PJ Lifestyle

David Steinberg

David Steinberg is PJ Media’s New York Editor. Follow his tweets @DavidSPJM.

PJ Fitness: Slow, Stiff, Old? Kelly Starrett Just Hasn’t Fixed You Yet

Two summers ago, I joined a local men’s tennis league to go along with my return to suburban living and a continued eternal quest to look cool, even once, in front of my wife. (This also resulted in my trying out for the now-defunct Israel Baseball League, where, incomprehensibly, I managed to strike out the side in order with a sub-70 mph “fastball”. Or, more accurately, “ball”. My children will hear of this several times.)

Serving a tennis ball was the only sporty thing I was ever noticeably good at, even though the rest of my game was in the middling 4.0 level that pretty much every ex-teen player ends up in. So I was actually kinda crushed when I couldn’t do it anymore: Every time I reached the top of my swing, a shooting pain in my shoulder stopped me.

I didn’t get this pain from any other activity, so I didn’t want to bother with the expense of an orthopedist and a likely MRI. But I was aware of Doctor of Physical Therapy Kelly Starrett from Crossfit, and his MobilityWOD (Workout of the Day) blog. He was kind enough to do an article with me that is published in this month’s Outside Magazine. Also, he gave me a ten-minute fix that could have given me two years of tennis — apparently I had limited internal rotation in my shoulders, which causes impingement with overhead movements. He pointed me to this video of his, I did it, and the pain was gone. Yes, really.

Kelly has agreed to tape some videos tailored to PJ Media readers in the coming days, which likely will involve fixing bodies that spend most of the working day with a chair, keyboard, and screen. Give his stuff a real shot — these are ideas you will not find anywhere else, and he can offer a client list of Olympic athletes to back up his success rate.

Posted at 11:00 am on May 25th, 2012 by David Steinberg

Best Men: Which TV Males Do You Want Your Kids Watching?

The decline and fall of “guy” in popular culture offends more than just conservatives — I have a liberal friend raised with an absent father, and he has had just about enough of the man-child/feminized portrayals. Hollywood, like these schmucks, has spent at least two decades apologizing for a gender, damning men from birth, either infantilizing or neutering men in service to a can-do female lead or a pacifist guilty conscience.

I’ve noted a few exceptions. Booth, from Bones, is my favorite.

Following several decently produced seasons, Bones no longer has first-tier writing; production seems content to let previously buoyant leads regress to character actor depth is the service of simpler joke-writing (the Homer Simpson phenomenon). Now, Booth isn’t all there. But he was a rare unapologetically masculine character, made more so by the recognition — which most of us possess, being one or having been in the company of men — that masculine doesn’t imply the preening “macho” scapegoat that left culture uses as a measuring stick for self-superiority.

Generally, among the manly men I know, “masculine” means the precise opposite: cultivating toughness in the service of others, not in vanity. Clinical in life-or-death decision-making, yet naked emotional with loved ones; can eat wings and wear a beer-can helmet in the service of inner-child fun and not date-rape.

That’s Booth. Throw in that he served as an elite military sniper and answered an optional request to return to Iraq, and that he would take two bullets for his son before breakfast.

I appreciated last season’s storyline wherein a love interest took advantage of Booth’s black-and-white morality, mistaking it for naivety. She, of course, the one frequently sidetracking her success to feed her “nuanced” self, is what most responsible adults recognize as naivety. Booth understood that, stayed true, had a few fingers of whiskey and moved on.

Good stuff, and a character I’d want influencing my son but for the overwhelming gore the show has always contained – shocking for an 8:00 p.m. slot — and the fading scripts that define the most recent productions.

Sticking to the past decade or so, got any male favorites of your own?

Posted at 9:00 am on August 3rd, 2011 by David Steinberg

PJ Fitness: Did Nike Tear Your ACL?

Among all the modern fitness conventional wisdom and habit which has been debunked over the past decade – led by Crossfit founder, trainer Greg Glassman, and his novel approach of actually seeing what works before telling his clients to do it – easily the most disheartening is that you’ve probably been screwing up your body before you even leave the house, and you’ve been spending a crapload of money to do it.

