Warning: include(wp-content/themes/twentyfourteen/inc/include-wp.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home3/evosite/public_html/wp-config.php on line 77

Warning: include(wp-content/themes/twentyfourteen/inc/include-wp.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home3/evosite/public_html/wp-config.php on line 77

Warning: include(wp-content/themes/twentyfourteen/inc/include-wp.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home3/evosite/public_html/wp-config.php on line 77

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening 'wp-content/themes/twentyfourteen/inc/include-wp.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/php52/lib/php') in /home3/evosite/public_html/wp-config.php on line 77
Articles | Evolutionary Athletics | Elite Sports Performance Training

Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • glennpendlay 8:00 pm on November 15, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Weightlifting Diet Addendum 1 

    5961860-orig_orig

    One of the benefits that you will notice immediately when you cut candy and junk food from your diet is a change in your taste buds.  If you constantly eat candy and crappy food, you will have a drastically decreased ability to taste normal food.  You will NEED crap like tons of salt and sweetener for food to taste good.  This is not normal, and it is not healthy.  After about 10-14 days of no concentrated sweets, and no super salty processed foods like pizza, and your taste buds will revert to their natural ability to taste.  You will find that many foods that you used to eat now taste way too salty.  And foods that you never realized were sweet, start to taste sweet.  Like milk.  If you have not had concentrated sweets for a while regular non- sweetened milk will taste sweet to you as will many things.  And I am not just talking about fruit, but you have to stop eating candy and junk food for a while before you can taste it.

     


     
  • glennpendlay 11:23 pm on November 14, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Weightlifting Diet 

    There is no doubt that the diet of an average American stinks.  But as a weightlifter, you shouldn’t be eating like the average American.  How should you eat?  Well, many books have been written about that, but I think I can boil it down to a couple of key rules.

    Rule 1:  Do not eat candy or sweets.  This takes zero smarts to figure out.  This includes candy bars, Pop tarts, most breakfast cereals, potato chips, cokes, Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and other crap like that.  Including anything that has high fructose corn syrup.  When you start reading labels you will be amazed at how many things are made using this crap.  It is literally everywhere.

    Rule 2:  Little as you can of high carb items such as bread, potatoes, corn and rice.  These are filling, but low nutrition foods.  They are also easy and convenient.  Actually too easy convenient, which is why I call them lazy foods.  For many people, if they took junk food and lazy food out of their diets, they would starve.  These are the foods that are making America fat and unhealthy.

    Rule 3:  Eat more vegetables of all kinds, except the really high carb ones like potatoes and corn.

    Rule 4:  Eat a variety of protein items like meat, nuts, and eggs. 

    Now, if you are anything like me, when you first start eating like this you will struggle a little bit because out whole society is based around eating a certain way, with bread being a major part of most meals.  At first it will be a struggle to replace all the bread you used to eat with other items.  It might be hard to maintain your weight at first.  You will find that you have to eat A LOT of vegetables to get enough calories to replace the bread that you used to eat.


     
  • Shawn Myszka 6:12 pm on November 14, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    2017 Play of the Week – Week 10 

    Game: Cowboys at Falcons

    Play: Not 1 sack, not 2 or 3 sacks, but 6 sacks!?!

    Clayborn pic 1

    What makes this the BTS Play of the Week?

    I can’t begin to tell each and everyone out there how difficult it is to achieve certain feats within an NFL game. A task outcome that looks as simple as scoring a touchdown (no matter in what facet that this touchdown occurs), grasping an interception, or recording a sack are extraordinarily impressive feats. For example, this is precisely why if an individual registers an average of even just one sack a game they are immediately given serious consideration for the NFL Defensive Player of the Year award.

    Well, as impressive as one sack per game is…imagine notching up not just one sack in a game, and not even just two or three sacks…but six sacks! That is precisely what Adrian Clayborn, DE of the Atlanta Falcons, did against the Tyron Smith-less Dallas Cowboys on Sunday afternoon. This number ended up only one shy of the NFL record set by Derrick Thomas way back in 1990. The length of time that this record has stood should tell you enough of how incredible the feat is but we should also keep in mind that the NFL offensive landscape has also changed significantly in that timeframe (even though there is more emphasis on passing the ball there’s also a lot more quick hitting passes with a lot less frequent deeper drops); thus, it makes what Clayborn did on Sunday a no-brainer for recognition on our Movement Play of the Week for Week 10.

    What happened movement-wise on the play?

    Entering the game on Sunday, Adrian Clayborn had notched only two sacks in the first eight games of the season. As it turns out, it wouldn’t take Clayborn more than a few minutes into the second quarter to double up this season figure. Though every top NFL player loves to be presented with the challenge of facing one of the very best in the league at the position lined up on the other side of him, Clayborn had to have been literally salivating as soon as he saw that the Dallas Cowboys would be without All-Pro Tackle Tyron Smith and instead would be starting Chaz Green. From the looks of it, I’m not sure Green knew exactly what he was in for on this day.

    Normally when people talk about pass rushing forces on the Atlanta Falcons the first guy that comes to mind is 2016 NFL sack leader, Vic Beasley (a member of our 2016 All-Movement Team). However, as Clayborn showed on Sunday, he is also a supremely-dominant force to be reckoned with and he took advantage of his opportunity to line up versus a guy that was left grasping for air more times than we can count on one hand Sunday. That all said though, let’s remember that no matter how lopsided the match-up looked at any point during the game, and no matter who it is that we are talking about in the league, each player is still presented with a challenge of facing one of just 1,695 other active players in the world who are capable of playing at that upper echelon level. Thus, let’s be sure not to discredit Clayborn’s performance just because it happened against a non-starting offensive lineman.

    Clayborn pic 2

    Because I am guessing that it would be just a little too much for those out there to listen to me break down each step taken within each sack, I will let you scroll down to the bottom of the page and watch all three minutes worth of sacks if you so choose. If you do, you will see Clayborn dominated on Sunday not due to some overly diverse and vast array of tools in his pass rushing toolbox (as it so often is the case when we highlight players here on our blog) but instead he relied on key performance indicators of his skill which are displayed by almost every top sack master; acceleration off the edge and cornering around the edge. In fact, I think we can trace each sack but one (which came through the use of an inside spin move) to a certain level back to these two features of who he is. Additionally, a couple of key performance indicators of his psychology truly made it all possible; his unwavering trust in his abilities combined by his intention to go out and be a game changer all game long.

    Clayborn pic 5

    This may all sound pretty intuitively obvious but for a football movement coach & analyst (note: I don’t work with or know Clayborn at all) it was great to see this combination of traits that I often preach to defensive players result in such a record setting day. Don’t get me wrong; many coaches preach this approach (both physical and psychological) to their pass rushers (and players across their roster for that matter) but to me it’s something that they must be exposed to day-in and day-out which can be developed and acquired as second nature: the repeated explosive burst out of his stance, driving the corner hard and fast, the ability to perceive when an opening in the problem-solving dynamic is present and when Prescott was just within reach to trust his abilities and leap to attack…they were all things of beauty exhibited by Clayborn and they combined to accumulate into six sacks but also force a few turnovers along the way, as well.

    Click below to watch Clayborn record sack after sack here:

    http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-game-highlights%2F0ap3000000876135%2FWatch-every-sack-from-Adrian-Clayborn-s-record-day

     


     
  • Anthony Mychal 1:16 am on November 14, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    How much WEIGHT do you have to LIFT in order to BUILD muscle? 

    You have what little muscle you have (HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY OR SO I HEAR) thanks to gravity. If you want to be more muscular, you need to hop into a hyperbolic time chamber and overcome supergravity.

    In other words, you need to create and move against more resistance than what Earth's gravity already provides. Wrote about this in Part 2. I'll add to it in the future, but you're sitting pretty now because you know enough to face the question at hand:

    How much resistance (weight) do you have to move (lift) in order to build muscle?

    I could be blunt.

    Likely, at minimum, 60% of your one-repetition max (1RM). Or, if numbers scare you, just think: sticky movements.

    But, well, you know me. I like to explain things, which is why I'm going to undo my bluntness and dive into the deep. If my blunt answers weren't enough (or were confusing), you're welcome to suffer along with me.

