Most successful executives understand the value of data.

Revenue is tracked.  Expenses are tracked.  Growth is tracked.  Performance indicators are reviewed.  When something begins moving in the wrong direction, the goal isn't simply to collect another report.  The goal is to make a better decision.

Yet health and fitness are often managed very differently.

You get blood work once a year.

Your watch gives you a sleep score.

The scale gives you a body weight.

Your gym tracks how much you lifted.

Maybe your wearable estimates your VO₂ max.

Suddenly, you have dozens of numbers, but no clear strategy.

That's the problem.

More information does not automatically create better decisions.

In Executive Performance Brief #005, we explored why an annual physical and a performance assessment answer different questions.  We discussed cardiometabolic health, body composition, cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, recovery, and lifestyle.

Now we need to connect those pieces.

Because ultimately, measurement only becomes valuable when it helps answer a much more important question:

What should I do next?

Welcome to the Executive Performance Scorecard.

---

Executive Insight

Over the first five Executive Performance Briefs, we've built the pieces of a larger performance system:

• • Brief #001 introduced the Executive Performance Pyramid.
  • Brief #002 explored your aerobic engine and the importance of cardiorespiratory fitness.
  • Brief #003 examined strength, muscle, and power as your physical retirement account.
  • Brief #004 focused on recovery and the balance between training stress and adaptation.
  • Brief #005 expanded the conversation into biomarkers and objective health and performance measurements.

Now Brief #006 brings those pieces together.

The objective isn't to produce the highest score possible in every category.

It isn't to turn your life into a laboratory.

And it certainly isn't to chase every new biomarker, wearable metric, supplement, or fitness trend.

The goal is much simpler:

Assess. Prioritize. Program. Monitor. Reassess. Then repeat.

That process represents a fundamental shift in how we think about fitness.

Instead of asking:

"What's the best workout?"

We begin asking:

"What does this individual (you) need most right now?"

Those questions sound similar.

They are not and let me explain below...

The Problem With "Getting in Shape"

Imagine two 50-year-old executives.

Both exercise four days per week.

Both weigh approximately the same.

Both have demanding careers.

Both tell me:

"I just want to get in better shape."

On paper, they sound like similar clients.

Now let's assess them.

Executive A

He strength trains consistently.

His squat, pulling strength, and upper-body strength are excellent.

He carries substantial lean mass.

But his aerobic capacity is poor.

He gets winded climbing several flights of stairs.

His resting heart rate has been trending upward.

His waist circumference has increased.

Most of his workday is spent sitting.

Executive B

She runs or cycles several days per week.

Her aerobic fitness is excellent.

Her resting heart rate is low.

She maintains a healthy waist circumference.

But she hasn't resistance trained consistently in years.

Her strength has declined.

She struggles with loaded movements that were once easy.

Her muscle mass appears to be decreasing.

She tells me she feels "fit" because she can run five miles.

Now, are these two people fit?

In some ways, yes.

In other ways, no.

More importantly:

Should they receive the same program?

Absolutely not.

Executive A probably doesn't need another day devoted to maximizing strength.

Executive B probably doesn't need another endurance session at the expense of resistance training.

This is why assessment matters.

The purpose of assessment isn't to collect impressive-looking numbers.

It's to reveal where the highest-value opportunities may exist.

1. Cardiorespiratory Capacity

How well can your cardiovascular and respiratory systems support sustained physical work?

Possible measurements include:

VO₂ max or VO₂ peak when directly assessed.

Estimated cardiorespiratory fitness.

Exercise capacity.

Resting heart rate.

Submaximal exercise responses.

Field-based aerobic assessments when appropriate.

Cardiorespiratory fitness deserves a prominent place on the scorecard because its association with long-term health outcomes is remarkably consistent.

A 2024 overview by Lang and colleagues synthesized 26 systematic reviews representing more than 20.9 million observations from 199 cohort studies.  Higher cardiorespiratory fitness was strongly associated with lower risks of mortality and multiple chronic conditions.  Across the evidence reviewed, each 1-MET higher level of cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with approximately an 11%–17% lower risk of all-cause mortality (Lang et al., 2024).

