Look to the Past for Nutrition, and the Future for Exercise: The Missing Link for CrossFit and Primal Fitness Enthusiasts

Before I begin, I would like to say that I agree with a lot of notions promoted by the CrossFit and Primal Fitness crowd- those who look to our past for guidance concerning our health and fitness.

In fact I am a massive supporter of eating like our ancestors- until I find a valid argument voiding 2+ million years of evolution (which, I’m somehow doubting will ever be done to any substantial degree).

I like the exercise protocols promoted by these groups (or, at least my personal understanding of them) because- for the most part- they are a MASSIVE step in the right direction and are a far cry from programs such as P90x and the generic (leftover aerobics?) “cardio” movement.

They “get it”. Our bodies are built for brief, intense, and relatively infrequent exercise- built so because that is how our species evolved over the course of a very, very long time. The specifics will always vary, but least this much is “agreed” upon.

However this is where the agreeing comes to a rather abrupt halt- where these training modalities fall prey to the intellectual missing link concerning our evolution in accordance with exercise.

If the “3 laws” of proper exercise are brief, intense, and relatively infrequent, the fourth would undoubtedly be safe.

Let’s examine this rift in thinking together and try to get to the bottom of things- for everyone’s sake.

Recently Mark Sisson from Mark’s Daily Apple made a post about (moderate?) low level aerobic activity. You can find the post here.

His blog by the way is excellent. I highly recommend digging through it and finding the gems hidden within.

Beneath that post I made the following comment

Mark, I highly recommend reading a recently released book titled “Body by Science”, particularly the section on romanticizing our ancestors and the errors/consequences that can be made in attempts to mimic their exercise habits.

Now, why did I make such a comment? Do I entirely disagree with low level aerobic activity as a means for maintaining overall health and well being?

No, not at all. In fact I believe staying “active” via recreational activities or an occasional walk (for example) is vitally important to maintaining long term mental and physical health. We are simply NOT made to sit on our ass all day and stare at a wall.

However, low level aerobic activity is, in my opinion, not a valid form of exercise.

Before continuing, I would like to forewarn you that what I’m about to tell you can easily stir emotions, and cloud sound judgment. It is the intellectual jump that is no easy feat to make, and in announcing it I take certain readership risks. All that said, take a deep breath, and get ready to make a leap!

Let’s clarify, physical activity does not equal exercise.

Again, let’s repeat that because it is critical for understanding proper exercise- (random) physical activity does not equal exercise.

Exercise is a physical activity, yes, but the inverse of that is not true.

Proper exercise follows principles that apply to everyone (they are universal to our species).

It usually isn’t fun. It is severely uncomfortable and requires discipline.

However it is safe, sustainable, and almost everyone has the ability to reap tremendous benefits from it- including your kid sister, and your grandparents.

Below is a comment from a close friend that may help accelerate understanding of what I’m saying.

I love how people are cool with recommending something to a 25 year old, but not a 65 year old (after all..how many 65 year olds are doing clean and jerks?)….don’t they realize the 25 year old will have to work with the same body 40 years later?

Back on point, I made that comment because this is where things get hazy- this is where things like CrossFit and Primal Fitness lose their edge- at least for someone with similar interests to my own concerning health, fitness, physique, functional ability, flexibility, and so on.

Crossfit, primal fitness, and related training modalities look to the past for guidance concerning exercise- the same way we (in my opinion, should) look to the past for guidance concerning nutrition.

After all, it’s pretty damn hard to argue with 2 million years of evolution concerning dietary habits.

Much like this commenter on Mark’s blog pointed out

Hi Anthony

Perhaps you can give us a one liner about these revelations ?

I find it hard to imagine a valid argument against doing what we have been selected (through evolution) to do.

Considering this, we should probably follow the same path for exercise…right?

Hmm, perhaps in some areas, but not precisely.

True, our bodies are primarily built for brief, intense, infrequent exercise.

But the problem- well one of them- lies in wear and tear issues and the fact that ancient man usually didn’t live past his 40′s.

But that’s because he got mauled by a bear or fell off a cliff, caught a disease, or something!

You’re exactly right, but that doesn’t change the fact that when he died at that old (middle?) age he often died “crippled by osteoarthritis and other wear-and-tear issues”.

A quote from Body by Science that is supported by- my count- nearly half a dozen independent peer reviewed studies from sources such as The Scottish Medical Journal, The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, and the Annual Review of Anthropology. If anyone is so inclined I can cite the same references, however I think you owe it to yourself to at least give the book a look next time you walk into a Barnes and Noble (these citations are present in the back of the book right before the index).

Now, keyword, often.

