because someone is telling you to train, rather than trying to force yourself to practice alone in an empty room when you could just go have a beer instead and nobody would be any the wiser.
Let's put aside these considerations for now - these points all have to do with the fact that training with other people can be better for your karate. They're valid points, but there is another set of advantages to training with a group that have nothing to do with improving your skill:
The thing is, humans are social animals. We evolved to travel in groups and there are serious biological implications to that fact. There is a substantial body of medical literature showing that human health is enhanced by having strong social connections - friends, family, whatever. We can argue over some of the fine points - do internet friendships count or not (I suspect they do) - but the bottom line is, very clearly, that people are healthier and happier when they have a deep social environment.
You can get friends from a lot of places, but one very interesting social bond is created by shared physical suffering. Anyone who's ever been through a football camp or a hard promotion test can tell you this. In my dojo we often hug or pat each other on the back after tough sparring matches. This is why corporations spend tons of money to take their executives rock climbing or white water rafting and call it "team building." It really does build a sense of togetherness and bonding among people.
The people in your dojo a) share your interests; b) spend time with you regularly; c) share bonding experiences regularly. They're also unlikely to be total douchebags, at least in a good school, because if you have good seniors the douchebags get their asses kicked hard enough that they either straighten up their act or quit before getting very high in rank (usually).
My point? You should be (and probably already are) friends with your senpai and kohai. You should hang out with them outside of class. You should invite them to your Christmas party. You should share birthdays. You should be Facebook friends. You should hang around before or after class and catch up with them.
Furthermore, being friends with your classmates is a key benefit of your training. You might justify watching a football game with your buddies or poker night by saying that you need time with your friends - the same is true, perhaps even more so, about training. If you're thinking about spending money on a martial arts retreat or attending a seminar or having a social function, and you're waffling, don't think of it in terms of just how much karate you'll learn - think of the benefits of that activity as a social occasion. Karate can help fulfill your fundamental human need for interaction!
If you can (this will depend on the culture at your school), organize and participate in social activities outside of class with your peers. Do a martial arts movie night, have parties, go for drinks after class, whatever. And don't resist these activities because they might have limited direct benefit for your karate - that's not the point. The point is to enhance your health and happiness by deepening positive social connections.
If you run a school, encourage your students to socialize outside of class. Get them to do movie nights (or organize them yourself). Be available to grab drinks or snacks after class, at least some of the time. Put up a board in your entrance area for people to advertise get-togethers. You might be teaching self defense, but you're also creating a social network for your students.
Want to convince someone to start training? Yes, they'll learn to defend themselves, and yes, they'll get in better shape. But they might also make a whole bunch of new friends, and that has an added value all its own - not just int he obvious ways, but enhancing health and longevity.
If you think you can be fit and healthy and a loner... you're probably wrong. You can get a social life by going out drinking and partying multiple times per week, but you're probably going to last longer if you hang out with your dojo mates instead!
Osu.
Showing posts with label longevity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label longevity. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Still Fat?
I just finished reading Stephan Guyenet's post (and every associated comment) relaying some details about a disagreement he had with Gary Taubes at the Ancestral Health Symposium over, I believe, the cause of obesity.
Guyenet, who writes an excellent blog, has lately been endorsing a food reward theory of obesity. I'll paraphrase: different foods have different reward value. The reward value is, roughly speaking, some intersection of diversity (increasing variety increases reward value), taste (tastier food has higher reward value), fat and sugar (see taste) and ease of preparation. People become obese because they eat high reward value food. When they switch their diet to lower reward value food - almost regardless of the macronutrient ratio - they will lose weight. When populations start eating higher reward value food they get fatter. A potential cure for obesity is to eat blander food, with less variety, less seasonings, and cooked in an intentionally bland way.
Gary Taubes, in case you haven't heard of him, is a book author (Good Calories Bad Calories is an absolutely fantastic history of modern nutritional doctrine, even if you disagree with the dietary recommendations) and a journalist who endorses an excess carbohydrate theory of obesity. To paraphrase, people get fat because they eat too many refined carbs and sugar, which causes disregulation of insulin, which leads their fat cells to accumulate fat. A potential cure for obesity is to cut most or all carbohydrate, especially refined carbohydrates, sugars, and starch, from the diet.
The two got into a heated disagreement at some point during the AHS (I wasn't there, nor did I watch the video, so I'm going on what I've read in blogs). I learned quite a bit from the debate, however - especially from the comments! And I want to share my observations with you.
