Too Many Chefs
Warning: Spoiler Alerts!
In the third season of the TV show The Bear, the fictionalized portrayal of the behind-the-scenes pressure-cooker (pun intended) of what it takes to operate in the highly competitive world of fine dining restaurants, there is talk of ‘haunting’. It’s mostly portrayed as humorous, adolescence-level teasing and jump-scaring. But not all haunting is so innocuous.
The nemesis of the show’s main character, Chef Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto (Jeremy Allen White), is the asshole Chef David Fields (Joel McHale), the personification of every insecure person’s worst nightmare of a boss. Domineering, intimidating, and (allegedly) too good at what they do to be questioned on their tactics. For monsters like this, their currency is humiliation, and they are wealthy in that regard. Doling out degradation and shame without regard to the impact they are having on the serfs within their fiefdom, their single-minded quest for perfection reeks havoc on all involved.
Unfortunately, the kitchen is not the only place thugs like these can be found. Headline-making stories of abusive coaches in all manner of sports are disappointingly commonplace. The damage these individuals inflict — often while deludedly thinking that in order to prepare their athletes for the rigors of competition, they’re doing The Right Thing by being ‘tough’ on their athletes — can not be underestimated. These “experts of their realm” talk of things like Excellence, Commitment, and Dedication, but in reality, they are just inflicting emotional and/or psychological harm on their athletes, often with life-long reverberations.
© 2024 Mark Remy / Laurelhurst Media, Portland, OR. All Rights Reserved.
A common refrain quoted by ‘experts’ from all domains, from sports to industry and beyond, is: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” The message is obvious: the more criteria, parameters, and other such specifications one can measure, the more accurately and positively one can manage, and by extension, improve. This quote is usually attributed to Peter Drucker, a management consultant, educator, and author, whose work is considered bedrock to many of the philosophical foundations of modern management theory. There’s just one problem: according to the Drucker Institute, he never said that.
Nevertheless, that quote has taken on mythological stature within management — and often sports — circles. Other versions have expounded on the concept, such as the decreed ‘Pearson's Law’: "That which is measured improves. That which is measured and reported improves exponentially." (attributed to British mathematician and biostatistician Karl Pearson). Another version: "When performance is measured, performance improves. When performance is measured and reported back, the rate of improvement accelerates." (attributed to American religious leader and author Thomas S. Monson). For many coaches, the hidden mantra of ‘More Is Better’ is pervasive and unassailable.
Interestingly, the so-called “Drucker quote” actually comes from Dr. W. Edwards Deming, an economist, industrial engineer, management consultant, statistician, and writer. Initially educated as an electrical engineer and later specializing in mathematical physics, he helped develop sampling techniques still used today by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But there’s a problem with this ‘quote’ as well: it’s not what he said, either. Or, more accurately, it’s only part of what he said.
The actual full quote of Dr. Deming reads: “It is wrong to suppose that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it – a costly myth.”
Whoa, wait — WHAT?! Plot twist!!
Far from extolling the virtues of numerical supremacy, Dr. Deming was, in reality, offering a contraversion of reliance upon data for data’s sake, especially when human beings are involved in the equation.
Similar to the fervent management philosophies which work so well on paper, yet often lead to unintended, sometimes even horrific, consequences, the sporting world is resplendent with tales of superhuman efforts invoked to overcome the most arduous challenges, a seemingly never-ending chorus of experts, elite athletes and coaches glorifying The Grind, and, of course, a $100 billion a year fitness industry dedicated to selling you the latest, greatest products, techniques, and guidance to get you the best version of you you can possibly achieve, in the shortest amount of time possible. While we all love to hear the tales of excellence achieved — and who doesn’t want a way to make our own personal journey towards Top Performance easier and/or better? — for many, these adumbrate drill instructors simply impose feelings of inadequacy and/or incompetence.
But what if the Evil Coach isn’t a coach at all? What if instead it’s a mindless device, strapped to your wrist? These miracles of miniaturization, incessantly recording and chronicling accelerometer data, tracking satellite positions, and numerous other metrics, are cycling the never-ending reams of 1’s and 0’s through a black box compilation of analytical computations, designed to assign values to the various angle vectors and velocity patterns we create with our movements. They can track our heart rates by the micro-second, our sleep patterns by phase duration, our daily wanderings by the centimeter. By virtue of their speed-of-light processing capabilities and pre-programmed algebraic formulas, they give us preternaturally precise valuations of not just what we’ve done, but quite judgmentally, deign to tell us just how well they think we’ve done it. Have we ever stopped to consider that nobody really knows what all these minuscule micro-computers are actually measuring? That there is no standard of what gets measured, nor how the data gets calculated? That these digital oracles are giving static and definitive values to what are actually and naturally rather imprecise and mercurial states of affairs?
One study identified 423 unique fitness tracking devices from 132 different brands.