    The RPG analogy to end all analogies (or my sanity, haven't decided)

    Imagine that you're a character in an RPG. Your ability to overcome “load” (established in Part 2) exists on a spectrum that goes from Level 0 to Level 99.

    overcome load level spectrum

    When you're Level 1, you can barely overcome Earth's gravity. Level 99 represents your biological ceiling. The maximum load you've ever be able to overcome.

    (You aren't at your biological ceiling. Even the greatest athletes in the world improve slightly from year to year. Don't worked up about where you are in relation to your ceiling. You just need to know that one exists.)

    For gits and shiggles, let's assume you're Level 20. (You're obviously not Level 1. If you were, you wouldn't be able to move.) With this Level, and every Level, comes certain realities dictated by the rules of the RPG.

    First, you have a magic spell for every Level. So you have a Level 1 magic spell, a Level 2 magic spell, a Level 3… all the way up to Level 20.

    Second, your maximum magic capacity is your Level. Since you're Level 20, you have 20 magic points available.

    Third, each spell uses an amount of magic commensurate with its Level. If you use a Level 5 spell, you use 5 magic points.

    Fourth, after you use a magic spell, your magic points slowly regenerate over time.

    Fifth, the higher Level you are — the more robust and powerful you are — the more resources it takes to keep yourself afloat. You have more everything so you need more everything to accommodate for said everything.

    If you aren't a video game nerd, the above analogy won't stick well. Sorry I'm not sorry. Consider this the wedgie you always deserved but never got.

    How your spells influence you

    You're Level 20. You use your Level 1 magic spell. It only requires 1 magic point. Considering you have 20 magic points available, the overall impact on you isn’t huge. You still have 19 points available.

    But say you use a Level 18 spell. You now only have 2 magic points left, which means the overall impact on you is huge. The fact that you only have 2 magic points left makes you vulnerable. Even a peon enemy can beat you because you can’t use stronger spells (until you recover).

    So a Level 18 spell is stressful on a Level 20 character. It’s stressful from a resource standpoint (it uses up a lot of magic points relative to your overall capacity). It’s also stressful from an impact standpoint (after you use it, you’re vulnerable because you can't use higher spells).

    You are a moist machine

    The not so general rule of thumb: higher Level spells are more stressful than lower Level spells — an important factoid because your body isn't a huge fan of stress. Your body is a much bigger fan of stasis, which is to say: equilibrium and balance. When you're stressed, your survival is compromised.

    So say you're Level 20. You constantly find yourself throwing Level 15 spells. In other words, you're undergoing chronic stress. You're always in a weakened state.

    If your body were a regular machine, the only thing it'd be able to do is recover and repair as much (and as quickly) as possible in between spells.

    Fortunately, your body isn't a regular machine. Your body is a moist biological machine with… abilities. It can adapt, change, and become a creature better able to survive certain situations. In other words, your body can Level Up.

    How to Level Up

    When you're Level 20, throwing Level 15 spells is stressful. But what if you are Level 30? Or Level 40? Throwing those same Level 15 becomes a much less stressful experience.

    So if you're Level 20 and you find yourself going through the chronic charade of throwing Level 15 spells, your body can make a calculated decision to Level Up.

    Leveling Up might not seem like a difficult decision to make. Your body doesn't like to be stressed, and, by Leveling Up, your body won't be as stressed.

    But there are downsides to Leveling Up. Remember, being a higher Level requires more resources. Requiring more resources is also a “vulnerability” because you become less energy efficient. As mentioned, in Part 1, your body doesn't fuck around when it comes to energy.

    The big juicy RPG analogy flaw

    If your body is stressed from chronically throwing high Level spells, it can Level Up. This is the nugget nectar, the reason we're here. But before we eat the nectar, I have to first mention a big juicy flaw in this RPG analogy.

    I created the flaw on purpose to make things less complicated, but now it's time to undo it and make things more complicated.

    Initially, I established linear rules for the RPG. Your magic spell uses an amount of magic commensurate with your Level. In other words:

    • Level 1 spell uses 1 magic point
    • Level 6 spell uses 6 magic points
    • Level 18 spell uses 18 magic points

    If you plot this out on a graph (magic points vs. Level), you get a nice straight line. One step east takes you one step north. The stress of your spells increases linearly; a Level 2 spell is twice as taxing as a Level 1 spell.

    linear level spectrum

    But, in reality, there's a nonlinearity to stress. In other words, one step to the east won't always take you one step to the north.

    How to break your leg in style

    You stand on a one foot high wall and jump off. Then you stand on a two foot high wall and jump off. Then you stand on a three foot high wall and jump off. The idea: the higher the wall, the rougher the landing.

    In this sense, it seems that jumping off a wall plays by the same linear rules established five seconds ago. But it doesn't. Here's why.

    Imagine jumping off a one foot wall twenty times. You can calculate the impact as (ten impacts @ 1 foot = ten feet worth of impact).

    Imagine jumping off a ten foot wall one time. You can calculate the impact as (one impact @ ten feet = ten feet worth of impact).

    Despite both situations adding up to ten feet worth of impact, you know, intuitively, that each situation is a lot different, which is why you'd rather jump off a one foot wall ten times.

    Say hello to my little nonlinear friend

    The increased severity that comes with jumping off the ten foot wall is a product of nonlinearity. When you plot nonlinearity on a graph, you end up with a curve instead of a straight line. This curve has an inflection point —  a point where the line heads north at a more rapid rate.

    nonlinear level spectrum

    Establishing nonlinearity is important because it gives you a more accurate depiction of how stress correlates to certain Level spells.

    Earlier, you might have concluded that twenty consecutive Level 1 spells was “equal” to one Level 20 spell. But now, if you overlap this nonlinear curve atop the Level spectrum, you can see that a Level 1 spell might only use fractions of one magic point.

    Ceiling versus comfort 

    The presence of nonlinearity enables a comfort zone on the Level spectrum in relation to your ceiling. (Your ceiling is simply your current Level.) Given your current Level, there's a cluster of spells you can use regularly without excessive stress baggage.

    ceiling versus comfort level spectrum

    At some point, however, the comfort zone fizzles, and the spells get exponentially more stressful… which is exactly where you want to be. In case you fell asleep, let me tell you why.

    Leveling Up and building muscle

    If you want to build muscle, you have to Level Up. Making your body Level Up is the point; muscle mass is a byproduct of Leveling Up.

    In order for you to Level Up, you have to throw spells beyond your comfort zone. You have to stress your body, otherwise, you body will have no reason to upgrade.

    This brings us to the question we've been mining from the start. At what point does the comfort zone break down? At what point do the spells become stressful enough to get the body thinking about Leveling Up?

    Gravity as an enemy

    Time to shift from RPG to reality. Hopefully the transition'll be smooth. We're all fighting the same enemy (same load): Earth’s gravity. This is like always fighting a Level 3 enemy.

    If we were Level 3, we'd be constantly stressed out bonkers. In order for us to face a Level 3 enemy on the regular, our body has to adapt to a point where a Level 3 enemy is safe and comfortable.

    In other words, our ceiling — our real Level — has to be higher than Level 3. When you’re Level 20, Level 3 enemies aren’t a big deal. And that’s what your body wants; your body wants stasis. Balance. Ease.

    The, uhh, Nazi salute…?

    Take any single movement you can think of. Let's use the Nazi salute as an example, just because it's offensive and I was told that offending people would get me more followers.

    This Nazi salute, without weight, is a Level 3 spell according to our analogy. In other words, we're coasting in the comfort zone.

    Now, slowly add weight to the movement by the pound. You're making your hand heavier and heavier. Eventually, you'll hit a point where you'll be unable to lift your arm in the air. This weight represents your one-repetition max (1RM) — the amount of weight you can lift one single time.

    This 1RM represents your current max Level, which anchors the nonlinear curve. The sweet spot, the point at which you comfort zone fizzles, is somewhere around 60% of your 1RM.

    So if you want to build muscle, if you want to stress yourself, you should be lifting at least 60% of your 1RM on a regular basis.

