What do you think of our current standard for “healthy”? I, for one, am not impressed. Specifics vary by source, but our standards tend to fall squarely in the middle of the spectrum of well and unwell -- more so in the vein of “not in ill health” than “in excellent health and function.” Healthy, by our societal standards, is surviving, not thriving. And what’s worse? Most people fall below this standard.

I’d like you to think of this situation of sub-standard standards like grades in an educational course. If a teacher proposed to her students that she wanted them all to strive to get a C, it should be no surprise that very few students would end up working for a B or an A. Getting a D would become run-of-the-mill, an F somewhat disappointing, and a C would be celebration-worthy. Sound a bit off to you? Me too.

The standard defines not only the highest level of achievement, but the average as well. High standards drive high achievement. And while of course we can’t simply change the standards with a snap of the fingers, if enough of us elevate our own standards, maybe we can...

- PS

7/18/17

• 
  

  300m sandbag front carry (AHAP)

  
  

• 
  

  4 min AMRAP

  
  




• 
  

  25 C&J (95/65)

  
  


• 
  

  Max cal row

  
  




• 
  

  Rest 3 min

  
  


• 
  

  For time:

  
  




• 
  

  25 C&J (95/65)

  
  


• 
  

  Cal row (# of cals from AMRAP)