“The wearable landscape is in constant change. New devices and brands are released every year, promising improved measurements and user experience. At the same time, other brands disappear from the consumer market for various reasons. Advances in device quality offer new opportunities for research. However, only a few well-established brands are frequently used in research projects, and even less are thoroughly validated.”
In the proverbial blink of an eye, tasks like running, which for generations were recorded with a stop watch, marked down in a binder, and analyzed by a human who used the information to inform what they were experiencing (the runner) or seeing their own eyes (coach), seem to have been handed off to an omnipotent digital clairvoyant, ensorcelled within inanimate materials, whose pronouncements are absolute. No longer, it seems, is it permissible to deviate from the stratagem these e-sorcerers proclaim as The Most Precise. If anything, the scramble is to give even MORE power of prognosis to the cybernated prodigy: A.I.
There is undeniably a seductive appeal to the computational precision that these devices, apps, and programs offer. Yet, for humans, this level of perfection can come with a heavy price. Perfectionists often set unrealistic and/or unattainable goals for themselves or others. There is an unrelenting quest prove their self-worthiness by focusing on ‘exactness’, but in our tumultuous world of physical reality, they find it infuriatingly difficult, if not impossible, to get the pieces to fall into place. The harder they try, the more their endeavors seems to crumble around them. Their efforts, it seems to them, are never enough, and that can lead to the view that they’re ‘never good enough’. These attitudes can lead to feelings of demoralization, low self-esteem, and possibly trigger serious compulsive behaviors, such as eating disorders or exercise addiction in those who are inclined towards those extremes.
Research has shown that certain app visualisations and/or feedback messages can unintentionally contribute to unhealthy behaviors, such as “chasing” metrics instead of simply noting trends. One doctor stated that in clinical care, they “actively discouraged [people with eating disorders] from using those apps and various wrist monitors that count the steps and activity levels” as they can become triggering, sustaining the individual’s obsessional, restrictive, and rigid behaviors. Another study found that while activity data from wearable devices may be a resource for self-care, the data may simultaneously constrain emotional well-being and could create uncertainty, fear, and anxiety in some. And in yet another study, published in BJPsych Open, participants reported eight negative consequences of using a fitness app:
Fixation on numbers
Rigid diet
Obsession
App dependency
High sense of achievement
Extreme negative emotions
Motivation from ‘negative’ messages
Excess competition
Even if one is not themselves a perfectionist, being constantly compared to “perfect” achievements can be detrimental to one’s mental health. A quote which, for us, succinctly summarizes the phenomena: “When you chew enough glass, you learn to like the taste of your own blood.”
So how do we break free of the tyranny of these digital demi-gods decrying unmet goals, invoking negative emotions, and inducing ceaseless rumination over What Might Have Been Had We Only Been Better?
As we at Breath Runner have said before, “Our bodies do not operate on Artificial Intelligence. Our bodies utilize Analogue Intelligence!” Especially for something like running, care must be taken to account for the non-statistical, enigmatic factors of body signals. Not just signals from one’s legs or muscles; the full panoply of physical, mental and emotional signaling. Learning to listen to our bodies, to operate within the actual, physical realities we are experiencing on the day, and to quiet our minds enough to be mindful; these are health-positive, proactive behaviors which will benefit us in lasting and valuable ways that extend far beyond just better running.
©️ Endurance Essentials by Gordo Byrn. All Rights Reserved.
To be clear, we at Breath Runner are not “anti-technology”. Far from it — we have most of the digital toys, and use many of the cutting-edge analysis tools that are publicly available. But we also understand the time and place such technology are appropriate, and acknowledge the technical limitation of many components, and the fact that there is as of yet no standardization, either in their design nor in the algorithms they use. Yes, competition in the marketplace is a good thing, and the ability for unique, vibrant, and creative design is essential for progress. But even among the most rabid of capitalists, certain realities cut through the noise. As one A.I. startup founder told the Financial Times, “No industry can thrive without regulation in the long run. It’s mayhem.”
The Good News is that there IS a “technology” we have found which works, and works well, in all conditions, in all stages of training. That technology is: syncing our breathing to our run cadence. By using our body’s natural “computational” powerhouse, our brains and Central Nervous System (CNS), in conjunction with our body’s massive processing capacity, which is our ability to absorb and use oxygen and nutrients to power our activities, together in a synchronized fashion, we can harness the power of our innate Analogue Intelligence. This allows us to meter our efforts, maximize our aerobic capabilities, and tap into our body’s natural ability to keep negative emotions at bay. Combined with a comprehensive, polarized training plan, runners of all abilities can find new levels of health performance which will have benefits far from the trail. Instead of the detrimental “No Pain, No Gain” idiocy, try “Avoid Unnecessary Pain for Realistic, Achievable Gains”! You can still use your smart watch if you want. You just don’t need to listen to the bots.
Visit Breath Runner for more information.
