Dr. Peter Gray‘s blog, “Freedom to Learn,” is a fantastic collection of thoughts, ideas, and great references regarding development, play, learning, and the effects of social structures on all of those.
I highly recommend it!
Or is it?
When I was a kid, all the way through high school, I had teachers in different classes do projects and tell the class that we need to conserve water.
I remember my German language teacher in high school, Frau Brown, said “If you take a shower that’s longer than five minutes, you’re wasting water.”
In elementary school, it was even worse (or better?). This was in 1978, just asfter the gas crisis, just after the hippie revolution. Earth Day was started as an annual event just 8 years before. Everyone was very Earth-conscious.
We had projects on how to read electric meters, and what kWh meant. We were told to turn off the water while brushing our teeth, and to turn off lights when leaving a room.
All of that still remains with me. I still go around my apartment turning off lights in areas where no one needs them on (my roommates leave their lights on sometimes). It borders on compulsive.
The other day, I worked out really really hard. I was beat. I got home and thought “a nice hot shower will help me.” So I took one. And it went on for more than five minutes.
It dawned on me suddenly, as I was standing under the hot water, feeling my muscles relax. I became a little anxious. What was I doing, wasting all of this water?!!!
Then another thought popped into my head.
I’m not the only consumer of water, I mused. In fact, individuals probably aren’t even the biggest consumers of water.
What about all of those factories out there? So I started to dig around a bit.
To quote one article:
“USGS hydrologist Molly Maupin says, “We know that petroleum refineries and paper and pulp mills, as well as steel manufacturing facilities, are known to use an awful lot of water.” But even more significant, in many cases, is the effect on underground aquifers, lakes, or rivers that aren’t directly used in the manufacturing. Effluent and wastewater discharged from industries and mining operations — or leaking from inadequate waste and industrial storage facilities — can contaminate large amounts of groundwater or surface water.”
Basically, was I destroying the planet, and its fresh water stores, with my longer-than-five-minutes bath, or was there a bigger picture to consider?
Once I began to read more about this issue, it became very clear that our Subject/Object worldview had struck again. The message of water conservation had naturally become neatly packaged into a “personal responsibility” issue – as all issues do in our culture.
Take, for instance, the recent change from corporate-funded retirement programs to “individually-funded” programs like 401k. Now it is the individual’s responsibility to prepare for their future.
Or, we can begin a similar debate about oil/fuel consumption – are private individuals really the biggest consumers of oil/fuel? I don’t think so:
“Yes, the US military is completely addicted to oil. Unsurprisingly, its oil consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities makes the Pentagon the single largest oil consumer in the world. By the way, according to the 2006 CIA World Factbook rankings there are only 35 countries (out of 210) in the world that consume more oil per day than the Pentagon.” (for this great article, click here).
To use an old idiom – our society is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Telling the consumer that they need to purchase hybrid vehicles, when the factories that produce those vehicles run on and use petroleum and petroleum-based products is ludicrous.
Telling people that we need to go to the Middle East to “defend freedom” and secure the world’s oil supply for the good of all men, women, and children, is similarly ridiculous.
Telling individuals that they need to conserve water, while factories churn through it at rates far exceeding that of any individual or group of individuals is in this same category.
Not to mention the types of compounds that are being flushed out as waste from factories, versus from private dwellings. The only thing going down my drain is soap and dirt. What’s coming out of the effluent pipes on a factory?
Now, this is not to say that the individual “consumer” doesn’t have an impact on water usage. For one, you shouldn’t use or take more than you need. It just doesn’t make sense, for you or for the entire world of which you are a small, continuous, part. For another, you decide consumption of things by your choices…or “buy” your choices…you decide how many factories continue to run on a daily basis.
All of this goes back to culture, though.
The accepted mode is to buy things. I’ve been stunned going into local stores (even the grocery store) in the past week. They’re all packed. At first, I didn’t know what was going on. I thought maybe there was some sort of emergency I hadn’t heard about. Then someone told me they were going “Christmas shopping” and I realized what was up.
The thrust of our society is a Production/Consumption cycle. This production/consumption cycle is built over an underlying dichotomy of Self/Other, or Subject/Object. We base everything of “value” on this framework, and within that context, over the framework. If something doesn’t fit into this, it is rejected outright.
And the Vox Popularis always wins.
