L.I.F.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?

First, I want to preface this post by saying that I am currently in the master’s degree program in kinesiology at San Francisco State University, with a concentration in “physical activity: social-scientific perspectives.”

I also want to point out that, even being a student, I’ve only been a student of this particular topic since I started the program. My undergraduate degree is in Classical Greek and Roman History. I’ve studied “sociology” very generally. Most of my learning is just beginning. So this blog is a question, not a statement. If it sounds like a statement, it’s because I’m bad at making discussions…I’m working on it! As a question, as a discussion, I’m asking you please to contribute your thoughts and ideas to this post.

My questions were originally these – what is “culture,” and how does it affect participation in physical activity…and, can we effect/affect it (either culture or physical activity)?

“Culture” could be loosely defined as the behaviors and beliefs of a certain group of people, as evidenced through shared values. Or, as shared values of a certain group of people, as evidenced through their behaviors and beliefs.

“Culture” is different from “society.” “Society” is the set of relationships between people, within a group of people. Things like social standing, class, etc., are what constitute “society.”

If we accept those definitions, we have also to accept that the study of social science is not the study of culture. They’re different. Most studies of culture fall under the banner of “cultural anthropology.”

In the learning and reading I’ve done so far with regard to physical activity, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the social-science aspect of this equation – the emphasis is on the relationships between people within the group, and how those dynamics foster or prevent physical activity. For instance, why certain socioeconomic classes, or certain ethnic groups, participate more or less in physical activity than others.

The Built Environment
Things like the “built environment” (the man-made environment) also come into play in social-scientific studies. Largely, I think, because the built environment can be very clearly related to social constructs like economic status, or class. A great number of researchers specialize in the concept of the built environment, and its effect on physical activity.

But I think that something lies much deeper than the built (or any) environment.

Now, I don’t have a lot of research to back me up on this. I’ll work on finding that. But it seems to me that people find a way to participate in physical activity (or not) regardless of their environment.

In Dan Everett’s book “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes,” he mentions the physical activity levels of the Piraha tribes as being relatively low, but says that they’re the strongest people he’s ever met. Dr. Everett describes an incident in which one Piraha man takes his bundle of wood (to be used to build a new hut) in addition to the one he is already carrying…each bundle weighing roughly 50-80 pounds (if memory serves…I don’t have the book handy).

I’ve read many accounts of indigenous peoples’ physical activity levels being relatively low (“working” 4 hours a day, perhaps, – and at that, not every day – and resting the rest). Granted, their “work” is entirely physical, but it seems like something else is happening here.

In those cultures, the natural environment provides a place for physical activity. But activity levels can be similar in Amish societies, that do not rely on “modern” technology. The Amish environment is significantly different, however. Does the “built environment” matter?

I feel like the “built environment” approach to increasing physical activity is really an approach coming from a “social control” viewpoint. It seems to me to posit that free-will does not exist. That people will make choices based on what they see around them, rather than what they feel inside of them.

The playground for little kids, where all of the moms go in the morning when I’m hosting play-camp in the enormous open (baseball) field (and trees) right next to it, is one example of this.

This playground (and maybe, any playground) is a means of controlling some perceived or implied risk. Mothers get very upset when the children unlatch the gate and run outside of the playground, into the open field.

While the playground has provided a place for socialization for the children and mothers, and does make it “easier” to “watch” the kids (not sure how much watching actually goes on), it is precisely this that I have issue with. The idea is not that the children can’t get exercise in the large open field, playing freely (and probably supervised just as much, or a little less…which might be beneficial anyway). The idea of the playground is that there is some risk in being in the open. Perhaps.

The final example I’d like to give of why I think built environment methods of changing physical activity participation are misguided is that of physical activity taking place in areas where the environment is actually hostile to physical activity.

In one instance of this, I can remember playing ball often in parking lots or streets. And have seen countless pictures of children in Manhattan playing stick-ball in narrow streets or alleys.

