Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Amazonia: Row, Row, Row Your Boat Part the Second

For Wednesday, 15th April

Warmup: 7 minutes of  Bike (Cardio).


Row 1600m per individual. (Example: 5 rowers = 8000m) for time.

Run, as a group, from the Gym to Lake Nordon Isle (.5 mile) and Back for time.

Add the Team Row time and your best (fastest) runner's time together.

I will attempt to beat the total time.

5 victory Burpees.

Good luck, kick butt.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Amazonia: Steal Home

For Tuesday, 14th April

Cardio today:

Warm up: Bike, row or Elliptial for 10 mins. Nice and easy.

Team run to the park.

Box Jumps, Buddy squats, sand lunges.

Team run to the BBall Diamond, 10 100s.

Jog Back.

Dress warmish.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Amazonia: Case of the Mondays

For Monday the 13th.

Warm up with half mile run or 800 row.

Curls 99: dumbell , triceps, cable column (33 reps each)

Raises 99: military press, standing laterals, front laterals

Circles 99: front, back, ABCs

Pull 99: seated row, boxing, cable cross

Low weight, high rep to failure.

4 victory burpees. 400 total reps.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Amazonia: Beautiful Day

For the weekend, perfect weather.

Get outside, bring your jump rope.

5k, 60% / 40%. Run/jog to walk ratio.

If you're at the park that means 6 laps running, 4 walk.

If you run for time it means 20-30 mins run, 15-20 mins walk.

Finish out with 166 jumps.

Enjoy this perfect weather!

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Amazonia: Hildebrandt

For Friday, 9 th April.

333 squats. Any way you like...plia, air, goblet, jumps, sumo...your call.

16 hill sprints. 1/16 miles, max elevation.

333 high knees. Or box jumps or step ups or jacks.

141 jumps.

4 victory burpees.

Have fun!

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Amazonia: Tree.

Warm up, 1.5 elliptical or 4 mi bike.

7 rounds.

.25 mi treadmill
300 m row
Rest on the bike

10 100s

121 jumps, 4 victory burpees.

The Science of a Great TED Talk: What Makes a Speech Go Viral

April 3, 2015 // 8:00 AM

The Science of a Great TED Talk: What Makes a Speech Go Viral

Written by Lindsay Kolowich | @

Getting chosen to speak at a TED conference is no easy feat.
Attending a TED conference -- as in, sit in the audience -- is a little like applying for college, with a short essay-style application with questions like "What are you passionate about?" But tospeak at a conference is even harder. TED's content director Kelly Stoetzel and her team review thousands of candidates and whittle them down to 60-70 speakers for the twice-a-year, week-long conferences.
Who gets chosen to speak? To uphold their famous tagline "ideas worth spreading," TED organizers aren't looking for motivational speakers or self-promoters. Instead, ideal candidates are "inventors, teachers, artists, scientists, change agents, storytellers, big-picture thinkers, prodigies, performers, makers, technologists ... you name it," according to 2014's call-to-actionfor TED speakers.
In other words, emphasis is placed on a speaker's ideas, not their public speaking skills. The TED talks are good because the content is good.
But when it comes to view count on those TED talk's online videos, you might notice that some perform way, way better than others -- even when the topics are similar. The question is, why? What makes one TED talk more popular than the next?

Lessons From a TED Talk Study

To uncover why certain TED talks are more popular than others, the folks at Science of People, a human behavior research lab, recently conducted an intensive experiment on nonverbal communication. For the experiment, they had 760 volunteers watch hundreds of hours of TED talks and answer questions about charisma, intelligence, credibility, and more. With this data, Lead Investigator Vanessa Van Edwards and her team were able to find patterns among the most popular videos and the less popular ones.
To help control for accuracy, the study stuck to only videos posted on TED.com in 2010 that were between 15-20 minutes long. This way, they all had similar exposure, had about the same amount of time to rack up views, and were moderate in length so as not to skew volunteers' ratings. Each of the 760 volunteers was given only 10 TED talk videos to watch so as not to experience fatigue (which could affect their ratings).
They found that five specific, nonverbal patterns differentiate the most popular TED talks from the least popular ones. And they believe these five patterns show us how to be influential and charismatic.
Let's dig in to their results, as well as the helpful public speaking tips Van Edwards and her team derived from these results.