Does this mean every single person who mimics ancient mans physical activity as closely as possible will have those same problems? Probably not. But as a friend recently said…

Some people can exercise excessively year after year with no problem, whereas others will have tons of issues. The problem is it’s kind of a gamble…kind of like smoking…you may live to 105 smoking two packs a day, but do you want to take that calculated risk?

I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell don’t want to significantly risk having crippling bone and joint problems when I’m forty- not to mention old age. I wanna be running around like a maniac when I’m 70 =), not walker bound.

Statistical (genetic?) gambles aside, let’s look at the same issue with basic logic.

In doing so however, try to let go of any preconceived notions you may have about exercise. Right, wrong, questionable, back by science, whatever, just let go and have a blank slate for a moment. In particular, forget all of the benefits that have been strongly associated with only aerobic- free radical releasing- exercise.

…

Imagine you were born in the woods, raised in the-exposed to the elements- wild, and then lived your entire adult life (a few decades) hunting dangerous animals, gathering random food (while probably starving half the time), fighting others (perhaps to the death protecting your family and friends), running from predators, and all the while trying to avoid traumatic injury (that would probably prove fatal) barefoot.

Anyone here want to hunt down a wooly mammoth on a weekly basis with me the rest of their life? With nothing more than a few sharp sticks and our wits, of course.

Apparently we didn’t as a species. Over the course of history we used our brains and decided to stop doing these kinds of dangerous and internally damaging activities (well, most of us anyway, there are still isolated tribes in remote regions of the world from my understanding).

Does this mean we should stop eating wild game (or modern day equivalents) and other foods that are within our natural food matrix?

No, I don’t believe so, and neither do many other people including Mark Sisson (and from my understanding many CrossFit enthusiasts). It just means we should listen to our ancestors and limit these kinds of activities for purposes other than exercise.

But how does hunting relate to primal fitness and CrossFit?

Romanticizing those activities and turning a blind eye to the inherent risks involved.

Think for a moment about what the primary result of proper exercise should be.

In my opinion- and the opinion of many others- it is strength gains. From these gains nearly all other benefits (of which, there are tons!) stem.

Or in other words, (safe) strength training should be the foundation of your physical activity pyramid- a term I borrowed with permission from 7 year Central Florida personal trainer Patrick Diver.

It should not replace it, but be the basis to ensure maximum benefits for all activities above it.

The reality is your body has little (conceptual?) understanding of mechanical work. You impose demands, it does it’s best to adapt in the most efficient way possible (which is different from activity to activity).

The “missing link” is that properly conducted strength training will support all activites that are adapted for in different ways (some of which can be negative adaptations such as muscle deteroration from notions like “chronic cardio” as Mark Sisson discusses).

The same can not be said for “cross” training movements, and attempts to mimic all the random physical activity our ancestors engaged in. It may seem that way, but often times this is a confusion between improvements in motor skill (think: running) and physical adaptaions by the body- whether it be in muscle or cardiovascular system.

These movements are often of high force, possibly unsafe for many individuals, and are rarely sustainable in old age.

And yes I understand guys like Clarence Bass and Art Devany perform sprints, but how many of us will really be sprinting around at 70-80 years old? Count me out, healthy joints or not.

While these activities can result in some degree of muscular hypertrophy (just like properly conducted strength training, which is in accordance with our evolutionary background), it will rarely- if ever- result in the same improvements over a broad population of people .

As a friend recently commented to me, a lot of people promoting these types of training are the “survivors”, or perhaps outliers- not unlike those found in the field of body building.

Take Arnold Schwarzenegger for example- a champion and widely recognized body building legend.

What many people overlook is that Arnold is a genetic anomaly. His training protocols- while obviously working well for him in terms of immediate results during his youth- are not sustainable (look at him now).

Nor do they accommodate for the average person’s genetic recovery ability- which can be proportional to one’s genetic potential (last I checked it was impossible for my bicep to ever get as big as Arnold’s, no matter how hard I train, or how many drugs I take, it is a physical impossibility).

…

Back on point, the repetitive nature of these high impact movements may come with a hefty price to pay. Many professional athletes, held in high esteem during their prime of their career for their physical prowess, later become spokesmen for anti-inflammatory medications and surgical procedures.

So what’s the solution, to completely disregard our ancestors evolution for brief, intense, and infrequent activity?

No. As previously stated, the solution (in my humble opinion) is to improve upon that and amplify what produces positive adaptations.

How do we improve upon those activities?

Simple, identify the movements that work with normal joint function, do them in a carefully controlled manner, infrequently, and with an intensity that will produce adaptations.

