L.I.F.T.

Among the emotions to play with is Sadness.

Specifically, we can play with the overt expression of sadness – crying.

When I worked at Harvard Pilgrim HealthCare in Boston, MA, my boss and I came up with a crying competition. We would come in to work every morning armed with a new “cry.”

We did the “man” cry. We did the “baby” cry, the “little kid who cries so hard they don’t make any sound” cry, the “silent tear” cry so common in movies.

By the end of the year, I think we had accumulated about 15 unique cries.

We thought it was hilarious, and there it ended. I didn’t think of it again till recently, when posting about playing with smack-talk and/or competitiveness in order to explore affective states and performance.

At my friend Steven Stanfield’s birthday party this past weekend, we resurrected this old game. We must have had over 20 cries by the end of the weekend.

But why, you may ask? What’s the point?

Well, part of the point is to explore your capacity for make-believe.

Part of it is to feel deep within your body the effect that different types of facial expression, breathing, and emoting have on you.

Part of it may be to experience the somatic-psychic connection…that is, how bodily behavior can trigger psychological states or memories. Trying your different cries, do memories pop up unexpectedly? They likely will, since there’s no separation between your body and mind.

So, there it is…the suggestion. Play with crying. You’ll notice when you do that different types of crying (with their accompanying breathing patterns) elicit different feelings in the body.

The distinction between process and thing was emphasized to me recently, and ever since, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. And, as often happens in my experience, other sources of knowledge repeat the lesson frequently.

What is a “process?” First, “process” is a word. It is a word we use to describe the, usually predictable or repeated, movement of something through stages (its development). Process usually connotes change, ongoing development, and dynamism.

What is a “thing?” Again, “thing,” firstly, is a word, a concept. A “thing” is an identified, isolated object. It is static. While it can change over time, a “thing” is typically seen as relatively constant. And, even if the thing itself is not seen as constant, the concept is constant in our mind.

Why do I point out that those are both words/concepts? Because words/concepts are different from “reality.” Words/concepts are tools we have developed over time, and that use to describe or get a handle on reality.

It’s important to remember that our words are tools. If and/or when we forget that, we stop considering whether or not our words make any sense – in relation to what we’re trying to describe, either to the other person, or to ourselves.

That said, what really is a “thing?”

THANGS
I ask the question, because I’m interested in what is really “static” or “unchanging” in reality. There’s nothing I’ve been able to find. Everything changes. As Heraclitus said – “everything flows”

The only real “thing” it seems, is the concept of “thing” itself. The ability to isolate elements from processes in order to be able to manipulate them.

For instance, in order to use a tree branch as a tool, we first have to separate the branch from the tree in our minds. We have to “thing” it.

Luckily, trees, or nature generally, helps with this “thinging” process. When a branch breaks off, we get to see that. Suddenly, we differentiate between “pieces” of the tree…there’s the “roots,” the “trunk,” the “branches,” and the “leaves.” Science has differentiated smaller and smaller elements.

This process is sometimes called “reification” (the making-concrete of something) or “nominalization” (making a verb (process/action) into a noun (thing)).

This is part of what Western science does, by the way. The specialty of science is to “thing” processes into smaller and smaller, and more and more discrete pieces. Recently, science has begun to embrace “systems thinking,” which takes the pieces identified by science, and attempts to recognize the interrelationships between those pieces.

However, this approach is a little flawed, since you’re already approaching the process from the perspective of the “pieces” you’ve identified. You’re already going from a thing-to-process approach, instead of from a process-to-process approach.

Be that as it may, let’s delve into some “things” we encounter in daily life that are actually processes, and some of the ramifications of treating them in that way.

Being and Becoming
The “process philosophy” folks started to try to describe this back in the early 1900’s, but unfortunately, came at it from a Western perspective…they couldn’t play with it too much, and eventually, most of them end up getting locked up in weird word-play, instead of creating anything meaningful or useful.

Anyway, one of the main distinctions they made was between “being” and “becoming.” Usually, “being” refers to an imagined static state, a “thing.” “Becoming,” on the other hand, refers to the process of continually coming-into-being. Heidegger I think does a good, poetic job of describing this idea in a mindbending way in his book “The Question Concerning Technology.”