1) Nonverbal communication matters. A lot.

Think about how you'd normally prepare to deliver a talk. You probably spend the majority of that time preparing what you're going to say, right? I certainly do. But in the future, we might consider spending more time preparing how we're going to deliver our content rather than what we're going to say.
Why? In the Science of People's study, half the participants watched all their videos with sound, and half of them watched the videos on mute. Then, participants were asked to rate each TED speaker on their charisma, intelligence, and credibility. Ratings were exactly the same whether they'd watched the video with sound or without sound.
"In other words, people decide whether they like a TED talk based on the speaker's body language more than their actual words," said Van Edwards.
So the next time you deliver a speech in front of an audience, practice standing up straight, purposefully using the space on the stage to move around, and using natural and appropriate hand gestures to improve your delivery.
Speaking of hand gestures ...

2) The more hand gestures, the better.

Van Edwards and her team found a correlation between the number of views on a TED talk and the number of hand gestures. The most popular TED talks had an average of 7,360,000 views and speakers used an average of 465 hand gestures. The least popular TED talks had an average of 124,000 views and speakers used an average of 272 hand gestures.
The more hand gestures, the higher the speaker's charisma rating as well. In general, TED speakers who used fewer than 240 hand gestures scored lower on charisma.
Their suggestion? Use your hands to help illustrate and reinforce your ideas. When you do, you will seem more relaxed, confident, and authoritative.

3) Scripted speeches "kill charisma."

Van Edwards and her team found a correlation between the number of views a TED talk had and the speaker's vocal variety. Participants were asked to rate speakers on the amount of fluctuation in their voice tone, volume, and pitch. The results? The more vocal variety a speaker had, the more views they got. More vocal variety also correlated with higher charisma and credibility ratings.
Vocal variety also correlated with high view count: TED speakers delivering the most popular talks had 30.5% higher vocal variety.
"Speakers who told stories, ad-libbed, and even yelled at the audience (like Jamie Oliver [did] in his TED talk) captivated the audience's imagination and attention," wrote Van Edwards.
It makes sense that a speech with little vocal variety will turn listeners off. Monotone = boring. When you speak in an expressive, energized way, your audience is much more likely to maintain interest -- which probably means they'll like you more, too. So the next time you practice your speech, practice switching up your pace and pitch, and pausing to allow your message to sink in.
More importantly, don't memorize a script. Memorized speeches sound like memorized speeches. Most of the time, memorized speeches don't sound natural -- and, in Van Edwards' words, they actually "kill charisma." Instead of memorizing your whole speech, memorize the key elements you want to cover and allow the rest of it to be flexible and natural.

4) Smiling makes you look smarter.

Van Edwards and her team found that the more time a TED speaker smiled while delivering his or her speech, the higher their perceived intelligence ratings were. Speakers who were rated high in intelligence typically smiled for more than 14 seconds of their entire talk, while speakers rated lower in intelligence typically smiled for 14 seconds or less.
This may be counterintuitive to some of you -- and Van Edwards and her team cite this in their research. "Studies on smiling have found that leaders typically smile less," she wrote. "Nonverbal scientists believe that smiling is actually a low power behavior."
Here, she's referring to research from body language scientists like Carol Kinsey Goman, who wrote the book The Silent Language of Leaders. You might recall more recent research from Munich's Technische Universitaet that tested how leaders in business and academia are assessed and chosen. The researchers found that male and female managers behaving in exactly the same way were assessed differently -- and they concluded that women should appear less cheerful and more proud to be seen as affective leaders.
But the Science of People's research found that even when TED speakers were talking about a serious topic -- like Sheryl Sandberg's talk on why we have too few women leaders -- the amount of time smiling still correlated with intelligence ratings.
Their suggestion? "No matter how serious your topic, find something to smile about."

5) You have seven seconds to make an impression.