If you run regularly and stay abreast of the latest in the sport – or if you read the New York Times Book Review, which for the first time ever has brought some truth to this world (sigh…) — you’re likely aware of the “barefoot” or “minimalist” running movement. To get you up to speed if you aren’t: it’s exactly what it sounds like.

While it inherently presents as yet another “holistic,” “spiritual,” “wellness,” “politically correct narcissist” fad, it isn’t. Evidence — solid, objective evidence, not the “consensus” kind — and common sense are piling up in support of the minimalist shoe movement: cushioned, corrective running shoes have turned running into one of the world’s most predictably injurious activities by creating a biomechanically degenerative stride. They also cost a lot.

Here’s a good link to start with. Once you’re through, peruse anything you can find online about Dr. Nicholas Romanov and POSE running, and take a look at Christopher McDougal’s (NYT bestseller) Born To Run.

Here’s the basic technique (which actually doesn’t need to be taught, as by taking your shoes off and running you will automatically make the necessary corrections. It’s simply too painful to continue running improperly):

  1. Take off your shoes.
  2. Run in place. You will notice that you are landing on the balls of your feet, and not your heels. Because that would hurt.
  3. Now … wait for it! … lean forward.

What is it about cushy shoes that messes all of this up? It’s the strike point of your foot with the ground. Barefoot, you land on your forefoot. With cushy shoes, you come down on your heel. What’s the problem? Consider — how long have humans been:

a) Running with a forefoot strike?

Since approximately 200,000 B.C, late Pleistocene, when “Anatomically Modern Humans” originated in Africa:

b) Running with a heel strike?

Since 1972:

1972 saw the release of the Nike Cortez, the company’s first running shoe. For the first time, runners had a shoe designed with significant cushioning underneath the heel, a development that most athletic shoes you’ve encountered over your lifetime have continued with. Here’s the Cortez:

This shoe cushioned the severe discomfort of running with a heel strike, which — when barefoot — sends approximately three times your bodyweight of force into your heel and up to your knee. Runners lengthened their stride and went with the heel strike, because they didn’t have to worry about landing softly anymore.

Posted at 2:00 pm on July 19th, 2011 by David Steinberg

John Locke at the Squat Rack

For three decades, the height of scientific inquiry at the gym was whether or not to do “cardio” or “machines” first during a workout. And “cardio” was always 30 minutes, because the sign said to give up the machine after 30 minutes if people were waiting, and “machines” always included four exercises that were kinda sorta the bench press, and three sets of ten reps were the gold standard, according to the laminated anatomy posters bearing weighty titles like: “The Chest.”

A slightly less prevalent topic: the proper timing of the consumption of the protein shake. “As soon as the weights hit the floor” was the consensus answer amongst the meaty, wisdom which cannot be precisely sourced but which is believed to have emanated from “Larry,” a besweatpantsed man known for having the largest protein shake in Orange County.

The Age of Reason has finally exposed itself to fitness. The news is not good: you likely have wasted a significant portion of your life’s exercise time becoming more injury prone, unathletic, unhealthy, and simply being inefficient with your workouts. The most disheartened are likely the endurance athletes, appalled to discover that frequently running ten miles is not necessary training for acquiring the ability to run ten miles. The movement towards evidence-based fitness was started in the ‘90s by trainer named Greg Glassman, who found himself appalled by the profession upon realizing that not a soul within it had ever thought to ask, much less answer, the Locke-approved question:

What is “fitness?”

The answer Glassman discovered has devoured the industry, forcing an overhaul of the training programs employed by our military and first-responders, those most in need of better advice and time-management than that offered by Larry. Here at PJ Lifestyle, I’ll be checking in with the best of the best in the fitness world — who are now accompanied by the evidence and results to prove it — and trying to bring that spirit of classical liberal inquiry to a lifestyle blog.

Posted at 11:58 am on July 14th, 2011 by David Steinberg