The Geomagnetic Field and Life

After my previous post about the possible loss of connection between human electrical fields and the earth-based field (or “geomagnetic field,” the GMF), I checked out this book:

The Book

The Geomagnetic Field and Life, by Aleksander Dubrov, outlines the myriad ways that the GMF affects terrestrial biology, and gives some suggestions as to how the GMF may have shaped the development of life on this planet to begin with.

Yes, sometimes, it changes direction!


I won’t go into details here. Too many to note. If you’re interested, Dr. Dubrov has actually posted summaries of all of his books online for free, here.

There’s a lot there, a lot to think about…take your time.

Shield us with your force-field, Mother

FitBusters 2 – LSD – “Long Slow Distance” Cardio

Here it is, the second installment in the FitBusters series.

In this episode, Charlie and I discuss common misconceptions about cardiovascular exercise, prevalent in the training community at large today.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zySyo2jQs4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

I suppose the crux is this – the human body is capable of doing ANYTHING IT CAN DO.

And, it will adapt, given that the dose isn’t fatal or toxic, and given sufficient time for recovery, to anything.

Further, and more specifically to this video, a few researchers recently have been spreading the idea around that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus because they ran long distances.

There is nothing wrong with, or physiologically damaging in long, slow, distance cardio.  I recently started doing it myself, wearing the Vibram FiveFinger shoes, in the Marin Headlands (trail running), and will be “competing” in the NorthFace Endurance Challenge in that same area next month.

It’s a 50k (30mile) race, and I’ve never been an endurance runner.  In fact, I just started about two months ago.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that a diverse workout regimen, involving weightlifting, high intensity, low intensity, and play leads to a well-rounded organism that can tolerate new challenges well.

As far as running 20 miles every weekend…start where you are now.  But it’s not such a bad idea to find a trail within driving distance of your home, to get up early on a Saturday morning and get out of town, to get back into nature and walk or lightly jog through it, getting fresh air, beautiful views, and stress-release all at the same time.

I think you should try it.  At least once.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Manthropology – Book Review

Just finished reading the book “Manthropology,” written by Peter McAllister.

According to the introduction, Peter had originally set out to write a book about the wonders of the modern male homo sapiens – or, as he calls us – homo masculinus modernus.

What he found, upon beginning his investigatory work, however, was that the modern man is far from “wonderful” – in any way – when compared with his forebears.

He then goes on to write a chapter each on the broad qualities of Brawn, Bravado, Battle, Balls, Bards, Beauty, Bairns, and Babes – citing crushing evidence of modern man’s insufficiency in each area.

This book is awesome!  I highly recommend it, though you may need to wait till it’s more widely available.  Right now, you can only buy it from the publisher (linked to above) in Australia – so the shipping is as much as the book itself!  However, I think it’s worth it!

You’ll be motivated to improve yourself when you learn that:

  • Any Neandertal woman could have beaten Arnold Schwarzenegger in an armwrestle
  • Injury rates in modern Ultimate Fighting are a fraction of those in ancient Greek pankration
  • Metrosexual icon David Beckham wouldn’t even get an audition for the gerewol, the male beauty parade of the Nigerian Wodaabe
  • Even modern ‘New Age’ dads are put to shame by Aka Pygmy fathers of the Congo rainforest, who sometimes grew breasts to suckle their infants!

Get it!

Mythmaking

After a great conversation with one of the people I play with at the foot-camp today, I have quite a bit to say about control.  I’ll try to make it as cohesive (and brief) as possible.

First, many (if not all) of our beliefs and ideas about control are myths.

The word “myth” means “story.”  Human beings have used stories to relate things to one another, probably as long as we’ve existed as a species.

As a story, a myth is always a subjective storytelling.  It is always perspectival – it is always based on the individual opinion or worldview of the person telling the myth.

The source of our myths, or what we accept as a “valid” mythology, has changed in different eras.  However, there has almost always been an individual, or “type” of individual (an office, of sorts) whose stories we agree to believe unconditionally.

This office is different depending on our culture.  It is culturally dictated.  In some cultures, we only believe the myths our shaman tells us.  In others, we only believe the myths told us by our politicians.  In others, those told to us by warlords.  In others, it is the scientist who has myth-telling authority.  It depends on the culture you make yourself a part of.

