L.I.F.T.

A recent New York Times articles asks :”Is There An Ecological Unconscious?“

Aside from citing a bunch of studies and trying to draw general conclusions from them (which is an incorrect use of science, by the way, for a great discussion of this, see John Sifferman’s most recent blog post), the author describes the field of ecopsychology, from its inception to present attempts at connecting individuals’ psychology and environment.

I dare you to look inside...

The article cites a study by Marc Berman, at the University of Michigan, whose study “The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature” describes attentional gains after participants have walked through a setting full of “nature” (in this case, the Ann Arbor Arboretum…is that redundant?!).

But what is “psychology?”  Until that question is answered succinctly, all “psychological” studies are potentially redundant and misleading.

No one has ever answered that question in concrete terms.  Wikipedia says that: Psychology (lit. “study of the soul” or “study of the mind“^[1]) is an academic and applied discipline which involves the scientific study of human (or animal) mental functions and behaviors.

But what is the “mind?”  (let’s leave questions of the “soul” out of the discussion for now).  Apparently it’s a combination of “mental functions and behaviors.”

Again, Wikipedia says that “mind” is: the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason. Mind manifests itself subjectively as a stream of consciousness.

But where do all of those things come from?

These guys must know...if they're helping "mind"

Most of psychology, if you’ve ever taken a psychology course (or several) addresses “mind” as a thing separate from physical reality.  Theorists make up their own paradigms of mind and mentality, of “mental functions and behaviors.”

The terrible redundancy can be seen most clearly in the field of Child Psychology, or Child Development.  There are five or ten competing theories of child development at different stages of maturation.  All are right, most are completely redundant with one another.  Many (if not most) create definitions of the child’s developmental process that are obviously derived solely from the researcher’s personal experience…no “objectivity” there (the question of “objectivity” is quite another question entirely).

This redundancy seems extraordinarily silly to me.  For one, can’t we all just get along?!  But for another, where does this “mind” come from?  I mean, “mind” doesn’t just exist on its own, apart from the physical body…apart from “behaviors.”  Does it?

I think the development of the field of psychology stems largely from the Cartesian mind/body dualism, and an underlying belief in “human supremacy” in the Order of Things.

Foucault me.

That is, human beings always believe that they are somehow specially different, better, “more special” than anything else in nature.  We always try to find qualities that separate us from the “lower animals.”

But, one by one, all of those arguments have been disproved.  I’ve heard them all – human beings have language (all animals have language); human beings are creative (ever see a spiderweb?); we use tools (ever see an ape catch termites with a long blade of grass?); we are self-conscious (debatable, and impossible to prove that other animals are not also self-aware/conscious)…etc.

The list goes on, but always with the same result – we are no “better” than anything else this planet has produced, we’re simply “different.”

This led, in combination with the Cartesian separation of mind from body, to a belief that our thoughts were somehow separate from our bodies, from our “physical” selves.

“Ecological Unconscious” or “ecopsychology” is one attempt to put those things back together, but it has skimmed over one of the most important questions – “When studying psychology (the mind), what exactly is it that we are studying?”

In reference to this, I’d like to cite a 2007 study by Japanese researchers (following up on several earlier studies of a similar nature).  The study is called “Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy adults: Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of stress reduction,” and, similar to Berman’s study, looked at the effects of walking or sitting in a wooded environment on physiology.

Needless to say, the effects were drastic, and positive.  Physiological markers of stress (salivary cortisol, resting heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) decrease in a “natural” environment.

Do the participants’ “psychologies” change?  Undoubtedly, yes.

I guarantee that changing your breathing will change your mind.

You see, for  me, “psychology,” or “mind,” is just a product of the physical body.  Sure, at some level it also becomes the product of the interaction of itself (recursive thought) and anything else (mind-to-mind, mind-thinking-about-itself), but without the physical body, there is no mind.

How can I assert this?  Well, you can “change your mind” by changing your body.  If you’re feeling blue, go out for a run.  It will change your mind.

