A few years ago, I was your typical office-worker: stressed out, uneven energy, overweight, and inconsistent complexion. Now I'm just your typical 28-year old urban hunter-gatherer on a quest to be healthy, and having a few adventures along the way. See my full bio.
One topic that I have yet to write much about is relationships, dating, love, and sex. In part, this is because the most fascinating evolutionary perspective on relationships is found in the pick-up artist world, which can feel a little seedy at times. A lot of books and blogs on pick-up seem to have the goal of getting laid by almost any means necessary: canned lines, negs (teasing insults), and magic tricks (seriously). It can feel manipulative, and for some, pick-up can serve as an outlet or justification for misogynistic attitudes. There's a reason why many pick-up bloggers write with psuedonyms. But I don't write with a psuedonym, and my dear mother would be shocked and ashamed by even some of the tamest material. (My mother reads my blog.) So for a long time, I had no desire to go there -- not only for social reasons of reputation, but also for personal reasons: I do just fine with women. But relationships are a critical part of being a healthy person, it's an important topic, and so I'm going to put myself out there. This is about using evolutionary principles to build healthier relationships -- bringing pick-up out of shadows.
For those who aren't familiar, the basic thrust of pick-up is to teach men how to act more "alpha" by adopting behaviors that indicate high status, which is a quality that most women seek out in men. It's true: many women sexually reward assholes. (Have you ever heard a woman complain that she always seems to end up with jerks?) And for good reason back in the day: a man who got his way would be a good guy to have on your side 100,000 years ago. Particularly a tall and strong man who got his way.
Women have always desired high status men, all things equal, whether the status derives from artistic, academic, or athletic accomplishment -- or some other talent or resources. Status, of course, isn't the only quality that women desire in men, and looks isn't the only quality that men desire in women -- nor are they necessarily the most important. Both sexes care about kindness, intelligence, integrity, shared values, and humor, among others. But relative to one another, women tend to care more about status in men, and men tend to care more about physical appearance in women.
Pick-up tends to focus on these areas where men and women differ. Pick-Up 1.0 For Men teaches men how to act alpha (i.e., high status). But pick-up exists for women too -- it teaches women how to be physically attractive. Yes, that's right, Pick-Up 1.0 For Women is as old as time: use make-up, dress sexy, wear heels, and play hard to get. These are methods women have used to "manipulate" men since the invention of make-up, clothing, and high heels. And females, across the animal kingdom, have played hard to get pretty much since the beginning of sexual reproduction. Pick-up 1.0 For Men is actually more complicated because it concerns social behavior -- and codified into a system, it is a more recent phenomenon.
Why the recent popularity for pick-up among men? Decades ago, back before women became economically independent, a man could attract a good mate simply by earning a decent income. Pre-marital sex was taboo, no-fault divorce wasn't an option, and so men and women paired off at a fairly young age and got to work making babies. (I am neither idealizing nor condemning that system.) But women have incomes now. So for a guy looking for a mate, just earning 45k doesn't cut it anymore. The Nice Guy With A Steady Job strategy doesn't work as well as it used to. Sexual mores have also become more permissive, so both women and men have greater freedom to engage in premarital sex, and women have greater opportunity to do so with the man or men she prefers -- particularly during her sexual prime. Sexual dynamics have changed. And they've changed even for those who are already married. These are important topics with relevance to most people.
So where does pick-up fit in? Pick-up is just the beginning of a broader conversation about how to build healthy relationships in the modern world. So tomorrow, I'm going to review a book that helps bring the pick-up world out of the seediness and shadows, and starts to take a more holistic look at using evolutionary principles to build healthy relationships. Stay tuned.
Novak Djokovic is the best tennis player in the world right now. Perhaps the most dominant player in any sport, says the WSJ:
"It's no secret that Djokovic has had a breakout season, or that he has been, by any reasonable standard, the world's best athlete of 2011. On Sunday, he beat Rafael Nadal in the Rome Masters, his fourth-straight win over the Spaniard. It was his second win over Nadal on clay in two weeks, and again, amazingly, he did it without losing a set. The match ran Djokovic's 2011 record to 37-0 with seven titles."