It took me 25 years to find the formula that works for me, and I'm still tinkering with it. I'm not saying it will take you as long, but: a) the end result is worth it; and b) the alternative, giving up, is kind of horrible.
Osu!
Guyenet, who writes an excellent blog, has lately been endorsing a food reward theory of obesity. I'll paraphrase: different foods have different reward value. The reward value is, roughly speaking, some intersection of diversity (increasing variety increases reward value), taste (tastier food has higher reward value), fat and sugar (see taste) and ease of preparation. People become obese because they eat high reward value food. When they switch their diet to lower reward value food - almost regardless of the macronutrient ratio - they will lose weight. When populations start eating higher reward value food they get fatter. A potential cure for obesity is to eat blander food, with less variety, less seasonings, and cooked in an intentionally bland way.
Gary Taubes, in case you haven't heard of him, is a book author (Good Calories Bad Calories is an absolutely fantastic history of modern nutritional doctrine, even if you disagree with the dietary recommendations) and a journalist who endorses an excess carbohydrate theory of obesity. To paraphrase, people get fat because they eat too many refined carbs and sugar, which causes disregulation of insulin, which leads their fat cells to accumulate fat. A potential cure for obesity is to cut most or all carbohydrate, especially refined carbohydrates, sugars, and starch, from the diet.
The two got into a heated disagreement at some point during the AHS (I wasn't there, nor did I watch the video, so I'm going on what I've read in blogs). I learned quite a bit from the debate, however - especially from the comments! And I want to share my observations with you.
- There are different competing theories about nutrition and health (Paleo, low carb, high carb-low fat, vegan, vegetarian, ancestral, weight watchers). Some are total crap. Many (the better ones) have components that can explain away the evidence presented by the competitors (your vegan diet "works" because even though it doesn't include meat, at least it reduces the use of white flower; your low fat diet "works" because at least it restricts industrial seed oils along with the healthy saturated fats you demonize; your paleo diet "works" because even though you're still eating too much saturated fat at least you've increased your intake of fresh vegetables.)
- Each of the competing dietary philosophies are endorsed by plenty of people who saw drastic improvements in health - got leaner, felt better, etc. - when taking up that eating plan.
- Each of the competing dietary philosophies is derided by plenty of people who got fatter or sicker while taking up that diet plan over a range of time periods (some after years of compliance, some sooner). In some cases that may be a problem with implementation (some people go lacto-ovo-vegetarian by eating only pizza and beer; others concentrate on eggs from pastured chickens, dairy from grass fed cows, fresh vegetables, and no grains - they'll get very different results) or genetic or acquired differences in metabolism and tolerances of certain foods or food groups. For every healthy, lean vegan you can find someone who got miserably sick on the diet for no obvious reason (not because they did it wrong) - and the same is true for paleo, low carb, low fat, etc.
- Strategies that work for whole populations (that is, you can find a group of people living on an island somewhere who eat that way and are healthy, lean, and long -lived) will not necessarily work for everybody. Why not? It could be that there are genetic differences that make the difference, lifestyle differences (that group that did well on diet X got lots of sunlight, you live in Alaska), or a metabolism damaged by a lifetime of Oreos and Coca Cola isn't the same as that of a hunter gatherer who's never tasted sugar.
- Whenever anybody figures out the thing that works for them - low carb, low fat, paleo, vegan, whatever - they seem incapable of accepting that it may not work for everybody. Anybody who tells you they have the whole nutrition thing worked out is full of crap. Look, cutting out gluten radically changed my health and, in fact, my life - that doesn't mean it will do the same for you.
So I've basically told you that you know even less than you thought you did - no matter what you're advising somebody to eat, you might be wrong - your advice might make them fat and sick, depending on the person. And, perhaps worse, what you're eating might be wrong for you - in fact, you might be doing everything right, or so you think, and yet you're still fat.
What do you do?
1. Start with the commonalities.
I've said this before, but there are, in fact, some commonalities among nearly all the diets that "work" for either health or fat loss:
What do you do?
1. Start with the commonalities.
I've said this before, but there are, in fact, some commonalities among nearly all the diets that "work" for either health or fat loss:
- Cut back on (at least) refined flour and sugar. I can't find a legitimate diet that encourages white flour and sugar.
- Drink enough fluid/ water (there's disagreement about how much you really need, but if you're thirsty and dry mouthed a lot you're definitely in trouble). I don't believe that your fluid has to be from plain water, but you have to get at least some fluid in.
