#after retiring from being a world-class expert at like 15 different skills | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

stephenmccull · 3 years ago

Text

Tips for Older Adults to Regain Their Game After Being Cooped Up for More Than a Year

Alice Herb, 88, an intrepid New Yorker, is used to walking miles around Manhattan. But after this year of being shut inside, trying to avoid covid-19, she’s noticed a big difference in how she feels.

“Physically, I’m out of shape,” she told me. “The other day I took the subway for the first time, and I was out of breath climbing two flights of stairs to the street. That’s just not me.”

Emotionally, Herb, a retired lawyer and journalist, is unusually hesitant about resuming activities even though she’s fully vaccinated. “You wonder: What if something happens? Maybe I shouldn’t be doing that. Maybe that’s dangerous,” she said.

This story also ran on CNN. It can be republished for free.

Millions of older Americans are similarly struggling with physical, emotional and cognitive challenges following a year of being cooped up inside, stopping usual activities and seeing few, if any, people.

If they don’t address issues that have arisen during the pandemic — muscle weakness, poor nutrition, disrupted sleep, anxiety, social isolation and more — these older adults face the prospect of poorer health and increased frailty, experts warn.

What should people do to address challenges of this kind? Several experts shared advice:

Reconnect with your physician. Large numbers of older adults have delayed medical care for fear of covid. Now that most seniors have been vaccinated, they should schedule visits with primary care physicians and preventive care screenings, such as mammograms, dental cleanings, eye exams and hearing checks, said Dr. Robert MacArthur, chief medical officer of the Commonwealth Care Alliance in Massachusetts.

Have your functioning assessed. Primary care visits should include a basic assessment of how older patients are functioning physically, according to Dr. Jonathan Bean, an expert in geriatric rehabilitation and director of the New England Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System.

At a minimum, doctors should ask, “Are you having difficulty walking a quarter-mile or climbing a flight of stairs? Have you changed the way you perform ordinary tasks such as getting dressed?” Bean suggested.

Get a referral to therapy. If you’re having trouble moving around or doing things you used to do, get a referral to a physical or occupational therapist.

A physical therapist can work with you on strength, balance, range of motion and stamina. An occupational therapist can help you change the way you perform various tasks, evaluate your home for safety and identify needed improvements, such as installing a second railing on a staircase.

Don’t wait for your doctor to take the initiative; too often this doesn’t happen. “Speak up and say: Please, can you write me a referral? I think a skilled evaluation would be helpful,” said James Nussbaum, clinical and research director at ProHealth & Fitness in New York City, a therapy provider.

Start slow and build steadily. Be realistic about your current abilities. “From my experience, older adults are eager to get out of the house and do what they did a year ago. And guess what. After being inactive for more than a year, they can’t,” said Dr. John Batsis, associate professor of geriatrics at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

“I’m a fan of start low, go slow,” Batsis continued. “Be honest with yourself as to what you feel capable of doing and what you are afraid of doing. Identify your limitations. It’s probably going to take some time and adjustments along the way.”

Nina DePaola, vice president of post-acute services for Northwell Health, the largest health care system in New York, cautioned that getting back in shape may take time. “Pace yourself. Listen to your body. Don’t do anything that causes discomfort or pain. Introduce yourself to new environments in a thoughtful and a measured fashion,” she said.

Be physically active. Engaging regularly in physical activity of some kind — a walk in the park, chair exercises at home, video fitness programs — is the experts’ top recommendation. The Go4Life program, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging, is a valuable resource for those getting started and you can find videos of some sample exercise routines on YouTube. The YMCA has put exercise classes online, as have many senior centers. For veterans, the VA has Gerofit, a virtual group exercise program that’s worth checking out.

Bienvenido Manzano, 70, of Boston, who retired from the Coast Guard after 24 years and has significant lower back pain, attends Gerofit classes three times a week. “This program, it strengthens your muscles and involves every part of your body, and it’s a big help,” he told me.

Have realistic expectations. If you’re afraid of getting started, try a bit of activity and see how you feel. Then try a little bit more and see if that’s OK. “This kind of repeated exposure is a good way to deal with residual fear and hesitation,” said Rachel Botkin, a physical therapist in Columbus, Ohio.

“Understand that this has been a time of psychological trauma for many people and it’s impacted the way we behave,” said Dr. Thomas Cudjoe, a geriatrician and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. “We’re not going to go back to pre-pandemic activity and engagement like turning on a light switch. We need to respect what people’s limits are.”

Eat well. Make sure you’re eating a well-balanced diet that includes a good amount of protein. Adequate protein consumption is even more important for older adults during times of stress or when they’re sedentary and not getting much activity, noted a recent study on health aging during covid-19. For more information, see my column about how much protein older adults should consume.

Reestablish routines. “Having a structure to the day that involves social interactions, whether virtual or in person, and various activities, including some time outside when the weather is good, is important to older adults,” said Dr. Lauren Beth Gerlach, a geriatric psychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan.

Routines are especially true for older adults with cognitive impairment, who tend to do best when their days have a dependable structure and they know what to expect, she noted.

End-of-day routines are also useful in addressing sleep problems, which have become more common during the pandemic. According to a University of Michigan poll, administered in January, 19% of adults ages 50 to 80 report sleeping worse than they did before the pandemic.

Reconnect socially. Mental health problems have also worsened for a segment of older adults, according to the University of Michigan poll: 19% reported experiencing more sadness or depression while 28% reported being more anxious or worried.

Social isolation and loneliness may be contributing and it’s a good idea to start “shoring up social support” and seeing other people in person if seniors are vaccinated, Gerlach said.

Families have an important role to play in re-engaging loved ones with the world around them, Batsis suggested. “You’ve had 15 months or so of only a few face-to-face interactions: Make it up now by visiting more often. Make the effort.”