Note: It's extremely hard to beat Rafael Nadal. It's near impossible to beat him on clay. Nadal on clay is like a bird in flight. More on Djokovic's dominance:
"Of Djokovic's 37 wins, 13 are against Top 10 players, including four against Nadal and three against Federer, who in all his years of dominance never started a season in so grand a fashion. If Djokovic reaches the French Open final, he could have 43 consecutive victories—one more than John McEnroe's record 42 to start 1984 (that streak ended in the French Open final, after McEnroe won the first two sets against Ivan Lendl).
Djokovic's 2011 on-court stats border on the absurd: He has won 89% of his service games, 43% of his return games and half of his break points. In his four matches against Nadal, he has repeatedly gotten the better of the Spaniard in rallies lasting longer than eight shots. No one has done that to Nadal in his professional career."
That's just insane -- 7 of his 37 wins (18.9%) are against Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal. So to what does Djokovic attribute his success?
"Last year, Djokovic's nutritionist discovered that Djokovic is allergic to the protein, which is found in common flours."
...
"Since last year, he's swearing off pasta, pizza, beer, French bread, Corn Flakes, pretzels, empanadas, Mallomars and Twizzlers—anything with gluten."
Of course, as the article points out, athletics can be extremely mental, dependent on confidence, and small changes (even placebos) can have large effects. And if Djokovic had gone gluten-free and played worse, then I probably wouldn't have heard or posted about it. But even so.
Go read the full article, if only to see the Journal's artistic depiction of Nadal and Federer dressed up as steaks.
So a month ago I spit a bunch of saliva into a test tube and mailed it off to 23andMe to test my genome. I just got my results back. Here is a comprehensive list of the interesting results:
Decreased risk of Parkinson's (1.4% vs. 1.6% overall)
Elevated risk of prostate cancer (29.1% vs. 17.8%) between the ages of 35 and 79
Carrier for hemochromatosis, a disease where your body overloads on iron
That's it. My genome is fairly boring. I mean, even the hemochromatosis turned out to be innocuous when I drilled down into the data, and saw that my variant is mild, and puts me at "no increased risk for iron overload". I suppose that no news is good news.
The potential of genetic testing is similar to the potential of genetic engineering. The most promising applications of genetic engineering are to reverse individual genetic mutations that cause rare and devastating diseases. It's much, much harder to engineer positive traits because there are lots of genes responsible, the environment influences gene expression, and there are going to be more negative side effects to any given genetic change. For the samereasons, most 23andMe reports are going to be boring.
Besides, I don't even believe all the results. My eating is so substantially different than all the people who are taking part in these genetic studies, that I just don't believe some of the numbers. Take obesity. Based purely on my genome, I have a 57% chance of becoming obese between the ages of 13 and 59, versus 63.9% overall. SHIT! I looked at stats on my sugar consumption, and found that the conclusions were based on one study of 587 Canadians who filled out a food questionnaire. Furthermore, I don't need to know that my eye color is "likely brown" when I can look in the mirror and see that they're green-yellow-brown. I have an intimate and long-standing knowledge of my earwax type. I've known that alcohol doesn't make my face flush since freshman year in high school. Anything they can tell you with certainty is almost always something that you already know. This is not useful information.
I will say that I enjoyed seeing some pictures of my maternal and paternal lineage in Europe, but honestly, I already knew I came from Europe. And look, it's fun to see all this information right when it comes in. But I just don't obsess about measurements in the way that, say, a Tim Ferriss does. I keep an eye on the most important markers, if I have a specific health problem then I try to fix it, and beyond that I just go with flow. So if you have a couple hundred bucks, it's kind of fun and I wouldn't recommend against it. And the service should improve over time. But keep in mind the best outcome is a boring outcome.
When it comes to your genome, no news is good news.
Say you have an injury. Maybe you tore your rotator cuff, and you can't throw a baseball for the rest of your life. Call it a career-ending injury for a professional baseball player. Now, imagine that you are trying to become a professional hunter-gatherer. What kinds of injuries are standing in your way? And which are permanent and which are temporary?