In my day, the kids who would go on to create or inspire the creation of the X-Games would go skate and ride bikes in shopping malls and parking lots. Places typically not considered conducive to physical activity.

An even more modern example of this is found in Parkour runners, who specifically look for environments hostile to physical activity in which to “trace” – to create an art through their running, jumping, and tumbling.

The Role of Technology
I think another social-scientific perspective, that merges with a cultural perspective, has to do with the role of technology in limiting (or encouraging) physical activity.

I have to admit that I take issue with the modern use of the word “technology.” A technology is simply a method for getting something done. It may involve the use of tools, or not, but it is systematic and repeated, and gives certain, predictable results (for this reason, Louis Liebenberg called tracking “the origin of science”).

Most folks nowadays use the word “technology” to mean “computer/electronic technology.” That’s a very limited use of the word, and I think it is misleading. Starting a fire with two sticks is also a technology. Some call those “primitive technologies.” Tracking animals is another technology, involving a systematic method for observation and understanding of what you are observing. Narrowing down further still, meditation/yoga/somatics/qi gong/self-awareness are also a “technology.” Each has their own method for acquiring deeper awareness of what is occurring within the body…basically an internal “tracking.”

People rant and rave about the issue of the effect of modern technology on physical activity levels. There are two rants I’d like to address – the industrial (technology) rant, and the entertainment (technology) rant.

The industrial rant goes something like this – industrialization (first, now “computerization”) led to the loss of physical activity in normal labor, which led to people not moving as much, which has led to decreased physical activity (generally) and diseases associated with that decline.

A similar argument says that industrialization has ruined our food supply, and blames the industry of agriculture for the decline in health in human beings.

The entertainment rant is centered largely around electronics, and culturally accepted modes of entertainment. This argument says that the increase in electronic technologies (such as the computer I’m typing on now) has led to a decrease in physical activity. People want to relax, and things like the television, video games, and the internet (via computers), have taken precedence as modes of recreation and relaxation over physical activity.

Both of these rants have something in common, similar to discussions about the built environment. They both imply that human beings cannot make choices about their activities, or about what they do with their time. That is, the industrialization rant implies that people are slaves to the machine. That there is no alternative but to take part in industry as it has come to be, which means sitting for long hours, commuting to work in cars and buses, etc., and not being physically active. The entertainment rant implies that people cannot choose to participate in physical activity due to the presence of more tempting options.

This argument – lack of self-control – is also similar to that made by many diet studies, programs and books. You cannot control what foods are produced, and since that’s what’s largely available, you’ll tend to eat higher-calorie foods, and, combined with your sedentarism, that will lead to overweight and disease.

Paradox
One of the keys to realizing that all of these rants are related, and that they all may be addressing their respective issues in ways that are not consistent with what is actually happening, is the presence of paradox.

Before we go into the pardoxes, I want to mention here, that this is the crux of what I’m saying – the ways that we’re addressing participation in physical activity are related to (and built from) the very problems leading to a decreases in physical activity – a lack of individual self-control, a lack of the teaching of that in our culture(s), and a continuing insistence on the necessity for policing/control measures.

A paradox is a situation that is contradictory to itself. I, personally, think that paradoxes usually signal that the approach to understanding the situation is the source of the paradox. That is, that nothing is “truly” paradoxical…we just perceive it that way.

From the examples above, industrialization was “supposed to” create more time, freeing up the average person’s day to enjoy leisure (which would include physical activity). But all of that free-time meant that you had more time to be “productive,” to try to “get ahead.” And corporations realized that they could be more “productive” and “get ahead.” So no one ever (except Kellogg’s) had their employees work fewer hours for the same pay. That’s a paradox. Industrial technology was supposed to be “time saving.” We should have more free time when “time is saved.” But we don’t…we have less. How is that possible?

Similarly, the internet age was “supposed” to bring un-told advances in human freedom and communication. But instead, it brought things like YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook…”time-wasters.” Again, a “time saver” turned into a “time waster.”

