somanaut
Level 5 Valued Member
So I have been thinking a lot about what I would term public health lately. And I would like to know what S1 forums thinks about the subject. And were strength-skill fits into that subject?
I work as a clinical massage therapist, in Scandinavia, for a private healthcare company. Most of our clients come from retirement fund companies. I.e. the people that have a retirement fund at a company. So most of them are still working. We offer a variety of services (massage, physical therapy, chiropractic etc.) and the retirement fund companies buy a set of services that their customers can use. My clients have very different educational and occupational backgrounds. But it's mostly people who earn low to middle incomes.
I got into massage therapy pretty much by if not accident, then at least on a whim. So it wasn't my life's dream, or because I am overly touchy feely. I don't believe in chakras, or that your emotional pain is stored in your hips etc. I think a good massage, can help alleviate some parts of some problem/injuries. But most of the time it's just symptom treatment. However I do think, that reducing a clients symptoms for a short can have a positive effect on how fast they recover, and help ex. physical therapy and other treatment modalities.
Often the subject of general health comes up with my clients. And I try and explain, why massage is a good companion to lifestyle changes, i.e. diet and exercise, but it is best seen as having a supporting role to play. Then I am often asked, what kind of exercise they should do. I always answer: Pick something you like, and do it on average at least 3 times a week. And that I believe, that strength training of some kind has the biggest pay off, for time spent.
It is my impression, that the subset of clients that I treat, that ask me about this, are generally people, who don't want to train, else they would be training (There are two other subsets, that either can't train for legitimate reason or already do, and just got injured). Now I don't know if it's because they are lazy or uninformed. I suspect a bit of both (I know that I myself was both before I encountered S1). The general public health guidelines are: 1) 10.000 steps a day and 2) 30 min of moderate to intense physical activity (a GPP like S&S fits the 30 min moderate to intense activity). That seems reasonable...except for what would constitute the 30 min of moderate to intense activity. Most people (even a large portion of health and fitness professionals) seem to group physical activity into 3 categories:
1) Get Swole!!!
2) Endurance (ex. running or biking).
3) Event, i.e. have fun (ex. crossfit and your average yoga/pilates class, depending on your temperament).
If done properly, I can see how there is a skill element to all of the categories...however that is NOT how most people approach them (in my experience).Now I can see benefits in endurance training, and in the flexibility/mobility aspects. But I believe that S1 got it right: Strength is the most fundamental skill, and it should be practiced as such. I.e. if you like running, you have to strength train, if you like yoga, you have to strength train, and if you don't do anything (not even a job) you have to strength train.
It baffles me, that in a soft socialist democratic society such as the one I live in, that the government doesn't promote strength as a skill a longside, reading, basic math etc. How come there isn't more emphasis on the benefits of strength? Is it because most of the advisors to the government are doctors, and they are more concerned with cancer, obesity etc.? Why is there so much emphasis on endurance and cardiovascular metrics, to the exclusion of strength?
If I recall correctly, the barbell strength standards are:
1) Military press 1 x bodyweight
2) Bench press 1,5 x bodyweight
3) Squat 2 x bodyweight
4) Deadlift 2,5 x bodyweight
Would something along those line be applicable for public health standards? Sure some would fail. Just like some people are bad at math. But for some reason, that is considered more acceptable, than setting standards for ones strength.
Sorry if the post, seems a bit disorganized, I am trying to sort out my thoughts, and would appreciate what the forum thinks about the subject.
I work as a clinical massage therapist, in Scandinavia, for a private healthcare company. Most of our clients come from retirement fund companies. I.e. the people that have a retirement fund at a company. So most of them are still working. We offer a variety of services (massage, physical therapy, chiropractic etc.) and the retirement fund companies buy a set of services that their customers can use. My clients have very different educational and occupational backgrounds. But it's mostly people who earn low to middle incomes.
I got into massage therapy pretty much by if not accident, then at least on a whim. So it wasn't my life's dream, or because I am overly touchy feely. I don't believe in chakras, or that your emotional pain is stored in your hips etc. I think a good massage, can help alleviate some parts of some problem/injuries. But most of the time it's just symptom treatment. However I do think, that reducing a clients symptoms for a short can have a positive effect on how fast they recover, and help ex. physical therapy and other treatment modalities.
Often the subject of general health comes up with my clients. And I try and explain, why massage is a good companion to lifestyle changes, i.e. diet and exercise, but it is best seen as having a supporting role to play. Then I am often asked, what kind of exercise they should do. I always answer: Pick something you like, and do it on average at least 3 times a week. And that I believe, that strength training of some kind has the biggest pay off, for time spent.
It is my impression, that the subset of clients that I treat, that ask me about this, are generally people, who don't want to train, else they would be training (There are two other subsets, that either can't train for legitimate reason or already do, and just got injured). Now I don't know if it's because they are lazy or uninformed. I suspect a bit of both (I know that I myself was both before I encountered S1). The general public health guidelines are: 1) 10.000 steps a day and 2) 30 min of moderate to intense physical activity (a GPP like S&S fits the 30 min moderate to intense activity). That seems reasonable...except for what would constitute the 30 min of moderate to intense activity. Most people (even a large portion of health and fitness professionals) seem to group physical activity into 3 categories:
1) Get Swole!!!
2) Endurance (ex. running or biking).
3) Event, i.e. have fun (ex. crossfit and your average yoga/pilates class, depending on your temperament).
If done properly, I can see how there is a skill element to all of the categories...however that is NOT how most people approach them (in my experience).Now I can see benefits in endurance training, and in the flexibility/mobility aspects. But I believe that S1 got it right: Strength is the most fundamental skill, and it should be practiced as such. I.e. if you like running, you have to strength train, if you like yoga, you have to strength train, and if you don't do anything (not even a job) you have to strength train.
It baffles me, that in a soft socialist democratic society such as the one I live in, that the government doesn't promote strength as a skill a longside, reading, basic math etc. How come there isn't more emphasis on the benefits of strength? Is it because most of the advisors to the government are doctors, and they are more concerned with cancer, obesity etc.? Why is there so much emphasis on endurance and cardiovascular metrics, to the exclusion of strength?
If I recall correctly, the barbell strength standards are:
1) Military press 1 x bodyweight
2) Bench press 1,5 x bodyweight
3) Squat 2 x bodyweight
4) Deadlift 2,5 x bodyweight
Would something along those line be applicable for public health standards? Sure some would fail. Just like some people are bad at math. But for some reason, that is considered more acceptable, than setting standards for ones strength.
Sorry if the post, seems a bit disorganized, I am trying to sort out my thoughts, and would appreciate what the forum thinks about the subject.