L.I.F.T.

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.

Michelle Obama, wife of our President, is taking a stand for physical education and fitness.

She’s started an initiative called Let’s Move!, that has a website to boot!

The group has four initiatives – Healthy Choices, Healthier Schools, Physical Activity, and Accessible and Affordable Healthy Food.

Yes, let's!

“To support Let’s Move and facilitate and coordinate partnerships with States, communities, and the non-profit and for-profit private sectors, the nation’s leading children’s health foundations have come together to create a new independent foundation – the Partnership for a Healthier America – which will accelerate existing efforts addressing childhood obesity and facilitate new commitments towards the national goal of solving childhood obesity within a generation.”

Partnership for a Healthier America

Linked to in the header above, the Partnership is composed about five founding organizations.  It’s a way to provide additional support, financial and outreach, for the Let’s Move! project.

Ok Pepsi, let's see what you've got!

Pepsi, On the Bandwagon

Pepsi Co. has announced that it’s going to support Mrs. Obama’s initiative a few ways.  First, they’re changing the way they list calories on their container.  They’re also going to provide funding for some movement initiatives.

The Old and the New Me

The old me would be suspicious, and doubtful of any change coming from this type of thing.

The new me – or, rather, me, now – sees any effort toward a positive direction as a good thing.

Please support the Let’s Move! initiative by going to the site and subscribing to the blog roll, and enter your email address to receive program updates as they come out.

It only works if everyone pitches in…

Smokey the Bear once said “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.”

In fact, here he is now!

While it’s not entirely true, it is entirely true.  Only YOU can make any kind of change in your world.  Only you.

I was inspired to write this post by Aaron Schwenzfeiers recent blog-link to Scott Berkun’s blog.  The question Aaron posed was whether or not Americans should receive more time off – if that might help to get people more physically active.

I’m not convinced.

Personal Responsibility

This brings up a huge issue that I’m writing a totally separate entry about – around the concept of “personal responsibility.”

I won’t go into that entire subject in depth here, but only comment on part of it.  Change, and doing what you can, with what you have, right now.

Just Do It

My main question to Aaron was – What do people use their free time for now?

When life is stressful, and seems out of your control, you’re more likely to view free time as an excuse to “take it easy,” to relax, or to indulge in the things you don’t get to when you’re busy working (perhaps at something you do not actually derive any satisfaction or fulfillment from).

It’s very similar to what dieters experience, who deprive themselves of foods, and have one cheat day.  The cheat day ends up negating the effects of the rest of the diet.

Better, I think, to focus on changing your individual situation.

The Serenity Prayer

The Serenity Prayer is typically associated with Alcoholics Anonymous, though it was created well before AA came into existence.

It says:

God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change

To change the things I can

And the wisdom to know the difference.

I really like this prayer.  I think it does a good job of reflecting the attitude we need to have in life.  Because, while “personal responsibility” is not the end-all be-all of existence (there are things that are truly outside of our control), we do have an incredible amount of power, especially nowadays, to make positive change in our lives.

Enculturation

If you’ve read my blog for a while, you say this coming.  Culture trains us to think certain ways.  That also holds true for the ways we think about our own personal freedom, and our responsibilities.

Most pertinent to this post, it holds true for our conceptions of what is possible.  I still encounter situations, on almost a daily basis, where I realize that the only thing that had ever stopped me from doing a particular thing was the belief that it was actually possible, a plan to accomplish it, and the action to make the plan happen.

That is, I wasn’t given either the self-confidence to believe in such a possibility, or, equally as important, the framework for making change in my life once I had a belief or goal.

In our culture, we seem to foster a constant desire to “have/make things change.”  While that’s not entirely bad, it’s not accurate, either.

“Things” never change.  “Things” always are just as they are.  You, you can change.  Your life situation, you can change.  Your actions (most importantly) you can change.

You can take control of what’s within your grasp to control.

The Panacea

If there is a “cultural panacea” it will have something to do with giving people self-confidence, and the tools to turn that confidence into positive action for their lives and well-being.