Let's start simple. Poor eyesight will prevent you from surviving in the wild without corrective lenses or surgery. There are no dietary changes or vision exercises that will restore your vision. As far as I know (and I may be wrong), this is a permanent injury -- a career-ending injury for a hunter-gatherer wannabe. What other permanent injuries have modern people sustained? We've seen all the temporary injuries from the before and after photos: weight loss, strength gains, immune system improvement, digestion, and general health improvement that can come from lifestyle changes. But what can't we change? Are there ways in which we are permanently deformed, perhaps without even realizing it?
Permanent Injuries
Poor eyesight
Stunted height (yes, not as bad as recent agriculturalists)
Poor organ and body development during infancy (affecting proclivity to a wide range of diseases)
Scarring from acne
Smaller jaw size (and thus not enough room for wisdom teeth)
Collapsed arches (permanent?)
Extremely damaged gut or metabolism (permanent?)
Reduced max bone density (permanent?)
What else? I realize not all of these are not career-ending, but they should be permanent. Put your thoughts in the comments.
As many of you know, I spent last week fasting at the Abbey of Gethsemani, a Trappist monastery in Kentucky. It was a rich experience, physically and mentally, and I'm glad I did it. This is my report. First, I'll give an overview of the trip. Then I'll talk about the more physical and mental aspects of the fast and the overall ascetic experience. And then a few general impressions and concluding thoughts.
You may be disappointed to learn that I didn't take any pictures, but it just didn't seem appropriate. It wasn't a spa. (And if you ever go, don't expect a spa-like experience.) But I've grabbed a few pics that were already on the net, and those will do. For the same reason, I won't be blogging about everything in the experience. And, of course, I need to save something fresh for the book. [more]
Mark Sisson just had a nice post on the power of solitude. Well, I'll see your day of hiking, and raise you three days in a Trappist monastery. Yes, I'm going to a Trappist monastery for a three-day retreat during Holy Week. I will be a guest at the Abbey of Gesthemeni, located in Trappist, Kentucky, which is about an hour south of Louisville. I'm going to be silent most of the time, and I plan on fasting for all three days. I will spend my time thinking, reading, writing, barefoot running, and moving. I will also be attending the hours: Vigil (3:15am), Lauds (5:45am), Terce (7:30am), Sext (12:15pm), Vespers (5:30pm), and Compline (7:30pm).
The Trappists are a Roman Catholic religious order of monks and nuns who live a monastic life. (Incidentally, I'm not Catholic.) They were founded as part of a reform movement in in 1664 (the Cisterians were getting a bit lax), and became their own official order in 1892. There are 170 Trappist monasteries throughout the world, home to almost 4,000 monks and nuns. The monks are not necessarily priests. They follow the Rule of St. Benedict, a rule book for monastic life written a little after 500 AD. Monasteries usually support themselves through the sale of simple crafts and foods. In the outside world, Trappists are perhaps best known for their ales, like Chimay. (Consumption of alcohol in small quantities is not forbidden.)
Trappists live an ascetic life -- eschewing material possessions and much technology, isolating themselves from the outside world, and living humbly. Contrary to one popular belief, Trappists do not have to take a vow of silence. However, they do very little speaking, even to the point of having their own sign language. St. Benedict didn't have any specific rules against computer usage, but I have a feeling that live tweeting Vespers will be frowned upon.
I'm not sure if fasting is a part of the Trappist tradition. That was my idea. I will only drink water or tea (if tea is available). The longest fast I've ever done is about 24 hours. Maybe 36, I forget. So I may do a 48-hour fast in the next week or two. (By the way, if you've heard someone say they fasted for a week or 10 days, they're usually drinking at least some sugar water / fruit juice.) This will just be 3 days and 3 nights - not 40 days and 40 nights - but 72 hours should be enough to get interesting.
The Abbey of Gethsemeni was also home to Thomas Merton, a well-known author. poet, and social activist. He's been described as "part Augustine, part Emerson, and part Gandhi". I'll be posting about Merton some more.
If anyone will like to fast along with me, you're welcome to. It's going to be from Tuesday, April 19th to Friday, April 22nd.