- Whatever you eat, get the highest quality version of that food that you can manage: if you eat only beef, get grass fed beef. Get eggs from pastured chickens. For plants some need to be organic (generally, if there's an inedible skin or it grows underground, being organic is less important).
- I am very sorry about this, but you're going to have to reduce your energy intake if you want to lose fat. With some diets this is easier than others - I personally have a much easier time restricting calories when I avoid gluten - but you still have to, at the end of the day, consume less food if you want your body to burn fat. But, and here's the real kick in the ass, if you reduce intake too much you'll stop fat loss. Yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a weird sense of humor.
2. Give your current plan a chance.
- Whatever you're doing - low carb, vegan, whatever - do it super strict for 30 days. If you don't feel/ look better at that point, then it's time to move on. When/ if you do move on, at least you'll know you gave it a real chance.
- Stay away from fake foods that are aimed at your diet. If you're gluten free, you shouldn't be eating anything that is advertised as gluten free. Gluten free Bisquick is not real food - rice is real food, meat is real food, veggies are real, gluten free brownies are not. Ditto for low fat, low carb, etc. Invariably the processed products that are manufactured to meet some weird dietary requirement are substituting one evil for another.
- Get plenty of the 3 S's for leanness: sleep, sun, and sex. (I should turn that into a book.) Getting more of all 3 -but avoiding the excess of sleeping all day, burning, or acquiring an STD - will make you healthier and leaner.
- Train hard but not too hard and enough but not too much. Cortisol will keep the pounds packed on for most of us (not everyone responds the same to this). Training too hard can make it just as hard to be lean as training too little.
- Get in plenty of very low intensity movement. Take long slow walks at night.
- Minimize the stress in your life. Try meditating.
4. If these strategies don't do the trick... MOVE ON!
I'd love to tell you that paleo will work for everyone. I have strong philosophical and scientific reasons to think that it will. But... I've been wrong before. And you can easily find a hundred vegans who are just as certain that staying away from delicious animal products will optimize your health, longevity, and fitness. So, if you've been giving any dietary strategy a real commitment and it's not working, try something else! Eat some carbs. Have a salad. Whatever. Just stick to the basic framework: eat less, cut back on sugar and white flour, and eat higher quality food.
It took me 25 years to find the formula that works for me, and I'm still tinkering with it. I'm not saying it will take you as long, but: a) the end result is worth it; and b) the alternative, giving up, is kind of horrible.
Osu!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
What is a Black Belt?
[Disclaimer: While I am a proud practitioner of Seido Karate, my views do not necessarily represent the views of that style or its leadership - this blog is about my personal opinions.]
I really dislike telling muggles (my term for people who don't practice martial arts) that I'm a black belt, or even that I practice karate. It's not that I'm ashamed of it - I'm actually quite proud to be a karateka - it's that I find it hard to communicate what my practice or my rank actually means to somebody who doesn't do any martial arts.
How do I know people don't understand? Because no matter how well meaning (and I honestly believe that these conversations all involve absolutely well-meaning people, and if you've said these things don't feel bad!) they are, people almost always make follow-up questions or comments that leave me shaking my head. I bet you've heard the same kind of things:
"Oh, you have a 3rd degree black belt? My niece does too - she's 11 years old and she studies tae kwon do!"
"Does that mean you could beat up (a second degree black belt, a boxer, anybody else, a UFC fighter, a motorcycle gang member)?"
"I guess I shouldn't get into a fight with you!"
"So, you're 3rd degree, and there are 10 degrees, so only 7 more until you're finished!"
"Does that mean you can (break bats with your shins, break slabs of ice, do jumping spinning kicks, break this object that we have lying around the office, do pushups on one fist)?"
"I bet you still can't beat a well place round from a Colt .45."
And so on.
I understand why people make these responses - they're trying to make conversation, they don't really know what martial arts are all about or why grownups would spend hours a week learning them, or they just don't know what else to say. That's part of the reason why I'm writing this post - to clarify things a little.
So what does it mean when someone tells another person (someone outside the style I practice) that (s)he is a Xth degree black belt?
Implied Threat
Every once in a while people hear "I practice karate" or "I have a black belt" and hear it as an implied threat - as if someone said, "I could totally kick your ass." Now when someone tells you that they could kick your ass it isn't just a statement of fact - it's not the same as me saying, "I can type faster than you can" - it's usually a veiled warning (depending on context, of course). So sometimes people get defensive, thinking that the karateka is asserting dominance or threatening to use violence to resolve any conflicts.