First impressions are powerful -- even in a 20-minute TED talk. Van Edwards and her team found that participants watching TED talks had already made decisions about how smart, charismatic, and credible the speaker was within seven seconds of watching the video.
Tufts psychologist Nalini Ambady calls this "thin-slicing." In her research, she found that students are very good at predicting a teacher's effectiveness based on first impressions. Ambady took video recordings of 13 graduate teaching fellows as they taught their classes, and then showed silent 10-second clips, called "thin slices," to students who didn't know the teachers. The students were asked to rate the teachers on variables like "competent" and "confident," and these ratings were combined into individual scores for each teacher. She then compared that rating to the teachers' end-of-semester evaluations from actual students and found that the initial ratings correlated highly with the teachers' end-of-semester evaluations. Her findings were the same each time she recreated the study.
The folks at the Science of People were able to replicate Ambady's finding with TED talk videos. To do this, they had one group of participants watch a clip of only the first seven seconds of a TED talk, and then asked them to rate the speaker on charisma, intelligence, and credibility. They had another group of participants watch the entire TED talk and then rate the speaker on the same variables. The ratings for both groups matched.
The takeaway here? Think about how you present yourself, how you walk onto the stage, and how you address your audience. Be sure to deliver an intriguing opening line -- perhaps with a thought-provoking question, a short story, or a joke.
There's no denying what you're wearing makes an impression on your audience as well. In another analysis of 50 TED talks, Van Edwards and her team found that speakers wearing clothing marked as "casual" typically had lower popularity ratings than people wearing clothing that was "business" or "business casual." Interestingly, speakers wearing darker colors got higher ratings than those in lighter colors. So you may want to think twice before donning that bright green sweater.
The next time you prepare to speak in front of an audience, think about the findings in this study and how you can adapt your stage presence and demeanor to make a better, more memorable impression on your audience.

Monday, April 6, 2015

Amazonia: Weigh me down

For Tuesday, 7th April 2015
Warm up: 101 Jumps

For tomorrow, all weighted reps.

1. Kettlebell swings
2. Jumping jacks
3. Standing upright row
4. Punch combo

5. Arm Circles
6. Goblet squats high knees
7. squatting uppercut (think jump squat)


Care About Mobile Optimization


Sunday, April 5, 2015

Amazonia: Hill Giants

For Monday 6th April.

Warm up with: a half mile jog.

101 each:

Box jumps or step ups.

Air Squats.

High Knees.

 Jumping Jacks.

Rear squats.

21 Hill Sprints - about 100 yards. You can do this on the treadmill at max elevation (1/16 or .08 miles) or near the school. Or do yourself one better and find a 'real' hill. Rest on interval.


It's a Killer Quad Day!

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Amazonia: Sunny side up

This weekends workout.

21 each,

Pushups, dips, jump squats, mountain climbers, lunges (each side), squat high knees, burpees.

5k: 30% walk, 70% run.

At the park this would be: 7 laps - run, walk, run x2, walk, run x2.

But you can complete it anywhere.

Perfect weather for a jog!

Friday, April 3, 2015

#Hero: Bruce

#Hero Tenet number 6: 
                                           Be Fit. 
Both Physically and Mentally. 
{Mens Sana in Corporea Sana}

This tenet is based upon Juvenal's Tenth Satire: 

It is to be prayed that the mind be sound in a sound body.

Ask for a brave soul that lacks the fear of death,
which places the length of life last among nature’s blessings,
which is able to bear whatever kind of sufferings,
does not know anger, 
lusts for nothing and believes the hardships and savage labors of Hercules
 better than the satisfactions, feasts, and feather bed of an Eastern king.
I will reveal what you are able to give yourself;
For certain, the one footpath of a tranquil life lies through virtue.

Few men have embodied this principle as Bruce Lee did.

He believed the body was a potentially  perfect vessel or engine. He honed it to near perfection using body weight training, running, a variation of Pilates and good nutrition. 

He believed Chinese Marshal Arts, of which he was a master, was too rigid for practical application so he established his own form: Jeet Kune Do. The Intercepting Fist. 

The symbol for Jeet Kune Do reads: 
Using no way as a way - Having no limitation as limitation.


Bruce Lee's Statue in Hong Kong.