The availability of plentiful food was the promise of agriculture. But now some say that agriculture has lead to disease, through its overproduction (and subsequent, “inevitable,” overconsumption) of grain products (not to mention the ill effects of pesticides, genetic modifications, and tilling the soil (it kills all of the microorganisms in the topsoil…)). What was supposed to feed us ended up poisoning us?!

Questions of “Pure Culture”
On the other side, the studies I’ve read that have to do purely with culture, with regard to physical activity or sport often focus on things like racial or religious cultures. Sometimes, those papers also considers smaller, individual cultures, participating in a particular type of physical activity (a certain sport, perhaps).

Those studies were very informative, about a particular culture in a particular place, at a particular time. But they weren’t very generalizable (able to be turned into “rules”), and were never (of the ones I read) generalized (i.e., turned into “rules” of culture and then applied to another culture).

I haven’t been able to find a single research paper or article that focuses on “United States culture” in relation to physical activity. Surely there is a “culture” that is the culture of the United States…right?

But maybe that paper is unnecessary. We can look at things like the recent research on Framingham Heart Study data that showed that we have very similar physical qualities (particularly, diseases) to our friends. That is, we’re much more likely to be a smoker if our friends smoke. I think it’s also true that we’re much more likely to exercise if our friends exercise.

But what is the cause here? Is it that “birds of a feather flock together,” so, because I like to exercise (or smoke) I naturally gravitate to others who share my interests? Or is it that, once I start to hang out with a certain group of people, “peer pressure” leads me to start doing as they do? Or is there a balance, where my set of values must match their set by a certain percentage? If that percentage is high, I stay in the group, if it is low, I leave.

But what about groups or cultures where we all come up together at the same time? My childhood friends, for instance. None of us smoked or drank when we were 5. Yet some of us did when we were 16, and many (if not most) of us eventually went down completely different paths in life by the time we were in our early 20’s. What causes us to stay in one culture and leave another, when we all shared such similar beginnings?

The Fear of the “Individual”
That brings me to my final point. (Thank god, you say…yes, sorry, this is a long one!). I think that there is something deeper than culture (which I think is deeper than society, if you couldn’t tell).

That “thing” is the individual’s internal “motivation.” Not strictly their “psychology,” but, rather, the full sum of that individual – their personal history, their thoughts and beliefs, their mindset, their resiliency, their physical constitution.

It’s the reason we see kids who couldn’t get a grade above a C in high school become straight-A students in college, or college dropouts start their own businesses and have a high degree of success, or people who’ve never exercised a day in the past ten years get up and start running ultra-marathons.

I think we like to make broad sweeping generalizations (hahaha). It is the aim of science to do so – to “figure out” the “rules.” But lost in that mix is what is really happening. Lost in the averages of many individuals is the single individual.

Not only that, but the other things that are lost when we deny the validity, the existence, and the sanctity, of the individual. We lose concepts like self-control, or self-motivation, self-responsibility, self-actualization. We also lose concepts related to real teaching, real communication, and real equality.

And instead of using our wonderful massive brains to create a technology, or a “science” of the individual, we use it to explain why any single “individual” who stands out from the “average” is a fluke…an exception…

Rather than the rule.

My good friend Kwame Brown:

director of fitness at the Arlington, VA, Lee-District RecCenter; PhD. in neuroscience; founding member of the International Youth Conditioning Association; Exuberant Animal (par excellence):

and all-around good guy, needs your help.

He’s trying to get some insight into the factors affecting child development – from parents, educators, and policy-makers.  I’m sure that he’d even accept some ideas from folks who have an educated opinion, but don’t fit into any of those specific categories.

Please go over to his site and offer some ideas.

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.

“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.

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?

Watching the Superbowl, I was reminded of my experience playing football as a 13 year old kid.

It wasn’t fun.  It was competitive.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it.  I mean, I didn’t stop playing.  I played the whole season.  But I didn’t want to go back.  Something was wrong there.  Seriously wrong.