So when fields like “ecopsychology” spring up, or talk of an “ecological unconscious” begins, I wonder why.  Why is it that we want to separate our physiology from our thoughts (or vice versa)?  Why is it that we hold onto this belief that there is some “magic” happening in our gray matter?

While it is magical that we have such a complex brain, the brain is not the mind.  The entire body is your brain.  To quote George Leonard:

Some researchers in the comparatively new field of psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) argue that the interplay of peptides with peptide receptors on the surface of cells throughout body and brain carries considerably more information than all previously discovered brain mechanisms combined. Imagine a pharmacy with well over a hundred potions that can be mixed in all possible combinations and proportions, and you can begin to understand the power of this chemical information system.

So don’t speak of an “ecological unconscious” as something separate from your body.  Don’t speak of nature as something separate from your body.  You are continuous with your habitat, with your environment.  This is why people living in cities get chronic diseases associated with urban environments – associated with pollution.  This is why people have the same diseases as their friends.

Everything “external” to your body can and should be considered your “external organs.”  There is nothing you see that does not affect your physiology on some level.  There is nothing you hear, smell, touch, that does not do the same.  At the same time, there are many things that you cannot sense in any way that are affecting your physiology…that are “creating your mind” – the invisible pollutants in your environment, the trees you do not notice that supply you with oxygen, the microbiomes that inhabit your body.

Stop separating your unconscious from your physical self.  And stop separating your physical self from the totality of your environment.  When you do that, you regain control over who you are and how you behave.

Only then can you finally say that you have a “mind.”

I’ve said this for a long time now – that someone, somewhere, needs to put “the rules” of muscle physiology down in plain language, so that everyone can have a fair shake at strength, endurance, and physical health.

So I’ll do it here, now.

The Four Horsemen

There are only four rules that you really need to understand in order to exercise properly.  They are:

1. Specificity

2. Progression/Overload

3. Acute Variables – Intensity/Volume/Frequency

4. Form/Technique

Let’s go over each.

Specifically nauseating

1. Specificity – I’ve S.A.I.D. It All Before

The first rule of physical training or conditioning is the SAID principle, coined by Digby and Sale, I think back in 1984.  SAID stands for “Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands.”

The concept is this – the body is an incredibly efficient system.  It will only respond to what it must, in exactly the degree it must, and only for as long as is absolutely necessary.

Therefore, you must train specifically, for the specific outcomes you wish to attain.

This is true in all of life.  If you want a cheese sandwich, don’t get the peanut butter out of the cabinet.

Specificity applies not just to the type of movement you do, the muscles used, or to the type and amount of weight you use, but also to the metabolic demands placed on the body as a whole.

If you want to be a marathon runner, lifting very heavy weights is not going to help you.  That is, depending upon how quickly you want to run that marathon.  If speed isn’t an issue, but slowness is, maybe lifting weights is a good idea!

Blindfolding increases neural drive to muscles

2. Progression/Overload

The next principle to understand is progression/overload…or, let’s call it “the progressive overload principle.”  Actually, that’s what Thomas Delorme called it in his book “Progressive Resistance Exercise,” back in 1951.

The principle is this (and is directly related to the SAID principle) – by allowing a muscle or system to grow accustomed to a stimulus, you have made it stronger.  To continue making it stronger, you have to continue to increase the resistance the system must overcome.

Bam.

So, basically, keep adding weight. When it gets easier (and it will), add more weight.

Yeah?  Ok then.

Now that's loading! What?!

3. Loading – Reps/Sets/Intensity/Volume/Frequency

This principle is, again, related to the SAID and Progressive Overload principles.  Most people refer to this as “Periodization” – or the planning of loading based on some sort of organized schema.

First, for the sets/reps portion of this discussion, take a look at the chart below:

waryables

I made it really big on purpose.  So you can see all the pretty things in there.  Feel free to print this chart out and put it on your fridge, or wherever you’d like. This chart represents, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate depiction of how your muscles will respond, for the most part, to resistance based work.  There are some exceptions.  For instance, you can experience quite a bit of hypertrophy from high-repetition bodyweight work.  Just look at a gymnast.

