Total Wellbeing

Been a while...

2009-04-08T18:14:00.003+10:00

Well its been close to a year since i published anything and suddenly i get this nice comment from some fellow ive never meet saying he enjoyed reading an article of mine!. So, here I am...funny how the world works, one minute your investigatig why on earth anyone in the world would want to sell Kangaroo scrotum accesseroies: (no seriously, http://www.univenter.com/kangaroo.html) and then your on a year old blog site.

So whats new with life. Im unemployed, and happily so, although making ends meet will get difficult...still, for those of you who read how much i technically save riding a bike over driving a car, at least i will be able to avoid working for rather a good deal longer than an average silly car driving person.

Speaking of silly car driving people...i'm going to melbourne next week, first time ever, i hear its fantastic. Full of bike lanes and markets and trams and other sort of socially minded things...what a place.

I really don't know where to start on stuff, theres so much thats happened in a year, so many new insights learned, and it would take me ages to explain them all so that they were put in a useful and coherent strucutre for anyone else to understand.

Heres a thought for you to take home though, there are clear flaws within simple economics in regards to say, work creation. Because there is no distinguishing between work creation for the repair of something, or the creation of something, and whats more, whether that something is of value in itself or not (of course the market is seen to determine). People often say "we have to create this paper mill to create more jobs"..but what about the trees being cut down, how does it factor in? Far be it from me to make people unemployed, rather i think they should be employed in other sectors, like hemp farming for fibre and paper, rather than cutting down heritage forests! Another example, if you want to "Create more work", why not just send me on a rampage, blowing up post boxes and knocking down peoples houses and grafitting on vending machines...that will create a huge mess that will have to be cleaned up, creating "work"...there is no distinction here between work that will push society forward in an ecologically and hence economically sound direction, and just shit that roles aroud in a circle with no guidance other than from those with money who almost never see the true ramifications of their actions. (the owner of niki for instance has firms in indonesia yet he has never been there or seen the working conditions the people must endure). Further more, if you decide to hire me as a mass murderer, sure youre creating "work" for me, so that i can pay my mortgage and childrens school bills or whatever, but how is that work profitable in a larger sense? By and large, in the majority of cases we condemn killing, so much so that we take it out of the market, we say, this thing is far more serious than something the market can lightly through around. Similarly with slavery, that used to be a business! We never experienced market failure and therefore said "theres no profit in trading slaves!" Rather we made a hard law saying, slavery is wrong, therefore we take it OUT of and BEYOND the market realms! That was an ethical judgment. If i recall correctly "the corporation" A fantastic albeit it slightly left wing documentary on the power and problems of corporations mentions this. It can be found for free on youtube at:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87

I highly recommend it, even if you don't agree with all of it, it has some very confronting information and good ideas that at least need to be taken into account. Enjoy!

Bah Humbug

2008-05-29T22:28:00.002+10:00

I'd just like to point out that there are inumerable spelling mistakes, particularly of a phonetic nature within my posts. I apologise. But to be honest i'm not to fussed, if you can read it and still understand the core issues at hand then that is all that matters. If you can have a good laugh at some of my silly spelling mistakes too, well then, all the better.

Maybe one day i'll change them, maybe one day i'll do a lot of things though, like save the world...

Equality...

2008-05-29T22:08:00.001+10:00

Leibniz – “I am indifferent to that which constitutes a German or a Frenchman because I will only the good of all mankind.”

Need I say more... except to possibly say that we should not curtail this thought to European nationalities?

Exercise and Intensity - Why waste time?

2008-03-16T16:57:00.003+11:00

I'm going to let science daily do the talking for me:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918142456.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080205121740.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050602113341.htm

Dear Mr Prime Minister...

2008-03-08T11:22:00.002+11:00

If Given the opportunity to speak with Herr Rudd about some serious problems we face today... this is what I, as a pro-cyclist/possibly hippy, would say:

I'll be blunt here. The world at large faces great potential problems in relation to a lack of concern for our environment and all the potential problems which will occur if global warming continues down its spiraling path. At the same time our country, among other developed countries, faces a growing problem in the form of the obesity epidemic. Obesity causes a range of problems from the distinctly physical such as diabetes, to the more psychological, such as hormonal imbalances leading to many problems such as depression. It’s been statistically proven that obese people are far less productive at work than their healthier counterparts and honestly is this such a surprise?

My proposal is simple, and helps to address both problems; the general health of our citizens as well as our environment. I feel strongly that we should further encourage cycling as a form of transport. Cycling will mean that there are less people in cars, resulting in less pollution. It will also lead to a healthier population who were less likely to be obese, depressed or suffer from common problems related to a lack of exercise.

Just think of the potential benefits that cycling can bring! People would be more productive and most likely more content. The environment would be all the better off and it would probably also lead to a change in how society thinks. Cycling promotes a more sustainable way of life in general, with the basic notion being that you yourself are creating the energy needed to get around. Cycling as a way of commuting allows individuals to feel that they are doing something positive for their bodies, their wallets and their environment, all while going from point A to point B.

I suppose the big question we have to ask is, so how do we encourage cycling? Well, despite Australia as a whole having desirable weather for cyclists we really do seem to lack cyclist friendly infrastructure. More bicycle lanes, more facilities for cyclists to use such as places to change in and more bicycle racks will all help to make a difference. Indeed I know that the government in countries like the UK are now paying people to lose weight. This is ridiculous. Think how much better that money could be employed by encouraging cycling and promoting awareness of it as a better alternative to driving.

Indeed instead of paying people to lose weight, maybe they should subsidise people who ride bikes. I believe the Chinese government does. Raising awareness about cycling and cyclists and the good they are doing for themselves and everyone else by helping the environment should also be stressed. The solutions I have proposed have been rather simple, but generally speaking I think that simple solutions often work more effectively than complex ones. By making cycling easier to do through creating more cyclist friendly infrastructure (most importantly cycle lanes) more people will be encouraged to take up cycling as a form of transport, which in turn will help spread the idea of cycling as a viable form of transport and make it more acceptable within our society.

I’ve given you a way to tackle serious environmental and health problems all while empowering the people of Australia and encouraging positive change. The question now is, will you take this idea and run with it?

What do we do now?

2008-02-25T22:02:00.005+11:00

Its been a while, but I'm back. I haven't had much of an inclination to write so I simply haven't done so. But today I find myself wanting to write something again. Here I am tackling a big question, namely: "What do we do now?"

So...what the hell do I mean, now, and what exactly am I pulling you into by saying "we"? By "What do we do now?" I am asking what "we", as a society, as a race of sentient beings who have great power and hence great responsibility, should do next. By next I basically mean in what direction should we head, where should we take humanity now...or next as i just phrased it?

Personally, I feel that we as a society have made many mistakes over the years, but having said that I'm sure we've avoided quite a few too, so I shouldn't be too critical. There are however some problems which are of immediate concern which include problems with wealth inequality and poverty, problems with materialism and unhappiness, and problems with profit, greed and damage to our dear earth.

I feel that the capitalist system, despite its potential benefits, has been used to justify wealth in the form of monetary profit, over all other things, including our morals and values, hence including the very basis for our desire to live. The gap between rich and poor broadens, not just within countries but also between them. The poor struggle more, while the rich enjoy ever greater luxuries all the while living unhappy lives of hedonistic greed. Its been proven that doing things such as volunteering for local organisations that help those in need gives a great feeling of purpose and happiness. Why then is it that we don't all help each other to reach for higher and better things and at the same time improve not only our physical standard of life, but our emotional one?

Are you really proud to live in a world based on greed, exploitation, callousness and a moral imperative to make money over all other things? I thought not. Few of us are so fanatically inclined, yet that seems to be the system we live in. Unfortunately we, as tacit participants of the system, are, whether consciously or not, supporting such a system.

The problem need not necessarily lie in capitalism per say or forms of liberalism for that matter, but rather the ways in which they can be appropriated. I feel that a welfare liberal state could solve many of our problems. A state in which the individual has great freedom so long as he does not hurt those around him. Classical Libertarians argue this too, however their definition of "hurt" only includes physical harm and not economically crippling people by condemning them into debt cycles and so forth.

We need some degree of social welfare. We are after all, only human, and we will all have times in our lives in which the going may get tough. Its only far that if someone loses their job, or is seriously injured, or disabled or something of the sort, that there is a kind and supportive governmental system in place which can provide financial assistance to these people. The mere fact that such a system exists will also greatly reduce anxiety and worry within a society as people will no that if they should fall in life that they will still have a basic standard of living assured for them. Overall I think the benefits of such a societal structure will improve the happiness of the society. This will also be highly likely to improve not only the quality of life, but interesting the societies productivity and ability.

In contrast a complete free-market, akin to what is developing in America, creates a broader gap between the rich and the poor and creates a society based on fear and greed. The large majority of the people live lives of subservience and essential slavery, with moments of hedonism for escape. They live tough and unhappy lives, with consumerism being the favourite attempt to avoid the feelings of unhappines. In many ways I think that many of America's problems stem from its unhappiness, which stems from its inequality and harsh free-market, laissez fare system.

Don't read me wrong here, I have nothing wrong with some people being rich and some poor, difference is all well and good, however, i feel that the poor should at least be afforded the basic necessities of life while the rich should not necessarily have such a reckless excess of luxuries. I think everyone would be all the happier for this arrangement too.

With the development of technology and general advances in the world, everyone should be able to live easier lives, with more time to simply enjoy life. Yet we still seem to work so much? What for, why are we driven to work so much? A large part of our expenses are on consumerist shite which we probably don't need but feel good about buying because we typically feel so bad. So one solution is to simply be happier and hence need less stuff, and hence need to work less, in turn giving us more time to enjoy life. The cycle can however spin the other way too. It we work harder we end up having less freetime and often feel less happy and hence buy more crap we don't need and then need to work all the harder to afford the lifestyle we become accustomed too.

I suppose the big question here is what sort of society do we want to live in? I personally feel that a welfare liberal society will create a happier and more stable society, who will in turn be more positive and also, rather ironically, achieve more by doing less. Work smarter, not harder... thats something we should be remembering here. When i say achieve, i don't mean make lots of money, what kind of fucking goal is that? I believe that a welfare liberal society will support more environmental awareness, more equality, a closing of the gap between the rich and the poor, a reduction in exploitation and material greed. I believe it will allow morals and ethics to resurface, for our race to become all the more learned, and wise, with the knowledge that we live to support we believe in, and that those values should not be how many golden coins we can stuff into our pockets.

Many people yell angrily when leftists talk about government intervention and raise a whole bunch of valid points about how the money is often lost in beurocratic systems and so forth. This is true to some degree but there are two simple answers to it:
1) in a free-market economy the same ridiculous "loss" of money would occur, even on a much greater scale, except that it would be done by large corporate businesses that will come to dominate certain sectors in life.
2) I believe the welfare liberal government would eventually, over time and with the development of our values, become a much fairer and honest system than many governments such as those we have today.

As a further point I would much rather have the government held accountable for what goes on in the world that giant corporations who have no interest except profit. I want ethics to matter, I want humans to be treated like I feel humans should be. As I said in “Classical Liberalism vs. The Welfare State – Which is the better ideal?” "A welfare liberal state is far more humane than a laissez-faire based one. And as a human I’m all for humaneness."

This is all well and good Sam you argue, but what are we going to do about it? Well realistically it might be hard to completely change how the world is run in one day, but then again it took them a fair arse long time to build rome so... One step a time tiger. The beginning, like so many things, starts in the mind. It starts in us collectively wanting and craving a change, and hence demanding it, hence supporting it, hence living it. If you believe in a society where the environment counts buy recycled toilet paper. Yes it will cost you a buck more, but it will mean that you are craving, demanding, supporting and living the life you choose, on the smallest level perhaps, but just imagine the potential for mass change. Imagine if everyone took that mentality, imagine if everyone bought recycled toilet paper... i think you see where i'm getting at... Alone we are divided, but together we are strong.

God, I do sound like a communist. Anyway, theres so much more I could right, but i'll save that for another rant. I think I've gotten the broader picture across. Remember to live life as you want it to be, not as you feel forced to by society. What ever made social norms right? Just because everyone else is being a stingy capitalist and cutting down all our trees to save a buck on toilet paper doesn't mean you have to. Now go out there and do your bit by buying some recycled toiletry accessories...

PS: A special thank you to the all philosophical Dominic Jarkey, for giving me the courage to get off my arse and write something inspiring. Bless you matey, for firstly sneezing into recycled tissue paper, and secondly and perhaps more importantly for simply being there for a friend in need.

Damn XP:

2008-01-30T13:10:00.000+11:00

It’s been a few days since I last posted and I blame it totally on XP! It was time to do a complete reinstall on my computer, and basically XP refused to install. It was quite a battle to get everything up and running again.

You’d be amazed how dependant we become on computers. I couldn’t check my emails, update this site or anything, suddenly I felt awkwardly disconnected. Having said that you’d also be surprised at how much time I seemingly gained. I’m always complaining about not having enough time to read, however its more that I don’t prioritise it high enough. For the last few days, as my computer was down, I suddenly found myself with several more hours each evening to simply read. I finished two books I had started and have also progressed in a third one!

In some ways I wonder if I shouldn’t place a limit on my computer time, I’m sure I’d be much more efficient for it. Having said that at the minute, now that XP is reinstalled and all, I find myself having to copy files everyone and install programs again, it takes forever. Anyway, after all of that is done I should be able to start posting something useful again.

Is Guilt a Useless Emotion?

2008-01-27T23:32:00.000+11:00

Today I wish to question the use of guilt as an emotion. Guilt is typically defined as feeling culpable and responsible for things past or possibly for things still to come. However isn’t this a little odd as why should we worry about things we have no control over? If you got angry at your good friend the other day then why feel guilty today? Please don’t get me wrong, realising that what you did was perhaps uncalled for or wrong is perfectly fine, but there is no need to then place a burden upon yourself which will make your life all the worse, this will only add to the damage the initial anger caused. Having an appreciation of how mistakes can be improved is fine, but don’t view it in a negative way.

Guilt is a negative emotion and as such can be very destructive. I know that I personally have a problem with being too hard on myself. I beat myself up about small things and drive myself into the ground for any mistakes made. This problem is also probably linked to the fact that I’m a bit of a perfectionist. Thus my standards are too high, and I can never meet them. Not meeting my expectations leads me to feeling guilty and aggravated which causes a negative cycle and then its all downhill from there.

An interesting example of this would have to be when I played competition tennis at age 15 or so. Coincidentally the tennis has been broadcasting on Australian TV recently as the Australian open is going on in Melbourne. Or perhaps I should say it is concluding in Melbourne as today is also the day of the finals. Anyway, I started playing tennis at around 12 and by the time I was 15 I was, trying not to sound to vain here, quite competent really. However when at 15 I started doing competition tennis I found to my dismay that I would lose pretty much all of my matches, even when my opponents had terrible technique and were obviously far worse than me (technically). Why was this? Ultimately I believe it was due to the stress and guilt I placed upon myself and how I would play badly due to putting myself in a negative state of mind, by beating myself up internally. Basically I’d make one bad shot, give myself a difficult time about it and then never manage to psychologically pick up my game again. Hence I would make a huge amount of unforced errors.

What I’m getting at is that tennis is a very psychological game. I always like to compare it to a fight. When talking singles its just you and the opponent. Hence if they win a point there’s only one person to blame, and that’s yourself. I’d come back each Saturday feeling despondent and being unhappy as well as angry with myself for having yet again lost, normally to an inferior opponent.

Guilt is an overrated emotion. Often people feel guilt for things they did years ago, and while it is good that they wish not to repeat that it is not good that they live in anxiety and fear of that past. Accepting responsibility is immensely important and I encourage it 100%, but it need not lead to guilt. Guilt is a waste of our time. If you do something wrong you accept it, you take responsibility for it, but you do not beat yourself up about it. Where does beating yourself up get you? Nowhere fast would be an appropriate answer, or perhaps the answer should be backwards.

Try watching a game of tennis some time, you’ll understand just how psychological it is. Not that any other sport isn’t of course, but I suppose as I used to play it I understand it particularly well. Its interesting to see that someone who was playing badly can turn their game around or vice-versa, all as a result of mood. Its obvious that being in a good mood can improve not only your actual performance but how you perceive that performance. Allow me to explain:

Imagine yourself playing a game of tennis, and you’re in a really good, positive frame of mind. Typically that means that the positive frame of mind will fuel you and make you play all the better. But even if you still lose (which isn’t to say that the positive thinking isn’t making you play better), you can still think “wow that was a great game of tennis and despite losing I played a good game.” Unfortunately I was never mature enough to think this back when I played tennis, but somewhat ironically it can’t just be thought but sincerely believed, otherwise the thought is like someone else saying it and you saying “bollocks, I played terribly and got beaten as a result.” Personally I find the first, more positive outlook much better and I think it also helps people to perform better too, not to mention just living a more enjoyable life generally.

So where does guilt come into all this? Well, as I mentioned earlier, guilt is a negative emotion and negative thoughts lead to negative results, at least such has always been my personal experience. Taking responsibility for your actions is all well and good, but dwelling on past and potential future failings is psychologically harmful. Indeed the Buddhist philosophy of “Living in the Now…:” coincides with the idea that we should not live in the past or the future, but rather in the ever evolving period of now. Guilt is an escape from the present, inserting worries over which we don’t have control, over what is done, or not yet even the case.

Maybe I’m naïve and foolish to believe that guilt is overrated, but I honestly feel that so much could be gained and that people could move on and better themselves so much more if guilt were at very least toned down, if not eliminated. As the science daily website http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516081014.htm argues, self-compassion (the ability to treat ourselves kindly) is extremely important. As it puts it: “Life’s tough enough with little things that happen. Self-compassion helps to eliminate a lot of the anger, depression and pain we experience when things go badly for us”. Surely self compassion would be not putting yourself through unneeded pains and anger in the form of guilt.

Remember that getting ride of guilt and hence being more compassionate to ourselves need not remove responsibility. As the science daily site explains: “Self-compassion allowed people to accept responsibility for a negative experience, but to counteract bad feelings about it.” The website also explains how “researchers found that: People with higher self-compassion had less negative emotional reactions to real, remembered and imagined bad events.” It certainly seems that eradicating guilt and with it needless negative tensions yields more positive results. As though in proof of my hypothesis Djokovic just won the Australian Open, despite losing the first set. He kept his cool though and didn’t beat himself up, and it ended up earning him a fancy trophy. I imagine professional sportsmen must have to have be psychologically strong to, else they could not win. The minute a sportsmen starts blaming himself for what he did wrong, it all goes down hill.

So I feel that we as a society or as a species perhaps, must learn to reduce our susceptibility to unneeded guilt. For the third or so time I will stress that taking responsibility is not what I have a problem with, it is doing this by psychologically crippling yourself which I have a problem with. Worrying about all the bad things you have done in life won’t help fix them, only truly accepting responsibility for your actions and by trying to work to improve on how you act can. Guilt is useless, its role is destructive not constructive and as such it should be avoided.

Positive Thinking:

2008-01-26T19:05:00.000+11:00

Positive thinking is essentially just thinking in an optimistic manner, in contrast to thinking in a pessimistic way. How we perceive the world and let external influences effect us is in large part a subjective process and we can see it either negatively or positively, the essential argument I wish to make is why not view life positively? Positive thinking may certainly sound like a wanky concept, and trust me once upon a time I would have laughed it off as superstitious shite, but today I am all the wiser for coming to terms with it.

I have an uncle who is, as all my uncles, are a good fellow. However whenever I talk to him on the phone I swear he sounds depressed. I told him once to not be so pessimistic and instead be more optimistic. In reply he stated simply that he was being realistic. Well and good, but what I think he was not understanding is that we in large part define what is real. We choose how we react to a situation. Sure influences themselves may be caused outside our sphere of influence, but we still ultimately have a large amount of control in regards to how we react to a given situation.

Let me give you a bizarre example that sticks in my mind. Let us say you go for a stroll around the block, just to stretch your legs, and in doing so you fall and unfortunately break one of your legs. Your instinct is of course to get very angry at the fact that you’ve broken one of your legs and that you can’t ride your bike anymore or whatever other negative thoughts seem to seep into your mind. However a positive thinker might say “right well, I’ve broken my leg that is a bit unfortunate but I suppose things could have been worse, after all I still have the other leg to get home on, and at least its not hailing.” Odd I know, hence why it seems ridiculous. But out of the two responses to the situation which would you rather be? Neither is right or wrong for in the world of the subjective such concepts are intangible. Given that both responses accept what has happened and are as such not denying reality I would much rather be the optimist. Sure there’d be distress at the broken leg, but on the bright side it would soon heal and at least the unfortunate victim in our scenario would be able to gain back his ability to walk on two legs.

So here is where my uncle was wrong. You can indeed be both a realist and an optimist, much as you can be a realist and a pessimist. Admittedly there is a lot wrong in our world and the media serves largely to make us feel bad about it, but this still doesn’t mean we can’t accept the reality and approach it positively. To say that being negative is being realistic simply isn’t so, one can be negatively realistic or optimistically realistic, the way we approach something needn’t change how real it is. However as I addressed in “TPOH – The Media…:”, the negative image painted to us constantly by our ever loyal media really doesn’t help.

The benefits of thinking positively are well known, firstly you’ll increase your chances of enjoying life and secondly you’ll be more likely to, as a result, do better in many ways in life. So let us all be realistically positive, as why would anyone want to do otherwise and be unhappy and depressed?

Changing your thinking is however, not an easy task. Its easy to consciously say, “right I’ll start thinking more positive now”, in practice however the subconscious does not implement this so easily. The idea of “Living in the Now…:” and appreciating things in their current state I find helps one to think positively. Take the process of change slowly, simply try to see the good things in life over and instead of the bad. Try to shift your focus. If it’s raining as your walking home at least think “I’ve got a place with a roof to go to, somewhere to get dry, and for that I’m thankful.” Give it a go, shift negative thoughts to positive ones. Think “I can” instead of “I can’t”, these little psychological changes can create a huge difference to how you live your life. The tricky part is that its not only a matter of saying “life is good”, but also believing it, or else you will simply feel like you are lying to yourself. I don’t promise that this change will happen over night, but it will certainly happen if you put your mind to it, and in turn will make life all the more enjoyable. So think positively and “Carpe Diem”.

The Middle Way:

2008-01-25T22:09:00.000+11:00

Recently I have begun to learn about Buddhism, purely out of self interest. I personally am atheist, but Buddhism definitely has some interesting ideas to offer. One idea it offers in the notion of living ““In the Now:”” which I have already written an article on. The other great idea that Buddhism promotes is the ideal of “the middle way”.

Essentially “the middle way” is a theory of moderation and balance. It is also known as the Buddhist practice of non-extremism. It preaches that one can have too much or to little of something and that happiness and a good life is always found somewhere between the extremes. From the limited lectures I have heard on Buddhism I understand that the great Buddha himself starved himself for some time when he wanted to reach enlightenment. Thus there are pictures of him deathly thin during this stage that survive in artworks today. Needless to say the Buddha realised that starvation was one extreme and was therefore something that in actual fact, due to its extreme nature, inhibited him from reaching nirvana and all the connotations of happiness that go with it. “The middle way” thus became seen as a path taken by the Buddha to avoid the extremes of rigour on one side and sensual indulgence on the other. Thus the notion of “the middle way’, stressing the importance of balance in all things, came into being.

However the idea of “the middle way” is not complex and need not necessarily involve any true appreciation of the Buddhist religion. As I have said I myself am atheist but the idea of leading a balanced life makes perfect sense to me. I think most people would agree that balance is important in all things. I mean, I can not think of one single thing were balance is not required. Even take something as seemingly harmless as water, if you don’t get enough you die of dehydration, yet if you get too much, you drown!

The question should not really be whether balance is appropriate or not, but rather how one finds this balance and where on a spectrum it should be. Still, the importance of balance it seems, still needs to be advocated as it seems that many people still haven’t really gotten the idea into their heads. Its important to realise that this notion of “the middle way” is not confined to the material and what is done, but also how things are done and how people think.

The idea of balance as conveyed in “the middle way” has also been known as the Buddhist practice of non-extremism, and this I think, conveys its origins very well. Extremes are never good, they are unhealthy, they are damaging. Obsessions, addictions and other extremist tendencies ruin peoples lives, hence they should be avoided. The principles behind “the middle way” are simple yet effective, as balance seems to be the one key to life.