In fact, however, more often than not a trained karateka will be less likely to start a fight with an untrained person. We have nothing to gain from it, ego-wise - if I beat up an untrained coworker I won't have proven anything, because after 10 years of training if I couldn't whip the ass of a guy who hasn't thrown a punch since grammar school I'd be super pathetic. Plus, we're less likely to freak out in violent situations - you throw a punch at me, it won't be a completely foreign experience, while if you throw a punch at someone who is completely untrained - or do anything else, even innocently, that might make them feel threatened - they're more likely to overreact. Plus, we know that we're less likely to receive sympathy from judges and juries, simply because we are trained in martial arts. So we have more to lose.
I'm sure you can find examples of martial artists who use their rank/ status as a means of bullying other people - but they're the exception, in my experience. Bullies don't usually last too long in the dojo - there are too many tough people around who won't put up with that kind of attitude.
Cross-Style Comparison
A natural assumption people make is that a black belt is a black belt is a black belt, regardless of style. They think that being an Xth degree black belt is like meeting some objective standard - like being an Olympic qualifier in swimming or something.
In fact different styles have widely varying requirements for promotion to black belt, and they change with different levels. For example, it is typical for a shodan (1st degree black belt) to be granted to a student based on skill/ knowledge of the syllabus, but usually higher rankings (say, 5th degree and up, roughly speaking) take into account a person's contributions to the style - do they teach, how many high ranking people they've trained, etc.
Additionally, the relative skill required differs greatly from style to style. I trained as a kid in a style where it took 10 years of hard training, minimum, to achieve a black belt. I saw my teacher do some kata the day after he got his first degree black belt and he was awesome. His skill level was at least equal to most 3rd or 4th degree black belts in traditional styles.
If you want to know how "good" or skilled someone is at martial arts a much better question than rank is how many years they've been training. Of course, someone who puts in 10+ hours/ week of training for 5 years is probably going to be better than someone who trains 2 hours/week for 6 years, and someone with better teachers and classmates will advance more quickly, but you'll get a rough approximation.
Implied Fighting Ability
Other people hear "I practice karate" and think I mean to say that I could beat up either anyone who doesn't practice, or anyone of lower rank than me. So they sometimes ask if I could beat up a particular person or type of person, to put me in the correct spot in some imagined global pecking order. The answer is always "maybe," because the outcome of a fight depends on so many things. I could lose a fistfight with my seven year old daughter if I get hit by a stray meteor before landing a punch.
Now, we can argue statistics, and my chances would be pretty good against most seven year old children, but if you ask how I'd do against your average 3rd degree black belt in tae kwon do, even if you narrowed it down to a particular school, the answer would have to be - how the hell should I know? How many tae kwon do black belts do you think I've gotten into streetfights with, that I should have a solid grasp of my mathematical chances? (In case you're not sure, the answer is zero.)
In fact it is very difficult to answer the question of "who would beat whom." It depends on circumstances, rules (or lack of rules), relative condition (we all have good days and bad days), and luck. The one thing I feel very comfortable saying is this: I'm better as a 3rd degree black belt than I was when I got my 1st degree. If I could travel back in time, I'd have a very good chance of beating up my old self in a fight (though that seems like an awful waste of the ability to travel in time). And I'd stand a better chance in a fight against anybody with my current skill level than I would have before - though that doesn't mean I'd have a good chance of beating up any particular person.
There is another aspect to this that we have to consider: age. I'm 40. 50 years from now I'll still be at least a 3rd degree black belt - maybe higher. Chances are that despite my best efforts I won't be much of a fighter at that point, despite my rank. There is always, or almost always, a loss in overal ability due to the accumulated injuries and the effects of aging and training on fast twitch muscle fibers.
So what does a black belt mean?
The efforts of marketers and martial arts movie producers have resulted in a somewhat mystical and somewhat, in my opinion, misleading perception of what a black belt is. Not every black belt is a paragon of virtue. Not every black belt is ready to step into an action film or fight off a gang of thugs bare handed. Not every black belt is even capable of feats that would impress an untrained observer.
Pretty much every black belt (depending on their style and school) is someone who has devoted a significant amount of time over several years doing difficult training to perfect their art. They have met some arbitrary standard for promotion - one decided on by their instructors. Tha'ts it.