    Another analogy!

    If you want to build muscle, you need to go beyond your load comfort zone. There's now a number attached to this concept. Hurrah! Everyone can go home now.

    Just kidding.

    I'm going to take things one step further and explain something I've already explained… a slightly different way. Surprising, right? Who would have expected such a thing?

    Me.

    I would have expected such a thing.

    Because I know me.

    Atop this Level spectrum, we can consider yet another spectrum. The SPRING – STICK spectrum.

    Springing and sticking

    You can contract your muscles. You can relax your muscles. In the end, this is what every movement boils down to. But, funnily enough, you can't move when you're 100% in either extreme.

    • Total relaxation, you can’t move.
    • Total contraction, you can’t move.

    Overcoming load is a combination of contraction and relaxation, with movement being biased towards an extreme.

    CONTRACTION

    Contraction based movements are sticky. Grindy. Friction. In order to be sticky, you have to contract. If your car breaks down on the side of the road and you have to push it, chances are you’re going to be all sorts of sticky moving.

    RELAXATION

    Relaxation based movements are springy. Bouncy. Ballistic. In order to be springy, you have to relax. If I ask you to throw a baseball as far as you can, chances are you're going to be all sorts of springy moving.

    Stick stick sticky

    On the Level spectrum, there's an inherent flow from SPRING to STICK. In other words, the maximum load you're able to (consciously) overcome is inherently sticky. Consider this your aforementioned 1RM, your ceiling.

    As you reduce the load, you become less contraction based. Eventually, you'll reach a point where you're able to comfortably relax and spring under a given load.

    Surprise, surprise…

    This transition from stick to spring is likely somewhere around 60% of your 1RM.

    In other words, if wondering how much resistance you need to overcome in order to build muscle and you don't want to drown in calculus, simply ask yourself: are you performing an honest sticky movement?

    Honest sticky movements

    It's worth qualifying the “honest” adjective I used. Be honest: did you cheat on me? I need to know. Was it me? Was it my fault? I can't change, baby, but I can sure as hell put on a façade and make it seem like I can (and will) even though I won't; we'll be back in the same spot two years from now; it'll be a recurring loop and we'll die unhappily ever after.

    You decide to walk slow and sticky up the steps, but you could leap and bound quickly up those same steps. So walking up the steps, no matter how you do it, isn’t an “honest” sticky movement.

    A good marker to judge honest sticky movements: if you tried your hardest, could you be springy or leave the surface of the earth? If you can't (to a huge degree, or for a long time), you're probably in an honest sticky zone.

    How to not build muscle

    So. Finally. We've made it. Muscle growth is a byproduct of Leveling Up. Leveling Up is an adaptation in response to chronic stress. Otherwise said, constantly facing 60% 1RM. Or, constantly overcoming a sticky load.

    I realize how lol that last sentence sounds, and it's a bit too lol for me to care.

    But as one door closes, another opens.

    You can train at 60% of your 1RM, be sticky as all hell, and struggle to build muscle… for a few reasons. The one I want to tackle next: exercise selection.

    There are better and worse exercises. Not surprisingly, a lot of people tend to do the worse ones.

    Coming soon…

    This is the end of Part 3. Part 4 is in the works. If you want to know when it drops, signup for my weekly email column. 

    → Click here to signup


    P.S.

    I realize there are flaws aplenty within this analogy. My use of “stress” only occurring at 60% of your 1RM is sketchy because it neglects load load explosive work that can be immensely stressful.

    The post How much WEIGHT do you have to LIFT in order to BUILD muscle? appeared first on Anthony Mychal.

     
  • Anthony Mychal 5:17 pm on November 10, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Why counting calories is a game for idiots that are… idiotic. Pretend this sentence is a yo mamma joke, I’m out to offend. 

    If you're trying to lose fat and build muscle, you probably know a thing or two about energy and calories. Or maybe you don't, in which case you need to read Part 1.

    If you're too lazy to read Part 1, the following recap'll have to do.

    • Your body needs energy.
    • You're using energy 24/7.
    • You get energy from food.
    • Energy is measured in calories.
    • There's intake and output.
    • Output > Intake = Deficit/Loss
    • Intake > Output = Surplus/Gain

    Sounds good.

    But its shit.

    For two reasons.

    The first reason is the sexier of the two, which is exactly why I'm saving it for later. Grandma's rule. So let's start with the second reason. (I hate myself.)

    Introducing: counting calories

    Energy balance dictates body composition through the “rules” listed above.

    • Output > Intake = Deficit/Loss
    • Intake > Output = Surplus/Gain

    For all intents and purposes, we can say that, if you're using the “rules” above, you're using a strategy known as “counting calories.”

    Counting calories entails (a) finding out how many calories you burn in a given day, and then (b) finding out how many calories you eat in a given day.

    You then use the “rules” above to hack the system.

    • If you want to gain weight, you make sure you're eating more than what you need.
    • If you want to lose weight, you make sure you're eating less than what you need.

    This is the same concept I established at the end of Part 1, I'm just giving the art itself a name for easy reference.

    Counting calories: truth versus practicality

    Forget about the “rules” supporting the calorie counting infrastructure. Instead, look at the practicality. Counting calories is only a viable strategy if you can do two things:

    • Reliably calculate daily energy output.
    • Reliably calculate daily energy intake.

    You HAVE to be able to do these two things and get reliable values for each, otherwise you're playing a game of chess against an opponent using invisible pieces.

    If you think you're eating 2000 calories per day, but you're actually eating 3000 calories per day, you've got some problems. Likewise, if you think you're burning 3000 calories per day, but you're actually burning 2000 calories per day, you've got some problems. So this whole “data reliability” issue is something to look into.

    No big deal. Lots of people would say you can reliably calculate your daily energy intake and your daily energy output. People do it all the time. Right?

    Wrong.

    I mean, you can.

    But you can't.

    I mean, here's what I mean.

    The LOLWTFBBQ of estimating calorie (energy) output

    Let's start here: calculating daily energy output. In other words, finding out how many calories your body uses every day — your average daily metabolic rate.

    Most people use calculators on the Internet to find their average daily metabolic rate. Google search ‘metabolic rate calculator’, and you’ll find hundreds of different calculators.

    Some of them estimate your basal metabolic rate (BMR), which is the amount of energy you’d output if you did nothing but rest in bed all day. Most of us do more than rest in bed, which is why there are total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) calculators.

    (I'm going to assume you aren't sinking in a confusing sea of acronyms even though I realize the possibility.)

    So check it out. I want to count calories. I need to know my daily energy output (metabolic rate). I do some Googling. I find three different BMR calculators.

    I give each website the same pieces of information (height, weight, age) and here's what happens:

    • active.com: 2,123 calories per day
    • calculator.net: 1,998 calories per day
    • bmrcalculator.org: 2000 calories per day

    How can each calculator poop out different results despite using the same information? Gah. Oh well. The variance between each result isn't huge. I'm fine. Right?

    Part dos of the LOLWTFBBQ of estimating calorie (energy) output

    I have my BMR. Or what I believe to be my BMR. But I do more than watch Netflix in bed every second of every day. And, hey, I'm smarter than the average sasquatch. I know a bunch of things influence my daily metabolic rate.

    I know that my physical activity is a factor; if I move around more, I'll use more energy. I know that my body composition is a factor; muscle is more metabolically active than fat, which means a 200 pound person with 10% body fat will have a higher metabolic rate than a 200 pound person with 30% body fat.

    I don't want to ignore these things, so I look for a TDEE calculator. Google takes me to tdeecalculator.net. I punch in my activity level and body fat percentage. I’m told that my TDEE is a whopping 3,691 calories per day.

    lolwut.

    Not long ago, I was working with a 2000 calorie per day BMR. Now I'm being told I can house 3,691 calories per day. In other words, every day I can eat six more Snickers® bars than I originally thought I could.

    TDEE, BMR, and LOL

    Considering my BMR is the amount of calories I'd burn if I were decomposing in a nursing home, I'm going to use my TDEE estimation for calorie counting purposes. (Because, uhhh, I'm not dying. I mean, I am dying. We're all dying, but…)

    VOMIT.