Laura Collins, 58, has been spending a lot of time this past month with her mother, Jane Collins, 92, since restrictions on visitation at Jane’s nursing home in Black Mountain, North Carolina, eased and both women were vaccinated. Over the past year, Jane’s dementia progressed rapidly and she became depressed, sobbing often to Laura on the phone.

“She loves getting outside and that has been wonderful,” Laura said. “Her mood immediately shifts when she gets out of the building: She’s just happy, almost childlike, like a kid going out for ice cream. And, in fact, that’s what we do — go out for ice cream.”

We’re eager to hear from readers about questions you’d like answered, problems you’ve been having with your care and advice you need in dealing with the health care system. Visit khn.org/columnists to submit your requests or tips.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Tips for Older Adults to Regain Their Game After Being Cooped Up for More Than a Year published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

gordonwilliamsweb · 3 years ago

Text

Tips for Older Adults to Regain Their Game After Being Cooped Up for More Than a Year

This story also ran on CNN. It can be republished for free.

What should people do to address challenges of this kind? Several experts shared advice:

Get a referral to therapy. If you’re having trouble moving around or doing things you used to do, get a referral to a physical or occupational therapist.

Routines are especially true for older adults with cognitive impairment, who tend to do best when their days have a dependable structure and they know what to expect, she noted.

Social isolation and loneliness may be contributing and it’s a good idea to start “shoring up social support” and seeing other people in person if seniors are vaccinated, Gerlach said.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Tips for Older Adults to Regain Their Game After Being Cooped Up for More Than a Year published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

0 notes

junker-town · 5 years ago

Text

Why chiseled boxers lose, and flabby boxers win

Getty Images

Why chiseled boxers lose, and flabby boxers win.

It was a meeting of two diametric body types: the impeccably chiseled vs. the swollen flab of the aesthetically aloof. An experiment to determine what a real fighter should look like.

There was James Toney, the short guy who’d eaten his way out of the 160-pound division up to a rotund 217 pounds. Once referred to by HBO broadcaster Jim Lampley as a “fat tub of goo,” Toney’s body was soft, with a paunch that peeked over his trunks, and a waistline that threatened to jailbreak his butt crack from his ever-lowering shorts. By conventional standards, he didn’t look like much of a fighter.

And there was Evander Holyfield, the heavyweight division’s elder statesman who, at 41, was still a physical marvel. As he grew older and bigger, his neck got shorter and thicker, slowly consumed by sloping trapezius muscles. His shoulders became cannonballs and his weightlifter chest deepened and expanded like armour. He resembled the marble statues of ancient Greece, or perhaps more notably, the copiously oiled bodybuilder bulk of Rocky Balboa.

Holyfield had also begun his career as a much smaller man. Unlike Toney, he worked up to the heavyweight ranks seeking greater glory and fortune. To help, Holyfield’s manager, Lou Duva, sought out Tim Hallmark, a fitness guru who would forge Holyfield’s body into what some purists considered a gaudy display of the human form.

Hallmark was first hired to help Holyfield prepare for cruiserweight champ Dwight Muhammed Qawi. After Holyfield won, Hallmark was asked to make the 190-pound fighter a heavyweight.

“I said ‘yeah, but what do you mean by heavyweight?’” Hallmark said.

“We want him big,” was the answer.

“They called it the Omega Project,” Hallmark recalled. “And they wanted him to get up to like 220.”

Hallmark cautioned them: any unneeded muscle would sap much-needed energy. As the boxing truism goes, punchers are born, not made. Extra weight only offers a marginal increase in power, if any.

Holyfield packed on 12 pounds in 1988, and continued to grow until he had heaped more than 25 onto his lean frame. When he met Toney in 2003, he weighed 219 pounds. Rumors swirled that Holyfield used steroids to help him gain weight. Those suspicions reignited when Holyfield’s name surfaced during two steroid investigations of pharmacies in 2007. Holyfield denied the allegations.

His conspicuous physique fascinated commentators, including Lampley, whose stentorian proclamations would bolster the legend of Holyfield’s fitness.

“Conventional wisdom is that Evander Holyfield is the best trained, best conditioned heavyweight in the sport and maybe in the history of the sport,” he exclaimed during Holyfield’s bout with Bert Cooper.

Holyfield acquired praise through years of grueling fights, including the 15-round battle of attrition with Qawi. But some ring observers saw a man who was naturally 190 pounds being weighed down by muscle, killing his stamina. Holyfield won fights with intellect and mental toughness more than lung capacity. He’d collected an array of barfighter techniques, hitting opponents below the belt or raking their noses and cheeks with his elbow. And he regularly employed the clinch, leading with his head as he went to hug his opponent.

Holyfield had effectively learned to stall, frustrate and catch breathers for himself. After eating too many of Holyfield’s headbutts in their first fight, Mike Tyson infamously bit a chunk out of Holyfield’s ear.

Toney was different. At 5’9, he was almost five inches shorter than Holyfield, his muscles lost islands in a rising sea. His bulky shimmer evoked none of the menace of pop-culture badasses. Even his nickname, “Lights Out,” might be mistaken for the final line of a children’s story.

When the pair met in Las Vegas, boxing’s glittering capital, Toney had just survived a punishing fight with Vassily Jirov, taking nearly 250 punches on his way to narrow victory. Jirov, known for fighting German shepherds in a closed hallway during his amateur days, was famously dedicated to his training. Toney outlasted him, knocking “The Tiger” down late in a split-decision win.

Both Holyfield and Toney were considered outstanding fighters, but Holyfield had the better earnings and reputation after knocking out the palpably violent Tyson and nearly beating champion Lennox Lewis. Holyfield would bring his own brand of relentlessness, fans thought, along with what some called world-class conditioning. Toney, conversely, was known as a hard partier who loved cheeseburgers and preferred sparring over other kinds of training.

Perhaps more than their resumes, the fighters were compared by their waistlines.

