The little indestructible creature clued me into my greatest epiphany; that adaptations to exercise are promotive, rather than the widely believed “protective”.

How so?

When conditions are extremely rough, the little Tardi goes into a low energy/low metabolism state.

To PROTECT itself – to PRESERVE itself.

How does our body respond to exercise?

By creating a physiology of higher energy demands, and higher metabolic rate.

This is anything but protective – this is asking for MORE.

This is challenging the challenge.

Now let’s think about how this applies to “over-training”.

And cardio.

Think about it.

I’ll have my post on the topic up soon.

Stress, Adapt, Thrive or Die

The pendulum that is raised to the left, strikes back to the right with relentless necessity. –Uexküll

This is what I mean when I try to explain how a crash diet or a crash training program – a stress your body is not ready for – will result in a crash outcome.

Your body compensates and this is what adaptation IS. All adaptation is not beneficial.

All adaptation is not improvement.

Sometimes it is decline, destruction and demise.

A Disturbing Trend: Set in motion by stress and strain, the biologic(al) pendulum swings between catabolism and anabolism, trying to eventually bring stability back to a disrupted metabolism. 

Now let me link them here in a swirl of anti-scientific metaphor

What stretching is to the cycle of contraction, aerobic system function is to anaerobic systems cycle of stimulation.
Now cant a contraction be part of the stretch cycle? And cant anaerobic system function be part of the aerobic systems cycle of stimulation?
No. Why? At rest you are stretched and aerobic. Thus in action…
Elongation will happen with contraction, don’t you worry. Aerobic system stimulation will happen with anaerobic challenges, dont you worry either.


If resistance training were about increased strength levels alone, there would be no point to it, since there is a very real limiting effect to strength gain. When you keep training, yet fail to consistently produce a gain in strength, the less is more propagators explain it away in the same way they explained away the fact that magnesium became heavier when burnt, that it didn’t lose anything but gain, by suggesting that phlogiston had negative weight. Right now, the strength theorists are telling you, that your lack of getting stronger, is because you train to get stronger.

So the less is more training crowd is not accepting of that fact that strength gains eventually cease.

So they use the old phlogiston and magnesium protocol. The phlogiston theorists used to believe that when magnesium burned, it would “release” phlogiston. But magnesium only became HEAVIER when it was burned.
So they said, “well, that’s because phlogiston has negative weight”. In the same way, when you train and fail to get stronger continually, the less is more “research reading specialists” explain it away as, “well, that’s because your training has a negative effect.”

Well, they are wrong.

Your training doesn’t have the same effect THEY find easiest to measure. The only effect they really can measure.

The purpose of strength training isn’t necessarily to get stronger. It is also about training your strength in various forms of expression. Find different ways to express your strength and max out your strength expression using all conduits. The conduits are limited only by your imagination.

A Metaphors Tale – How Fission Fusion Was Born

The Many Cycles Of Biology

What stretching is to contraction in the muscle function cycle, aerobic system stimulation is to anaerobic demand.

Now cant a contraction be part of the stretch cycle? And cant anaerobic system function be part of the aerobic systems cycle of stimulation?

No. But why?

At rest you are stretched and aerobic. Thus in action…

Elongation will happen with contraction demands. And aerobic system stimulation will happen with anaerobic challenges. I believe

Fission Fusion Training Model

My Fission Fusion training model is a cyclic training methodology as well. Metaphors for integration and seperation. We can never train either in pure isolation, but we CAN emphasize.

() Fusion Strategy ()
To undo the effects of a modern hypo-kinetic lifestyle, we enter the realm of hyper-kinetic training.

Focused on working kinetic chains through different movement patterns in multiple planes of motion and utilizing an infinite variety of exercises at varying speeds and tempos. Focused on full body functionality.

() Fission Strategy ()
Now we isolate to aesthetically integrate.