Where exactly balance lies, is not an easy question and in many ways I suppose it could be subjective and hence depend on the individual. The problem here is that many individuals stuck with some obsession are often in denial. This fact makes it rather hard for them to really have an understanding of balance and their lack of it.

Allow me to use some examples from an interesting nutritional perspective that support this principle of balance. Nutrition seems to be an area I know a fair bit more about that I really probably need to, probably as I got obsessively interested in it in a rather “unbalanced” sort of way during my last year of school. Needless to say the obsession has caused some nasty habits, but thankfully I’m at least no longer in denial about it and that’s the first step to reaching moderation! Now, onto the information:

A few years ago I essentially came across the simple facts that for example, non-alcohol drinkers live longer than alcohol drinkers and that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. At first this all made sense as it saw an obvious link between meat and alcohol with various health risks which decreased average lifespan. However, later results revealed something interesting. While for example non-alcohol drinkers lived longer than alcohol drinkers at large, the group that lived the longest were in fact those that drank small amounts. Amounts which could be described as “balanced”, and “in moderation”. As http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/HealthIssues/1106591095.html states:

“Research extending back as far as 1926 has demonstrated that drinking in moderation is associated with greater longevity than is either abstaining or abusing alcohol. The medical research evidence is now unquestionable and demonstrates that the effect is not the result of health-compromised alcoholics who abstain. When studies restrict abstainers to lifelong teetotalers the result is the same. Nor is it the result of moderate drinkers having better overall health habits. When lifestyle factors are taken into consideration, the result remains. And the effect occurs not only for red wine but also for white wine, beer, and liquor or distilled spirits.”

Similarly it was found that while vegetarians lived longer than meat-eaters, it was those people who ate meat only infrequently in moderated amounts that lived the longest of all. The obvious conclusion I have come to from this evidence is that it is not so much exactly what they are doing, but what it represents that is important here. Those who eat no-meat for example are most likely extreme to some degree, as are those who pig out on hamburgers all day. In contrast, those that live a happy, balanced life and as such one which isn’t extreme, don’t deny themselves things which may be a little bad for them (in this case seen as alcohol and meat) but simply make sure to enjoy small amounts of it in moderation. Thus they live a happy unrestrictive lifestyle in which they get enjoyment and through moderation good healthy, both physically and psychologically.

So I personally believe it is the fact that those who can moderate what they eat and drink and do etc, live longer as they are probably happier with who they are and more content in there day to day lives than the others who either over-indulge, or refuse to indulge at all. So here we come full-circle to Buddha’s personal experiences which led him to, as I said earlier, “avoid the extremes of rigour on one side and sensual indulgence on the other.”

The importance of balance in life cannot be understated, and it is important to remember that all things are ultimately in balance. Extremes are primitive, try your hardest to avoid them. Remember too that the state of mind is greatly important here to. If you forced yourself to only eat limited amounts of meat and drink limited amounts of alcohol you’d probably find that you wouldn’t live as long as those who do it without being forced, simply because again you are being extreme by forcing yourself to do something constantly. What you need is a combination of discipline and desire.

So go find balance in life. Find “the middle path”. I hope you do, and that it brings you contentment ““In the Now:”” and a happier, less stressful life. Happiness seems to come with moderation and balance, at least, that’s certainly what I’ve found to be the case.

Nature vs. Nurture – An Intelligent Issue:

2008-01-24T21:02:00.000+11:00

Often I have asked the question is Intelligence a genetically inherited trait or one endowed by the environment? Obviously it is a combination of the two, but we must wonder if one of these factors dominates the issue more than the other. Historically it was noted that intelligent people typically had intelligent children and that intelligence seemed to run in families. The early principles of eugenics confirmed this and there is a fair bit of evidence to prove that intelligence runs in families. However this hardly means it is all genetic. Granted there are genetic links here, but we must also accept that substantial evidence shows that environmental influences in life also play a huge role in matters of intellect.

If we take, for simplicities sake, IQ to be an accurate measurement of intelligence (which it isn’t really), then we can see that as per usual neither factor alone determines intelligence. It is interesting to see that “Various tests have shown that there is a socio-economic link to IQ as people who are better off financially score 17 point higher on IQ tests than those financially disadvantaged people who take the same exam.” (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) This certainly stands to prove that a good environment strongly allows one to develop to ones greatest potential. It is also important to note that 17 points on the IQ test is quite a considerable amount.

As I argued in “The Power of Music – The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence” it has also been shown that learning a language and learning a musical instrument are the two best ways to increase the brains neuroplasticity (its ability to create and strengthen links). The previously mentioned website (http://allpsych.com/journal/iq.html) also notes that “cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language.” So in many ways it would seem that environmental influences can greatly enhance ones ability to reach a higher IQ (or intelligence). Many of the activities that affect us seem to particularly potent if they are done at a younger age. If you learn a second language and an instrument at a young age it allows your brain to be all the more flexible than if you learnt these things at an older age. Similarly mothers who are pregnant and eat a bit of fish (or other foods containing omega-3) often have children who are ever so slightly smarter. See the “Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?”, if you want to learn more about the amazing benefits of omega-3. I also noted in “The Many Benefits of Exercise – Part 3:”, that exercise has great benefits for the brain. There is also scientific evidence that has concluded that lab mice who had the ability to run and did were more intelligent than there counterparts who did not run.

However all of these environmental things seem to be allowing us to fuller realise our potential. I suppose it would thus seem to be the case that it is ultimately genetics which set our potential in the first placel. However this has not been conclusively provien. There was a rather controversial book released in 1994 known as THE BELL CURVE. Ultimately its research into twins who were raised apart or together seemed to suggest that genetics played the biggest role in intelligence. Unfortunately the book then goes on to make some rather racist associations between whites and blacks which are completely unfounded and very naïve. It has spawned a great deal of controversy and several books have been written in response to it, so it is hardly the holy grail of nature vs. nurture in regards to intelligence. None the less the studies within are interesting and do have some scientific validity in associating a strong correlation between genetics and intelligence.

Still, like all of the nature and nurture articles I have written the answer seems to be that ultimately it is a combination of nature and nurture which affects who and what we are. If genetically you are born with no brain obviously you’ll never be a genius. Equally, if you are born a genius and have a serious brain injury then you may well no longer be a genius. Neither category (nature of nurture) should be excluded, and it wasn’t my intent to do so. My research into the area is rather inconclusive and to be honest this doesn’t surprise me.

So what does all this research teach us? What can we learn from this? My advice would be that we must accept that, yes, genetics do play a role in many of our characteristics including how intelligent we are/could potentially be. However, this need not mean we can’t improve ourselves! To think that would be self-defeating. It is a fact of life that the person next to you might be smarter and hence be able to learn twice as fast as you, but is that any reason to give up learning all together? In the end being disciplined and studious seems to pay off more than pure intellect, as I know rather a few smart people who simply don’t care about their academic work and as a result do rather horribly.

Genetics are often viewed as a boundary. However this is often used as an excuse for inaction. Personally I’d rather see genetics as a realistic simple fact of life. If your dumb or short or uncoordinated it needn’t be the end of the world. Just because you are born brilliant doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t become it. Even if your genetics in a certain department aren’t good doesn’t mean you can’t at very least improve somewhat. Typically people can at very least reach an average level of ability in anything despite setbacks. Maybe you don’t have the brains of a natural born scientist, but who the hell says that doesn’t mean you can’t give it your best and try and become one anyway? Why let the fact that you have bellow average genetics for intelligence (which how do you even concretely know anyway, remember the IQ is hardly a good test of intelligence) get in the way of you trying to do your best?

I’ve recently been reading a book about small business (LINK TO BOOK?) in which there is a rather empowering section on not giving up. It essentially gives the outline of an unlucky man’s life, including how this fellow was rejected from parliament on several occasions. However he didn’t give up and in 1860 he eventual managed to become president. That man was Abraham Lincoln, a man who in hindsight people couldn’t imagine as anything but a president. Maybe he wasn’t a born politician, maybe he was but he got unlucky on the way, regardless the point is that he was determined to become something and he didn’t let setbacks or difficulties stop him from trying.

Another interesting fact I can throw in is that a national geographic program called “My brilliant brain” had an episode about Susan Polgar. Essentially her father, a psychologist, believed that the greatest factor to becoming very good at something was simply practice and not natural ability. Susan was then raised to become a champion chess player, and sure enough she did. Her family has no history of great chess players yet her and her two sisters who were brought up similarly, simply played lots of chess and became extremely good through discipline and devotion. It makes one question whats more important, what we start with, or how we use it? In many ways I am inclined to think that the later is more important, as no matter how good we start if we don’t use our talent it is wasted. The later view is also more empowering as it essentially argues that anyone can excel at anything with practice and devotion.

It’s true that genetics limit us, and its important that we take a realistic perspective on how they do. If you’re in your mid-thirties and only one metre tall chances are you’re not going to grow any more. That’s something you can’t change so the only real answer is to try and accept it and move on to change the things we can control. A realistic yet positive outlook would accept various limitations by genetics yet still be optimistic in encouraging positive change and trying to be the best we can. It is unfair to expect anything else and foolish to let genetics provide you with an excuse for never at least trying. All too often genetics become a scapegoat for mediocrity or even worse simply not attempting something. While the limitations placed upon us by gravity, genetics and other limiting things starting with the letter G (maybe guerrillas?), should be accepted and seen as a simple fact of life, we should not get dismayed by these facts. We should simply change our plan of attack to target something we can change, influence and do something about. So look out for killer guerrillas (Jesus, it rhymes!) and other than that enjoy life and live it to its fullest. Change isn’t easy, but its all the easier if you believe you can do it and do think things like “I’d like to do it by genetics won’t let me.” So make a realistic goal that your genetics will allow and shoot, shoot to win, (or slow down rampant guerrillas, the choice is yours)!

The Philosophy of Happiness – Accepting Yourself

2008-01-23T21:57:00.000+11:00

If you don’t like who you are you’re not going to be happy now are you? There is a fundamental need to accept oneself before one can be happy. Most of us who are in some way unhappy dislike something about ourselves and hence envision our happier counterpart as someone with very different characteristics. This subconsciously drills into our mind the notion that we cannot be happy simply as we are and therefore puts a condition upon happiness. If this condition is reached all well and good, but if its not (which most often it isn’t) then if you do not change your thinking you are doomed to a life of unhappiness. Not a pretty thing really. What I’m suggesting is that there is some link between being content with who and what you are and being happy. Indeed the words happy and contented are synonyms.

Who cares if your fat, short and poor, why does that mean you can’t be happy? Why do we let the media do this to us? We’ll we don’t really, at least I know that I too am affected by the same stereotypes and I certainly don’t give them my consent to tap into my subconscious as they do, particularly in such a negative way. The irony is that consciously we know that the media’s ideal is bollocks, rubbish, fake and unrealistic, we're not stupid, yet subconsciously we still absorb and believe the ideas we are feed. This is simply because the mindless repetition of the media's ideals become ingrained in our very thought processes. This is essentially how the subconscious mind operates.

The Subconscious mind stores far more than the conscious mind yet the conscious mind’s information is more direct and controlling. The idea of affirmations are that we should affirm things we wish to be the case, as it will in turn allow us to accept them and allow our subconscious mind to act upon them. It’s a rather strange idea which if you haven’t heard before might confuse you for a while. What’s more the whole thing is mood controlled.

Allow me to use a simple demonstration. If you need to do something difficult and you think “I can’t do it”, its quite likely you won’t manage to do it, for one reason or another. If on the other hand the same difficult situation had been approached with a more positive “I can do it” sort of attitude, then suddenly your chances of succeeding are much higher. It’s funny how the subconscious mind works. Having faith in yourself is unfortunately not an easy thing to do.

Unfortunately we live in a rather negatively tuned environment. I’ve already noted that the media tend to not only be unrealistic and so forth but tend to focus on negative qualities and events. See “The Philosophy of Happiness – The Media & Unrealistic Expectations:” for further details. By focusing on negative qualities it becomes far to easy for us to blame ourselves and to beat ourselves up internally. We don’t accept or like who we are and thus we think negatively. Thus we wish to change to be something we do like and in doing so place a condition upon happiness in assuming that one must become or do that thing to be happy. A fantastic example is of course the media’s emphasise on people being thin. So many of us strive for this ideal yet the whole time you aren’t at the stage you want to be and are still unhappy and as such are highly unlikely to get to the stage you want to, in turn making you unhappier. This leads to a negative cycle of blame, guilt and unhappiness. Life is spent striving for an ideal to make you happy and in doing so you are not content "in the now" and remain unhappy. (The idea of being happy "in the now" is discussed further in:“Living in the Now –The Philosophy of Happiness with a Twist of Zen:”)

What we should of course do is simply enjoy and love ourselves simply for being what and who we are. To view life through a realistic yet positive lens and be content with where we are. That way if we never get anywhere at least we can be happy. The true irony however, is that often being content with who you are makes it easier for you to follow your own desire to do something. The example of losing body fat is again pertinent here. If we are happy with where we were we’ll paradoxically be more able to follow through on our own wishes and change ourselves, funny that. At the very worst you accept yourself for being fatter and simply live life happy and not worrying and stressing yourself over your weight.

Think about it, you may never lose the weight but at least you can be happy. Only you know how hard you may have tried to lose weight and how it failed each time. Indeed it’s statistically proven and has been said by the famous Tom Venuto in his Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle, that 95% of conventional diets fail. Why is this? More often than not it’s a psychological issue as I commented in “Why Diets Don’t Work”.

America has been dieting for years, and with it the average weight has gone up. As the ideal media weight goes further and further down so too does the average weight rise. Why you ask? A large part is no doubt environmental. There is a problem with America and food being so cheap and plentiful. However there is also another side to the problem and that is simply that people are never happy with how they are, so they try drastic things to change like going on ridiculous diets. They are unhappy the whole time, as they are not happy with themselves. They see little progress as goals and expectations are far to high and they ultimately fail. Then they get depressed and eat. This leads them to get more upset, often angry and frustrated and creates a negative cycle that endlessly fulfils itself all while spiralling further downwards. The evidence seems obvious in how fat countries are getting with the same rise in dieting.

Now as I said, don’t get me wrong, environmental issues clearly play a large role, but psychologically there is something here too. People just aren’t happy with how they are, they just aren’t accepting of their own selfs. I want you to look into the mirror and see that what stares back at you however fat, however tall, however lopsided and ugly is the vessel that you find yourself in. That thing gives you life, it gives you experience, it gives you both pleasure and pain. It is god in a sense. Get rid of it and you get rid of yourself. That’s not to say you can’t alter its exterior, but remember, its simply an exterior. The real you is more so what’s inside it, what makes the vessel do what it does.

To be healthy and well requires not only physically doing the right thing but psychologically feeling that you are doing the right thing. Accepting yourself is an important piece in the vast jigsaw puzzle of total-wellbeing that will help to make life a more enjoyable ride and probably bring greater results as a paradoxical added bonus. Indeed Studies have shown that people who are happier live longer:
http://www.health-and-happiness.info/happiness/happiness-increases-longevitywhere-do-we-find-this-gift-of-life.html, so there’s got to be something to it.

Essentially being happy will make life worth living and quite possibly make it not only of better quality, but of longer duration. Happier people are also more likely to create positive change, help the world and generally get more done. So whats the secret to being happy? Well there is no one clear cut simple answer, but the first step to anyone being truly happy involves accepting yourself. You cannot truly love others and the world you find yourself in and thus be happy, until you love yourself. You have to come to terms with yourself, its always the way. So how can you go about it? My suggestion would be to go and do something nice and simple, not something hedonistic, but rather something seemingly spiritual. Go and sit in a nice garden and simply sit and watch the plants, and give yourself time to relax and accept yourself. Never force yourself against your will, work with yourself, cooperation can yield even greater benefits than competition, particularly when it is of an internal nature.

So go now, and be at one with yourself. I mean why the hell not? We only live once, we deserve to love ourselves, at very least. So even if all you’ve got time for is a quick sit down on your floor and a gentle five minute pause where you simply focus on how wonderfully intricate life is, than so be it. But trust me, do at least this, the dividends you will reap by accepting and coming to terms with yourself are worth far more than anything else we can fathom.

Virtual Reality – Step Into This Giant Hamster Wheel, the Future Awaits...

2008-01-22T21:57:00.000+11:00

As a child I was rather fond of a good computer game. To be honest I really don’t see it as greatly disconnected from reading a book. Indeed in some ways I see it as potentially freer as plotlines can be more malleable. Having said that its important to realist that books leave more to the imagination and probably in that sense use creativity more than computer games. Even so I think in essence both are quite similar. Of course with the stress of my final years of school I sort of phased out of computer games and nowadays I don’t play them at all.

Thus as a child I was never particularly fit, such is to be expected of one who does little exercise. However I always liked the idea of virtual reality for computer games as it would allow one to experience another world and not just mentally imagine it or visually see it but also interact with it. Jump, climb, run and fight within a 3D environment, ohh what fun it would be, and how damn fit you’d get! Getting fit and doing regular exercise helps the body in a myriad of ways: “The Many Benefits of Exericse, Part 1:” Think about it, fitness would become integral to a games plot line. If you weren’t fit it would be that much harder to play the game, in turn encouraging you to get fitter as you played more. Getting better at a game would not only involve understanding how it works and having good finger reflexes but also a good level of fitness, all of which could be developed by running around in a giant hamster wheel, well, essentially anyway.

Yes, the giant hamster wheel is for real. I found it at good old Science Daily. Here is the link I’m primarily drawing off for those of you who enjoy further research: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0409-the_new_virtual_reality.htm

Essentially what has been developed is like a mouse’s running wheel except much larger, big enough for humans that is, and instead of being circular being spherical. Of course the technology is still primitive in how it reacts with the computers I’m sure but, its still an impressive feat to invent this wheel which turns on the spot allowing you to run in any direction. It is also said that it allows you to jump, although I’m still not quite sure how. There are still flaws this is obvious, but it’s a damn good start and its happened far sooner than I would ever have anticipated.

Virtual reality has an absolutely huge amount of potential, just imagine the possibilities for a second. They mention education and training for emergency services such as firemen as well as of course computer games. Computer games could become a way of not only zoning out to have some fun (much like reading a book, watching a movie or playing a contemporary computer game) except with the added benefit of moving the body around and the extra sensation of actually being there.

I’ve certainly always been attracted to the idea of getting and staying fit and healthy through something I consider as engaging and fun as a good computer game. Admittedly certain games I’d enjoy such as many strategy games wouldn’t benefit from this technology, however there are still a large amount of games that could. In a sense I suppose the Wii is the precursor to movement based games, and there was even some guy on the internet who blogged about his weight loss adventure using the Wii as a form of exercise. (“Wii Sports: Lose Weight With Wii Sports”) Personally I don’t think the Wii really cuts much of a workout and I think that running around and jumping and slaying barbarians or whatever it is your doing in some adventure game would be far more physically beneficial than the Wii. Whats more it would be a very entertaining form of exercise, and could literally phase out most conventional exercise! Fitness would as I said before become integral to gameplay, just like how fitter people perform better at various sports (and obviously people who have trained more and developed other skills more) Most young people love computer games and I’m sure that if and when this technology becomes widely available (when I cannot say but I’d guess within say 10 years or less) that most young people will become far fitter than they would otherwise be.

Of course virtual reality isn’t really a substitute for real life and all the great things that we get from simply going outdoors. It would be imperative that people still got time outdoors for many benefits from vitamin D from the sun to simply psychologically connecting with our environment. Indeed the whole virtual reality idea while appealing in many ways is also rather scary, as the thought of a generation of people who have no need to leave home what so ever scares me. Although I suppose in many ways were half way there. But with virtual reality on such a level people could literally lose touch with the real reality. I can imagine people interacting socially through the internet with virtual reality, and conducting business virtually and maybe even going to work virtually… it would be like the matrix all over again!

Still as usual it’s not the technology that is at fault. The technology is simply knowledge neither good nor evil in itself. Rather, its how that knowledge is applied that will determine whether it is good or bad. Personally I’m inclined to think that it will bring many positive changes, and hopefully the negative changes can be kept to a minimum. So what are you waiting for (other than the technology of course)? Simply step into this giant hamster wheel, the future awaits...

No Pants Day:

2008-01-21T22:21:00.000+11:00

Today is a Monday, and that means I have little in the way oftime, as typically seems to be the case on a Monday. So I decided I’d quickly mention the annual “No Pants Day”! The idea of no pants day is, I find, rather intriguing. I’ve always been interested in humour and obscure humour often has something going for it. Indeed just recently I rather quickly devoured Terry Pratchett's “Making Money”, a very entertaining piece of humour fiction. As some of you may well know his humour could be considered quite bizzare at times. I've also always been a big fan of Douglas Adams' works, which again are a little out of the ordinary.

Anyway, “No Pants Day” doesn't seem to have a set date, partly as there seem to in essence be several of them. One website http://www.nopantsday.com/wp/ puts it on the first Friday of every may, whereas http://www.improveverywhere.com/2008/01/16/no-pants-2k8/ who have for a few years now done a hilarious stint involving people hopping onto train with only boxers on put this years no pants day on the 12th of January. Unfortunately it seems I’ve missed it!

Still theres nothing stopping you from starting your own "No Pants Day" within your own region with your own friends. You could go on a picnic or something and make the date a regular thing each year. Also for a fancy poster simply clicky here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nopantsday/420656188/

The idea is really quite funny, and while some would be offended I think most would find it a right laugh and something to keep life interesting. Obviously I can’t take credit for this crazy yet wonderful idea, however the links above may well try to. If you find yourself attracted to rather strange comedic routines which potentially involve removing clothing please feel free to check out the above links.

Sorry if this post may seem out of line to some, but it’s a Monday, and its late, and I've been working all day, and I have to get up early tommorow for work... come on give me a break!

Nature vs. Nurture – The Unending Debate Part 2:

2008-01-20T22:22:00.000+11:00

Genetics definitely play a large role in how we turn out in life, this is quite obvious. If you’ve ever seen identical twins or even just similar brothers and sisters you can often see similar features such as face shape or eye and hair colour, this is largely genetically based. However the evident problem here is that these siblings share quite similar environments, which makes it hard to really say that its all genetically based. However it is certain that some traits are far more genetically based than others and some are more within our control than others.

Often people seem to use genetics as an excuse. For instance someone may believe they have genetics which make them rather slow at thinking, and therefore decide to avoid an academic life as they don’t think they could possibly compete. Maybe they’re right, but there is also a large chance that even if they are right they could still be an academic through determination and vigorous application to studying. What seems to happen here is that genetics determine how well someone reacts to a certain environment, but obviously that isn’t the whole picture, because then it comes down to how often the genetics get the chance to interact with the environment. Allow me to try and explain with an example. Person A may have a good ability to gain muscle, whereas person B may have a below average ability to build muscle. However, if person A were to not exercise regularly and lead a rather lazy life whereas Person B kept quite fit and exercised regularly as well as eating well then Person B would most likely be quite well muscled. Most people would in comparing them think “ahh Person B has a unique ability to gain muscle”, but in fact this is simply not so, Person B in fact has a disadvantage in our comparison yet he still comes out on top due to simple persistence and determination.

Similarly you may have a genetic tendency to get diabetes or high cholesterol, but that in itself does not doom you to either. Rather it means that it is easier for you to get these medical problems and that therefore you may have to try a little harder to avoid them then people who are not so genetically prone. A healthy balanced lifestyle should keep you from ever developing the problems as while the genetic potential is there it is never being realised (and in this case it is a good thing that the potential isn’t being realised)! At the same time it is important that we realise the genetic limitations that are unique to each person. You certainly can gain more muscle than another person with identical genes by training, but maybe you will never be a professional Olympic-lifter as you simply lack the muscle and joint strength. Its not to say you couldn’t do Olympic-lifting and have fun and keep fit all while improving your strength, it is however to say that you must realise that if you have certain genetics you may not be able to go pro. Realising these limits need not be pessimistic, it is simply trying to put a realistic perspective on life. As http://www.maxwellsfitnessprograms.com/pdf/GENETICS%20OF%20A%20TRIATHLETE.pdf states:
“Accepting your genetics is by no means negative or limiting. It is quite the opposite. It is taking control of all the things you can to be the best you can be.”