Knut, the famous polar bear in the Berlin Zoo, has died. All of Germany - and much of the world - fell in love with Knut when he was rejected by his mother (common for polar bears in captivity). He survived by being hand-fed by a zoo caretaker, Thomas Doerflein.
Well, below is the very sad (and disturbing) video of Knut dying. He spins in circles, his left hind leg starts to twitch, then his whole body shakes, he screams, and then collapses. You can hear the gasps from the spectators, then calls for help. Knut was 4 years old. Polar bears in the wild usually live from 15-20 years.
So what can we learn from this tragedy?
It was a one of the best zoos. The Berlin Zoo is the largest zoo in the world, and one of the best. They are trying very hard to keep these animals alive. (They were making a lot of money from Knut too, so had a large financial incentive to keep him alive.)
Health is a hard problem. We still don't know how to keep many wild animals healthy in captivity. Knut was the first polar bear cub at the Berlin Zoo to survive past infancy in 30 years. Many zoo animals have difficulty reproducing, express odd repetitive behaviors, and have signs of chronic disease (tooth decay, heart problems). Knut was bullied by the other bears in his enclosure. They think Knut had a brain problem.
Some species are "wilder" than others. By wilder, I mean less fit for living in an enclosed space, in close proximity to humans, not eating their natural diet, and missing key aspects of life in the wild. (Humans aren't as wild as polar bears, for example.) It's worth noting that many species live considerably longer in zoos than in the wild. Many wild animals eventually starve to death, or are eaten by predators.
Knut's keeper also died young. Thomas Doerflein, who had fed and raised him after Knut, also died young. How? A heart attack at age 44. He died soon after not being allowed to enter Knut's enclosure, because Knut had grown too large. Stress + Male + Normal (aka Bad) Diet. Humans shouldn't be dying of heart attacks at age 44 (and dietary cholesterol isn't to blame).
Nature is the model. More zoos are trying to replicate wild habitats (and diets), rather than keeping animals in cages. So just keep in mind as you read stories about animals in zoos, the best zoos are basically thinking like we do on this blog. A little bit of that thinking might have saved Thomas Doerflein's life too.
Here is the full article, which contains more. Here are some photos of Knut.
Watch this video. Then re-blog it, like it on facebook, and re-tweet it. Tell your family and send it to your doctor. Write a letter to your congressman. Show it to your niece and nephew, and teach it in your classroom. Let your dog sniff the computer while it's playing. Meditate on it. Put it on a thumb drive, duct tape it to a brick, and throw it through the window at the USDA. Put it in a time capsule so future generations will know. Convert it into binary and beam it into space.
Life for humans is much easier than for animals in the wild. On a day-to-day basis, we generally do not have to worry about being eaten or starving to death. Depending on the individual's job, some can get by just fine by sitting around all day. However, this lifestyle brings forth its own set of health issues such as diabetes and heart disease, illnesses rarely found in the wild. These "human" diseases have spread to gorillas that are raised in captivity.
The only species of gorilla kept at North American zoos is the Western Lowland Gorilla. The number one killer of males in captivity is heart disease, much like humans. After a 21 year old gorilla named Brooks died of heart failure at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo in 2005, a group of researchers decided to examine how the gorilla’s lifestyle affect their health. The team was led by Elena Hoellein Less, a PhD candidate in biology at Case Western Reserve University.
The researchers believe that heart disease can be stopped by switching captive gorillas back to their natural diets in the wild. For decades, zoos have fed gorillas bucket loads of high vitamin, high sugar, and high starch foods to make sure their got all their nutrients. At the Cleveland zoo, they have started feeding food such as romaine lettuce, dandelion greens, endives, alfalfa, green beans, flax seeds, and even tree branches which they strip of bark and leaves. To top it off, they give the gorillas three Centrum Silver multivitamins inside half a banana.
Going back to this natural diet has changed gorilla behavior. Before, gorillas only ate during a quarter of their day because the food was so packed with nutrients. Now at Cleveland, they spend 50-60 percent of their day eating which is the same amount as in the wild. With all this extra eating, the gorillas have doubled their caloric intake, yet at the same time have dropped 65 pounds each. This brings their weight more in line with their wild relatives.