But what about fitness, isn’t this a fitness blog?!
Well, ok, if I must. But if you haven’t realized it by now, the definition of “fitness” as something separate from the environment you live in – the context or habitat you inhabit, as separate from the Earth, the Land, and the rest of the beings on it – is something I’m trying to explicate on this blog.
Fitness is similarly subject to this dialectic – Self/Other, Produce/Consume. Fitness in our culture is about oneself. About the way one looks, or how much one can bench press – as compared to an (idealized) external Other.
It leads to bizarre notions of “fitness,” and more bizarre products and practices that create a rift between individuals, and between those individuals and their environment.
Put yourself back into context – back into the cycle of things. You were never separate from it, you just had blinders on.
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.
The Ouroboros is a very ancient symbol, depicting a snake in the shape of a circle, eating its own tail.
Yeah, that’s great Josh. So what?
Well, to me it represents something else, that I’d like to share with you.
Traditionally, the symbol signifies the cyclical nature of things. The eater is also eaten, and is reborn through the process.
Jung saw it as the feedback process of life. In human psychology, it would be the assimilation of the “shadow” side of the personality into a cycle of continuing psychological rebirth.
But, just as a hammer only sees nails, I see “systems” in this symbol.
The only reason that a human being would create a symbol like the Ouroboros (and it wasn’t just one, many cultures used this symbol), was if they saw it in nature. Of course, the “ancients” paid much more attention to natural cycles than we do now, and put much more emphasis on those cycles in daily life (often of necessity – farming requires delicate attention to changes in annual cycles).
The only way they could recognize the cycle outside of themselves, was if they experienced it on some level internally.
The Ouroboros represents the nature of any system.
Any energy fed into a system, automatically is used to reinforce that system.
Now, here’s a “for instance.”
Production (in terms of industrial production, as we use it now) increases the incidence of cancer.
In the system that is the concept of life-via/as/through-production, the solution to cancer must be…
production.
That is, a solution must be produced! Something must be made to cure the cancer!
The “cure” in such a system is found in pharmaceuticals, radiation treatment, etc.
But those systems require “production” – in a very real, very industrial sense.
They feed directly into the systemic pollution that (actually) caused the cancer to begin with.
The snake eats its tail.
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.
When I attended Tom Brown’s Trackerschool a few years ago, one of the things Tom said was that the only cure for our civilization was to get people participating in nature again.
Mick Dodge, the Barefoot Sensei, has a similar belief (though alternate means).
Do I need to say that I agree with them? Okay, then I will – I agree with them.
Our current culture is so far removed from nature that it’s scary.
By “nature” I mean “what is natural.” Not man-made “nature.” That’s called “culture.” I mean, cycles of seasons, cycles of moons, cycles of years. I mean tides.
I mean “ecosystems” – but not in the sense of a closed-off “ecosystem.” I mean it in the sense of the-thing-that-you-live-within.
Why do I think this is important?
Well, we come from this nature. All of the things that we do rely on it. Our ideas about things are largely constructions these days. They’ve been built up over years, decades, eons. Society, and civilization, and our various cultures, are largely constructions that have taken on lives of their own. Now, many people are hard-pressed to say what is “natural.”
But it’s actually the simplest thing to do. Here’s how you do it:
Take away.
Strip things away, until you get to the place where there’s nothing left. No TV, no cell-phone, no computer, no clothes, no books, no cars, no sidewalks, no toilets, no buildings, no politics, no religion.
There is nature.
It is still there. It is there while you read this.
I’m advocating that we all get closer to nature. I think we need to become less and less, as far as our material and mental possessions go. I think we need to reduce entirely, and return.
I’m full of optimism and hope that this can occur right now…for a few reasons.
First, the focus on “the environment” (kind of a silly phrase – which environment? – but hey, it sticks) has led people to a greater awareness of ecological issues (if not their own environments…sometimes…).
That concern by “consumers” has led corporations to take greater interest in the environment. While this is a double-edged sword, with car companies pushing hybrid vehicles (it’s still a “new car” folks – pollution due to construction, fabrication, and transport of the vehicle hasn’t changed a bit – and the gas mileage is really insignificantly lower than that of regular cars), and other companies pushing other new “green” products (made of plastic, which is a petroleum (read, oil) product…anyone out there? hello?), it still has led to (albeit, mostly weak) initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and an infantile level of thoughtfulness about ecological responsibility.