It is important not to think of Genes as dominating the environment in a causal way. As http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm argues: “Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.”
Genes are dependant on the environment to be expressed, and the environment is dependant on genes to have a basis for expression. The two work together, they are mutually inclusive and intertwined, in reality the nature vs. nurture debate is a little silly as the two categories should never really be split as they are. Another article (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2820222/Blinded-by-Science-Nature-via.html), put this nicely in saying:
“We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle.”

In my opinion some things are simply more determined by environment or as the case may be genetics. If you’re fat you may be predisposed to gaining fat but you can most likely lose it through exercising and eating healthy. In contrast changing your eye colour could be rather more difficult! What’s more there also needs to be a distinction made between simple genes (genotype) and genes which have then also been set to a certain degree by early environmental influences (phenotypes). That is to say that everyone has a fat storing gene (although if your unlucky you may have a few more), but there tendency to store fat can be greatly effected by the diet of the mother while the baby is still prenatal. I remember reading a study about it in identical (presumably cloned) mice. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find it again. All I remember was that these mice were genetically identical and while they were all in their genetically identical mothers they were split into two groups. The control group ate a typical western diet high in saturated fat and sugar while the other group ate a much more healthy diet. Once both groups had given birth to the technically genetically identical groups of babies they put them all on the control group diet (the crappy American style diet) and they noticed that the original control group gained far more weight and had a far greater likelihood of developing diabetes and other problems on the rather unhealthy diet. The irony is that the other group didn’t even though they were genetically identical. This shows that the initial interaction with the environment sets the genes at differing levels (phenotype), and this is ultimately nearly as important as the genes themselves.

Regardless of all this essentially what I wanted to get around to saying was that we can’t change our genes, or how they are set. At least not at this stage, and the prospect of changing them certainly brings up odd ethical questions. But, we can at very least control our environment to a degree and make it as best we can to help how our genes express themselves in the future. If you unfit then you can exercise regularly and eat well and improve your fitness, regardless of your genes. Maybe your neighbour can get fit quicker than you but who really cares? The point is you’re doing something good for yourself, and that’s all that matters in the end.

I think this whole article about genetics brings up a really important issue relating to competition which essentially argues that we should only really compete with ourselves. Its often far to unfair to compete with other people as they may often not be on a similar level whether it be genetically or from environmental exposure. Thus instead of racing against the Olympic marathon runners times simply race against your own best time. Who cares if its ten times as long, if you improve your time only a little bit you are still improving, and in the end that’s all that matters. I suppose a nice way to conclude on genetics is to say that not everyone can be a professional athlete within a certain field, otherwise there amazing performances wouldn’t be seen as nearly as amazing as they are. But even so that is not to say that every singly one of us can work with what we’ve got and improve.

Nature vs. Nurture – Part 1:

2008-01-19T13:56:00.000+11:00

Obviously the nature vs. nurture debate is not clear-cut. It is going to be some sort of balance between the two, this is not really in question, rather were on the continuum between genes and environment does the end point lie? As I mentioned in,“Nature vs. Nurture – A Short Introduction:”, the prelude/introduction to this article historically there have been trends, first starting with a genetic emphasis in the 1800’s and then moving more to an environment based approach in the mid 1900’s. I like to think of it as rather like a pendulum swinging. Its gone from one extreme to the other and now gravity (which I suppose in our metaphor would be scientific research) is slowly doing its thing and bringing it closer to the middle. I’m sure most people would agree with me up to here, this all seems rather self-evident. However then you must realise that certain things about us seem to be more genetically determined, and other more environmentally determined. To keep with our previous allegory we must now imagine a pendulum for every characteristic, both physical and psychological for each human being. Suddenly we have a large amount of pendulums!

Take a characteristic like eye colour and you can see that genetics seem to play by far the larger role in this instance. Once you are born with a certain eye colour, seldom do they change. In contrast while some people may build muscle better than others it is possible for all individuals to increase their lean muscle weight with the correct training and decent nutrition. In fact many people with not so great muscle building genetics can still become much more muscular than their genetically superior counterparts who don’t exercise. Arnold Schwarzenegger provides yet another example of environmental influences. While Arnold was always quite ripped in his youth he is now a middle aged pudgy governor of California, who has no doubt gained the pounds as he is no longer dieting as he once was, nor exercising to the same extreme. This information should be seen as an empowering thing though. Think about it for a minute. This is Schwarzenegger! If he has genes which allow him to get fat like anyone else than it also shows than anyone else can lose fat and look to a degree (within reason and everything) like he did! It works both ways. You see Schwarzenegger probably does have good genetics for that sort of thing (and a large amount of steroids) but that doesn’t mean that he can just sit on his arse all day. By the same token you may have quite bad genetics for something like muscle building or fat loss, but that by NO means whatsoever condemns you to a life of being obese. Psychologically if you use the excuse that your genes are crap then you’ve given up before you’ve even started.

Feel empowered by the fact that ultimately it is that environmental influence which tweaks what genes we have. Your friend might lose fat twice as easily as you. But if he never exercises then he won’t be realising his potential, whereas you can. Genetics are a bit like getting good cards in a card game I guess. It helps, but it doesn’t guarantee success. Ultimately it comes down to how you play the game, and that is an environmental thing. Having said that this is only with regards to body fat and muscle and so forth. Many other characteristics like the aforementioned eye colour are far more set in stone. Height is similar in that each person has a potential maximum height which is largely genetically based. Certainly environmental factors like malnutrition can limit someone’s potential, but the fact is if all your relatives are really short, chances are you will be as well. Hence height should be seen as a predominantly genetic characteristic. Tweaking the pituitary gland to release more human growth hormone could I suppose theoretically lead to increased height, and perhaps drugs and so on could do this, but it would be incredibly hard to alter ones height once it was set short of taking very new drugs which alter our biochemistry, essentially altering our genes.

This brings me to a rather interesting point. At what point in time do genes and the environment mesh into one larger category? In my previous article “Exercising Efficiently – the Intensity Debate:” I compared two different groups of mice who had been genetically altered. One group known as “Marathon Mice” could run much further than their counterparts, had far more slow-twitch muscle and had a great ability to not gain weight. Interestingly scientists are now saying that if you are already born your genes might be set, but you can still take drugs to do the same tweaking. Hence scientists are in the process of inventing a pill which does exercise for us. Basically the pill tweaks a gene called PPAR-d (delta) by turning it on, so that the body wastes excess energy.
Here’s a link for anyone interested:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070429154936.htm

Essentially my question is what happens when environmental influences (crazy scientists) are able to tweak genetics, after our genes are set? Is this an environmental influence or a genetic influence? Surely it is both. Here the line between the two categories blurs all the further. Interestingly, in the case of the “marathon mice” those who were given a pill to alter PPAR-d, only gained the fat burning effects and not the increased endurance. This does indicate that perhaps there are limits to what can be changed after our genes have been set.

Another interesting issue could be to do with the ethics behind fiddling with genetics. Doesn’t changing our genetics effectively change who we are? After our DNA code is unique to us (with the exception of identical twins). The nature vs. nurture debate is certainly an interesting one. It is also one which may in the greater scheme of things be unanswerable in a simple this or that manner. The issues we are dealing with are complex, and hence the answer too will reflect this. My understanding is that different characteristics are determined to differing degrees by both the environment and ones genetics. What we must remember is that while we cannot change our genetics (at least not at this point in time) we should not dwell on that we cannot control, but rather be empowered by what is in our control. We must take responsibility for our environmental influences, and alter them as we see fit to create an environment we find hospitable for our general wellbeing.

Nature Vs. Nurture – A Short Introduction:

2008-01-18T23:53:00.000+11:00

I have decided to take on the rather onerous task of investigating the Nature Vs. Nurture debate. For those of you not familiar with it, it debates whether various factors about how we are, are genetically influenced or influenced by the environment. Obviously we can already conclude that it is not going to be either extreme but rather somewhere nearer to the middle. However it may be that it does slant slightly to one side or another.

Historically speaking there was a period from the 1800’s to the 1900’s where everyone thought that things were largely genetically predetermined and hence racial policies of eugenics and so on thrived. However after World War I and even more so from the 1960’s onwards society began to see things as being more environmentally influenced. Nowadays it is seen to be an amalgamation of the two. However I have yet another theory which is that while it is certainly both genetics and environment that affect all things, different things are affected to a different degree by both nature and nurture. For instance your height will be most likely largely genetically pre-determined, it is not something that can be easily changed. How muscular you are however can be much more easily manipulated and by regularly training and eating protein and so forth even really skinny people can slowly over time put on a considerable amount of muscle. I shall certainly research into all of this more at a later date.

To be honest this post is going to be rather short as I have only done preliminary research and it is already late on a Friday night. But fear not for I will be posting following articles later on. There are many different areas within genetics which interest me. Some questions worth asking for are whether our genetics are totally responsible for us being fat, or intelligent or having fast reflexes, of blue eyes. There are so many questions that could be asked, it really is such a fascinating topic. For now I shall leave you with yet another problem which is not only what sort of genetics someone has, but how those genetics are then programmed. For instance two people can have the same gene, yet one person can have it switched on and another off, hence they can be completely opposite. How genes are set are not genetically done, but largely by very early environmental influences. Here we are talking about pre-natal conditions and once one is only just born. I believe this switching on of genes to a certain degree is called phenotypes. Essentially phenotypes are what genes cause with early environmental interaction. I suppose the question then becomes not whether our genes put us on a predetermined track, but whether our genes and earliest environmental exposure do. Does later environmental exposure count for far less? In many ways I would indeed say yes, but at the same time it still depends on what exactly we are talking about. You may have always been a fat kid, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t lose fat. Some characteristics just seem to be more predetermined than others. For all you nay-sayers out there I’d say body fat% is one which while obviously genetically influenced, is still largely within our control. This shouldn’t depress you, it should empower you. If only we could do that with everything, height, eye colour etc. Then again, maybe it’d make life to easy…

Nature Vs. Nurture, one of the great questions out there. Somehow I don’t think I’ll ever be coming up with a concrete answer. Still, the vague sketchings of a reasonable answer seem to be outlined above.

The Art of Blogging – One Month and Counting – Building Traffic and Esteem on the Web:

2008-01-17T21:08:00.000+11:00

So it’s been exactly a month since my first post! 31 days to be precise, and I have managed to post daily so far! Personally its rather an achievement to find the motivation to do it, especially seeing as most of my articles are a good couple of pages long, well researched and hopefully of reasonable interest. Doing 31 posts of such a quality has been demanding, yet rewarding. I have turned this website from a site no one new existed to one which has managed to get over a thousand page impressions in a month. Admittedly it really isn’t huge in the scheme of things, but it’s a damn fine start. I’d love to keep blogging daily but I doubt that I will be able to maintain the level of quality I like to have for my articles. I don’t really like to have short simple posts, I prefer to really write about something passionately and do research into the subject so as to deliver information of worth.

Personally I think this strategy will work well for me, and what I wish to accomplish with this website. I want to share information with the world, and the internet is probably the single best resource for this. Books are good too, but they cost people money to buy, as well as costing authors money to publish. Here it costs me only time to write about matters I am passionate about, and for that I am allowed to spread what I consider to be useful, valuable knowledge. You on the other end as the consumer if you like simply have to have an internet connection and then you can gain free information from this site. I do quite like the internet.

So I have posted for thirty one days and written about all sorts of topics I’m interested in. These include: “Exercise”,
"Cycling”, "Philosophy”, “Pyschology” and “Global Warming” , along with a whole host of other smaller sub categories. Generally speaking I suppose I’d be interested in health issues but in a much broader sense than people typically think of. I’m concerned not so much with an individual's health but of the worlds collective health. For instance I think helping a charity which helps poor people makes the world a healthier place. All over it just makes it that much better. Not even just for the person receiving aid, but rather the fact that others are decent enough to supply it, that gives me hope that the world is not an evil place, and that we can together work on global problems such as poverty and global warming.

My biggest interest at the moment is really building up more traffic. The reason I posted daily for the last month was of course deliberate, with the intention of building up some initial content so that people that should fortunately stumble onto my website actually have something worth reading! I will probably now resort to posting only every second day, but still I’ll see how long I can last posting daily. Even just hitting the 40 mark would be a nice accomplishment. Two months on the other hand would be quite intense. Before I started the blog I had lots and lots of completely new things I wanted to write about, now I find I have less concrete ideas. There are still definitely some things I wish to blog about, bur often they are now vaguer and I am less certain how to go about coherently presenting the information. Having said that I felt that I wasn’t ready to post 31 posts one month ago, but sure enough I’ve managed it. Sometimes pushing yourself is really the best way to get results, other times it certainly seems to back fire horribly with people never wanting to do that activity ever again!

So what have I learned from my experience. Well, at first I just posted and expected people to stumble onto the site. But after the first couple of weeks I only had a total page impressions of about 270. Then think that just two weeks later that had already grown to over 1000! What changed? Well I suppose I had more articles for people to read and link to, I also started sending more of my articles into blog carnivals to try and get my information out there and published on other sites. This also helps with linking and improves a sites ranking in search engines. Now at least I can find my site when I type in the right parameters into Google. It’s a start. The blog carnivals are good too as they allow you to distribute anything you write to an audience that may well be interested in your work and thus helps to build up your reputation on the internet.

I imagine I shall continue following essentially the same strategy as the one I am employing now, as to be honest I don’t really know of any others. Essentially I am trying to write good, useful articles and then submitting them to blog carnivals. I’m hopping that the quality of the articles will in time become realised and that more interested in my site will develop as a result. Still, competition is fierce. The internet may be relatively new territory in some senses, but that does not mean it is easy to become known on the internet. Its popularity is increasing tremendously and with it comes ever more tough competition for good sites. Nonetheless I imagine those free-market capitalists would argue that competition is good and brings out the best in us. Sometimes I wonder though…

I’m rambling a bit much at the minute, as to be honest I’ve said all that needs to be said I think. Its only been a month, so its to early to really tell if anything has had much of an effect. Come back in a month and see if I’m still posting, then we may have an indication of whether this site keeps growing both in terms of the traffic it attracts and the articles that are hopefully attracting it. Here’s hoping it does.

Breaking an addiction:

2008-01-16T18:58:00.000+11:00

Anything can be an addiction in a psychological sense, and this can in turn manifest itself physically as well. Addictions are generally understood to be an interplay between genes and the environment, so obviously some people are more genetically predisposed to addictions just as others are to illness or depression. Despite all that is outside of our direct control it is imperative not to lose faith if you wish to break an addiction. The most important thing to breaking the addiction is having the motivation to do just that. Deciding to break the addiction is after all the first step and as such literally half the battle.

Of course it is important that you understand why you have the addiction as well, that is to say you must have an understanding of the causes behind your particular addiction. Not having an understanding of what the addiction is a symptom of can be detrimental to breaking it. Allow me to explain through an example:

Let us say that you become an alcoholic due to feelings of isolation, and general social insecurity. Simply trying to force yourself off alcohol isn’t the solution to your alcoholism, as you will simply go back to abusing it or some other substance because you have not psychologically satisfied what it is that you crave. In this case the situation could be much more effectively solved if you gave yourself the social contact you desire, and once this had been granted getting rid of the addiction would become much more manageable, as what motivated you to develop the addiction is no longer there to reinforce it.

Thus the main part of breaking an addiction is actually figuring out what the addiction represents and why it is that it exists. Of course it may seem at first that someone is addicted to something simply because they like it, and to a degree this is true, but if it is a serious obsessive addiction there is typically more emotionally involved with the addiction. In the case of the alcoholic he may well say that he just likes alcohol but the real reason for the addiction could be more to do with the fact that he may be in denial of his emotional distress and cannot come to terms with his social insecurity.

Ultimately the causes for addiction are as unique and varied as there are individuals with addictions (that is to say virtually all of us!). Sometimes addictions are not really that bad, of course it is all relative any obsessive and extreme addictions then typically inhibit ones normal ability to do day to day activities. The reason we now that addictions often represent deeper emotional problems is because people often wish they didn’t have the addiction, yet keep doing it and find it extremely hard to stop doing it.

For instance one of the reasons that dieting doesn’t work is to do with psychological pressure. While not a typical sort of addiction it is an dieting and bodyimage are also a good example as people often develop eating disorders as a consequence. For some reason or another people feel the need to look a certain way and therefore put themselves under a lot of pressure to get there. This pressure typically drives them to binge as it is stressful and anxiety provoking. The binging is then followed by guilt and or anger, which then leads to renewed pressure to eat well. Thus the cycle comes round full circle, round and round in a downward spiral. The interesting thing is if you tell a binge eater to simply stop eating it normally won’t work. Here is were it gets emotionally complex. Don’t you think the binge eater has told themselves to stop thousands of times? But it didn’t work then, so why will you telling them the same thing they’ve been pressuring themselves with work?

These issues are complex, and there are no set answers. Often simply telling people that they are only human, that you care about them as a friend/peer/relative or whatever and that life is really not such a bad place will cheer them up a little bit. I never said it would stop the binging, but at least it will make them a little happier and feel more accepted of by others and also accept themselves more. Feeling loved is a powerful motivator. After a binge cycle it is also important to try and get the binge eater not to give themselves a hard time for their so called “failure” and simply tell them it really is not the end of the world and help them take their mind of their inability to stop the addiction. The frustration will only drive the cycle onwards otherwise.

Addiction is a largely psychological phenomena and this makes solving the problem difficult. Despite this there are physiological things that can be done to help. Many friends of mine who have successfully quite smoking did things like go for a stroll around the block or do a set of weights every time they felt a nicotine craving. Doing this would take their mind of their want for nicotine as well as making them feel like they did something productive and often it release endorphins which can help make people feel better, in turn helping them avoid future cravings.

Doing regular exercise, eating in a healthy balanced manner and getting adequate amounts of sleep will also help people to fight all sorts of things, including addictions. If you are well rested for instance you are much less likely to crave a coffee, or some chocolate or even a cigarette to wake you up with. Another really important aspect to beating an addiction is to get help from your peers. You need to branch out and get social support from your friends as you need not fight the deadly addiction alone. You can have many potential allies who can help you. Of course if all your friends are alcoholics maybe you should make a few new ones to hang with at times so you not always drinking. But if they are all alcoholics you could also all make a social pact to stop (or if you wish to be more reasonable, cut down, together). You could even place bets so that there is a money incentive for those who stick to it! Also remember to take up activities that distract you from your addiction. Learn a new sport or skill, maybe take up a language or learn a musical instrument as both of those have been shown to be the most effective ways to increase the brains Neuro plasticity. See “The Power of Music – The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence” if your curious for more info.

But most importantly we come back to our main idea of motivation and willpower. To have the courage to break the addiction you must have the motivation. YOU must want to break the addiction. If your cousin wants you to and you really don’t want to then I doubt its going to happen. If however you really do want to break the addiction then as cliché as it sounds “you can do it”. Of course there will be set backs, there will be obstacles as life is always challenging which at least keeps things interesting, but in the long run that motivation will mean you keep on fighting and eventually you will triumph. You cannot lose hope, as then you succumb and simply accept the addiction again. As they say only YOU can change yourself. I don’t care what it takes for you to do something you need to have the motivation, that desire, that encouragement to do it. It need not even be in relation to an addiction.
I for instance like social motivation so if I wanted to get into a good habit like exercise the best way for me to do it would be to do it with friends or get social encouragement, or a coach, someone to connect with and share the experience with. Others are motivated by money. If you want to stop smoking there are hundreds of things you can think of as motivators. Financially you save money, health wise you live longer and are healthier, also your colleagues don’t inhale as much smoke, you don’t remain dependant on a drug like nicotine, sport wise it will improve your aerobic capacity and probably help in other areas too. You get the idea. Another example is the bike ridding I do. While I do this alone I am greatly motivated to travel around without causing pollution that I, others and our environment would otherwise have to deal with. This for me is probably the biggest reason I do it. I feel that I am doing my little bit to make a cleaner, greener and generally better world.

So the main key is really finding the key formula for you individually, which will help you to overcome any addiction. After you’ve found it its simply a matter of implementing it. Results won’t be immediate, they seldom are, but they will be much quicker than if you don’t really ask yourself why you have the problem and how you can best solve it. If you don’t ask those questions then you are simply trying to break the addiction through trial and error, and generally our emotions get in the way and cause us to get stuck in vicious addiction cycles. So do some thinking, try not to be critical, rather we want constructive analysis. These brief tips will make a world of difference in overcoming an addiction, at very least the problem will be properly identified and a solution established, then comes simply a slog to try and implement it. Good luck, expect to encounter obstacles and simply treat it as life throwing you a curve ball to keep things interesting.

Free Market Economy/Classical Liberalism Vs. The Welfare State – Which is the better ideal?

2008-01-15T22:57:00.000+11:00

For years I’ve always shunned the complete Free Market Economy with its emphasis on laissez-faire based capitalism. The problems inherent have always been obvious to me so I have tended to preference a more leftist welfare based state. However as I begin to understand more of the political makeup of the left I also find that many left groups (while admittedly better than right groups) can be preaching a rather extreme course of action. Like almost all things in life a balance seems to be required, a balance between the ability to make money and the responsibility to pay taxes so that society is fair and has a degree of security.

What sparked this whole debate in my mind again was ironically simply the fact that I did some casual work today in which I was assigned to work with my boss’s father. He is a Swedish man by the name of Sten (essentially stan, but Swedish) and was I believe 70 years old. Despite the large age difference between the two of us, I quickly found myself enjoying his company as he was very friendly and talkative. Eventually we talked of Sweden which is renowned for having an extremely good welfare state, or so I had previously believed. Sweden has extremely high tax rates and thus it would be assumed that It has a good welfare system. Like many European countries I believe it has good public schooling and good health-care, something which America certainly lacks. If you have not already seen it I highly recommend you watch Michael Moore’s “Sicko (Special Edition)” as it is an interesting movie comparing the American health system to those of other countries.

Despite all this it appears, according to Sten, that Sweden does not have the most efficient welfare system in the world. It may well be that a lot of the money disappears in various bureaucratic processes, which is a common complaint of the classical liberals. Even if this is not the case there are other problems. The tax system in Sweden which effectively is the heart and soul of the welfare system is much to high. Even I, a person of rather left-wing views must say this. Sweden may be held up as a totem of how states should be, but like any other state it certainly has its flaws. A nice analogy for the high tax system was given to me when Sten told me of the famous author Astrid Lindgreen who was the author of Pippi Langstrump (or Pippy Longstockings, a renowned children's book). Apparently Lindfreen was taxed at 104% of her income! That is to say for every $100 she earned she had to pay the government $104. However I think Sten may have been just off the mark as other sources I have found state that it was 102%. Regardless, it’s just horrifically high. As “http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/Article____18005.aspx” states:
“at the age of 68 she submitted an opinion piece to the Swedish daily Expressen on the subject of a loophole in the Swedish tax system which meant that she, as a self-employed writer, had to pay 102 percent tax on her income. She wrote the piece in the style of a fairytale, and it had an immediate impact.”

The high taxation system also has other huge problems. According to “Statistics Sweden” the mean tax rate is 30.44% this year (2008), which still seems a little high. This huge taxation rate as Sten explained means many people aren’t motivated to work (or at least not much) as:
1) So much of what they need is supplied by the government (education/medical etc)
2) They have to give such a large amount of what they earn back to the government in the form of taxation

Another problem with high taxation (as The Classical Liberals always argue) is that it creates “corruptness” so to speak. While not what we would consider really bad crimes, it becomes the case that professionals serve one another for free, so that they don’t have to pay for each other’s services and also don’t have to pay the huge amounts of tax they would otherwise pay to work for them, only to spend on each others service’s. Thus it works out better for them to do jobs for one another unofficially, maybe with some cash in hand. In essence the high tax levels would no doubt lead to a large amount of tax fraud around the country. (See: “http://www.skatteverket.se/download/18.3dfca4f410f4fc63c8680003885/swedish+report+200604B+.pdf” for more details)

Of course the welfare system they have in place is of course very good, despite the various flaws inherit in it. While I think Sweden is an example of extreme left-wing thinking and is ultimately too extreme to be sustainable I do think many countries could do with adding some welfare state systems into their economies. I believe we need taxation for various purposes namely a fair health system, a fair education system and basic support for those in dire need. When I say dire need I really only mean the heavily impoverished. There should also be reasonably cheap transport which if needed should be government subsidised to encourage people to use public transport and also do the environment good in doing so. Heck in China they even pay cyclists a fortnightly amount for cycling and not polluting!

