Multitasking Is a Lie. Your Training Goals Know It | The FIT Facility
Chapter five of The ONE Thing presents a deceptively simple proposition… if the most important thing is truly the most important thing, then attempting to do something else simultaneously introduces contradiction.
So if doing the most important thing is the most important thing, why would you try to do anything else at the same time?
Clifford Nass in the summer of ‘09 set out to find out how multi-taskers, multitasked. Turns out multitasking is a “lie” and multitaskers are just mid at everything they do. They even mismanage their time — often overestimating how long things take (due to task switching and reorientation).
That takeaway and practical implementation into daily life It's worth the cost of this book 10 times over.
While the book (chapter) frames this insight primarily within the domain of productivity, the underlying logic extends well beyond personal productivity/business efficiency.
I sat with this a week longer than planned and spent much of my Saturday nights — with maybe a glass or 2 of Jack Daniel Triple Mash — thinking on the: what, how and meaning of multitasking. What is the metaphysical truth(s) of multitasking. If we know multitasking isn’t a superior way to operate, why do we continue to try? Where do we drop the ball?
Human effort, whether intellectual and/or physical, is constrained by limits — whether blow-hard idiots on the internet care to admit it or not. Attention/energy/resources cannot be infinitely divided without diminishing its potency. Seems legit.
Likewise, finite biological systems cannot simultaneously maximize competing adaptations without interference (SAID).
Therefore the modern fascination with multitasking must be an illusion of progress. The business illusion of “being busy” is thereby mirrored by it’s physical fitness equivalent of performing work and being sweaty. When asked to show what was done for the day — many come up empty handed.
In the context of sports performance and fitness, this misunderstanding manifests in the pursuit of multiple competing adaptations at the same time. Athletes and recreational trainees often attempt to increase strength, improve endurance, build muscle, reduce body fat, and enhance athletic performance concurrently. While these qualities can coexist within a training program, their simultaneous maximization frequently produces diluted results.
The idea from here is straightforward. The human organism adapts most effectively when the imposed demands are coherent, prioritized, and sustained over time.
KNES 101. Attempts to pursue numerous adaptations simultaneously introduce contradictions that undermine the very outcomes individuals seek.
When tasks aren’t label and organize with their corresponding importance, they all seemed to hold the same value and as mentioned previously, nothing seems to get done when everything has the same importance. Brian Tracy has the best system that I’ve found (still usea) for maintaining productivity throughout the week.
Key Components of Brian Tracy’s ABCDE Method
A Tasks ("Must Do"): These have serious consequences if not completed, such as a major project or client meeting.
A-1 Task: The absolute, most critical task on your list that you must complete immediately to achieve success.
A-2 / A-3 Tasks: Additional "must-do" items that are slightly less urgent than the A-1.
B Tasks ("Should Do"): Tasks with mild consequences if not done, which should never be addressed until all A tasks are finished.
C Tasks ("Nice to Do"): Activities with no real consequences, such as calling a friend or having coffee.
D Tasks ("Delegate"): Tasks that can be assigned to others to free up your time.
E Tasks ("Eliminate"): Tasks that can be completely removed from your schedule.
Anyway, let’s dive deeper into this.
The Physiology of Focus
A foundational concept in exercise science is the principle of Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand, commonly referred to as the SAID principle. Literally exercise 101. This principle holds that the body responds to the specific stressors repeatedly imposed upon it. High force demands stimulate neuromuscular adaptations that increase strength. Repeated aerobic work enhances metabolic efficiency and endurance capacity. Explosive movements improve rate of force development. You get the idea.
Each of these adaptations requires biological resources. Recovery capacity, hormonal signaling, caloric intake, neural output, and tissue repair all draw from a finite reservoir. When the training stimulus is coherent and repeated over time, the organism allocates resources toward a clear adaptive outcome.
When the stimulus becomes fragmented, the adaptive response likewise becomes fragmented.
As a practical example, let’s talk conditioning.
Many people think of conditioning as a single quality. If they jog, ride a bike, or spend time on a treadmill, they assume they are “in shape” and that fitness will transfer into any conditioning environment. News flash. It isn’t.
It is a specific adaptation to a specific demand. Again see SAID principle above.
