28% of Americans are Obese

Posted on September 26, 2010 by Josh

The New York Times reports on an OECD article showing that 28% of the US population is obese, and 68% is overweight. (more on the OECD here)

I can’t find anywhere in the article or in the main page for the report itself how they measured obesity and overweight.

If they used BMI (body-mass index, the proportion of a person’s height to their weight), these numbers are highly questionable. While the trend may be the same (upward), the total percentages could be significantly lower.

BMI figures do not account for muscle-mass. According to BMI charts, I, at 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, am “overweight,” and verge on “obese.”

If you’ve seen me, you might differ.

There is an argument that BMI is accurate because different heights have different “ideal weights,” but this argument has been debunked several times in several places.

First, it does not account for normal variation in the species (some people are shorter, but have “stocky” frames that can carry more muscle) – a flaw in statistical analyses generally (pun intended). Secondly, it does not account for the most important quality of living organisms – adaptation.

As we’ve seen in Tibetan populations, genetic adaptation can occur in as little as 5000 years. Structural adaptation occurs much more quickly, as anyone who has embarked on a serious exercise regimen can attest.

The body changes to meet the demands placed upon it.

Carol Torgan reports on the most recent Health Affairs issue in her blog, summing up the articles in that journal relating to childhood obesity statistics.

Again, all of the studies I saw in that journal use BMI as the measuring stick. This is discouraging, when we know that BMI is an unreliable measure for body fatness.

But what I like about Carol’s summary is that it shows all of the factors that contribute to obesity. To really “address” or “solve” the obesity “problem,” you have to address all of those issues, and one more fundamental underlying issue – the culture that supports the creation of those issues.

Thinging it to death

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Josh

I wrote recently about things versus processes. I think the concept is worthy of another look.

Most of the folks I’ve trained who’ve had the hardest time achieving their goals, or sticking with their programs, have been people with definite “thing” approaches to their health and fitness.

That is, they typically want to attain static “states.” They want a certain type of body-look, or a certain muscle group to be more defined, etc. They want to attain that “state.”

But somehow, that state always fades. Something always comes up. They may even get extremely close, but then get injured, or have an emergency of some sort that demands their attention.

They never get there.

The other clients, the ones I’d deem as “successful,” have been the folks who, while they may have certain desired goals, aren’t attached to immediate outcomes. They get joy from the process, from incremental achievements.

Those folks aren’t any more or less driven, or any less hard on themselves, than the “thing” group. The “type A” personality seems to be independent of the thing/process attitude.

But for the process folks, the journey is most important. Also, they tend to integrate training and “healthy living” into their lives.

That is, they implement processes in their lives.

I guess that’s the point of this post. As Master Yoda said “Do, or do not. There is no try.”

Similarly, DO, or THING. There is no in between. If you are a “thing-er,” make it a habit to immediately DO the “thing” you think about or identify.

Making lists and reading books is all well and good, but leads nowhere. Action, in the end, is life, and is all that matters to anyone.

As the Christian Bible says “don’t hide your light under a bushel.”

I’m posting this in part as a question. If you’re a “thing-er,” why? Has it served you well?

If you’re a “do-er,” why?

The folks who’ve done or who do both of these might be able to discern between these states. I’d categorize myself as one of those.

Do It Your Way

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Josh

Rene Descartes, the father of modern science, and much of our Western way of thinking, came to his ideas that mathematics were the key to understanding the universe through a series of nightmarish dreams.

From the Omnivise website:
“Contrary to common belief, it appears that the intuitive aspect of our thinking is the primary one (Haidt, 2000).”

It’s important to remember that science is founded on assumptions about Reality. Any reasoning is founded on assumptions.

The effort of science, and, in an ideal world, any reasoning, is to test those assumptions.

I don’t mean “test” in the sense of “refute,” or “negate,” or “constantly attack.” I mean “test” in the sense of challenge. That is, to be aware that we are acting from assumptions, and to observe how our actions and the reactions we get are matching up with those assumptions. How well our model fits Reality.

Too often, I think, we get caught up in dogmatism. That is, the unconscious acceptance of our assumptions.

This post is called “do it your way” because dogmatism, or any unconscious action, leads to slavery. Slavery to ideas, to past experiences, to constructs of reality that may not be the best for everyone involved.

