Wednesday, February 15, 2017

A quick comparison of Runkeeper and Polar A360 data

I've recently done a bit of interval training/walking again, and I've remembered to set Runkeeper going to record my efforts. I also have my trusty Polar A360 activity monitor strapped to my wrist. Perhaps I should have stuck my old pedometer in my pocket too, just for completeness!

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to compare the data from both the A360 and Runkeeper. Here's the raw data:

The top screenshot is from Runkeeper, the lower one from the A360. There's clearly a discrepancy between the two, but there's also an obvious explanation. Runkeeper uses the GPS facility in my iPhone to map the route, the A360 does not have GPS capability. Consequently it has to use some form of algorithm to calculate distance which in turn impacts the calorie estimate and pace data too.

The point is simple. If you're going to buy an activity monitor then make sure you get something that suits the main type of exercise you do. If you're a runner or walker, then you really ought to consider something that has GPS if accurate distance is important. If like me, most of your activity takes place in a confined space like a tennis court, then GPS is irrelevant. I don't do enough running/walking to warrant a GPS enabled watch. It's all possible that if I activated the app on my phone form Polar (Polar Beat) it might se the GPS and compensate for the difference. I don't know, but it might be worth investigating. 

Activity monitors are simply that-monitors of activity. Some allow you to set the type of activity, the A360 has various sport/training modes that you can set, but generally speaking it's all about trends and making sure you get up and active on a daily basis. My Polar Flow did that and the A360 just gives me a bit more flexibility and a little more data (heart rate mostly).

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to see the difference and be reminded that nothing is perfect and the data out is only every going to be as good as the data in.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Setting some goals for 2017

To be honest, setting goals is far easier than achieving them. But then again, you knew that. For those who watched Red Dwarf, it's a bit like Arnold Rimmer's revision timetable. So much time and effort goes into a colour-coordinated, carefully planned timetable that there is actually no time left to do the revision so the timetable needs to to revised before work can begin. Round and round the circle Arnold goes!

Well, goal setting can be a bit like that. We can spend so much time working out our goals, making them "smart", visualising the outcomes, that we simply run out of time to get down to the real work. Perhaps there is a simpler way.

Maybe, having defined our goal, we should make a plan about how we are going to achieve it and then make ourselves accountable in some way for our progress. I think the hardest part of setting a goal comes in having a realistic assessment of where I am right now and understanding what I need to do to get to my goal from where I am.

In some areas this is probably easier than others, but just because it might be a little more difficult with your goal, doesn't mean it's not worth the effort of trying. My mindset was changed when I first came across Jim Collins (Good to Great) and heard him speak about the different measures needed in non-profit organisation compared to business when assessing progress. Almost everything can be measured in some way.

If you can measure progress then you can plan for progress. Or does that sound too cliche or simplistic? Perhaps it is. I know I can measure my consistency in tennis by counting the number of shots per rally or how many times I make one more ball than my practice partner or opponent. I can measure by discipline in reading by ticking books off a reading list or simply by how far I am through a book. Equally I can measure how regularly I'm using my journal by seeing how many pages are used, or more accurately how many daily entries are made.

So I know I can measure myself against my goal. But what determines my ability to reach my goal? Think about my tennis goal for a moment. It's quite simple: Win a graded tournament match. Some of the things that will determine whether I reach my goal or not are in my hands, some are not. I can, generally speaking, control my practice. I can apply myself to practice and development. I can even try listening to my coach! I can't control injuries (although I can do everything possible to be well conditioned). I can't control the draw. If I get a seeded player in the first round at each tournament, I'm going to struggle. I can choose the tournament. I can be the best prepared I can be. I can't control whether I play my best tennis on a given day or not.

If you're setting as goal, then you need to think about those things that impact your ability to reach your goal. You may have to accept that something will come a long that will disrupt your plan. If you've thought about it beforehand, you will be better prepared to deal with it when it arises.

In the end the goal is just the end product of the journey. Not reaching the goal is not total failure. I've had the same tennis goal for several years now. In fact I'm not sure what I'll do if I actually manage to achieve it! I have won a few matches, but interestingly the ones I've won don't "count" in quite the same way as the one I'm after. But that's a whole other topic!