Does that mean that person deserves your respect? Probably, at least a little bit. I have respect for anybody who works hard to achieve a goal - I respect people who can play musical instruments. My cousin Ed is a hell of a photographer, I respect him for that tremendously. Does it mean you need to tread lightly around a black belt or worry about them beating you up? Only if they're also an asshole - which is possible, but actually not that likely. Violent people don't often last long in martial arts - bullies and hot tempered people don't do well when they have to regularly spend time in rooms filled with people skilled enough to kick the crap out of them.
If you meet someone who trains in karate you can ask them their rank, but if you want to make small talk try these questions instead:
And if you really want to understand what a black belt means, take up karate (or, if you must, some other style of traditional martial arts) and train hard for four or five years. By then you'll probably understand!
Osu.
I really dislike telling muggles (my term for people who don't practice martial arts) that I'm a black belt, or even that I practice karate. It's not that I'm ashamed of it - I'm actually quite proud to be a karateka - it's that I find it hard to communicate what my practice or my rank actually means to somebody who doesn't do any martial arts.
How do I know people don't understand? Because no matter how well meaning (and I honestly believe that these conversations all involve absolutely well-meaning people, and if you've said these things don't feel bad!) they are, people almost always make follow-up questions or comments that leave me shaking my head. I bet you've heard the same kind of things:
"Oh, you have a 3rd degree black belt? My niece does too - she's 11 years old and she studies tae kwon do!"
"Does that mean you could beat up (a second degree black belt, a boxer, anybody else, a UFC fighter, a motorcycle gang member)?"
"I guess I shouldn't get into a fight with you!"
"So, you're 3rd degree, and there are 10 degrees, so only 7 more until you're finished!"
"Does that mean you can (break bats with your shins, break slabs of ice, do jumping spinning kicks, break this object that we have lying around the office, do pushups on one fist)?"
"I bet you still can't beat a well place round from a Colt .45."
And so on.
I understand why people make these responses - they're trying to make conversation, they don't really know what martial arts are all about or why grownups would spend hours a week learning them, or they just don't know what else to say. That's part of the reason why I'm writing this post - to clarify things a little.
So what does it mean when someone tells another person (someone outside the style I practice) that (s)he is a Xth degree black belt?
Implied Threat
Every once in a while people hear "I practice karate" or "I have a black belt" and hear it as an implied threat - as if someone said, "I could totally kick your ass." Now when someone tells you that they could kick your ass it isn't just a statement of fact - it's not the same as me saying, "I can type faster than you can" - it's usually a veiled warning (depending on context, of course). So sometimes people get defensive, thinking that the karateka is asserting dominance or threatening to use violence to resolve any conflicts.
In fact, however, more often than not a trained karateka will be less likely to start a fight with an untrained person. We have nothing to gain from it, ego-wise - if I beat up an untrained coworker I won't have proven anything, because after 10 years of training if I couldn't whip the ass of a guy who hasn't thrown a punch since grammar school I'd be super pathetic. Plus, we're less likely to freak out in violent situations - you throw a punch at me, it won't be a completely foreign experience, while if you throw a punch at someone who is completely untrained - or do anything else, even innocently, that might make them feel threatened - they're more likely to overreact. Plus, we know that we're less likely to receive sympathy from judges and juries, simply because we are trained in martial arts. So we have more to lose.
I'm sure you can find examples of martial artists who use their rank/ status as a means of bullying other people - but they're the exception, in my experience. Bullies don't usually last too long in the dojo - there are too many tough people around who won't put up with that kind of attitude.
Cross-Style Comparison
A natural assumption people make is that a black belt is a black belt is a black belt, regardless of style. They think that being an Xth degree black belt is like meeting some objective standard - like being an Olympic qualifier in swimming or something.
In fact different styles have widely varying requirements for promotion to black belt, and they change with different levels. For example, it is typical for a shodan (1st degree black belt) to be granted to a student based on skill/ knowledge of the syllabus, but usually higher rankings (say, 5th degree and up, roughly speaking) take into account a person's contributions to the style - do they teach, how many high ranking people they've trained, etc.
Additionally, the relative skill required differs greatly from style to style. I trained as a kid in a style where it took 10 years of hard training, minimum, to achieve a black belt. I saw my teacher do some kata the day after he got his first degree black belt and he was awesome. His skill level was at least equal to most 3rd or 4th degree black belts in traditional styles.
If you want to know how "good" or skilled someone is at martial arts a much better question than rank is how many years they've been training. Of course, someone who puts in 10+ hours/ week of training for 5 years is probably going to be better than someone who trains 2 hours/week for 6 years, and someone with better teachers and classmates will advance more quickly, but you'll get a rough approximation.
