We all suffer from a tendency to be close-minded into a state where we can only truly see things through our own lens. I know some very open-minded people, and they even suffer from this - even if only fleetingly or in certain situations. The thing is, this is both bad and good for us and those around us. The differentiating factor is self-awareness, self-trust and self-satisfaction.
Let's start with the 'bad' side of the coin as it is a little easier to grasp and can take less personal work to improve upon. I was talking to my wife today, and we were talking about the judgment someone was giving based on their choices and how what we were doing was "wrong" since it isn't what they'd do. The thing is, they live a totally different life with completely different priorities, demands, preferences, etc. they are a different person in a different situation. Our choice has worked really well for us, and theirs likely wouldn't have been as good in our situation just as our choice likely wouldn't have worked as well for them as for us.
So why the insistence that we were wrong, even though our "being wrong" has zero impact on them? Many of us (or all of us at least sometimes) fail to interpret situations through the lens of others. With extreme differences in situations, many of us are ok (we don't call someone crazy for walking two days for clean water if they live in the Sahara despite our not needing to do that). But when the differences are subtler, we tend to fail to put ourselves in so,Rome else's shoes before passing judgment. "Oh, she's nuts, I'd never run a marathon!" "Why are you eating your money on Accupuncture? It doesn't work for anyone." "What do you mean you aren't going back to work and putting your baby in day care?"
Some judgment is innocuous and good-intentioned. As I recover from knee surgery, those with old-school views on recovery tell me I am doing the wrong thing by exercising (despite my docs and physical therapist insisting I do it, and my experience with recovery from 13 prior surgeries). People tell me I'm wrong for eating fat and avoiding "heart healthy" carbs like bread and pasta. If I'm wrong, why is my body fat lower than ever, my cholesterol and other blood test numbers all in a better place than they've ever been, my supposed liver condition no longer shows on tests and I have more energy than I've ever had? And "ever" includes when I cut fat and cholesterol religiously and ate complex carbs regularly (yet still have >15% body fat and borderline cholesterol levels even with at least 5 work outs per week of at least 30 minutes of intense cardio).
Before you judge anyone else, ask if you are judging the choice as your own in your life, or even attempting to be the person making the choice with all of their pros and cons to weigh. Better yet, ask yourself why you are judging them at all. For what purpose? Does their action actually impact you (beyond your distaste for it)? I would wager in most cases there is no purpose and no impact.
Realize this when you are being judged - have their put themselves in your shoes? Does your decision impact them? Really? If not, let it roll off your back.
So, what should you do when you are judged? Let's look at the other side of the coin to understand better.
If you receive such judgment - and we all do from time to time - don't let it hurt you or sway you. Be mindful of the difference between judgment and advice, and actively let the former roll off your back while seeking out and considering the latter. Advice isn't all good or apt, but even bad advice can spark different thoughts than your have developed without some contrarian views. Judgment does not achieve anything productive.
It is in your reaction that the lesson resides - be sure of your own ability to find the right path for your unique situation. From that feeling of self-trust, go ahead with what you feel is right. Be aware of yourself and your surroundings to ensure things are going the right way, and don't be afraid to course correct if needed. In this way, you will be even more satisfied and content since the decision came from you, your understanding of your life and how to improve it and your ability to be resilient despite any unproductive doubt people send your way.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
2 Running Movies Going In Different Directions
I just finished my second movie featuring ultramarathon runner going across country. This one, 2010's Running America, features Marshall Ulrich and Charlie Engle, as they try to break the record for the time it takes to run across the US. The other movie, 2009's Ultramarathon Man, follows Dean Karnazes during his 50 marathons in 50 states in 50 days during The North Face Endurance 50. The two movies couldn't be more opposite in terms of the tone or how they make the viewer feel.
Karnazes, the self-styled Ultramarathon Man, really leaves you feeling inspired in Ultramarathon Man. You feel brave and like you could tackle anything after watching his movie. After watching Running America, it's hard to feel anything more than upset or maybe like there's little hope for the future (especially the future of the US economy...I know what you're thinking - "Huh? Did he just say 'the economy'? Huh? Isn't it a running movie?" Read on.). Reading the book about the Endurance 50 (Run!: 26.2 Stories of Blisters and Bliss by Dean Karnazes), you see all of Karnazes's struggles as told through his eyes, but the movie takes a decidedly more positive position and leaves the bulk of this out.
Running America, by contrast, really focuses on the trials and tribulations of the two ultrarunners, their various medical elements, and the terrible state of the US economy during the running (2008 financial crises and election). It focuses on depression, feelings of failure, and a sense of hopelessness. It might be reality and it might be a good representation of how the runners felt, but it's very hard to walk away and feel inspired by this movie. Karnazes's movie leaves you feeling the opposite way.