That doesn't mean VO₂ max is the only number that matters.

It means aerobic capacity deserves to be measured rather than assumed.

You can exercise regularly and still possess relatively poor aerobic fitness.

Activity is behavior. Fitness is an adaptation.

I want to understand both.

2. Strength and Musculoskeletal Capacity

Next comes strength.

Can you produce force?

Can you control your body?

Can you lift, carry, push, pull, squat, hinge, brace, and move effectively?

And importantly:

Are those abilities improving, stable, or declining?

Potential assessments might include grip strength, appropriate upper- and lower-body strength tests, sit-to-stand performance, muscular endurance, relative strength, movement capacity, and (in suitable individuals) measures related to muscular power.

As we discussed in Brief #003, resistance training isn't simply about building larger muscles.

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis by Shailendra and colleagues found resistance training participation was associated with lower risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality compared with no resistance training.  The authors also found evidence of a nonlinear dose-response relationship, although these observational findings should not be interpreted as proving that resistance training itself caused the reduction in mortality risk (Shailendra et al., 2022).

Strength is part of your reserve.

The question isn't simply:

"How much can you bench press?"

It's:

How much physical capacity are you carrying into the next decade of your life?

3. Cardiometabolic Health

This domain connects the performance world with the information coming from your healthcare team.

Depending on the individual and what has been medically evaluated, relevant information might include:

• • Blood pressure.
  • Fasting glucose.
  • HbA1c.
  • Triglycerides.
  • HDL-C.
  • LDL-C.
  • ApoB when medically appropriate.
  • Other laboratory measurements as determined by the individual's healthcare provider.

But the Scorecard isn't designed to turn a performance coach into a physician.

The objective is different.

If someone's blood pressure, glucose regulation, or lipid profile warrants medical attention, that belongs with their healthcare professional.

But that information may also provide valuable context for exercise programming and lifestyle coaching.

For example, exercise selection, intensity, progression, aerobic volume, resistance training, body composition goals, daily movement, and recovery strategies can all exist within the larger cardiometabolic picture.

The laboratory report shouldn't exist in one world while the exercise program exists in another.

The better model is communication and integration.

4. Body Composition

This category isn't simply:

How much do you weigh?

Weight matters.

But so do waist circumference, fat distribution, lean tissue, muscle preservation, and how those variables are changing.

A major consensus statement by Ross and colleagues concluded that waist circumference provides information about cardiometabolic risk beyond BMI alone and recommended its routine inclusion alongside BMI in clinical assessment (Ross et al., 2020).

That has important implications for performance coaching.

Imagine someone loses only four pounds over six months.

If body weight is the only outcome we're tracking, the result might seem disappointing.

But what if during those same six months:

• • Waist circumference decreases substantially.
  • Strength increases.
  • Aerobic capacity improves.
  • Blood pressure improves.
  • Lean mass is maintained.
  • Daily activity increases.

Now ask:

Was the program successful?

The answer looks very different.

This is why the scale should be a metric and not the entire scoreboard.

5. Recovery and Lifestyle

Finally, we have the domain people most often underestimate.

Sleep.

Daily movement.

Sedentary time.

Stress.

Resting heart rate.

HRV trends when measured appropriately.

Training load.

Energy.

Soreness.

Adherence.

You can build a beautiful exercise program on paper.

But if the person can't recover from it or consistently perform it, the program isn't beautiful anymore.

Daily movement is particularly important for executives because structured exercise represents only a small portion of the week.

Ekelund and colleagues analyzed accelerometer-measured physical activity from more than 36,000 middle-aged and older adults.  Higher total physical activity (regardless of intensity) was associated with lower mortality risk, whereas greater sedentary time was associated with higher risk (Ekelund et al., 2019).

This gives us an important reminder:

Your workout matters.  So do the other 23 hours of your day.

Someone who trains five hours per week but barely moves during the remaining waking hours presents a different performance profile from someone who trains similarly but also walks, moves, sleeps consistently, and breaks up prolonged sitting.

Context matters.

Here's where the Scorecard becomes important.

Cardiorespiratory fitness matters.

Strength matters.

Body composition matters.

Cardiometabolic health matters.