That being said, a lot of the folks whom we think should change, don’t think they need to change at all.  We talk about creating change a lot – for instance, in the need to decrease obesity in the United States, or increase physical activity.  But the people who are living in an “obese” state, or who are not physically active, often don’t feel the need to change either of those situations.

Do you think you need to change?

My good friend Aaron Schwenzfeier asked me if I had read any books that talked about the information from my last entry – about the continuity of an animal with its habitat.  The rest of this post is my response, with some modifications.

The short answer is no, I haven’t read any single text that shows this continuity.  The closest I could come would be something like Lynn Margulis’ works, or James Lovelock’s and others’ works with the Gaia hypothesis.

In a world where everything needs to be validated by “science,” it’s no sufficient to use common-sense to combine the different principles you’ve learned into a coherent whole.

Please don't drop the ball!!!

Breakdown

The “animal-as-continuous-with-habitat” is an obvious thing, but who’s going to write about it?  What science would you cite? I’m not sure there is much.  There are some studies coming around about the importance of environment with regard to physical activity, even health (for instance, the Framingham study that correlates social group with obesity) but they’re few and far between.  It’s hard to quantify.  And that’s what science wants – quantities.  Qualities are still derided.

The other part, “eat in season, locally,” is the same thing – continuity with environment.  But dieticians can’t quantify that, again.  They can count calories, vitamin content, etc.  They can count other things (OCD), but they can’t count the effect of eating things from other places than your natural geography.

Activity levels waxing and waning with the seasons is as old as life itself.  All animals do this, not just human animals.  The squirrel hides nuts away for the cold winter, builds a large layer of fat to keep itself warm, etc.

Is there a way to measure that, though?

Meow...it's THIS big...

Happiness

Finally, how do you measure happiness?  A few studies have tried, and they create “scientific” versions of happiness – with plenty of “categories” to rate different aspects by.  Is that how happiness is made?  What about the feeling of safety and security that comes from living within your tribe?  How would you measure that.

And even if you could, what would happen?  What if you realize, through the course of your research career, that a feeling of happiness and safety was all that really mattered?  What would you say?  How would you say it?  How would a message like that be taken by your scientific colleagues?  By the general public?

The other thing, and perhaps the biggest impediment to getting real answers about things, about the true “optimal state” of the human animal, is revealed by this question – Why does science measure what it does, and not the other things?  What is guiding science?  Who gains from scientific research?

An ounce of gold, or a pound of lead?

You’re in The Cul-tcha

Culture dictates all.  So, what does our culture value most?  Money.  Our culture is built around the flow of money.  An economic depression is the most terrifying thing imaginable in our society (other than a nuclear holocaust).

I’d go so far to say that much, if not most, of science is guided by money.  You need funding to do science.  So you have to do science in a way that gets that funding.  If you can get funding for a particular research design and not another, you’ll choose the design that gets you the money.

Who is paying that money?  I would hazard a guess, again, that much, if not most of the money being donated to the pursuit of science is being donated by people who want to make more money from that science.

They are pursuing science for the sake of money.  Not for the sake of discovering “truth.”

A few examples of this, taken from the ideas in my post:
The studies done on continuity of animal with habitat are largely from zoo populations – trying to discover how to keep zoo animals alive.  Why would you do that?  What is a zoo for?  What does a zoo tell people who visit it?  How does a zoo treat animals?  I’ll let you answer those questions for yourself.

Studies of diet largely focus on quantity of micro/macronutrients and the physiology of the body.  Almost none involve the fact that that body is not a “physiology” without its habitat and social environment.  There is no isolated “body” to study…it doesn’t exist alone, in a vacuum.  But, further, and again – What is the purpose of dietary research, and to what ends is that research put?  Who gains from dietary research?