    Here's the deal…

    Although many things do influence your metabolic rate, more often than not, accounting for every known variable gives you an illusion of control more than actual control.

    BODY COMPOSITION

    Your body composition does influence your metabolic rate. But, chances are, the body fat percentage you think you have isn't accurate.

    Home body fat measurement tools like bioelectric impedance scales are terrible. They’re overly sensitive to hydration. Drink a glass of water, your body fat goes up five percent. Wait, what? Body fat calipers also have big error in untrained hands.

    In general, most ways to measure your body fat percentage in the comfort of your own home are bogus. If you want a real estimate, you have to be getting results via hydrostatic weighing, BodPod, or DEXA.

    PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

    Physical activity also influences your metabolic rate. But, often times, defining your physical activity is a crap shoot. For instance, the TDEE calculator mentioned above gives five different activity categories:

    • Sedentary (office job)
    • Light exercise (1-2 days/week)
    • Moderate exercise (3-5 days/week)
    • Heavy exercise (6-7 days/week)
    • Athlete (2x/day)

    But these categories don’t even define the type of exercise being done. And, to make matters worse, us humans suffer from all sorts of cognitive biases that make us overestimate just how active we really are.

    Meaning I'm going to report (I did report) that I exercise vigorously, when, really, REALLY REALLY, I probably only exercise moderately.

    Part w/e of the LOLWTFBBQ of estimating calorie (energy) output

    Let's hop back to the TDEE calculation. I was estimated to have a TDEE of 3,691 calories. But, well, I was using estimates to get this estimate. If using estimates in order to estimate something sounds like a recipe for estimation error, that's because it is.

    I plugged in values for both body composition and physical activity, neither of which were 100% accurate. In other words, the likelihood of my TDEE being 3,691 calories isn't great.

    To make matters worse, things get hairier than an Italian man's arms. For instance, non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) also impacts your metabolic rate. NEAT is the energy you use when you're macromoving, but not exercising.

    Are you sitting upright, or are you slouching? (Sitting upright uses more energy.) Are you shivering right now? (Uses more energy.) Picking your nose? (Uses energy, unless you eat the booger.)

    No metabolic rate calculator overtly accounts for NEAT. In other words, the likelihood of my TDEE being 3,691 calories is even less great than it was two paragraphs ago, before I mentioned hairy Italians and boogers.

    Part finito of the LOLWTFBBQ of estimating calorie (energy) output

    The only way to know your true metabolic rate is to lock yourself into a vacuum sealed room that's able to measure all of the heat that escapes from your body.

    You don’t have access to one of these rooms. Gaining access to one of these rooms is useless unless you also plan on abandoning your life and living inside for a few days.

    Point being: any quantification you have of your energy output — your daily metabolic rate — is a baby born from a soupy estimation orgy.

    I'm going to press pause and shift focus. Before I get to the implications, I have to break down the flip side of counting calories: measuring energy intake.

    The LOLWTFBBQ of estimating calorie (energy) intake

    Calculating energy intake is a two-step process. First, you measure how much food you eat. Second, you find out how many calories are in said quantity of food. There are two ways to find out how many calories are in any given food: food labels and the Internet.

    Do you hear it coming?

    The shit storm?

    Unfortunately, calculating energy intake is just as flawed as calculating output. Because, uhhh, bacon.

    Yes.

    Bacon.

    You find out there 80 calories in two cooked strips of bacon. This is what the bacon package says. So you put two strips of bacon in a pan. You cook 'em up.

    From experience, you know that grease yield is correlated to bacon crispiness. In other words, the longer you cook the bacon, the more grease cooks off.

    How does this factor into the 80 calorie estimate? If you like under-cooked chewy rubbery bacon is there more calories in those two slices?

    Good question.

    I don't know the answer.

    The calories you eat aren't the calories you absorb

    Nutrition labels are vague by necessity. They are based on averages. Perhaps you ate 100 calories worth of bacon instead of 80 calories.

    Seems trivial, but imagine if this margin of error replicated. For every 80 calories you thought you ate, you actually ate 100 calories. At the end of the day, you'd sleep thinking you ate 2000 calories when, really, you ate 2500 calories.

    According to an article in The New York Times, food labels can be wrong by up to 25%. Not because of bacon blunders, but, rather, because the amount of calories you pour down your gullet isn't necessarily the amount of calories your body absorbs.

    Here's an explanation. Or three.

    ONE

    Each macronutrient requires a different amount of energy to break down and digest. This is referred to as the thermic effect of food (TEF).

    For instance, it takes more energy to break down proteins than it does fats. So eating 100 calories of fats yields more energy than eating 100 calories of proteins.

    TWO

    Cooking and processing make foods easier to absorb, which means we expend less energy in an attempt to digest them. Its like the difference between hammering down a brick wall and blowing over a tepee.

    So if you eat a 100 calorie non-processed food, your body will spend more energy to digest it as compared a 100 calorie processed food. In other words, your body absorbs more of the processed food's calories.

    Or two.

    Headlines get your attention

    I could go on. There are more reasons why counting calories and measuring food intake is a crap shoot. Bottom line of all this being:

    • We don't really know our energy output, and estimating it is tough.
    • We don't really know our energy intake, and measuring it is tough.

    In other words, despite energy balance and thermodynamics ruling the world of body composition, hacking the system is impossible.

    But…

    BUT…

    I'm a piece of shit.

    Piece of shit is me

    I'm a piece of shit because I'm nitpicking. On purpose. Putting the appropriate spin on things because headlines are everything… or something. Pretending to be smarter than I really am.

    Because, despite it being impossible to “hack the system,” the only way to navigate this alphabet soup is to… hack the system.

    Calculating your energy output is flawed. Measuring energy intake is flawed. Counting calories as a strategy is imperfect. Very imperfect.

    But you still need to do it.

    Why you need to count calories

    Counting calories is the only hand you have to play with the cards you've been dealt. You just have to understand one thing (that most people don't): everything is a shitty imperfect estimate.

    Too many people approach calorie counting as if they are holding the law in their hands, which turns things into one shitty game of cops and robbers. You do the work, you have the numbers in front of you, you go HAM, and things don't work as expected.

    What's wrong? Why isn't this working? I'm eating less than I'm burning. Why can't I lose weight? Must be my genetics. I knew I wasn't built for this.

    But that's not the case. You're just getting duped by the world; you weren't equipped with the proper expectations and mindset, which is that (a) everything is an estimate, and (b) we know less than we think we do.

    The answer isn't to get more specific and detailed in an attempt to gain control over the situation. That just screws things up. The answer is to zoom out. To go broad. To not be as anal with calorie counting (because there is error all over the place anyways). To embrace trial and error. To use real feedback to guide the process.

    The first, sexier

     

    You might now be wondering… How? How do you take the last paragraph and put it into practice? I'll get to this sooner or later. I want to stay focused and connect with something I mentioned earlier.

    I said there were two reasons why all of this energy balance talk is shit. Above is the second reason. Thermodynamics (and energy balance) is true, but hacking its source code isn't as easy as it appears. A lot of people get duped by the numbers because they associate them with certainty. But there is none, initially.

    Now its time for the first reason. The sexier reason. The reason why the people that say “I want to lose weight” are doomed.


    This is the end of Part 2. Part 3 is in the works. If you want to know when it drops, signup for my weekly email column. 

    → Click here to signup

    The post Why counting calories is a game for idiots that are… idiotic. Pretend this sentence is a yo mamma joke, I’m out to offend. appeared first on Anthony Mychal.

     
  • Shawn Myszka 5:55 pm on November 9, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    2017 Play of the Week – Week 9 

    Game: Chiefs at Cowboys

    Play: Hill showing off more than his speed

    USP NFL: KANSAS CITY CHIEFS AT DALLAS COWBOYS S FBN DAL KC USA TX

    What makes this the BTS Play of the Week?