Challenge your assumptions about life. Test whether they match up to reality, or whether you are matching reality to them.

Your Choice

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Josh

There are a few camps around the concept of free-will out there, and whether or not, and to what extent, we have or can exercise choice in our lives.

While I do believe that we can have free will, or free choice, I think that it is extremely difficult to achieve – even once, but especially on a regular basis – and is mostly defined by what “level” of behavior or action you choose to look at.

From the perspective of regular, day-to-day choices, we can choose whatever we want.

However, those choices will be constrained by our environment. If I live in a jungle, I cannot choose to have Golden Grahams for breakfast (let’s say that I actually know of the existence of Golden Grahams). My choice is constrained.

Within social contexts, my choice may be constrained by conditioning I received as to what is appropriate or not. I may really want to choose to go to art school, but my parents have always called art a silly thing, so I go to medical school, the way they want.

I can choose to walk or run (given that I have legs, and a nervous system that complies with that request).

Even below that, are the subtle pre-cognitive signals I receive from my environment that may color my choice in certain areas. If I see a person with a certain countenance, they trigger my mirror neurons, which creates a certain impression of that person and their intentions in my body before I am even able to make a conscious choice about who or what they are or mean to me.

On another level, my friend Mick Dodge would bring up prison. If you want to know what free will is or is not, go to prison. You’ll quickly learn the meaning. That is a very real, physical, palpable level of constraint, and quickly challenges a different, very real, level of the notion of “free will.”

In the end, these discussions are mostly mental masturbation. The concept of free will is only as meaningful as one makes it. Life continues with or without “concepts.”

This post was inspired by this article about the Japanese artist Hayao Miyazaki’s response to the iPad (and to Manga and text-messaging).

Modern technology is not “necessary” for survival or happiness. It is a tool we’ve created. Free-will, to me, is the ability to choose to be a creator or a consumer, as Miyazaki points out. The extent of your ability to choose your actions is the extent of your “free-will.” That can be constrained either by external sources (such as a prison), or by yourself (the prison of your iPad).

My issue with modern technologies is that people are used by them, instead of using them. Choose to selectively use technologies in ways that expand your sensitivity, your awareness, your abilities…or imprison yourself within them.

Technology, Tools, and Progress

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Josh

Another great find by my friend Colin Pistell over at The Fifth Ape Blog got my wheels turning again…here’s my response to the TED talk Colin posted, which I’ve pasted below in this entry. Thanks for the inspiration Colin!

I like the first part…reminds me of a book I just put on my wishlist:

But his finale leaves me befuddled. The “cloud” or network-brain method of technology-making is also extremely fragile. Yes, it creates “innovation” (this question later). But it creates innovation that no one person can recreate if a part of that innovation gets lost.

We used to joke, when I worked at Apple, about what might happen if John Ive (the guy who designed the iMac, iPod, and about everything “i” since) dropped dead. Or worse still, if Steve Jobs did!

We got an inkling of what would happen if Steve Jobs left Apple back in the 90′s, when he was fired from the company. It tanked. And another inkling when he revealed that he had been diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer. The stock tanked!

So, though the head may be good at running the company – the company that coordinates the “hive-brain” that makes the products – if the head dies, the body dies as well.

Question two is about “innovation.” People always tout “innovation,” and “creative solutions” to our “problems.”

However, most “innovation” only creates more problems. It is innovation built upon a problematic foundation.

That is, our “problems” are based on a dysfunctional relationship with ourselves and with ourselves-in-the-world. We feel the need to meddle in things all the time, when sensitive awareness would be much more effective at increasing efficiency, or effectiveness, or whatever it is we think we need to increase (which is also questionable).

Once we’ve created these “solutions,” we have to justify our efforts. When the “solutions” cause more problems (see our “petroleum solution”), we have to create “alternative fuels,” and chemicals that can clean up the messes we’ve made.

Do we really? Is that really helpful? Or should we instead question the path we’re on entirely? Should we question the depths of our consumption? Should we question the notion of “progress” and “innovation,” that has driven us (further and further from interconnection with the natural world that is our home) since the industrial revolution?

I don’t know. I know the Acheulean toolkit was supposedly our mainstay for 1.5 million years.

For how long will the iPhone be useful?

Irreasonable – You can’t save money if you watch TV

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Josh

Just saw a commercial for Progressive Auto Insurance on TV and had a stark realization:

You can’t save money if you watch TV.