Our measurement of chronobiology has largely been to discover how to handle “shift workers,” and make them healthier and more productive.  There is some research on circadian and ultradian clocks, but it isn’t integrated into anything else.  It’s just “science.”  Another problem, I guess, that should be mentioned.  Science for science’s sake is even less effective than science for money’s sake.  It may produce amazing information, but what happens to that information, if it is done in a culture that is separate from the main flow of science?  It sits there.  It doesn’t get used or analyzed, or integrated into the big picture.

Studies of happiness and culture are similarly isolated from other science.  There has bee a trend in the past ten years to combine scientific zones of study, in fields like psychoneuroimmunology, or social ecology, etc.  But they aren’t really making themselves heard that strongly.

My recent post on the Paleo diet raised some great questions and comments from various sources.

I want to say something about diet here.

A “healthy” diet varies by region, by geography. YOU ARE NOT SEPARATE FROM YOUR ENVIRONMENT.

Your physiology is determined to a great degree by your environment. The type of terrain you have to navigate, and how you navigate it. How frequently you have to move through that terrain, similarly, and what types of tasks you need to accomplish in what type of frequency, will also determine your physiology.

The weather in your geography – the barometric pressure in your area, the amount of rainfall every year, of sunlight – will determine how your body looks, feels, and can move.

The types of animals and plants available for consumption in your area represent natural energy that is in synchrony with the seasons your body is in. Eating outside of that synchrony (the old “I live in NYC, but eat strawberries from Brazil) creates metabolic discord in your system.

Yes, human beings need a certain amount of nutrients, but not as much as you’re told, or as you think, or from the sources you’ve been told (or think) that those nutrients are “supposed to” come from.

Before I go much further, consider the wide range of climates and geographies that human beings inhabit. From deserts to ice-packs, from coniferous and deciduous forests to rain forests, from tropics to temperate zones to the arctics.

In each of these places, human animals live just fine. They can, if times are good, live to the same ripe old ages that human animals in any other area live to (given the same good conditions).

It’s not about a specific diet.

Consider This
Instead, I think it’s more important to consider the state of the physiology the diet is going into.

If you are happy, and feel safe and secure, things in your body tend to run smoothly. Homeostasis is achieved and maintained easily. Your body heals faster. Things correct themselves.

If you are unhappy, your body is constantly releasing stress-hormones that break things down. They tear your body up from the inside.

Don’t Worry, Be Happy
In the happy state, the food you ingest, whatever it is, will flow through that smooth-running system. Your body is miraculous in its ability to take what it needs and discard what it does not (as long as you’re moderate in consumption).

In the unhappy state, the food you ingest will not be processed well. Your body won’t be capable of digesting, it will be busy constantly preparing to defend itself. Things won’t go right. You’ll have gastro-intestinal disorders – ulcers, heartburn, acid reflux, poor digestion.

In that unhappy state, it doesn’t matter what you eat.

Not only that, but what does get absorbed will simply be put to use continuing the bad state. That sounds like hell.

Eat What’s In Season, Where You Live, Now
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t advocate eating McDonald’s. And I agree with Michael Pollan, to a point. Not every locale produces the same foodstuffs. Pollan’s dictum, to “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” is not actually how we evolved. Our brains got bigger from eating a lot of protein. Plants don’t have a lot of that. I have a different idea.

Eat as much organic, locally-grown food as possible. Reduce or eliminate processed foods (including breads) from your diet. Whatever is in season, is what is best for you at that point.

Part of the thing we Northern-European humans used to do was to rest more in the winter. It would be cold, it would snow. It wouldn’t be a good time to work. And there wouldn’t be much work to do. We could live off of dried goods for a while, till those ran out. Then we were stuck with whatever we could gather from the land. Pine needle tea. Hardy winter greens. Root vegetables. Animal meat.

It’s not hard to imagine.

What Determines Your Happiness?
Your happiness is directly related to your feeling of safety and support in the world. A community of like-minded individuals, a “tribe” (a word/concept that’s catching on these days).

In the womb of the tribe, you are complete. Your worldview is reinforced and supported. You are cared for. You are able to do your work, and step back, without attachment.

You are able to be happy.

the exuberant animal tribe

Another goodie from the NYT, that’s too good not to comment on: “One Bowl = 2 Servings. F.D.A. May Fix That.”