Happy and Happiness
I believe I’ve mentioned this in previous posts, but happy, or the act of feeling good, is a state of “being.” That is, it’s a single instance in a longer process. We’re never “happy” forever.

However, we lay claims to the “pursuit of happiness” as an ideal. But what is “happiness?” Happiness is the extended state of being happy.

Is that a realistic expectation? As part of a process of feeling/living, doesn’t the feeling of being happy come and go? Is it realistic to want to be happy all the time? If that were to happen, how would we know the difference?

The pursuit of happiness, it seems, is unrealistic…

Success and Failure
When we achieve a goal (which takes a process of learning/doing), we call it success. When we don’t achieve that goal, we call it failure.

However, success usually requires multiple “failures.” This dichotomy is unreal. The process of attempting is the process of alternately succeeding and failing.

What matters most in that process is where we focus our attention. If focused on the task, success and failure are important to us. They provide us with lessons about how what we’re doing is leading us closer to our desired goal or further from it.

If we are not focused on the task, success and failure are relatively meaningless. We aren’t looking for lessons. We aren’t trying to get closer to the goal. We’re just going through the motions.

But we can also focus either on success or failure. If we succeed, we may feel good about ourselves, or linger on that success. If we linger too long, we stop trying, we lose momentum, we’re out of process. If we fail, we may feel bad about ourselves, lose momentum, and fall out of process.

If we see the act as process, though, success and failure each have their turns, and each have lessons to offer us. Those perceptions become tools again, that we can use to help to guide our actions.

What is this thing called? Love?
Another place we can see “thing-speak” or nominalization is in the concept of “love.” I’ve written about love before, recently, talking about the process of observing another person’s development without interference…with passion, but without a cherished outcome.

Love, too, I believe, has been nominalized in our culture/language. We talk about being “in love.” Or “loving” something. But usually, it represents a static state – a certain chemical cocktail – attraction – that we name “love.”

When that happens, we aren’t able to know “where our love went” when that cocktail wears off. In the hangover, we wonder, “what happened?!” We were “in love,” and then “out of love.”

Again, I’d suggest that love is something much deeper and broader than the chemical flood called “attraction.” It is something that also encompasses a certain detachment, admiration from afar, pleasure in watching the unfolding, and also – discipline, self-control, vigilance.

In Relationship, or In a Relationship
The distinction was made to me recently between being in relationship, or being in a relationship.

If we are in relationship, we are in process. We recognize the dynamic as unfolding and developing, as demanding attention, awareness, discipline, care.

If, on the other hand, we are in a relationship, we are in a static thing. We’ve already killed the dynamic before it’s even had a chance to begin.

Exercise
Fine, Josh, but, again, what does this have to do with exercise?

Well, the first example that comes to mind is the concept of “being in shape.” “Being in shape” is actually the ongoing process of “doing in-shape.” If someone is “in shape” and stops there, they rapidly will fall “out of shape.”

Similarly, we refer often to static, controlled exercises. As I’ve said before, while this type of control may be necessary in times of rehabilitation, or intense concentration, it must reflect the process of rehabilitation, or it’s worse than useless.

For instance, when I had my first ACL surgery, the PT’s put me on the leg extension/curl machine afterward. While that is fine, it’s far from enough.

ACL tears frequently mean that the person’s motor-program is faulty…is leading them into dangerous uses of their limbs. Simply doing exercise to strengthen the muscle on either side of the joint may stabilize it, but does nothing to prevent future injuries.

The Gardener
Living in process is like gardening (flowers or food). You go through process with the plants. You try to offer only as much as they need to thrive. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diligence – both to provide for the plants, and to keep yourself from going too far.

And the rest is out of your hands.

Here’s a great way to experience what I like to call “physiology tracking.”

The next time you go visit friends, and have some good times for a while, pay attention to your physiology. There is a chemical composition of “happiness” or “joy” happening inside you during that time.

But the time you might notice the effect the most is afterward, when you go through chemical withdrawal.

Some people will call this “sadness” or “feeling blue,” and it is…but it is also “happiness withdrawal.”