It’s physically impossible.

Here’s why:

If you watch TV, you’re watching commercials created to sell things (such as auto insurance).

It costs money to create the commercials.

The companies get the money for the commercials from TV-viewers’ purchases of their products.

If TV viewers did not watch TV, and did not know about the product (auto insurance), they could not buy auto insurance.

Given that TV viewers do watch TV and do learn about saving money with auto insurance through TV, they then go and spend money on auto insurance.

Spending money is the opposite of saving money.

Therefore, you cannot save money if you watch TV.

Good night.

Action – The Master Cure

Posted on July 19, 2010 by Josh

In Taoist cosmology/philosophy, there are four states leading to “being”:
Zero – “The Tao” or Huntun (and/or see this entry by Scott Phillips)/Wuji – formlessness, undifferentiation (“none”)
One – Condensation (“one”)
Two – Taiji – differentiation (“two”)
Three – The “two” give birth to three…not sure what this one is “specifically”
Four – Reality/”naming” – 10,000 things

Here’s a quote from Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching:
The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

In my recent experience, I’ve encountered the distinction between these.

Undifferentiation
There seems to be a realm we can inhabit, mentally, of undifferentiation. Though it may seem like apathy, it isn’t the same. It is a state of ease with the fact that all things are just as-they-are. Some people call this “alchemy.” This would be level zero in the above model.

Ideal/Utopian
Then there is an “ideal-state” mode of thought, where we reside in how we wish things were. There is only one idealized future. I would say this is level one above.

Polarity/Contrastive
The next level is polarity. The place where we make abrupt/acute distinctions between things – either/or. This is level two, Taiji.

Naming
Level three is the place where “naming” begins. Once you’ve identified a polarity, you begin to make discriminations. Yes, something can be black or white. But there are also shades of grey in between. This is the place where you recognize grey. Not all of the shades, that’s next. Level three is similar to level zero, in that it is a transitional state between Two and Four. It is the realm of the trichotomy – the either/or/and situation.

State-Chaser
Level four is somewhat easier to identify. I’d say it’s when we’re in the “state-chaser” frame of mind/being. We’re smelling the flowers, getting drunk, doing feats of physical endurance, swimming in really cold water, going to rock concerts, moving to an ashram in India – in order to experience all of the diversity that life has to offer (as opposed to doing those things with specific ends in mind).

What I realized in my personal life was that I’d been spending too much time in the Undifferentiated and Ideal zones, and had begun taking those as reality.

Or, I would vacillate between Relativism, Idealism, and Polarity.

It made it hard to figure out what to do next.

The solution has been to understand nature as, ultimately, undifferentiated, and accept that. Leave that where it is. Then, to understand my own desired “utopian state.” What is my “ideal” in xyz situations? Then, to leave that where it is. Finally, to come to “reality” and take actions that seem best for me right now, based on my past experience, and the ideal(s) I have in mind for a particular situation.

Action cures all ills.

You Are Not So Conditioned

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Josh

David McRaney has a great post on the You Are Not So Smart Blog.

He’s talking about conditioning, and our ability to act with “free will,” specifically in his post, with regards to diet.

McRaney mentions the work of BF Skinner, the “father” of Operant Conditioning.

“Skinner became convinced conditioning was the root of all behavior and didn’t believe rational thinking had anything to do with your personal life. He considered introspection to be a “collateral product” of conditioning.”

I’m not sure if that’s 100% true or not, but it’s an interesting viewpoint.

There is leverage, I believe, in what you choose or disagree to become conditioned to/by.

The author makes a distinction between three types of conditioning states:

Classical Conditioning – An “unconditioned stimulus” (a neutral stimulus such as a bell ringing) is used in coordination with a “conditioned stimulus” (one that generates a certain response, such as meat) to create a “conditioned response.” The classic example is Pavlov’s dog salivating with the ringing of the bell. Food was placed before the dog (conditioned stimulus), and a bell was rung (unconditioned stimulus) when the dog began salivating. Over time, the dog would salivate merely when the bell was rung (conditioned response).

Operant Conditioning – The alteration of behavior punishment or reward (“reinforcement”) of normal behavior. For instance, give the pigeon a food pellet every time it presses a lever, or a shock if it presses the “wrong” lever. Obviously, animals usually seek behaviors that lead to reinforcement responses, and avoid behaviors that lead to punishment responses from their environment.