    When the 2016 season ended, and when the 2017 began, I knew it was only a matter of time until we saw this performer find his way onto our top spot as the movement play of the week. Certainly, the Kansas City Chief do-it-all playmaker, Tyreek Hill, has been making plays all season long but at times these plays were due to more one-dimensional aspects of his movement skill-set (i.e. namely his blazing speed). This is all fine and dandy to both Hill and the Chiefs because as long as he makes it into the end zone all is well in the world. However, because of the vast array of masterfully executed movement performances each week, often times it takes uniqueness, diversity, and dexterity in both the movement problem and the solution offered in order to get our top spot. As you will see from this week’s play where I feel it is the best movement performance, Hill was finally able to show off more qualities within his movement toolbox than just his extraordinary speed.

    Before we go any further though, you can see some past brief write-ups from our blog on the Chief who is looking to make his second All-Movement Team in his two seasons in the League.

    https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/2017-movers-to-watch/

    https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/2016-all-movement-team-offense/

    https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/2016-play-of-the-week-week-14/

    What happened movement-wise on the play?

    This play begins with time running out in the first half of the Cowboy-Chief game so even though it’s only 2nd and 3 to go, the Cowboys line up in their prevent defense which is backed up to allow for a short to medium Chiefs gain in hopes of heading to the locker room with a 14-3 lead. However, with the Chiefs playmaking crew spread across the field including bunched trips to the wide side which held two All-Movement Team members for 2016 in both tight end Travis Kelce and WR Tyreek Hill.

    With just a three man rush attempting to pressure quarterback Alex Smith, the Chiefs signal caller has plenty of time to casually scan and determine the place (i.e. player) to put the ball into the hands of in order to turn that Cowboy’s allowed moderate gain into something bigger & better. In spatial situations like this, there are few players better than Tyreek Hill currently in the league to expect to do just that. As soon as the ball gets into Hill’s hands, it turns into a glorified special teams return type of play and Hill’s movement instincts fully kick in.

    As I have mentioned before, though people rant and rave about Tyreek Hill’s mind-blowing linear speed, (though it certainly accounts for some of the plays that he makes), in my opinion, it is NOT this characteristic that makes him so dangerous in a variety of problem situations on a football field. To match a variety of problems, one needs a variety of solutions. Furthermore, in order to employ access of a variety of solutions, one must become attuned to the nuances of the problem and understand how to match the potential solutions to it. And this IS precisely the characteristic that allows Hill to be one of the best doing it. Luckily for us, we get to see it on display here.

    Catching the ball on the 42 yard line, he turns to look up field only to see two of his blockers seven to eight yards in front of him (with another running on the sideline to his left anxious to help out) and not a single Cowboy defender in screen sight. Hill simultaneously gets into brief sub-maximal acceleration mode for the next seven or so yards before casually decelerating to a controlled transition pace still moving linearly up the field. Though a really dangerous playmaker has the ball in his hands running as chill up the field as one will find in the NFL and with blockers ready to act as a convoy, the Cowboys defenders still are likely not panicking yet as they drastically have numbers in their favor (with eight guys scattered from their 25 yard line to their goal line).

    Hill employs a Le’Veon Bell-like patient strategy here to let his blockers gain better position while concurrently gathering information from the environment and task around him to make an accurate decision off of (i.e. a key aspect of movement mastery). Being outmanned, the Chief’s blockers must also perceive and make decisions here, as well; in selecting who to block, when to block them, and how to block them. It should go without saying but these movement solutions (by the blockers) will become part of Hill’s interaction with the strategies and solutions he personally selects. This becomes a situation that is known in movement sciences as ‘shared affordances’ where teammates must understand what is trying to be accomplished among one another and determine how to act accordingly.

    Hill pic 1

    Because they have numbers in their favors here, a number of Cowboy defenders come free and will have an attempt to tackle Hill. At the 22 yard line, with Hill on the 26, he will face his first immediate agility problem. He stutters quickly to give the defender the impression that he could go either to his left or right here. It’s likely that based off of what he was seeing though, he only had every intention to head to the sideline (with #30 for the Cowboys sealing the gap that exists at the hashes to Hill’s right). Hill hits a quick little jab step with his right foot that morphs into a speed crossover cut to his left. The Cowboy’s defender has no shot here; due in part of his poor high body positioning, late reaction, and a real quick-to-get-moving-laterally Hill.

    At the 25 yard line Hill then bypasses this defender (#32) and turns the corner on/with him. Once he ‘feels’ that he is by him, his head and eye gaze immediately look for their next affordance for action. Seeing several of his guys occupying blocks on defenders, he sees a lane along the numbers which for a guy with the world class speed that Hill has, is more than enough to run through. He only hits about three real powerfully-intended acceleration steps with allows him to chew up the next six to seven yards in a hurry. Obviously, while he is doing this, the problem is dynamically changing in front of him, as well. Because of that, when he gets to the 17 yard line, he hits an outside foot, unilateral speed cut which allows him to maintain a tremendous amount of momentum into and out of to push him back into the teeth of the problem.

    Hill pic 2

    Out of this cut (which you could miss if you’re not going frame by frame through the play sequence), he ricochets into a quick burst of energy (due to the velocities that he is able to hit early in locomotion as well as the speed he held into and out of the cut) which gets him to eat up traffic-crowded ground till the 12 yard line. It’s at this time, with a whole lot of chaos happening around him, that he executes a fast-acting, hopping motion to bypass the last available Cowboy defenders and finally find himself into the end zone for the unlikely 57-yard touchdown to end the half and close the gap in the score between the two teams.

    Click below to watch Hill doing his thing here:

    http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-cant-miss-plays%2F0ap3000000872420%2FCan-t-Miss-Play-Tyreek-Hill-evades-brigade-to-score-impossible-TD

     


     
  • Shawn Myszka 5:55 pm on November 9, 2017 Permalink | Reply  

    2017 Play of the Week – Week 9 

    Game: Chiefs at Cowboys

    Play: Hill showing off more than his speed

    USP NFL: KANSAS CITY CHIEFS AT DALLAS COWBOYS S FBN DAL KC USA TX

    What makes this the BTS Play of the Week?

    When the 2016 season ended, and when the 2017 began, I knew it was only a matter of time until we saw this performer find his way onto our top spot as the movement play of the week. Certainly, the Kansas City Chief do-it-all playmaker, Tyreek Hill, has been making plays all season long but at times these plays were due to more one-dimensional aspects of his movement skill-set (i.e. namely his blazing speed). This is all fine and dandy to both Hill and the Chiefs because as long as he makes it into the end zone all is well in the world. However, because of the vast array of masterfully executed movement performances each week, often times it takes uniqueness, diversity, and dexterity in both the movement problem and the solution offered in order to get our top spot. As you will see from this week’s play where I feel it is the best movement performance, Hill was finally able to show off more qualities within his movement toolbox than just his extraordinary speed.

    Before we go any further though, you can see some past brief write-ups from our blog on the Chief who is looking to make his second All-Movement Team in his two seasons in the League.

    https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/2017-movers-to-watch/

    https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/2016-all-movement-team-offense/

    https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/2016-play-of-the-week-week-14/

    What happened movement-wise on the play?

    This play begins with time running out in the first half of the Cowboy-Chief game so even though it’s only 2nd and 3 to go, the Cowboys line up in their prevent defense which is backed up to allow for a short to medium Chiefs gain in hopes of heading to the locker room with a 14-3 lead. However, with the Chiefs playmaking crew spread across the field including bunched trips to the wide side which held two All-Movement Team members for 2016 in both tight end Travis Kelce and WR Tyreek Hill.

    With just a three man rush attempting to pressure quarterback Alex Smith, the Chiefs signal caller has plenty of time to casually scan and determine the place (i.e. player) to put the ball into the hands of in order to turn that Cowboy’s allowed moderate gain into something bigger & better. In spatial situations like this, there are few players better than Tyreek Hill currently in the league to expect to do just that. As soon as the ball gets into Hill’s hands, it turns into a glorified special teams return type of play and Hill’s movement instincts fully kick in.