Physical activity matters.

Recovery matters.

But none of them independently tells the entire story.

That creates a problem with the way health and fitness are often marketed.

One group tells you VO₂ max is everything.

Another tells you muscle is the key to longevity.

Another tells you insulin sensitivity is the answer.

Another tells you sleep is the foundation.

Another tells you your HRV score determines whether you should train.

Another tells you one particular biomarker explains your future health.

The scientific reality is less convenient.

Human performance is multidimensional.

The body is not a collection of independent metrics.

It's a system.

And that's exactly why I built the Executive Performance Pyramid in the first place.

---

Your Biggest Weakness May Be Your Biggest Opportunity

This is where performance strategy becomes interesting.

Suppose your scorecard reveals:

• • Excellent strength.
  • Excellent muscle mass.
  • Excellent training consistency.
  • Poor aerobic fitness.

Where would another three hours of resistance training create the greatest return?

Probably not in the area already performing well.

Or imagine:

• • Excellent aerobic fitness.
  • Healthy body composition.
  • High daily activity.
  • Declining strength.
  • Minimal resistance training.

Your biggest opportunity may be musculoskeletal.

Now consider another person:

• • Good strength.
  • Good aerobic capacity.
  • Reasonable body composition.
  • But five hours of sleep.
  • High occupational stress.
  • Frequent travel.
  • Persistent soreness.
  • Declining training performance.

Their biggest opportunity may not be another workout.

It may be creating an environment where the training they're already doing can produce adaptation.

This is where I introduce three simple classifications:

BUILD

This area represents a meaningful limitation or an important opportunity.

It deserves increased attention.

MAINTAIN

This domain is currently performing well.

We don't ignore it.

But we may not need to maximize it right now.

MONITOR

This is something we want to watch because the trend or context matters, even if it isn't currently our primary training target.

These aren't medical diagnoses.

And I deliberately don't use universal red, yellow, and green medical cutoffs.

The purpose is to help determine programming priorities.

---

Stop Trying to Optimize Everything

Optimization sounds attractive.

• • Optimize your VO₂ max.
  • Optimize your testosterone.
  • Optimize your sleep.
  • Optimize your body fat.
  • Optimize your glucose.
  • Optimize your HRV.
  • Optimize your strength.
  • Optimize 100 biomarkers.

Then add cold plunges, saunas, supplements, morning sunlight, breathing protocols, meal timing, continuous glucose monitoring, and whatever else appeared on your social-media feed this week.

Eventually, "health optimization" becomes another full-time job.

That's not the goal.

The goal isn't to optimize 50 variables.  The goal is to identify the few variables most likely to move the entire system forward.

This is particularly important for executives.

Your most limited resource isn't usually information.

It's bandwidth.

A plan requiring perfect adherence to 17 new behaviors will usually lose to a plan built around three high-value behaviors that can actually be sustained.

This is where the difference between information and coaching becomes apparent.

Information tells you what could matter.

Coaching helps determine what matters most right now.

---

Be Careful With the "Non-Responder" Label

There's another reason reassessment requires thoughtful interpretation.

You'll frequently hear that some people are simply "non-responders" to exercise.

The science is more complicated.

A 2022 individual-participant-data meta-analysis by Bonafiglia and colleagues combined 1,879 participants from eight randomized controlled trials and examined changes in cardiorespiratory fitness, waist circumference, and body mass.  The investigators found limited evidence that the observed variability represented large true differences in individual trainability; measurement error and external behavioral factors can contribute substantially to apparent response differences (Bonafiglia et al., 2022).

A systematic review by Swinton and colleagues similarly highlighted methodological problems in classifying people as responders or non-responders without adequately accounting for measurement error and meaningful-change thresholds (Swinton et al., 2021).

And a more recent review of personalized exercise prescription has emphasized that understanding variation in exercise response remains complex and requires consideration of training dose, behavior, physiology, and measurement (Noone et al., 2024).

Why does this matter outside a research laboratory?

Because I don't want someone completing eight weeks of training, seeing one disappointing number, and deciding:

"My body doesn't respond to exercise."

Maybe the program needs more time.

Maybe adherence wasn't sufficient.