Here's the interesting thing. This simple goal of winning a tournament match keeps me focussed and disciplined about practice. As I hit 60 this year, I'm still committed to working as hard as I can to reach this goal. It might never come, but without it turning up to the lung busting, heart pounding, joint aching practice sessions would be pointless. So I practice to reach my goal, but my goal keeps me practicing and persevering.

Monday, January 09, 2017

Is it time for a sporting reality show?

No, I'm not talking about some sort of celebrity-based show where faded pop-stars and ex-partners of gossip column notaries try their hand at field sports only to be judged by a panel of experts and voted off the show week by week. No, I mean something that actually shows you how hard ordinary sports people work to get better at what they do. The hours of training and education. The setbacks, failure, injuries and the emotional ride of winning and losing.

The thing is sport is hard, as are many things in life. But we've reduced it to what's watchable, what
at makes good TV. We don't seem too interested in the thing that makes the biggest difference-practice-we're just interested in some immeasurable thing called talent. Have they got it or haven't they? If not then vote them off and move on. Never mind the application of training and coaching, of determination and commitment.

Life is not a talent show. It's hard work. It's takes practice, and most of us don't like practice.

I came to my chosen sport of tennis late in life. I have to work really hard just to stay still in terms of playing ability and fitness. To improve takes a lot of time and energy and effort. I train for 5 hours a week, and to be honest it's not enough to push me to the level I want to achieve. In my opinion I've spent the last 4 or 5 years getting near the bottom rung of the ladder when it comes to achieving something. Yes. I'm a better tennis player than I was 5 years ago. Absolutely no doubt about that, but if this was a talent show, I'd have been voted off long ago!

So maybe it's time for a sporting reality show that takes the audience on the journey of learning and improving that we all go through. No superstars. No pantomime villain judges. No audience votes.

You never know, that might even inspire a few folk to try it for themselves.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Thinking about being coachable

Having finished my Sunday stint of coaching tennis I was sitting down with a cold drink pondering the characteristics of what it means to be coachable. These things don't just apply to tennis, they cross over into every area of life where we are learning. So it's important that we are coachable wherever we are and whatever we are doing. The uncoachable person is surely doomed to keep repeating errors and mistakes without ever learning any lessons.

So what would make your list of coachable assets?

My list is currently quite random. In fact I haven't thought it through at all. I'm doing it as I write! The first thing that comes to mind is a willingness to be taught. Unless you are willing to learn, coaching has no value. It's not just about listening either. Of course you have to listen, but you also have to apply what you hear. I despair sometimes at the inability some people have to process what they are being told. Okay, so maybe I need to find a better way, a simpler way, to get the point across sometimes. But when you've repeated yourself 100 times and still they revert back to the old pattern you do wonder why they haven't got it yet!

Second would be a positive work ethic. Progress takes work and the better you get the harder you have to work to improve. At first you can make almost quantum sized leaps in a very short space of time. But as you progress those once cosmic strides become seemingly infinitesimally small steps. So you have to be willing to work hard every time you show up.

A third trait would be something along the lines of a desire to improve and learn. What I'm trying to find a word for is an attitude that is tenacious about progress. Stickability might be a good word for it. If you're learning something new you have to deal with disappointment. Something might come easily or quickly. Some things won't. I reckon it's taken me 2 years of fairly relentless practice to take my backhand from a liability, to something that doesn't cost me points and now towards something that can win me points. Overall it's taken 5 years to get to this point and there's still an awfully long way to go. To be honest, after 5 or 6 years of leaning to play tennis I'm only just in sight of the ladder, let alone approaching the bottom rung! If you can't stick at it, you stand no chance of getting to your destination.

Application goes alongside stickability. Practice doesn't make perfect, no matter what you might have been told. I've seen lots of people doing a lot of practice. Practice has to be purposeful and constructive. Only perfect practice makes perfect. Application is taking what you're learning and practicing it with a purpose. I often find myself talking to some of my young tennis kids about doing drills. Some of them don't like it. They think that doing drills isn't playing tennis. I try to help them understand that drills are what make playing tennis possible. That brings me to another characteristic of a coachable person.