Implied Fighting Ability
Other people hear "I practice karate" and think I mean to say that I could beat up either anyone who doesn't practice, or anyone of lower rank than me. So they sometimes ask if I could beat up a particular person or type of person, to put me in the correct spot in some imagined global pecking order. The answer is always "maybe," because the outcome of a fight depends on so many things. I could lose a fistfight with my seven year old daughter if I get hit by a stray meteor before landing a punch.
Now, we can argue statistics, and my chances would be pretty good against most seven year old children, but if you ask how I'd do against your average 3rd degree black belt in tae kwon do, even if you narrowed it down to a particular school, the answer would have to be - how the hell should I know? How many tae kwon do black belts do you think I've gotten into streetfights with, that I should have a solid grasp of my mathematical chances? (In case you're not sure, the answer is zero.)
In fact it is very difficult to answer the question of "who would beat whom." It depends on circumstances, rules (or lack of rules), relative condition (we all have good days and bad days), and luck. The one thing I feel very comfortable saying is this: I'm better as a 3rd degree black belt than I was when I got my 1st degree. If I could travel back in time, I'd have a very good chance of beating up my old self in a fight (though that seems like an awful waste of the ability to travel in time). And I'd stand a better chance in a fight against anybody with my current skill level than I would have before - though that doesn't mean I'd have a good chance of beating up any particular person.
There is another aspect to this that we have to consider: age. I'm 40. 50 years from now I'll still be at least a 3rd degree black belt - maybe higher. Chances are that despite my best efforts I won't be much of a fighter at that point, despite my rank. There is always, or almost always, a loss in overal ability due to the accumulated injuries and the effects of aging and training on fast twitch muscle fibers.
So what does a black belt mean?
The efforts of marketers and martial arts movie producers have resulted in a somewhat mystical and somewhat, in my opinion, misleading perception of what a black belt is. Not every black belt is a paragon of virtue. Not every black belt is ready to step into an action film or fight off a gang of thugs bare handed. Not every black belt is even capable of feats that would impress an untrained observer.
Pretty much every black belt (depending on their style and school) is someone who has devoted a significant amount of time over several years doing difficult training to perfect their art. They have met some arbitrary standard for promotion - one decided on by their instructors. Tha'ts it.
Does that mean that person deserves your respect? Probably, at least a little bit. I have respect for anybody who works hard to achieve a goal - I respect people who can play musical instruments. My cousin Ed is a hell of a photographer, I respect him for that tremendously. Does it mean you need to tread lightly around a black belt or worry about them beating you up? Only if they're also an asshole - which is possible, but actually not that likely. Violent people don't often last long in martial arts - bullies and hot tempered people don't do well when they have to regularly spend time in rooms filled with people skilled enough to kick the crap out of them.
If you meet someone who trains in karate you can ask them their rank, but if you want to make small talk try these questions instead:
For how long have you been training?
What style do you practice? (You can follow up by asking where the style is from, etc., especially if you haven't heard of it.)
Do you train with weapons or only bare hands?
How often do you train?
How/why did you get started in your martial art?
Do you do anything outside the dojo to supplement your martial arts training?
Do you think I could learn it as well? (feigning interest in another person's hobbies is a great way to make friends!)
Treat your black belt wearing friends the same way you'd treat someone who has any weird but interesting hobby - an amateur painter, long distance runner, or whatever. Try to avoid talking about violence and dominance issues. We don't practice martial arts so others will fear us, we do it because we love it. And if you really want to understand what a black belt means, take up karate (or, if you must, some other style of traditional martial arts) and train hard for four or five years. By then you'll probably understand!
Osu.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Mindful Exercise
The other day I ordered a DVD containing over 3 hours of information about performing a single exercise - the kettlebell swing. I'm not plugging the DVD - I haven't gotten it yet, it might suck, all the usual reasons, and it's not a review copy (although if anybody has any materials they want to donate so I can review them, send away!) I'm bringing it up for another reason.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine (a non-karateka), who asked me, more or less, why the hell I would pay for or watch 3 hours of material about an exercise I already know how to do.
If you are involved in martial arts you probably don't think there's anything odd about devoting 3 hours (or 3 days, weeks, months, or years) to a single technique in your art - the subtleties of timing and body positioning that make a great punch different from a good punch are complex and, yes, subtle. But you might not often put as much time or thought into your supporting exercises.
Spending hours learning about, then many more hours refining, the fine points of an exercise are important for a couple of reasons.