Leave My Mother Out of It

The coach, one practice, said nasty things to me about my mother to psyche me up.  I was too passive.  That was his answer to my passivity.

He was a nice guy.  I was a little surprised by this tactic.

The Good in There

It was also amazing.  The smells, of the field, of my stinky uniform.  Everything had a special smell, a different smell, different from anything you’d ever smelled before.  The uniforms were like armor.  You were invincible inside those things, mostly.  The feel of the dirt, of impact, of rain and mud, of the ball when you caught an interception…

It wasn’t all bad, though I wasn’t in a place to really appreciate the complexity of the game.  The coach never went over the playbook.  He expected us to study it at home, on our own.  I had better things to do with my free time.  Like playing.

The Sup’bowl

Does that color my perception of the Superbowl?  Yes, it does.  So does everything else I’ve ever experienced.  I enjoyed watching the game.  The tradition of getting together around a central event is common in our human ancestry.  It has deep roots.  That’s why we love it so much.

It has deep roots in my childhood.  We used to gather around every Sunday, often with friends, to watch the games.

War has similarly deep roots in the human psyche.  We love to pick sides, to fight others now and then – hopefully, on a regular or predictable basis.  Surprise-attacks are no fun…they’re too stressful.  Football has been called “preparation for military service.”  The first organized sports were often touted as enhancing “manly virtue.”

American Idle-Worship

Worship is also a human trait.  And I couldn’t help but think of worship when the trophy was being carried through the ranks of the 49′ers players, who all reached out to touch, rub, kiss, or lick it as it went past.  As it was carried up onto the raised dais, I saw a God among us, being elevated for us to worship, the heroes sanctified by the God, and we, the winners, sanctified through association.

The commercials were ok.  I’ve seen better.  The one thing that stood out to me was that there were a lot of commercials featuring slapping or hitting.  Not sure why that was.

In all, the community was the only important thing to me about the whole event.  Hanging out, having some laughs, breaking bread together.  That was meaningful, and fulfilling.  And I’d go back again…Superbowl or not.

A recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune, called “Planning for fitness,” highlights the need for the inclusion of trails, bike paths, parks, and other recreational areas (and links to those areas) when creating new neighborhoods.

I write this post to underline the need for the creation of healthy context in the promotion of physical activity.  Many people are amazed that folks in rural areas aren’t more physically active.  But the resources for physical activity are markedly reduced the more rural an area becomes.  Land is devoted to agricultural use.  Distances are far.  Roads aren’t as well-maintained.

Consider your own neighborhood, and the resources for physical activity.  When I lived in beautiful Arlington, VA, which is a suburb of Washington, DC, I was shocked to find that there were places in my neighborhood where the sidewalk simply ended.  Discouraging to many, I’m sure.  Especially anyone who might have trouble navigating the bumpy sides of roads, or lacking the quickness to dodge traffic when walking in the street.  And those are most likely the people who need to move most of all (I’m thinking of the elderly, children, and the overweight here)!

Unless you are extremely creative and bold (like the Parkour practitioners out there), most urban and suburban environments are not inviting to vigorous physical activity.

While it isn’t “all” the environment’s fault, environment has a whole lot to do with physical activity levels.

It’s so hard to get people to exercise, they say.  But I think it might be because they’re going about it the wrong way.

I’d like to draw an analogy, between the effort to get people to start exercising, and the effort to get people to stop smoking.

The anti-smoking effort has had a tremendous impact on public health within the past fifty years, and had a HUGE impact on health between the years 1947-1974.

As Kenneth Warner, PhD, points out in his article (warning, this hot-link will start a download of the article) “The Effects of the Anti-Smoking Campaign On Cigarette Consumption” – “Cigarette smoking is generally acknowledged to be one of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and mortality” (pg. 645).