The symptoms will be the same as any kind of withdrawal. What will you feel? A lack, as if something is missing. Maybe you’ll notice how much/little of that feeling you had before. That, at least, can help to determine in part how powerful the withdrawal might be – a marker of how much you’ll crave that feeling.

You might notice, upon reflection, that the feeling of withdrawal means that you aren’t feeling that enough in your life…happiness. You might need to figure that out.

If that is the case, the withdrawal feeling points to something we’ve excluded from our lives. Why has it been blocked out?

In that way, withdrawal can help to point us in the direction we want to go (or don’t want to go!). It can serve as a homing beacon (come closer).

Perhaps a lighthouse is a better analogy…it signals both potential safety and potential danger – the shoreline is here, you are safe!… or…the shorelines is here, watch out! dangerous rocks!

In either case, this is the place where you can sublimate your withdrawal into wisdom and action.

The “internal alchemy” here is to follow the feeling of loss or lack…to stick with it, and to track it well. Find what it points to within you, and meet it face to face.

Most “indigenous” cultures have methods for doing this that often involve dancing, singing, playing, (and sometimes, drugs) that allow the tracker to pursue more deeply, free from inhibition.

I think you’ll get plenty deep without the drugs, so try it that way first…but it’s almost always fruitful at some point to take your feeling out into motion in the world. Run, feel your breathing, and use your feeling of withdrawal as your mantra, your training device/guide. Keep it right in front of you. Let it tell you where to go, how far/fast, how many repetitions, and keep pursuing it more and more deeply…listen…listen…

Good luck.

I’ve put up some videos on YouTube about using a piece of rope to exercise with.

Please steal my ideas, and come up with your own!

I’ll produce more ideas about using “common” items to play with in your exercise programs in the near future…

ROPE 1 – ROPE! configurations

ROPE 2 – Partner ROPE!

ROPE 3 – Handle ROPE!

I want to start here by talking about the social conformity experiments of Asch and Milgram back in the 1960’s.

Asch had people seated in a room, with a leader at the front. Six of the seven people sitting down were in on the experiment (“confederates”). Only one of them, number 7, was the “experimental variable.” There were cards with lines drawn on them, and the people were asked to identify the relative lengths of the lines.

When the subject was allowed to make his/her own decisions about the length of the lines, they were 99% accurate. When the other people (the confederates) were allowed to answer about the lengths of the lines first (incorrectly…as in, “A is shorter than B,” when it is not), the subject would conform to their answer 35% of the time.

In Milgram’s experiment, someone in a position of authority (a confederate) dressed in a lab coat, instructed the subject to ask questions to an unseen person in the room next door via a microphone/speaker system. Also, the subject was to administer electric shocks to that person if they gave incorrect answers.

The subjects would deliver “450 volt shocks” (there were no actual shocks administered, the screams and pleading of the person in the room next door were acted) 65% of the time.

Milgram said that part of the results were due to the conformity effect Asch noticed. But also, that part of it was due to “the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow.”

One of his later experiments combined conformity and obedience, and noticed significantly greater compliance in the subject.

Putting Your Best Foot Forward with Chuck Wolf
On Saturday, I attended a conference put on by the WAC Academy and the University of San Francisco, featuring Chuck Wolf, on the topic of “how the muscles and actions of the foot affect the hip, gluteal complex, and spine. By changing body angles, utilizing reaches, understanding how the foot functions, and applying the concepts from the Flexibility Highways, the fitness professional will come away with methods to enhance traditional exercises into a truly three dimensional chain reaction movement.”

Chuck was a really nice guy, and has a long history in post-rehab athletic conditioning. He walked around and said hello to everyone before the conference started, introducing himself and getting to know folks.

But…those shoes…
You know how they say that women often look at a man’s shoes to learn more about him? I do that too…for everyone. When I looked at Chuck’s, I was shocked. He had large, Adidas, what looked like motion-control sneakers on. What Mick Dodge would call “flower pots,” and Tom Brown would call “foot-coffins.”

I began to wonder what Chuck was going to tell us about the foot and ankle.