Further, people will differ in their responses.  I, for instance, respond to 8-10 reps with hypertrophy.  I’ve known some people for whom that wasn’t true.  And, finally, strength itself is the combination of all of those factors – endurance, hypertrophy, maximal, and explosive strengths.   Most athletes will benefit from following the 80/20 rule in their training – training 80% of the time in ways very specific to their sport, with the other 20% of the time spent in non-specific “crosstraining” type activities.

Intensity is next.

Intensity is defined as the percentage of a person’s 1-rep maximum being moved.  You can see the “Load % 1RM” in column two in the chart above.  That is, what % of a person’s 1-rep maximum is optimal to achieve the desired response in the muscle.  It’s also directly related to how much weight a person will actually be capable of doing a certain contraction-type with.  For instance, you can’t do 15 reps with 100% of your 1-rep max, by definition.

Isometrics and Explosive Work

I’ve seen people who have lifted incredible amounts of weight on their first-ever attempt at a particular weightlifting exercise, simply because they have always trained isometric (where you contract a muscle against an immovable object or opposing force – the muscle doesn’t change length during the contraction) and explosive strength.

Does that destroy the SAID principle?  No, because these people also used progressive resistance in their isometric and explosive training.  In fact, they were preparing their musculature in the same way that someone doing heavy lifts might, just from the other side.

So there’s another strength type to add – static/isometric strength.  Train isometric strength with one set of 6-10 contractions of 6-8 seconds, anywhere between 60 and 100% of maximal contraction force – at the specific joint angle you want to increase strength in.  For instance, a great use of isometrics is to get past “sticking points” in exercises.  Let’s say you can’t do a pullup, you always get stuck halfway up.  Start training isometrics at the end of your normal workout in that specific joint angle.  Progress by adding more sets of contractions, but go slowly!

Finally, for this mini-section, the best training of explosive work is with ballistic movements – where the weight is actually physically thrown – or with plyometrics/shock-training.  For ballistics, it’s fun to go to a field with a weight of some sort and just throw the hell out of it.  Do squat-jump-throws, etc.  For plyometrics, follow guidelines on plyo’s before beginning.  Running around and jumping off and on things is not the same as plyometrics.  Plyo’s are typically very specific, and involve progression to depth-jumps, and, sometimes, loaded depth-jumps.  If you want more information on plyometrics, send me an email.

The last part of Number 3 here is training volume.

Volume (frequently expressed as “total sets x total weight”) is better-seen in A.S. Prilepin’s chart for training weightlifters:

Go Ask Prilepin, When He Was 10 Feet TAAAAAAALLLLLLL

Prilepin’s chart was compiled after years of charting elite weightlifters in the Soviet Union.  But it works pretty well for the rest of us.

Basically, the higher the intensity (the more weight/explosiveness) of the lift, the fewer the total repetitions you do during a set, the fewer the total repetitions you do during a workout, and the fewer workouts you do during a week.

That being said, total training volume may be the same regardless of what intensity you’re training at.  Total training volume is usually related to an athlete’s (or exerciser’s) level of experience with the type of training they’re doing.  If you’re really experienced, you can handle a much larger total training volume (though, often, you don’t need to) than a less-experienced athlete.

While this particular version of Prilepin’s chart does not include weekly, monthly, or yearly values, you – I hope – get the idea.  You can only overload the muscle so far, till it breaks.  There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.”

For the purposes of this post, it’s helpful just to remember this – the more difficult, demanding, or stressful a lift, exercise, or workout is, the more time you need for recovery.

The Soviets were, I think, the first to really emphasize the importance of recovery (physical, nervous system, and psychological) to the degree that it’s only starting to receive today.

So recover!

The Skeleton Man deadlifts!!!

4. Form/Technique

The final chapter in our list of things to know in order to succeed is this – perhaps the keystone of the four.