Second, there seems to be a loss of faith in some regarding the general state of things. People are starting to question, and to feel comfortable questioning, the way things are.
While Michael Moore’s most recent foray may not be everyone’s cup of tea (don’t know if it’s mine, I haven’t seen it yet), he is indicative of this movement…this push to seek better alternatives.
The problem we face is our existing culture, which will seek to subsume any efforts, and absorb them into itself.
That’s how systems work. Any system takes the energy that is given to it and uses it for its own ends (not for the ends that the “energy itself” would’ve hoped for). For instance, when you eat dinner. The spinach or steak you eat may have had its own intention. But your body will use it for its goals. Beyond that, your cells will use that spinach or steak for the goals they see fit (perhaps, grimly, cancer) – not for the goals you might have in mind yourself (6 pack abs, anyone?) – even though those cells comprise you!
Systems speak aside…it’s time we return. Is it too simple? Is there a way to package simplicity, so we can sell it? Is there a way to market “nothing?”
I went to the dentist today. Yes, everything’s fine, thanks. I love going to the dentist! The feeling of clean teeth afterward…amazing!
But this isn’t about the dentist, or teeth.
It’s about what’s wrong with the world these days!
More to the point, it’s that I’m not sure that there is anything wrong with the world these days.
My new dentist works in Presidio Heights, a very wealthy neighborhood in San Francisco. The streets are still lined with cars, in spite of massive garages and fenced-in driveways, but the cars here are BMW’s, Benzes, and other high-end “luxury vehicles.”
It’s situated up on top of the hill (hence the “heights” part) that rolls down to the Presidio (ergo “Presidio” part of the name) on one side, and the Marina neighborhood on the other side. It’s beautiful up there! Especially on a day like today…sunny, warm, wonderful!
As I walked back to my car, running my tongue over my squeaky teeth, I fell in behind a couple, walking to their car.
They were probably in their early forties. The man had a very nice suit and shoes. The woman looked like she just got out of the gym, spandex shorts, a t-shirt, Nike Shox. The man was a big fella. Probably 6’2″. He lumbered like a bear. Heavy guy. Maybe around 270. The wife was tall, too, hovering around 5’10″. Tall folks. She was a little plump around the midsection too. I’d put her around 200.
I was watching the way they walked. I like to watch people’s gait, try to figure out what’s bugging them, what they may have injured in the past, or present. They had gait distortions typical of overweight chair-sitters – their feet splayed out a bit, pushed off to the sides instead of straight back, etc.
Then I realized – neither of them probably has any difficulty getting around at all. I mean, they might get winded walking up the hill from the Marina (if they ever do that). They might have high blood pressure, and suffer from some complications of their lifestyle later in life.
But from the look of them, at that moment, neither of them looked to be in any pain or discomfort at all.
There was nothing wrong.
In the training world, we frequently ask people what their “goals” are. “What are you trying to accomplish?” We want, one, for the program to be focused and directed. We want our clients to work toward something clear, something specific. S.M.A.R.T. goals, as they say – Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound (that is, there’s a date-goal).
We also want accountability. If you tell me your goal is weight-loss, and then you go have a medium pizza for lunch, I’ll know why you’re not getting any closer to your goal. Hopefully, stating the goal helps to keep your savage appetites in check.
Hopefully.
At the very least, if it doesn’t, you can’t blame me, the trainer, for your failure!
If you don’t have specific goals, well, we’ll make some up for you.
For one thing, you’re totally dysfunctional. Let’s just start there. You sit way too much. You eat processed foods. You don’t move enough at all, and certainly not in enough various ways to stimulate your body. You don’t sleep enough at night. And because of your inactivity, your muscles are horribly imbalanced in terms of strength/weakness, or length/shortness, or tight/looseness.
Well, there are some goals for you. Once we get past all that stuff that’s really wrong with you, we can start to think about getting you the Brad Pitt/Angelina/300/Mrs. Obama Arms look that you’re after.
But under the dross of catchy fitness goals, there lies a human being.
Underneath the blank stare, the blank dreams that come from media-hypnosis, there’s an individual. A person.
And what we do in the fitness world, often, is take that face at face value. We don’t want to dig. We don’t want to know about your upbringing. We don’t want to hear about your dog or your kids or your job. For chrissakes we aren’t your therapist! We’re your trainer! We train.