Been There, Done That
I’ve been in this industry long enough, and been to enough of these seminars, to know not to expect too much. Most of the time, the information you get is rehashed, recycled stuff from the PT world. Chuck, as it happens, works in a PT clinic in Orlando. He hangs with those guys. That’s his social crowd…uh…social conformity…hint…hint…

Starting out, he talked about the structure of the foot. The bony structure. We didn’t get into musculature, except for the gross musculature of the shin – gastroc/soleus, anterior tibialis.

Chuck actually said that “the control of the ankle comes from the shin.” While I agree with him to a point, I strongly disagree with him in every other way.

There are something like 25 muscles in the foot, and three layers of musculature within the foot itself. The bottom of the foot is laced with muscles. So, if you want to talk about things “from the ground up,” you need to start there. On the bottom of the foot.

Knee-Jerk Reaction
I’ll admit that I quickly tuned out. The other trainers there were doing some sort of social-conformity thing. They were very interested in speaking in PT lingo – “pronate, supinate, evert, invert, abduct, adduct.”

These last two, by the way, are apparently defined in certain circles, opposite to the normal understanding – that is, by judging whether a limb or body part is ab/adducting by the motion of the distal portion (furthest from the trunk of the body) of the limb to the proximal portion. I learned that abduction is when you move the limb or body part away from the midline, and adduction the opposite. And I’m not clear on the reasoning for the new definition. If you can enlighten me, please do!

Anyway, they wanted to “dig deep,” but only into what he was presenting. Not into the topic itself. Which I guess is fair. I guess.

Chuck said that flat footed people have a greater incidence of ACL tear. That may be, but why is that the case? He didn’t say. Actually, a few studies (here’s one) have shown that people with flat feet have lower risk of ankle injury than those with high arches.

Yes, I know the ACL is in the knee, not the ankle. So you’re saying the strain isn’t transferred to the ankle, but instead, goes up the chain to the knee. I guess I can understand that, to a point. But usually, soft tissues change structure to match kinetic patterns. So the argument that a person with flat feet automatically has pre-stressed ACL’s is suspect to me. If they had flat feet their whole life, wouldn’t the ACL conform?

Is it flat feet that cause ACL tears, or is it poor motor patterns?

Haile Gebrselassie hasn’t had any problem being one of the world’s greatest long-distance runners for years in spite of gross over-pronation:

The point of this section, though, is what gets missed when you skip over the bottom of the foot, and move straight to the calf and ankle.

Or, also, what gets missed when you skip over the most basic reflex patterns that stem from the stimulation of the bottom of the (bare) foot? See this paper for ideas about that.

Where’s My Cookie?
Look, I can see the multitude of perspectives there are on the human body. I can smell them and taste them too. I’ve touched those perspectives with my own hands. Trust me.

I have two problems with what happened to me on Saturday:
1. The body is not that complicated.

2. The way of addressing it in these complicated (and contradictory) terms, only causes confusion and dismay. And,

3. People seem to have turned off their brains…they’re just following anyone who stands up and says “follow me.”

I’ll explain the way I look at the body in another post…so STAY TUNED!!!

Sorry for the rant…hahaha…

I recently had the pleasure of hosting Barefoot Ted here in SF.

While we didn’t get to discuss this topic while he was here, I’ve been thinking about it since, and figured I’d share these thoughts, and see what everyone out in the web-world thinks…

I ordered some leather huaraches from Ted’s site, and was pondering my choice of leather over the Vibram rubber soles that he offers, and that I think he (and many others) prefer to the leather.

I was thinking more about the leather/rubber debate, and started to think about these things:
leather is a natural material, and is not much of an insulator…especially compared to
rubber, which is a powerful insulator.
(I’ll refrain from the “production” debate for these materials here)
our blood contains hemoglobin, which has at its center an atom of iron (in the heme)
iron responds to electromagnetic charges.
the earth is a giant electromagnet (its core is partly iron)
when we stand on the earth, we receive that electromagnetic flow through our blood (iron).

further…
“polarity therapy” in massage says that one side of the body is positively charged, and the other negatively charged
if that’s the case, when we move on two (bare) feet, we alternately contact the electromagnetic field of the earth with our oppositely-charged sides, creating a current through our body
when we run, that current is even more divided (a true “alternating current”), since we completely separate contact with one side for a period in a running-gait.