Form/Technique assumes, to some degree, a certain knowledge of how the body works.  This is particularly true for heavy weightlifting, but can be just as true for things like Yoga and Pilates, where small, difficult movements, can cause big problems if not done correctly.

The best thing you can do is to learn how your body works.  This is a fantastic book that covers just about everything you could ever need to know about this topic.

Doing, is another issue, though.  When first learning how to do a particular exercise, movement, or technique, it is really important that you have a good instructor there.

As the old saying goes – Never Trust A Bald Barber.

If someone tells you they know everything about exercise and will help you to learn, but they have neither the credentials nor the physique to prove it, don’t trust them.  Find someone who does.  Preferably, find someone with both the physique and credentials, and a cheerful, sunny demeanor.  That’ll make it easier on everyone.

Your Turn

Now go out there and do it!!!

While I am an advocate for all things “natural,” I also am an advocate for thinking – using the brain.

A friend recently sent me the link to the site “Hunter-Gatherer.com.”  I’m not providing a hot-link to you, because it’s a front-site, with a signup form if you’re “interested.”  Put your email in the box and hit send, and Hunter-Gatherer will inform you when there’s something happening there.

The site was setup by John Durant, a 26-year old internet marketing professional.

Grog like SEO! Grog like Stumbleupon! Grog like Affiliate Marketing!

What Is This Paleo Stuff All About?

The “paleo” movement basically states that our species, homo sapiens, has not evolved very much over the past 200,000 years, since it branched off the tree of Homo (that sounds silly! tee hee!).

Anyway, these folks say that the diseases of modern civilization arise largely from us acting like a bunch of fat agriculturalists – eating too many and the wrong kinds of calories, not moving/exercising enough (and sucking at it when we do), and basically being too smart to realize how dumb we are.

This movement has been around for a long long time.  Roughly 35 years now.  It’s not new.

Not only is it not new.  It’s not hard to understand.  You can get any of a number of books on Amazon.com, used, for less than the price of your non-paleo mocha latte.  If you want.

You can erect my homo anytime...wait...what? I mean, "Ug."

The Caveman Speaks!

You can watch John on the Colbert Report – here.

If you don’t have the time, let me sum it up for you – John says that “human beings have been around for a half or a million years in our current form,” (Which is technically incorrect.  Homo Sapiens, which is what we are, is about 200,000 years old) and that it would behoove us to eat and move like we did during that part of our evolutionary history.

John also says that hunter gatherer societies live(d) to about the same ages that we do now.  From everything I’ve ever read, this is completely untrue.  Average maximum lifespan is usually listed between 35-55 years in anything I’ve read about pre-agricultural humans.

Further, life expectancy increased significantly after the advent of agriculture.  Maximum lifespan increased significantly again after the advent of modern medicine.

Apparently, John has taken some notes from Art DeVany, an economist-turned-physiology-expert, who runs his own “paleo” blog and internet business.  DeVany chapped my ass a few years ago when I posted a question about one of his (then free-to-all) workouts, and the rationale behind his set/rep scheme.  He didn’t publish the post.  I deleted his blog from my roll.

Wherefore Art Thou, Customer?

Internet marketers are savvy.  They will often put up a “test” website (such as John’s) with a signup form (such as John’s) to see what size audience they can get, before investing time, money, and effort in building an actual site.

They also jump on popular bandwagons.  I’m not saying that John Durant doesn’t live, eat, and breathe Paleo.  I believe that he does.  I’m just saying that this Caveman is no dummy.  He’s a smart Caveman.  He’s a Caveman with internet access.  He’s a Caveman with deer in his apartment.

Beatrice de Gea's photo of John from the NYT article

What Do You Care, Josh?

I don’t care that much.  I actually think it’s pretty cool.  But I’d really like for people to be well-informed about this stuff, and be listening to people who know what they’re talking about, rather than internet marketers with a caveman fetish, or retired economics professors who like to boost their testosterone levels a lot.

