Monday, 23 May 2016

Calories and kettlebells

Is it not ultimately true that energy taken in minutes energy burned = gain in mass?

For a human body, it's complicated as we burn calories at different rates, process our food differently and have the weight of water to think about. But ultimately, it seems to me that calories are the important factor in weight loss/gain.

What your body's made of (muscle/fat) is another matter but I'm not sure that studies showing tiny differences in weight loss efficiency on specific diets are all that useful.

Anyway, we'll get one data point from how it goes with me in the coming months. I've been around 200lb for a few years and am now properly trying to cut. This is mostly a) to get faster at running and b) to be a good example for my kids.

I have generally been highly active with a very high calorie diet. Too much junk and too big portions. That's changed now - simply tracking my intake and being calorie-aware has improved things.

I'm also being more active, and may be able to make some strength gains while cutting fat. I'm on 3 runs a week (approx. 18km total) and have begun kettlebell work. 16kg bell, simply doing swings at the moment. I'm working towards 500 swings per workout, broken up into clusters of 100, considering of 10/15/25/50 reps.

3 workouts in and I'm up to 350 reps. I could probably have done 400 this morning but had to get to work. Grip strength is the big limiting factor at the moment though - and not helped by getting the bell wet from dew.

I'm not expecting anyone to read this rubbish, this is more to mark a point - and hopefully I'll be able to look back in a few months and see some major improvement. All a bit dependent on how things go with baby no. 2, due soon.

Thursday, 25 February 2016

Huxley's Sportiness Scoring System

Sorry, campanologists, Bell ringing is not a sport.

As you might expect, from a title like that, this is going to be one of my arrogant, opinionated posts where I explain why everyone else is wrong. In other words, this is a blog post.

For some time, it seems as if people have been getting confused about what is and isn't a sport. I would like to take this opportunity to clear things up.

There's no point in calling everything that is a game a sport. Nor is there any point in calling any physical activity a sport. We have different words for these things to help us distinguish between them.

The difference between a game and a sport is that a sport is dependent on physical activity of the participants in the game. Chess, bridge and poker can all be played over the internet, with mice and keyboards, in remote locations, with no fundamental change to what's going on. The same cannot be said for cricket, table tennis or rugby.

E-sports can be considered a category of their own, where physical skill is required but physical presence is not. Whether these count as sports or not can be dealt with some other time.

The difference between physical activity and a sport is the lack of a game element. A game involves two or more players, in a situation where what one player does affects the other(s).

So a sport requires two things:


  • Physical activity with two or more players
  • Interaction between the players in that what one player does affects what the others do.
Those two requirements are inclusive of virtually all, if not all recognised current Olympic sports, as well as every other generally recognised sport I am aware of.

I say virtually all because I don't know enough about one or two disciplines. The 100m sprint has very little game element to it and you could argue that everyone's going to run as fast as they can, no matter what anyone else does. However, noticing that you're a step behind the leader early on can put you off, as can being ahead. A particularly fast sprinter can ease her way through early rounds and conserve energy for the final, knowing that the other contenders in a heat aren't going to challenge her.

I'm not sure if the same holds true in the artistically judged sports like figure skating and synchronised swimming. A very high scoring dive could cause another competitor to go for a riskier dive but I'm not sure the same is true of some other disciplines. This confuses the issue slightly as one could argue for juggling, ballet or air guitar being a sport on these grounds. These seem to be judged artistic performances rather than sports.

But I don't simply want to talk about whether something is or isn't a sport. I want to know how sporty something is. And to that effect, I have created Huxley's Sportiness Scoring System (HuxSSS).

For this system, I have split the physical aspect of a sport into two separate areas: athleticism and technical skill. Some sports (e.g. darts) can be performed at the top level with virtually no athleticism (although you still need an arm). But more obviously sporty sports, like tennis, require high levels of athleticism. Similarly, some sports require very precise and wide-ranging technique (e.g. cricket) and others need far less technique and a more reliant on athleticism (e.g. powerlifting).