Modern technology, the “future” as I’ve not so accurately called it in the title of this post- because people have been strength training with barbell type devices for hundreds if not thousands of years- is the answer for exercise.

Why does this work?

Again, your body has little understanding of what it’s doing, it just responds to the demands imposed upon it.

Most people respond well (in the short term) to interval sprint training- and perhaps in some cases in the long term as well (barring trauma related injuries).

The trick is that you can produce the same results, in less time, with substantially less immediate danger and wear-and-tear issues, doing a compound leg movement such as a squat, leg press or dead lift (I prefer the first 2 personally).

Your heart may not adapt exactly the same way, but it does adapt in a way that will promote cardiovascular health equally in relation to sprint training.

If you for some reason need to be an efficient sprinter- for sports, work, and what not- practice sprinting when your legs are recovered from properly conducted strength training.

Try not to confuse exercise with specific skill training and conditioning.

Lay the rock solid foundation with strength training (“proper” exercise as I like to call it), and peform your specific skill training and conditioning after you achieve the added safety and benefit from exercise.

Connect the dots, separate the two, and you will have stronger muscles, in a safer manner, and if necessary, still have the highly adapted skill of (fill in the blank for your sport or career).

…

And yes, I understand this defies conventional wisdom. But in my opinion, there isn’t a lot of leeway. It’s a matter of understanding apples and oranges, and respecting the differences between the two that are set by nature.

This may upset some people- particularly those with vested interests or long histories with combining these 2 separate fields- but try to take emotions out of the equation if they are being brought into play at this moment.

Your health may depend on it, and perhaps more than that if your career depends on your functional ability (think: police officer/fire fighter).

…

Some more personal cases of where high impact activites have caused problems.

1. I have a friend who runs regular “bootcamps” in Orlando whose back is literally falling apart, at the ripe old age of 31 (32 now?).

2. I have a friend (a young girl) who refuses to stop teaching group exercise classes in light of repeated serious traumatic injuries. She has dislocated both kneecaps (one multiple times I believe) at the age of…23. No, that’s not a typo.

3. Most personal of all, my own wrecked knee.

I dislocated it playing high school football- 5 separate times.

This hurts really, really bad by the way. Especially the first time.

It frequently locked up and remained aggravated over the past few years, until I drastically cut the volume of my exercise program and dramatically increased the intensity.

It’s been 6 months since I took unconventional steps to address my obsession (addiciton?) to training, and thus far my knee has never felt better. It’s not perfect, but it rarely bothers me, and when it does the intensity is far reduced from previous levels.

Conclusion

There’s (almost) no out running- no pun intended- bone and joint problems in a long enough time span training with high force and volume protocols.

It’s been said you can’t out train a bad diet. And in my opinion, the inverse is also true.

You can’t out eat a bad training program.

I believe it is almost irrelevant how in alignment your diet is in relation to our ancestors when it comes to these sort of problems. It did not protect them (completely, I’m not saying they have no effect) from over use injuries, and there is little to suggest a proper diet will significantly protect you under the conditions of a high impact life long training protocol.

Does this mean Body by Science and High Intensity Training are the only valid forms of exercise? No, not at all. That would be outright ridiculous and close minded.

But “strength training” is, and anytime you significantly move away from this concept, you unnecessarily endanger your health in the pursuit of fitness.

You can do whatever you please for the purpose of recreation, specific skill training and conditioning, but try to appreciate that they have little to do with exercise specifically, despite having an exercise effect.

Or, in the words of another…

Another popular but wrong opinion implied in her reply is people should base their exercise program on their recreational preferences. Exercise is the application of a physical stressor to stimulate an adaptive response, and should be performed in accordance with how the body handles and responds to stress and using movements based on muscle and joint function, and not in accordance with the conventions or movement patterns of some recreational activity. While a physical recreational activity may have an exercise effect, this is not the same as being effective exercise. - Drew Baye

A Final Note

1. Strength training (lifting heavy things) is as old as the human species. Doing so in accordance with modern technology to increase safety- so as not to endanger our health in pursuit of fitness- makes perfect sense.

2. The past is a useful tool. When it comes to nutrition, it’s hard to argue backwards engineering our ideal diet from long ago. Exercise follows a similar path, but not the exact same. Again, ancient man did not have tools available to isolate the benefits from physical activity and eliminate the negatives- we do, let’s use em!

I hope this article has proved helpful for those looking to enhance their lives through properly conducted exercise and not alienated those passionate about recreational activities that can have exercise effects. Please feel free to comment as this is a complex subject- however narrow we try to make it- and it warrants further (endless?) discussion.

Thanks

-Dream