What I really didn't get or expect in Running America was just how much focus the movie put on the economy. The financial crisis was possibly the lead character or at least the main story. I would have preferred it play a much smaller role to leave time to properly dig into the running.
One other odd thing is the negative the movie didn't address, namely the failure of the runners to break the record they set out to break. The whole purpose of the run was to break a long-standing record of running across the country in 47.5 days, requiring a daily distance of 70 miles on average. I won't give too much away, but they didn't hit this goal, and there wasn't so much as a passing mention when they flashed the text about what they achieved at the end (e.g. "Although they didn't break the record they set out to break..."). This isn't a big deal, but it struck me as odd that a movie that focused so much on the negatives of the financial situation didnt even make passing reference to the failure of the mission the movie was supposed to capture. For the record, two other records were set, and the finish line was reached (in something like 52 days) which is amazing into itself given the 3k+ distance involved, so it wasn't all bad. It was just odd to me what they did and didn't focus on.
Now this isn't to say that Running America is a failure or a bad documentary, it's just to say that it's not this uplifting inspirational movie that you might expect it to be. If that's what you're looking for, this isn't the right one to watch. Instead, watch Ultramarathon Man since it will make you want to go out and run, and think you can run forever. If you want something grittier and more in-your-face about the mental and physical toughness of running that much for that many consecutive days, then go with Running America. Personally, I could have skipped this one, and would have shut it off if I didn't plan to write this blog post (and needed something to watch to pass the time anyway).
Eh, what do I know? Watch 'em both, but be warned either way.
And, actually, don't just watch them, but read the books behind the stories. Charlie Engle is also a prolific blogger, and has had an amazing life story overcoming adversity, a major drug problem, and a recent stint in prison for a BS mortgage fraud issue (long story, but worth reading...it's shocking what happened to him). And when I say, "don't just watch them," what I mean is, "Read the books." You can read and workout, but watching something and working out (or just watching something) is more zoning out and disassociating than not. That's not ideal. Read instead. That's the best way to enlighten.your.body.
Karnazes, the self-styled Ultramarathon Man, really leaves you feeling inspired in Ultramarathon Man. You feel brave and like you could tackle anything after watching his movie. After watching Running America, it's hard to feel anything more than upset or maybe like there's little hope for the future (especially the future of the US economy...I know what you're thinking - "Huh? Did he just say 'the economy'? Huh? Isn't it a running movie?" Read on.). Reading the book about the Endurance 50 (Run!: 26.2 Stories of Blisters and Bliss by Dean Karnazes), you see all of Karnazes's struggles as told through his eyes, but the movie takes a decidedly more positive position and leaves the bulk of this out.
Running America, by contrast, really focuses on the trials and tribulations of the two ultrarunners, their various medical elements, and the terrible state of the US economy during the running (2008 financial crises and election). It focuses on depression, feelings of failure, and a sense of hopelessness. It might be reality and it might be a good representation of how the runners felt, but it's very hard to walk away and feel inspired by this movie. Karnazes's movie leaves you feeling the opposite way.
What I really didn't get or expect in Running America was just how much focus the movie put on the economy. The financial crisis was possibly the lead character or at least the main story. I would have preferred it play a much smaller role to leave time to properly dig into the running.
One other odd thing is the negative the movie didn't address, namely the failure of the runners to break the record they set out to break. The whole purpose of the run was to break a long-standing record of running across the country in 47.5 days, requiring a daily distance of 70 miles on average. I won't give too much away, but they didn't hit this goal, and there wasn't so much as a passing mention when they flashed the text about what they achieved at the end (e.g. "Although they didn't break the record they set out to break..."). This isn't a big deal, but it struck me as odd that a movie that focused so much on the negatives of the financial situation didnt even make passing reference to the failure of the mission the movie was supposed to capture. For the record, two other records were set, and the finish line was reached (in something like 52 days) which is amazing into itself given the 3k+ distance involved, so it wasn't all bad. It was just odd to me what they did and didn't focus on.
Now this isn't to say that Running America is a failure or a bad documentary, it's just to say that it's not this uplifting inspirational movie that you might expect it to be. If that's what you're looking for, this isn't the right one to watch. Instead, watch Ultramarathon Man since it will make you want to go out and run, and think you can run forever. If you want something grittier and more in-your-face about the mental and physical toughness of running that much for that many consecutive days, then go with Running America. Personally, I could have skipped this one, and would have shut it off if I didn't plan to write this blog post (and needed something to watch to pass the time anyway).
Eh, what do I know? Watch 'em both, but be warned either way.