    As I have mentioned before, though people rant and rave about Tyreek Hill’s mind-blowing linear speed, (though it certainly accounts for some of the plays that he makes), in my opinion, it is NOT this characteristic that makes him so dangerous in a variety of problem situations on a football field. To match a variety of problems, one needs a variety of solutions. Furthermore, in order to employ access of a variety of solutions, one must become attuned to the nuances of the problem and understand how to match the potential solutions to it. And this IS precisely the characteristic that allows Hill to be one of the best doing it. Luckily for us, we get to see it on display here.

    Catching the ball on the 42 yard line, he turns to look up field only to see two of his blockers seven to eight yards in front of him (with another running on the sideline to his left anxious to help out) and not a single Cowboy defender in screen sight. Hill simultaneously gets into brief sub-maximal acceleration mode for the next seven or so yards before casually decelerating to a controlled transition pace still moving linearly up the field. Though a really dangerous playmaker has the ball in his hands running as chill up the field as one will find in the NFL and with blockers ready to act as a convoy, the Cowboys defenders still are likely not panicking yet as they drastically have numbers in their favor (with eight guys scattered from their 25 yard line to their goal line).

    Hill employs a Le’Veon Bell-like patient strategy here to let his blockers gain better position while concurrently gathering information from the environment and task around him to make an accurate decision off of (i.e. a key aspect of movement mastery). Being outmanned, the Chief’s blockers must also perceive and make decisions here, as well; in selecting who to block, when to block them, and how to block them. It should go without saying but these movement solutions (by the blockers) will become part of Hill’s interaction with the strategies and solutions he personally selects. This becomes a situation that is known in movement sciences as ‘shared affordances’ where teammates must understand what is trying to be accomplished among one another and determine how to act accordingly.

    Hill pic 1

    Because they have numbers in their favors here, a number of Cowboy defenders come free and will have an attempt to tackle Hill. At the 22 yard line, with Hill on the 26, he will face his first immediate agility problem. He stutters quickly to give the defender the impression that he could go either to his left or right here. It’s likely that based off of what he was seeing though, he only had every intention to head to the sideline (with #30 for the Cowboys sealing the gap that exists at the hashes to Hill’s right). Hill hits a quick little jab step with his right foot that morphs into a speed crossover cut to his left. The Cowboy’s defender has no shot here; due in part of his poor high body positioning, late reaction, and a real quick-to-get-moving-laterally Hill.

    At the 25 yard line Hill then bypasses this defender (#32) and turns the corner on/with him. Once he ‘feels’ that he is by him, his head and eye gaze immediately look for their next affordance for action. Seeing several of his guys occupying blocks on defenders, he sees a lane along the numbers which for a guy with the world class speed that Hill has, is more than enough to run through. He only hits about three real powerfully-intended acceleration steps with allows him to chew up the next six to seven yards in a hurry. Obviously, while he is doing this, the problem is dynamically changing in front of him, as well. Because of that, when he gets to the 17 yard line, he hits an outside foot, unilateral speed cut which allows him to maintain a tremendous amount of momentum into and out of to push him back into the teeth of the problem.

    Hill pic 2

    Out of this cut (which you could miss if you’re not going frame by frame through the play sequence), he ricochets into a quick burst of energy (due to the velocities that he is able to hit early in locomotion as well as the speed he held into and out of the cut) which gets him to eat up traffic-crowded ground till the 12 yard line. It’s at this time, with a whole lot of chaos happening around him, that he executes a fast-acting, hopping motion to bypass the last available Cowboy defenders and finally find himself into the end zone for the unlikely 57-yard touchdown to end the half and close the gap in the score between the two teams.

    Click below to watch Hill doing his thing here:

    http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-cant-miss-plays%2F0ap3000000872420%2FCan-t-Miss-Play-Tyreek-Hill-evades-brigade-to-score-impossible-TD

     


     
  • Shawn Myszka 2:41 am on November 1, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2017 Play of the Week – Week 8 

    Game: 49ers at Eagles AND Texans at Seahawks

    Play: A Pair of Pick Sixes

    NFL: San Francisco 49ers at Philadelphia Eagles

    Earl pic 1

    What makes this the BTS Play of the Week?

    Here we are…already halfway through another NFL season! Week 8 has come and gone and with it we were brought another laundry list of plays that could’ve worn our top nod hat. From rookie WR JuJu Smith-Schuster for the Steelers getting out and turning on the open field jets versus the Lions to my man Melvin Gordon showing patience and precise timing to perform a proficient cut which sprung him to show off his movement toolbox en route to a 87 yard touchdown run versus the Super Bowl champs. The more plays I broke down though, the more that two particular plays stuck out to me for their supreme playmaking displays…ironically, both of these plays just so happened to come by defensive players returning interceptions for touchdowns; 1). Jalen Mills of the Philadelphia Eagles and 2). Our 2014 Mover of the Year, Earl Thomas of the Seattle Seahawks (https://footballbeyondthestats.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/2014-bts-mover-of-the-year-earl-thomas/)

    It seems as though at least once each year there comes a time when a defensive player gets a ball in his hands and behaves so much like an offensive player that he gets my recognition as the movement performance of the week. Additionally, it also seems as though at least once per season I get so conflicted on a given week between two or more plays that I have to praise both players. Well, with this week’s breakdown, it looks as though we will be checking off each of those boxes for the year on the same week! So, without further adieu, let’s go give credit where credit is due.

    What happened movement-wise on the play?

    Arguably, no type of play can single-handily change a course of a game more dynamically than a pick-six. There’s just something special about a defensive player flipping script on their offensive counterparts and taking one the opposite way to the house.

    Honestly, I believe that this doesn’t happen as much as it could for a number of reasons. First of all, it’s normal verbiage to hear a coach say something along the lines of, “that’s why you play DB and not WR” when a defending player drops a ball on a play. To piggyback on this, I find that defensive players too often possess “too defensive” of intentions so there are times that they almost don’t give themselves permission (whether this is conscious or more subconscious) to go attack a ball in the air heading towards a receiver. Additionally, when catching of the football is actually practiced for DBs, it’s often done in too static of conditions to ever really allow the individual to truly get comfortable catching the football when it happens in more organic, game-like conditions. Finally, I also don’t believe the act of turnover-caused possession change is practiced enough in various contexts so when players do get these opportunities, they don’t really possess the refined capabilities towards shining within them. All of this equates to a player not truly acquiring the all-encompassing, problem-solving skill of intercepting a ball in space and then doing what’s necessary to evade offensive players to gain a hearty return and potentially score like our two special performers today did.

    Note: Because we are featuring two plays today, it won’t be the same step-by-step, moment-by-moment breakdown as usual. Instead, we will highlight some of the nuances of what popped out to me that made them possible.

    Jalen Mills

    It seems as though the Philadelphia Eagles are representing well on this year’s plays of the week. It should come as no surprise that with this proficient movement they are also gathering up victories in the process. This time, it is cornerback Jalen Mills that is carrying on this 2017 Eagle movement tradition. The explosive second year man out of LSU appears to now be finding a feel for the game at this level including enhanced visual perceptual skills that lead into sharper actions; all on this display on today’s play.

    1. Trust; to pick off the ball at the 38 yard line, Mills has to fully trust not only his abilities to attack the ball and accelerate to/through it to get to it before the ball reaches the 49ers intended receiver, but he must also trust what his perceptual system (namely his visual system) tells him about where the ball is going and when it’s going to get there.
    2. Kinesthetic sense/awareness; once Mills has the ball, he must know where he is in time and space in order to make the most out of his opportunity. Through proper skill acquisition, expert movers will take in sensory information from all sources in order to give them the most telling picture to guide their subsequent movement behaviors. From around the 28 yard line till the time 15 yard line, we see Mills not only moving controllably in space but also scanning accordingly to understand how the problem is dynamically changing in front of him.Mills pic 3
    3. True agility; After Mills comes to a screeching, proficient stop at the 12 yard line, he hits a jab to crossover cut followed by changing his path to head east & west to run back to the middle of the field (at one point even losing ground back to the 14 yard line). From this initial cut at the sideline (the one previously mentioned at the 12) till he reaches the end zone, we see Mills on several occasions just looking to make something happen and doing whatever was necessary to make people miss in space.