"We're beginning to understand we may have a lot of overweight gorillas," said Kristen Lukas, an adjunct assistant professor of biology at Case Western Reserve and chair of the Gorilla Species Survival Plan®. "And, we're just recognizing that surviving on a diet and being healthy on a diet are different. We've raised our standards and are asking, are they in the best condition to not only survive but to thrive?"
Less and her crew are continuing their studies of captive gorillas by measuring the fat on their backs to create a gorilla body mass index. This can be used to gauge healthy weight for gorillas much as it is used for humans. The next step, says Less, is to exercise gorillas at the zoo to get their muscles to a similar level as their wild relatives.
I may shut down the blog after this post because there's nothing left to say.
Yesterday I went to the premier dog show in the world: the 135th Annual Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. The World Series of Woof. The second oldest continually-held sporting event in the country. (Know the oldest? Put your best guess in the comments.)
I was a man on a mission. I wanted to talk to dog-owners and breeders who fed their dogs an ancestral diet -- more or less what a wolf would eat. What's great is that you actually get to go "backstage" and meet the dogs. Many owners let you pet their dogs, and most are happy to talk (the owners, not the dogs). So I went around interviewing owners and breeders. And -- miracle of miracles -- many dog owners and breeders are already on to this paleo concept. But they don't need to call it paleo. (That's a term that us highly intelligent humans need to help figure out what to eat.) They just call it raw, whole prey raw, or BARF. A species-specific diet.
It's astonishing how many health problems go away when you stop feeding grain-based kibble to dogs. This list of health benefits is assembled form interviews with multiple owners / breeders:
*Much* better teeth
Bad breath goes away
Healthier and shinier coat
The dog stops smelling so "dog-like"
Less moody
Lost weight (if overweight)
Sound familiar? I wonder why it works. I asked them what motivated them to feed their dogs this way, and I heard: "Well, it just makes sense."
Not everybody was a fan of raw. Here were some difficulties and criticisms:
Concern about getting a balanced set of nutrients, particularly as puppies
The time required to source and prepare quality food
Difficulty when traveling
Concern about bacterial contamination of animal products
Most WKC dog show owners simply feed their dog kibble / chow -- fairly high-end brands, unsurprisingly. Many dogs do just fine on it. But these high-end dog food brands have all been going grain free. (Dog people, with characteristic frankness, just call it "grain free", not the specific and obscure "gluten free".)
Some of it may vary by breed too -- there are breeds that are closer to wolves, like a husky, malamute, or spitz. (You can spot these breeds because they still have the pointy ears, curly tail, and double coat of a wolf.) One spritz owner just quarters up a cow and tosses it into a pen of puppies. They happily devour it. More domesticated breeds may have a higher tolerance for plant foods -- even the raw dogs would seek out some fruit in the orchard, and enjoyed carrots and beets. With so many breeds, I'd be surprised if there weren't some variability in diet.
At the show, there are well over 100 breeds represented. Each breed belongs to one of seven groups, more or less based on the function they were bred for:
Sporting (retrievers, setters, spaniels)
Hound (beagles, dachshunds, greyhound)
Working (malamute, great dane, husky, rottweiler)
Terrier (scottish terrier, bull terrier)
Toy (toy poodle, shih tzu, chihuahua)
Non-Sporting (bulldog, poodle, chow chow)
Herding (collies, german shepherd)
What's a little ironic is that despite being grouped by function, they aren't assessed by function. Why not have a competition, and assess the dogs on how well they retrieve, herd, flush out prey, learn commands, and run? Functional fitness anyone? And yes, we can also assess them by how well they cuddle and elicit coos from grown men.
One other thing I noticed. Dog handlers give treats to their dog in the ring. And they seemed to briefly put the treat in their own mouth, and then give it to the dog. What was actually happening, I learned, is that the handlers were storing the treats in their mouths. Apparently, because it's easier to access. And ya know what the treats are? Liver. Cooked liver. These professional dog handlers are keeping a bunch of cooked liver in their mouths. Needless to say, dogs really love liver. Wonder why. Maybe more nutritious or something.