And, actually, don't just watch them, but read the books behind the stories. Charlie Engle is also a prolific blogger, and has had an amazing life story overcoming adversity, a major drug problem, and a recent stint in prison for a BS mortgage fraud issue (long story, but worth reading...it's shocking what happened to him). And when I say, "don't just watch them," what I mean is, "Read the books." You can read and workout, but watching something and working out (or just watching something) is more zoning out and disassociating than not. That's not ideal. Read instead. That's the best way to enlighten.your.body.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Q: Isn't It Good to be Pessimistic?
Q: I see all this happiness stuff you're talking about, but isn't pessimism ultimately better so you're never surprised or let down?
A: Not exactly. Don't confuse pessimism for preparedness or scenario planning.
I'm part of the global operations leadership team at my company. We have several all-day meetings a year, and at the last one, we spent some time on leadership skill building. I took the opportunity to weave Shawn Achor's The Happiness Advantage into the discussion at several points in the day. One of the senior people in the room countered me by asking, "I see all this happiness stuff you're talking about, but isn't pessimism ultimately better so you're never surprised or let down?"
I see her point. She's suggesting that pessimism means you will think about the bad outcomes so you're neither let down when they occur nor caught off guard. Fair point, but she's confusing the issue a bit, and I think it's a common and easy misstep, so I wanted to share my thinking with you.
Pessimism is having the negative view of a situation. That's it. It doesn't mean you do anything to stop that negative from playing out, or to turn it around into a win. If you were a pessimist, you wouldn't be able to do that since you'd be stuck looking at things negatively, so you'd miss the win. And you wouldn't appreciate not being let down since you'd look at it all negatively anyway. The pessimist would expect to lose when playing the lottery, but would still feel miserable when they lost because they'd focus on losing. Actually, let's be honest, they wouldn't play in the first place.
What I think she meant is really that we must not be so over-focused on only the good side of things that we miss the potential pitfalls or bad outcomes, and wind up in a bad place as a result. A fantastic example from my recent experiences is with Winter Storm Nemo. My staff and I decided that we needed to prepare for the storm as if it ended up as bad or worse than the media was making it out to be. In doing this, we ensured that we'd keep the operation up and running even if we lost power and people were stuck at home. Best case scenario, our staff would be prepped for a future event thanks to having a good re-education on what to do in such situations - like a fire drill that people actually take seriously.
Were were running around like mad about the impending white doom? No. Were we hopeful that it would be fine and we wouldn't have any issues? Of course. But we were also ready for it not being that way. The result - we had lots of snow, the staff left early, and we were shut down for a while. But what didn't happen is that we didn't get behind on our work, and we kept the parts of the country that weren't snowed in functioning. That's directly a result of our looking at the storm and finding ways to keep it all 'happy' in the end. We did it. It wasn't pessimism. It was realism and control.
Achor talks a lot about happiness coming from perceived control of situations. I think this is a key to our success. We took a negative situation and decided that there is a lot we can control about it beyond the inches that fall. We used that control to our advantage, and it really amazed me how smoothly things went.
We had a similar situation with Hurricane Sandy, though we didn't go about it the same way. The result was not complete chaos, but a markedly worse outcome than here. I think we learned a lot with Sandy on how we can and should respond, and it really boiled down to control. Control in our attitude, control in our plans, and control of the things that we directly - well - control.
The pessimist would just think we'd get 10 feet of snow, and we'd be unable to do any work, and everything would fall apart. Try to plan for a solution, and the pessimist would see it failing. How are you supposed to execute and impress your customers when you're too busy making mountains out of molehills (of snow)?
You can apply this to all sorts of situations tied to your healthy, fitness and well being. Feel a cold coming on? Not getting enough sleep? The list goes on.
Be a controlled, planning optimist. That's how you enlighten.your.body.
A: Not exactly. Don't confuse pessimism for preparedness or scenario planning.
I'm part of the global operations leadership team at my company. We have several all-day meetings a year, and at the last one, we spent some time on leadership skill building. I took the opportunity to weave Shawn Achor's The Happiness Advantage into the discussion at several points in the day. One of the senior people in the room countered me by asking, "I see all this happiness stuff you're talking about, but isn't pessimism ultimately better so you're never surprised or let down?"
I see her point. She's suggesting that pessimism means you will think about the bad outcomes so you're neither let down when they occur nor caught off guard. Fair point, but she's confusing the issue a bit, and I think it's a common and easy misstep, so I wanted to share my thinking with you.
Pessimism is having the negative view of a situation. That's it. It doesn't mean you do anything to stop that negative from playing out, or to turn it around into a win. If you were a pessimist, you wouldn't be able to do that since you'd be stuck looking at things negatively, so you'd miss the win. And you wouldn't appreciate not being let down since you'd look at it all negatively anyway. The pessimist would expect to lose when playing the lottery, but would still feel miserable when they lost because they'd focus on losing. Actually, let's be honest, they wouldn't play in the first place.