But the details are what matter.  Here’s Dr. Warner’s footnote:

“The anti-smoking “campaign” is not a single orchestrated program. The term is used here to refer to the collective, mostly uncoordinated activities of a variety of organizations, including government agencies, private voluntary agencies, and for-profit business firms, united only by their objective of encouraging people to quit or to reduce smoking. The 1964 “starting point” for the campaign is somewhat arbitrary; it was selected because the Surgeon General’s Report initiated the first period of significant sustained anti-smoking activity and public consciousness of smoking and health issues. During the early 1950s, evidence linking smoking to disease produced the first smoking-health “scare” in recent history, but a major sustained anti-smoking campaign did not materialize.”

Ok, that’s great!  Well, the Surgeon General released a (another download link here) report on Exercise.  Read it and weep!  Does that mean we’ll all start exercising?!

As Dr. Wagner points out, part of the impact was due to publicized “health scares” that cigarettes cause cancer.  Then came the Surgeon General’s Report.  Then, states began to tax cigarettes (or tax them more heavily).

On the last page of his research, Dr. Wagner makes a couple of points that I think are most salient.  The first is that the radio ads that were most effective were repetitive in nature.  There wasn’t a one-time event, but several repeated messages.

The second point is that the anti-smoking ads were much more effective than the pro-smoking ads produced by the cigarette companies.

The anti-smoking groups were able to produce these ads thanks to something called “The Fairness Doctrine,” which “required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.”  [Note, that doctrine was vetoed in 1987, and has not been reintroduced].

What’s important there, though, is the idea of repetition.  Repetition, as they say, is the mother of learning.  It is also the bread-and-butter of advertising and marketing.  Everyone in sales knows “it takes seven no’s to get to a yes.”

The second point, though, is the one that I think is most important.

People love to be AGAINST things.  ANTI anything always stirs up more energy, people, and effort, than “pro” anything.  Think about it.  Who are always the more energetic, the more violent, the more hostile?  It’s the ANTI guys.  It’s the Dark Side of the Human Force.  It’s where the Power lurks.

Yes, we try to fight it, but why?  Why not admit it.  If you want to WIN, you must be AGAINST something!

So perhaps we’re going about this exercise thing all wrong.

Instead of being “pro-fitness,” we need to be “anti-fatness.”  We need to be “anti-laziness.”  We need some “anti-out-of-shapeness.”

While cigarettes are deadly, physical inactivity is devastating.

The World Health Organization recognizes that “Globally, noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are increasingly recognized as a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The World Health Report 2004 had indicated that NCDs account for almost 60% of deaths and 47% of the global burden of disease.”

What’s included in the risk factors of NCDs?  How about:

• Alcohol and alcohol-related illnesses
• Blood pressure
• Cholesterol
• Diet
• Overweight and Obesity
• (lack of) Physical Activity
• Smoking
• Diabetes
• Oral health
• Visual Impairment

At least six of the above factors can be mitigated through regular, vigorous, healthy physical activity.

So I’d like to issue a warning.  You can print this out and put it on anything you like – the TV, the sofa, the Wii, the computer, the fridge…

Hi, my name is Josh, and I’m a master’s degree student in kinesiology.

Sounds like I’m in some sort of 12-step program, huh?

Most of the people who ask me what I’m studying in school have never heard of kinesiology.  Every now and then someone will know that the word means “the study of movement,” or “movement science,” but that’s about it.

What is kinesiology?
I was reminded what kinesiology is recently, by Dr. Roberta Park, professor emeritus in the Department of Integrative Biology at University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Park came to San Francisco State, where I’m a student, and presented to anyone in the kinesiology department (I’m sure anyone at all would’ve been welcome) who was interested in attending.

Her presentation focused on the history of the field of kinesiology.

You see, at one time, it was called “physical education.”  Someone who got their degree in kinesiology was called a “physical educator.”  The field was created by physicians, in the late 1800’s, who recognized the benefits of and need for physical activity in human beings.  The physicians who created kinesiology recognized a few fields that needed to be understood in order to be able to recommend and understand exercise – physiology, anatomy, biomechanics, biology, chemistry, and – yes I said it – psychology and sociology as well!