However I think to achieve this a high tax rate would not be required. If the money was used more efficiently (which trust me it could be – however people will understandably always argue for different causes to be of top priority and so forth) the tax rate could be kept reasonably low and yet the welfare gains as maximised as possible. This promotes some sort of balance between classical liberalism and socialism, and its generally called welfare liberalism, and its currently where I’d say I stand on the political spectrum. So after all that I simply say that a balance is needed. It seems the Buddhists and their notion of “the middle way” are again correct. I seem to write about them in half of my damn posts, its about time I hurried up and published a link to a post on that idea of balance!

I do not think the free market/classical liberal state is, the be all and end all of politics. It too is extreme. If several people are disabled and people in general aren’t kind enough to support them out of their own pockets they die. Unfortunately I don’t yet have enough faith in humans for them to sort out all their problems all the time, after all were rather erratic creatures. Hence the notion of a state which is created on rational logic which remains throughout points of emotional turmoil needs to exist, so that we can stick by our long term values, such as helping those in need.

Capitalists also argue that competition is good, and while to a degree I think this is true, it is also true that blatant competition leads to fear and greed. People become unhappy and life is lead in a state of anxiety. Also, in a capitalist society everything becomes commodified, including values that I think simply cannot be compromised by no amount of wealth. No amount of money for instance could make me forgive someone for killing my mother, its just not something you can forgive in that way. Do we really want to live in a callous, competitive society where we are slave to the dollar? What’s more free market capitalism does not allow for any government intervention. In some ways this is good as government can do stupid things, but mostly government serves to implement reasonable measures, and in these cases it should be allowed to do its job. What I foresee through free market capitalism is a sort of monopoly forming. I know free market capitalists argue it won’t happen but to a degree it is inevitable.

Life isn’t all about economics and wealth, yet free market theory commodifies all. It certainly seems unreasonable to me. Still I love to read things which disprove my views because as annoying as it can be it ultimately leads me to learn from my mistakes. Several pro-laissez-faire fans have suggested I read F.A. Hayek’s "The Road to Serfdom (Routledge Classics S.)". Maybe then I can comment some more on the situation. Until then I’d say that taxation is required for various basic functions and infrastructure and so forth which society needs. Some could argue that private companies could do it, but I’d rather have certain services such as basic public transport available to all people, as well as medical centres and basic education, at very least those three things are requires, as well as some government support for those in economic crisis. The fact is that statistically some of us get very unlucky and just because that happens doesn’t mean we deserve to be left out on the street to die. A welfare liberal state is far more humane than a laissez-faire based one. And as a human I’m all for humaneness.

Kangaroo Meat – Good For You AND the Environment:

2008-01-14T21:25:00.000+11:00

Kangaroo meat is one of natures many wonders. I know it sounds a bit bizarre, and if you don’t live in Australia probably very foreign, but the facts remains that Kangaroo meat is an excellent choice of meat. It is both nutritionally beneficial for humans as it as well as being far better for the environment than other livestock, specifically cattle, which is probably the most eaten meat and also happens to cause the most environmental damage. If you are an enlightened citizen and aware of the importance of both your own health and that of the environments then Kangaroo is certainly for you. Admittedly its flavour is rather gamey, but this need not be a barrier to eating it. While many find it a unique flavour at first but then quickly develop a a taste for it.

So why is kangaroo so nutritionally superior to other meats Sam? Well, Firstly kangaroo is an incredibly lean meat by nature (probably has something to do with the fact that kangaroos jump around a lot and eat grass and not grains, therefore not developing excess unneeded fat). However as I mentioned in “"Fats: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly as well as Potentially Life Threatening:” fats aren’t all bad. It’s the saturated and particularly trans fats that we have to avoid. Well almost all products which are in their natural form like fresh vegetables and fruit as well as meat will contain for all intensive purposes absolutely not trans fat. Fats found in natural produce tend to contain only limited amounts of saturated fat and more of the unsaturated fats (poly unsaturated and mono unsaturated), which makes them appropriate for a healthy diet. Many unprocessed animal products however have quite high amounts of saturated fat, and typically far less in the way of mono saturated fats. This also holds true for traditional dairy products.

Some meats such as chicken and turkey are very low in fat by nature. Certain cuts of beef can be lower in fat too, but generally speaking red meats as well as pork have higher amounts of fat than other meats. One great meat source is of course fish. Certain fish such as tuna, salmon and sardines not only contain very low amounts of saturated fat but also contain higher amounts of the healthier unsaturated fats including the now rather famous Omega-3. Omega-3 in itself has been proven to be an exceptionally amazing fatty acid and I have written a whole article entitled “Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?”, due to its amazing health benefits.

Now Kangaroo is a particularly interesting meat in that it is both a red meat but also incredibly lean by nature. Not only that but the little fat it does have contains quite a substantial amount of the healthier unsaturated fats. Due to its overall low fat content however Kangaroo can be overcooked easily, and hence be tough. This will take some mastering but once you’ve got the hang of it a Kangaroo steak is treat to behold… or be-eat as the case may be. Obviously Kangaroo meat is an excellent source of protein and has particularly high levels of iron & zinc. It also has practically not cholesterol and contains a healthy fatty acid known as “Conjugated linoleic acid” (CLA). While essentially all of the things about Kangaroo meat are good for you the fact that it contains good amounts of CLA is particularly interesting. Don’t only take my word for it though take the CSIRO’s: http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr2004/kangaroofat.htm! The CSIRO site also notes that the interesting thing is not only that Kangaroo’s have high levels of CLA, but so do most grass fed animals.

CLA intake has been shown to help in reducing body-fat and do a host of other beneficial things, even reduce the risk of getting cancer. Allow me to quickly site some references. This site, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11725826?dopt=Abstract, explains how studies have linked CLA intake with lower bodyfat, yet similar bodyweight, hence not only helping humans to lower their body-fat but also increase their muscle mass. Of course the benefits would only be minor but it clearly indicates that Kangaroo is a very healthy choice of meat. Further more as http://www.adsa.org/jointabs/iaafs108.pdf explains:
“Research studies with animal models suggest that CLA reduces the risk of cancers at several sites (mammary tissue, prostrate, gastrointestinal tract, lung, and skin), reduces body fat and enhances growth of lean body mass.”

The same website (http://www.adsa.org/jointabs/iaafs108.pdf) also stresses that animals fed grain products produce less CLA. “Cows grazing on pasture had 500% more CLA content in milk compared with cows fed typical dairy cow diets containing conserved forage and grain in a 50:50 ratio.” It is indeed interesting to wonder whether feeding our primary meat sources (such as cattle) from grains instead of grass (which is what they would be naturally eating) has contributed to our obesity problem both through increasing the fat content in the cows and also through causing other changes such as the drastic drop in CLA found in grain feed cows.

Now if that’s not enough a reason to start eating Kangaroo maybe I should mention that Kangaroo’s cause far less damage to the environment than traditional meat sources such as cattle. See “Vegetarianism From a Different Perspective:” to see just how much a threat to global warming the meat industry alone causes to get an idea of what were comparing here. Firstly, realise that Kangaroos are farmed wild, which is also much more ethical. Secondly, realise that at the moment Australia has a heap of Kangaroos. While certain species are endangered most aren’t, indeed in some areas of Australia they are considered a pest. Hence Kangaroo farming began, more as a way to cull the kangaroo population than anything else. Unfortunately much of the meat has been used in pet foods as I don’t think the market for it is very big. However the market certainly should grow, especially given kangaroo’s wonderful nutritional properties.

Essentially as I argue in “Vegetarianism From a Different Perspective:” , cows create a butt load of methane (pun totally intended, even though I think a lot of it actually comes out their mouths). In contrast Kangaroos don’t, in fact their farts (or whatever you want to call them) are methane free. Hence eating kangaroos encourages fewer cattle to be eaten, which in turn makes for less cattle and reduces the output of deadly green house gasses (in the form of methane from cow farts. For those who don’t know Methane is in fact roughly 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to speeding up global warming). But wait, it gets even stranger! Kangaroo fart happens to be so methane free (due to bacteria in their gut) that scientists are in fact trying to transfer these bacteria to cow’s intestine, essentially to make them fart like kangaroos, i.e. causing less methane. Check out: http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/03/scientists-to-make-cows-fart-like-kangaroos/ if you wish to see where I got this information from and be mildly amused.

Kangaroo’s are also in large numbers and its believed that they are fair game (pun again intended) at the minute. Seriously, kangaroo is great stuff. I hope I have at least convinced you to go to the supermarkets and try some. If you need just a little more convincing then I have just one more thing to say. Ironically enough, Kangaroo meat is really rather cheap. In fact it’s typically much cheaper than most other meats! If I recall correctly a kilogram of kangaroo mince at Coles costs you around $7 Australian, while a kilogram of lamb costs you closer to $30.

While Kangaroo meat does have an acquired taste some certainly find it to their liking. Others adapt. It can also be cunningly used in dishes like bolognese where its distinct flavour is blunted by herbs and other ingredients. As I have stated above it is incredibly good for you, indeed it is no doubt the best of all the red meats. The only meat I would rank higher for your health would probably be fish, but given mercury poisoning problems due to ever rising pollution levels even fish can now be quite contaminated. Not only is it good for you however, it is also beneficial for the environment. Lastly its not overpriced either. So go on, have Kangaroo for dinner tonight, after writing all this to persuade you of how good it can be for you its worth at least trying!

Discipline Vs. Desire – Is Discipline Really Such an Omnipotent Virtue?

2008-01-13T16:01:00.001+11:00

Most things in our life require balance. It’s a strange fact that is seemingly always the case. Even something often viewed as a virtue such as self-discipline can be overdosed on. You may well know some people who suffer this, they are typically crazily controlled, or if not they wish and strive to be, they live life in an extreme manner and grant themselves little emotional outlet. Typically these controlled people are also very rational in how they act and think, they almost always tend to deny their emotions. Thus it comes as no surprise that these people also have bad-habits which they probably wish they could curb, as a result of their emotions trying to vent themselves.

My now deceased Polish grandfather comes first to mind for me. He was a scientist, an engineer and a rather accomplished one at that. There’s even a nice photo of him and the queen which I have somewhere. The point is that the man was no idiot in terms of rational intelligence. He was the chief engineer of the snowy mountains hydro scheme and did a whole array of other projects. He managed to live through the great depression and then through WWII despite being captured by the Nazi’s on two separate occasions. He led…an interesting life. However he did like his alcohol, and he always seemed to be rather uptight and angry. Maybe it was just that he was old, but I don’t think this really explains it. He was a man of rigid habits and never really changed his attitudes. He was also notoriously stubborn and would always argue with my mother whenever she tried to help him. In a nutshell he tried mostly to think rationally and as such led a controlled life, one in which his emotions were all pent up in a corner. Needless to say I don’t think he ever really enjoyed life quite as much as he could have.

My grandfather was however a man of great self-discipline in that he would do things even though he didn’t want to, he forced himself to do certain things. His stubborn nature is undoubtedly connected to this fact. However the act of self-discipline is actually very repressive and tends to only bring short-term results. Over disciplining oneself leads to an unhappy controlled life, which typically leads peoples shunned emotions to try and express themselves, hence my grandfather's fondness of alcohol. Theodor Adorno said of self-discipline: “Work while you work, play while you play - this is a basic rule of repressive self-discipline.” But why can’t we enjoy work and be productive when we play?

What I’m getting at is despite what some think we are not purely rational beings, we are not machines, nor were we meant to be. Despite the fact that working for 12 hours everyday 356 days a year would make a lot more money than only working 8 five times a week, its just simply not easy to sustain that sort of activity, we sort of emotionally overheat. Let's say you wanted to get good at tennis and you were a machines, you could easily see the benefit in playing tennis literally almost all your waking hours, short of basic things such as resting, refuelling and maybe watching some tennis games to learn from opponents. However as humans we are not machines. Even notice that the process of eating was referred to as “refuelling” rather than having an enjoyable meal. Even something as nice as food loses its enjoyment and becomes instead a way of furthering the mechanical tennis player’s ability to play good tennis.

Unfortunately we as a species seem to think largely in rational terms. Emotions have been seen as unwanted, undesirable and simply an obstacle to being able to rationally accomplish things. However while rationality may allow us to find out that X does Y and generally speaking make sense of many of life’s mysterious phenomena it is emotion that gives us the curiosity and drive to discover that in the first place! A purely rational being would, in my opinion, have absolutely no desire to do anything, and therefore would not. Phew, I’m certainly glad I’ve got emotions now. Emotions need not be bad, as they are so often viewed. They can be extremely helpful as well, as if you simply enjoy playing tennis all day then its hardly a chore for you at all is it?

This is where the article starts to attack the question, is self-discipline ultimate? Let me firstly define discipline as the ability to make yourself do things. The fact that you need to make yourself do something typically means you don’t really have a drive to do it, but your make yourself anyway. An example would be that discipline is partly what makes us get up and go to work to pay the rent, even if we don’t want to (although you could say necessity is involved, but that in turn is then operated upon by discipline). Admittedly some discipline is needed as there is no way we can enjoy every thing we do in life, but surely we can make some activities more enjoyable, in turn making them easier to commit to and thus making them require less discipline!

I think you see were I’m going with this right? Take the example of Bob, John and Tim:

Bob goes through life forcing himself to do things (i.e.being disciplined) and even if he does end up being successful leads a rather unhappy life. Most likely Bob won’t even be successful because he’ll become depressed and run out of steam, as even the most disciplined person in the world is still only human. This doesn’t seem like the way to be now does it?

In contrast Tim has absolutely no discipline and never gets things done. He is unable to do things other than those things he really enjoys, and while he may do these well as discipline never factors in when doing them, the simple fact is that he hasn’t showered for three years because he can’t bring himself to. Hmm, Tim really doesn’t seem much better off that Bob, although he may be a little happier, but even that is dubious given that he is so out of tune with reality.

John is our middleman, so to speak. John has found a balance between discipline and desire. John gets up and goes to work, which he enjoys and seldom feels he needs to force himself to do it. Occasionally there are bad days however, but he has enough sense to employ discipline in some cases such as those bad days and manages to convince himself to go to work. He also manages to unstack the dishwasher despite it not being the most exciting thing to do in the world, as he realises that it is simply something that needs doing, and he disciplines himself to do it. However as much as possible John tries not to view things in terms of “must”, but rather in terms of “would like to”. He replaces the imperative of doing a task, with a desire to do the task regardless of whether it needs be done or not. Take John’s job for example. He doesn’t like to think of needing to go to work to earn money to survive, rather he thinks of wanting to go to work to get money to survive. This tiny change in the choice of how life is formulated makes a world full of difference and as such John enjoys most of life, and as such has little need for strict discipline. Instead he does largely what he desires, and gets by fine like that.

So, have you gotten the general gist of things yet? Essentially I will admit that discipline is necessary, indeed useful, particularly for certain things that just have to be done, whether we want to or not. However the secret to not needing discipline to any great deal, while also simply enjoying life more is simply to do what you love, and love what you do. Of course there is always some difficulty here. If you work in a really bad job maybe it will be impossible to learn to enjoy it, maybe therefore you should change jobs. However often a simple change of perspective can change your mood for you! Looking at things as things you choose to do and wish to do, over things you are forced to do is a great start.

The ideal life is of course to live as the hypothetical John does. Some discipline for the days and occasions you require it and for when the going gets tough, but otherwise doing things not out of necessity and self-discipline but rather a desire to do whatever it is that needs doing. As our example showed the theory of balance triumphs again! Those Buddhists and their theory of ““The Middle Way:”” are certainly onto something, I will no doubt have to investigate it further myself. But take it from me, I will enjoy researching into it, indeed I will go so far as to say I desire to do just that, in turn it won’t really require much in the way of self-discipline to do!

The Meaning of life (and other trivial concerns!)– An Existentialist Approach:

2008-01-12T19:03:00.000+11:00

Probably man’s most asked questions would have to be something along the lines of “why are we here”, in essence “what is our purpose” or as it is often phrased “what is the meaning of life”. This question is of course closely rivalled by “where do all my socks go and why is it that despite how many socks I buy I never have a matching pair?” which is yet another of life’s many great mysteries. Personally I always liked Douglas Adams’ simple answer to the meaning of life in his: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The answer was of course the now rather infamous number “Forty-Two”. In many ways his comical answer to one of life’s greatest problems highlights how insufficient any clear cut answer would be. How can you go about answering a question as mind boggling as what is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life certainly does seem to be a rather subjective question, and thus one which embraces relativism. Yet this doesn’t really help us much and we now start to wonder if there is no concrete answer. Existentialist theory addresses the issue of not knowing a concrete answer to this ultimate question in stating that it leads to anxiety. If on the other hand there were a clear-cut and set answer to life such as “To eat spaghetti”, then everyone could take comfort in knowing that they fulfil life’s purpose by regularly eat spaghetti and so on. But while the answer remains unknown so to remains a feeling of insecurity in not knowing whether we are in fact doing the right thing. This uncertainty is seen to lead to the aforementioned anxiety.

However fear not, for existentialists and Buddhists alike argue that we need not live a life of anxiety. They admit that there are no fixed values in the world, no things which are simply right or wrong but therefore argue that this places the moral onus on us to create our own values and build society upon these values. They argue that this provides humanity with a fresh slate on which to carve its own values, as shaped by its individuals. Instead of feeling anxious at the lack of values this optimistic way of looking at life stresses felling empowered by our ability to create our own values and to support what we believe in. Thus, while the existentialist view is sometimes associated with a period of angst in which people don’t know what exactly they should be doing, it is seen as able to be overcome when people take on responsibility by defining their own morals, thus empowering themselves. Hence, existential theory is not really nihilistic at all, but rather positive in how it expresses that we are in a position of creative freedom. This creative freedom provides us with a means to mould the pillars of society as we see fit.

Typically existentialism by its nature denounces God as it denounces pure objective truth, yet there is also a stream known as Christian existentialism which still accepts Gods existence. Christian existentialism however must settle be content with the idea that god exists but in no way interferes with human development and hence leaves values open to us to decide upon. The atheist view obviously thinks the same thing, but without there ever being a god. So whether you are religious or not must not necessarily stop you from accepting the primary ideas behind existentialist theory.

I suppose the hard part comes in accepting that life has no true meaning before we create one. While it seems easy to accept I think subconsciously this scares us greatly. I think instinctively we want values to exist of their own accord, much as a physical object would? We want to think that certain virtues, such as helping old ladies to cross the street, exist independently of our minds. Otherwise those virtues become nothing but tentative beliefs. When I say unfounded I mean that they don’t have something concrete to back them up.

Here’s a good example to illustrate what I’m trying to get at. I recently mentioned that I got Terry Pratchett's lattest book Making Money (Discworld). Fear not for it is not a self-help book about making money, rather it is a brilliantly entertaining and comical masterpiece as most of his works are (in my humble opinion of course – but then I always had a taste for the bizarre and humourous). In not giving the plot line away I will simply say that the protagonist who is trying to help the bank out of financial difficulty wants to implement paper money as a currency and in turn get rid of all the gold in the bank’s vaults. The people of the city Ankh-Morpork of course enquire as to what exactly the paper money is other than just paper if there is no gold being held by the bank to give concrete worth to the currency. The protagonist argues that the money is given value by us anyway, and that the whole notion of the city (Ankh-Morpork) itself and all within it should give the paper value as a currency, and therefore that the gold is not required to give it its value.

Okay, if you’re still with me, the equivalence to my article on the meaning of life is that it is simply the way that our minds work that we think better in concrete terms. We can more easily accept and understand values being “right”, “true” or “worthy” if they are concretely supported. That is to say if some figure who can’t be wrong like god says hitting old ladies is bad, then hitting old laddies is bad. We take comfort in knowing that we don’t really have to understand why these things are, or take any responsibility for why they are, they just are. However existentliasts argue that nothing gives value to a concept like “hitting old ladies is bad” other than us ourselves supporting such values.

Essentially the difficulty here is in the individual taking responsibility for being a bastion of human values, or values that he would see as being of best use to humanity. Accepting this does require some open-mindedness, and open-mindedness typically leaves people open, funny that. The thing is when people are open they are also vulnerable. An analogy would be accepting someone else’s blood into your own veins, certainly it might help, but equally if that blood is somehow tainted it could hinder, such are the uncertainties anyone faces when they let their guard down. This quote from Tool sums the idea up nicely:
“To think for yourself you must question authority and learn to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open mindedness, chaotic, confused vulnerability, to inform yourself.”
- Intro speech to “Third Eye Live” by Tool

It seems that all this theorising has lead us to conclude that the meaning of life is only given meaning by living, which seems rather self-evident, as how could we have any meaning without conscious life? What we do through living and what we support and believe gives life meaning. Meaning doesn’t give life, rather life gives meaning!

Excuse me if that was rather a leap of faith, I don’ think I made that journey of understanding as pleasant as I probably could have, but the words sort of just typed themselves out. So it seems that those who run around life looking for meaning are like the people who run around looking for their glasses when they are in fact wearing them on their head. No, they’re not stupid, or blind, that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Rather, meaning is always there, it is not something which can be sought in a physical sense, rather it is found through doing. In the odd analogy of the person with glasses on their head the glasses are found when the person instinctively pulls them down to read something. So too does man instinctively reach out and use meaning, when he requires it to see life with clearer vision.

Therefore to find meaning in life we must take full responsibility for our own lives and thus through living life we create meaning. If you believe in stopping poverty then take responsibility. Firstly you must realise that the problem exists and the you must take action. Donate to a charity. Volunteer to do charity work, raise money for a worthy cause. Why not? Why not you? Why wait for someone else to do it? You are the one who holds the values you believe in, therefore you should be the one to try and spread the sense behind those values and to in turn place the foundation for meaning through life.

Why Diets Don’t Work:

2008-01-11T22:16:00.000+11:00

So you want to go on a diet? Well let me save you what is most likely going to be a lot of pain, suffering and guilt by saying don’t bother. The problem with diets is essentially that they don’t work. Well, to be honest scientifically speaking diets if followed will cause weight loss, but my point is rather that they are immensely hard to follow, and therefore they are flawed not in their ability to work, but in their ability to be implemented in the first place. Diets by the very definition they have come to hold in modern lingo have become a thing of short term results. As the rather prominent bodybuilder Tom Venuto and author of “Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle” commented 95% of all conventional diets fail.

I believe this is largely because dieting is seen as a purely physical phenomena. Obviously what you eat is what everything else to do with your body is dependant on. However it is most always seen as a pure matter of willpower as to whether someone can follow a diet or not. Admittedly some willpower and dedication is required to eat healthy, but to be honest what I feel eludes most people is the psychological state of mind that is required and how often dieting causes psychological harm. It has been proven that people who have been starved become neurotic about food, and many dieters without meaning to don’t diet properly and end up becoming obsessed with food and ultimately slaves to some variety of eating disorder. Eating disorders have been rising dramatically worldwide and the two biggest causes could be seen to be the unrealistic ideals we strive for as dictated by the media at large and our own attempts to control our eating habits forcefully which leads to psychological stress and food addiction.

Diets themselves go against human nature, they are in themselves rather counter intuitive. Yet the fact remains that even if someone really knows what their doing nutritionally and on a physical level and constructs a very healthy and reasonable diet to yield slow consistent fat loss (not just weight loss) with the inclusion of exercise and so forth that they can still fail. Why is this? It’s largely got to do with the approach to the diet. Here again psychology is the key word. Dieting is a flawed concept. It has become associated with short term goals.

It’s all well and good to know that X does Y to Z, it’s essentially science at its most simple and thus at its best. However it could also be seen as science at its worst as its all well and good if X indeed does to Y to Z, but the question still remains how the hell do well actually get people to do X? Essentially science in regards to dieting often amounts to little as it cannot be properly duplicated outside of strictly controlled laboratory conditions, and no one wants to live life like this.