Extinction – Is an element of Operant Conditioning in which a behavior is neither punished nor rewarded. The behavior declines in frequency.

An “extinction burst,” according to the author, is when you have a strong negative reaction to the lack of expected response from your environment.

The author finishes by saying:
“To give up overeating, or smoking, or gambling, or “World of Warcraft,” or any bad habit which was formed through conditioning, you must be prepared to weather the secret weapon of your unconscious – the extinction burst.

Become your own Supernanny, your own Dog Whisperer. Look for alternative rewards and positive reinforcement. Set goals, and when you achieve them, shower yourself with garlands of your choosing.

Don’t freak out when it turns out to be difficult. Habits form because you are not so smart, and they cease under the same conditions.”

Yes, I couldn’t agree more with this. But how do you do that? How do you “weather the storm?”

Goal-setting has always seemed extremely arbitrary, and less than motivating to me. The process has always been my concern – right here, right now.

I prefer to focus on something that grounds me to the present in order to weather my “extinction bursts.”

For me, that comes from a practice of increasing sensitivity, and awareness, or sensitive-awareness, through deeper connection to my physical being (which, for me, is also – spiritual, mental/emotional, environmental, communal/social).

I think this practice also leads to the shedding of “unnatural” habits.

Turn Obligation into Choice

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Josh

I have the tendency to think of things I ought to do, or ought to have done. But that way of looking at events is very passive.

Instead, I can choose to look at those things as choices.

For instance, if I think “I should have done xyz…,” which leaves me in a position of regret. I can re-tell that story as “I chose not to do xyz…”

At that point, I’ve changed the locus of control from the past (external) to myself (internal).

Relating to my past and future in this way not only “empowers” me, but also leads to more active decision-making.

I’m playing with this right now…definitely interested to hear other perspectives on this type of practice.

Crossing Wires, and “Progress” – The Fifth Ape Blog

Posted on July 10, 2010 by Josh

My good friend Colin Pistell over at the Fifth Ape blog put up a fantastic post about the notion of “crossed syndromes” in the body, and as a general metaphor for action.

To my knowledge, Vladimir Janda was the first researcher to recognize and categorize the crossed syndromes. If you Google Janda’s name, you’ll find at least a couple of good articles about the crossed syndromes. Click this link to download a great article about him and his method.

In addition, many practitioners have been releasing books recently detailing Janda’s methods. Check out Assessment and Treatment of Muscle Imbalance, The Janda Approach, and Back Pain, a Movement Problem, for a couple of approaches.

Colin mentions that we often get “crossed” through dysfunctional habitual patterns in our lives. Read Colin’s post for his take on this.

Below is my response to his insightful message:

Great post Colin!

Why not do less with less? We always want to do more, but where does that cultural prejudice come from, that “more is better?”

We also say “less is more,” but what does that mean?

Is the problem the interface, the technology, or the way in which it is used, and the way in which we allow ourselves to be used by it?

Culture (and I think, the human mind, generally) is insidious in the ability to create a myth that is then forgotten as a “created thing,” and accepted as “fact.”

What is significantly different about life now, from life 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10000 years ago?

Agriculture is different. But not better. Masanobu Fukuoka produced higher yields on his “organic” (beyond organic, actually) plot than the surrounding “industrial” fields. So we don’t need “new” technology there…and we don’t need to do “more” in agriculture.

You might say “longevity,” or “life-span.” I might agree, to a point. The “masses” are living longer, but lifespan itself hasn’t changed that much. Plato lived to the ripe old age of 80, in the 4th C BC. Many more examples of 80+ year lifespans in the “privileged classes” throughout ancient history.

You might say “connectedness.” But what has that connectedness changed? Fundamentally?

Knowledge? What has it given us, this knowledge? I like it, you know that. I think it’s fun. It’s my main hobby. But more and more, I turn within for knowledge…

We don’t really need to do “more” of anything…less, I think, is in order.

Maybe if we need more of something, it’s active sensitivity…sense-itivity. Sensing our environment, and ourselves as continuous with that environment (or vice versa). Using “sense” to grow things, or to act in our lives. “Making sense” in ways that are consistent with a happy life…

Your thoughts?