What I think she meant is really that we must not be so over-focused on only the good side of things that we miss the potential pitfalls or bad outcomes, and wind up in a bad place as a result. A fantastic example from my recent experiences is with Winter Storm Nemo. My staff and I decided that we needed to prepare for the storm as if it ended up as bad or worse than the media was making it out to be. In doing this, we ensured that we'd keep the operation up and running even if we lost power and people were stuck at home. Best case scenario, our staff would be prepped for a future event thanks to having a good re-education on what to do in such situations - like a fire drill that people actually take seriously.
Were were running around like mad about the impending white doom? No. Were we hopeful that it would be fine and we wouldn't have any issues? Of course. But we were also ready for it not being that way. The result - we had lots of snow, the staff left early, and we were shut down for a while. But what didn't happen is that we didn't get behind on our work, and we kept the parts of the country that weren't snowed in functioning. That's directly a result of our looking at the storm and finding ways to keep it all 'happy' in the end. We did it. It wasn't pessimism. It was realism and control.
Achor talks a lot about happiness coming from perceived control of situations. I think this is a key to our success. We took a negative situation and decided that there is a lot we can control about it beyond the inches that fall. We used that control to our advantage, and it really amazed me how smoothly things went.
We had a similar situation with Hurricane Sandy, though we didn't go about it the same way. The result was not complete chaos, but a markedly worse outcome than here. I think we learned a lot with Sandy on how we can and should respond, and it really boiled down to control. Control in our attitude, control in our plans, and control of the things that we directly - well - control.
The pessimist would just think we'd get 10 feet of snow, and we'd be unable to do any work, and everything would fall apart. Try to plan for a solution, and the pessimist would see it failing. How are you supposed to execute and impress your customers when you're too busy making mountains out of molehills (of snow)?
You can apply this to all sorts of situations tied to your healthy, fitness and well being. Feel a cold coming on? Not getting enough sleep? The list goes on.
Be a controlled, planning optimist. That's how you enlighten.your.body.
Ice is Good, More is Better, Too Much is Horrible
For a while now, I've been a big proponent of icing. Icing painful joints, icing injuries, ice baths and cold-showers, working out in colder settings or with less insulation, etc. It follows lessons I read in The Four Hour Body and in TED talks and blog posts by Dr. Jack Kruse. Apparently, ice is a wonder drug that can heel you and increase the calories you burn during exercise. I don't really understand enough of the science to try to explain why and how, but there's enough evidence for me to believe it (at least the calorie burning...Dr. Kruse really doesn't try to explain it in a way any non-PhDs might hope to understand).
So, I've also had a ton of surgery, and used ice extensively pre- and post-op to speed my recovery. For my double hernia surgery, it worked brilliantly. For my most recent knee surgery (a very minor arthroscopy), it is the reason why I'm still not recovered after 9 weeks.
I went into the surgery very positive and hopeful, with a good strategy for recovery. A key to that would be a lot of elevation and icing. I had a prolonged recovery after my last arthroscopy because I had to go back to work (and thus couldn't elevate enough) quickly, and was in generally worse shape. Not so this time around. I would have at least a couple of weeks at home, and setup my desk to keep my knee at least even with my pelvis, if not elevated. And then I had my secret weapon - ice packs.
Our freezer is about 40% ice packs. I have many different varieties of sizes, materials and freezing compounds. I also got a new Cryo-Cuff from the hospital with an automatic ice water circulator, plus I learned a trick last time around where you freeze the cuff during the day with water in it, and then you have a great ice pack at night that can circulate ice water around your knee. This lets you wake up with a still-cold icing solution. So I was prepared, to say the least.
What happened was that I over-iced. I got too extreme about it, and ended up damaging my skin. I have 2 burns on my back from icing too directly (I rarely put anything between the ice and my skin), but this damage was different. My skin didn't look burned, but my knee was hot to the touch and red. It was also swollen, and not at the point of the operation, but in a specific other area (oddly enough, the location of my last arthroscopy nearly 5 years ago).
I went to see my surgeon 8.5 weeks out from surgery, and he was dumbfounded. He thought I'd be running again by then. He didn't understand the swelling, but thought the heat wasn't strong enough to be an infection (my concern). He ordered blood work and an MRI. The blood work was normal - no infection and no inflammation markers. The MRI was my last hope to find out what was wrong.
Before leaving his office, I said to him, "I just don't understand, I've been icing a ton, and really haven't been hard on it." He suggested I slow down on the icing as the tissue may be too irritated from it.