So why does dieting fail? Well this is a difficult question to answer, but I’ll give it a shot. Firstly I’d say that all people are unique, we are individuals, both physically in how we respond to various foods and environmental conditions but even more so in how our psychology works. Therefore it is absurd for there to be one perfect diet for everyone. However this does not mean we cannot generalise and create malleable guidelines which can help guide virtually everyone in the quest to be healthier.

Allow me to give a quirky yet effective example. Let us say that you were raised such that every Wednesday your mother gave you a piece of Turkish delight to you and your favourite cousin who you saw only on Wednesdays. Imagine how important eating Turkish delight on Wednesdays becomes to your internal wellbeing. If you go on a diet that doesn’t allow you the flexibility to maybe eat even a small bit of Turkish delight on a Wednesday afternoon I have a feeling that you would only last on your diet until the next Wednesday! Of course it all depends on how you reacted to the Turkish delight on Wednesday. If you hated it, maybe you could easily go without it. If however you enjoyed it as most would it would be very hard to suddenly change old age habits. I hope my rather odd example has stressed the point here. People need to know themselves how to adapt their own diets to fit themselves and their lifestyles.

I can honestly tell you right now that if your sole goal is lose weight then you can easily do this by just eating a few carrots and celery sticks each and every day. It’s true. I never said it was easy, but it’s true. You can accuse me of being many things but in this instance you can’t accuse me of being a liar. The thing is not that this won’t help you lose weight if it’s done, but rather whether it can be done. So what’s worse is that it makes us look weak if we cannot comply with the diets standards. The notion of healthy eating isn’t much better in how it has been manipulated but I suppose it is an improvement on dieting. I prefer to think of healthy guidelines, so that only guidelines to health are suggested and that the individual can tweak these guidelines to suit there own situation

In a nutshell healthy guidelines would suggest that people eat a diet focusing largely on fresh fruit and vegetables with lean meats, fish, eggs and limited amounts of diary products. As a rule of them it is best to shy away from processed food. The more processed typically the less nutrients it contains and the more energy dense the product is. Even so every now and again it is okay to have small treats, indeed it is encouraged for our psychological wellbeing. While grain products are fine I believe that our current eating guidelines place to much emphasise upon them. When grains are consumed they should ideally be wholegrain as these contain more nutrients. However fresh fruits and vegetables should ideally make up the basis for the diet.

Admittedly what is given above is not complex and is neither very detailed. Yet it is easy to understand and easy to implement. It does not say that you can only have some sorts of fruits and vegetables as that is in my opinion becoming much too fussy and essentially confuses people with unneeded, hindering complexities. If I was to say more I would suggest that people try and gain the majority of their fats from the healthier unsaturated fat sources and that regular exercise should be strongly encouraged so that the body can tweak itself hormonally better.

Unfortunately the psychology of dieting has still barely been looked at in this article, but it is indeed a most intricate issue. The healthy eating guidelines above are simple, are not strict or definite, they allow room for some freedom and they really emphasise simply changing what one bases ones diet around. Simply moving from largely grain products and high fat meat products and dairy to a more vegetarian based diet with leaner protein sources and some healthier fat choices will be more than enough to help people to improve their health. On a psychological front it is most important that people don’t allow themselves to get to carried away with food and that they don’t become obsessed with the finer intricacies of eating and dieting, as this can often be detrimental. The fact is that most people intuitively understand what it takes to eat a reasonably healthy diet, but simply struggle to do so. Here is where psychology really comes into play. In many ways dieting typically places to much emphasis on weight and not enough on our general health and wellbeing. After all our weight is really just a number and only a very small part of who we truly are, why let it dominate our whole lives?

Diets can be extremely harmful, generally speaking I would avoid anything that calls itself a diet and anything. As "Beyond Dieting” put it:
"Weight loss attempts of any kind: dietary, exercise programs, pharmaceutical interventions, stomach or intestinal surgery and liposuction, have proven to have short term success and intermediate to long term failure often with the additional insult of weight rebound above the original starting point (Ciliska, 1990). The emphasis on "success" and "failure" usually succeeds in intensifying one's preoccupation with food and weight and lowering self esteem."

So for now I will leave you with the above healthy guidelines. I hope you find them useful, and also psychologically easy to implement.

The Philosophy of Happiness – The Media & Unrealistic Expectations:

2008-01-10T12:34:00.000+11:00

Mainstream Media is full of crap. Images of guys with washboard abs, and chicks with breasts big enough to sink the titanic, why do we think of this as the norm? Go walk outside right now and inspect the next 10 people that walk past your street and you’ll find that unless you live in Hollywood they probably all look the complete antithesis to what we see in the media. So why do we believe in the media's ideal? Why are we all so gullible?

What is perhaps even more amusing is that if you were to meet the rather ripped fellow that you saw in a magazine he would not look nearly as good in real life. Why is this? Well, firstly he probably specially ate essentially only protein and drank virtually nothing for two days before the photo shoot, so that he was nearly about to collapse from dehydration on the day of the shoot. Secondly he probably had some expertly placed lighting to make his muscles stand out in a certain way and he was probably waxed up in grease to make his skin look all shinny. Lastly, and probably most ironically, its probably not really him your seeing in the picture… rather its him having been airbrushed and digitally altered, tweaked here and there and the end product is the picture you idolise as symbol of humanity. And this is what we call the ideal?

Having such an image as this associated with normality, or at least with what we wish to be is very harmful. It is in fact extremely detrimental to our psychological wellbeing. The simple fact is that over 99% of us will never look quite like the image we’re presented with, yet we try to none the less. The true irony is that even that small percentage that could look like that image still won’t without all of the little fiddly adjustments like digital manipulation. This ideal hurts our self-esteem and typically leads us to do stupid things like exercise all day everyday in an attempt to catch up to the elusive surreal. The media encourages unobtainable ideals, well bugger them. Don’t spend your life seeking the elusive only to find when you get there that it’s not what you wanted anyway. Trust me, we’re far better off just looking at the picture, chuckling at the absurdity of the image, and simply being happy with who we are.

As I addressed in “Living in the Now – The Philosophy of Happiness with a Twist of Zen:” happiness essentially comes from embracing yourself, accepting yourself as it were, in the “now”. That is to say not accepting yourself as you were yesterday or as you hopefully will be tomorrow, but rather as you are this very moment. In contrast when we see these airbrushed people in movies who have an entire crew at their disposal simply to embellish their jaws and except ourselves to look like that; well needless to say we don’t live up to it. Even those of us already with very good genes who exercise regularly and eat well and healthy can’t match such images. Its just not real, its just not natural and most importantly it certainly isn’t healthy. So then we feel that we ought to look like this as that particular image is revered and is essentially what our society is seen to support. Hence we don’t embrace ourselves as we are but rather place a condition on our happiness, namely that “I have to look like X before I can be happy.” Therefore we envisage happiness in the future. But the future will always be the future, just like now will always be now. Hence you will never truly be happy, only for brief moments as you think about what you could maybe be one day. Is all this trouble to look like something unnatural and in fact unhealthy worth it? Is it worth sacrificing our happiness for? I mean we live only live once. Surely we ought to live with some degree of happiness?

The media is a bastion of negativity, the false hope we are presented with in visual imagery is really just the tip of the iceberg. We always read about people dying or people failing or various ugly things happening, world wide. Why don’t we get nearly as many stories of the good things happening in life? It just seems that danger, threat, depression and pessimism seem to sell better. In this case we as the media’s audience really are just as much to blame for the subject matter they choose. It is not simply a process of them choosing it, but of us choosing to read it.

What can we do about all this? Simply put, there is a need for a more positive media outlook, and the way we can try and do this is to support media sources which are more inclined to portray positive news, news which provides hope and not fear. You may well find that by doing this you also make your life that little bit better as it will encourage positive thinking, while also supporting society at large to move in the same direction. I would certainly like to think that my little corner of cyberspace is somewhat more positive than traditional media sources. By reading something like this you empower yourself and feel good, rather than feeling depressed and insecure as one does after reading about more terrorist attacks and so forth.

Simply thinking positively can completely change how you lead your life, how much enjoyment you get out of it, how productive you are, and how you yourself impact the world around you, further creating positive change. Even if it sounds a little silly at first it honestly works, after all we experience the world through our own eyes, and if we can put on the glasses with the positive lenses everything looks so much greener. A large chunk of life is after all subjective. So go ahead think positively, you won’t regret it.

The big problem however is that thinking negatively also follows a similar pattern to thinking positively, only backwards. You become depressed and down, and then so do those around you at the next thing you know you find yourself living in a hostile environment where people scowl at one another and lead miserable and unhappy lives. Unfortunately the media encourages this sort of thinking much more so than it does positive thinking. I honestly don’t think they realise how by doing this they are shaping the world to make it all the more negative.

Anyway, enough negativity for one day! We know no that thinking positively reaps its own rewards this is rather self-evident, and hence we should all avoid negative thinking as much as we can. Obviously there will be down times, but such is life, simply try and overcome then and get back to enjoying life and helping to create a better world through a positive attitude. We must drop the unrealistic expectations that the media shoves onto our backs and rather create out own ideals, based on a positive society intent on creating change of a realistic yet constructive and optimistic nature.

Cycling and Your Wellbeing:

2008-01-09T17:18:00.000+11:00

For about the last ten months I have used cycling as my primary form of transport. It’s a great thing to do for a whole heap of reasons. If I recall correctly I one day remembered that I’d been given a bicycle for my birthday and thought “I may as well use it!” At the time I only had a vague understanding of what I was really getting into. Now, after ten months, I have turned into a cycling advocate and feel the need to spread the word as everyone should know of the benefits of cycling. There are huge advantages, particularly when cycling is used as a form of transport. Allow me to clarify my claims…

We shall start with one of the most obvious benefits of cycling, exercise! Cycling is great for your health and fitness, both physically and mentally. If you commute by bike to work (or any regularly attended place) you in turn exercise on a regular basis. Exercise becomes easily intertwined with your day to day routine. Indeed for me personally cycling is more a form of transport than exercise. Many a day I have hoped onto my bike of a morning only to think: “Shit, I’m late for work, better pedal hard”. In comparison if I were to go for a run for the sole purpose of exercised I’d much more likely think: “Damn, I really don’t want to go for a run. Why can’t I do it later? It’s so hot… etc”. Clearly the commuting thought is much more productive as there is no direct quarrel in the mind with the act of cycling itself.

If exercise and transport are rolled into one you are much more likely to stick to your exercise routine, as it becomes so much more than just exercise, it becomes something with much more purpose behind it. Your motivation for cycling is to get to work, and with it you get the added bonus of staying fit! After you’ve gotten used to the initial changes of cycling to work it will seem far less an imposition. Indeed if anything you’ll most likely come to view it as a privilege, I know I do. By commuting to and from the city centre I now look forward to my cycling. I believe this may well be because of the added purpose given to the activity.

Essentially being fit and healthy is of immense importance to our overall wellbeing, so cycling helps this as a viable form of exercise. As the world is so preoccupied with weight and the obesity epidemic I should also note that if cycling becomes regular exercise and part of your routine (which will automatically happen if you become committed to commuting) it will also serve to manage your weight and keep your hormones and energy balance in check. I could go into mind numbingly complex detail as to why exercise is fantastic and has many benefits, but I’d get lost as there’s just so much to say. However feel free to have a look at “The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 1:” for a general introduction to some of the many benefits of exercise.

One of the reasons cycling is so attractive and that I call it a “viable” form of exercise, is that it can easily be implemented into a busy schedule if is used for commuting. Almost all of us could do with a bit more exercise, and those of us fortunate enough to live and work in a small proximity (say within 10 kilometres or so) could quite feasibly ride to work and back each day. Indeed cycling is often faster than taking public transport or using a car (within the city this is)! I have written another article entitled: “How to Gain an Extra Week This Year:” which illustrates the time I would save over the course of a year if I cycled to and from work and uni, when compared to taking a car. Economic matters also come into play concerning how much extra someone would have to work per year to pay off a car rather than a bike, so check it out if you’re interested.

On the old economic front, cycling is obviously much cheaper than other forms of transport; particularly in the long term and it could greatly reduce your financial expenses. In another article "Pedalling Money – How to Save Money by Cycling:” I have demonstrated exactly how much cheaper cycling is. You may be rather surprised to see the difference, especially if you take into account ever rising petrol costs!

If you catch public transport you may be familiar (particular if you live in Sydney like me, where our public transport is poorly invested in) with crowded, dirty buses and old jam-packed trains. This too can be avoided by cycling. What’s worst however is late and unreliable public transport. I used to regularly wait for up to nearly half an hour for a bus or train (this is when going into the city or back home from it). In that same amount of time I could have quite literally ridden home! But these days I wait no longer! I only waited during my naïve younger years when I hadn’t even considered the possibility of riding a bicycle for transport reasons… I am convinced I must have been terribly sick back then to not have realised the benefits I could have gained by cycling. :P

Do you have to walk along way from your bus stop to home? You wouldn’t if you cycled. If you live far away from your work place, but there are trains, you might even consider mixing them. Particularly if you’re a few kilometres from the train station that takes you to and from work. The great thing about trains is that you can take bikes on them.

Cycling as a form of transport is also what is now often referred to as “green”. And “green” is now in. What once was hippy and rather borderline is now mainstream…well sort of anyway. Cycling doesn’t cause pollution (other than maybe the pollution in the making of a bicycle, but realise that this same process exists for all things produced in factories). The bicycle is also “The Most Efficient Form of Transport in the World:”! So cycling is clearly a good way to reduce damaging carbon emissions and create a sustainable future. Cycling would also use fewer resources (such as coal and metals etc) than other forms of transport. If everyone cycled we could even do with less infrastructure (smaller roads etc), which would again save on resources.

Lastly, and possibly most importantly, cycling will no doubt improve your general wellbeing. Yes, endorphins and feelings of wellbeing are a result of exercise, but it proves to be more than just this. Sydney University is providing a course in philosophy next year called “The philosophy of happiness” and in a sort of sneak preview my old philosophy lecturer told our class that for this course a large number of studies have been done. It’s explained further in "Cycling and the Philosophy of Happiness:” if you wish to know more, but for now you’ll have to be content to know that the studies suggested that commuting time is linked with long term happiness, and that as bike riding provides the double whammy of exercise with a typically short commuting time, it would seem to follow that it would promote long term happiness.

Let’s quickly summarise why cycling is the ultimate form of transport:
1) It will help to keep you healthy, keep your fitness levels up (and for those of us who are shallow, think about how it might help you manage your weight)
2) It is much cheaper than other forms of transport – It also allows you to avoid cramped, late, crappy and unreliable public transport (of course depending on where you are your public transport might be bearable so this wouldn’t count as much)
3) It is a time saver, in that you do your daily exercise (we’ll doctors keep saying we should be doing it daily, but most of us don’t!) at the same time as travelling, and overall end up gaining a bit more time each day than if you didn’t commute with a bike and still did the exercise. Sometimes (particularly in the city) it’s even quicker just to cycle than ride by car, regardless of exercise time even if the driver weren’t to compensate for the exercise the cyclist has done.
4) It is a sustainable form of transport that has little negative impact upon the world and is also a highly efficient form of transport.
5) Exercise has also been shown to be important for emotional wellbeing and happiness, and using your travel time more effectively could well also make you happier.

Some people will understandably voice concerns about the safety of commuting by bicycle. This is a valid argument, but one that is often blow out of proportion. The fact is that as cycling increases in popularity due to the move towards green transport and so on, and as numbers increase so too does bicycle infrastructure, bicycle safety equipment and awareness of cyclists by pedestrians and motor vehicles. The Sydney morning herald gives the example of a 50% increase in cyclists in Sydney over the last three years, with an almost non existent increase in injuries, which is pretty darned impressive. If you wish to see the link, clicky here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-riders-on-the-increase-but-road-deaths-stable/2007/10/07/1191695739443.html

Like everything in life, just be sure to use your common sense when riding a bike. Always be sure to indicate, wear a helmet, gloves, sunglasses, a reflective vest and use reflector lights. When its dark also be sure to have proper electric lights. If you do all these simple things you greatly reduce your chance of being involved in an accident, and as the number of cyclists continue to increase, the percentage of overall accidents should continue to drop with the developments that follow the increased demand for cyclist infrastructure, equipment and awareness. So hop on your bike!

High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT):

2008-01-08T15:31:00.000+11:00

I mentioned in "Exercising Efficiently, the Intensity Debate:” that a form of physical training known as “High Intensity Interval Training” has skyrocketed. Why is this? Well, essentially high intensity interval training (often known as HIIT) is essentially the same as interval training, but at a high intensity, funny that. For those of you who are still confused allow me to further explain through an example.

If I were to complete a high intensity interval workout it would essentially consist of a short warm up at a low pace followed by a short burst of sprinting which was then followed by a period of what is called “active recovery”. Active recovery is essentially the period in which you get your breath and energy back from the burst of energy while also running, but obviously at a lower intensity again. This would, with the omission of the warm up, be one interval, and you would then complete several intervals in a row followed by a cool down period, again obviously at a lower intensity, to complete the whole workout.

So why the popularity? Well, like most things in life some people like it and others don’t, and that’s perfectly okay. One of the most self-explanatory reasons for its popularity is simply that the workouts don’t take long. Typically your looking at no more than 20 minutes and an absolute maximum of 30 minutes. Indeed, the intervals are supposed to be very challenging and intense and therefore not able to be done for longer period of time like traditional cardio. On the down side I suppose one could say that these workouts are somewhat more gruelling that a simple stroll through the local park. Then again, some people like a challenge.

Another reason for its more recent popularity has been that current science seems to be indicating that it is most likely more effective for fat-burning than traditional long and drawn out low intensity cardio. But doesn’t this defy conventional wisdom, which states that low intensity cardio burns more fat for energy? Sort of, but not really. While low intensity activities do use more fat for fuel than higher activities (which in contrast use primarily stored carbohydrate known as glucose) there is what is now known as post-exercise fat utilisation. Basically higher intensity workouts (such as HIIT) make the body work much harder so that while your exercising fat cannot fuel the bursts of activity properly, so it uses stored carbohydrate, but after the exercise has been completed the higher intensity workouts seem to realise more fat-burning enzymes and so forth and in fact increase fat-utilisation for some period of time after the activity has ended (whereas low intensity training does nothing of a nearly comparable level).

As, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070627140103.htm, put it: “It did not matter how fit the subjects were before. After interval training, they experienced not only an increase in fat used and in aerobic capacity, but also an increase of enzyme activity in the muscle”.

Another science daily release showed that interval training in fact burned three times as much as conventional exercising in only half the time frame! So clearly there is something here in regards to HIIT. As, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207185835.htm, stated:
“The group which did around eight seconds of sprinting on a bike, followed by 12 seconds of exercising lightly for [a total of] twenty minutes, lost three times as much fat as other women, who exercised at a continuous, regular pace for 40 minutes”. The same article continued to explain possible reasons as to why the interval sprints worked so effectively: “We think the reason that it works is because it produces a unique metabolic response,” said Professor Boutcher. “Intermittent sprinting produces high levels of chemical compounds called catecholamines, which allow more fat to be burned from under the skin and within the exercising muscles. The resulting increase in fat oxidation drives the greater weight loss.”

Amazing stuff isn’t it? But an article entitled "A Few 30 Second Sprints As Beneficial As Hour Long Jog”, is even more impressive. Other than the obvious time benefits of HIIT training it actually seems that it not only improves anaerobic fitness (i.e. ones ability to do short bursts of activity, using fast-twitch muscle fibers) but also improves aerobic fitness! This itself is truly amazing. As far as I know the opposite has not been found to be the case. As the above article states: "Short bouts of very intense exercise improved muscle health and performance comparable to several weeks of traditional endurance training”! So effectively you not only help fat-burning but also improve your cardiovascular system by simply working out less, but at a higher intensity using short bursts of power in the form of intervals!

Another sciencedaily article called “"No Time To Exercise' Is No Excuse”, illustrates “that interval-based exercise is a very time-efficient training strategy", the evidence does certainly seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of it over traditional aerobic activity.

So in short HIIT seems certain to be the most efficient form of exercise in that it has been clinically proven to burn much more fat than normal aerobic exercise and in less time, it only really takes a very short period of time in which it yields such impressive fitness results and it improves both the bodies anaerobic and anaerobic capacity in the one quick workout.

I suppose the downside is purely the intensity of it. It is certainly not suited for everyone and if you are unfit or injured or not able to push yourself it is by far best to start of with an easier regime and gather initial fitness before starting, at least that would be my advice. Then once you have a decent level of fitness you can begin HIIT training and see if it has any effect for you. Clearly factors like diet and so on will also play a large role in influecning any body composition results you may see as a result of following this exercise regime. But I’d rather work out a few times a week at a higer intensity for only a few minutes than do a gruelling hourly run each time instead… then again that being said I do seem to fair better at endurance work, but that’s largely a genetic thing. Some people just have more slow-twitch or fast-twitch muscles than others.

So what of all this fancy information about the benefits of HIIT? Well, the greatest factor for success is being able to stick to something, that motivation matters far more than what you actually do, because it determines that you will eventually reach your goals as you wish to. Also remember that there is no one ideal exercise regime, but rather that different individuals will prefer different things and be looking for different results. In spite of all the amazing research here I would still say do the activities that you love doing, as they will not be a chore to do and you will ultimately be all the healthier, both physically and psychologically for doing them. If however you are not against the idea of doing interval training then by all means give it a go, for all you know you might quite enjoy the challenge. If you don’t mind this sort of intensive training then it would make a useful addition to any training regime. So try it, give it a go and explore something new, as always if worse comes to worse and you don’t enjoy then I suggest you simply stop it and go on to find a more enjoyable way of keeping fit.

Shower Power – Why We Get Our Best Ideas Where We Do:

2008-01-07T08:17:00.000+11:00

I just had a shower… not very interesting at first I know, but there’s more to it. For some reason almost always whenever I have a shower I find myself thinking better. My ideas tend to be most likely to consolidate themselves on a subconscious level while I shower. Hence it comes as no surprise that many of what I consider to be my best ideas have either begun or somehow been further developed as I shower. Obviously I’m was curious to find out why this might be, so I’m putting on my thinking cap, by which I of course mean my shower cap.

Now as far as I’m aware there is psychically nothing odd about most people’s showers which would help the brain to function, however one clever friend of mine suggested that “people have their best ideas in the shower because the water dissolves CO2 and some particles in the air, allowing more oxygen to the brain.” As interesting as this point sounds, and I suppose as technically plausible as it could be, I remain somewhat sceptical about it. I honestly don’t think that much oxygen would separate from the water, or that the small amount that might would make much of a tangible difference on our brains ability to think.

The same friend had however only noted the point as a suggestion as we had run out of non-psychological reason as to why people seem to think so well in the shower. However when thinking later one could also argue that people are typically alone in a shower and typically not being disturbed which also allows an idea to build itself unperturbed, still this has psychological importance too. So in the end we both concluded that it was most likely the psychological triggers of having a shower that cause people to often have good ideas. What are these triggers you ask?

Well, when people shower they typically feel more relaxed. It’s a simple fact of life, showers can be quite refreshing and relaxing, so long as one isn’t in an awful rush. Hence people typically allow their mind to relax, which means that conscious thought dies down and the subconscious thought processes tick away at various problems here and there. Hence you often get one of those “Eureka!” moments which sometimes even surprises yourself, as you had not really consciously been thinking of the problem. Even if you are still using your conscious mind while problem solving in the shower it will most likely be done in a much more relaxed state, which no doubt helps one to focus more and solve the issue at hand.

As one website, http://www.paulgraham.com/ideas.html, commented:
“What happens in that shower? It seems to me that ideas just pop into my head. But can we say more than that? Taking a shower is like a form of meditation. You're alert, but there's nothing to distract you. It's in a situation like this, where your mind is free to roam, that it bumps into new ideas.”

However this phenomenon need not necessarily occur only in showers. It could really occur anywhere where one feels relaxed. My father has recently been relaxing up north in the country and while up there has said he has been able to make some good progress on the book he has been writing, that is the power of a relaxed state of mind. It represents a mind at peace, and able to work to its fullest capacity. Ultimately it should be a state of mind we attempt to be in at all times, but unfortunately the daily little stresses of life often make it difficult for us to remain in a calm state.

The other common places where people get good ideas are when they are in bed, or travelling. There is a reason for this as all of this activities are rather relaxed and in a sense passive. In regards to travel I would not be surprised if public transport allowed for greater freedom of creativity than driving a car, simply as you don’t really have to concentrate on anything in particular on public transport, whereas when driving you have to watch the road.