Maybe the training dose needs adjustment.

Maybe the measurement itself varies.

Maybe the wrong outcome was assessed.

Maybe the person improved in strength while body weight remained unchanged.

This is precisely why we monitor multiple relevant outcomes and reassess under reasonably standardized conditions.

The Executive Performance Cycle

That process can be simplified into five stages.

Assess → Prioritize → Program → Monitor → Reassess

Assess

Establish where you are today.

Not where you think you are.

Not where you were ten years ago.

Today.

Measure the variables relevant to your goals, health status, and training.

Prioritize

Determine where the greatest opportunities exist.

What should we build?

What should we maintain?

What needs monitoring?

This is where restraint matters.

Not every weakness becomes an immediate priority.

Program

Now build the intervention.

Strength training.

Aerobic training.

Movement.

Nutrition strategies within appropriate scope.

Recovery.

Behavior change.

The program should follow the assessment—not the other way around.

Monitor

Are you doing the program?

How are you tolerating it?

Is performance progressing?

How are you recovering?

Did life circumstances change?

A program designed for someone sleeping eight hours at home may need adjustment during a week involving three flights, four dinners out, and a major corporate deadline.

Reassess

Now return to the original metrics.

Did they change?

Did they change enough to matter?

Did the priority improve?

Did another domain decline?

What should happen next?

Then the cycle begins again.

Assessment without reassessment is simply data collection.

Reassessment closes the feedback loop.

Performance Metric is The Trend

For Brief #006, I'm deliberately not choosing VO₂ max, grip strength, HbA1c, HRV, or another individual number as the Performance Metric.

The metric is:

THE TREND

One measurement tells you where you were on one day.

Repeated standardized measurements begin telling you where you're going.

If VO₂ max moves upward over time, that's meaningful.

If strength consistently improves, that's meaningful.

If waist circumference decreases while strength is maintained, that's useful information.

If resting heart rate begins trending upward while sleep deteriorates and training performance declines, that's worth investigating.

If a clinically managed biomarker changes, the trend can help inform conversations with the healthcare professional interpreting it.

This doesn't mean every fluctuation matters.

Biological measurements contain noise.

Testing contains error.

Daily physiology changes.

That is precisely why trends are often more informative than emotional reactions to individual readings.

Don't allow one bad night of HRV to ruin your day.

Don't declare a program successful because of one great workout.

And don't abandon six months of progress because one measurement moves slightly in the wrong direction.

Zoom out.

---

Your 90-Day Performance Priority

Now we turn the Scorecard into action.

I like the idea of working in roughly 90-day priority blocks.

Not because human physiology operates on a corporate quarter.

But because three months is long enough to create meaningful behavioral and physiological change while being short enough to maintain focus and reassess.

Suppose your Scorecard looks like this:

Your next 90 days become clearer.

You don't abandon strength.

You maintain it.

But perhaps your primary training investment goes toward aerobic development and improving recovery consistency.

Another person's Scorecard could produce the exact opposite plan.

That's personalization.

Not creating exotic exercises.

Not changing someone's workout every Tuesday because novelty looks impressive.

Personalization means allocating resources according to individual needs.

---

Research Summary: Fitness Is Multidimensional

When you step back, the evidence reinforces a remarkably practical conclusion.

Higher cardiorespiratory fitness is strongly associated with better health outcomes (Lang et al., 2024).

Resistance training is associated with lower mortality risk and supports muscular capacity (Shailendra et al., 2022).

Waist circumference can add important information beyond BMI alone (Ross et al., 2020).

Greater total physical activity and less sedentary time are associated with lower mortality risk (Ekelund et al., 2019).

And research on individual exercise response reminds us to interpret change carefully rather than labeling someone a "responder" or "non-responder" based on one outcome or noisy measurement (Bonafiglia et al., 2022; Noone et al., 2024; Swinton et al., 2021).

Put those findings together and the message becomes clear:

There is no single exercise, biomarker, wearable metric, or fitness test that defines human performance.

We need the dashboard.

And then we need the judgment to know what to do with it.