You can probably have more than one official myth-teller in your culture, but the more you have, the more confusing things become.  When you are part of a political-myth culture, but you have developed strong religious-myth beliefs, you have to find a religious-politician, or a political-religious leader, whose myths you can believe in.

Also, at times, we create our own myths about ourselves, and listen to no one else – “I am not good enough,” or, “I am better than everyone else,” or, “My nose is too big,” etc.  Those are stories we tell ourselves.

All of the stories we tell ourselves, or choose to believe, serve a purpose.  There may not be a single purpose underlying all myths – but on the other hand, there might.  At least in the sense that all of the myths that we choose to believe, as individuals, define who we are or who we can be as individuals.  Not only that, but they also usually define who we are or who we can be within the culture(s) to which we claim membership.

As I mentioned in my last post, much of the dietary information available today is mythology.  It is storytelling, done, sometimes by scientists, but more often by “pop-culture” writers.  Neither telling is the whole truth.  As I mentioned above, any storyteller can only tell the story as they see it…which usually also means that they tell it as they want it to befor them.

Coming up with solutions to perceived problems usually grants power in most cultures.  One problem might be – “Where do I go when I die?”  The religious storyteller solves this problem with their myth, and they are rewarded accordingly.

Another might be – “Why am I fat?”  Here, the scientists or writer myth-maker tries to solve the problem.  They offer their solution, in expectation of appropriate reward for their effort.

But the story is incomplete.  It is a splinter from the log.  It is the reflection off of a facet of the jewel that is the problem.

In the most recent Exuberant Animal blog post, Frank Forencich cites a report from Robert Sapolsky, noted stress researcher:

“In Scientific American, December 2005, Sapolsky writes:
‘individuals are more likely to activate a stress response and are more at risk for a stress sensitive disease if they…

feel as if they have minimal control

feel as if they have no predictive information

have few outlets for their frustration

interpret the stressor as evidence of worsening circumstances

lack social support’”

Indeed, this is much of what our mythmaking seeks to combat.  It is actually the most important “risk factor” – unhappiness, stress, despair.

All disease is stressful.  Stress, undue stress that we cannot deal with, is a disease state.  For Sapolsky, stress is a primary concern.  It’s what he studies.  It’s his area of myth officialdom.

While all of these perspectives are important, valuable, and enriching, we need to make it a regular habit to step back from our mythologies and look at the gem itself.  Even though we can’t take it in (because, ultimately, it is All That Is), we can move back and play with the interrelationships between the myths we’ve chosen to believe in.

In this sense, taken together, all of the risk factors we hear about – dietary cholesterol, fats, refined or processed (re-pro) products (for instance, re-pro products like high fructose corn syrup, or re-pro products like car exhaust), stress (of any sort that we cannot resolve – emotional, psychological, physical, environmental), lack of movement, excesses and deficiencies of any sort – are equally to blame, and play an equal role in mortality.

The degree to which we can mitigate those risk factors is the degree to which we can live a healthy human life.  That life will go through developmental stages, cycles of growth and degeneration, of vitality and illness.  That process includes birth and death, creation and dissolution.  Depending upon how many of those risk factors that we have to deal with, over what duration and in what quantity, we’ll live, on average, 75-100 years.

This hasn’t really changed that much since the beginning of the human species.  In Ancient Greece, for instance, Aristotle lived to be 62.  He died in 322 BC.  That was 2300 years ago.  Sophocles, the playwright, lived to be 90.  That was in 400 BC.  Plato was about 76 when he died, in 348 BC.  Cicero was 63, in 43 BC.  Most of the “upper class” of Ancient Rome lived to be in their mid sixties or beyond – if they weren’t killed before then (cultural/environmental risk factors).

While the global averages for lifespan have increased in the past two centuries, thanks to the advent of available medicine and hygiene, the human lifespan has remained relatively unchanged.  If we live in an area low in risk factors, we live a good while.  The greater the risk factors, the lower our lifespan.

Most important is this – Understand that you choose the myths you participate and believe in.  Then change the ones that aren’t conducive to your health, happiness and longevity.