I'm the type of person who will jump on any new trend, just because it's cool. The Thigh Master, Tai Bo -- hell, if I had been alive in the 70s I would have been pounding out the miles in newfangled pair of Nikes instead of barefoot running. Because I'm flaky like that. So let's see what Outside Magazine had to say about the Top 10 Health and Fitness Trends of 2010.
10. iFitness (health apps) -- I should track more stuff, but I don't. Tracking will continue to improve, this is here to stay.
8. Boot Camp -- Is that like a more gimmicky form of CrossFit?
7. The Shake Weight -- This should be on the top 10 trends of the 21st century. Here's the original ad, plus the SNL spoof (hilarious adult subject matter).
1. Paleolithic Fitness -- Our very own Erwan Le Corre and MovNat, picking up top honors. And the article points to a lot of paleo elements. Totally sweet.
So let's check the score board.
Dead on with 5: Vitamin D, Gluten-Free, Barefoot Running, and Paleolithic Fitness. And I'll count CrossFit as better form of Boot Camp.
Kind of missed on 1: iFitness and better tracking
Avoided4 other fads or jokes: Shake Weight, Tone-Up Shoes / Clothes, P90X, TRX
That's a pretty damn good tally. Welcome to the epicenter of the health revolution. At least, until I go chasing the hot new trends of 2011.
Update: A few commenters have pointed out that P90X and TRX incorporate positive non-faddish developments, like HIT (high intensity training), higher movement variation, and more compound movements. You're right, and that is all good. But 10 years from now, will people still be doing P90X and TRX? I don't think so. I don't think HIT is a fad, but I do think the popularity of specific branded approaches are more likely to be fads...particularly when there is little community (CrossFit) or deeper meaning to the approach.
Google has been digitizing books for years now, and a team of researchers just published some amazing findings based on the corpus so far -- over 5 million books. That's 4% of all books. Ever. Printed. You can read about the paper here. The full paper is easy to read, and incredible (free with registration). Google also released this tool to view the frequency of any n-gram since 1720. (An n-gram is a set of characters separated by a space. 1-gram = technology, 1942, R2D2; 2-gram = yellow fever, John Wayne. And so on.) I wish they had tools like this when I was writing history papers back in college.
So what can we learn about health, and how we used to eat? (Click on each title for a larger image.)
The good guys: Tallow and lard see a steep decline in the mid-20th century. Good news -- there is a noticeable up-tick after 2000.
The bad guys: Margarine is a war product. The first spike is during WWI, and it spikes again during WWI. And then there's a spike in the 50s. Vegetable oil continues a slow and steady rise.
Benoit Mandelbrot, founder of fractal geometry, died yesterday. He was 85. To most, Mandelbrot is an unknown or obscure mathematician -- possibly known only by the psychedelic graphics called fractals. So what does fractal geometry have to do with health?
Mandelbrot's important insight is that fractals are the geometry of nature. As Mandelbrot wrote: "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line." Very helpful if you're trying to generate realistic special effects in movies. How do you generate a realistic looking sky? Or mountain? With fractals. Here are some examples of fractals in nature: here, here, and here.
Here's why fractals matter to your health. Stop trying to impose a machine-like regularity on life that isn't natural. Life is bursty, non-linear, and unpredictable. There are regular patterns in life, but they are self-similar resemblances and echoes, not exact copies. A toaster is regular, on-time, and predictable. Don't be a toaster. Be a wild animal. You don't need to eat three square meals a day -- sometimes you will eat two, one, or even fast. You don't need to eat the exact same number calories every day -- maybe it's 2,300 on Tuesday and 1,800 on Wednesday and 2,800 or Thursday. Don't run the same distance on the same treadmill at the same speed at the same time of day every day. A healthy heart beat is slightly irregular. There are no exact clocks in nature, and we do not need them to be healthy. The body thrives on a certain amount of variance and irregularity. Don't be a toaster. Be a wild animal.
Art De Vany has been most instrumental in incorporating these ideas into human health and fitness, and I hope we'll see a post from Art on this subject in the next few days. Nassim Taleb's tribute: "A Greek among Romans."
What effect does divorce have on children's health? The initial stages of many divorces can be very acrimonious. During custody battles, and in the years after, both parents usually have a strong incentive for the children to like Mommy or Daddy. More and better Christmas presents. New toys all the time. But the easiest way for parents to control (and please) their children is -- you guessed it -- sugar and candy. The same stuff that we warn children to fear when in the hands of strangers.
A divorce can make it harder for each parent to make decisions that are in the long term best interests of the child. Rather than suffer through a tantrum, much better to just give in to his demands for a Kit Kat. Rather than seem mean, much better to give her a little something sweet. Don't we have fun when we see Daddy? He gives us candy. Don't we have fun when we see Mommy? She gives us treats. It's an arms race with no winners. Denying short term enjoyment is easier to do when you aren't battling with your former spouse for the primary affections of your child.
I get that there are plenty of married parents who use sugar to control their children. I get that divorce is sometimes necessary. I get all that. That's not what I'm talking about. Got any perspective on this issue? Please share it in the comments.
Finally, a reason to write a post about Gisele. Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen has been stirring up controversy -- in a recent interview with Harper's Bazaar, Gisele spoke about being a new mother, and made a strong statement in favor of breastfeeding:
"Some people [in the United States] think they don't have to breastfeed, and I think 'Are you going to give chemical food to your child when they are so little?' I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months."
My reaction? Puh-lease. Here are 10 reasons why Gisele is in the right.
First, as Gisele clarified on her blog, she wasn't making a point about the law. She was emphasizing the importance of breastfeeding and the strength of her belief.
Second, she's absolutely right that breastfeeding is important, that more women should breastfeed their children, and breastfeed for longer. (And yes, I said that. And I'm a man. Without any children. Boo ya!) Just because it may be easier for Giselle to breastfeed than some women, it doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal.
Third, it's not as if every other celebrity doesn't sound off about, say, environmental issues every day -- but in that situation, they are actually advocating global laws (e.g., the Kyoto Protocol) to force people to behave a certain way. So for consistency's sake, I hope you accuse every green-in-the-face celebrity for unmerited opinions and general smugness.
Fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth are attached below (with captions).
Now that I have found a way to post about Gisele (and her breasts), I've accomplished all of the goals I had for this blog. So I will be shutting down the site. Thank you for coming.
Burning calories is a bankrupt concept. And paying attention to how many calories you burn is as utterly bankrupt as trying to eat healthy by counting calories.
In the CBS piece about our barefoot running event, they suggested that a benefit of barefoot running is that it burns more calories. Not only does this miss the entire point of natural running (a healthier stride, less injury), but it is factually wrong. Research by Dan Lieberman up at Harvard (and others) have shown that barefoot running is more efficient -- i.e., you expend less energy for a given distance. This is because, in part, you actually use your arch to store your momentum and release it in your next stride. So if you run properly, the end result will be to burn fewer calories, not more. And that's a good thing.
This is true for other movements too, not just running. For any given exercise, you should seek to expend as few calories as possible. Don't get me wrong, you want some big workouts where you burn through a bunch of calories. That's why I say "for any given exercise". But for that specific workout, you should seek to accomplish it as efficiently as possible. That means good form. No wasted movement.
Good form allows you to do more with less. Athletes understand this. Good form allows you to:
hit a golf ball further and more accurately with the same or fewer calories
hit a baseball out of the park with the same or fewer calories
throw a football further and harder with the same or fewer calories
Or say that you're in the wild on a persistence hunt. You don't know how long the hunt will last -- 2 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles. If you're successful, you'll have more work ahead of you to butcher the animal and possibly carry it some distance. If you're not successful, then you still have some work ahead of you. Due to the uncertainty of life in the wild, you want to accomplish your objectives while conserving as much energy as possible, husbanding your resources, and being more efficient. For a given objective, you want to burn as few calories as possible.
So the next time you hear someone say that an activity is a great way to burn calories, alarm bells should go off. Remember that whenever there is an external goal -- like in sports or life in the wild -- there is a desire to expend fewer calories for a given motion.
It's not about counting calories. It's about moving and exercising in the right ways. It's about eating the right kinds of foods. It's quality, not quantity.
