When I first heard the phrase "curse of knowledge" I knew exactly what it meant.  For one, I thought of past teachers that couldn't understand why I failed to grasp their subject (looking at you, my 9th grade math teacher).  For another, I thought of my previous life as a social marketer, when I had a boss keen on telling me that what I "should've done" only after it had been completed.

In both cases, someone forgot what it's like to be without the knowledge that they take for granted. I'll be the first one to say that I get plagued by the curse of knowledge all the time. I try to hide it well - the curse, that is, hopefully not the knowledge - but it still leaks out.

Nutrition can be summed up by five words: round and round we go.  At least that's the prevailing thought for many of my fellow Americans. And for good reason.  

The past few weeks have been a great example of flip-flopping nutrition headlines.  We learned three weeks ago that processed meats cause cancer and red meat probably does too.  Last week we also learned that "junk food" doesn't cause obesity, only the amount we consume (which is complete BS, but I'll bite my tongue until later).

Which begs the question: if we ditch our Italian subs for Big Macs, are we better off? Of course not.  But I can't blame you for thinking that way.

It's easy to get lost in nutrition with it's ever-changing status.  In fact, if the field of nutrition were a 2016 Presidential nominee I'm pretty sure it would say "I was for and against saturated fats before I was for them again." (<---a joke only a cynical, political science major would make)

The title of this post is more than paying homage to one of my favorite books,  In Defense of Food - it's a defense of a much maligned science. And that's unfortunate because we've known the staples of a healthy diet for several decades: fruits and vegetables, minimally processed carbohydrates, lean proteins and plenty of unsaturated fats (olive oils, nuts, fish, etc.) What's been confusing isn't the science, it's the failure to properly communicate it.

You can't be surprised by the title.  

If you've spent at least 8 minutes with me, you know I'm a deadlift guy.  But my love for deadlifts transcends the unmatched, primal feeling of picking something heavy off the floor.  It's rooted in science.  And as I mentioned to someone earlier this week, deadlifting serves a greater purpose.

Squatting is a different beast. I've mentioned before that any type of squat is my own dose of humble pie.  One time I even said that my legs and torso were so long that I "wasn't built to squat."  As a strength coach, I'm ashamed I let those words come out of my mouth. :)

But a few years ago I realized I wasn't alone.  Most people struggle to squat correctly - for years - but can usually conquer deadlifts after a few weeks.  I had to find out why and only recently found the answer.

I find nutrition fascinating but not confusing.  Slogans like "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" make sense because it's easy to follow. "Eat like a grown up" and "everything in moderation" are ambiguous but we know where it leads - unlike the current Star Wars trailer which has me stumped.  All I know is Han shot first!

Anyway, I'm lucky to have a healthy relationship with food.  It's a big reason why I'm never confused by the eyewash and fads out there. But that doesn't mean I always knew what I was doing.  

Five years ago I was 40 pounds heavier and nowhere close to consulting others on the topic. Before there was Tatum, my goal was to #getmychanningon but I was failing miserably. I was skipping important tenets of nutrition.  It's as if I thought I was close to deadlifting 600 pounds....when I could barely do half.

This week's post is a special one - it's the first guest post I've had!  It comes courtesy of my good friend/amazing human being/brother in lifting, Chris Mullins. Aside from being one of the most knowledgeable strength and conditioning coaches I've ever met, Chris is an accomplished run coach and one heck of a good golfer.  

Chris writes today about the detriments of defining yourself by one sport or activity.  This topic hits home for me as I defined myself purely as a baseball player for many years.  Even though I was involved in other activities, if I couldn't play baseball - like my injury-plagued sophomore year of college - then I had no identity.  I eventually found my niche but not without years of searching. (<----thanks for your patience, Mom and Dad!)

Chris' words are refreshing and offer a great perspective - I wish I could've read them years ago. So with that, take it away Chris!