A marathon runner is highly conditioned for long-duration, low-force output.
A wrestler is conditioned for repeated explosive efforts under fatigue.
A football player is conditioned for short bursts of maximal output separated by incomplete recovery.
All three athletes are “conditioned,” but their conditioning is not interchangeable. Training for 1 will not help any of the others — which is weird when you see NFL players train with boxers/MMA guys in their off season.
As adults, we have to think this way “ What type of conditioning will aid to a longer more fulfilling life”?
If we look at statistics, More than 65% of runners get hurt every year. Me a reasonable adult — looks at that and thinks “running as my main mode of conditioning wouldn't serve me for a longer more fulfilling life”. Could I use it as a tool to burn more calories prior to summer? Sure.
This and a health dose of an understanding of the SAID principle is largely where my conditioning programming philosophy stems from.
The body adapts to the exact demands repeatedly placed upon it. If the demand is low force output performed continuously, the body becomes efficient at sustaining low force output. If the demand involves repeated high outputs with incomplete recovery, the body adapts to produce and recover from those outputs.
When I program conditioning workouts for The FIT Facility — our conditioning model is designed with this principle in mind.
Our athletes and adult clients do not simply perform steady-state cardio. Instead, conditioning sessions involve external loads and repeatable high-output efforts. Kettlebells, sandbags, barbells, AirBikes, SkiErgs, battleropes, etc. are commonly used. Adults and athletes alike are asked to select the heaviest load they can safely manage and then perform intervals that challenge both force production and metabolic recovery.
This approach preserves something that many conditioning programs accidentally remove: intensity.
When conditioning involves no external load, the limiting factor becomes primarily cardiovascular. But when conditioning requires repeated force production against resistance, the organism must coordinate strength, power, and metabolic recovery simultaneously.
In other words, the demand placed upon the body closely resembles the qualities developed during the strength sessions earlier in the week.
Strength training on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday raises the ceiling of force production. The nervous system becomes more efficient at recruiting motor units. Muscle tissue becomes more capable of producing force. The organism becomes stronger.
Conditioning sessions on Tuesday and Thursday then convert that force capacity into repeatable work capacity.
Intervals demand that the body produce meaningful outputs, recover quickly, and repeat the effort again. This develops what we in the industry call repeat sprint ability or aerobic power. The aerobic system becomes responsible for restoring energy between bursts of work, while the neuromuscular system continues to generate force against external resistance.
Because the conditioning demands include force production, the adaptations remain aligned with the strength program.
This coherence is critical.
The training week does not contain unrelated stressors competing for biological resources. Instead, each session reinforces the same overarching objective: developing a stronger organism capable of expressing force repeatedly under fatigue.
The result is a training system where each component supports the others rather than fragmenting the adaptive response.
Which is exactly what the SAID principle predicts should happen when the training stimulus is well designed.
This biological reality mirrors the philosophical claim underlying Keller’s argument. Human systems respond to dominant inputs. When multiple competing inputs are imposed simultaneously, the resulting adaptation becomes compromised.
Competing Adaptations in Body Composition
The tension between muscle gain and fat loss provides a practical illustration of this principle. Muscle hypertrophy generally requires sufficient energy availability, progressive mechanical tension, and adequate recovery. These conditions often occur in a caloric environment that supports tissue growth.
Conversely, fat loss typically requires a sustained caloric deficit, in which the body mobilizes stored energy to meet metabolic demands.
Although certain populations may experience body re-composition, particularly novices or individuals with substantial body fat — you can view this as a multi-task list that is relatively easy to complete and/or don’t require the same system to operate.
For example, breathing, walking around downtown Florence while chewing gum and reading chapter 5 of this book. All are relatively easy tasks — If these tasks were then amplified by an order of magnitude for example jogging around town while eating lunch and simultaneously reading — all are now much more difficult and wouldn't get done at the same efficiency or efficacy as they would if I did them as sole tasks. More on this concept in the next section.
The metabolic environments that support aggressive hypertrophy and significant fat loss tend to move in opposing directions. Attempting to maximize both outcomes simultaneously often produces slower progress in each.
From a systems perspective, the organism is receiving mixed signals.
The physiological equivalent of pressing both the accelerator and the brake.
