L.I.F.T.

Frank Forencich of Exuberant Animal points out an issue with the way we approach ourselves in the world in a recent blog post.

His complaint is that we (as individuals, and culturally) separate ourselves from our habitats to such a degree that we’ve lost touch with reality.

I couldn’t agree more.

However, I wonder how to go about changing this. And in this post, I ask for your feedback.

Below is my response to Frank’s blog post. Please let me know your thoughts on how to do this – how to get people reconnected with their habitat, with the land that gives them life, in a visceral way.

The oil spill in the Gulf is at least in part a result of our society’s (societies’) addictive use of oil…we can’t separate the drillers from the people for whom they are drilling.

People are so distracted from anything real (habitat)…what will bring them back to awareness? How does one engender awareness?

Science is a process of thought that relies on separating things. It takes dynamic systems and “analyzes” them – breaks them down into “constituent parts” – which is a fallacy. Once you’ve killed and dissected a dog, where is the dog? It isn’t there anymore…a bunch of “parts” are.

We extend this tendency (or habit, whatever it is) into philosophical, religious, economic, and political thinking…

That is, it always comes down to – “This piece is wrong/bad, we must fix it.”

Thus, from the get-go, we’re off on the wrong foot. If we interfered, and that’s what “broke” it, how can we “fix” it by interfering again?

Better to stop doing.

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?!

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.

I dare you to look inside...

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?

These guys must know...if they're helping "mind"

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.

Foucault me.

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.

I guarantee that changing your breathing will change your mind.

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.”

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

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

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

Please don't drop the ball!!!

Breakdown

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

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

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

Is there a way to measure that, though?

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

Happiness

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

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

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

An ounce of gold, or a pound of lead?

You’re in The Cul-tcha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone who comes to see me, who comes to train with me, wants me to record numbers.

They want to record their weight.  Their bodyfat level.  Their heart rate.  Their VO2max.

They want me to record the weights they use.  The number of repetitions.  Their speed.

And that’s fine.  I’m happy to oblige.

But I’m not always happy with what lies beneath those requests.

When I’m unhappy about it, it’s because my clients are looking only at their numbers.  They’re succumbing to the externally-focused drive of our culture.  They’re looking at magazine cover-models, movie stars, their neighbors and friends, or anything other than their own bodies.

It’s fine to track your progress with different measures.  However, the primary concern of anyone engaging in an exercise program should be to become more who they are.  To be more in their own body – to learn how to move, to build strength, and to feel the full measure of that strength-in-movement within.

When a month has gone by, and the weight on the scale has gone up, it’s usually because relatively heavier muscle is replacing relatively lighter fat in the body.

But the externally-focused individual just sees the higher number.  And that blocks them from feeling themselves what the effects of the exercise have been.  Do you feel thinner, more fit, happier?  Do your clothes fit more loosely (or more tightly, in new areas, like the shoulders and thighs, perhaps)?

The other thing that happens is that people become fixated on strength goals.  “I want to bench press 315.”  Ok, great.  What happens when you plateau at 285 for a few weeks?

The externally-driven person will tend to want to push past this plateau, instead of allowing what the body actually needs at this point – more time.

There are many methods for getting past plateau’s – focusing on the eccentric (lengthening) portion of the movement, doing partial reps, overspeed/power work, etc.

But usually, what the body needs when it hits a plateau (that is, if you’re still applying the same level of mental intensity to your lifting), is some time to accommodate to that load.  The plateau is your body speaking to you.  It’s saying “give me eight or ten weeks at this load,” “play with this weight for a while,” or even “back off.”

If all you can hear in your head is a number (315), you won’t be able to hear that voice, telling you what you really need to be doing.

This tendency is cultural.  We put the Type A personality on a pedestal in this country.  To our own detriment.  It is also a choice.  You do not have to push things all of the time.  You can choose to slow down and listen.

However, that’s extremely difficult, because everything around you says you should push.