Focused on working the individual body parts through different movement patterns in multiple planes of motion and utilizing an infinite variety of exercises at varying speeds and tempos. Focused on full body aesthetic balance.
The two primary methodologies of Fission-Fusion feed into each other creating a “synergistic ouroborus”.

A self-perpetuating spiral dynamic progression model that builds upon itself by feeding into itself. Progressively alternating and integrating both ends of the spectrum as the adaptive processes change the clients’ abilities over time.


Fission Fusion – How It Became

Fitness training is where the ideas of biology, physics and psychology have sex. 

Functionally Interdependent Principles?

The principles of training and diet should not be considered independent when it comes to application to your body and mine. They must be considered as functionally interdependent. What we want is to have the principles of training and diet to have sex and give birth to a perceptual lens that enables us to see sharper, clearer, farther and deeper than ever before.

This idea of realizing this principle interdependence was what allowed me to link the the two metabolic conduits and create the Fission Fusion Model.

Structure Of Reaping What You Sow

You can create the mold (your program),
Place your embryonic self inside (perform the program),
And allow your body to forge itself into your minds design, over time.

The mold though must have freedoms of expression within the larger scale structure.

The mold must be as adaptable as your body is.

Your body is bio-clay, plastic and ready to interpret the signature of your program’s design through the modification of its implicit with your expected explicit. The program then, is like a model, or a system of thought – though created in perfection, should be designed with specific freedom allowances within rigid constraints. The joints of the larger structure need to be flexible enough to withstand the forces of pummeling that could come with a tsunami or slow flood of unpredictability.

To not have a program, is to not have direction, purpose or point actually no reason for them to let everyone know that they are broken-hearted, for example

Flip The Script

What you do with your body, determines what your body does with your food: The processing, digesting, integrating and utilizing characteristic of a highly physically active body is going to be substantially different from the processing characteristics of a sedentary physiology. Its like putting chicken into a pot of boiling water, versus putting the same chicken into a pot of cold water. Different time frames, different outcomes – different processes. Which means….I’m worried less about the calorie type and quantity and more about the body the calories are going into.

You need structure with degrees of freedom, constraints of elasticity: I learned this way of thinking from Freeman Dyson 5 years ago. And I’ve been using the metaphor ever since. A program cannot be a completely open loop. It must have constraints and freedoms that chisel the path the worker must take to create a large-scale “effect” (what I call EffectTraining). Be it metabolic or mechanical, or when they have sex like in a Fission Fusion Hybrid program.

Science VS Experience, The Lab VS Observation: Tacit VS Explicit

You have probably already realized that I’ve created an all out, no holds barred false duality slug fest, with my title to this post above. And you’d be right. The problem isn’t this simple. The issue isn’t this plain. The solution isn’t this formulaic. The process isn’t this black and white. My post probably isn’t right or wrong.

What this piece of writing is NOT, is an anti-science tirade. No. I am not part of the scientism band-wagon. I believe science is truly the best “systematic” conduit to some sort of truth that we have.

The reason being is that I believe science, the meme, the idea, the way of thinking, not only evolves, but some of its constraints, over time, alter with improvements in analysis, observation and methodology. Methodology and modality extracted and guided by the powers of observation and the forces of experience that mold perception and create a framework for understanding.

Because astronomers can carry out the two fundamental activities that, jointly considered, truly characterize a science: systematic observations and the construction and testing of hypotheses.- Massimo

Of course there is a way to create synchrony and di


–          Bias Isn’t Always Wrong – Biases are Clues

–          Deduction/Induction



There is no such thing as a Scientific Mind. Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics. What sort of mind or temperament can all these people be supposed to have in common? Obligative scientists must be very rare, and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead. — Peter Medawar


To begin with, let us clear the field from a common misunderstanding about what it means to do science, a misconception that is unfortunately widespread even among scientists: one does not need experiments to do science. While this claim may sound strange and counterintuitive at first, a moment’s reflection will show that it is obviously true: astronomers do not conduct experiments, and yet we think of astronomy as solidly situated within the sciences, not the humanities or the pseudosciences. Why?