“The bottom line is, what kind of shape is James Toney in?” Showtime commentator Steve Albert observed. “We’ll soon find out.”

WireImage

Little time elapsed in the fight before the outcome was certain. Toney’s waist didn’t matter. His boxing was economy of movement, his torso swiveling to offer him vast counterpunching options. His defense followed the shoulder roll tradition of the old days. Whenever Holyfield tried to punch Toney, the slickster used a suite of defensive maneuvers to create odd angles.

Nine rounds later, Holyfield’s corner threw in the towel.

Both men carried substantial extra weight into the ring, but it was the fat man who breathed easy. And yet, the fight did little to deter a movement across boxing towards bigger, more sculpted fighters. Big men with big muscles, like Michael Grant, had already been established as standards in the prize ring. Tyson came out of prison and quickly acquired a six-pack, and Lewis’ chest and arms grew throughout his career.

Holyfield, after all, was old for a prizefighter, and had suffered from high-profile health problems for years. And Toney had already distinguished himself as one of the finest technical boxers of his day. The outcome was unexpected by the sports books, but understandable.

While old-school trainers felt they had established their version of a good fighter’s body, Hallmark and celebrity trainers like Mackie Shilstone successfully led an insurgent school of thought among the sport’s age-old ideas. More conditioning coaches would follow, like Alex Ariza in the camp of Filipino superstar Manny Pacquiao.

Though the fight’s outcome was conclusive, fans still debate what an ideal fighter’s body should look like, to the chagrin of the sport’s oldest experts.

Boxing’s roots reach all the way back to 1800s England, with influences from the ancient Greek martial art of pankration. The toughest fighters were immortalized in statues or mosaics, often with idealized musculature: big arms, huge chest and sprawling veins.

But weightlifting in boxing was far from becoming as rigorous as it is today. Bob Fitzimmons, one of the sport’s biggest stars until he retired in 1914, was renowned for his strength and power and won a heavyweight championship at only 167 pounds. He advocated running for seven or eight miles every day. And while he believed in training with dumbbells and a weighted bat, he never grew bulky.

Running has been a cornerstone of boxing training since then, along with jumping rope. Generally speaking, heavyweights of yesteryear had shredded, fit physiques, but lacked the same raw size as the Holyfield era.

Primo Carnera was the first blockbuster attraction to awe audiences with sheer mass. He was a circus strongman appropriately called the “Ambling Alp,” often weighing in at 275 pounds at a time when many heavyweights didn’t even crack 200. He collected a string of knockouts in the 1930s, with headlines to match. When Earnie Schaaf died shortly after losing to Carnera, the big Italian earned a dangerous reputation. But many thought that Schaaf’s earlier beating from Max Baer’s historically dangerous right hand was the real culprit.

Boxing lore alleges most of Carnera’s fights were fixed in his favor, and by the time Carnera challenged Baer, he was no longer considered invincible. In that fight, Carnera absorbed frightening punishment from Baer and was knocked down at least half a dozen times, showing little more than oafish technique and incredible heart.

Fat boxers could also grab headlines, but with skill. Even those men, like the infamous Tony Galento, were still partly viewed as sideshows.

Galento, a beer-guzzling New Jersey heavyweight who once fought an octopus, had skill and a left hook to be feared. He stood 5’8, and was 230 pounds of pasta and meatballs. Once, Galento was anointed “the bum of the month” and offered a chance to fight Joe Lewis. He was ultimately knocked out in four rounds, but not before he dropped Lewis with that sneaky left hook, proving that corpulence doesn’t negate good technique.

But the best fighters had both fitness and skill. During boxing’s golden age, championship fighters typically eschewed weightlifting. Jack Dempsey, for example, was known for speed and devastating power, and stayed in shape by jumping rope, chopping wood and swinging a sledgehammer.

Boxers also fought more often. The all-time great “Sugar” Ray Robinson went 11-0 when he first won the middleweight title in 1951, and sometimes fought more than 20 times in a year. The extra activity forced fighters to stay close to their fighting weight between bouts, the matches themselves giving them exercise that could never be properly replicated in training. Conversely, champions today usually fight two or three times a year at most. Floyd Mayweather was famously inactive while earning some of the highest paydays in the history of the sport.

Conditioning is to be able to do in the 12th and 11th what you did in the first with the same kind of snap and energy. You can go 12 rounds and loaf the last four.” - Trainer Abel Sanchez

Trainers agree that weightlifting surfaced within boxing in the 80s and 90s, partly as a way for fighters to move up to higher divisions where they might earn more lucrative fights.

Long-time trainer Abel Sanchez, most noted for his successful stewardship of Gennadiy Golovkin, has long maintained training methods consistent with the old ways. His stable is limited to eight or nine fighters at any time, and he doesn’t consult with strength and conditioning coaches or sports psychologists. His operation is just him, making his fighters do distance runs twice a week, and sprints three times a week.

“Weights have always been something that most fighters didn’t want to mess with because they thought it tightened them up,” he said.

Golovkin, a knockout artist known for his ability to surge late in fights, was long counted among the world’s best fighters.

“To me conditioning is not the ability to go 12 rounds,” Sanchez said. “Anybody can go 12 rounds. Conditioning is to be able to do in the 12th and 11th what you did in the first with the same kind of snap and energy. You can go 12 rounds and loaf the last four.”

Trainer Jeff Fenech became another old-guard boxing trainer after a fighting career distinguished by his conditioning and toughness. He fought at a blistering pace, regularly breaking his hands. Now, he preaches short, intense workouts. In his day, he ran three miles daily at a 15-minute pace, rested, then trained just an hour in the afternoon.

Good trainers tailor their methods for the fighter. Noted stamina freak Johnny Tapia, for example, didn’t believe in running, and instead jumped rope at least an hour a day, sometimes two. But all trainers and conditioning coaches agree that too much muscle is never good, and that no strength training can substantially increase punching power. Artificially going up in weight can lead to disaster.