As Dr. Park points out in her paper “The Second 100 Years: Or, Can Physical Education Become the Renaissance Field of the 21st Century?,” the field originally had mostly to do with exercise – physical activity – as a field demanding mastery (or at least knowledge) of several different disciplines.  The instruction of physical activity was seen as having three types of audience:

“As did many of his contemporaries, Gulick (1890,1904) (cf. Sargent, 1906)
identified three “divisions” into which all bodily exercise could be divided: educative, curative, recreative. While the three shared a number of things in common, the goal of each was different. The curative (or therapeutic) had as its object the correction of some type of disturbance of the body and was primarily the concern of the physician. The educative came closest to what most commentators meant by the term “physical education” and was the concern of all those who worked with children and youth. To this important branch was assigned responsibility for developing strength and endurance of heart, lungs, and skeletal muscles, agility, muscular control, physical judgment, self-control, and those attributes that related to the mind’s ability to exercise power over itself. The educative was therefore concerned with the cardiovascular and, particularly, the nervous system and neuromuscular functions” (Park, pg 4).

Dr. Park’s paper is incredibly important for anyone to read who wants to understand the history of the field of kinesiology, or physical education.

As she continues, she demonstrates the shift in focus in the field in the early 1900’s, moving from a discipline designed to train physical educators, to a more “clinical-academic” or “scientific” approach.  This shift was consistent with other fields, that also saw the beginnings of increasing specialization at this time.

In the 60’s, as, again, in other fields, the field of kinesiology underwent still further levels of specialization.  Today, as Dr. Park pointed out in her presentation, the sub-disciplines of kinesiology have become so specialized that they risk falling out from under the umbrella of kinesiology at all.

Biomechanists have become so specific in the joint angles they measure, and so painstaking in their use of technology, that they come close to losing perspective of the whole body at all, and belong more to a mechanical engineering department than to a department concerned with the human body in action.

Similarly, exercise physiologists have begun to isolate reactions to such a degree that they may as well be in the chemistry department.

Dr. Park’s conclusion is worth noting in this regard.  “It is not specialization that we should fear,” she says. “It is lack of scope and perspective that enables us to ask significant questions” (Park, pg. 19).

I’d like to end here, but first, want to back up Dr. Park’s statements with some words from Claude Bernard, the great French scientist, and creator of the concept of milieu interieur – the body’s internal environment – which led to the development of the concept of homeostasis.  The following has been copied directly from the Wikipedia entry on Bernard (linked to above), because it so clearly shows his clear and I believe important definition of the enterprise of science.

“In his major discourse on scientific method, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865), Claude Bernard describes what makes a scientific theory good and what makes a scientist important, a true discoverer. Unlike many scientific writers of his time, Bernard writes about his own experiments and thoughts, and uses the first person.^[3]

Known and Unknown. What makes a scientist important, he states, is how well he or she has penetrated into the unknown. In areas of science where the facts are known to everyone, all scientists are more or less equal—we cannot know who is great. But in the area of science that is still obscure and unknown the great are recognized: “They are marked by ideas which light up phenomena hitherto obscure and carry science forward”.^[4]

Authority vs. Observation. It is through the experimental method that science is carried forward–not through uncritically accepting the authority of academic or scholastic sources. In the experimental method, observable reality is our only authority. Bernard writes with scientific fervor:

”When we meet a fact which contradicts a prevailing theory, we must accept the fact and abandon the theory, even when the theory is supported by great names and generally accepted”^[5]

Induction and Deduction. Experimental science is a constant interchange between theory and fact, induction and deduction. Induction, reasoning from the particular to the general, and deduction, or reasoning from the general to the particular, are never truly separate. A general theory and our theoretical deductions from it must be tested with specific experiments designed to confirm or deny their truth; while these particular experiments may lead us to formulate new theories.

Cause and Effect. The scientist tries to determine the relation of cause and effect. This is true for all sciences: the goal is to connect a “natural phenomenon” with its “immediate cause.” We formulate hypotheses elucidating, as we see it, the relation of cause and effect for particular phenomena. We test the hypotheses. And when an hypothesis is proved, it is a scientific theory. “Before that we have only groping and empiricism” ^[6]

Verification and Disproof. Bernard explains what makes a theory good or bad scientifically:

“Theories are only hypotheses, verified by more or less numerous facts. Those verified by the most facts are the best, but even then they are never final, never to be absolutely believed.”^[7]

When have we verified that we have found a cause? Bernard states:

Indeed, proof that a given condition always precedes or accompanies a phenomenon does not warrant concluding with certainty that a given condition is the immediate cause of that phenomenon. It must still be established that when this condition is removed, the phenomen will no longer appear…. ^[8]

We must always try to disprove our own theories. “We can solidly settle our ideas only by trying to destroy our own conclusions by counter-experiments” (p. 56). What is observably true is the only authority. If through experiment, you contradict your own conclusions—you must accept the contradiction–but only on one condition: that the contradiction is PROVED.

Determinism and Averages. In the study of disease, “the real and effective cause of a disease must be constant and determined, that is, unique; anything else would be a denial of science in medicine.” In fact, a “very frequent application of mathematics to biology [is] the use of averages”—that is, statistics—which may give only “apparent accuracy.” Sometimes averages do not give the kind of information needed to save lives. For example:

A great surgeon performs operations for stone by a single method; later he makes a statistical summary of deaths and recoveries, and he concludes from these statistics that the mortality law for this operation is two out of five. Well, I say that this ratio means literally nothing scientifically and gives us no certainty in performing the next operation; for we do not know whether the next case will be among the recoveries or the deaths. What really should be done, instead of gathering facts empirically, is to study them more accurately, each in its special determinism….to discover in them the cause of mortal accidents so as to master the cause and avoid the accidents.^[9]

Although the application of mathematics to every aspect of science is its ultimate goal, biology is still too complex and poorly understood. Therefore, for now the goal of medical science should be to discover all the new facts possible. Qualitative analysis must always precede quantitative analysis.

Truth vs. Falsification. The “philosophic spirit,” writes Bernard, is always active in its desire for truth. It stimulates a “kind of thirst for the unknown” which ennobles and enlivens science—where, as experimenters, we need “only to stand face to face with nature” ^[10] The minds that are great “are never self-satisfied, but still continue to strive” ^[11] Among the great minds he names Joseph Priestly and Blaise Pascal.

Meanwhile, there are those whose “minds are bound and cramped” ^[12] They oppose discovering the unknown (which “is generally an unforeseen relation not included in theory”) because they do not want to discover anything that might disprove their own theories. Bernard calls them “despisers of their fellows” and says “the dominant idea of these despisers of their fellows is to find others’ theories faulty and try to contradict them” ^[13] They are deceptive, for in their experiments they report only results that make their theories seem correct and suppress results that support their rivals. In this way, they “falsify science and the facts”:

They make poor observations, because they choose among the results of their experiments only what suits their object, neglecting whatever is unrelated to it and carefully setting aside everything which might tend toward the idea they wish to combat.^[14]

Discovering vs. Despising. The “despisers of their fellows” lack the “ardent desire for knowledge” that the true scientific spirit will always have—and so the progress of science will never be stopped by them. Bernard writes:

Ardent desire for knowledge, in fact, is the one motive attracting and supporting investigators in their efforts; and just this knowledge, really grasped and yet always flying before them, becomes at once their sole torment and their sole happiness….A man of science rises ever, in seeking truth; and if he never finds it in its wholeness, he discovers nevertheless very significant fragments; and these fragments of universal truth are precisely what constitutes science.^[15]“

Park, R.J. (1989). The Second 100 Years: Or, Can Physical Education Become the Renaissance Field of the 21st Century? Quest, 41, pp. 1-27.