The Science of Happiness


Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Second Draft Thoughts

By: Steven Pressfield | Mar 25, 2015 01:52 am

Read in browser »

I’m writing this on Friday, March 23, having just read Shawn’s post from today, “The Second Draft (Is Not A Draft),” which I love and which I agree with 100%. I never see what Shawn or Callie write until it appears on the blog. I don’t show ‘em my stuff early either.

Olivier and friend in "Hamlet." Second drafts can scare the hell out of you.

Anyway I gotta chip in my two cents on the subject of second drafts.

I’m gonna say exactly what Shawn said, but using a different metaphor. Here goes:

To me, first drafts are like blitzkriegs. They’re like the Israeli army charging across the Sinai Peninsula in four days in 1967. Or our own First Marine Division rolling up to Baghdad from Kuwait in 2003.

The concept behind blitzkrieg is don’t look right, don’t look left, just keep charging forward. If you hit a place where the enemy is putting up strong resistance, don’t stop to slug it out with him. Go round his flank. Leave him where he is. Keep rolling forward.

The danger for the attacking force in such “wars of movement” is that those bypassed enemy forces will rise up and strike you. They may attack your exposed flanks or cut off your lines of supply. That’s the chance you take with blitzkrieg.

You’re betting that rapid movement and relentless forward momentum will carry your forces so deeply into enemy’s rear so fast that the foe will panic. Your advance will seem irresistible. It will acquire a perceived power greater than it actually possesses.

The other huge asset of a rapid forward thrust is that it fills your own troops with confidence. They own the initiative. They’re dictating the action. They’re acting, not reacting.

First drafts, to me, are like blitzkriegs. The aim is to get from PAGE ONE to THE END as fast as possible.



I don’t wanna give that bugger one milli-second to dig in or rally or counter-attack.

I want the enemy confused and reeling and I want my own guys brimming with confidence. Faster! Let’s roll!

And it works. I bypass all sticking points. I don’t stop to fight it out over a strategic bridge or crossroads. I find a way around and I keep going.

That’s Draft #1.

Get to the Suez Canal.

Get to Baghdad.

Ah, but what happens once we’ve reaching our objective?

We’ve seized the brass ring but we’ve still got a dozen enemy strong points behind us.

We have reached Draft Two. Exactly what Shawn was writing about in “The Second Draft (Is Not A Draft.)”

The second draft is going back and mopping up those hot spots and pockets of resistance.

In writing terms, what are those hot spots?

They’re story problems.

They’re the scene where Hamlet goes into a four-minute soliloquy about his indecision in picking the right necktie. The scene where Pierre and Natasha elope to Las Vegas.

Or they’re out-and-out holes in the story. No Hamlet indecision at all. No Pierre-Natasha romantic angst at all.

What Shawn means when he says second drafts are about using our left brain, our editor’s brain, and not our right/writer’s brain is that now we’re faced with concrete problems. Logic problems. Problems of architecture, of what we’ve put in that shouldn’t be in or what we’ve left out that has to be filled in.

As Shawn says, second drafts are not linear. We don’t go all the way back to Kuwait City and attack across the Iraq-Kuwait border again. Instead we go straight to the toughest pocket of resistance. Now we slug it out. Now we pay the piper that we didn’t pay before.

Second drafts are tough. The reason we bypassed those sticking points earlier is because they were hard. They presented problems that we didn’t want to face.

Now in Draft #2 we have to face them.

But here’s the good news (if you’ll forgive me for piling on with this military metaphor):

The good news is that the enemy troops who were so stoutly defending that bridge or crossroads before may have melted away in the interim. Who can blame them? They see our forces all the way north in Baghdad. The war is basically over. Why should they make some heroic stand here at the bridge at Nasiriyah when they’re just going to be surrounded and wiped out?

Same with story problems.

Since we’ve now written all five acts in Hamlet, it has become excruciating clear to us that the prince’s problem is indecision. Maybe that solo scene where the Melancholy Dane debates with himself about selecting the right necktie … maybe we should elevate the stakes a little. What if we put a dagger in his hand and had him turn the blade toward his own belly?

Second drafts are about going back and smoking out all those gremlins we bypassed in our headlong rush toward THE END.

This is left brain work. It’s dirty. It’s glamorless. And it’s absolutely necessary.

What was that word that Shawn used?

Oh yeah …