further still…
bone forms along lines of stress
that’s because bone is piezoelectric
that is, the lines of stress cause an electric charge to flow through bone
that electric flow is what directs the osteoblasts to break down the bone in places, and the osteoclasts to build in other places.

and…
though the “proof” is controversial, man-made electromagnetic fields are known to disturb natural bodily functions, for instance
high-tension power lines may be related to an increased risk in cancer
microwave ovens can have effects on people
the electrical impulse through natural stone walls has been linked by some to the presence of “ghosts” (as electromagnetic hallucinations)
etc.

final questions:
what happens when we insulate our bodies from the earth’s electromagnetic field
what happens when we don’t…

I was in the Administration building on campus at SF State today, going up to turn in my protocol packet for my final research, and got locked in the stairwell.

I’m a stair guy most of the time. I like taking the stairs. The protocol office is up on the fourth floor, which seemed like a nice walk to me.

And it turned out to be a nice walk, up and down. And a nice stand in the elevator afterward.

Given that there is an “obesity epidemic” in this country, and that it is directly connected to people’s (low) levels of physical activity, and that the best type of physical activity seems to be those done as “activities of daily living,” it seems odd that we’d lock off stairwells.

It’s very discouraging to people who might want to try taking the stairs instead of the elevator. It sends a message – Thou shalt not…

So why the locked stairwells people?

What’s the difference?

“Physical activity” is anything you do with your body. It’s a very vague, broad term.

“Exercise” is more specific. Here let’s define it as the use of the body for a specific result. But let’s be even more specific, let’s talk about “working out.”

“Working out” is exercise to achieve greater strength or endurance, some health benefit, or aesthetic qualities.

We Indigenes
Indigenous means you’re born of a certain area. Literally “produced” (gen) “within” (in-).

Normally we think of “indians” with this term…or “aborigines” (a similar type of meaning to this word – “from” (ab), “the beginning” (origine, origin)).

While I’ll use the typically understood meaning of those words in this post, I think it’s worth pointing out that we all are “indigenous” to our habitat, whatever that may be at the moment. We are continually produced within and crafted by the environment (in every sense of the word – buildings, nature, people, weather) that we are within.

We also all are “aboriginal” – coming from our own origin. You can track your heritage back all the way to the “origin” if you have the time and gumption.

Source of the Physically Active
If you read my previous post, you know that I disagree with a lot of the arguments made these days in attempts to explain overweight/obesity, lack of physical activity, and associated diseases.

In sum – I think the built/man-made environment has very little real effect on what physical activities people choose to participate in, but that participation in physical activities and use of ones environment is largely a matter of imagination supported by a like-minded community – and examples of this can be found in many places today or throughout history. I think that agriculture is not the downfall of mankind, and that there are many examples of extremely healthy populations that practice agriculture. I think that over-abundance of cheap calories is not the cause of obesity or overweight, but that over-indulgence is.

Most importantly, I think that most of these arguments involve the removal (or subjugation) of self-responsibility from the individual and their free choice to engage or not engage in whatever they choose. Discussions supporting the built environment approach imply that people have no free will to engage in whatever they want, but are determined to behave in certain ways by their surroundings. Parkour would be a counter to this idea. Discussions of agriculture imply that people cannot choose what to plant in what manner. Masanobu Fukuoka would be a counterpoint. Discussions of over-abundant, cheap, and “empty” calories say that a person cannot choose to eat other things. Granted, this one is trickier, as some areas literally have no alternatives within easy grasp. But there still are alternatives – get out of those areas.

Any system, as I’ve mentioned before, is self-sustaining, by definition. Every system must seek to maintain, sustain, and maybe even to further, itself, in order to continue to survive in the presence of/cooperation/competition with other systems. Society is no different. The discussions mentioned above are part of society, so they reflect the values of that society. Mine is as well, so take it with a grain of salt.

How, Kemosabe
So what is it then, Josh? What’s the difference between working out and physical activity, and how does it relate to health?

Indigenous cultures are “physically active” throughout the day/week/month. Usually, in small discrete increments, but sometimes for extended periods of time at a stretch. Usually at relatively low intensities, but sometimes at very high intensities. And almost never at very high intensities for extended periods of time.