I stopped icing immediately, and my knee started to get better dramatically and rapidly. It was the ice. I cancelled the MRI, and have been increasing my workout intensity comfortably. I'm nowhere near ready to run, but I'm at least moving toward it rather than stagnating or, as I ultimately ended up, moving away from it.
So, yes, ice is awesome. It can do a lot for you. If you overdo it, it can also do a lot for you, but not things you want it to do. Use it wisely, and enlighten.your.body.
So, I've also had a ton of surgery, and used ice extensively pre- and post-op to speed my recovery. For my double hernia surgery, it worked brilliantly. For my most recent knee surgery (a very minor arthroscopy), it is the reason why I'm still not recovered after 9 weeks.
I went into the surgery very positive and hopeful, with a good strategy for recovery. A key to that would be a lot of elevation and icing. I had a prolonged recovery after my last arthroscopy because I had to go back to work (and thus couldn't elevate enough) quickly, and was in generally worse shape. Not so this time around. I would have at least a couple of weeks at home, and setup my desk to keep my knee at least even with my pelvis, if not elevated. And then I had my secret weapon - ice packs.
Our freezer is about 40% ice packs. I have many different varieties of sizes, materials and freezing compounds. I also got a new Cryo-Cuff from the hospital with an automatic ice water circulator, plus I learned a trick last time around where you freeze the cuff during the day with water in it, and then you have a great ice pack at night that can circulate ice water around your knee. This lets you wake up with a still-cold icing solution. So I was prepared, to say the least.
What happened was that I over-iced. I got too extreme about it, and ended up damaging my skin. I have 2 burns on my back from icing too directly (I rarely put anything between the ice and my skin), but this damage was different. My skin didn't look burned, but my knee was hot to the touch and red. It was also swollen, and not at the point of the operation, but in a specific other area (oddly enough, the location of my last arthroscopy nearly 5 years ago).
I went to see my surgeon 8.5 weeks out from surgery, and he was dumbfounded. He thought I'd be running again by then. He didn't understand the swelling, but thought the heat wasn't strong enough to be an infection (my concern). He ordered blood work and an MRI. The blood work was normal - no infection and no inflammation markers. The MRI was my last hope to find out what was wrong.
Before leaving his office, I said to him, "I just don't understand, I've been icing a ton, and really haven't been hard on it." He suggested I slow down on the icing as the tissue may be too irritated from it.
I stopped icing immediately, and my knee started to get better dramatically and rapidly. It was the ice. I cancelled the MRI, and have been increasing my workout intensity comfortably. I'm nowhere near ready to run, but I'm at least moving toward it rather than stagnating or, as I ultimately ended up, moving away from it.
So, yes, ice is awesome. It can do a lot for you. If you overdo it, it can also do a lot for you, but not things you want it to do. Use it wisely, and enlighten.your.body.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Book Review: Why We Get Fat
I've made a point of reading a ton this year. I started the year with a long list of books I was going to Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It by Gary Taubes.
read, and a New Years resolution was to get through it. Well, I'm almost done with the list I started the year with. One key item in that list is
This is an author Tim Ferriss mentions a few times in The Four Hour Body, including in the chapters on the Slow Carb Diet, which I've been following for over a year now. Taubes has a much longer version of the same subject called Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health. Taubes wrote Why We Get Fat to be an easier-to-digest (no pun intended) version of the lesson with a bit less science and less overall content. A noble and worthy cause. Overall, I think he wrote an incredibly useful and powerful book, but it could have been 40% shorter and still delivered as powerful a message.
Why do I say that? It's the same reason I said you should skim parts of Tread Lightly - that's a great and informative book, but reading about the history of footwear from the 1400s won't really help you in your quest to find the perfect running shoe and avoid injuries. OK, maybe it will a little, but not much. That's the issue I have with Why We Get Fat. Taubes establishes right away that the current popular reason people get fat held by the American medical community is that we eat too much relative to what we burn. He then establishes that this is flawed. He shares example after example showing how it is flawed - people who eat little are still fat. People who exercise a lot are still fat. People who overeat and don't exercise are still lean. Obesity and diabetes rates are higher amongst the poor - i.e. those who can't afford to eat a lot. Starving children have overweight parents, and it's not because their parents are eating all of their food. He shares example after example.
For 10 chapters.
10.
He still hasn't told us why we get fat until the 11th chapter. At that point, the book really gets powerful and enlightening. I'm highlighting a ton as I go along (no, I'm not done, but I'm nearly done with it). I went from having to force myself to read it to wishing my train was delayed so I could squeeze in another chapter during my commute.