The tendency for people to constantly quote scientific research to support their claims, and the equally damaging tendency to believe people who do that, is another example of this external-focus.

Science is based on the law of averages.  It is not concerned with the individual.  And you are an individual.   You are not an average.  Nor are you average.

First, listen to yourself.

A recent New York Times article, Phys Ed: The Best Exercises for Healthy Bones (thanks for passing it along, Mary) declares that “the best exercise is to simply jump up and down, for as long as the downstairs neighbor will tolerate.”

Well…maybe.  But who the hell wants to do that?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  I’m really sick of reporters with no experience in the field having free reign to write whatever they want about health and exercise.

If you read the article, you’ll find that “scientists” are in dispute about how bones respond to exercise, and what type of exercise is best to build bone.

Except, that is, that explosive/heavy weightlifting builds bone well.

But cycling and running are in dispute.  In fact, running might even cause the loss of bone, when calcium lost through sweat or in metabolic processes is replaced by bone material.

Wait…hold on reporterer…go back a step…

Explosive movements and heavy weightlifting build bone.

Ok.  Well then why the heck aren’t we recommending those activities?

The best thing to do, instead, is to make a joke out of it.  “The best exercise is to simply jump up and down, for as long as the downstairs neighbor will tolerate.”

Why make a joke out of it?  “For as long as the downstairs neighbors will tolerate?”  Why are you jumping indoors?  Why aren’t you going outside and jumping?  Why are you jumping in place?  Why aren’t you running around and jumping onto and over obstacles of varying heights?

That activity also builds the skills of balance and proprioception, which might help to prevent hip fractures even more than the concomitant building of the bone itself!  If you never fall, you don’t need rock-hard hip bones.

And that’s not why I have my clients jump, and lift heavy stuff.  I’m not concerned with their bone density.  That’s a bizarre, reductionist view of the body that I don’t want to buy into.

I have them do those activities because that’s what human bodies are meant to do.

For the last time – YOU ARE AN ANIMAL! You respond best to what all animals best respond to – sunlight, clean water, un-molested foods straight from nature, and lots and lots of physical activity of all types.

The thing all of these “scientists” miss is the big picture – the human body as a whole, as an animal.

If you sit all day, your bones get weak.  If you eat a crappy diet, your bones get weak.  If you run for a long time, and don’t replenish the nutrients you’ve lost, your bones get weak.  Cycling isn’t even a weight-bearing activity, so I’m not sure why the article focuses on it so much…

Also, in response to one of the comments made by a researcher quoted in the article, I’m pretty sure there’s been research that shows that calcium lost during endurance exercise is compensated for by bone if it’s not replaced soon.  I’ll have to double-check that.  I wouldn’t be surprised, though – most researchers are so caught up in trying to keep grants rolling, etc., they don’t even know the research that has been done in the area they themselves are studying.

Which speaks to another issue I have with this type of reporting.  Science is a process of exploration.  It is curiosity.  It is asking questions and trying to find the answers.

IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF SCIENCE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

We put science in such a place of authority in our country that brains shut off like lights in a blackout.  I can see them all the way down the street, blinking off.  No thinking required.  Science has me covered.  The scientists will tell me the right thing to do.  The government will talk to the scientists and protect me.

Bullshit.  Turn your brain back on.

I take such offense to this, because people who don’t know any better are going to read this article, and others like it.

What is someone going to do who reads this article?  They’re going to say, “oh to hell with it…exercise isn’t helping my bones…” or “I need to jump up and down more!”  Which is silly!!!  I mean, if you’re just jumping up and down in place…ridiculous.  See the above comments about balance and proprioception and nature and the requirements of a healthy animal.

And what about the bones in your arms?  How do you get those stronger?  Jumping up and down doesn’t put any strain on your arms.

How about crawling?  Explosive pushups?  Heavy bench pressing?

Oh no…we shouldn’t do that!  Let’s just play patty-cake until the downstairs neighbors complain!