You've got to love practice. I have the privilege to practice with some good players. Players I would never get near in a match. What we have in common is a love of practice. When our coach says let's do a drill, we all say, "Which one?" and off we go. We have our favourites. I could happily spend an hour hitting a ball down the centre of the court and never play a single point! I love doing the drills. Even when I'm struggling to keep control of the ball, I keep going. It's the only way to improve. And even at my age I get excited when I manage to do a drill well. You should have seen the smile on my face when I made 100 consecutive cross-court forehands with a single ball!

Well that's five I've thought of as I write. I'm sure there are more, or maybe just a more refined way of describing the ones I've outlined. Perhaps some don't transfer into other arenas, but I think most would.

What I've learnt from becoming a coach and being coached is that even the best coaches can't coach the uncoachable. If I'm not ready to learn, apply myself, practice and put everything into each session, then I'm in danger of becoming one of the uncoachables. I'm not ready to let that happen.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Oh no. It's nearly Christmas!

I must confess, Christmas is not one of my favourite times of the year. I know there are plenty of people who get really excited, look forward to the possibility of snow and can't wait to drag a tree into the house and cover it in tinsel and other assorted decorations. Not me. Sorry.

Having got that out in the open, the reason for writing this post is how we handle the story of Father Christmas. I read a short piece in the paper the other day about an article in a medical journal by two psychiatrists about the dangers of the Santa narrative in a post-truth world. Now it may have passed you by, but 'post-truth' is the word of the year for 2016. In a nutshell, post-truth is about discovering that we've been lied to about something and then in turn distrusting facts in favour of emotions when we make choices like whether to stay in the EU or elect a President. As a side note there was an interesting interview with Trevor Noah on the Today programme (Radio 4's morning news and current affairs programme) this morning about the Trump victory. If it's available on iPlayer it might be worth a listen.

Anyway, back to Santa and post-truth problems. The problem, according to the article comes when our children discover that the story isn't all we've been telling them. You get the drift without giving anyway any secrets! The argument follows: if our parents lied about that, then what else have they lied about? Can we really trust anything anyone tells us? This in itself presents a problem, but there's another issue with the traditional Father Christmas story. Only well-behaved children with a 12 month track record of being good will get presents and then only according to the disposable income of their parents. Apparently Santa is more of a capitalist than we might have first thought. Christmas, it turns out, is a meritocracy.

Now, let's shift tack for a moment and think about how we handle Christmas as Christian parents. What do we do with Santa? I never bought into the whole "Jesus is the reason for the season" mantra. He's the reason we celebrate, but that's because we redeemed a celebration rather than established one. We offered a new story, an alternative view of the world. Something we'd do well to remember. But we live with these two stories, the Jesus born in poverty and obscurity offering hope and redemption to anyone who wants it, and Santa, an all-seeing, judgmental old man who might have a jolly smile but who's been monitoring your behaviour all year round and will reward you accordingly.

Perhaps we need to set about redeeming Christmas again. Not in terms of putting Christ at the heart of it, but reframing Father Christmas in a narrative of grace that might allow us to move from that story to the gospel in a better way. What if Santa came and blessed you with a gift despite your past record? What if the point of his gift was to let you know that you were not forgotten, despite the evidence of your situation or circumstance?If my hazy memory of the St Nicholas story is anything to go by then this is closer that the "naughty or nice" narrative of more recent times.

As Christians, particularly as Evangelical Christians, we can struggle with these things. But what if we looked at them from a perspective that was rooted in grace and not just winning a doctrinal argument. Maybe that would mean we wouldn't have to face the post-truth questions quite as much.

My favourite Christmas service I was ever involved with came pretty early in our ministry days. We were in Newark and I came up with the idea to explore a conversation Jesus and Father Christmas might have had. I don't remember the details. I know they talked about how it felt to be thought about only once a year, to be expected to perform to amuse or convince people of their identity.

If I were doing it again this year maybe we'd try and work a more redeeming angle. Let Christmas be about getting what you haven't earned and what you don't deserve.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Post-vote protests

So, just like the EU Referendum, the US Presidential election has sprung a surprise that turns to to be rather less surprising when you think about it. There are protests in the streets and long hours of news programming asking questions and dissecting the data.

Whether these two events demonstrate some major shift in politics is yet to be seen. For some this is the ultimate expression of democracy and I've even heard it said that these two results are in fact a victory for democracy. I reserve judgement on that.