    You can see Mills and his interception here:

    http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-cant-miss-plays%2F0ap3000000868652%2FCan-t-Miss-Play-Mills-snags-INT-navigates-way-to-37-yard-pick-six

    Earl Thomas

    If you’ve followed my blog for any period of time, you will know that one of my very favorite players to watch in today’s NFL (or ever) is Seattle Seahawk safety, Earl Thomas. Though Earl was surpassed last year for the top spot on my All-Movement Team by the Giants’ Landon Collins, Thomas remains without equal for many of the things that he is capable of when manning centerfield for the perennial knockout (and supremely moving) Seahawk defense. In today’s featured play, we get to see some of these rare skills on full display.

    1. Deception; usually, the word deception is only used to describe offensive players in elusive agility situations where they get a defender to over-anticipate, bite on one move, and be fooled into another. However, masterful defenders, especially defensive backs, seem to be equally adept at deceiving quarterbacks (especially young quarterbacks) and getting them to throw the football where they will later regret. It would appear that this is a perfect exhibit of it as Earl fools rookie Texan QB Deshaun Watson into throwing the exact ball that Thomas desired to head the other way with.
      1. Offensive-like elusiveness; once he has the ball in his hands, Thomas possesses not only the physical qualities (namely quickness and speed) but also the problem-solving agility skills of some of the game’s most elusive offensive playmakers. Take a peek at what he does to Watson (poor rookie!) between the 35 and 40 yard line. Often times when defensive players have the ball, they often are out there just improvising and compensating. But Earl literally sets Watson up with a two-way go that once Watson gives his tell that he believes Thomas it headed to the sideline, Earl executes a high-speed crossover cut and brings it back to the inside of the Texans QB.Earl pic 3
    2. Burst to speed; as soon as he has the rookie QB on skates, we see what world class acceleration and linear speed for a safety looks like as Thomas doesn’t risk getting sniped by a Texan player and wastes no time getting up to speed to ensure that no one stands a chance at bringing him down. When we watch the more bird’s eye view of the play unfolding, we can first begin to appreciate how much faster Earl Thomas is compared to everyone else. Coupled with the instinct and swagger, this type of speed is almost unfair.

    Click below to watch Earl doing his thing here:

    http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-cant-miss-plays%2F0ap3000000868910%2FCan-t-Miss-Play-Earl-Thomas-takes-off-for-pick-six

     


     
  • Anthony Mychal 2:33 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    An incredibly long and somewhat useful guide to understanding energy balance and body composition 

    A lot of dudes trying to get ripped and jacked anchor their ships in the energy balance model of body composition.

    If you don't know what energy balance is or why its important, don't panic. This guide will teach you everything you need to know.

    Including the fact that 95.9% of the people anchoring their ships in the energy balance model are going to end up swimming with the sharks.

    Part one

    How to eat Twinkies and Doritos and lose weight

    Haub. Energy use and exercise. Cost of living. Eating and Birdman. Calories and capitalization. Vacuum cleaners and cords. Intake and output. 

    → Click here to read Part 1

    Part two

    Coming soon…

    If you want to know when it drops, signup for my weekly email column. 

    → Click here to signup

    The post An incredibly long and somewhat useful guide to understanding energy balance and body composition appeared first on Anthony Mychal.

     
  • Anthony Mychal 2:31 pm on October 30, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    How to eat Twinkies and Doritos and lose weight 

    On Sunday nights, you'll find me shoving a bunch of junk food down my esophagus to ignite an insulin induced coma.

    All of my (First World) problems fade. My body can't give my brain the blood it needs to feed my anxiety. My blood, instead, is diverted towards my intestines in a feeble attempt to deal with the bolus of food crashing towards my colon.

    dodgeball movie junk food

    A nutrition professor at Kansas State University named Mark Haub ate nothing but junk food for ten weeks, but for an entirely different and even more outlandish reason: to lose weight.

    And he did.

    Haub lost a total of 27 pounds over those 10 weeks.

    His specific strategy went something like this: eat assorted Hostess and Little Debbie pre-packaged cream filled somehow stay fresh forever snack cakes every three hours. He mixed in Doritos and other junk food.

    Because, variety.

    Haub was out to prove that weight gain and weight loss wasn't about eating healthy. It wasn't about how many meals you ate, or how frequently you ate. Nor was it about when you ate what.

    It was about one thing. And this one thing allowed him to eat junk food and lose weight.

    Sounds too good to be true. What is this one thing? SORCERY? CHEAT CODES? WIZARDRY? MANA? And can anyone use it to lose weight?

    Let's find out.

    This is Part 1 of the Energy Balance Blueprint. Click here to go to the table of contents. If you don't want to miss any updates to this series, signup for my weekly email column here.

    You aren't special

    There's a car parked in your driveway. This car is energy because all matter is energy. Oh the wonders of physics. This car’s parts can (and will) be broken down and transformed into other sorts of energy by Mother Nature and Father Time.

    You're no different. You are a living breathing biological organism, but, realistically, you're just a molecular mess of energy trapped inside of a skin bag. When you die, your skin, bones, and reproductive organs will undergo a magnificent feat of cosmic recycling.

    Your eyeball could very well be recycled matter from Plato’s penis. And your penis could very well be recycled cosmic matter from Plato's brain, which would make you one smart dickhead.

    You need this, or else you die

    It’s one thing to be energy. It’s another thing to need energy. A parked car is energy, but it doesn’t need energy until you turn the key in the ignition. The car needs a certain amount of energy to turn on and stay on.

    Humans are no different. But your relationship with energy intake and energy output is probably broken because of McFitness propaganda. A lot of people think that, when they are in the gym exercising, their engine is on. Oppositely, when they aren’t in the gym exercising, their engine is off.

    • Exercise, on.
    • Non-exercise, off.

    BzzzZzzZzzzZ. Gringo buzz. Wrong. Because according to Dr. Peter Attia, if your body stops recycling energy for just one second, you die. That's all. Just one second. Death.

    So, right now, you're using and recycling energy. Unless you're dead. You’re obviously not dead. At least, I hope you aren't dead. Because then I’m dead, too. Is this a parallel universe?

    Mom…?

    Dad…?

    They’re here.

    poltergeist girl

    You never stop exercising

    Your body is always doing things you don’t consciously think about doing. But now I’m asking you to consciously think about the things that your body unconsciously does that you don’t consciously think about doing. (I’m more confused now than when I tried to read Gödel, Escher, Bach.)

    • Your heart beating.
    • Your brain thinking.
    • Your kidneys filtering.
    • Your intestines digesting.

    These processes aren’t free. Your brain accounts for 20–25% of the energy you use at rest. Digesting food? Another 10–15% of your energy use. These processes not only require energy, but they’re also essential processes. Meaning: without them, you die.

    You may not always be macromoving, which is to say: moving to the visible eye. But you are very much micromoving. Take a look at yourself under a microscope. You cells are partying like it’s 1999.

    So even if you've been watching TV for so long that the fabric of your couch is now one with your body, you're still “on” and using energy. You're just not “on” to a high level. You're idling in the driveway.

    When you enter the world of macromovement, you output more. You're taking joyrides. You're cruising the Autobahn.

    I can't think of a clever headline

    You always output. And output demands intake. Doesn’t matter if you’re parking in a driveway, or driving on a parkway. Something needs to support your output, otherwise you run out of energy, die, and become food for the raccoon living in the backyard.

    And thus, you feast.

    For millions of years, humans knew they had to eat. They probably didn’t understand much about the who, what, when, or why. But they were smart enough to listen to their gut.

    Or maybe they weren’t. Maybe they thought they were BirdDddDddmMmaAan and they sat in the sun to satisfy their hunger. And then they died. Natural selection at its finest.

    Cavemen were able to handle the relationship between intake and output by using wonderful internal feedback mechanisms, like hunger pangs, food cravings, and satiety loops.

    But science has pushed us beyond the primitive reality. Food isn’t a magic unknown anymore. Food is a number. Food is calories.

    Calories aren't fattening

    Many people think calories are “fattening” or “sugar,” or so it would appear based on those hidden camera TV shows.