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]

Claude Bernard

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.

Ethical considerations are very important in the design, practice, and reporting of scientific research.

However, I think there is something else behind the need for a document like the APA’s extensive manual.  A quote from the Tao Teh Ching will help to illustrate this:

Chapter 18
When the great Dao is lost to sight,
codes of goodness and morality appear.
When cleverness and shrewdness are produced,
massive hypocrisy appears.
When family relationships lose natural harmony,
“filial piety” and “devoted parenthood” arise.
When there is strife and anarchy within the state,
“loyal patriots” abound.
(trans. Chilcott, 2009).

I don’t think that a manual like the APA’s points, necessarily, to rampant unethical behavior.  As one of my graduate professors pointed out, ethical “breaches” are reportedly around 1-2%.  But the manual does point to something, which is the issue related to the field of kinesiology, and ethics in science that I’d like to address here.

It is the habit we have gotten into as scientists of investigating symptoms, instead of causes.

The first example that comes to mind is that of modern gait research.  Modern gait research studies the human foot in a shoe.  However, “The human foot was anatomically modern, and therefore fully functional for bipedal walking and endurance running, more than 100,000 years ago” (D’Aout, et al., 2009, pg. 103).  The use of footwear in general has only been seen in the fossil record as early as 30,000 years ago (Trinkaus, 2005, pg. 1516).  Habitual use of the type of rigid footwear in vogue in our current culture extends back to the 17th century – and at that time was seen mostly in wealthy, or aristocratic populations.  Widespread use of rigid footwear by a majority of Western Europeans probably began only around the time of industrialization – about 150 years ago.

As reported in D’Aout, et al. (2009) – “Habitually shod Indians wear less often, and less constricting shoes than Western people.  Yet, we found significant differences with their habitually barefoot peers, both in foot shape and in pressure distribution” (D’Aout, et al., pg. 104).  This shouldn’t come as a surprise.  Modifications of tissue morphology following the use of a plaster cast are well known to anyone who has ever had to wear one.  Modern footwear, or even sandals (as shown by D’Aout), alters truly normal (as opposed to an “observed” or “cultural normal”) foot kinematics in much the same way as a plaster cast.

In Western European culture (or those of Western European descent), which have generated the majority of gait research in the past 100 years, the large majority of research has been on individuals who habitually wear shoes.

Can we safely say, then, after 100 years of research, that we truly have a good understanding of normal human gait (as in “physiologically normal” – concerning the human animal as a species that has existed without footwear for roughly 100,000 years)?

Further, if, as Booth and Laye point out, it is true “that removal of 8500 steps (dropping from ~10,000 to ~1500) in the absence of a structured exercise program for two weeks results in abnormal physiological changes in healthy young men” (Booth and Laye, 2009, pg. 2), and we have not noted the daily activity levels of participants in gait research studies, can we claim to have studied “physiologically normal” human gait at all (with or without shoes)?!

First, we are studying an abnormal population in terms of morphology and kinematics, due to the use of footwear (both the restrictive effect of footwear on truly normal movement of the foot, and the accompanying loss of tissue tonus and function accompanying that loss of normal movement).  Then, we are studying a potentially (in terms of gross physiology) abnormal population (in terms of evolutionary history of the animal) due to lack of sufficient movement in general, and the accompanying loss of proprioception and tissue strength/tonus.

When we then begin to recommend “orthotic inserts” as solutions to musculoskeletal or movement impairments, based on those studies of “normal” human gait, are we treating the problem(s) itself (or themselves – namely, lack of physiologically-normal movement, both in quality and quantity), or are we treating the symptom of the problem (i.e., dysfunction caused by lack of physiologically-normal, not culturally-normal, movement)?

What are the ethical implications of pursuing science in this manner?  And shouldn’t the discussion and resolution of this ethical issue precede the practice of designing, performing, and reporting scientific research?