Safety: If you are moving heavy loads or doing a lot of repetitions of a movement (think of people either doing near maximum lifts or joggers - opposite but similar problems) then the injury potential for the movement becomes large. Small adjustments to your body mechanics can greatly reduce your risk of getting hurt. Squat with 5 lb. dumbells with your knees caving in? Probably okay. Do it 1000 times a day? You'll mess up your knees, hips, and ankles. Do it for fewer reps, but with 250 lbs. on your back? Again, you're going to be sending your chiropractor/orthopedist/physical therapist's kids through college.
Getting your body alignment perfect won't make movement risk free, but it will greatly enhance your safety.
Performance: You might not realize it, but there are a lot of details that go into doing even simple movements (bench press, deadlift) at a high level. As a beginner you're going to make great gains on these movements no matter how you do them. As you get stronger, though, you'll need to focus more and more on perfecting your technique if you want to continue to make progress. Listen to something like Iron Radio and you can hear guys who can talk about the bench or squat for hours - it's not just "put the weight on your back, sit down, then get back up."
Performance is not just a matter of how much you can lift or how often you can safely do a movement before hitting failure - after all, you might not care if your squat is 200 lbs or 400 lbs as long as your legs get stronger. Performance is also a matter of what the training effect will be. If you squat a certain way you might get all the stress on your quadriceps - which is nice, but not great. Improve your technique and you can shift the stress - and therefore the adaptions - to your hips and glutes, which will have a much bigger impact on your overall fitness, athleticism, and martial ability.
Boredom: We all have different tolerances for going into the gym and mindless cranking away at the treadmill, Hammer machines, elliptical, or whatever. Some people can keep that up for years; others can't. I personally am actually pretty good at doing mind numbingly boring stuff in the gym if I think it will help me improve. BUT we all prefer routines that are less boring. Doing the same set of exercises while only half paying attention, listening to music or watching TV is a completely different experience than working to perfect a complex motor skill. That's why people enjoy golf and videogames and bowling in a way they don't enjoy pedaling away on an exercise bike.
Working on the skill of doing exercises - striving to perfect your technique, adjusting to the daily variances in your body's stability and mobility, fully concentrating on the moment you're in - that's not boring. Pushing away at pads on a machine can be.
Brain Health: You, like many people, may be convinced that doing exercise in an engaged way might be less boring, but you'd still rather just watch TV from your treadmill and reap the health benefits of exercise. Sadly, you'll be missing out on a big chunk of those benefits. Your brain, just like any other of your body's systems, gets crapped out with disuse. If you aren't constantly forcing your nervous system to adapt to new demands it will slowly lose the ability to do so. If you stop learning, you eventually lose (or at least decrease) your ability to learn. If you stop acquiring and refining new motor skills you lose the ability to acquire, and to even maintain, motor skills.
Not worried about it? You're okay with growing old and not being able to improve your golf game? That's fine - but if your motor control declines you won't just lose your ability to sink a putt, you'll slowly lose your ability to run, then walk, then get out of a chair. For fun, go into a nursing home and ask the residents how cool it is that they get wheelchairs so they don't have to move around under their own power anymore.
Will kettlebell swings prevent you from ever being incapacitated? I'm not sure. But mainaining your neural efficiency is a big part of maintaining your ability to move yourself around, put boxes on shelves, walk through an airport, have sex - do any of the things that make life worth living. If you're in your twenties that may seem like a pretty distant concern, but the way to be healthy and have a high quality of life (and a well functioning nervous system) in your old age is to start building up your body - muscles, tendons, bones, ligaments, and nerves - now.
Mindlessly pumping away at machines or cardio equipment is just that - mindless - and it doesn't exercise your mind at all. Now doing machine circuits at Curves is certainly better than nothing, but it's nowhere near as good for you as a mentally engaging workout where you are constantly working on form the way a professional dancer is always working on her basic movements.
Summary: The age old machines vs. free weights debate may not have a clear cut answer about which is better for your muscles, but there is no doubt that free weights are better for your nervous system. Be engaged in all your exercises - really focus on form when you do pushups (pack the shoulders, tighten the core, screw your hands into the ground), not just when you do punches, and keep your nerves responsive and healthy! As an added benefit, you'll get stronger and more resilient as well.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine (a non-karateka), who asked me, more or less, why the hell I would pay for or watch 3 hours of material about an exercise I already know how to do.
If you are involved in martial arts you probably don't think there's anything odd about devoting 3 hours (or 3 days, weeks, months, or years) to a single technique in your art - the subtleties of timing and body positioning that make a great punch different from a good punch are complex and, yes, subtle. But you might not often put as much time or thought into your supporting exercises.
