Tuesday, June 14, 2011

The Hillfit Paradigm

I've already mentioned that I have got a monthly column in a UK hillwalking / backpacking  magazine - TGO

It is called Hillfit.  I will share some of the ideas here occaisionally.  The paradigm that I am promoting is:

A template – the Hillfit Paradigm

There is science behind what I recommend, but be aware that the same data can be interpreted differently depending on the presumptions of the reader. I will present a paradigm through which to view the data, to make sense of what you see. Let’s apply a “template”: “Hillfit” : minimal, foundational and functional.

  • Minimal – getting the maximum effect from a minimum investment of time and effort. Most of us have jobs and families. Time and money are precious. We will be efficient.
  • Foundational – What are we built for? How were we designed to move? Looking from the perspective of our ancestors, who for example would have walked or run but rarely jogged, many fitness programmes are too regimented and use “unnatural” moves.
  • Functional – training is not an end in itself, but should facilitate your FUN! My ideas might make you stronger or increase “metabolic conditioning”, but you must apply that capacity to your skill. You need to walk! It is about the hills not the gym.

I would now call the second point Ancestral, I think.

You can probably see my influences if you have read much of the stuff on this blog over the years.


Stipetic said...

I have a full-time job and a family, too, so I can relate. On point Minimal I'm not sure that our category prioritizes the minimization of effort. It's the time commitment that's the rate-limiting step, I believe. What do you think?

Chris G said...

Chris comparing the article with the above I can see how some editing took place! Have you considered asking if they can ditch the photo above the text? I would have thought that would give you a few hundred more words. I realise you may have to keep it especially with pics of exercise demos in future articles and what have you, just a thought.

Chris said...

Hi Chris

There was quite a lot of editing but I think that I am OK with that. It needs to fit in with their design and space and what I had written originally was just too long. I didn't really have a word allowance for the first piece so it needed editing down

I think I just have to accept that a magazine will edit things to fit into their space etc. and I think that the basics of the article are still there. I do worry that it ended up reading quite fragmented rather than flowing and also that the danger of short pieces is that it ends up as very "Daily Mai"l - little detail and all sensational assertions.

I now have a clear specification from them - 500 words for the article and 150 for the exercise part - so I am working on that basis. I've already sent i the next one almost exactly to those word counts, so it will be interesting to see what comes out.

By necessity at that word count there will not be the detail but that is the nature of the beast.

Chris, do I have your email address?

Chris G said...

I will pm you