So the saying often used for where ideas often strike is known as the three b’s: bath, bed and bus. Here’s what http://www.banzai-institute.com/0710bbb.html has to say about the concept:

“There is a term sometimes used at the Banzai Institute: The three Bs, meaning the Bus, the Bath, and the Bed. That is where the greatest discoveries are made in science. When one is at his most relaxed, her most receptive, that is when a foreign consciousness, a "stray bullet" as B. Banzai calls it, may pop into one's head.”

I certainly notice that the other big place for me to get ideas is when I try and get to sleep. A useful tip is to have pen and paper near the bed in preparation for any ideas so that you can write them down and forget about them, thus allowing you to get back to sleep. Still, showers seem the most effective for me personally. Maybe I have some special affinity with them? Maybe it’s that I like being clean? I also find the sound of spraying water quite peaceful, it sort of drones out the other sounds of life and takes away its stresses, helping me to reflect peacefully and mull over any problems or questions I might have.

So maybe next time you’re struggling to write an academic report or an essay or something you should have a good look at the question and then go and have a shower! Who knows, maybe you’ll calm down a bit and your subconscious will just solve it for you. Wouldn’t that be nice? I hope we as a society do more research into the subconscious, it’s fascinating. Until we know more however, I might just have to live in the bathroom.

Living In the Now – The Philosophy of Happiness with a Twist of Zen

2008-01-06T12:18:00.000+11:00

There are certain ideas within the Buddhist tradition which are of great interest to me. One of these is the idea of living “in the now”. So how does this concept work? Well, it’s not easy to explain but I’ll try. I want you to think about this next point carefully. What is life? What is life comprised of? A simplified answer could be that we are born, we go and do a whole bunch of things in the middle and then to end it off we die. Maybe a better question would then be to ask: But how is it that we actually experience life? By life I of course mean that bit in between being conceived and passing on.

So far as I see it and as the Buddhist notion of “living in the now” seems to dictate that Life is really just made up of whatever is happening right now. That’s right, right now, this very instance. Ultimately, life’s entirety is really just a compilation of all the little bits of “now” you experience. Think about it, even memories are distorted by how you feel “now”. Therefore how you live life and whether you feel you have enjoyed it or not (which of course is completely subjective) is dictated by what is happening “now”.

Life is now. As you read this page, you live, you are “living in the now”. I suppose a nice way to look at it would be to say that we cannot change the past, nor can we foresee the future, therefore it is not worth troubling over what we can’t control and simply take joy in what we can do “in the now”. You choose “now” whether you wish to be happy at this point in time or otherwise if you want to be sad. Thus what you do at least have control over (that is to say what happens in slots of “now”) is I suppose the perspective you choose to take on life. If you wish to be optimistic you can be, alternatively if you wish to be pessimistic the choice is equally yours. That is all done right “now”.

I see the theory of “living in the now” as closely related to how contentedly we live life. For if life is made up of little bits of now, then its sum (whether you lead a happy life or not) is simply determined by how you choose to feel during the many “nows”. Unfortunately I think many people interpret this wrongly. Still, it is not at first a simple concept to grasp. Many people’s instinct would probably be to say “but what does this mean Sam? Does it mean we should always do things that we enjoy and therefore become hedonistic?

Simply put, no. We should not by this theory become hedonistic in a material sense and indeed the Buddhists also have a theory of balance known as ““The Middle Way:”” which also suggests one avoid extremes. Its important to realise that hedonism (as we know it) is almost always a symptom of various psychological feelings which somehow make the individual feel inadequate, unfulfilled or somehow in need of a emotional support. These emotional problems encourage the sufferer to find solace in some sort of substance, whether it be food, alcohol or whatever. In comparison, “living in the now” encourages accepting yourself NOW, for who you are, not what you were or what you might be. Through accepting yourself now you are also coming to terms with who you are, you avoid a life of denial and you fulfil your own emotional needs as best you can from within your own mind.

The true power of “living in the now” is that it is not progress driven, thus it is anti-materialistic and does not place constraints on happiness. If you can’t love yourself now then you have placed some sort of limitation on your happiness by subconsciously believing something like: “I will be happy when I am X” or “I will be happy when I have X”.

This sort of thinking places a constraint upon happiness. Thus an external demand inhibits your own ability to be happy. But why do this? Why not love yourself for who you are at this very instance in life? As a person with perfectionistic tendencies I also found this concept very useful, as it allowed me simply to enjoy life and stop feeling as though everything had to be done as perfectly as possible for it to be a success. We all deserve to enjoy life, but unless we love our own being this cannot be accomplished. Hence the need for the whole philosophy of “living in the now”

Some other sources also stressed the importance of the “now” nicely, so here are a couple of quotes:
“http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/new_age_perspectives/59787”
“Most of us are so intent on looking either forward or backward at life that we go through much of it as if in a dream, with a limited awareness of present reality.”

“http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/the-power-of-now/”
“The past and the future are illusions. They only exist to the degree we focus our attention on them right now. We create the past and the future by imagining them in the present. But we don’t even exist outside the Now.”

Many people will falsely assume that they will never accomplish anything if I they are content as they are, and that something to strive for is needed. However having goals and striving towards things is compatible with living in the now. True, when living “in the now” you will feel more fulfilled regardless of the external situation, but the fact is that if you are happy and content you are in fact more likely to succeed at what you do, because you approach it with an innately positive attitude. You will also feel more inclined to do what it is you enjoy, and not waste life going in the wrong direction after a false hope like earning large sums of money in an attempt to gain happiness.

“Living in the now” is an interesting and complex concept, one that I shall hopefully investigate further. But for now we must realise that we only live once, and inevitably each of us will eventually die, but is this not all the more reason to cherish our time alive and love ourselves? Why go through life hating yourself or not being content with who you are? The simple fact is you don’t have to. Learn to love yourself, change your ways if you wish it, but it is often not even so much what you do that matters but rather how you see yourself. So embrace yourself, smile and go and enjoy the little bits of now which are the sum of our lives.

How It All Ends:

2008-01-05T11:12:00.000+11:00

More and more people are coming to realise that Global warming is a serious issue and not something to be taken lightly. I myself have done some mild research into the topic, but not enough to really warrant me lecturing you about it. However I did come across a fantastic video made by a science teacher (with a whole heap of add on videos with extra info called “The expansion pack”) which makes some excellent points. Therefore I thought I’d leave it to him to lecture you on the problems of global warming!

The video is entitled "How It All Ends" and while a bit slow to begin with its initial explanation of risk management, it then quickly develops and the science teacher who created it makes some very good and very persuasive points. While I haven’t watched many of the follow up videos they are there for all of those who might be interested in learning even more, I will no doubt watch them at a later date when I have enough time. So I strongly recommend that you all go watch "How It All Ends", right now! Even though it’s ten 10 minutes long, it’s a damn worthwhile ten minutes. After all nothing is more important than our environment and our place within it. We are after all dependent upon our environments wellbeing for our own health.

The video is very rational, concise and even humourous. It is probably one of the best brief explanations of why we need to take action that I’ve seen. The effort that has gone into the making of these videos must have been huge. Therefore I feel compelled to spread this video around to as many people as I can. The thing about global warming is that it is obviously a global problem. Hence, it doesn’t truly require great action from any individual but rather small changes from all individuals.

At Sydney University I am doing a course called “Global Studies”, and one of the first things we did at the beginning of our course was a global warming scenario where we played different countries. To cut a long story short I was Japan, the country with the second most ability to reduce carbon emissions (after the US), yet despite devoting all of my resources every turn to reducing global warming we did not stop the foreseen climate destabilisation. Why was this? It was because many smaller countries (in our hypothetical game this is, not real life) did not make the effort to change. They argued that they were small and couldn’t do much to stop global warming and therefore didn’t try simply because they did not have the same resources to devote as larger countries did.

Yet a global problem requires global action, that is to say that every one of us, no matter how insignificant we may seem in the grander picture still play a role. Indeed the scientist who created “How it all ends” even states himself:

“But what do I do I’m just one guy, with a stupid hat?

What you do is spread the word because the only way we really get into column A [that is to say taking action on climate change] is by policy changes and those only happen when enough people demand it. So we need nothing less than a change in the culture itself and you can help make that happen…”

So as you can see individuals do create change, its always been how it is, its just that they typically get nothing for their efforts. Well in this case we don’t get something, but at least we avoid disaster. And for those of you who are now feeling depressed at the whole difficulty of the situation fear not for as is stated in "How It All Ends":

“There’s a lot of reason to believe we can fix this, maybe even without reducing our standard of living, if were quick about it”

So chop chop, hop to it, go watch "How It All Ends", see for yourself what you think. If you find yourself generally agreeing with him then make sure you spread the video to all of your friends, family, co-workers and so on. At very least we will begin to get people educated on the severity of the problem faced. We little individuals can create change. Feel empowered by that fact. Start by watching the video and then take it from there. In the future I may well also post some more stuff on global warming and what we can do to play our part, but until then, watch the damned video!

Pedalling Money - Saving Money by Cycling:

2008-01-04T12:24:00.000+11:00

No, there’s nothing illegal going on here… honestly! Rather, this article is about the amount of money you could save by riding your bike to work, instead of either taking a car, or public transport. Bikes are relatively cheap. In fact if your general travel is within say 10 kilometres of you, it would be far cheaper to ride around on a bike and get to work and various other places, than it would to use a car. Let’s get down to the number crunching:

Cost of riding a bike:
If you were to ride a bike it might cost you around 1000 dollars for the initial start up costs over the year (this is Australian dollars I’m talking here). The cost of the bike (as with a car in ways), will of course depreciate with time and once you’ve bought the initial investment. I know from personal experience that my bike cost me $500, and it was more than ample for the task, in fact it works pretty damn well. You could easily go and spend much more on a better quality bike, but I’m really comparing what the average sort of person would be looking at spending. On top of this its worth investing in a basic pair of sunglasses (you’d be surprised by the amount of crap that finds its way into your eyes otherwise!), a decent pair of bike gloves, which will stop you shredding your hands if you ever have a tumble, and of course a helmet. Investing in some panniers would be a good idea too. Panniers are essentially bike racks that typically go over your back wheel, so that you can attach two bag like storage containers on your bike. There essential if your ever going to ride with anything more than what you can fit in a small backpack. So the bike was $500, then the gloves, sunnies and helmet would be about $100, the pannier system might total 100 to 150 dollars (I got mine second hand from my father, but his model only costs about 105 dollars now) and then you might take the bike in for a couple of checkups each year costing maybe another 200 in total.

So our total for bike riding costs for the year is: roughly a 1000 dollars for the first year, but keep in mind that this is only the first year and that its an investment that will pay off long term (more on this in a moment). Now of course this is rather basic cycling gear were talking and you could easily quintuple this by buying the best racing bike and the best pannier system in the world, and so on and so forth. But for the average commuter it can be done, and done well for just under 1000 dollars a year. What’s more the costs will begin to depreciate as years go buy. Chances are that a 500 dollar bike may last a good 5 years and more. So suddenly you take out $500 for the next four years. Admittedly you might have to repair it a little more, so maybe we end up paying an extra 100 or 200 dollars for extra repairs as it ages per year, but even then you’re still saving more and more. Likewise the pannier system, the gloves and the sunglasses will all last a long time if you look after them. This insures that in successive years you only really have to pay for repair costs, as your initial investments should still be road worthy. Therefore over a 5 year period riding a bike would probably cost you something like:

Year: Cost: Total Cost:
1st $1000 $1000
2nd $200 (repair costs only from here onwards) $1200
3rd $250 $1450
4th $250 $1700
5th $300 $2000

So after five years we have a running total of 2000 dollars, which works out to be only 400 dollars per year! Now you could argue that when riding you have to eat more and you would have to buy more food, but I’d probably just laugh loudly, as we (in the western world) all eat much to much anyway, and its unlikely you’ll need to up your food costs. Plus condensed energy is so cheap in our society, a loaf of bread a week would supply you with HEAPS of excess energy, and maybe cost you a buck or two! So $400 dollars a year for transport, keep that in mind, and you could also argue that some even argue that commuting allows you to do away with your gym membership because of all the exercise you get through traveling.

Now onto the car costs:
Car costs can vary quite a bit more than bike costs, because of so many things like insurance and whether you get parking fines and speeding tickets or not, the cost of the original car varies much more as do repair costs. So I decided to have a look at a few other sources. Here is an American site and the link can be found here (the info I quote about half way down the websites page if your looking for it): http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html

Principal on car loan $3579
Finance charges on car loan 359
Gas & Oil 1279
Insurance 819
Maintenance & Repair 662
Licenses, Parking, & Misc. 534
Total Yearly Costs $7,232

“Annual costs of car ownership in the U.S. is over $7000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gave the breakdown shown in the table at right in 2001. AAA of Minnesota puts the annual cost at $7,754 for 2003 for a vehicle driven 15,000 miles. Cost per mile is $0.517”

So were looking at around seven grand there. However again we must realise that the costs would depreciate once the car had been paid off. As it all gets a bit confusing using other people’s figures I thought I would make some conservative figures as to the cost of a car:

Suppose an average car costs you around $3000, the insurance and maintanence and repair and licensing costs cost you around $1500 per year, Petrol (which is becoming ever more expensive) probably costs you a good $2000 per year (you would be seriously surprised how much people actually spend on petrol). Even these relatively conservative figures come up to be $6500! (This is also providing that you pay for your car outright with no loan!) Of course once the car has been bought the costs decrease as would be expected, but repair costs will also slowly increase, so heres a five year look at a car:

Year: Cost: Total Cost:
1st $6500 $6500
2nd $3500 (cost of car taken out from here on) $10000
3rd $3750 (Repair costs now begin to rise slightly) $13750
4th $3750 $17500
5th $4000 $21500

So after five years we have a running total of $21500! Wow, that’s a bit of money isn’t it? It ends up being an average yearly cost of $4300!

The Comparison:
Now I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a fair bit of a difference to the $400 per year to pay for a bike! In fact its over ten times as much. Needless to say not only can you stay fit and healthy as well as help the environment by reducing carbon emissions through riding a bike, you can also save yourself a small fortune over a few years!

The same website mentioned above from “bicycleuniverse.info” then goes on to provide some more interesting information by comparing the money saved by cycling to the time that would have been necessary to spend earning it:

“One interesting thing we can do with the car costs is convert the car costs into time. The average American earns about $17/hr., or $14/hr. after federal taxes. So $7,754 in annual car costs takes 554 hours to earn. That's over three full months of work each year. Just to pay for the car. And cars are supposed to be saving us time? Drive to work, work to drive.”

Now, even using my more conservative figures of an average cost over five years of $4300, and an average income of say $20 dollars an hour (we’ll say after tax too for simplicities sake) we still find that we’d need 215 hours of work to pay it off!!! Whereas to pay off the average costs of a bike over five years (at $400 per year) would only take you 20 hours!

By these figures if you rode a bike instead of driving a car you would save yourself (215-20) 195 hours of time each year!!! Alternatively you could still work for the same amount of time and either have more spending money, or have more money to save up with!

So by cycling you can save yourself money (or time as the old axiom goes) and also keep yourself healthy. We could also argue that by keeping fit and healthy you’d reduce the cost of needing medication for various problems like diabetes and obesity and so on. Exercise has great benefits for both the body and the mind (see "The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 1" for further details) and leading an active lifestyle such as cycling promotes will pay great dividends throughout your life. This too could save you money in a sense, although here I think we get to a much more important argument, that is to say what of those things which are priceless?

No value can placed on a human being, nor on the environment, these things are simply to sacred to be commodified like a table or a chocolate bar. Cycling as a form of transport promotes both a healthier body and a healthier environment, really these are the greatest benefits cycling gives. However, for those are concerned with money and perhaps somewhat greedy maybe the above argument will persuade them to start cycling. Alternatively, for those who don’t have money as their primary objective in life it’s simply nice to know that what you do isn’t only ethically good, but also financially viable.

The Power of Music - The Link Between Musical Ability and Intelligence:

2008-01-03T10:53:00.000+11:00

As a musician I am obviously very interested to read almost anything about music, especially anything which scientifically validates its value. Science is finding more and more these days that activities that westerners, with their emphasise on the material, see as pointless and merely done for enjoyment, in fact yield very interesting results which can be tangibly assessed. Take meditation for instance: a few months ago I read in a times magazine that it has been scientifically proven that meditating improves the thickness of your cerebral cortex (the grey bit that is often known as “grey matter”, its also is just a really cool scientific word!). Meditation has long been known to help reduce problems like stress, but only statistically speaking and through use of common sense. Now however science has shown that meditating does have tangible benefits!

Music is a similar sort of activity, often claimed to be have beneficial effects, but not until recently actually having scientific proof to support these claims. Music is often seen as a simple activity done for enjoyment, not something to expand the mind with. However there is now much scientific evidence out there which supports the claim that learning a musical instrument can improve your intelligence! I first read about this idea in a Karl Kruzelniski book. His information is often fascinatingly obscure and generally humorous. As a musician I was glad that this discovery had been made and it hopefully puts the rather strong stereotype of the stoned musician of the 60’s who can’t spell or read to rest.

Essentially the way the brain works is by constructing a complex structure of links. These links are memories, facts, associations and so forth. Sort of like a large network of roads. Using your brain encourages it both to build new links into new areas and also to strengthen the existing links. Thus our metaphorical road networks begin to show signs of highways.

The scientific term for an individual’s ability to build and renew these links is known as “neuroplasticty”. It is widely known that both learning a musical instrument or a new language are two of the best ways to increase ones neuroplasticity, specifically when it is started at a young age. Indeed these two methods may be the most effective ways in which to increase a child’s neuroplasticity. I certainly consider myself lucky to have learned both an instrument (the piano) and a second language (German) from a fairly young age. According to the research I should be a genius!

In this article I am going to focus on the musical side of things, but even so both of them work in almost the same way to promote neuroplasticity. Indeed, in many ways music could be seen as a form of language, as a way of expressing emotions and so on. Learning an instrument (or another language) from a young age particularly, forces your brain to think in new ways, and thus to establish new links. It encourages the brain to become more flexible in how it can establish and strengthen these new links, and through increasing the amount of links there are, your ability to create new links and all the while strengthen the existing ones, then you improve the infrastructure within your mind which allows you to think.

So what exactly does the science say about learning a musical instrument? Allow me to quote a few sources then, to support my argument:

“Listening to, and participating in music creates new neural pathways in your brain that stimulate creativity. Studies have shown that music actually trains the brain for higher forms of thinking. There was a study at the University of California, for example, about 10 years ago. Researchers followed the progress of three year olds, split into two groups. The first group had no particular training in, or exposure to music. The second group studied piano and sang daily in chorus. After eight months the musical three year olds were much better at solving puzzles. When tested, they also scored 80% higher in spatial intelligence than the non musical group.”

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-5-2005-68163.asp

“In the journal Neuropsychologia it was reported that musicians who started keyboard training before the age of seven had 12% thicker nerve fibers in the corpus callosum, that part of the brain that carries signals between the two hemispheres. Sharon Begley’s article, “Your Child’s Brain...” in Newsweek reported that researchers at the University of Konstanz in Germany had evidence that exposure to music rewires neural circuits…In a study by Ramey and Frances Campbell of the University of North Carolina (as reported in “You Can Raise Your Child’s IQ” in Readers Digest October 1996) preschool children taught with games and songs showed an IQ advantage for 10 to 20 points over those without the songs, and at age 15 had higher reading and math scores.”

http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/academic/hawaii.htm

“Scientists found more grey matter in the auditory cortex of the right hemisphere in musicians compared to nonmusicians…the use of music to enhance memory is explored and research suggests that musical recitation enhances the coding of information by activating neural networks in a more united and thus more optimal fashion.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060622172738.htm

There’s a lot more research out there, both in academic journals, books and websites, but I don’t want to bog you down to much. Suffice to say there is certainly a link between learning an instrument and increasing your neruoplasticity. Keep in mind however that many other activities can also help you, such as learning a language, or as I have previously noted, "Exercising". Where the future research in this department goes is an interesting question, but regardless of the research I’d say learn an instrument, even just for the emotional benefit of having a creative and enjoyable hobby which provides a good release for any troubles you might encounter.

As Dr. Arthur Harvey concludes in his article on “An Intelligence View of Music Education” (http://www.menc.org/publication/articles/academic/hawaii.htm):

“What we as musicians knew experientially and intuitively, scientific studies on the brain, intelligence and music are confirming that we hold in our hands as music educators a powerful tool, a key that may unlock the door to developing the great potential residing in the human brain. May this sampler whet your appetite to taste more from this table of knowledge.”

How to gain an extra week this year:

2008-01-02T13:53:00.000+11:00

So New Year has just passed and you’re still thinking about what sort of resolutions you could or should make. Might I suggest gaining an extra week this year? That’s one of my plans anyway. How do you do that you ask… easy I reply, by cycling (Pun not intended, but quite funny none the less).

I like cycling for a whole heap of reasons, which I shall compile into an article shortly, but one reason is believe it or not, because it can be a timesaver. Of course this really does depend on certain factors but you’d be surprised how it all adds up. If you live within the inner city (as many people do) then cycling can often be quicker than driving a car, particularly in peak hour. Back roads are taken and cycle paths used, as well as short cuts through parks and so on, hence it can end up quicker than other forms of transport. Allow me to provide you with an example:

It takes me approximately 20 minutes to ride into Sydney Uni from where I live in the inner west, and it takes a car about 15 minutes. However if it is peak hour then it takes a car much more like 25 minutes. On top of this I believe doing exercise is important to a healthy lifestyle and like to incorporate this in my travel time. So over the course of a day I do a good 30 minutes of exercise (as we should deduct a little time due to waiting at traffic lights and so on) whereas the fellow driving the car does not. Therefore if we both travel in peak hour on working days (as is most likely to be the case) not only do I save 10 minutes a day, but if the car driver also made a commitment to do 30 minutes of exercise a day then I would save 40 more minutes than him a day.

If your like most people and you work a day shift so that you travel around peak hour, we can see that even if the car driver doesn’t exercise, the cyclist still saves close to 10 minutes a day, let’s say 6 and be conservative. Doesn’t sound like a great deal admittedly, but if you add it up over a year it would be. Rather ironically I just discovered that if one saves 6 minutes a day and works 5 days a week for 48 weeks in a year (i.e. minimum holiday leave) then one saves exactly 1440 minutes, which when divided by 60 yields 24! So over a year I’d save a whole day just from the travel time!

Now imagine if I also wanted to do 30 minutes of exercise on top of that? Its exactly six days saved a year! Don’t believe me? Well then, heres the maths:

6 + 30 = 36 (minutes saved per day)

36 X 5 = 180 (minutes saved per week)

180 X 48 = 8640 (minutes saved per year)

8640/60 = 144 (hours saved per year)

144/24 = 6 (days saved per year!)

So why did I entitle this entry how to gain an extra week this year? Am I a lying bastard? Not quite, there’s more. I now want you to consider that like most people you are currently driving a car. Then I want you to think about how much cheaper owning a bike is than a car. Riding a bike means you don’t have to pay more than 500 for a bike, whereas a car is a few grand, a bike has no registration fees, insurance is almost nothing for a bike, you never have to pay parking fines or even buy parking tickets, nor do you have to pay huge amounts for repair costs! All in all a bike is going to save you at least $2000 dollars a year, if not closer to $5000 (Of course I’m talking Australian here but very similar cost savings will apply world wide). Now lets take the uber conservative figure of $2000 and say that the average person earns say $20 an hour. Therefore by saving $2000 you are also saving yourself a hundred hours of work! That adds up to another 4.16 days saved, every year!!! And remember, these are very conservative figures! I will be posting an article on exactly how much I think an average person would save, and will probably refine this whole article concept in a new post at a later date.

All in all we end up saving ourselves 10.16 days simply by riding a bike instead of driving a car! Now you see why I was more than justified in titling this article, “how to gain an extra week this year”! So what are you waiting for? Go save yourself some life!