The caveman thing, like all things, will come and go.  In the meantime, many people will get caught up in the wave, and ride the diet rollercoaster for a while, messing their physiology up so bad that they’ll actually shave years off in the long run.  But as long as it’s a fun ride, that’s all that matters!

Which reveals something about human nature.  And about why you like to buy things.

Why You Like to Buy Things

Virginia Satir is said to have said (you like that?) – “The most basic instinct of human beings is not the instinct for survival, but the need to experience the familiar.”

Maybe she’s right.  Maybe not.

But right around the same level of that instinct is the need for the unfamiliar.  Human beings have a desperate, unquenchable thirst for what is novel.  It’s like a drug.  Start showing people one new thing, and they want another, then another, and then another…

This is your brain on advertising

The Bottom Line

Be critical.  Death is lurking.  In fact, you might die right now.  I hope not, but you might!

If you are a caveman, or follow a caveman lifestyle, you might live longer.  Maybe.  Or you might not.  The hope of longer life may be part of what John is selling to you.  That and novelty.  And “happiness.”  The old hag in a new dress.

It’s catching, this “paleo” thing.  I don’t think it’s entirely wrong, or misguided, but I want you to be sure that it is being sold to you.

The line just above the death one, the penultimate line, is your physiology – the way the human body functions.  Knowing more about that is useful knowledge.  Then you have a solid baseline by which to judge any diet, any exercise routine, or anything else in your life.

Beyond that, the Caveman movement should be seen for what it is – fun.  It’s just play.  Play Caveman if you want.

I’ll play Dinosaur, and come to your cave and eat your head.

GRRR!! Now THIS IS REAL!! GRRRR!! snarfsnarf

Workout nutrition has been a recurring theme in conversations recently.

In the old days, my buddies and I all used to drink whey protein drinks.  When I went from 175 pounds to 200 (and then to 215) in about 8 months, it was from a combination of eating two protein bars a day, and working out twice a day.

While I don’t recommend that (I was terribly uncomfortable at 215), I do think that nutrition helps a lot.

All of the “experts” and “research scientists” will tell you different things about workout nutrition.  “Eat x% cabs/fat/protein, plus branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs), plus fish oil, plus etc.”

I’m not going to cite research studies about nutrition or nutrient uptake.  They’re almost entirely based on people tested in laboratory settings, often times using college-aged males in small population sizes (less than 10), don’t take into account other factors (such as the fact that the sample used is composed of athletes, or that they eat cafeteria food all the time), etc.

That is, they’re not terribly applicable to you and me.

The guys in the trenches will tell you something different.  They’ll say this – “Increased protein, water, vitamin, and fatty-acid intake will help you to feel less sore and recover faster.”

I agree with them.

The basic idea of workout nutrition is this – get nutrients into the body when the body needs them most.

For me, post-workout is the time I emphasize “workout nutrition.”  In the recent past, though, I wasn’t using any “supplements.”  My post-workout shake was a bottle of Trader Joe’s strawberry-flavored Kefir (fermented milk product).

Recently, I’ve been lifting a little more intensely, and have been feeling it.  So I invested in some SPIZ.  Now I’ll drink a “shake” with a balanced macronutrient profile, that has some additional amino acids, immediately after my workout.

If you’re exercising for more than an hour (or two, depending on your level of experience, and the intensity of the work), you might need to consume something during your workout to keep you going strong, and to keep you from breaking down too much.

But different folks have/need different strokes.  Some people like to drink 1/3 of their workout drink before the workout, 1/3 during, and 1/3 after.  Others don’t like to drink or eat anything extra.

Experiment with how your body feels.  If you are getting particularly sore after your workouts, try some of the above strategies and see what works for you.  I prefer drinks to bars, they’re more satisfying to me, and I prefer drinks with balanced macronutrient profiles (that is, they have fat, protein, and carbs in relatively balanced proportions) to drinks that are just (or mostly) protein.

Experiment with the quantity of calories you consume, too.  Having 100 calories post-workout is much different from having 500.  Of course, intensity and volume of work will, again, be your guide here.