Booth, F.W., Laye, M.J.  (2009).  Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise’s complexitiescan pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery.  Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Chilcott, T.  (2009).  Daode Jing.  http://www.tclt.org.uk/translations.html

D’Aout, K., Pataky, T.C., De Ciercq, D., & Aerts, P.  (2009).  Plantar pressures in habitually barefoot walkers.  Footwear Science, 1(1), pp. 103-105.

Trinkaus, E.  (2005).  Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use.  Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, pp. 1515-1526.

Science is out of control.  And it needs to be put in the corner for a time-out.

In many blog entries, I’ve discussed the lack of scientific (or common-sense) validation for running shoes.

Eyal Lederman wrote an excellent article recently regarding the similar lack of scientific validation for current ideas surrounding “core stability.”

But what spurred this blog entry was a presentation by Dr. Robert Mazzeo gave to my graduate class last week about his work studying mitochondria.

“Mitochondria = Longevity”

Mitochondria are the “powerhouses” of your cells.  They convert glucose and/or pyruvate into ATP, the nucleotide your cells use to do work.

Essentially, researchers have found that mitochondrial density (the number of mitochondrion per area unit) increases when rats are put on a calorically-restricted (CR) diet.

Further, they’ve shown that certain of these rats (called “responders”) live up to 40% longer than “normal” rats.

Dr. Mazzeo is a specialist in the field of cellular metabolism.  I trust him when he says that there is an increase in mitochondrial density resulting from calorically restricted diets in lab rats.

But I’m more than a little confused about the connection of the research to longevity, or implications for longevity research generally.

In the past century, average lifespan in humans has increased due to preventive/treatment methods, hygiene, etc., while maximal lifespan (that is, ultimately how long people can live) has not (Lanza, et. al, abstract).

According to the Lanza paper, this is related to mitochondria, mitochondrial density, and the metabolic load (specifically, on mitochondria) associated with caloric intake.  While it may be true that increase in mitochondria occurs in concert with extended maximal lifespan (in some animals), does that imply causation, or even direct correlation?

First, what about the non-responder rats?  Are they “not normal?”  In the studies that have been performed, non-responder rats are from a different genetic “strain” of rat.

Then, what about the rats that get “averaged out” in statistical analysis?

Why does the effect occur only when CR is introduced at a very early age in the lifespan?  In all of the studies, maximal lifespan only increases when CR is introduced within the first few weeks of the rat’s life and then maintained from there.

There seem to be differences between mitochondria created in response to caloric restriction and those created in response to physical activity, and hopefully Dr. Mazzeo’s research will shed light on that question.  But, again, does that mitochondrial increase (happening, simultaneous to increased maximal lifespan) imply causation?  And does it transfer to human animals?

What are the other physical/metabolic structures/processes that differ between these two classes of stimulus?

The complexity of natural organism function needs to be considered when making claims like this.

To quote Booth and Laye (2009) – “Normal physiological processes are dynamic, integrated, periodic, and therefore, it is difficult to define normal physiological function by looking at a single time point or single process in a non-stressed subject” (abstract).  It, I think, is far too simplistic to point at a single cellular function and make the claim that it (alone) increases maximal lifespan.

Another issue has to do with what the true maximal lifespan or caloric intake of rats is.

Human beings have been known to live as long as 122 years (as far as we’ve recorded), and people throughout history have been known regularly to live well into their 80’s.  We might suppose that human “maximal lifespan” is somewhere around 125 years, given optimal genetics, environment, etc., throughout that lifespan.

There are a few populations (specifically, centenarian populations) around the world that exhibit unusual consistency in long lifespan, supposedly due precisely to “optimal conditions” (that include such a diversity of “causes” as: family, absence of smoking, largely plant-based diets usually including legumes, constant and moderate physical activity, and social engagement and the accompanying structures – see the book “Blue Zones” by Dan Buettner for his analysis of these populations).