“It’s a matter of physical structure. Ken Norton was really muscular but he had the build for it, he had long muscle instead of short, thick muscles,” Hall of Fame trainer Jesse Reid said.

“I think it’s a mistake when they start fooling around with steroids or they get these strength and conditioning coaches that think bodybuilding is going to work.”

Reid, and others see bulky chest and leg muscles as more cosmetic than functional. With no weight limit, heavyweights are free to indulge in culinary temptations in ways smaller fighters cannot. Fighters controlled by weight classes have to closely manage their bodies before every fight. Heavyweights can pack on all the size they like, sometimes against the better judgment of their handlers.

“A guy like George Foreman did a lot of natural training,” Reid said. “He got more relaxed with his body and he started pulling cars and lifting tires and built a lot of natural strength that way. He relaxed more with his body instead of being so tight and so muscular. When he was young he was a massive muscle man.”

Late in his career, Foreman built a persona around his added fat in his late career for marketing purposes. He’d jog while eating donuts in TV commercials, and once taunted trainer Teddy Atlas to “get me a sandwich.”

Foreman, known for devastating power and composure, was good at pacing himself, even as he fattened up. He went 31-3 in his second boxing stint after a 10-year hiatus. And while many of those early opponents were soft-touches to re-establish a famous name, Foreman’s ability to remain calm and manage his work rate carried him even against top young fighters. His mobility declined, but he compensated with a high ring IQ that grew with age. Most importantly, he maintained his one-shot knockout power, which gave him a chance to win fights even if he got behind. In 1994, Foreman reclaimed a version of the heavyweight title against the young, much more svelte Michael Moorer.

“On the club level I’ve seen many sloppy bodies beat up on body beautiful over the years,” PBC matchmaker Whit Haydon said. “I’ve seen many guys who looked like they just got out of a mariachi band beat up on a guy who looks like he just got out of Gold’s Gym. Especially heavyweights.”

Too often, heavyweights ruin what had been fine-tuned machines in pursuit of a bigger purse.

“They might have had whippy power when they first turned pro and then it looks like they’re pushing out their punches and a little bit more robotic,” Haydon said. “They lose that loose flow they had when they were younger.”

Getty Images

In the days since Holyfield became a jacked Adonis, fighters have only continued to get bigger. On June 1, 2019, boxing got another high-profile bout of fat man vs. brawn, a modern-day pugilistic Aesop’s fable.

Heavyweight king Anthony Joshua had ruled the heavyweight division, beating quality competition in almost every championship defense. The undefeated fighter was even more muscular than Holyfield had ever been, somehow stacking bulk on an already huge 6’6 frame.

He’d planned to fight Jarrell “Big Baby” Miller in 2019, a 315-pound unproven boxer not known for his punching power. After Miller tested positive for illicit performance-enhancing drugs three times, he was bounced from the fight. After several emergency inquiries, promoters found a replacement fighter of almost equal girth: 268-pound Andy Ruiz. He wasn’t the typical soft-touch replacement. Ruiz had developed a reputation as a smart, tough fighter whose quaking midsection belied his blurring hand speed.

While both men were natural heavyweights, unlike Holyfield and Toney, both carried extra pounds into their fight at Madison Square Garden. Fans foresaw a bloodbath that favored the British star. Experts, however, knew Ruiz would be a handful.

Joshua came out with relentless aggression. He knocked down Ruiz in the third round and, sensing an early victory, pressed the action. But Ruiz’s hand speed advantage came into play. He exploited Joshua’s recklessness and returned the knockdown with a devastating punch, catching Joshua behind the ear and wreaking havoc on his equilibrium. Ruiz scored another knockdown that same round before finishing the fight in the seventh.

Fans marveled at the surprise victory. How could a fat guy known for eating a Snickers bar before each fight beat a man with muscles out of a Marvel comic?

“When you have more muscle, you better believe you have to condition that muscle,” said Larry Wade, the conditioning coach for top fighters like Badou Jack. “Then a guy like Andy Ruiz is so big, why didn’t he get tired? He’s fat, but you don’t have a bunch of muscle to pump oxygen to.”

Commentators and pundits echoed Wade’s diagnosis. Joshua responded by changing his training. In the rematch six months later, Joshua weighed in 10 pounds lighter at 237 pounds, his waist noticeably less musclebound. Ruiz, on the other hand, told the media that Joshua “was made for me,” and shot up to 283.

Caution and lateral movement were Joshua’s keys to victory; his lighter weight allowing him to attack, in and out, numerous times without getting tired. The bout was yet another reminder that there’s a wrong kind of muscle.

Ruiz was derided for the loss. Many critics loudly wondered if the extra weight prevented him from cutting off the ring. But Ruiz hadn’t gassed out, in spite of his size.

Commentary before and after both bouts was driven more by the fighters’ body shapes than their fighting form. Joshua drew fans awed by his impressive size. Ruiz did the same, while others found solidarity in his everyman diet. But the fights offered no conclusive evidence of what a real fighter should look like. They only showcased the importance of good mobility and conditioning.

Like the statues of antiquity, fighters will forever be judged by their musculature. But though society may favor a chiseled specimen, history has shown there will always be a place for a fat man, waiting to creep up on the unsuspecting, deriding public and become the new heavyweight king.

0 notes

maxwellmmeyers · 6 years ago

Text

Three Biggest Mistakes Redditors Make When Writing Their Resume

The following post is by ESI from ESI Money, a blog about achieving financial independence through earning, saving, and investing (ESI). It’s written by an early 50’s retiree who achieved financial independence, shares what’s worked for him, and details how others can implement those successes in their lives. He is also the author of a free ebook titled Three Steps to Financial Independence and spends a lot of his time interviewing millionaires.

Several months ago, a friend recommended I give Reddit a try. He said there was lots going on at the site and I would enjoy it.