As a final note – any workout nutrition should merely be supplemental to an already solid, whole-food-based diet, that is providing you with the foundation you need for health.  No supplement can replace that.

A relatively recent research study reveals a connection (of some sort) between muscular strength and longevity.

The article, “Association between muscular strength and mortality  in men: prospective cohort study,” says that “Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.”

This is not an insignificant study.  The researchers used data from the Cooper Institute in Texas, and included 8762 men aged 20-80 in the study.

Why might muscular strength be correlated with longevity?  Well, there are a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head.  Here’s one:

For one, balance is highly correlated with muscular strength.  While the “scientists” among us will argue about “tonic” (the so-called “anti-gravity” muscles), and “phasic” (the “mover” muscles) muscles, I can tell you from personal experience that, when someone isn’t very strong, they aren’t very stable – and that “working on stability” (as much “functional training” does nowadays) by balancing on one leg on a Bosu ball, is the long, slow, hard road to stability…working on “gross strength” has much faster and better results.

Anyway, as we get older, we tend to lose muscle mass, strength, and with it, balance and proprioception (spatial awareness).  A lot of this has to do with lack of use in old age.  Some of it is “programmed.”  That being said, falls and related fractures, etc., can lead to death, or can lead to further lack of movement, which becomes more and more fatal the older we get.

The bottom line – get stronger.  My next post will be about this…

Tons of people use music in their training.  There’s something about it.  Music can be motivating, hypnotizing, stimulating, or soothing.

In yoga studies it’s the ambient/”Eastern” music that prevails.  In hardcore powerlifting gyms, mostly super-intense metal of some sort.  The “big box gyms” (Gold’s, etc.), play top-40 type stuff.

I see people wearing their iPods or other MP3/4 players all the time these days, whether they’re running, walking, taking the bus, or whatever.  It’s ubiquitous.  I do it too.  I love to listen to music all the time.

What is it about music, about rhythm, that we love so much?  As someone once said “music calms the savage beast.”  Kant said that music was the highest form of art, because it’s the least embodied, it relies on pure concept/noumena.

There’s something fundamental to it though, beyond description.  We’re composed of rhythms.  We live within rhythms – large-scale rhythms/ultradian (6, 10, and 12-year), annual, seasonal (solstices), monthly (moon-rhythms), weekly (work, weekend, etc.), and daily circadian rhythms.  Even below that are the rhythms of the cells in our bodies doing different tasks.

When we’re born, we learn language by hearing the rhythm.  We know who our parents are by the sound, but also by the rhythm of their voice.  We can recognize people by the rhythmical signatures of their movement – it’s possible to identify friends walking just from their silhouettes, when no other identifying characteristics are available to us.

When we exercise, there’s the rhythm of our breathing, our heartbeat, our energy-levels, and metabolic demands.

The danger is when we stop paying attention to these rhythms, when we lose touch with them.  Then, we’re cut off from the flow of life around us.  We’re floating, unable to get in synch, we lose our energy, our vitality.  Plants and animals cut off from their natural rhythms wither and die.

Pay attention to the rhythms in your life.  Don’t let any drown the others out.  The undulating flow of exertion and rest, activity and recovery, it’s crucial to life, it is life.

This is a review of the book “The Wisdom of the Body,” written in 1932 by Walter B. Cannon, M.D.

Cannon was a physiologist, and was the first person to promote the idea of homeostasis in American medicine/physiology.  Homeostasis is the concept that the human body is a dynamic system composed of smaller subsystems that serve to maintain an ideal steady state (stasis) for the function of the body.

This book is absolutely fantastic.

First, from a historical perspective, it’s a wonderful look into the methodology of early twentieth century experimental science in the field of physiology.  This book is not for the faint of heart.  Descriptions of experiments on cats and dogs in which the animals were denervated, etc., abound.