Now, let’s get back to those goals.
Meanwhile, on the surface, for most folks, everything’s fine. Sure the diabetes kicks in…but the doctor prescribes insulin. The gut gets huge, but I can get a gastric bypass. The headaches keep coming, but I can get sleeping pills, caffeine pills, something…give me something.
And everything is fine.
The doctors will take care of me. The system will take care of me. It has to. It is the system that made me.
And the human being underneath withers.
Use it or lose it.
And once it’s lost, it’s hard to get back…if not gone forever.
So this post actually, is about nothing at all.
A debate has raged within me for as long as I’ve been part of the “adult world.” Bear with me here…these too, are new thoughts…
Essentially, the question has been – how to be a “man,” while also being a hu”man” being.
I received two different sets of instructions as a young adult male. The first was from my parents. Those instructions went something like this: be a good person, do the right thing, be considerate, kind, and caring, work to help others.
The other set of instructions was from the-world-at-large, and it went something like this: do whatever you need to do to win.
How does one reconcile this?
It isn’t quite as simple as that. I found that I could be caring and helpful, while also engaging in competitive sports, or other competition-based activities, which were primarily about beating the opponent.
Then I went to work in an office.
Again, the message was different from the reality. What I was taught/told, was: work hard, do a good job, and you’ll get promoted/a raise/”success.”
Reality looked more like this: be friends with your superiors, help them to look good, and make it seem like you’ve done a good job (or just done your job period), and you’ll get a raise/promoted/etc.
Now…how do you reconcile those?! I mean, what is your goal, truly? To do a good job, to work hard – or to make connections, network, etc.? Because, in truth, one cannot serve two masters.
Then it happened again…in my intimate relationships. I was taught to be kind, considerate, and caring. To put my significant other’s needs before my own. To sacrifice what I may want to do to make them happy.
But in reality, I was doing the opposite of what I should have been doing. By “serving” (really, “subserving to”) others in my intimate relationships, I would always eventually lose myself, become resentful, and the relationship would fall apart.
It takes a good deal of strength to do the opposite of what you’ve always been taught as right.
There’s another example I’d like to share, which seems like a bit of a stretch, but it’s related to this.
My roommate and I went for a 9 mile jog on Sunday. We both were wearing Vibram Fivefingers. On the return leg, we had to stop at a light, where two cyclists were also waiting to cross. One of them looked at my roommate’s shoes and said, “Wow! What are those?”
“Vibram Fivefingers,” he said, “so you can run with the same benefits of being barefoot.”
“Oh! Wow! But won’t that hurt your feet?!” she asked. “Isn’t it dangerous?! There’s no support!”
That’s a very common response to the concept of barefooting in general, so my roommate just said, “No, not really.” The light changed then, and we went one way and the cyclists the other.
As we continued to run, our first response was to laugh at the cyclist. The question is so common, and so fraught with error from the perspective of people who have engaged in barefooting, that it’s hard to be compassionate. But then, a thought occurred me, and I said this (as if in response to the cyclist):
“Yes – if your idea of a foot is a lifeless hunk of flesh and bone hanging off the end of your leg, that has no form or feeling, that shrinks back from the slightest insult – then yes, being barefoot is definitely dangerous and harmful to your feet!”
It’s all about perspective
From the perspective of someone raised in a culture that advises the use of shoes at all times; or that creates terror in the heart of its populace about invisible threats (terrorism, viruses, economic meltdown, sports team losses, etc.); or that prescribes to the idea that there is an “instant fix” for anything that might ail you – and that that fix requires little or no real effort to achieve; or that recommends that you only look at the most obvious spot when you encounter a problem, and not the entire system related to that “problem-spot;” the fear of being barefoot, or of suffering through the process of regaining lost function in oneself, is real…in some cases, insurmountable.
What confuses me is that our culture simultaneously promotes “altruistic” and/or “Christian” ideals, yet the reality of the situation is quite different (see the work and relationship examples above).
In reality, there is no real difference between the work or relationship examples above. They’re both “relationships,” particularly in the sense that they require one to be honest with oneself about the situation at hand, and the ability to openly and effectively communicate/navigate their position in that situation.
But you have to know what that situation/position is, truly. And for many, they live for a long long time believing that hard work will pay off, and never find out why it never did.
Any ideas out there?