New Year’s Day Resolution: The 30 Day Trial & Helping Others:

2008-01-01T10:50:00.000+11:00

So New Year’s day roles around again and people make all sorts of outrageous promises to themselves. Some wish to get fit, others to make money, the list is endless. But all these people share one thing in common, almost all of them don’t reach their goals, or even get very far. Typically they burnout quickly and then enter February disheartened. How do we solve this?

There are several things to note, but one important thing is that many people set goals that are unrealistic or very very challenging. Pushing yourself a bit with your goals is important, but they must be realistic and obtainable, otherwise you are striving for something almost impossible to do within a set time period. Another thing is of course the burnout mentioned above. People start the year with a lot of motivation but as the days role on and they slug away at their goal they get depressed with the effort, the difficulty and the minor results. Partly this can be solved by having more realistic goals. The other solution is to try to realise that while there are sprints in life, much of it is more an endurance race, and that similarly what you need is a constant trickle of motivation rather than a gush which quickly runs out.

Some people prefer doing things quickly and others prefer easing into them. Different things work for different people. For example, if you want to quit cigareters you can go to the extreme and go cold turkey, or you can slowly reduce the amount you smoke and thus reduce the nicotine addiction and slowly break the habit. Whether you like doing things slowly or fast is irrelevant, one thing that is, is determination. There is a useful little program called a “30 Day Trial” which I suggest you try.

In essence you chart your progress for 30 days and then have an understanding of whether what your doing works or not. For lets be serious, in less than 30 days you cannot be sure if something is really working or not. Often people say something like “Ohh this diet isn’t working after a week I’ll change again”. In a sense you’ve got to have more faith it will work and then simply do it rather than thinking too much about it. I know I for one have a problem with over analysing and thinking too much and sometimes struggle to actually implement things. Thus the 30 day trial is a sort of way of forcing you into sustained action.

Just set your goal and set a little time a side each day for 30 days to get there, and then evaluate how the method you used worked. The simple reasoning behind the 30 day program is simply to stick to something, to do it unfalteringly for 30 days, which is a long enough duration to accurately gauge results. If you found it did have results maybe for you then you can decide whether you will keep going with your chosen activity.

On another note I’d like to say that this New Year maybe you should try making goals that are more in-tune with your values. Maybe you’ve tried to lose weight every year but you really don’t seem to care enough about it to manage, in this case why don’t you try helping support a few families over in third world country through charity? It typically doesn’t cost much. Humans too get a sense of fulfillment and thus happiness through helping others, it’s a primitive sort of connection, it lets us know that we have some important purpose lived also through those that have been helped.

Or maybe you’re unhappy this year so you vow to earn more money. But perhaps you’d in fact be happier if you simply spent more time with your children. I think you understand the point I’m getting to. Often we focus on the wrong goals. Weight and money are great examples of values driven by the media, and often ones we don’t really share. Ask yourself, am I that superficial? If yes is the answer by all means go for it, it is always best to follow your values. But if you find that you really don’t care about how much money you earn maybe its time to stop declaring to earn more and instead go and do something else, like helping people.

I suppose the only other problem with the whole New Years resolution is that it has an emphasis purely on progress. As I have learnt from listening to a few lectures on Buddhism it is very important simply to live in the now. So this New Year, make sure you don’t only set goals which you are in-tune with and can realistically achieve and make progress with, but also be happy with who you are now, with how you find yourself now, so that just in case your New Years resolution doesn’t work out, you’ll still be happy. After all, isn’t that the most important thing?

Christmas & Goats: a Time for Giving

2007-12-31T11:55:00.000+11:00

This Christmas my father suggested we do something different. Instead of spending large amount of money on Christmas presents for each other we decided to buy some goats. “Goats!” you cry, “are you insane?” No, as far as I can tell my mental faculties are still completely intact. Allow me to explain:

These goats weren’t bought for us, they were bought for a couple of families in Southern Sudan. We bought the goats from World Vision. You can see the results they accomplished in Australia alone here:

http://www.worldvision.com.au/Smiles/SmilesUpdate.aspx

I certainly feel proud to have supported the purchasing of two of those 12,464 goats. Maybe my role alone isn’t much, but it’s the individual actions that add up. Just imagine the difference those goats are hopefully making in helping a large number of families to live with just a little more nourishment.

I keep hearing how Christmas is a time of giving, and indeed it seems much more valuable to give a family in Southern Sudan a means of getting some goats milk and a goat which will live off almost anything, rather than simply spending the same amount of money buying more stuff we (as a society at large) don’t really need.

Now I must admit my family and I were not completely altruistic this Christmas. Everyone got a small present and together the family purchased two goats. But the individual presents would have cost only a small amount of money. I for instance got Terry Pratchets “Making Money”, his latest book. Speaking of Terry Pratchet I hear this book may well be his last book as his been diagnosed with dementia, poor guy. He’s a fabulously witty writer and wherever he may be I salute him for at very least adding entertainment and joy into my life, let alone the lives of countless others.

Back to goats and Christmas. What I wish to purpose is that everyone adopt the true spirit of giving at Christmas by giving to the less fortunate, what better way to celebrate Christmas than knowing you have done a little something to make the world that much better. Helping others is a great way to feel good, it’s been proven, (http://www.livescience.com/health/070503_doing_good.html) volunteering for work apparently increases our happiness, and similarly giving to the needy makes us realise our own importance in helping those around us.

I’m not saying you have to give up your Christmas presents, maybe just buy less, or maybe just by a goat as well. Heck it hardly has to be a goat either. You could sponsor a child or family in Africa or donate to reforestation schemes in barren areas. The possibilities are endless. I know Christmas has just passed, but consider it for next Christmas, and all the Christmases thereafter, make it a regular family thing! You could even do something similar for other important calender days of the year.

While some people will argue that money is lost through beurocratic processes when donated to charities this is hardly a reason not to donate. It may be that some money is not as well spent as it should be, but the proof is in the pudding that 12,464 goats are now in Southern Sudan probably thinking “How the fuck did I get here”. Even if some money is lost, donating is still a worthwhile cause. Find a charity you believe is honest and reputable, and start improving the world one little bit at a time. Simply imagine if everyone who read this blog entry donated to charity and also made a commitment to tell five people about the idea. Then imagine if they likewise took on this challenge! Indeed the individual can make a difference, go and do something like buying a goat, and encourage a few friends to do similarly. I know I am trying to do my bit by encouraging you to also adopt a positive view in relation to the change we can create. As next Christmas roles around I will not doubt also encourage other families in person to buy a goat, or something along those lines, and I hope you too will join me in doing our little bit to better the world we all share.

The Nature of Happiness:

2007-12-30T12:05:00.000+11:00

Happiness, a little word with a big meaning. Can there be any greater virtue? I have been thinking of late of the nature of happiness. Happiness is a rather elusive quality, something rather hard to put ones finger on, like most psychological concepts, but in general it is assumed to be a positive mood or frame of mind (a bit vague isn’t it!). Thinking positively really does reap its own rewards as it typically means that the thinker does better at whatever he or she attempts to do, and regardless of the outcome enjoys a happier life.

So how important is happiness? Well I suppose this is subjective, but my opinion is that it would have to be one of the major pillars for the very reason of our existence, or at least our continued subsistence. I asked above if there could be any greater virtue? Essentially I’d argue “no”, but several people have brought to my attention the matter of liberty. The example of Soma from Huxley’s “Brave New World” is an interesting one, depicting happiness (in the form of a drug) at the expense of liberty. It is provided in such a way as to disgust our senses. Clearly Happiness without liberty cannot really be happiness? Or so one is inclined to believe.

My response would be to say that happiness is not a purely external phenomenon. A part of what it is to experience happiness must come from within. Like all things (at least in my humble opinion) it is a dialectical process between the physical and the psychological. I often wonder why these two categories were ever separated! The very notion of liberty has a strong connection within our minds. Biologically we are driven to seek as much liberty as possible, in the hopes of then fulfilling our desires and so on. But even then happiness seems to provide a foundation as to why we do things. Liberty may allow us to do them, but happiness is the motivator.

Like most things in life there is no doubt a need for balance between the two characteristics. A close friend of mine argued that liberty was far more important than happiness, yet personally I believe that they must be intrinsically linked. For if you had unlimited liberty but no happiness what would you do? You could do whatever you wanted, but would never have any motivation to actually begin something. Of course on the other extreme one could argue that if you had all the happiness in the world but no liberty you would equally never be able to do anything in that your lack of liberty made it impossible to do so, but on the bright side at least you’d be happy, happy just existing. Of course if you take away the liberty to exist (which theoretically would be the case if we took away ALL liberty) then you would just die, but even this seems preferable to a lacklustre, hapless life of uninhibited liberty.

An interesting question on which I have often thought, regards sadness and the nature of happiness. Firstly consider that all things in life are given meaning through comparison. For example, if everything in the universe was the same colour of orange (and always had been), how would we be able to even comprehend what blue was? In this example blue is defined, by its relationship to orange, and vice-versa. So by the same token how would we even identify the colour orange if everything was orange? Simply put I doubt we would. We’d simply assume unconsciously that all was the same colour. More than this, we would have no word for “orange” or even a conscious or unconscious understanding of it. If everything was orange, orange ceases to become something that can be compared to anything, and hence has no meaning or relevance.

Where exactly am I going with all this you might ask? Well in the case of happiness we must ask, can we be happy without sadness? The answer logically seems to be that if we had never known sadness or anything like it, then we would not distinguish happiness in the way we do. This seems self evident. From this however we draw a more important question. What is the nature of happiness, in so far as it relates to sadness?

This is a tricky one. If one person is happy in the world, does it theoretically mean that another has to be sad? Certainly studies of happiness seem to suggest that it most often is adaptive. For example, many people think making more money will make them happier. Maybe in the short term it will, but in the longer term they adapt to their changed circumstances and again they feel as they originally did. So again the hapless man might again increase the amount of money he earns, but this process of adjustment will simply keep happening. I suppose this is the purely material pursuit of happiness at its best.

There is only one variable I know of that is an exception to this adjustment cycle, and interestingly that is commuting time. The lower your commuting time is the higher your happiness will statistically be. Similarly, the longer your commuting time is the lower your happiness will statistically be. The idea is also touched on in “Cycling and the Philosophy of Happiness” for those of you who are interested in the idea.

In regards to the relationship between happiness and sadness I found a rather potent quote from Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet which states:
“When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy. When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see in truth that you are weeping for that which has been your delight.”

The nature of happiness is a tricky question, and its relationship to sadness only serves to make things more confusing. Ultimately I don’t think the question can be properly answered, but it’s defiantly an interesting brain teaser. There is certainly something however to the idea that people can improve their wellbeing and happiness, and in turn help others, in fact giving an overall benefit in happiness. The big question is really, whether this is just a short term adjustment, and whether yet again happiness would become another thing to strive for.

The Buddhist religion has some interesting things to say against materialist thinking and this sort of thought process which stresses “Living in the Now...:”, which is essentially taking the time to love yourself right now, as you are. This along with their emphasise on ““The Middle Way:”” help to advocate their belief in balance and living a contented life.

Happiness is vital to a fulfilling existence. We live and then we die, we may as well do some stuff which is enjoyable in the middle. The problem here becomes drawing a line between hedonism and a life without happiness. As usual balance seems to be the key. It is difficult to take away anything concrete from such abstract thought, but we should remember that happiness is a source of motivation and pleasure in life. Try and pursue it and make sure not to deny yourself happiness, after all, were only human.

Vegetarianism From a Different Perspective:

2007-12-29T17:56:00.000+11:00

As the name suggests this short series of posts is about vegetarianism! Shock horror! However I would ask that everyone stop yelling about how animals have rights, or how cows are inherently evil and thus need eating, or even that vegetables generally taste bad, to allow me to take a new look; well actually an old but often overlooked perspective, on why vegetarianism has several things going for it.

Firstly I would like to say that I am not going to even touch the subject of animals and ethics, because personally I’m more interested in some interesting ideas which might change a few minds, based not on ethics, but rational thinking. But the ethics argument does deserve touching on, so maybe another day I’ll write about it, if I feel up to the task!

For those out of the loop-hole and or living under a rock, a vegetarian eats no meat. Then again there are a myriad of variations such as lacto-ovo-vegetarians, but lets keep it simple for now. Good, now that we have our definition we can begin.

An Economic driven perspective on Vegetarianism:
As much as I love meat, and am inclined to eat it, I must admit that practicing vegetarianism does have certain advantages, for us and for our planet. Firstly I would like to view the matter from an economic standpoint. Vegetables and most vegetarian basics are cheaper than meat, so eating more vegetables could be easier on your wallet. But putting individual greed aside vegetables are economically easier to produce, particularly on a large scale.

Here’s one of many sites that cites some amazing figures:

http://www.selfempowermentacademy.com.au/pdf/L3_LIVING_on_LIGHT/Glob_Journ/5-vvmbd.PDF

“9. Amount of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre (4,047 square meters of land: 20,000 lbs. (9,072 kg)

10. Amount of beef that can be grown on 1 acre (4,047 square meters) of land: 165 lbs. (75 kg)”

Firstly we can see that we can grow much more in the way of vegetables than we can produce meat per unit of land. Thus vegetables are much more space efficient to grow. If everyone in the world is to get adequate amounts of food it would be much easier to do this with a vegetarian diet. The land is used much more efficiently if we used it to grow potatoes rather than feed cattle.

Secondly we must realise that for every pound of meat we create, several pounds of vegetables are used to create it. Whereas this is not the case if we eat the vegetables ourselves.

But wait, there’s more:

“16. Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed on the amount of land needed to feed 1 person consuming meat-based diet: 20 (This number could be closer to 150 if you're talking about pure Raw-vegetarians.)”

The list goes on and on. Meat production, when compared to growing various vegetables, uses more water, damages the topsoil more, and is also a major cause of deforestation and general land clearing. If that’s not enough it seems that meat production uses more energy (by a significant amount) than producing vegetarian foods.

Another interesting fact is of course the amount of waste created. The article is definitely worth a quick look… Keep in mind these statistics are from 1996. If they are reliable in the first place than the situation has probably only gotten worse.

A nutritionally driven perspective on Vegetarianism:
So we move on to the next milestone… Nutrition. As much as many meat lovers might not like to admit it, the fact is that vegetarians as a whole, seem to be healthier people. It is also true however that many of them lead generally healthier lives in regards to habits such as the amount of exercise done, whether they smoke or not, how often they drink alcohol or do other drugs. Still, even if we were to factor all of this out of the situation I think we would find that most vegetarians are healthier for their diet. Limiting the saturated fat intake of meat means they usually have lower bad cholesterol levels while all the fruits, vegetables, grains and good fats mean they have high good cholesterol, lots of fibre for good bowels, heaps of antioxidants, minerals and vitamins. (With maybe the exception of some b-vitamins which can be a little harder to find – still mushrooms, yeast and other vegetarian sources can be used). Yes, science might not be completely sure as to the exact specifics but vegetarians do seem healthier.

Of course this isn’t to say all vegetarians are healthy. I know several that eat a lot of candy and junk. But even so, they’re still healthier than there pal eating the candy the junk, and lots of meat. In particular red meat seems to be the main culprit. I remember once reading that people who eat red meat more than twice a week increase their chance of getting bowel cancer by 40%!

Here’s some more interesting information regarding a vegetarian diet and cancer:
http://www.goveg.com/heartdisease.asp

“A major study published in February 2005 reconfirmed the link between meat consumption and heart problems. The study, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, concluded that among the 29,000 participants, those who ate the most meat were also at the greatest risk for heart disease. The researchers also reported that a high intake of protein from vegetable sources like tofu, nuts, and beans lowers our risk of heart disease by 30 percent. Dr. Linda E. Kelemen, the scientist who headed the study, told reporters, “Not all proteins are equal”—while vegetable protein can help keep our hearts healthy, eating animal protein can put us in an early grave.”

Even if these numbers aren’t exact the general trend is still proven so by now I hope you get the general idea. A study named the China study (which is of some repute) came to the conclusion that vegetarian diets are healthier. And even just looking at most of the healthier diets of the world they typically contain far more fresh produce and vegetables, fruits and grains than the typical rich western diet. Granted they often contain traces of meat… but in very small quantities compared to what we are used to. Indeed I might argue that meat is infact a wonderfully fine thing to eat, but only very occasionally, say once or twice a week.

We can also look at our closest relative the chimpanzee and see that their diet is by and large vegetarian. They do eat the occasional insect, termite or each other. But generally it’s based around fruits and vegetables, even grains are cut out here, which makes an interesting argument for anti-grain supporters.

The rather controversial “ape diet” (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3966) is centred on fruits, vegetables and nuts all uncooked and in their natural state, i.e. raw. Sounds like an argument for raw foodism doesn’t it. But the interesting thing is that the diet seems to really work, for health purposes anyway, I’m not sure how good it would taste. Raw vegetables tend to be a little hard to stomach, or so I find (with exceptions such as carrots), but then again I’ve never really eaten vegetables raw very often. Anyway the people on the ape diet saw a massive slash in cholesterol.

“After four-weeks, levels of the harmful LDL-cholesterol plummeted by 29 per cent on the ape diet…Bad cholesterol fell by only 8 per cent for those on the standard low-fat diet.”

Pretty impressive and needless to say it’s about as vegetarian as you can get really. However a couple of articles seemed to suggest that cooked, oily fish was added in after the first week. Even so, this is a largely vegetarian based diet, and the addition of fish does not significantly rise the saturated fat component but does significantly increase the amount of unsaturated fats, thus further helping to improve cholesterol levels.

Global concern – a Global warming based perspective on Vegetarianism:
The production of meat requires more energy than the equivalent production of a vegetarian style diet. In this way the energy put in is less efficient to the nutritional value we get out of it, particularly when we consider that in many ways the vegetarian diet is healthier anyway.

However just the other day I reread something I find particularly astonishing. In essence it seems that cows, and more particularly their tendency to burp methane and have particularly odorous sheisse, are huge culprits for global warming. The reason being that we breed so many of the damn things (mostly for eating, but also for milk) that collectively they number a huge amount, and the costs involved in processing the land and so on, all the way up to the waste created by the cows adds up to a rough 18% of all global warming. That’s right. 18% caused by and large by cows.

Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you, I’m still sceptical, but then again the bbc said it! Feel free to be enlightened by clicking on this here link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on.html

“No, the main culprit is out there in the fields, chewing her cud. It turns out that livestock – predominantly cattle – are responsible for an astonishing proportion of global warming gases - 18 per cent of the total, to be precise…That’s right, almost a fifth of all emissions which is more greenhouse gas emissions than all the transport on earth – planes, trains, cars, skidoos the lot…You’ll be wondering how I reach that staggering conclusion… The research implicating Daisy and her bovine brothers and sisters in global warming is very well sourced. A good start is “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, a report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation.”

The author (Justin Rowlatt) then goes on to later state that due to other chemicals other than co2 causing global warming livestock are in fact responsible for more than 18% of the damage. He thinks it would be more like 60%!

“which means sixty per cent of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.”

There you have it. Certainly seems to suggest that there’s often more to a problem than meets the eye. I certainly don’t think vegetarianism is for everyone, indeed I Think small portions of meat (particularly lean meats and fish which contain unsaturated fats) if anything improve our overall health, but as we can see the consequences of eating large amounts of meat are disastrous. If everyone collectively only ate a little less meat, the combined difference would be huge. It would ultimately benefit everyone by keeping us healthy and also our environment, which think about it, is absolutely essential to our own wellbeing.

Omega-3: Something Smells Fishy, What’s all the Hype About?

2007-12-28T17:24:00.001+11:00

Omega-3: what is it, you ask? Where is it? Is it friendly? Why won’t everyone shut up about it, I mean fish really aren’t that interesting? Fear not children for all the essentials shall be revealed in this brief article.

Omega-3 is a polyunsaturated fatty acid. There, now that we have the technical definition sorted we can get down to business. Omega-3 is a type of fat, and one which is commonly associated for most people with seafood. Seafood often contains abundant amounts of omega-3 particularly certain fish such as Tuna and Salmon. It is also contained within various plant sources, most notably some nuts like: walnuts, flax seeds and hemp seeds. It is also found in small quantities in dark green leafy vegetables. Foods like broccoli and kale are, believe it or not, sources of Omega 3. Because of their low caloric levels however, large amounts must be eaten to obtain decent amounts of it.

Now there is currently a lot of hype around omega-3 and its benefits. Why exactly is this? Well until recently fat was severely stigmatised by nutritionists and the public alike. Only recently are we starting to realise that there are different types of fats which in fact play different roles and have differing effects upon the body. Omega-3 in particular has had some very interesting health benefits recorded.

Ironically enough when I first starting typing the idea for this article yesterday lunch I was eating tuna at the time. I certainly had a good smirk about it. Yet as I do the final edit of this article this morning there lies a copy of the Australian edition of the “Clinical Psychiatry News” (Vol. 3, No. 6) and despite it still being wrapped in plastic I can see on the front page a picture of some nice looking cooked fish and an article called “Postartum Depression” – the subheading simply says ‘Fish and omega-3 fatty acids may help manage postpartum depression.” Trust me Omega-3 is big at the minute, and with good reason, it seems to be having some remarkable results in scientific studies, lets investigate shall we.

Omega-3 is probably best known for its fat burning ability. Research has shown that it elevates the amount of fat burnt, particularly if it is taken after exercise. (For a related links see: http://www.fishoilblog.com/benefits/fish-oil-exercise-fat-loss.php)

Omega-3 has also been shown to help with cholesterol levels (as have other polyunsaturated and mono-unsaturated fats [known as the “good” fats], but omega-3 seems to do so even better than other “good” fats) by lowering blood triglyceride levels and increasing HDL cholesterol (the “good” cholesterol), in turn reducing risk of heart attack. It has also been shown to help lower blood pressure, and even to help cancer (here a reference for the unbelievers: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920092447.htm)

But the benefits of omega-3 don’t end there, it gets even better! Studies on the effects of Omega-3 on the brain have yielded fascinating results. It seems that it can potentially help with a whole spectrum of mental problems from depression to schizophrenia, even problems like ADHD can be solved or at least the symptoms reduced by simple Omega-3 supplementation!

Why is this so you might ask? Simply put our brain is made up of cell membranes which are coated in a lipid solution (that is to say fat – lipid is the scientific name for fat), thus it makes sense that eating more fat gives your more structural material with which the body can build its structural links within the brain. However obviously not all fats are equal here as most westerners still eat tons of saturated fat, but don’t get these amazing effects. As I addressed in a recent article called "Fats: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as well as Potentially Life Threatening:” the type of fat you consume does matter, as it is utilised differently by the body. Think of it almost as different grades of material. Lets say you want to build a house and you’ve got one really strong durable wood and another really crappy weak and prone to rot wood, which would you use? Providing your intention was that the house was durable and lasted a while you’d use the better material. Now think of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats as higher grade materials for your brain to build itself with, whereas saturated fats and even worse, trans fats, are more like crappy material. There, now that I’ve gotten a really shite metaphor out of this article I may continue with the knowledge of a world of good done and another literary masterpiece accomplished.

Now honestly I’m not making all this stuff up, I am not prone to misinformation, so here’s one of a myriad of sources that essentially argue a similar line to myself: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1691896.htm.

“It may seem unlikely that fish oil could help Thomas control his ADHD, but our brains are literally swimming in fat. Most of it’s in the cell membrane, and high levels of Omega 3 allow the brain cells to transmit electrical signals more effectively.
So could increasing your Omega 3 intake influence the very way we think and behave? At CSIRO Human Nutrition in Adelaide, Natalie Sinn is attempting to find this out. She recruited 130 children with learning and behaviour difficulties, and set them tasks to test their attention. After more than 6 months on 6 fish oil capsules a day, around half the children showed improvement.”

It seems grandma was always right when she said eat your fish it’ll make you brainy. However the stereotype of fish being dumb seems to be dwindling. All those stories you were told about fish having 3 second memories… they seem to be unfounded fishist comments… damn those fishists. Ironically scientists now think fish aren’t so dumb after all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3189941.stm

At very least they're tasty and seem to be very good four our brains! I personally think everyone should either eat fish several times a week, or take fish oil supplements, if not both!