So to find out how sporty something is, judge it from 0 (not at all) to 4 (incredibly demanding) in the following areas:

1) Athleticism (A)
2) Skill (S)
3) Game (G)

and multiply the numbers together.

Anything which lacks any element will get a 0 and be excluded. But you will also see that, as a rule, the most exciting, obviously sporty sports get high scores (heading towards 64, the perfect score) and the less interesting ones score lower. Your scores may differ from mine, and you may prefer one sport to another for other reasons (aesthetic, TV presentation, culture, etc.).

So without further ado, here are some sports scored with HuxSSS:

Football (Soccer): A3S4G3 = 36
Football (NFL): A4S4G4 = 64 (across the team as a whole, I think this stands, although you could deduct something because not everyone involved has to have all of this. Perhaps you take an average for all the positions (including coaches and GMs), take the mean and multiply them up)
Rugby: A4S3G3
Cricket: A3S4G4 = 48 (sadly one of my highest scores in competitive cricket)
Tennis: A3S4G4 = 48
100m sprint: A4S2G1 = 8. Obviously this is far more exciting than that but Tongans may be just as excited about powerlifting. It's not a very sporty sport it just requires incredible natural physique and conditioning.
Road cycling (e.g. Tour de France): A4S3G3 = 36
Gymnastics (multidiscipline): A4S4G1 = 16
Snooker: A1S4G4 = 16
Sailing: A2S3G3 = 12 (don't know this well enough but it's somewhere around there. Any one category could go up by 1 but not all three).
Equestrian: A2S4G2 = 16

And so on.

So next time you're wondering if something's a sport or not, use HuxSSS and you should get a good idea how obviously it is or isn't a sport.

Feel free to add your own scores for sports in the comments or tell me how wrong I am.












Wednesday, 8 April 2015

3% there

A couple of weeks in and I'm 3% of the way to my goal.

This might disappoint, but given that I've had a brief stay in hospital and that I'm running shorter distances note than I will be at the end (my last run being over 2% by itself) I'm probably doing OK.

Last Saturday I did my first park run at Haywards Heath (Clair Park). It was Easter Saturday and there were lots of other first timers, which meant I could at least hide a bit. I finished a bit below average but with an OK time for someone who's just starting. Probably did quite well considering the weight/body fat handicap. Give a park run a go... they're quite manageable.

At the moment my stamina and strength are better than my aerobic capacity - my legs are not feeling particularly tired on my runs (up to about 6k so far). But if I push the piece any faster I run out of puff.

The good news is that I'm pretty sure I could run 10k quicker than an hour, so my original aim of running the half marathon in February quicker than 2 hours looks very achievable. But I've been told I really ought to be aiming for 1:45 which will require some aerobic improvement.

Hopefully if I keep running and try to at least limit the number of Easter eggs I eat each day, I'll lose a little bit of blubber which will help.

Dream Theater makes me run fast. Flying Colors makes me run at about the right pace. Bands that Mike Portnoy has helped name often have words that Americans spell differently to Brits.

OK, enough rambling for now.

Go and sponsor me. Go on.

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Hux will run 500 miles

I've become one of those annoying people who run. Or, rather, I am becoming one. 3km probably doesn't qualify me.

Let me fill you in. A few years ago I ran 10km for Kidscape. Although I enjoyed it, I didn't train a huge amount and still made it round. One friend who sponsored me suggested that I run the Brighton Half Marathon for Off the Fence.

So that's what I'm going to do, several years on. It's a great charity and the added challenge means that I have no option but to train this time. And I've decided to set myself the challenge of running 500 miles culminating in the Brighton Half Marathon next February.

That's simultaneously absurd and achievable. I genuinely hate running, I am awful at following through with plans and this will require a lot of stamina (figuratively as well as physically).

But on the other hand, any serious runner would say this is quite manageable. A bit over 10 miles a week. Even starting slowly and building up, this is possible.