The reason we get fat is exactly what the Slow Carb Diet teaches us - it's not about the fat we eat, it's about the carbs we eat (and drink). It's about the glycemic index of foods and the insulinogenic index (the response of our insulin production and release to the foods we eat). It's brilliant, powerful and actionable. And proven. "Eat less, exercise more," as Taubes shows, is proven to be inconsistent and often incapable of leaning a person out (for good, especially).
Fat is not the enemy. I've learned that myself as I eat way more fat than I ever did, though my body fat percentage is lower than its ever been. I used to diet via a fat-restrictive diet, and the way we make up for missing fat is by filling our diet with carbs. Look at the fat free foods in the supermarket. They have higher sugar content to make up for the flavor. In fact, this is exactly what the food industry did when the focus shifted onto cutting fat from the diet. And guess what's happened? Nearly in lock step, obesity and diabetes rates went up as fat content in America's foodstuffs went down.
So, why the need for 10 chapters of repetitive background info? Taubes, while making complete sense logically and physiologically, is going against the current establishment. I say current because what Taubes talks about was the widely accepted gospel pre-WWII, and still is in many parts of the world. It is extremely hard to go against the medical community. Oddly enough for a bunch of scientists, they have a funny way of often ignoring observations that go against their widely held beliefs. Science has a history of this, from the flat Earth to the Earth-centric universe to letting blood as the default treatment for most ailments. It's not to say all current medicine is wrong, but it is to say that just because something is held generally by current medicine, that doesn't make it right.
That leaves the question of whether I recommend this book. I do. Emphatically. But I do suggest you ask yourself if you're open-minded enough to believe Taubes right away. If you are, you should read the introductory chapter, and then jump to chapter 11. If not, or if you aren't sure, then you should try to read the entire book. If, after a few chapters, you find yourself saying, "Wow, how could the whole 'eat less' thing be right?" I suggest you jump ahead to 11.
If you think you'd like to read it, you can get it at Amazon (Print & Kindle) or from Apple iBooks. It's a good way to enlighten.your.body. Just start at chapter 11.
This is an author Tim Ferriss mentions a few times in The Four Hour Body, including in the chapters on the Slow Carb Diet, which I've been following for over a year now. Taubes has a much longer version of the same subject called Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health. Taubes wrote Why We Get Fat to be an easier-to-digest (no pun intended) version of the lesson with a bit less science and less overall content. A noble and worthy cause. Overall, I think he wrote an incredibly useful and powerful book, but it could have been 40% shorter and still delivered as powerful a message.
Why do I say that? It's the same reason I said you should skim parts of Tread Lightly - that's a great and informative book, but reading about the history of footwear from the 1400s won't really help you in your quest to find the perfect running shoe and avoid injuries. OK, maybe it will a little, but not much. That's the issue I have with Why We Get Fat. Taubes establishes right away that the current popular reason people get fat held by the American medical community is that we eat too much relative to what we burn. He then establishes that this is flawed. He shares example after example showing how it is flawed - people who eat little are still fat. People who exercise a lot are still fat. People who overeat and don't exercise are still lean. Obesity and diabetes rates are higher amongst the poor - i.e. those who can't afford to eat a lot. Starving children have overweight parents, and it's not because their parents are eating all of their food. He shares example after example.
For 10 chapters.
10.
He still hasn't told us why we get fat until the 11th chapter. At that point, the book really gets powerful and enlightening. I'm highlighting a ton as I go along (no, I'm not done, but I'm nearly done with it). I went from having to force myself to read it to wishing my train was delayed so I could squeeze in another chapter during my commute.
The reason we get fat is exactly what the Slow Carb Diet teaches us - it's not about the fat we eat, it's about the carbs we eat (and drink). It's about the glycemic index of foods and the insulinogenic index (the response of our insulin production and release to the foods we eat). It's brilliant, powerful and actionable. And proven. "Eat less, exercise more," as Taubes shows, is proven to be inconsistent and often incapable of leaning a person out (for good, especially).
Fat is not the enemy. I've learned that myself as I eat way more fat than I ever did, though my body fat percentage is lower than its ever been. I used to diet via a fat-restrictive diet, and the way we make up for missing fat is by filling our diet with carbs. Look at the fat free foods in the supermarket. They have higher sugar content to make up for the flavor. In fact, this is exactly what the food industry did when the focus shifted onto cutting fat from the diet. And guess what's happened? Nearly in lock step, obesity and diabetes rates went up as fat content in America's foodstuffs went down.