Finally, it seems, things are starting to make sense.

Or are they?

Unfair Trade, with my GI Tract

Ben & Jerry’s
When I was in college, we’d all get together now and then, have some food, drink a few bottles of wine, and then each polish off our own pint of Ben & Jerry’s.

Didn’t seem like a lot of ice cream, but I knew what was in it. I worked for Fresh Fields (now Whole Foods), and was keen on dietary information.

A pint of Ben & Jerry’s had something around 1300 calories in it. I think there were 30+ grams of fat per serving. And it tasted delicious!

It didn’t bother any of us. I think we were all young and active enough to be able to burn that stuff off. I don’t know. We’ll find out in another fifteen years or so, when one of us keels over.

Wherefore Art Thou, Nutrition?
Until then, I want to ask the same question I always ask – what does this mean?

Seriously, folks. Do food labels lead to any change? The NYT did another piece in October of last year, showing that the posting of caloric value of foods in restaurants’ windows didn’t lead to any change.

So what is the meaning of this? More regulation? More change?

One of the things that we do know about human (or animal) behavior, is that animals are less likely to be concerned when something appears immediately obvious or transparent.

In that same October NYT article, in fact, the people going into the restaurants with posted nutrition values had actually consumed more calories on average than customers had before the posting took place.

I know you want some.

Something to Gain, Something to Lose
Who is gaining from these new rules? Not Americans. Not “the common man.” At least, the common person isn’t gaining anything but extra girth, and a new risk-factor on their health insurance application.

Someone else is gaining something, too. Who is that?

Change is happening, but to what end? And on whose terms?

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

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!!!

Just started the book “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes a couple of days ago.  I’m only on page 100, but it’s already incredibly eye-opening.

I’m not going to go into incredible detail (till I’ve finished reading it).  But suffice it to say that there has been a campaign in this country against the reality of diet for at least 50 years.

I’ll delve into this topic more shortly, too, but there’s been a similar campaign around exercise…

more later

A maddening blog title, I know.

Reminds me of something else.

Pills.  Prescriptions.  Advertisements.  Marketing.  Products.

Science isn’t bad.  I love science.  Science is WONDER.  That is the basis of all science.  Science is playful.  It has to be.

What happens before and after science, though, is something else.

In exercise, a lot of emphasis is placed on counting.  How many repetitions?  How much weight?  How often?  What kind of posture?  To what degree?

For the most part, these measurements are completely meaningless.

Sorry to break it to you.  You’d have the same if not better results if you just focused on how you were feeling while you were doing things.  Granted, you need to exercise some caution when throwing heavy things around.  You need to have a general idea of how your body works (though that can be entirely intuitive, and still be just as effective).  But once you have those things, you can just go for it.

It’s better if you do.

For one thing, you’ll be more likely to stick with it for a while.  You’ll also develop something called “somatic awareness” – an understanding of your body on an intuitive level…something you absolutely cannot develop when another person is constantly telling you what to pay attention to.

In diet, the counting goes to calories.  Equally as meaningless effort.  Follow a basic rule – eat plenty of food that comes out of the ground or eats something that comes out of the ground, in the purest form possible (i.e., organic, grass-fed, non-abused, unpackaged, not overcooked, etc.), and you can throw away your calorie counter.

Do the opposite, and you’ll develop a habit of being obsessive compulsive.  That’s how things work.  You do a behavior often enough, and it becomes habit.  Period.

I think that’s something that happens to cultures.  Part of the reason that cultures disintegrate eventually.  They begin to feed upon themselves, by definition.  They establish rules, and, at first, the rules are followed.  But eventually, the rules have been focused on for so long that they become the hangman’s noose of the culture.

I wrote about this in a different sense in a previous post. I guess it’s just crystallizing a bit more.

Watch out for your noose!!!  If you feel like you’re too obsessed, you probably are.  Our culture wants you to be.  That’s how it sells you things you don’t need.

Good night!