But for me, daunting.

If I write progress updates they'll probably be here. In the mean time, give me some support by sending a bit of cash to Off the Fence. Here's my JustGiving page.

Friday, 3 October 2014

The Educators (BBC Radio 4)

Education - in its aims and methods - fascinates me. A new type of job market is emerging, which somewhat changes the aims of education, and new technology provides more, and cheaper, opportunities for education.

BBC Radio 4 has just finished a series called The Educators, co-produced by the Open University, where eight movers and shakers were interviewed about their ideas for improving our education system(s).

This should be of particular interest to homeschoolers, unschoolers and teachers as well as anyone who's thinking of a non-standard path for their child's education.

If you can, have a listen. Some of them are fascinating, others less so - here are some mini reviews:



Entertaining and with some useful points (e.g. anti-gnostic views of the body/brain) but probably overstating his case. 3 stars.


Stats/study heavy, no huge revelations but a few useful bits. 2 stars


Very interesting look at a unique school. Some admirable ideas but it's not exactly possible for everyone to duplicate this. 4 stars.


Sorry, I just couldn't listen to her voice and gave up after a while. Give it a try though. 


Basically a psychology/neuroscience angle on it all - some useful bits again. 3 stars


Great stuff on how to use the curiosity and creativity of children to get them to learn. Don't agree with absolutely everything but there's a lot to learn here. 5 stars.


Maths has been taught wrongly, says Prof Boaler. It's pretty hard to disagree with her, although I think there's space for an early 'grammar' stage ( cf. Dorothy Sayers). 4 stars

I don't know how good his videos are but it really highlights the opportunities children have to learn now that are unprecedented in human history. 5 stars



Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Sports Personality Punditry

The last few weeks have been horrible for British sportsmen (particularly English).

The football team failed, the cricket's been miserable. The rugby was plucky but unsuccessful. Murray has, for his standards, done poorly.

So, come December, we might end up scratching around for a Sports Personality of the Year.

As things stand, the top contenders with the bookies (Sky Bet, William Hill) are:

1. Lewis Hamilton (6/4, 11/8)

Despite a rough few weeks, Lewis is back on course to contend for the F1 title. He's the surest hope for a Brit to win a title in a popular sport and is strong favourite with the bookies. But to win SPOTY, he needs to win the drivers' championship and hope no one else does anything spectacular. Hamilton isn't universally popular and has come second in the competition twice when he's had a strong case to win. I'd definitely put him favourite but those aren't good odds.

2. Jonny Wilkinson (6/1, 5/1)

This is an amazing inclusion for the second spot and shows how weak the field is. He's retiring and had a decent season but it's astonishing that a player who's been out of international rugby (and therefore out of the average person's awareness) for so long is the second favourite for SPOTY. I'd need much longer odds to persuade me.

3. Carl Froch (7/1, 8/1)

He won his first big fight for the year (and big it was) and needs to hold off James DeGale. His 8/1 seems a better value bet to me than the other two.


Beyond those three, we're largely speculating that a golfer will win a major (and possibly the Ryder Cup) or Murray will win the US Open.

Can anyone else see a potential winner? (Sky Bet odds, William Hill odds)

Clothed in Christ

Just posting the lyrics to the song Adele and I wrote, in case anyone finds them helpful:



1: In Adam every human fell
Death spread through every race
Now those with faith in Christ are well
Judged righteous by his grace - Judged righteous by his grace

Thank you O God - You clothed me in Christ
Made me your own - For the ultimate price
A matchless exchange! - All my wrongs for your rights
You took my sin - And gave me your life

2: Because in love God overlooked
The evil we had done
Remaining just he undertook
A plan to make us one - A plan to make us one

3: Upon the cross the Son atoned
He bore God's wrath at sin
His perfect life is counted my own
God looks at me as him
God looks at me as him


And the Soundcloud to have a listen (working with a demo recording as of 15 July 2014):