So, why the need for 10 chapters of repetitive background info? Taubes, while making complete sense logically and physiologically, is going against the current establishment. I say current because what Taubes talks about was the widely accepted gospel pre-WWII, and still is in many parts of the world. It is extremely hard to go against the medical community. Oddly enough for a bunch of scientists, they have a funny way of often ignoring observations that go against their widely held beliefs. Science has a history of this, from the flat Earth to the Earth-centric universe to letting blood as the default treatment for most ailments. It's not to say all current medicine is wrong, but it is to say that just because something is held generally by current medicine, that doesn't make it right.
That leaves the question of whether I recommend this book. I do. Emphatically. But I do suggest you ask yourself if you're open-minded enough to believe Taubes right away. If you are, you should read the introductory chapter, and then jump to chapter 11. If not, or if you aren't sure, then you should try to read the entire book. If, after a few chapters, you find yourself saying, "Wow, how could the whole 'eat less' thing be right?" I suggest you jump ahead to 11.
If you think you'd like to read it, you can get it at Amazon (Print & Kindle) or from Apple iBooks. It's a good way to enlighten.your.body. Just start at chapter 11.
Monday, February 4, 2013
"We runners..."
I've been reading a lot lately. I have been reading a lot for the past year, but especially over the past two to three months as I've had to cut back my workouts due to my knee injury and eventual surgery. I've taken the time to enlighten.my.body by focusing on my mind.
One strong theme in my readings has been running. Since my knee crapped out I've read Runner's World cover to cover each month (LOVE that magazine, and highly recommend it), "The Long Run" by Matt Long, every book by Dean Karnazes, and Amby Burfoot's "The Runner's Guide to the Meaning of Life". What do I see in every running-related piece of print? It's the consistent use of the term, "We runners."
It's so enlightening to me how this phrase keeps getting used, and really speaks to what running is all about and how cohesive and connecting a sport it is for something that's so personal and solitary. Sure, you can run on a relay team, but the bulk of running is done alone. Even if you're running with friends or on a team, it's your body alone - no ball to pass to someone, no set of oars that must bull a boat in unison, etc.
The way running can bring people together, and instantly remove any potential interpersonal barriers and just get people wanting to work together, talk together, etc - it's really amazing and powerful.
I've written about running a lot (starting with this blog post). I miss running a lot right now. I hated running a lot for 33 years of my life. I always did the gym thing (either in a gym or with equipment at home). I never felt good about it socially. I always felt some sort of weird pressure - pressure to look good, pressure to go longer or on a higher resistance level than the person next to you, etc. Not that it's bad to be pushed to do better, but it was an odd sort of competitive feeling that just didn't seem...well, healthy. Not so with running.
It's competitive, but there's some underlying feeling most runners seem to have where competitiveness is felt in a very healthy and constructive way. Not always, but most times. You see it in all of Dean Karnazes' stories of doing ultra marathons and how runners stop to help each other despite it being a high stakes race where you want to not only win but live (seriously, death is a real risk in these things).
What about you? In your fitness quest, do you feel part of a 'we' or are you an 'I' against all the other 'I's out there? Which do you think is a better way to feel? I'll give you a hint, through the help of a positive, productive, supportive 'we', you will enlighten.your.body.
One strong theme in my readings has been running. Since my knee crapped out I've read Runner's World cover to cover each month (LOVE that magazine, and highly recommend it), "The Long Run" by Matt Long, every book by Dean Karnazes, and Amby Burfoot's "The Runner's Guide to the Meaning of Life". What do I see in every running-related piece of print? It's the consistent use of the term, "We runners."
It's so enlightening to me how this phrase keeps getting used, and really speaks to what running is all about and how cohesive and connecting a sport it is for something that's so personal and solitary. Sure, you can run on a relay team, but the bulk of running is done alone. Even if you're running with friends or on a team, it's your body alone - no ball to pass to someone, no set of oars that must bull a boat in unison, etc.
The way running can bring people together, and instantly remove any potential interpersonal barriers and just get people wanting to work together, talk together, etc - it's really amazing and powerful.
I've written about running a lot (starting with this blog post). I miss running a lot right now. I hated running a lot for 33 years of my life. I always did the gym thing (either in a gym or with equipment at home). I never felt good about it socially. I always felt some sort of weird pressure - pressure to look good, pressure to go longer or on a higher resistance level than the person next to you, etc. Not that it's bad to be pushed to do better, but it was an odd sort of competitive feeling that just didn't seem...well, healthy. Not so with running.
It's competitive, but there's some underlying feeling most runners seem to have where competitiveness is felt in a very healthy and constructive way. Not always, but most times. You see it in all of Dean Karnazes' stories of doing ultra marathons and how runners stop to help each other despite it being a high stakes race where you want to not only win but live (seriously, death is a real risk in these things).