The problem for me is that history might well point to an inevitability about both polls, but as to their representation of democracy, well that's another matter. What we have seen clearly demonstrated through these events has seemed at times to be more like the dumbing down of democracy to the lowest common denominator. Playing on people's most basic fears and anxieties, stirring up concern where none existed, demonising those with whom we disagree, and downright lies masquerading as misquotations and slight exaggerations of the truth. No, I'm not so sure it's been a great year for democracy.

We need to remember that democracy is about having a voice, not just getting your way. This seems to have ben forgotten when we hear the winners telling the losers to shut up and get on with it. Stop whinging perhaps, but never stop making the counter argument. I was listening to Tim Farron the other day, and without putting words into his mouth, his argument post-leave was to reinforce this very point that while we are set to leave the EU there's still a pro-European argument to be made. The same is true post-Trump (although in an English culture that usually involves an apology, quiet look of embarrassment or an attempt to blame the dog!). Those who are protesting now and who feel let down by the wider population need to keep working to hold their elected officials to account.

The political establishment needs also to take note of the disaffection and dissatisfaction that continues to grow. They can no longer act and work in the same old ways. Politicians are never going to get it right for everyone. They know that. We know that (although sometimes both sides forget it). Helping people understand that being listened to is not ultimately expressed in doing what they say, but balancing all points of view and then acting in the best interests of the nation.

I hope that democracy learns from this year of upsets, if two votes can count as defining a year. I hope the process learns about the negative outcome of manipulation, threats and sound-bite politics. I hope we begin to become more engaged in the process of discussion and debate, honest praising of things done well and thoughtful criticism and challenge of those things that are not so good.

Only a small percentage of people vote ideologically, the rest vote according to how they feel at a given moment. We need to make sure that when they do, they are as well informed as they could possibly be.

Tuesday, November 01, 2016

Halloween: An unresolved question for the church?

Another Halloween passed us by without any knocks on the door. It helps when you're not at home, but that's not really the point! We've gone through various phases over the years. We've done the "We don't do this" phase, we've done the "Do you know what you're doing" phase and we've had sweets ready to give away too. All bases covered there then.

But it was a short conversation between two kids in one of the tennis squads I coach that caught my ear yesterday and started me thinking about our response to the 21st Century approach to October 31st. One of the kids must have asked a question about what another was doing for Halloween. An innocent enough question probably. The response of the other kid was short and to the point, "I'm a Christian. We don't do Halloween."

"We don't do Halloween." What exactly does that mean? Okay, so I can work that one out, but it just made me stop for a moment and wonder whether we're focussing on the right things when we teach our children to respond with what we don't do.

Of course there are times when "We don't do" is the right response, the correct approach. But is it always the case? Can we not offer an alternative, a fuller explanation. We don't want to be the people that offer a full explanation of the origins of the celebrations and the inaccuracies of current trends, but our children deserve to have our reasons better explained.

I'm not sure where I stand these days when it comes to deciding whether Halloween is just harmless fun or something more sinister. The commercialised and sanitised version of a festival that lines the supermarket shelves and ultimately someone's pockets is far removed from anything religious or spiritual. Perhaps some use it to celebrate stuff that is spiritually dangerous, but for most that's surely not the case.

There are times, or so to seems, that we are too concerned about the influence the world might have on us rather than the influence we might have on the world. I'm not sure that dressing up as a skeleton or a zombie is necessarily going to desensitise us to the very real presence of evil in our world and neither is it going to usher in some dark malevolent force. Tell me, is trick or treating a worse evil than abandoning migrant children in Calais? Does one lead to the other? Life and ethics are far more complicated than a simple linear cause and effect philosophy allows.

But whatever your view might be, what alternative do we offer? I'm not suggesting we have alternative parties, or maybe even go door to door offering sweets, giving something away. And anyway, would you trust someone who turned up at your door and said, "Would you like some free sweets?" No. I'm just concerned that we provide our children with a better explanation, a better response than simply, "We're Christians. We don't do Halloween."

Of course the interesting thing is that the kid asking the question just accepted the answer and we all moved on to the next drill. Perhaps I'm worrying too much!