The book also provides a wonderful introduction to the science of homeostasis, which has become a field unto itself.  My next read, “Rethinking Homeostasis,” by Jay Schulkin, will be an interesting follow-up, summarizing some of the research that led to the development of the concept of allostasis – the attainment of stability through challenge or change, rather than through a subtle balance of systems.  But that’s another review…

Finally, Cannon provides tons of wonderful nuggets of wisdom throughout the book.  On page 199 he mentions the practice of cold baths/showers and profuse sweating in exercise or saunas as methods of training the temperature-regulation system of the body.  I’ve often heard of cold showers as being tonic, but never for that reason…mostly just in reference to “folk wisdom.”  Interesting to see a “scientific” explanation for that practice!

On pages 240-241 Cannon discusses the role of the physician in maintaining health.  The physician isn’t there to provide health.  That’s provided by vis medicatrix naturae – the healing power of nature.  Rather, the physician is there to facilitate that natural process of healing, by being familiar with the functions of the body, the balance of forces/activities that are present in optimal health (homeostasis), and the ways of helping the body to achieve that ideal balance.

I loved this book, and highly recommend it to anyone who wants a clearer understanding of how their body works.  You will probably need/want a dictionary at places, and an anatomy/physiology reference book in other places, but the journey will be well worth it!

Ok dirty birds, before you get any ideas, let me tell you what “external organ” I’m talking about:

The environment.

Yes, I said it!  But I don’t mean “the environment,” as in what you try to save by driving a Prius, or by recycling.  Well, I sort of do, but I think the word has been cheapened by those things a bit.

The environment is everything external to you.  Yes, it is the “natural” world – trees, earth, dirt, grass, birds, animals, etc.  It is also your house, the street you live on, your friends neighbors and enemies, your children, your parents, the airplane flying over your house.

Again, “the environment” is everything external to your body.

The “internal organs” of your body are these:

Adrenals — Appendix — Bladder — Brain — Eyes — Gall bladder — Heart — Intestines — Kidney — Liver — Lungs — Esophagus — Ovaries — Pancreas — Parathyroids — Pituitary — Prostate — Spleen — Stomach — Testicles — Thymus — Thyroid — Uterus — Veins

The internal organs of the body are “collection of tissues joined in structural unit to serve a common function.”  More importantly, they are the functional units of your body.  They work in harmony to allow you to live.  Without any one of them, you die.

Your “external organ” is the collective “thing” outside of you, that similarly supports your life.  Without any part of your external organ – without plants and animals for food, or plants and sunlight and water for air, or dirt, or the people around you, or the birds, or anything else – you die.

The "Carbon Cycle" - Your External Organ Breathes

Now consider your actions in relation to this external organ of your body.  For the people who are so detached from their own body that they cannot feel it or relate to it, this won’t mean much – but it might be a path back to the body.  It might be easier for them to first understand their relationship to their external organ.

Another Cycle of Your External Organ

A recent New York Times article, Phys Ed: The Best Exercises for Healthy Bones (thanks for passing it along, Mary) declares that “the best exercise is to simply jump up and down, for as long as the downstairs neighbor will tolerate.”

Well…maybe.  But who the hell wants to do that?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  I’m really sick of reporters with no experience in the field having free reign to write whatever they want about health and exercise.

If you read the article, you’ll find that “scientists” are in dispute about how bones respond to exercise, and what type of exercise is best to build bone.

Except, that is, that explosive/heavy weightlifting builds bone well.

But cycling and running are in dispute.  In fact, running might even cause the loss of bone, when calcium lost through sweat or in metabolic processes is replaced by bone material.

Wait…hold on reporterer…go back a step…

Explosive movements and heavy weightlifting build bone.

Ok.  Well then why the heck aren’t we recommending those activities?

The best thing to do, instead, is to make a joke out of it.  “The best exercise is to simply jump up and down, for as long as the downstairs neighbor will tolerate.”

Why make a joke out of it?  “For as long as the downstairs neighbors will tolerate?”  Why are you jumping indoors?  Why aren’t you going outside and jumping?  Why are you jumping in place?  Why aren’t you running around and jumping onto and over obstacles of varying heights?