Indigenous cultures (except for ours here in the US) largely don’t “work out” to get their physical activity. Even in many places in Europe today the concept of going to a gym and working out is still seen as a secondary and inferior mode of exercise.

Rather, physical activity in indigenous cultures (and in many places in “civilized” Europe) comes from and in daily living. They walk to work. They walk to the store. They push or pull or carry their food, instead of driving it in a car. They may have to do physical activity to get their food. Their days have physical activity “built-in.”

I don’t want you to think that this is true only of “indians” and “aborigines” (as we typically think of those terms). I mentioned that there are places in “civilized” Europe where physical activity comes as part of daily living.

There are also a few agricultural communities that still behave this way, nestled within our own (US) culture.

An example of this is found in this paper: Physical Activity of Canadian and American Children: A Focus on Youth in Amish, Mennonite, and Modern Cultures, by David R. Bassett, Jr.

From the abstract:
“Amish and Mennonite children have higher levels of physical activity than modern-living children, despite less participation in competitive sports. As a result, Amish and Mennonite children tend to be leaner than their counterparts in contemporary society.”

If you can get your hands on it, you should read this paper. It’s very interesting. It says something that seems terribly obvious when you read it – that people who do physical work as part of their daily lives are leaner than those who do not.

But if you look deeper, you’ll see that the “agriculture” argument breaks down here as well. Amish and Mennonite groups participate in agriculture. It doesn’t make them fat or stupid.

They also have an abundance of available calories most of the time. But that doesn’t make them fat either.

They construct a built-environment very similar to any you or I might live in. There are buildings with rooms. But they don’t just sit in those rooms all day.

Opposite-Land
Where “traditional” human activity is intermittent, as I stated above (btw, this paper is a fantastic overview of “intermittent” exercise in the animal world), physical activity in our US culture has become limited to “workouts” – half-hour or hour-long blocks of relatively continuous, relatively intense exercise.

Problems of overtraining and burnout in physical activity arise because our exercise has no tempo, other than a factory-based one, a vestige of the early-industrial foundations of our “work culture.” That is, “work” in the United States is based mostly on ideas of labor that came about during the industrial revolution – still. Things like “shift work,” where the employee works a certain shift every day, set daily/weekly schedules, set meeting times every week, etc. – the artificial, machine-based (i.e., machine-rhythm) division of time into measurable increments, with the aim of “maximum production” – where the ability to produce never fades, never waxes and wanes, but is always set at the maximum.

This is even more apparent in the term we use to describe exercise – it’s a “work out.”

This industrial idea of work has little to do with what happens in “natural” living, where work, though it is intense, and regular, happens in waves of exertion and rest, happens with a rhythm that matches the ability of the body to produce energy, and in rhythm with the seasons, the weather, and the habitat.

Our ideas about what constitutes “exercise” have been shaped by this. Just go into any gym and look at all of the machines in there. To use a machine, you must become one. Using one, you are used by it.

The Big But
But, Josh, you might say, we don’t live in a culture where physical activity is demanded of us in our work, throughout the day. So we have to go to the gym to exercise. We have to “work out.”

Here’s where that old argument comes in again – that we are without option. That we have no free will. No choice. We “must” because “that’s how things are.”

I disagree.

In fact, I have to thank one of my clients for proving this point to me. He is a very successful corporate executive. He travels about two weeks out of every month. He’s in fantastic physical shape.

Yes, he does go to the gym to work out, but he also has a stability ball at his desk, that he sits on intermittently throughout the day instead of sitting on his office chair. When he is using the ball, he’ll do crunches, and other exercises whenever he feels like it. He’ll get some intermittent physical activity.

A more extreme version of getting intermittent physical activity in our daily lives, one that I really highly respect, and think that we all could take a cue from, is Herschel Walker.

When he was a boy, according to one article I read, he would do pushups and situps while watching TV and studying (which usually were happening at the same time).

Can you do that as well?

If you feel resistance to doing pushups and situps during commercial breaks while you’re watching TV, why is that? Let’s do some physiology tracking – Where does that resistance come from within you (I mean, physically – your gut, your heart, your mind, your limbs – where do you feel the “pressure”?) and where does it come from outside of you (peer pressure?)?