There are a few other things to share from Alison Gopnik’s book “The Philosophical Baby.”
For one, her account of babies’ idea/ability to work with time is fascinating. On page 153, she says “babies and young children don’t yet have autobiographical memory and executive control. They don’t experience their lives as a single timeline stretching back into the past and forward into the future…”
Apparently, this is an ability that we acquire through practice. What does that mean?!
And, “those programs [the Perry Preschool Project, and the Carolina Abecedarian Project - preschool projects that resulted in adults who were significantly more prosperous, healthier, and less likely to be jailed than their peers] didn’t just influence the children, they influenced their parents, too. These progams gave poor parents, as well as poor children, a sense of autonomy and connection. The children in these programs didn’t just have different early experiences, they had different parents, and they had those different parents for life…” pg. 177.
There is a very real problem with the “do it yourself” attitude that is being espoused in our country recently.
No one does anything by themselves. In case you haven’t noticed, everyone is intimately connected in this world, and everything is intimately connected in existence.
The funny thing about the “drive to personal responsibility” that we see in recent government programs, 401k, corporate doctrines, etc., is driving people closer and closer together. The “entitlement generation” isn’t leaving home till they’re in their mid-twenties. The family stays together longer. Lack of medical care is forcing the elderly to live with their children. The family becomes a unit again.
While on the one hand it’s sad that it takes a lack of general support to the individual from the government or larger organizations to drive this type of change, on the other hand, it’s change for the better!
I’m convinced that one of, if not the, defining element of current American (US) culture is OCD/ADHD.
It’s everywhere. People want to count calories, count repetitions, count weight, count volume, count miles run, count times, compare times, compare weights, compare reps, compare sets, count cancer cases, count bees, count count count count.
And it doesn’t change anything. In fact, I’m not sure it does much at all, other than to perpetuate the counting.
Let’s take exercise as an example, since that’s what this blog is purportedly about.
Do you burn more calories when playing a game on a playground than you do on a treadmill [most likely]? What is the optimal work/rest interval to burn the most calories (on the playground or on the treadmill) [no such thing exists]? Exactly how many pitches can little Johnny (or Beth) sustain before he (or she) suffers overuse injuries in the rotator cuff [one too many for him/her]? How high must one be able to jump in order to be a pro basketball star [vertical leap is poorly correlated with basketball performance]? When is the best time to start lifting weights [whenever you feel ready]? How frequently should I workout every week [whenever you feel up to it]? How much cardio should I do [as much as you feel like doing]? What type of weight training should I do – bodybuilding, Olympic lifting, powerlifting, corrective exercise, fitness training, Crossfit type stuff [whatever floats your boat]?
I’m still trying to come up with a single answer to all of these questions. I know it’s out there. It’s something like this – “Do whatever you feel like doing.”
Now, there is a problem, in that many people will attempt to do things they have no experience with and get injured. It’s like wanting to do some underwater welding, going out and buying the equipment, and jumping into the lake with it.
“What the heck?! It can’t be that hard to figure out!”
So I’ll give you that one. It is hard to figure out. Especially when you have no experience.
But the solution to that part is simple – find someone who knows, and ask them.
Then you have to do something. You either have to take their advice, and do what they’re telling you (for better or worse), or look for another opinion (for instance, find someone who says you CAN get washboard abs sitting on your couch!!!!), or do nothing at all.
I think what bothers me is that no one teaches THE BASICS.
Here are THE BASICS as I see them:
That’s it. At any level, you can go as deeply as you choose, getting a PhD in each, if you wish. But you must engage in those three steps in order to succeed – and success here, is being a healthy human being. Beyond that, you don’t have to do anything. You don’t have to count calories, or miles jogged. You don’t have to have a workout log, or go to a class every week. You don’t have to do anything in particular. But you must do something.
Yes, Josh, but what does that have to do with OCD? Well, once you practice those three things, you don’t have to count anything anymore. You don’t have to obsess. You don’t have to be distracted. In fact, once you do those three things, you don’t even have to do those three things anymore!
Note – This post brought to you by the mother at Jackson Playground this morning who told her maniacal kids “If you don’t calm down, I won’t let you watch TV when we get home.”
Dear playground-mom, the solution to our shared misery is simple – you didn’t run them enough at the playground that you were then rushing to leave, only to sit their unexhausted minds down in front of the boob tube…