Find an environment that’s not just “not-stressful,” but that actually makes you feel exuberant!  Find a culture that supports your exuberance, and take part in it as often as possible.  Understand your myths, and get rid of the ones that are harmful.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Progressing back to barefoot

I recently read Damien’s entry on his blog at AdventureinProgress called “The Case For Minimalist Footwear.”

Damien shares his own personal journey with becoming more barefoot oriented, and the benefits its given him.

I wrote a document after the last Exuberant Animal conference called Progressing Back to Barefoot.  After reading Damien’s article, I figured I’d just put the document on my blog for everyone to read.

Progressing Back to Barefoot

Let me know what you think!  I hope it’s helpful!

Thanks!

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Never Walk Alone

Frank Forencich posted an article from the Mayo Clinic on the Exuberant Animal Blog today.

The article is about walking, and how frequent walking is just as effective (if not more effective) at improving health as “heavy” exercise.  Not only is it just as effective, but there’s also significantly lower risk of injury in walking than in other types of “work out.”

Walking is part of our evolutionary heritage.  Bipedal locomotion (walking on two legs) is one of the things that sets us apart from the other primates, and one of the things that enabled the rapid growth of our brain.  We could do more things while we were moving – hold weapons, carry food, fix tools or clothing, etc.  This increased effeciency definitely helped us to create neural pathways that didn’t exist in our primate brethren, and may have helped us to get the enormous amount of calories needed to fuel that growing brain.

There is one comment I’d like to make about the article, though, that the author misses.  That is, the communal nature of human “exercise” through history.

We never walked alone.

But most gyms are set up in a way that forces people to work alone. All machine-based exercise equipment is made for one person. Sure, people have conversations next to each other on their stationary bikes, but where’s the creative problem solving?  The space for play?  It isn’t there.

For those of you reading this post, or the Mayo Clinic article – find a friend to walk with, and play some games along the way…

The Difference Between Training and Working Out

I was discussing this with my colleague Charlie Reid yesterday, and thought I’d pass it along, because it’s helpful to recognize the difference between training and working out.

In brief, “training” is when you’re preparing for an event of some sort.  “Working out” is exercising to stay in shape.  “Exercise” is the use of something.  You can “exercise” your brain, or your authority, etc.

More thorougly, training involves a long, detailed program aimed at achieving a very specific goal.  It is hard, and not a lot of fun most of the time.  Consider training just for one event all the time.  Every effort, every breath, aimed at one goal.  As a simple example, consider a powerlifter.  You’ll spend a lot of time lifting heavy weight.  You’ll spend a lot of time doing deadlift, bench press, and squat.  It’ll be most of what you do, in one form or another.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.  That’s what training is.

Working out, on the other hand, is just “exercising” to stay in shape, or have some effect on your body.  And there’s nothing wrong with this, either.  I just think that people get confused a lot about the difference between these two types of exercise, and what’s involved in them.

Most people (99%) will benefit fully in every way (weight loss, body composition change – more muscle, increased aerobic capacity, increased strength) by working out.  They don’t need a specific “plan.”  The don’t need “periodization” of their training schedule.  They don’t need to do the same thing all the time.  All they need to do is to go in and do something.

The body does adapt specifically to the demands it’s exposed to, so some planning is in order.  But consider this – how specific do you want to be if your goal is general fitness?  I don’t think you should get too specific.  Keep your training program general.

Part of the source of this confusion is that people think that it’s extraordinary for a person to have “ripped abs,” low bodyfat, or a lean muscular physique, when in fact, that’s every person’s most natural state!

We are all “designed” to be exceptional examples of movement.  We are all capable of moving powerfully through the world.  The myth that someone else is exceptionally fit is a myth held by the unfit.  I think one of the first things you need to do is to realize that this idea is a myth.  It isn’t reality.  In reality, every human being can do what every other can (within the dictates of genetic predispositions, of course).

Don’t sell yourself short.  If you want to get in shape, don’t look for a “training program.”  Go out and start moving.  Run, walk, jog, skip, hopscotch, crawl on all fours, climb trees, do somersaults, handstands, cartwheels…

Trust me.