Why can’t we do pushups and situps at work? Or walk or run up and down the stairs a couple of times? Why can’t we get up from our desks to take walks around the office park whenever we’re feeling stagnant or burnt out?

Physical activity for us, has become a choice, not a necessity. We choose not to.

The answer to the question above is – we can, but we don’t. We choose not to.

Why don’t we? Why don’t you?

The British Ecological Society’s blog posted about a recent research article titled “What Is The Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise For Improving Mental Health?”

The article is a meta-analysis (that is, it synthesizes research from many previous research studies about the topic), and sums up its results with the following statement:

“This study confirms that the environment provides an important health service.”

And I have only two questions…

1. REALLY?!!! and,

2. AND?!!!

First, this information is anything but new.  Anyone who has every gone hiking, who has ever taken a vacation in the mountains, or in the woods, or who has ever played in a creek behind their house, knows firsthand the difference between “exercising” (moving) outdoors in a natural environment versus doing the same or similar activity indoors or in a “built” (human-made) environment.

I’m talking here, not only your own first-hand experience, but also about the incredible amount of scientific research that shows the benefits of moving in a natural environment.  The paper quoted above used a lot of that research to make its own (redundant) point!

I’ve pointed out at least one piece of this literature in previous posts (here, here, and here).  So…it’s not even new to this blog!!!

However, even with that knowledge, and even with the rapidly mounting evidence, and my (and others’) incessant blog postings on the subject, it continues to be an “issue.”  That is, people continue to choose Wii, and to choose justifying their Wii time, to actually going out into the woods and taking a hike.

I want to say one thing before I finish this post up with a final point, and that is this -People seem to have a tendency to feel better once they talk about something.  That is, they feel little compulsion to do anything about a problem once it’s been aired, once it’s out in the open.  In fact, on a few occasions I’ve seen this behavior up close and in person.  Let me give one example:

There was a family that I spent a lot of time with.  Everyone was overweight in that family, and they were aware of it.  In fact, they would almost always say things like “We’re all fat in this family.”  Or “We need to lose weight.”  Or “We need to throw out all of that junk food in the pantry, and just have a bowl of fruit out for snacks.”

One time, I actually offered to help with the clearing of the pantry.  I said “Ok, that’s a good idea!  Let’s do that now!”  Well, the younger children of the household weren’t home, and the adults decided that it would be too traumatic to just throw everything out all of a sudden.  So we didn’t clear out the pantry.

There is a reason we are not connecting to nature.  That we are not making this connection.  That we don’t go out into the woods and take a hike.  There is a reason you don’t do it.  What is that reason?

My final point is this – The above question seems a good question for science to ask.  Why isn’t science asking that question?

Here’s my answer(s) to that question:

1. It’s not the job of science to do anything about it.  It’s the job of science to ask questions and get answers.  But science is not a field of activisim. It is a field of questioning and answering.  That’s all.  Expecting action based on gathered knowledge is a bad habit (one which I’m trying to get rid of).

2. Science doesn’t want to ask a question that invalidates itself.  I think part of the answer, of why we are not connecting to nature, in spite of overwhelming evidence that we should, has to do with the fact that our culture is largely based in a scientific approach to things.  That is, nature and science (at least, the way we’re accustomed to doing science) are largely contradictory.  So, science might find its own relativism, and find its own value being questioned, were it to ask “Why aren’t we connecting to nature.”

A couple of possible answers…what do you think?!

In the most recent Exuberant Animal blog post, head of EA, Frank Forencich, offers us a compelling question to ponder:

Is “exercise” part of the problem?

Frank says it is.

Exercise, he says, involves sets, reps, forced movements in unnatural or limited planes of motion, etc.

I think he’s right.

The “Workout” Dilemma

For many of us, even the term “workout” fades into the single word “work.”  It doesn’t sound like fun.  What’s supposed to be enjoyable about it?  Especially after you’ve already been working all week anyway?!  Who wants more work?!

A Rose by Any Other Name

It’s important to remember where gyms came from.  Original “gymnasiums” in Ancient Greece (the ones the European gymnasiums were modeled after, which are the gyms that ours were modeled after) consisted of an open sandy pit outside, and maybe a large, empty room, with some different apprati and weights to throw around.  But mostly, you’d just throw yourself (or maybe another person) around.