Perhaps the researchers in rat studies have not increased the maximal lifespan of these lab rats, they’ve merely found what the maximal lifespan is for (a select strain of, “responder”) rats when those animals are isolated in ideal conditions (for lengthy lifespan).

Further, what is “caloric restriction” for rats?  Animals with less “self-regulatory” mechanism frequently (naturally/evolutionarily) take advantage of large stores of calories whenever they find them.  “Feast or famine” is programmed into many animals (human beings included).  In these studies, are the researchers really “restricting” calories below what is “optimal” for the rats, or are they actually feeding the rats an optimal level of calories.  That is, these rats are fed diets that appear to be calorically restricted based on a human understanding/analysis of “normal” rats whose natural instinct might be to eat well beyond what a human “normal” when opportunity provides for excess in a “natural” (non-lab) setting.

On a final, philosophico-theoretical note, I’m interested in what the implications would be if mitochondrial density due to caloric restriction were found to increase maximal lifespan in human beings.  Why increase maximal life span?  To what end?  What is the quality of that lifespan?  Especially with regard to increasing levels of disease in the population at large due to ever-rising pollutant/toxicity levels in everything from the air to the food we eat.  Perhaps we should focus first on quality, and then on quantity.  In fact, if we focus on quality, quantity might naturally follow, as found (again) in centenarian populations scattered throughout the world.

The biggest issue I have, though, has little to do with any of that.

Rather, it’s about scientists and other “authority figures” in our society presenting sentences like “caloric restriction leads to increased longevity.”

It’s not true.  It’s not clear.  It’s not responsible.

Very few people in our society have been given the “critical thinking” classes they’d need in order to hear news like this and use it the way they should (which is, not at all).

Again, this type of talk (authority/consumer) supports our basic ideas too, that common sense is not good enough, that the lessons of your elders are meaningless, that science (or authority in general) holds all the answers, that you can’t do it on your own.

You can.  You should.  And, ultimately, you do whether you believe “they” are helping you or not.

References
Booth, F.W., Laye, M.J.  (2009).  Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise’s complexitiescan pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery.  Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Buettner, D.  (2009).  The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer from the People Who’ve Lived the Longest.  Washington DC: National Geographic Books.

Lanza, I.R., Nair, S.  (2009).  Mitochondrial function as a determinant of life span.  European Journal of Physiology, Ahead of Print.

Just wanted to post a response to my Bagua teacher’s most recent blog entry that I posted today.

Now, understand, I mean no disrespect to George.  He is my teacher, for one.  For two, he’d kick my ass.  Hahaha.

The article is a good one, and the advice is sound…it’s just that I think it’s very one-sided, and it kisses up to science, which is a very limited way of looking at life.

Anyway, the article says that science is finally proving that relaxation is good for you.  They quote Herbert Benson, who actually proved that relaxation was good for you back in the 70’s.  Read his book – The Relaxation Response.

Here’s my response to the article (not to George, per se):

Totally great. Glad that “science” finally approves of what people have known for 10,000 years. Integrating relaxation into your practice is a different matter…

I personally think that relaxation by itself (relaxation meditation, or relaxation massage) is only really good done very infrequently. Relaxation, like meditation, or like exercise, or life, should be an active process. Then you learn something about your state…you become a participant in the state of your body.

For people interested, look into a nice Autogenic Programming or Progressive Relaxation recordings, or Eckhart Tolle’s first book – The Power of Now. All of the exercises from Power of Now are in the “Practicing the Power of Now: Essential Teachings” book, if you’re short for time or want to just get right to it.

Alternately, you can just stop what you’re doing, breathe deeply, and try to feel your muscles, starting at your feet, and progressing up your body to the top of your head.  Tell your muscles to relax as you go, and feel for “tight spots.”  Once you’ve done that, start back at your feet, and try to feel your bones.  Get them to relax too.

A bee-da bee-da bee-da…that’s all folks!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&hl=en&fs=1&]