Multitasking as Cognitive Fragmentation
The concept of multitasking further illustrates this problem. Research in cognitive psychology suggests that humans rarely perform multiple complex tasks simultaneously. Instead, individuals engage in rapid task switching, shifting attention from one activity to another. Each shift requires cognitive disengagement, contextual resetting, and reengagement (as mentioned previously).
This process introduces measurable inefficiencies in time and performance.
The same phenomenon appears in training environments when individuals frequently change programs, pursue multiple conflicting goals, or attempt to maximize several adaptations simultaneously. Rather than allowing one stimulus to accumulate over time, the training process becomes fragmented. Athletes and adults alike end up spinning their wheels.
The Athlete Development Example
High school athletics provides a useful illustration. Young athletes commonly express a desire to improve numerous qualities simultaneously. They want to become bigger, faster, stronger, and better conditioned while also maintaining high performance during the competitive season. Very possible — however it’s only because the starting place was so poor — that an athlete can continue to get: bigger, faster, strong.. in season.
However, the physiological demands of sport already place substantial stress on the athlete. Practices, competitions, travel, nutrition, academic responsibilities, and sleep disruption collectively tax the organism’s recovery capacity.
As a result, strength and conditioning programs during the season often prioritize maintenance rather than aggressive development. The goal becomes preserving strength, maintaining power output, managing fatigue, and reducing injury risk.
The season therefore functions as a period of performance preservation rather than physical expansion.
The moment you stack another season after the primary sport season — you dilute this even further (as mentioned previously).
The Developmental Role of the Off-Season
The off-season exists precisely because athletes require a period in which developmental adaptations can occur without the competing stress of regular competition.
In this context, the athlete effectively transitions between tasks. During the competitive season, the dominant task is performance within the sport. During the off-season, the dominant task becomes physical development.
Strength, muscle mass, speed, and power can be deliberately targeted because the athlete’s recovery resources are no longer consumed primarily by competition.
However, even within this developmental period, prioritization remains essential.
If the athlete goes straight into another sports season, this phase of training gets skipped. In addition, the stress from the previous sports season gets carried over into the new season.
Periodization as Ordered Focus
The training concept known as periodization reflects this principle of ordered focus. Periodization organizes training into phases in which specific physical qualities receive primary emphasis while others are maintained.
For example, one phase of training may prioritize hypertrophy and strength development. A subsequent phase may emphasize power and speed. Over time, multiple adaptations accumulate without overwhelming the system with competing stimuli (explained clearly in our conditioning example).
Periodization therefore represents a practical rejection of multitasking. It acknowledges that development occurs most efficiently when training stimuli are structured and prioritized across time.
Rather than attempting to maximize everything simultaneously, the athlete progresses through sequential phases of focused development.
Adult Fitness and Competing Goals
The same dynamic appears in adult fitness populations. Individuals frequently pursue numerous goals simultaneously, including fat loss, muscle gain, improved endurance, increased strength, and enhanced mobility.
Without prioritization, these goals compete for time, recovery capacity, and physiological resources. Progress becomes slow and inconsistent.
When individuals identify the primary adaptation most relevant to their current situation, training often becomes more effective. A person seeking significant fat loss benefits from prioritizing metabolic expenditure and nutritional strategies that support that objective. Someone seeking muscle strength and size development can benefit from emphasizing progressive resistance training and nutrition and recovery. Realistically both person A and B can participate in the same strength program and if they prioritize their nutrition and recovery differently — they can both achieve their goals.
In both cases, clarity of purpose facilitates adaptation.
Conclusion
The critique of multitasking offered in The ONE Thing ultimately made me reflect deeper not only in human physiological but also the metaphysical insight about human systems in general. Turns out, when individuals attempt to divide their attention across numerous priorities simultaneously, the resulting outcomes tend to be diluted. The same principle applies within training. Adaptation occurs when the organism receives a clear and repeated signal over time.
Strength, endurance, hypertrophy, and speed are not incompatible qualities. However, their development must be organized and prioritized rather than pursued indiscriminately.
Progress in training, as in intellectual/business work, emerges not from doing everything at once but from identifying the most important objective and directing sustained effort toward it.
Focus, rather than fragmentation, remains the foundation of meaningful improvement.