In the process, you’d learn some things.  Like how to deal with your own body.  Or how to deal with disorientation (tumbling).  Or how to deal with another person’s body (wrestling, boxing), or an external body of other sorts (shot put, weight, discus, javelin).

In the earlier part of the 20th Century, most American gyms still looked this way.  They were mostly empty space, with some weights around the perimeter, and maybe some uneven bars and gymnastic rings.  Maybe the gym would be totally outdoors.  Or at least have some outdoor space to play around in.

Your “workout” would consist of a combination of strength-skill movements.  Things that weren’t as simple as “just pick that up.”  You’d have to think a little bit about what you were about to do.

You might even have done some gymnastic-type things in there.

Further, there would be a community of like-minded folks in there watching you, coaching you, helping one another out, and competing with each other.  It wouldn’t be a line of hamsters on their wheels…excuse me, treadmills…

Oh The 80’s

In the 1980’s, the bodybuilding phenomenon really took off.  Large chain gyms like Gold’s, Bally’s, etc., took advantage of, and fueled the craze.

Group exercise classes became modeled after school classes – One Teacher, Many Students.

People grew competition-crazed.

Muscles bulged and glistened.

And the nation continued to get fatter.

The True Cost of Fitness

And in the melee, we all were swept up.

But what was it all about, in the end?  “Fitness?”  Fitness to do what?  For what  purpose?  To be able to do our jobs better?  No, most likely not.  To contribute to our communities?  No.  To hunt more effectively, or do something better?

No, just fitness.  To be fit.

Many of the aspects of our lives have turned into this in the past twenty years – to do something, simply to do it.

No value other than the doing of it.  Which is fine, but weird.

Those massive gyms, with all of their equipment, and the fees people pay to belong to those gyms…what is that about?

It isn’t about fitness.

What is your goal?  Why do you do it?  And wouldn’t you want it to be enjoyable?

Exercise, Fitness, and Movement

Frank insists that what people need is more movement.  I agree with him 100%.  But I also see that people must be coerced to move.  Calling it one thing or another doesn’t mean much.  Changing the way it looks, its external appearance, attracts attention.

All animals are attracted by the new, the novel.  They require what is familiar, but they are attracted to what is different.

So while I agree, that people need to move more, and that “exercise” may inhibit them, I think the means to get ourselves moving will come from different sources than from symantics.

We need more toys.

Toys That Change Worlds

Toys That Change Worlds is the subheader of one of my all-time favorite blogs (linked to the first few words in this sentence).  It’s not for everyone.  It’s very philosophical…just warning you.

But the point of that blog is that it’s possible to change your perception of reality, to change yourself, deeply and meaningfully, by playing with a new toy.

That’s why I’m not against things like Wii Fit, or the vibrating health saddle, kettlebells, bodyblades, or anything else.

In fact, I wish there were more of them!  And I wish that more groups of people would get together on a regular basis to play with all of those great toys.

Imagine if you had a block party, where everyone went around the block, into everyone’s house, and had to use the workout toys in that house for at least 5 minutes.  Then you all rotated.  Heck, what if you raced from house to house?

Sounds like fun!

And I think there’d be a lot of exercise equipment that would get dusted off, and have the hanging clothes taken off it.

Real Strength

In the end, true strength is total-person strength.  It is strength of will, strength of character, strength of judgment, strength of muscles, lungs, heart, mind, connections.  Real strength knows no bounds.  It spills over and out of the individual, into everything they do and touch.  It extends beyond them, into their friends, family and community.

Real strength also accepts no limits.  It seeks constantly to improve itself, to become more, to become stronger still.

Real strength is flexible.  It does not break, it bends, and then springs back into place.  It flows like water, wearing away even the hardest material over time.

To be truly strong, you must cultivate yourself.  You must accept who you are.  You must come to learn and embrace your greatest gift to humanity, and act to express that gift in every word, thought, and deed.

You must “workout.”  You must “exercise.”  You must “play.”  You must “stretch.”  You must do it all, and do it from the core of your being, for all you are worth, every day, tirelessly, until your time has run its course.

That is real strength.