"Enjoy" was not the first word I thought of when he mentioned it. I think I was more in the "fear" camp initially.

But I eventually overcame my concerns, joined Reddit, and spent a couple of months trying to get into the flow of how things worked and finding subreddits I was interested in.

Once I felt more settled, I wanted to give back to the community, so I started looking at places to contribute.

Naturally, I gravitated toward the personal finance topics. After all, I have had a decent amount of money success myself (financially independent at 42, retired at 52, and had written on the subject for 15+years.)

But it didn't take long to find out that everyone on Reddit is a money management expert, who will be retiring early. (I hope you can hear the sarcasm in that.)

Anyway, I had little interest in explaining money problems to a 32-year-old "expert" with almost no net worth to his name. I had seen others try and the pack descend on him, so no thank you.

I kept searching.

I found a subreddit where people posted their resumes and asked for help reviewing them. As someone who had reviewed thousands of resumes during my working career, interviewed and hired hundreds of people, and managed my own career with success, I knew I could help.

So I dived in...

The Average Questioner

After reading several posts, I could see a pattern -- a very strong pattern.

The posts were eerily similar to each other. I know that rarely happens but again and again the same post popped up.

Here's a representative sample of what the vast majority were like:

Hey, guys!

I have been looking for a job for a year now and am having no luck at all.

I have applied for about 900 positions and haven't received one call back, so I'm sure the problem is with my resume.

Can you look it over and offer suggestions how I can improve it?

The resume was attached for us all to comment on.

Resume Mess

To say the resumes were a mess is an understatement.

I'm not sure where these people got their initial advice on how to create a resume, but I assume it was either a first grade elementary class or a trained monkey.

Anyway, it was apparent why the resume wasn't getting any results.

Even more, I saw a second pattern developing. Again and again, each poster had the same exact issues. They were making critical mistakes -- ones that made their resumes almost worthless.

I was seeing this so often that it got to the point where I was making the same exact recommendations to poster after poster. Eventually, I made responding easier on myself by writing out a detailed response, saving it as a document on my computer, and literally copying and pasting it to one question after another. They all needed the same advice!

So in the interest of saving future posters the trouble of asking for help, I thought I'd share the three common issues reddit posters faced and my recommendations on how to address them.

I'll list them as recommendations of what to do instead of what to avoid as I think it's more positive.

So with that said, here are my three tips for making your resume as strong as possible:

1. Follow a standard format full of easy-to-read bullet points.

Consider this finding detailed on Time:

According to a study released this week by TheLadders, an online job-matching service, recruiters spend an average of six seconds reviewing an individual resume. The standard thought was that recruiters spent at least several minutes on each CV. Nope.

Six seconds! Yikes!

The reality is that recruiters have a TON of resumes to sort through so they need to weed them out quickly. That's why each one gets six seconds.

This means that a resume writer needs to capture their attention and stand out (in a good way) in six seconds. If this happens, perhaps the review can be extended to 10 or 15 seconds, which allows the candidate enough time to tell his story a bit and hopefully make the "maybe" pile instead of being consigned to the trash bin.

What exactly do I mean here? I suggest the following:

Do not get creative. You need to follow the standard format of 1) contact info at the top, 2) work experience in reverse chronological order next, and 3) education at the end. Recruiters are used to this format and using it ensures they spend their time looking at your background and not figuring out where the info is. If you get creative and develop a non-standard format resume, they spend their six seconds trying to figure out what the heck is going on and you lose your chance to impress them.

Use bullet points to detail your experience. As you discuss your work experience, highlight your accomplishments (more on this below) in bullet points. These are easy to read quickly and can convey a ton of information in a short period of time. In six seconds, several bullet points can easily communicate "this is someone I need to talk to."

Forget the list of skills at the top. I don't need you to tell me you're "creative, determined, and results-oriented." I'll make that determination for myself. Tell me what you've done and from there I'll form my own conclusions.

There are exceptions to these of course. If you're applying for a creative position, then throw out the rules and be creative with your resume (as long as you still communicate well, of course). If you have some skill that's required for the job (or gives you a leg up), then you may want to include it at the top. But for 95%+ of the jobs out there, these tips hold true.

The resumes I was seeing on reddit were all sorts of messy. People were detailing their job experience in paragraphs so difficult to read I'm sure no one plowed through them. They listed their experience at the end of the resume and in no particular order. They were spending the first half of the page telling us what they thought of themselves (and their abilities) versus getting to the meat of the presentation. These resumes were train wrecks and it was easy to see why they had not been effective.

2. List quantifiable accomplishments beginning with action verbs.

Consider two candidates. The first one lists the following in detailing his most recent job:

I helped the sales team in their work.

The second lists this:

Supported nine-person team to deliver 10.4% sales growth over previous year and earn company-wide recognition award for performance.

Now, which of those two people would you want to interview? (By the way, the purpose of a resume is simply to get you an interview.)

See how the second is so much better than the first? If you don't let me name a few ways:

The second seems like it's written impartially (though it's not, of course.) By not using "I" it makes the accomplishment less from you and more objective.

There's action in the second one. The candidate "supported" the team. What did the first person do? Probably whatever they told him. The second person took action (and appears to be more of a go-getter). By the way, "supported" isn't the greatest action word in the world. I'd prefer "led" or "directed" but most entry-level people aren't at the stage where they direct or lead much, so you have to use the best word you can.

The second has QUANTIFIABLE results. They are not vague -- you know he was part of a team that had a 10.4% sales increase. That's both specific and impressive.

The second sneaks in a second point detailing why he's awesome. Not only did he work to deliver great sales, but an outside source ("the company") recognized the efforts as outstanding. This guy is a winner!!!

The sad thing is that these two different lines could actually be the same person! It's just that if he has no clue how to write a resume it might be more like option 1 but if he had a bit of direction he'd write it as option 2.

Questions I get about this tip often come down to "I don't have any accomplishments" and "I'm not sure how to quantify what I've done."

If you literally have zero accomplishments, you need to try and make the bullets sound as impressive as you can. That said, if you have honestly contributed nothing meaningful to your current employer, why should a new one want to hire you?

If you have accomplishments but aren't sure they can be quantified, that's better than nothing. But think hard and use numbers if at all possible as long as they are impressive (delivering a sales increase of 0.1% is not worth mentioning -- unless of course the rest of the company was down 20% and then you'd want to list it as "Delivered 20% sales increase versus rest of company.")

3. Focus on networking if you really want to find a job.

Submitting a resume online makes the applicant feel like he's doing something, but the chances of being hired this way are remote. In fact, Forbes says, "This method works just 4% of the time, on average."

I have advertised jobs online several times and we'd always get a few hundred applicants for one position. I probably spent less than six seconds on each resume just to get it down to 10 or so I felt were qualified. I'm sure I missed many great candidates this way but the sheer numbers dictated my actions. Many companies face the same thing, that's why the odds of being hired from an online source are not great.

Instead, do a little networking. You know, actually talk to human beings -- people you know, people friends and family know, people past co-workers know, people your college professors know, and on and on. Talk to people, tell them what you're looking for, and ask if they can help or know anyone who can.

By the way, you're going to need to be a good networker to advance your career anyway (networking is one on my seven steps to make millions more in your career), so you might as well get good at it now.

Networking takes a lot more effort (which is why people probably avoid it) but is MUCH more successful. Forbes says this method "works 33% of the time." The only thing that works better (at 47%) is "knocking on the door of any employer" which is simply a cold-call version of networking.

If you're looking for another source on the dynamics above, consider the facts presented here:

80 percent of jobs are not posted online.

Only about five applicants actually earn an interview from hundreds of applications.

Referrals account for around a third of all external hires.

Networking allows you to break out of the pack, find a personal connection, and get selected as one of the few who get an interview. Using it you have between a 33% and 47% chance of success -- versus a 4% chance simply posting online. Is it any wonder these reddit posters were having issues?

It's Not Just Reddit Users

My experience here was with reddit users, but it's not unique to them.

Almost everywhere I get asked about reviewing a resume (from a friend in person, someone emailing me one, online on other sites, etc.) I see the exact same mis-steps. These there are very common. And unfortunately, if you get them wrong, you are significantly hurting your chances for success.

That said, now that you know how critical these are, implement them in your next resume. If you do, you'll stand out from the pack and your odds of success will grow dramatically.

This article originally appeared on The Money Mix and has been republished with permission.

from Money 101 https://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2019/05/three-biggest-mistakes-redditors-make-when-writing-their-resume.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

cladeymoore · 6 years ago

Text

Three Biggest Mistakes Redditors Make When Writing Their Resume

Several months ago, a friend recommended I give Reddit a try. He said there was lots going on at the site and I would enjoy it.

"Enjoy" was not the first word I thought of when he mentioned it. I think I was more in the "fear" camp initially.

But I eventually overcame my concerns, joined Reddit, and spent a couple of months trying to get into the flow of how things worked and finding subreddits I was interested in.

Once I felt more settled, I wanted to give back to the community, so I started looking at places to contribute.

But it didn't take long to find out that everyone on Reddit is a money management expert, who will be retiring early. (I hope you can hear the sarcasm in that.)

Anyway, I had little interest in explaining money problems to a 32-year-old "expert" with almost no net worth to his name. I had seen others try and the pack descend on him, so no thank you.

I kept searching.

So I dived in...

The Average Questioner

After reading several posts, I could see a pattern -- a very strong pattern.

The posts were eerily similar to each other. I know that rarely happens but again and again the same post popped up.

Here's a representative sample of what the vast majority were like:

Hey, guys!

I have been looking for a job for a year now and am having no luck at all.

I have applied for about 900 positions and haven't received one call back, so I'm sure the problem is with my resume.

Can you look it over and offer suggestions how I can improve it?

The resume was attached for us all to comment on.

Resume Mess

To say the resumes were a mess is an understatement.

I'm not sure where these people got their initial advice on how to create a resume, but I assume it was either a first grade elementary class or a trained monkey.

Anyway, it was apparent why the resume wasn't getting any results.

Even more, I saw a second pattern developing. Again and again, each poster had the same exact issues. They were making critical mistakes -- ones that made their resumes almost worthless.

So in the interest of saving future posters the trouble of asking for help, I thought I'd share the three common issues reddit posters faced and my recommendations on how to address them.

I'll list them as recommendations of what to do instead of what to avoid as I think it's more positive.

So with that said, here are my three tips for making your resume as strong as possible:

1. Follow a standard format full of easy-to-read bullet points.

Consider this finding detailed on Time:

Six seconds! Yikes!

The reality is that recruiters have a TON of resumes to sort through so they need to weed them out quickly. That's why each one gets six seconds.

What exactly do I mean here? I suggest the following:

2. List quantifiable accomplishments beginning with action verbs.

Consider two candidates. The first one lists the following in detailing his most recent job:

I helped the sales team in their work.

The second lists this:

Supported nine-person team to deliver 10.4% sales growth over previous year and earn company-wide recognition award for performance.

Now, which of those two people would you want to interview? (By the way, the purpose of a resume is simply to get you an interview.)

See how the second is so much better than the first? If you don't let me name a few ways:

The second seems like it's written impartially (though it's not, of course.) By not using "I" it makes the accomplishment less from you and more objective.

The second has QUANTIFIABLE results. They are not vague -- you know he was part of a team that had a 10.4% sales increase. That's both specific and impressive.

Questions I get about this tip often come down to "I don't have any accomplishments" and "I'm not sure how to quantify what I've done."

3. Focus on networking if you really want to find a job.

If you're looking for another source on the dynamics above, consider the facts presented here:

80 percent of jobs are not posted online.

Only about five applicants actually earn an interview from hundreds of applications.

Referrals account for around a third of all external hires.

It's Not Just Reddit Users

My experience here was with reddit users, but it's not unique to them.

That said, now that you know how critical these are, implement them in your next resume. If you do, you'll stand out from the pack and your odds of success will grow dramatically.

This article originally appeared on The Money Mix and has been republished with permission.

from Money 101 https://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2019/05/three-biggest-mistakes-redditors-make-when-writing-their-resume.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes

toomanysinks · 6 years ago

Text

Kleiner’s Mamoon Hamid thinks we could be in a 15-year-long bull market (and other insights from the firm)

Late last month, the venture firm Kleiner Perkins began an official reboot, with a new, $600 million fund, as well as some new faces blazing the trail for the outfit going forward, including Mamoon Hamid and Ilya Fushman, investors who joined Kleiner from Social Capital and Index Ventures, respectively.

Their roles at the 47-year-old firm are being watched closely. Kleiner was long considered part of a very small circle of top venture funds, but a series of missteps in recent years had yanked it in another direction, with a seemingly endless string of departures further tarnishing its brand. Now, Hamid and Fushman, friends whose paths crossed as children in Frankfurt, Germany, have an opportunity to restore KIeiner to its former glory.

Last week, at a small event hosted in San Francisco by this editor, Hamid and Fushman talked about Kleiner, touching on people who’ve left the firm, how its decision-making process now works, why there are no senior women in its ranks, and what they make of SoftBank’s Vision Fund. (Hint: Hamid doesn’t entirely get it.) They also talked about why they are putting their necks on the line to turn Kleiner back into a powerhouse. Much of our conversation, edited lightly for length, follows.

TC: Mamoon, you left Social Capital, a firm that you’d cofounded, to join Kleiner Perkins in late 2017. Why?

MH: I’d left [my previous venture role with U.S. Venture Partners] n 2011 to start Social Capital with a couple of friends. And it was right around when Steve Jobs had passed away And it seemed like the foolish thing to do. But we were able to raise our first fund and get off the ground and raised a number of funds after that and made some really great investments. Then I had a chance to join Kleiner. There was a point when Kleiner and Social Capital were talking about merging, but it’s hard to do mergers, of private companies, venture capital firms. It’s hard to do, and I think it was the right decision on both parts not to do it. But I got to know the Kleiner folks through that process and it was too compelling to pass up [when they reached out].

TC: How would you characterize your experience at Social Capital, and how does it inform your work at Kleiner?

MH: I’d say venture capital is a very boutique asset class. It doesn’t scale all that well as it comes to both people inside of a firm and the capital you deploy into companies. All you do is create more clones of those companies . . . because the world is finite in terms of what should be out there and what should be used. There shouldn’t be seven versions of Slack; there should be one or two maybe.

The same is true of venture firms. I think what works is a small, nimble, group of dedicated domain experts in certain areas. You can’t have armies running around with your business card [reading] Social Capital. And I think how we look at ourselves at Kleiner Perkins, that’s precisely who we are and who we used to be. If you look at [Kleiner’s] best days, it was a group of five to seven partners, making some really great decisions.

TC: Were you concerned about trading one dramatic situation for another? You knew what was happening inside Social Capital; meanwhile, everyone knew that Kleiner was going through some kind of transition, with a lot of people leaving.

MH: I think part of [my focus] was to be this small group of people, in consumer, enterprise, and I could foresee that happening. Because that was the right strategy, it wasn’t a surprise to me. It wasn’t like I got there and was surprised and thought, Oh my God, this is happening. It was supposed to happen. This is where we driving it to.

TC: Ilya, what made you think this was the right move when Mamoon then asked you to leave Index Ventures to join Kleiner?

IF: Index is a top European venture capital firm. I knew Danny Rimer from Dropbox. Mike Volpi is a partner, and he helped me a lot. And I helped [the firm] get established here in San Francisco, and I did that for about three years, which was frankly an amazing time. And like Mamoon deciding to leave a firm that he started, for me, the decision to leave Index and this part of Index that I helped establish was really difficult — one of the most difficult career decisions of my life, not just because of the firm but the people and the companies they are a part of. So I took a long time to think about this.

But Mamoon and I had chatted on and off for about three years, and a lot of what we talked about as we worked on [shared portfolio companies including] Slack and Intercom and a few other things was what would an ideal venture firm look like if we built it from the ground up. What would be the principles, how would we structure it, how big would it be, how would we think about people who come into it and progress to different levels. And what we envisioned is what we’re building now at Kleiner Perkins. For me, the opportunity to build that atop 47 years of investing history was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

TC: Before we move on, why the split with Mary Meeker and the growth stage business? My understanding was the firm’s best returns in recent years have come from that later-stage side.

IF: Certainly, there were some great logos in the growth-stage fund. But I think returns from [earlier-stage] venture were pretty great as well.

I think where we came down as we were thinking about strategy was this notion of how do you compete. There’s a lot more capital at the seed stage; there’s a lot more capital in growth stage. When we think about ecosystem and landscape of venture, when you look where we’re focused predominately today — which is Series A — the type of work we do and the kind of skills required is mentally quite different from late-stage investing. There’s basically no data. We’re helping founders hire their first sales leader and figure out their product strategy and helping them navigate partnerships. And when you look at the late-stage growth side, a lot of it is financial engineering, and you have to be really good at it, because you have to price things really well. For us, if we’re off 20 to 30 percent on price, it’s probably okay as long as we pick the right company.

And mutually, as we thought about our individual fundraising strategies and our futures, we came to the conclusion that it made complete and total sense for the folks on the early stage and for Mary and other folks to go off and do late-stage investment.

TC: What about Beth Seidenberg and Lynne Chou O’Keefe, two life sciences investors who also left last year? Is health care not interesting to Kleiner? It seems like it’s suddenly interesting to other firms.