    Guy asks, “Do you count calories?”
    Person replies, “Absolutely.”
    Guy asks, “What’s a calorie?”
    Person replies, “Me like for you to cheese unicorn turtle.”

    The same thing happens if you ask someone about gluten. Don't take my word for it. Try it out.

    Calories are measurement of energy, much like a degree is a measurement of temperature. They weaseled their way into the food industry when some totally (in)sane person put food inside of a contraption known as a bomb calorimeter.

    The calorimeter lit the food on fire (or something), which allowed said (in)sane person to calculate the energy content within foods. The discovery: each of the thee primary macronutrients (proteins, carbohydrates, and fats) always had a certain caloric value.

    • Protein = 4 calories per gram.
    • Carbohydrate = 4 calories per gram.
    • Fat = 9 calories per gram.

    (One gram of alcohol contains 7 calories. If you’re in the paleo crowd, I’m sure there’s something worth mentioning here about exogenous ketones here, but I’m not going there because I don't know how to go there.)

    Calorie capitalization

    I should mention the difference between “calories” and “Calories” to prevent trolls from coming of their troll hole and asking for the troll toll so they are able to pay their way into the boy’s soul.

    troll toll boy's soul

    The “calories” you’re familiar with are big c Calories. Technically big c Calories are kilocalories, or 1000 small c calories.

    For practical purposes, you can ignore everything written in the last paragraph. And, if you’re not American, you might measure food energy in joules. But I’m going to do the American thing and pretend like the world revolves around me and not talk about joules.

    Quick summary before more confusion

    I'm going to bring together the ideas mentioned thus far before spewing new ones into your cerebrum.

    Your body uses energy (output).

    Your output is made up of both macromovement and micromovement. You can also think of output as a combination of deliberate energy use and non-deliberate energy use.

    • When you go to the gym and move your body, you're deliberately deciding to use energy.
    • When your intestines are tearing down the six bean burrito you just muscled down your esophagus, not so much.

    But what if, like, you get up and walk to the bathroom right now? You're, like, moving and stuff and you're choosing to get up, but, like is that deliberate or, like, non-deliberate?

    I, like, hate, like, everything.

    On the flip side, your body requires energy (intake).

    Your intake consists of the food you eat.

    Life is a delicate juggle between performing actions and functions needed to sustain life, and also getting the materials needed to perform those actions and functions.

    If I had the confidence of Nietzsche, I'd spend paragraph upon paragraph talking about the ouroboros and the fact that, in order to get the energy you need to sustain life, you have to expend energy. What a fooooiiiine paradox. I'd take that paradox and do nasty things to it MmmhhmMhhMmhMmhhm.

    Let's talk vacuum cleaners

    I own a Shark vacuum cleaner. Thing is a monster. Sucks the cat hair out the carpet fibers like its turning tricks.

    This vacuum works via the same process I've been describing. There's energy intake, there's there's energy output. Just like a car. But there's one big difference: the vacuum needs to be plugged into an electrical outlet in order to get the energy it needs.

    Imagine if cars were built the same way. Bitches be trippin', yo. No, seriously. Everyone would be tripping over the electrical cords. They'd be everywhere.

    Fortunately, cars have a gas tank. They are able take in more energy than they immediately need and store the excess for later use.

    Humans are similar. You don't have to eat 24/7. You eat a bunch of food, then go about your day. Your intake is sporadic because you're able to store energy.

    Car analogy getting into car wreck

    This car analogy has treated us nicely thus far, but, as you'll see, it'll eventually go to shit. I need to add a few remaining details to it, for it to serve the temporary goal at hand. The implications of these details will be more important later rather than sooner.

    Your car has its immediate gas tank. Okay. Wonderful. Now pretend there's a bunch of red fuel canisters in the trunk. These red fuel canisters are hot wired into the car's main fuel line, and they abide by following automation rule: once the immediate fuel tank goes empty, begin dispensing fuel into the main line.

    On the flip side, for this analogy to do its eventual job, you also have to pretend that gas stations aren't predictable from both a location and yield standpoint.

    You don't know when you're going to reach the next gas station, and you don't know how much fuel the gas station will have available.

    Given this, when you reach a gas station, you tend to extract as much fuel from the gas station as you possibly can. Makes sense, right? You don't want to run out of fuel. If you never know when you're going to stumble across another gas station, you better extract as much fuel as you can when you can.

    So say you have a 10 gallon immediate fuel tank. You have 5 gallons of fuel remaining, but you reach a gas station that has 7 total gallons of fuel. You'd fill up your immediate tank with 5 gallons, and then put the remaining 2 gallons in the red canisters.

    How about an example?

    Now you have all the details necessary to push forward with an example that'll conclude this car craziness.

    You have a 10 gallon gas tank in your car. It's filled with 5 gallons of fuel. You have 200 gallons of backup fuel in the red canisters in your trunk.This is your baseline. your frame of reference.

    5/10 – 200/?

    From here, we can ask: how many gallons of fuel are in your tank 24 hours from now? Ignore the specifics. Forget about how many trips you took. Forget about how often you fueled up. Look solely at a snapshot.

    Imagine the snapshot says, over the past 24 hours, you used a total of 10 gallons of fuel and filled up with 11 total gallons of fuel. So you have now have 6 gallons of fuel in your tank and 200 gallons of fuel in backup.

    6/10 – 200/?

    Again, ignore the specifics. It's totally possible you drove 10 miles without filling up, meaning you dipped into your red canisters for a brief period of time. But that doesn't matter because, at the end of the day, you replenished what was used… and then some.

    So, relative to the starting point, you're in an energy surplus. You have more fuel in the tank than what you started the day with.

    If, perchance, the snapshot revealed you had 1 gallon of fuel in your immediate tank and 200 gallons in reserve, you'd be in an energy deficit because you have less fuel than what you started the day with.

    The energy balance backbone

    Instead of thinking about cars and fuel, think about human and energy. The relationship between intake-output and surplus-deficit remains the same.

    If your daily energy intake exceeds your daily energy output, then, at the end of the day, you have a surplus of energy. You have more energy than you started the day with, meaning you're prone to weight gain.

    If your daily energy output exceeds your daily energy intake, then, at the end of the day, you have a deficit of energy. You have less energy than you started the day with, meaning you're prone to weight loss.

    Using this logic, the keys to weight loss are as follows:

    • move around more
    • eat less energy

    This can be fleshed out further with a specific example. Assume you normally output 2000 calories per day and intake 2000 calories per day. (This is arbitrary, but it works.) At this rate, you break even.

    Now consider two different scenarios.

    Moving more and weight loss

    Say, you move around more. This raises your daily energy output. Instead of burning 2000 calories, you burn 2500 calories. If you keep your food intake the same, you're mismatched.

    You need 2500, but you only feed 2000. your body has to compensate for that fuel. Lucky for you, your body has internal energy stores (otherwise, you'd be dead), which it uses to cover the deficit. A byproduct of this: weight loss

    Eating less and weight loss

    Go back to the original situation. Need 2000. Feed 2000. Now say you eat less. Eating less energy lowers your daily energy intake. Instead of eating 2000 calories, you eat 1500 calories. This means you're -500.

    Your body has to compensate for the fuel. Lucky for you, your body has internal energy stores (otherwise, you'd be dead), which it uses to cover the deficit. A byproduct of this: weight loss

    Haub's little secret ain't so secret no mo

    How was Haub able to eat shit food and lose weight? Simple. He adjusted his energy intake and made it less than his energy output. He ate shit food, but he ate less energy than what his body needed.

    Sure, he could have added exercise. He could have moved more. But didn't need to, because he was able to tip the scales in his favor simply with the food factor.

    Of course, this makes “energy” and energy balance the king of weight control. Doesn't matter when you eat. Quality of food doesn't matter, either. The only thing that matters is energy balance.

    And with an anecdote like this, it no surprise the vast majority of people see fat loss, muscle building, and physique transformation through this Haubian energy balance lens.

    But it's shit.


    This is the end of Part 1. Part 2 is in the works. If you want to know when it drops, signup for my weekly email column. 

    Click here to signup

    The post How to eat Twinkies and Doritos and lose weight appeared first on Anthony Mychal.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: