L.I.F.T.

In my recent post about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I wrote this:

I see one source in the dissociation of people from their “tools.” From everything they use, they are further and further removed. Things become “mere things.” We suddenly are no longer connected in a cycle of creation and destruction. We stand outside of it and look on…passersby, observers, voyeurs of our own self-destruction.

“Coincidentally” (if you believe in coincidence), I was reading a book today called “Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma,” by Peter Levine.

He describes the official definition of trauma as a stressful occurrence “that is outside the range of human experience, and that would be markedly distressing to almost anyone” (pg. 24, which he takes from the DSM III).

He goes on to mention that trauma can include anything, from falls or accidents, to illnesses and sad events, to the “typical” things we consider traumatic such as rapes, drive-by shootings, war, disasters, etc.

I really really (yes, that’s right, I wrote it twice) like this book, and his approach, which is based around the evolutionary/physiological response to trauma, and an approach to treating it from that perspective. More on that in a second.

The author then describes how modern civilization and technology have taught us to ignore primary, instinctual, bodily-centered resources that once helped us to deal with traumatic events.

Previously in our history, we would encounter life-threatening events, which eventually resulted in finely-tuned responses to danger. I think this capacity is part of the “thrill-seeker’s” profile – they feel a need to experience this aspect of themselves more regularly than others.

As Levine says, “Modern life offers us few overt opportunities to use this powerfully evolved capacity. Today, our survival depends increasingly on our ability to think rather than being able to physically respond…The fundamental challenges we face today have come about relatively quickly, but our nervous systems have been much slower to change…When [the need for the successful facing of challenges] is not met, or when we are challenged and cannot triumph, we end up lacking vitality and are unable to fully engage in life” (pg. 43).

Later in the book, he even quotes Tom Brown, Jr. about the process of tracking. Clearly, he is describing a method of dealing with trauma that uses what I like to call “physiology tracking” in this book.

But it was the paragraph just before a section called “Dissociation” that really grabbed my attention. In it, he writes, “When constriction [as a response to a perceived threat or danger] fails to sufficiently focus the organism’s energy to defend itself, the nervous system evokes other mechanisms such as freezing and dissociation to contain the hyperarousal. Constriction, dissociation, and freezing form the full battery of responses that the nervous system uses to deal with the scenario in which we must defend ourselves, but cannot” (pg. 136).

This state is related to helplessness, which I’ve also written about in previous posts – particularly, learned helplessness, as a result of social conditioning or social conformity.

Levine recommends, specifically, that one not try to avoid dissociation, but rather, to become aware of the feeling of that state in the body, so that one can, first, recognize it, and, later, be able to be in a state of dissociation while still cognizant and active in the world. This leads to the ability to discriminate between physiological events that lead to (or have lead to) trauma, and those that do not.

I resonate extremely strongly with this book, for many reasons. The author’s approach to dealing with one’s problems through a continuing and ongoing process of deepening self-awareness seems to be the type of powerful medicine that everyone can use in their lives. But he also recognizes that physiological responses are rhythmical, as well as the need for play and a playful attitude when confronting survived trauma (at a certain point in the process, of course).

To the last point, about play, the author talks about wild animals’ tendencies to “reenact” traumatic or dangerous events, where they will play the role of hunter and hunted, and either experiment with new strategies for evasion or survival, or repeat the tactic used in the recent event. The physical act of evasion or survival itself is immediate and therapeutic.

In humans, reenactment happens both internally and externally. Internally, it represents itself in states associated with trauma, such as hypervigilance, anxiety, psychosomatic issues, sleeplessness, or other problems. It can also represent itself through repeated thoughts about the traumatic event.

Externally, reenactment can happen either in the “acting out” of previous traumas, either by inflicting those traumas on others, or by creating ritual behaviors that reflect and temporarily mitigate those physiological upwellings; or, external reenactment can take place in the recurrence of traumatic events in relationships, where we seek out situations with others through which our trauma presents itself, again and again, the body searching for a path to resolve that old wound.

Unfortunately, usually, our initial response only repeats itself again and again. With our minds not realizing that we’re replaying these patterns for a specific reason, we succumb to habitual responses, sometimes watching before our very eyes as things crumble apart and wondering “how can this be happening again?”

More subtly still, external and internal reenactment, at some point, collide, and the victim of trauma acquires patterns of behavior that simultaneously save them from further experiences like the first, but also prohibit them from being able to confront that traumatic experience and move beyond it.

Which takes me to his final point, his solution to this dilemma. Since we are confronted with traumas that we cannot resolve through physical means, and have developed habitual physiological patterns of response to situations in which we feel the same types of threat, we have only one tool by which to work with, on, and through those physical manifestations and feelings – awareness.

Through awareness of the traumatic event, awareness of our initial response to it, acceptance of ourselves and the fact that the event happened, and finally, a developed ability to pay attention and slow down when those feelings manifest themselves again, we have acquired tools to operate in a new dimension. Eventually, the nervous system will heal, the process will become second-nature, and life can be rich and fulfilling.

On a side-note, this process, of trauma, the formation of “protective” mechanisms which ultimately lead to further repetition of trauma reminds me strongly of the pain-spasm-ischemia cycle I was taught in massage school. In that process, damage occurs to muscle, the muscle “spasms” to protect itself from further damage, but in doing so, restricts blood flow to the area, preventing oxygenated blood (and white blood cells) from getting to the area to begin the healing process and remove restrictions. The “knot” gets bigger and bigger, till it causes overt pain and movement restriction…

Levine notes that our fast-paced culture doesn’t make this an easy task. Which brings me around to the final bit of my essay here (his book continues…if you’re interested, you should buy it and read it).

As I mentioned in my previous blog entry, it isn’t just the fast pace of our culture that “shields” us from slowing down and tracking our physiologies.

In fact, it seems that much of our culture has that exact effect.

Since reading Andrew Weil’s book “Eight Weeks to Optimal Health,” back in the 90’s sometime, I’ve engaged in what he calls a “news fast.” I don’t read or watch the news. Not at all. Haven’t in years, actually. And…nothing has happened to me because of it.

Weil recommends this practice because the news has a few qualities that cause human beings trouble, and for no good reason. First, the news is typically all bad. As Gary Gnu said, “No gnus is good gnus.” Second, the news is aggregated bad news from all over the world. So, not only are you getting a dose of bad news, but you’re getting a large dose of bad news composed of all of the bad news that happened today…anywhere. Needless to say, that news doesn’t really reflect the happenings in your habitat. Fourth, almost all of the news (because of its distant relation to your habitat) will make you feel completely helpless, frustrated, sad, or angry.

Learned helplessness, reinforced, twenty-four hours a day. Thank you?

But the news, or the way we “do” news, is just one symptom of a larger thang – of our approach to life…the philosophical underpinnings of our culture, expressed through or visible in the actions of our culture, and, of course, our selves.

a quick “thang” intermission:

I think one of the roots of that philosophy is a trauma-cycle, associated with something that happened to us culturally, maybe somewhere back in the mid-sixteenth century…in fact, when we were most susceptible to trauma, in our early-childhood…the Renaissance.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist here, but I hope Dan Brown is reading this blog and writes a nice book about this idea…and figures out what that event was, because I have no idea…hahaha.

However, it does seem that some “crisis” (which in Chinese is a character composed of the two characters for “danger” and “opportunity”) occurred, which we could not mitigate or win against, and have repeated ever since.

Hell, maybe it goes even further back than that.

But what stands out to me most is the point at which we dissociated from our tool-making.

We’ve been dissociated from our habitats for thousands of years. Human beings have lived in cities and such for around 8-10,000 years. Sure that could be a factor.

And life has been relatively “distracting” ever since we’ve been in cities. Fast pace, hustle and bustle, are nothing new.

But the loss of consciousness that we are using tools – that symbols are tools, machines are tools, that mathematics and language are tools – that seems more important.

When did that happen? And why? When did we lose sight of the fact that we make technologies to help us?

Because it was at that point that we committed ourselves to a path of recurrent trauma reenactment. It was at that point that we closed our eyes to a process within ourselves (as a culture).

It was at that point that it became “necessary” to pursue pain in order to deserve pleasure. This thing we see in cubicles and offices all over the world.

It was at this point that we begin to see scarcity as our ruling dictum, and fear as its messenger.

I place it in the mid-sixteenth century because that’s the first written record I’ve seen of this same sort of question (from Etienne la Boetie – the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude).

Maybe, like the Joker’s “SmyleX,” there is no single source, but the confluence of many things, contributing to our continued replaying of history.

When I was younger, I always associated “love” with the feeling of sexual passion – the intense desire, the suffering in that desire, the longing…and the consummation of that longing and desire.

For a while, “love” was just my addiction to the chemical “squirt” in my body that I felt in moments of passion.

Now, love means much more to me. It isn’t an instantaneous thing, but a process. Love is still passion, still that desire/fire, but it is also the process of suffering the wound of separation…remaining within yourself, appreciating the other person’s path as their own, and not interfering…loving them from “so close, yet so far away.”

Or, updated a bit…

This recent article in Parade – A Connecting Flight – sums up part of this so well, I had to post it. Please read it, I think it’s worthwhile.

We often forget, in moments or relationships, in that wonderful gush of chemicals flooding our body, that there is another person, another individual, there with us. Or that we are an individual person, with our own history, issues, joys, and desires – that all are only, ultimately, experienced by us alone.

And what happens when that high wears off? When we become used to the presence of that cocktail in our system?

No one else feels what you feel. We agree on meanings of words, and approximate agreement on what we’re feeling inside by using those words…but it’s only ever an approximation.

No one ever feels what you feel. And you never feel what someone else feels.

To try to even get close requires so much space, so much observation, so much silence, and listening, that most of us never get there. But that’s what love really is…the attempt to get there. The attempt to give that much space, observation, silence, listening, care, facilitation, whatever you want to call it…

We’re so busy with our lives, with our own feelings, and our ideas of what the other person may be living or feeling, that we rarely clear space to see if we can really experience that connection.

In the article above, it often only hits us, as with so many things in life, too late. Or, if we’re lucky, when we meet someone who can wake us up to that.

Part of the goal of “physiology tracking” is knowing your own physiological responses to things, so you can see those in others. So you don’t have to rely on words – which are never good enough.

But to track, you have to be silent. You have to be careful. You have to clear your mind of opinions, and let the signs guide you.

Another goal of physiology tracking is to stay true to yourself. Only if you know yourself, your physiology, can you be aware enough to keep it in check when it threatens to overrun you, or allow it to overrun you when you most need or want it to.

Learn to be a tracker.

Desire, as my Sensei, Mick Dodge says, is Fire – it is an ember within you, and you have to carry and protect it, to tend to it, like a fire bundle, and to stoke it into life.

The rhythmic process of the rise and fall of desire/fire can be encouraged. And then it becomes a relationship with yourself, a new lens through which to see things, a new way to experience different dimensions of “reality.”

Part of love is respecting the other person’s path, their full path – the place where their desire ebbs and flows – as the thing that you loved, inseparable from the rest, and the thing that you love now.

Even if it’s the pair of slippers you trip over every day.

But to feel this, you have to agree to suffer the wound of love, the suffering (which is what “passion” really means, by the way) of the whole person of the other, of the realization that the other is complete, and you are too, and you embrace it all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But where do all of those things come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I’ll do it here, now.

The Four Horsemen

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

1. Specificity

2. Progression/Overload

3. Acute Variables – Intensity/Volume/Frequency

4. Form/Technique

Let’s go over each.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Progression/Overload

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

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

Bam.

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

Yeah?  Ok then.

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

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

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

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

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

Intensity is next.

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

Isometrics and Explosive Work

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

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

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

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

The last part of Number 3 here is training volume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So recover!

4. Form/Technique

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Turn

Now go out there and do it!!!

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

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

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

Breakdown

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

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

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

Is there a way to measure that, though?

Happiness

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

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

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

You’re in The Cul-tcha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there are a few ways you can begin to understand your body, they are:

Formally – the form or structure of your body (anatomy)

Functionally – the functions your body performs (physiology)

Psychologically – the mental structure of what is “you,” which is ill-defined by anatomy or physiology, and

Spiritually – the “extra” thing that is uniquely “you,” that is associated with Everything Else, and referred to in any religious tradition that has ever existed, and which is similarly ill-defined or -described by anatomical, physiological, or psychological explanations.

I think the easiest place to start is with Form.

Well, this is my hundredth post.  I’m surprised I’ve written so much!  I hope that some of it has been useful to my readers.

I just want to use this 100th post to announce a new effort.  One of my primary interests in exercise are the basic functions of the human being.  How do we do what we do?!

To me, this question is of primary importance to anyone.  It encompasses anatomy, physiology, biology, evolution, chemistry, physics, psychology, etc.  While I won’t go into very extensive detail, I hope to outline basic concepts of human function that are accessible to anyone, and that add to the reader’s understanding of themselves.

If that knowledge leads to more action, great!

Within each post, I’ll relate the topic in question to exercise and overall health.

You will be able to find all of the posts in this series under the heading “The Human Body.”  Please let me know how you feel about these posts.  If they’re too full of jargon, or too dense, I can cut them back.  If they’re not informative enough, I can fix that too.

Thanks for reading!

There is a whole “boutique fitness clothing” economy springing up across the country (world?).  Places like Lululemon, Athleta (which Gap Inc. is buying), were created to “cater to female athletes.”  They offer luxurious workout clothes (that can be tailored, no less), that cost a small fortune for an average person.

We all know this is make-believe.  You don’t need “yoga pants” to do yoga.  In fact, my favorite clothing for yoga is a pair of shorts.  Women may want to keep their bra’s on, but I’m fine if they don’t.

What about running?  Yeah, again, a pair of shorts.  If it’s chilly out, give me sweatpants and a sweatshirt.  If it’s too cold for that, what the hell am I running for (from?)?

Back in high school gym class we were given running shorts (the real deal…if you have big glutes, your cheeks are hanging out of the back) and a tank top.  That was our gym uniform.  Perfect.  Then, suddenly, someone designing clothes for athletes realized they could charge more if they used more fabric (or something).  Suddenly, guys in the NBA were wearing coulats in games, and arm-sleeves, or several t-shirts at the same time, and sports became a fashion-show.

Well, okay, whatever floats your boat.  But I want you, dear reader, to consider two things about these choices – Function, and Repercussions.

Function – how will you function best?  Consider that.  Then think about “fashionable” items that you might wear a lot (I mean, more than your gym clothes) – like “skinny jeans,” that inhibit hip flexion.  Suddenly everyone walks like a penguin, they can’t bend at the hips.  They have to flex their lower back (lumbar spine) when they sit, because their “skinny jeans” won’t let their hips bend.  Add high heels to that mess and you have physiological disaster waiting to happen.

Repercussions – aside from the physical repercussions (which aren’t obvious…that is, you won’t notice you’ve been crippled by your clothes till your back blows out), there are serious global environmental repercussions to the continual production, consumption, and disposal of unnecessary bullshit.  When you buy your new Lululemon workout gear, where was it made?  Where was it shipped from?  Who made it, and how much were they paid?  What happened to the environment they lived in?  How long will it last?  Longer than a skimpy pair of running shorts?  When the trends change, will it sit in your closet, or be dumped on Goodwill, or worse – in the trash can?

You are effecting very large things with your fashion choices.  Be careful.