That activity also builds the skills of balance and proprioception, which might help to prevent hip fractures even more than the concomitant building of the bone itself!  If you never fall, you don’t need rock-hard hip bones.

And that’s not why I have my clients jump, and lift heavy stuff.  I’m not concerned with their bone density.  That’s a bizarre, reductionist view of the body that I don’t want to buy into.

I have them do those activities because that’s what human bodies are meant to do.

For the last time – YOU ARE AN ANIMAL! You respond best to what all animals best respond to – sunlight, clean water, un-molested foods straight from nature, and lots and lots of physical activity of all types.

The thing all of these “scientists” miss is the big picture – the human body as a whole, as an animal.

If you sit all day, your bones get weak.  If you eat a crappy diet, your bones get weak.  If you run for a long time, and don’t replenish the nutrients you’ve lost, your bones get weak.  Cycling isn’t even a weight-bearing activity, so I’m not sure why the article focuses on it so much…

Also, in response to one of the comments made by a researcher quoted in the article, I’m pretty sure there’s been research that shows that calcium lost during endurance exercise is compensated for by bone if it’s not replaced soon.  I’ll have to double-check that.  I wouldn’t be surprised, though – most researchers are so caught up in trying to keep grants rolling, etc., they don’t even know the research that has been done in the area they themselves are studying.

Which speaks to another issue I have with this type of reporting.  Science is a process of exploration.  It is curiosity.  It is asking questions and trying to find the answers.

IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF SCIENCE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

We put science in such a place of authority in our country that brains shut off like lights in a blackout.  I can see them all the way down the street, blinking off.  No thinking required.  Science has me covered.  The scientists will tell me the right thing to do.  The government will talk to the scientists and protect me.

Bullshit.  Turn your brain back on.

I take such offense to this, because people who don’t know any better are going to read this article, and others like it.

What is someone going to do who reads this article?  They’re going to say, “oh to hell with it…exercise isn’t helping my bones…” or “I need to jump up and down more!”  Which is silly!!!  I mean, if you’re just jumping up and down in place…ridiculous.  See the above comments about balance and proprioception and nature and the requirements of a healthy animal.

And what about the bones in your arms?  How do you get those stronger?  Jumping up and down doesn’t put any strain on your arms.

How about crawling?  Explosive pushups?  Heavy bench pressing?

Oh no…we shouldn’t do that!  Let’s just play patty-cake until the downstairs neighbors complain!

Bread and butter?! Yummy!!! Ohhh....

On page 169 of his book, Gary Taubes quotes Albert Einstein, who once said that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

Why didn’t Gary take Albert’s words to heart?!!!

This book is awesome, in every sense of the word. It is a comprehensive look at the research surrounding diet and obesity, since research in that area began.

It is also incredibly dense and difficult to read, and, I think, poorly structured. Themes, dates, studies, characters, are repeated throughout the book. I wish Gary had hired an editor!!!

That being said, the book is still incredible. It’s an amazing look into the vagaries of science – that there is essentially only conflicting evidence around the diet-heart, or cholesterol-heart hypotheses, and that those ideas have been driven mostly by fame-hungry researchers, or by the impetus of the thrust of research itself (once the general tenor is set, research tends to continue in the same direction). It is a fascinating look at human dietary physiology.

Earlier today, I was speaking with a client about this book, and saying that I had reached the point (at page 384…roughly 80 still to go, after two months of plodding) where I wished Gary had produced a Cliff Notes version of his book.

Then, lo and behold, on page 453-4 of the book, he does. I’ll quote the entire “summation” here, because I think the message is important. It goes against everything we’ve been told for the past 30-50 years. But that stuff wasn’t really backed up by anything at all. Read the following passage, and if you’re still interested, read the book!

“As I emerge from this research, though, certain conclusions seem inescapable to me, based on the existing knowledge:
1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not the cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.
2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis – the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars – sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically – are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.
7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance – a disequilibrium – in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this balance.
8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated – either chronically or after a meal – we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.
9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.
10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.”

I’m going to go have a donut and some ice cream!!!