Younger and Stronger - using 1/6 formula

Looked back at book Younger Next Year by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge and learned more from a second reading. Seems like you create some inflammation in your body when you exercise vigorously. The authors explain that the slight pain you inflict on your body, down to the cellular level, creates growth and creates greater strength and health in the long run. They promote the use of heart monitors to keep good track of your pulse. In general terms, the maximum pulse rate can be derived by using the number 220 and deducting your age. In my case, the age is 63 years-- so my max heart rate would be approximately 157 beats per minute. You then strive in your exercise regime to get to 65% of your heart rate, or higher with more rigorous workouts. You might even move beyond aerobics to anaerobic levels-- with rates close to 100% of your max, maintained for a minute or two-- with sprinting 100 yards or some other relatively extreme behavior, for a senior person that is. The overall result is that you start feeling better and your body maintains itself at a more youthful level from the age of 60-85 years. It's kind of a natural preservative-- like dipping yourself in citric acid to reduce your physical detoriation with an exercise habit of one hour a day for six days a week. I think of the formula as 1/6-- one hour per day/six days a week.

So far this book has been a good influence in my life. I have been combining gym workouts for strength, about 2 per week, with 3-4 days walking the hills adjacent to my neighborhood in Austin. There is a bit of cultism or self-absorption perhaps in the authors' fondness for their system-- but I am falling into line with many of their assertions. I have not bought the heart monitor, a strap that goes around your chest and signals your pulse rates to the wrist monitor you wear like a watch during the workouts. I have noticed pulse rates on the elliptical machine and other apparatus at the gym and sure enough when I hit about 120 bpm (beats per minute)-- a line of sweat forms at my brow and telltale moisture appears at the neckline of my shirt.

Jimmy Fallon-- Most Cheerful Man on Late Night

Watched Howard Kurtz on his Reliable Sources show this Sunday morning on CNN. His guest Ken Tucker discussed Jay Leno's firing by NBC, for an 8 minute segment entitled  "Jay Leno, fired and smiling." Tucker was asked whether the the late night format, a 60 year old tradition,  can be revived to something different for the future.

Tucker wondered about the wisdom of NBC's second firing Leno, this time for Jimmy Fallon, a guy he predicted will draw a smaller audience than Leno. Tucker took issue with Fallon's inability to interview heavyweight guests like Barack Obama. Fallon, he added, lacks awareness of the late night tradition and history. He predicted  Fallon and NBC will swoon in the ratings like Conan did. Tucker unceremoniously called Conan O'Brien ... "a shriveled carrot of a man... pushed to the margins, there's no buzz."

Tucker feels the Johnny Carson mantle should have been passed to David Letterman rather than Jay Leno. Letterman has more gravitas than the others. Tucker said Jimmy Kimmel, Fallon's likely main competitor, understands irony, from the School of David Letterman, but reveals nothing of himself. Letterman, unlike Kimmel, understands the late night franchise, talks about his life and has interests beyond Hollywood and the world of entertainment.

"Is Jimmy Fallon just an empty, though stylish suit, bound for low ratings?" Kurtz called Fallon "the most cheerful guy on late night" and cheerful goes a long way on television. Fallon has musical chops and can do a skit as his SNL pedigree guarantees. Kurtz and Tucker pointed out Fallon's savvy regarding the internet, Twitter and his demonstrated ability to go viral with clips. Maybe the new job description for  late night TV host has becomes or devolves to to a guy with a baton in his hand-- a symphony conductor for all things electronic.

Tucker likes Stephen Colbert, playing the real Stephen Colbert and not the twisted right wing persona, as a late night host for a major network. Colbert, however, may be even smarter, kinkier and more of a cult hero than Conan-- a prescription for limited ratings. Colbert's interviews play like standup with the interviewee serving as the straight man to Colbert's virtuoso improv. Late night hosts are supposed to be modest and must always make the guest look good. Colbert's pace is frenetic, offering little of the soporific pleasures of Late Night Starring Johnny Carson. We loved the familiar tropes and Ed McMahon's big brotherly guffaws for years until we got sick of them. Colbert does not provide the needed space. He races along, not the optimum rhythm of late night which allows some room for relaxed viewer participation. Jon Stewart is better at that.