MH: Beth is one of the world’s best life sciences investors. She actually retired from Kleiner Perkins. That was her intent with the latest fund, and she has always lived in L.A. and she started her own fund down there and that was part of her plan. So that was not a surprise.

We still do health investing. I think all of us have done digital health investing . . .though they’re more like consumer or enterprise companies. They just happen to sell into the healthcare vertical.

TC: Tell us about the decision-making process and whether that has changed since the two of you joined.

IF: Given that we’re small, we can make decisions very quickly. Sometimes you have to make a decision in a matter of hours or days, and we want to be able to do that, and you can only achieve that with a small, tight-knit group.

So our process is pretty simple. We get together. And you kind of read the room. And if I look at Mamoon and he’s looking at me really skeptically when I’m excited about an opportunity I’m bringing in, I’ll think about it and vice versa. We want the process to be organic and as sort of non-structured as possible to [surface] those decisions that aren’t always unanimous.

If you look at data in venture, the deals where everybody thinks they are bad are probably pretty bad. The deals that everybody thinks are good, they do okay. But it’s really the ones where there is disagreement, where’s there’s controversy, those are the outliers. And it makes intuitive sense, because if it was obviously correct, someone would have build it before.

TC: I hear you have some [junior] investors who are rockstars, including Monica Desai. Will she be a partner some day? Does Kleiner have an apprenticeship model on your watch?

IF: There are various ways to think about a generational transformation or evolution. Our view is we want folks who are thinking long term in their career as investors, who are thinking about and curious about technology, otherwise, you’re pretty bored. And we absolutely think of it as an apprenticeship, learning model where these folks get to work with not just one particular partner or domain but really across the partnership. The goal is to have them invest as quickly as possible and then help companies grow. So it is for us, hopefully Monica and Annie [Case] will be partners very soon.

MH: All five people who are partners today at KP grew up in the business. We were all associates at some point in our career and all of us wanted to be venture capitalists. So there really has to be this mindset of, I really want to do this job, I want to do it really well, and to help great founders build great companies. And we want people to really internalize that aspect of what we do.

TC: Kleiner isn’t the only firm to have five male partners. But given the firm’s history and the press attention paid to it, I wonder: did LPs push back on [your gender makeup]?

MH: LPs don’t push on it. They ask about it. But they also want to make sure that we hire the right people. You’re making a 10-year hire. I’d known Ilya for three years plus before we consummated this relationship. And the KP folks had known me for 10, 15 years before I came to KP. And [longtime partners] Ted [Schlein] and Wen [Hsieh] had already been at KP, Ted for 22 years and Wen for 13 years. So these are really long-term decisions that you’re making, and it’s really important to get it right.

If you spend a year grooming someone, the worst thing that can happen is six months to a year later they’re gone because there’s organ rejection. And that applies to a man or woman, it doesn’t matter. But we’re hiring a consumer partner right now and we’ve been pretty public about wanting some of our partners to be female as well. But you do have to get the chemistry right, the desire to do this job right — everything has to really fit.

TC: What do you think about SoftBank and its Vision Fund? Is it the best thing to happen to venture capital? The worst thing? Soon to be tomorrow’s news?

MH: I’m confused by them. At the Series A, it really doesn’t have an impact. However, the downstream effects [are seen] as companies mature or need to raise capital, or don’t need to raise capital and are offered a bunch of money from SoftBank, which can draw out things. We’re seeing less and less of that, by the way. [There’s] less and less of ‘Here’s money that you don’t need, because we have lots of money to deploy.’ I don’t know why, but last year we saw a lot of that.

I’ve only worked with one company that has raised capital from SoftBank and there’s was a very normal looking round. But I don’t know what to make of SoftBank right now.

TC: How are you feeling about the market generally? A few weeks ago it looked like things were slowing down. Now it seems to have shifted yet again.

MH: It’s weird to be in a nine-, ten-year old bull cycle. Hindsight and statistics suggest that we should have a recession soon. But we’ll tell you that the view on the ground, and the companies we’re involved with, that there’s really strength in almost all of them. These are normal companies that should see softness in their business if there’s something coming down the pike, and we haven’t seen that softness yet in our order numbers. In fact, they’re stronger than ever before.

I don’t know. Maybe we’re in for a 15-year bull run. Maybe there’s this perfect storm of technology coming of age and being so mainstream that there’s not just hundreds of millions of users but billions, and the markets are going to continue to expand and tech companies will continue to thrive, which I think truly is the case. So I don’t know when this one stops. I’m not a macroeconomist, but so far, on the ground, it all looks good.

source https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/14/kleiners-mamoon-hamid-thinks-we-could-be-in-a-15-year-long-bull-market-and-other-insights-from-the-firm/

0 notes

fmservers · 6 years ago

Text

Kleiner’s Mamoon Hamid thinks we could be in a 15-year-long bull market (and other insights from the firm)

Last week, at a small event hosted in San Francisco by this editor, Hamid and Fushman talked about Kleiner, touching on people who’ve left the firm, how its decision-making process now works, why there are no senior women in its ranks, and what they make of SoftBank’s Vision Fund. (Hint: Hamid don’t entirely get it.) They also talked about why they are putting their necks on the line to turn Kleiner back into a powerhouse. Much of our conversation, edited lightly for length, follows.

TC: Mamoon, you left Social Capital, a firm that you’d cofounded, to join Kleiner Perkins in late 2017. Why.

TC: How would you characterize experience at Social Capital, and how does it inform your work at Kleiner?

MH: I think part of [my focus] was to be this small group of people, in consumer, enterprise, and I could foresee that happening. Because that was the right strategy, so it wasn’t a surprise to me. It wasn’t like I got there and was surprised and thought, Oh my God, this is happening. It was supposed to happen. This is where we driving it to.