---

Executive Action Plan: Build Your Scorecard

Take the baseline you established after Brief #005 and divide it into the five domains:

1. Cardiorespiratory Capacity
2. Strength & Musculoskeletal Capacity
3. Cardiometabolic Health
4. Body Composition
5. Recovery & Lifestyle

For each category, answer four questions:

1. What do I actually know?

Use objective measurements where appropriate rather than assumptions.

2. What is the trend?

Improving?

Stable?

Declining?

Unknown?

3. Is this a priority?

Classify it:

BUILD — MAINTAIN — MONITOR

4. What am I going to do about it for the next 90 days?

Then identify:

One Primary Performance Priority

This receives the greatest attention.

One Supporting Priority

This improves alongside the primary goal or prevents another important capacity from deteriorating.

Everything else gets maintained or monitored.

That is enough.

You don't need 15 simultaneous goals.

You need a clear direction.

---

Coach's Challenge

Here's your challenge for Brief #006.

Look at your five performance domains.

Then answer:

If I had only 90 days to improve one aspect of my physical performance, which one would create the greatest return?

Would improving aerobic capacity change your health and work capacity?

Would increasing strength give you a larger physical reserve?

Would improving body composition meaningfully change cardiometabolic risk?

Would better sleep and recovery finally allow your training to work?

Would increasing daily movement address ten hours spent behind a desk?

If you know the answer, you have your next priority.

If you don't know the answer, you may not need another workout yet.

You may need a better assessment.

---

Final Thoughts

The fitness industry has never had more information.

We have smartwatches.

Continuous monitoring.

VO₂ estimates.

HRV.

Sleep scores.

DEXA scans.

Blood panels.

Exercise apps.

AI-generated workouts.

Recovery scores.

And more health information available on a phone than most people could have imagined 20 years ago.

Yet the fundamental problem remains unchanged:

What should you actually do?

That's where information has to become strategy.

And that's where I believe modern performance coaching should be heading.

The job isn't simply counting repetitions.

It's understanding why those repetitions are being performed.

What are we trying to change?

What are we trying to protect?

What should we measure?

How is the individual responding?

And what should we change next?

That requires exercise physiology.

It requires assessment.

It requires programming.

It requires behavioral coaching.

Sometimes it requires biomarker information.

And when health issues move beyond the coach's scope, it requires collaboration with qualified medical and allied-health professionals.

That is the evolution from a collection of workouts into a performance system.

Assess.

Prioritize.

Program.

Monitor.

Reassess.

Then repeat.

Because after 40, the objective isn't simply to exercise more.

It's to make the exercise and the time you invest in your health produce the greatest possible return.

Measure what matters.  Identify what matters most.  Then build the strategy around it.

Bonafiglia, J. T., Preobrazenski, N., Gurd, B. J., et al. (2022). Interindividual differences in trainability and moderators of cardiorespiratory fitness, waist circumference, and body mass responses: A large-scale individual participant data meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52(12), 2837–2851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01725-9

Ekelund, U., Tarp, J., Steene-Johannessen, J., et al. (2019). Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: Systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ, 366, l4570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4570

Lang, J. J., Prince, S. A., Merucci, K., et al. (2024). Cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong and consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality among adults: An overview of meta-analyses representing over 20.9 million observations from 199 unique cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 58(10), 556–566. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-107849

Noone, J., Mucinski, J. M., DeLany, J. P., Sparks, L. M., & Goodpaster, B. H. (2024). Understanding the variation in exercise responses to guide personalized physical activity prescriptions. Cell Metabolism, 36(4), 702–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2023.12.025

Ross, R., Neeland, I. J., Yamashita, S., et al. (2020). Waist circumference as a vital sign in clinical practice: A consensus statement from the IAS and ICCR Working Group on Visceral Obesity. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 16(3), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0310-7

Shailendra, P., Baldock, K. L., Li, L. S. K., Bennie, J. A., & Boyle, T. (2022). Resistance training and mortality risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 63(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2022.03.020

Swinton, P. A., Hemingway, B. S., Saunders, B., Gualano, B., & Dolan, E. (2021). A systematic review examining the approaches used to estimate interindividual differences in trainability and classify individual responses to exercise training. Frontiers in Physiology, 12, 665044. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.665044