What about you? In your fitness quest, do you feel part of a 'we' or are you an 'I' against all the other 'I's out there? Which do you think is a better way to feel? I'll give you a hint, through the help of a positive, productive, supportive 'we', you will enlighten.your.body.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Just a Spoon Full of Sugar Makes Everything Go Wrong
As parents, I think my wife and I have done a good job with our son's diet. He eats pretty much all organic food, drinks organic drinks, and generally has a low-sugar diet (at least low added sugar and low refined sugar as opposed to eliminating all natural sugar). While he gets treats from time to time, they're definitely not a daily thing, if even a weekly thing. He reminds us that these are 'sometimes foods' (thanks, Elmo!) when he does eat treats, and he's good about not finishing everything when he does get them if he's not hungry. Basically, he's everything I wish I was when I was his age (he's four).
The other day, my wife and I went to this home concert series (we saw Tall Heights, who are incredibly talented), and it was recommended that you bring some finger food to the concert. My wife loves to bake. She's damn good at it, so I love her to bake (though it's a gift and a curse, too, since the stuff is both tasty and not really Slow Carb Diet compliant). She made these amazing little toffee bar things. No, that's not their official name. Anyway, the ingredients were all organic except for the toffee bars. They could have been I guess, but I got Heath Bars.
So, after making them, we had a lot of mini Heath Bars left over. My son asked if he could have one. First, while he can read, he misread the name, so the way he asked was hilarious. He said, "Oh, Health Bars. I'd love to have a Health Bar." Second, we let him choose one mini one or one of my wife's fresh toffee treats. He chose the Heath Bar, to both of our chagrin. He was really good about asking for just one, and not asking for more, and before biting in, he told us that candy is a sometimes food.
Well, let me just say, I don't ever want him having it again. Processed sugar (and whatever other processed crap is in that stuff) did quite a number on him. We expected some off-the-wall type behavior, but that wasn't even it. He basically couldn't focus at all. He's four, and is into lots of different things, and doesn't necessarily hold is attention on one thing for long anyway, but you could tell this was totally different. It really drove the point home that this tiny amount of commercialized, refined, chemically engineered junk has a massive effect on us all.
It reminded me of two videos (or series) everyone should look into. The first is a piece Dr. Sanjay Gupta did called "Is Sugar Toxic?" It's free. Watch it. Learn from it. Change your choices. The second is the fantastic series called "The Weight of the Nation" that HBO ran. Apple and HBO have made several episodes free on iTunes, so at least watch those, but please consider buying the others or seeing them on OnDemand or something (if you have it). Of particular value is the episode "The Quest to Understand the Biology of Weight Loss".
We need to loosen the grip refined sugar has on our lives, and make sure our kids can live free of all the maladies associated with it. After all, the best way to expect your kids to do right is to set the right example for them. You really must enlighten.your.body.
The other day, my wife and I went to this home concert series (we saw Tall Heights, who are incredibly talented), and it was recommended that you bring some finger food to the concert. My wife loves to bake. She's damn good at it, so I love her to bake (though it's a gift and a curse, too, since the stuff is both tasty and not really Slow Carb Diet compliant). She made these amazing little toffee bar things. No, that's not their official name. Anyway, the ingredients were all organic except for the toffee bars. They could have been I guess, but I got Heath Bars.
So, after making them, we had a lot of mini Heath Bars left over. My son asked if he could have one. First, while he can read, he misread the name, so the way he asked was hilarious. He said, "Oh, Health Bars. I'd love to have a Health Bar." Second, we let him choose one mini one or one of my wife's fresh toffee treats. He chose the Heath Bar, to both of our chagrin. He was really good about asking for just one, and not asking for more, and before biting in, he told us that candy is a sometimes food.
Well, let me just say, I don't ever want him having it again. Processed sugar (and whatever other processed crap is in that stuff) did quite a number on him. We expected some off-the-wall type behavior, but that wasn't even it. He basically couldn't focus at all. He's four, and is into lots of different things, and doesn't necessarily hold is attention on one thing for long anyway, but you could tell this was totally different. It really drove the point home that this tiny amount of commercialized, refined, chemically engineered junk has a massive effect on us all.
It reminded me of two videos (or series) everyone should look into. The first is a piece Dr. Sanjay Gupta did called "Is Sugar Toxic?" It's free. Watch it. Learn from it. Change your choices. The second is the fantastic series called "The Weight of the Nation" that HBO ran. Apple and HBO have made several episodes free on iTunes, so at least watch those, but please consider buying the others or seeing them on OnDemand or something (if you have it). Of particular value is the episode "The Quest to Understand the Biology of Weight Loss".
We need to loosen the grip refined sugar has on our lives, and make sure our kids can live free of all the maladies associated with it. After all, the best way to expect your kids to do right is to set the right example for them. You really must enlighten.your.body.