Ken Tucker never has to make decisions with unknown outcomes. He always knows everything-- the definition of a critic. A Ken Tucker endorsement probably proves Stephen Colbert makes the absolute worst choice as late night host on network television! But I did enjoy much of what Ken Tucker had to say about the latest skirmish in the Late Night Wars.

A-Rod in the Wrong Pond

Read the New York Times recent piece on Alex Rodriguez's struggles with the New York Yankees. A-Rod was a big league ballplayer for nearly ten years, 1994- 2003, when he moved his baseball skills to the town that never sleeps. Rodriguez was signed away from the Seattle Mariners. Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks  signed A-Rod to an enormous $252 million dollar contract to play, a deal that as "big as Texas" and maybe the beginning of the end for the one of the greatest athletes to cross the the chalk white lines. I saw A-Rod play a few times in Arlington in the 2001-2003 seasons. Tom Hicks would position himself just a row or two back from the batting circle but the scrutiny did not effect Rodriguez in a negative way. A-Rod averaged 52 home runs per season and played an extremely graceful shortstop for a guy standing 6 ft. 3 in.. Rodriguez later admitted to taking steroids during the Rangers years but the enormous skills cannot be denied. What has happened in the years since has the feel of a Greek tragedy.

Rodriguez hungered for baseball immortality and legends are built in places like Yankee Stadium. The Yankees always hunger for the best that money can buy and they took the pricey contract off Tom Hicks's hands and brought the superstar to New York. Derek Jeter, a Yankee legend not to be displaced, played shortstop and so A-Rod became the starting third basemen in what should/could have been a great run of Yankee championships. Instead, the Yankees won a single championship in the near decade Rodriguez has been with the club. So what went wrong?

Alex Rodriguez does not flourish under post-season playoffs pressure. The allows two options: 1) play for a second tier team that rarely gets into the playoffs, 2) play for a dominant team like the Yankees and please fans and writers during the regular season but draw their ire during the post-season. The psychological explanation for why a player performs at unbelievable high levels during the regular season but folds into a mockery of his usual capable self is very complicated. Everybody has their level of optimum performance and many people hit a wall of fear, and possibly a collapse, a Peter-principle level of failure. The Peter-principle, though, is based on the notion that we get promoted to our level of incompetence and stay there. A-Rod's talents seems to belie any possible level of incompetence; the guy has skills unmatched by his peers. The problem, though entirely in his head, is very real.

I remember attending a Cooperstown traveling show, a little mini-version of the Cooperstown Hall of Fame museum being exhibited at the Museum of Natural History in New York City. The most interesting baseball object was the thick spiral notebook compiled by baseball uber-agent Scott Boras on behalf of Alex Rodriguez, the notebook that may have closed the deal on the $252 million dollar contract. Boras compiled three entire sections of the notebook to a comparison of Alex Rodriguez's statistics to the other American League shortstops-- 1) Alex Rodriguez vs. Nomar Garciaparra, 2) Alex Rodriguez vs. Derek Jeter and 3) Alex Rodriguez vs. all other Shortstops. A-Rod, no doubt, dwarfed all the others in terms of numbers, but numbers do not tell the whole story.

Hopefully there is a happy conclusion to the enigma that is A-Rod. He may have arrived on the American baseball scene at the worst possible time-- a perfect storm of obscene money, horrible drugs and a society too focused on results. The golden years of modern Yankees history- the Fifties and Sixties with Mantle, Maris, Berra, Whitey Ford, culminating in 1961, occurred at the birth of television way before the ESPN era of sports fetishism. A-Rod maybe would have struggled with success in 1961. The Yankees had Tony Kubek at shortsop, surely no A-Rod, but he got the job done. Maybe A-Rod would have been better with an Ernie Banks career, a fantastic personal record played on the fringes of the spotlight. He could still be respected and admired, even if under-represented in World Series history. Under the present circumstances he has a Sisyphus-like struggle trying to roll a massive baseball uphill against the squawking of social media, lame-stream media and whatever psychological pressures are self-implosed. Maybe he will find a way back to a smaller pond and play another five years of a game he likely once enjoyed.