Spending hours learning about, then many more hours refining, the fine points of an exercise are important for a couple of reasons.
Safety: If you are moving heavy loads or doing a lot of repetitions of a movement (think of people either doing near maximum lifts or joggers - opposite but similar problems) then the injury potential for the movement becomes large. Small adjustments to your body mechanics can greatly reduce your risk of getting hurt. Squat with 5 lb. dumbells with your knees caving in? Probably okay. Do it 1000 times a day? You'll mess up your knees, hips, and ankles. Do it for fewer reps, but with 250 lbs. on your back? Again, you're going to be sending your chiropractor/orthopedist/physical therapist's kids through college.
Getting your body alignment perfect won't make movement risk free, but it will greatly enhance your safety.
Performance: You might not realize it, but there are a lot of details that go into doing even simple movements (bench press, deadlift) at a high level. As a beginner you're going to make great gains on these movements no matter how you do them. As you get stronger, though, you'll need to focus more and more on perfecting your technique if you want to continue to make progress. Listen to something like Iron Radio and you can hear guys who can talk about the bench or squat for hours - it's not just "put the weight on your back, sit down, then get back up."
Performance is not just a matter of how much you can lift or how often you can safely do a movement before hitting failure - after all, you might not care if your squat is 200 lbs or 400 lbs as long as your legs get stronger. Performance is also a matter of what the training effect will be. If you squat a certain way you might get all the stress on your quadriceps - which is nice, but not great. Improve your technique and you can shift the stress - and therefore the adaptions - to your hips and glutes, which will have a much bigger impact on your overall fitness, athleticism, and martial ability.
Boredom: We all have different tolerances for going into the gym and mindless cranking away at the treadmill, Hammer machines, elliptical, or whatever. Some people can keep that up for years; others can't. I personally am actually pretty good at doing mind numbingly boring stuff in the gym if I think it will help me improve. BUT we all prefer routines that are less boring. Doing the same set of exercises while only half paying attention, listening to music or watching TV is a completely different experience than working to perfect a complex motor skill. That's why people enjoy golf and videogames and bowling in a way they don't enjoy pedaling away on an exercise bike.
Working on the skill of doing exercises - striving to perfect your technique, adjusting to the daily variances in your body's stability and mobility, fully concentrating on the moment you're in - that's not boring. Pushing away at pads on a machine can be.
Brain Health: You, like many people, may be convinced that doing exercise in an engaged way might be less boring, but you'd still rather just watch TV from your treadmill and reap the health benefits of exercise. Sadly, you'll be missing out on a big chunk of those benefits. Your brain, just like any other of your body's systems, gets crapped out with disuse. If you aren't constantly forcing your nervous system to adapt to new demands it will slowly lose the ability to do so. If you stop learning, you eventually lose (or at least decrease) your ability to learn. If you stop acquiring and refining new motor skills you lose the ability to acquire, and to even maintain, motor skills.
Not worried about it? You're okay with growing old and not being able to improve your golf game? That's fine - but if your motor control declines you won't just lose your ability to sink a putt, you'll slowly lose your ability to run, then walk, then get out of a chair. For fun, go into a nursing home and ask the residents how cool it is that they get wheelchairs so they don't have to move around under their own power anymore.
Will kettlebell swings prevent you from ever being incapacitated? I'm not sure. But mainaining your neural efficiency is a big part of maintaining your ability to move yourself around, put boxes on shelves, walk through an airport, have sex - do any of the things that make life worth living. If you're in your twenties that may seem like a pretty distant concern, but the way to be healthy and have a high quality of life (and a well functioning nervous system) in your old age is to start building up your body - muscles, tendons, bones, ligaments, and nerves - now.
Mindlessly pumping away at machines or cardio equipment is just that - mindless - and it doesn't exercise your mind at all. Now doing machine circuits at Curves is certainly better than nothing, but it's nowhere near as good for you as a mentally engaging workout where you are constantly working on form the way a professional dancer is always working on her basic movements.
Summary: The age old machines vs. free weights debate may not have a clear cut answer about which is better for your muscles, but there is no doubt that free weights are better for your nervous system. Be engaged in all your exercises - really focus on form when you do pushups (pack the shoulders, tighten the core, screw your hands into the ground), not just when you do punches, and keep your nerves responsive and healthy! As an added benefit, you'll get stronger and more resilient as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)