Some relevant links:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-beneficial-effects-of-fish-oil-on-the-heart.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220082829.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1241479.htm

Fats: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly as well as Potentially Life Threatening:

2007-12-27T17:15:00.000+11:00

First let me enlighten those who are innocent, of the four major types of fats:

1) Trans Fats

2) Saturated Fats

3) Polyunsaturated fats

4) Monounsaturated fats

As a simple rule of thumb, don’t eat excessive amounts of fat, keep it moderate and make sure to eat most of your fat from the last two forms of fats (the Unsaturated groups), less from the saturated fats, and steer well clear of Trans fats. Believe it or not the type of fat does make a difference. An interesting calorie controlled study on monkeys showed that a group eating the same diet but with their fat coming from Trans Fats gained more fat than the control group eating unsaturated fats and that the trans fat group also gained more fat around the abdominal area (which is associated with an increased chance of heart disease).

Here are a couple of extracts from: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9318

“Monkeys fed a diet rich in trans-fats – commonly found in fast foods – grew bigger bellies than those fed a diet rich in unsaturated fats, but containing the same overall number of calories. They also developed signs of insulin resistance, which is an early indicator of diabetes.”

“After six years on the diet, the trans-fat-fed monkeys had gained 7.2% of their body weight, compared to just 1.8% in the unsaturated group. CT scans also revealed that the trans-fat monkeys carried 30% more abdominal fat, which is a risk factor for diabetes and heart disease.”

Fat has gotten a pretty negative wrap from nutritionists up until quite recently. However it is important to realise that fat is a very important nutrient in itself. It is used to make cell membranes and also plays an important role in the uptake of several vitamins. Fat also helps keep your hair and skin healthy.

However as emphasised before it is the quality of the fat we ingest which is of importance. As http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html puts it:

“Detailed research -much of it done at Harvard - shows that the total amount of fat in the diet, whether high or low, isn't really linked with disease. What really matters is the type of fat in the diet.”

As common sense would dictate a diet of mostly fruit, vegetables, nuts and minimal grain products (which should when consumed be wholegrain) will provide us with a very healthy diet. In such a natural diet there are indeed sources of fat such as nuts, avocadoes and olives. The best meat source for these healthy fats is fish, and these provide the extra benefit of omega 3 fatty acids, which I have blogged about here:!!!

For those of you fortunate enough to live in Australia then I suggest you try Kangaroo, a rather healthy tasty meat. It is very lean and contains little fat, and of the fat it does contain the greater proportion is from the unsaturated categories rather than saturated fat! So if you can get it, and you don’t mind its gamey flavour, go for Kangaroo!

While the unsaturated fats lower our “bad” cholesterol and increase the “good” cholesterol, saturated fat simply increases the “bad” cholestrol. Of course limited amounts are unavoidable and they are chiefly present in meats (particularly less lean meats like lamb), dairy products, as well as cocoa and coconut. Saturated fats are somewhat worse for us, and have a tendency to increase our “bad” cholesterol. However Trans fats, a form of man made fats, created through a process known as hydrogenation and notably present only in man made foods are best completely avoided.

Again I quote from: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html:

“The Nurses' Health Study found that replacing only 30 calories (7 grams) of carbohydrates every day with 30 calories (4 grams) of trans fats nearly doubled the risk for heart disease. (9) Saturated fats increased risk as well, but not nearly as much.”

Let me just add that 30 calories is not much at all! Its only 4 grams of the stuff! Yet that amount daily can “nearly double the risk for heart disease”, I mean think about it for a minute… only 4 grams!

“For the good fats, there is consistent evidence that high intake of either monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat lowers the risk for heart disease. In the Nurses' Health Study, replacing 80 calories of carbohydrates with 80 calories of either polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fats lowered the risk for heart disease by about 30 to 40 percent.(8)”

So the easiest way to implement a healthy diet is simply to avoid processed foods (easier to say than it sounds!) or at very least cut back on them drastically, and stick to what are commonly called “whole” foods. This is to say foods that are unprocessed, and are eaten in a very close manner to how they naturally develop. In the case of fats this means avoid using too much oil and eating too much in the way of dairy, as well as sticking to leaner meats. To be honest I believe that slowly implementing these changes in your life will work best. I advocate a slow approach to change, one that is manageable, instead of the traditional sudden leap which will normally always fail after the initial motivation has passed.

So there you have it. Fats in a nutshell! And remember nuts are a good source of the “good” fats, as well as having smaller amounts of saturated fats in them! J - How’s that for applied knowledge eh? Now when I say fats in a nutshell I lie, as to be honest I have not really touched on some areas, most importantly of which is Omega-3. But fear not, for here is a link which shall explain just that to you: "Omega-3: Something smells fishy, what’s all the hype about?”

Cycling and the Philosophy of Happiness:

2007-12-26T14:57:00.000+11:00

Sydney University is providing a new course in philosophy next year (2008) called “The philosophy of happiness”. My previous philosophy lecturer gave us a briefing about the new course citing some studies that have been done. Now I’m not really sure how they measure happiness (this itself could be seen as a large flaw in the study!), but essentially they tried to find variables that affected long term “happiness” (whatever that is!). For instance researchers discovered that if one bought a larger house they were actually more unhappy for the first 6 months (due to the stresses of moving and so on), but were then happier from 6 to 18 months later (as they enjoyed their newer, bigger house); But after 18 months they had seemingly adapted to their bigger house and were now identically happy (or unhappy as the case may be) as they had originally been in the old house. A similar thing happened when moving to a smaller house, except that the occupants were unhappy until 18 months after moving (as the house was smaller, more cramped etc). It seemed that regardless of what happened, after 18 months people had adjusted and happiness went back to a “normal” level.

Several such studies seemed to imply that happiness seems to be relative, and adjusts as such. Thus something can make you happy, but most likely it will only be short lived. However, one variable they found which made you happier long term, was commuting time. The shorter your commuting time (for this study I believe it was to and from work) the happier you are, presumably as it gives you more time in the day to do things, and maybe you live in a close nit community etc. So in the case of commuting time it was found that individuals were happier both immediately after reducing commuting times as well as much further down the track (that is to say 18 months later and beyond).

Now the lecturer who told us this (Professor David Bradon Mitchell, a fabulous lecturer) happens to be a cyclist. So as the class filtered out after the lecture I went down and approached him, with a question set in my mind. I essentially went up to him and asked “But what about cycling?”

“Cycling!” he said, “Well that’s a whole different kettle of fish.” (Please note that those weren’t the lecturer’s exact words, although the meaning was identical. I suppose I am taking my artistic license a little far here by paraphrasing adlib!) We then proceeded to both talk about how as cyclists we were happier to have both exercise and travel time rolled into one, thus saving time. This in turn enabled us to spend more time on other pursuits such as leisure, which helps to make for a happier life. Also we get the many health benefits of exercise and as we both lived in the inner west (although he is now in Newtown and so close that he doesn’t really ride, as he can simply walk) we could even cycle around the city faster than cars and public transport in peak hour and heavy traffic.

Thus from a time saving point of view commuting by bike (this is of course again within the context of the city and inner suburbs) can indeed help to increase your happiness. So cycling is good for your health, your pocket and your happiness is there anything more we can learn from this? Yes, there is one other important lesson! As our rather humourous lecturer said in concluding this lecture “If there’s one thing you can learn from this whole philosophy course its don’t move out to the suburbs to buy a bigger house!”

I suppose another way cycling makes me happy is that I know I’m doing something good for me and the environment and thus those around me. I like helping people, and by cycling I feel I help everyone, albeit it in the smallest way. One person can really only create so much change. If you’re a completely average person without great finances or great intelligence or great determination or great luck or some other such quality how can you possibly completely change the world? Well as far as I’m concerned you can, sort of, but only within reason. By cycling every day I keep myself fit and healthy so that I can help others. I also do not create pollution for others to have to inhale or the planet to have to absorb. Lastly, and in some ways most importantly, by riding as often as I do I might make an important impression on some people who see me riding. I tell my friends, co workers and family of the benefits of cycling. So far I’ve got one friend cycling around, and I hope to convert many more.

The more people that start cycling the more people will see people cycling and the more other people will begin to cycle. In turn the more demand for cycling products and cycling infrastructure will increase and hopefully this demand will lead to greater research and development into both these sectors. This really puts the moral impetus on an individual’s action, a good thing to, as all of societies greatest accomplishments have ultimately been a joint effort. It really does create a positive snowball effect which gains momentum. The Sydney morning herald mentioned in an article that the amount of cyclists in Sydney has increased by 50% in just three short years (the article was published on the 8^th of October 2007). That’s an amazing amount and clearly shows that some positive change is taking place in today’s society. If you wish to check it out (and some great reasons about how bike riding isn’t as dangerous as people think it is due to an increase in cyclists themselves) then see the following link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bike-riders-on-the-increase-but-road-deaths-stable/2007/10/07/1191695739443.html

Happiness is an interesting little topic, and a rather important one in my view. I will be sure to write more on the pursuit of happiness later in life, and if I do happen to study “The Philosophy of Happiness” as a course at Sydney Uni next year I’ll be sure to write more about the topic. So until then give yourself a piece of happy pie and savour the wait.

The Most Efficient Form of Transport in the World:

2007-12-25T17:23:00.000+11:00

I’m about to let you in on a big secret… one of mans most coveted gifts of knowledge. I’m about to tell you of the most efficient form of transport known to man. Is it an alien spaceship? Nope they are not known to man. Is it an airplane, nope they do really quite poorly efficiency wise. Is it human locomotion? Nope, but your pretty damn close. Well then, what is it? It my friends, is the humble bicycle.

You laugh, you cry and then you look me in the eye and say “bollocks”. I knew you wouldn’t believe me, it must be some sort of insecurity complex of mine. Yet it is true I swear it and many books and websites document this little known truth, or at very least quite obvious but seldom thought of truth.

So what sort of efficiency am I talking about here? Well largely I mean how efficient a vehicle is to transport its passenger. Here Bicycles come out top. Simply take a quick glance at the graph featured at: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html

However Bicycles are also far more efficient to produce and repair than other forms of transport while also being more space-efficient than other forms of transport. Heres a nice chunk of information from:
http://eco-living.net/writings/transport/effengine.html

“Not only are bicycles most efficient to propel, they also take far less energy (and lower levels of technology) to produce than motorized transport. The energy and materials needed for one medium-sized car can produce one hundred bicycles! Starting up a bicycle production or repair and maintenance business requires very little capital; the amount of money needed is insignificant compared to what is required to manufacture, maintain, and repair automobiles. Bicycles are also more space-efficient than cars. That is, more people on bikes than in cars can move through a given lane in a given amount of time. Cars are in fact the least space-efficient form of transport on the planet.”

We live in a day and age were people are fixated with efficiency and health and fitness and the likes, yet why does bike riding still remain so unpopular in places like Australia and America. At least in Europe they have a larger cycling population. I can think of many reasons as to why this is the case such as that Europe simply has much better infrastructure for cyclists. I’ll admit even cycling has disadvantages like getting a little sweaty on a hot day or struggling when it comes to transporting your fridge to your new home, but even so, I believe it has been greatly overlooked as a fantastic way to save the environment, save our wallets and not to mention improve our health dramatically. The fact that the humble bicycle is the most efficient vehicle in the world is simply one more reason on a long list as to why almost everyone should cycle!

Well now I’ve given you the information and it’s up for you to decide whether you are willing to take to cycling. Remember it need not be extreme, even cycling to work one day a work will do wonders compared to no days a week. I only wish I could somehow encourage you as well as the Chinese government does its citizens! As
http://eco-living.net/writings/transport/effengine.html puts it:

“In China, bicycle avenues with five or six lanes are common, as is plenty of safe and convenient bicycle parking. The government provides a monthly allowance for cycling to work.”

Here are some more snippets of information from:
http://eco-living.net/writings/transport/effengine.html which will hopefully further convince you of the benefits of cycling, enjoy:

“More than half of all commutes in the U. S. and more than three-quarters in the U. K. are less than eight kilometers (about five miles). This is a reasonable cycling distance; it is also the range in which internal-combustion engines get the poorest mileage and emit the most pollution.”

“Besides placing drastically less stress on our environment, human power also benefits the engine - the human body! The advantages of regular, sustained exercise are already well documented, and bicycling is a low-impact form of exercise as well. Studies have shown that workers who commute by bicycle are happier, more alert and more productive than average.”

The Importance of Sleep:

2007-12-24T10:14:00.001+11:00

Everyone knows that sleep is important to our health, it’s self-evident. When people don’t get sleep they get tired, lose concentration, become irritable and eventually collapse in a heap. Yet it seems that sleep is becoming something we are getting less and less of, especially in developed countries.

Think about it, we spend nearly a third of our lives asleep, clearly there is some need for it. The average adult requires around 7 to 9 hours of sleep a day. Of course it can vary a little bit given individual needs, but generally it is within these parameters. Even a slight loss of sleep can negatively affect ones health. Studies done at the University of Pennyslvania found that those who slept for only six hours were later diagnosed with increases of certain chemicals in the blood associated with both heart disease and diabetes. Newer research has also shown that those of us who sleep less are more likely to gain weight. A lack of sleep changes our hormonal chemistry and it is now known that two important hormones relating to hunger and weight control are greatly controlled by sleep. These hormones are called Gherlin and Leptin. Another important aspect of sleep is that it is when the majority of human growth hormone (HGH) is released. People who don’t sleep enough typically don’t get the same release of HGH.

Sleep is primarily of importance as it allows these hormonal changes to occur and also allows our mind to store and categorised memories. Essentially we store what we have learned when we are asleep. Not getting enough sleep is therefore detrimental to ones mental ability to store information and later to recall it. While we don’t know everything there is to know about sleep it is obvious that its important to our general wellbeing. Be sensible and make sure to regularly get good amounts of sleep as well as considering exercise as a means to help you obtain a better quality of sleep. Personally I would advise against sleep medication unless you are particularly stressed or unable to sleep as it is medication toying in a rather unexplored field.

Like most things in life doing what comes naturally yields the best results. Go to bed when you feel tired and get up when you feel like you’re waking up (of course I understand that work and other commitments makes this all but impossible in the modern day world). Try and establish a rough time at which you awaken naturally each day, its also great for your ability to get into a routine. When you do sleep do so in a room which is as dark as possible and as quiet as possible. It has also been shown that using your bedroom solely for the purpose of sleeping will help with your ability to fall asleep, as the mind adapts to understand that the bedroom is a place for sleep and thus you fall asleep better. But again, this is almost impossible to do unless you happen to have a big house with extra rooms to spare.

Try not to stress too much just around bed time and stay away from physically exerting activities or activities just prior to going to bed. This includes things like watching horror movies! Give yourself half an hour before you go to bed just to relax and have “quiet time”, read a book or do some meditating, something like that which relaxes the mind. This may all sound like rather a lot to do if you live as most people do, but don’t be intimidated, simply change your habits gradually so that over time you will have adopted and become familiar with a healthier sleeping pattern. For your efforts you will be both physically and psychologically rewarded as your body will function better and in turn you may well find that your mood will improve and become more positive. However remember that these changes should not be instantaneous but rather gradual, doing things gradually almost always implies that they are therefore viewed as less challenging and therefore more likely to be accomplished. Anyway, why are you still reading? You should be in bed! :)

Exercising Efficiently, the Intensity Debate:

2007-12-23T11:28:00.000+11:00

There has been a debate raging for some time regarding how we should exercise. One side argues for anaerobic based training and the other for aerobic based training. The essential question being debated is whether or not we can exercise more efficiently. However, as we will find, this is a rather vague question as there is no set criteria to deem what efficiency is in this instance.

The older school of thought supported the aerobics craze. Everyone knows the old exercise videos from the 80’s with girls in coloured swimsuits jumping up and down for hours on end. If you don't, consider yourself lucky. Aerobics systems they argued burn more fat for fuel than anaerobic systems, and thus are better for fat loss. But the anaerobic fans retort that post exercise recovery from anaerobic exercise has the greatest affect on fat burning. In turn the Aerobics group advocate that aerobic exercise or “cardio” as its often called is better for the heart as it improves cardiovascular health and the circulatory system.

The more modern trend has been a move away from aerobics and into the weight room where anaerobic exercise has come to dominate. The anaerobic supporters argue that extensive aerobic exercise causes injury; however the aerobic supporters argue the same of intensive anaerobic exercise, so it’s a draw on that front. Anaerobic exercise also has the added benefit of stimulating more muscle growth and improving bone density. Another thing that is sometimes too lightly overlooked is the increase in hormones that anaerobic exercise causes.

The debate between the two groups has largely revolved around fat loss, which is really only one small category of total health and wellbeing. Regarding fat loss the anaerobic supporters often argue that one only has to compare the physique of a sprinter to a marathon runner to see the benefits of added muscle and hormonal changes as a result which typically mean the sprinter also has lower body fat levels! Yet as far as I am aware type 1 muscle fibres (which are best at endurance work) tend to burn fat much more effectively than type 2 muscle fibres (which are best at brief intense work).

Genetic experiments on mice have certainly had interesting results and can help to shed light on the difference between the muscle types (and by association types of exercising). There are many sites which cite these genetic tests on mice, but this one: http://www.sciencenewsmagazine.org/articles/20041030/bob9.asp seems to be quite in depth and as such I shall use it as a reference.

Mice who have had their genes altered so as to give them more fast twitch muscles (dubbed “Schwarzenegger mice”) have a much easier time growing muscle and staying strong. However, the shocking part is that these mice can gain strength without exercise simply by being injected with a certain gene! “Young mice injected with the gene grew stronger and more muscular, even without exercise.”

On the other hand: “Another set of experiments, by scientists at the Salk Institute in San Diego, produced mouse muscles that just keep going without fatiguing...Ronald Evans and his colleagues had started out with the intention of engineering mice that stay trim. To do this, the researchers inserted genes that code for a fat-burning protein called PPAR-delta…The mice that resulted stayed slender, even when fed a high-fat diet, but also developed an unusually large number of slow-twitch muscle fibers, the type the body relies on during extended exertion. ‘This change produced the 'marathon mouse,' able to run twice the distance of its normal littermate,’ vans says.”

Personally I would argue that it seems that the slow twitch mice win when it comes to maintaining a low body fat, while the fast twitch mice win when it comes to strength and muscle mass. So ultimately the question then becomes what are we trying to accomplish more efficiently through exercising? Most people wish simply for fat loss, and in the case of mice it would seem that slow twitch endurance based work would serve one better, however again we can compare the images of a sprinter to a marathon runner and wonder.

The debate rages on and it seems that each side has ample ammunition, we will find no answers on the battle field. In particular the recent increase in popularity of
“High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT):” has thrown another spanner in the works, but this itself deserves its own article and so I shall write one in the future.

Common sense would seem to suggest that while one method of exercising may be slightly superior to another (of course this also depends largely on what your goals are!), it is ultimately best to do what you are comfortable with. Most people forget that we are only human. For instance, while in theory we may gain best results from doing something everyday, maybe in reality the most we can consistently do it so that it is sustained is once every second day. What this ultimately means is if you like marathon running then do it, on the other hand if you like sprinting then do that!

Of course I would ask that we look further than just the aesthetics here and look at our total wellbeing. From a point of overall health it would seem self-evident that doing both aerobic and anaerobic activity will be best for our health. This would indeed allow for a more moderate exercise routine which would probably yield better results long term anyway.

It is also interesting to think that we should not all be doing the same thing. When one thinks about it, it makes perfect sense, but often we simply do not think about it and follow the herd instinct of doing what others are doing. The simple truth is that while we are genetically not that dissimilar from one another (say in comparison to a soy bean) we do vary and thus we as a society should be more open to the idea that different people require different things based on their differing genetics. Sprinting might help make your friend lose weight given his biological chemistry, but maybe you’d have more luck with aerobic work. In the future we will no doubt have gene testing which will help us to be able to work with our strengths, but until then all I can say is experiment, enjoy the process, and figure out yourself what you enjoy doing and what works for you.

Exercise and Motivation:

2007-12-22T12:00:00.000+11:00

We all know the benefits of regular exercise, we are bombarded by its importance nearly every second day. Yet the irony is that the majority of us still have no inclination to do it. If I gave you a pill and said it could curb many diseases, allow you to not only have greater longevity but also quality of life with the added benefits of “natural highs”, helped you get better sleep, increased your libido, kept your hormones in check… and the list goes on, would you not say “Fuck yes, how much for one of these magic pills?”. I know I certainly would. What if I then went on to say it was virtually free? I think I’ve found an audience… But the minute I add that it would perhaps require a small bit of exercise, maybe two or three times a week, the crowd dissipates and only a handful of people still remain. Why is this? Exercise is proven to be bloody good, check out "The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 1" if you need further convincing of this.

We all know that we should be exercising, so why aren’t we?Is it laziness? Or perhaps lack of time? I doubt it, because some still manage to do it, and I know several lazy and or busy people who exercise regularly. If I had to give one major reason for our inability to exercise it would largely be to do with psychology. Simply put, people seem to dread exercise. Exercise has a negative association. It is like the potion of youth and success, but with an utterly horrible aftertaste.

The negative association with exercise does not have to exist, indeed the view is most often unfounded, being largely the byproduct of people trying to go from doing no exercise to exercising two hours everyday and in the process overexerting themselves, often injuring themselves and generally taxing their psychological ability to bear exercise. Thus they quickly develop a pessimistic relationship with exercise, the exercise does not last, and whats more they finish feeling disheartened as they have not changed as they thought they would. This often goes hand in hand with grossly unrealistic expectations regarding the results they should expect.

The simple fact is that exercise does not have to be hard or unbearable. It can indeed be enjoyable and recreational. The biggest secret to doing exercise and doing it consistently (especially when we think about it in the scheme of life as a whole) is to do exercise that you like. Don’t do the latest fat burning routine, its probably bollocks, and even if it isn’t you probably won’t be able to do it for more than a week unless you happen to find you enjoy it. If you hate running and your told running is best for fat-loss why run? Why not cycle, or swim, or play tennis?

Motivation is a funny thing. Think about it like this. There are two kind of people who succeed in this world. Those who are determined and push through and do things that they hate to do to succeed (by whatever your definition of success is), and those who just do what they love and succeed because they love doing it and thus get good at it and thus do it more and thus love it more, creating an ongoing positive cycle. Which person has an easier time? The first person may have all the dedication in the world (and good on them in that regard), but ultimately they are leading a life of misery doing something they wish they weren’t doing. There is more to life than just determination, there’s this important factor called contentment, or happiness. And if you’re happy and determined that’s great, but the fact is you don’t have to be extra determined to do something you love, as you’d do it regardless!

So, be sure to do some form of exercise you like. There are so many sports and activites out there, these always something for someone. Think rock climbing, martial arts, canoeing, hiking…the list is endless. As long as it gets you up and moving abit its good enough, you could even invent your own sports!

Another good trick is to do your exercise socially. As a cyclist who rides to work I’m a bit of a hypocrite here, but I definantly wish I did more exercise with friends. Get yourself a training partner, or play a team sport, or compete with other people. Not only will you make friends and broaden your social horizons but you will enjoy a sport with other people, giving you all a healthy interest you share. Exercising socially will provide an added stimulus to turn up to training (not wanting to let the team down etc), as well as making you feel connected and a part of something.

If you like achieving things, set goals, compete professionally or chart your progress. This approach is certainly not for everyone, but rather for those who are more competitive. Still, as long as it makes you feel empowered and as though your going somewhere it’s fine and good. The minute you feel your going backwards because of it, stop, take a step back, and reconsider whether this approach is really right to motivate you for long term exercise.

Remember not to force yourself to do exercise, but at the same time do try to make a commitment. Often we feel lethargic and don’t want to exercise, but a few minutes into it we feel great. This may partly be because of endorphins, but I think its more than that, I think its about getting into a rhythm, a routine of sorts, and just feeling productive. Plus I think there’s a primitive pull to get outside and stretch your muscles. So remember that while there may be initial apathy simply get up and give it ago. Nine times out of ten if you push through you end up enjoying the activity and afterwards really feel good about it. If your absolutely positive that you won’t enjoy the activity (and this is your call to make) then don’t, and don’t stress about it, the guilt will not help in anyway.

If you find yourself continually dreading your chosen exercise (as I did at one time doing sprints three times a week at an ungodly hour!) then simply stop it. We want this to be an activity you ENJOY. Enjoyment is the key word here. Remember if you enjoy the activity it will not require nearly as much commitment or dedication to keep it up. If on the other hand you hate the exercise you do it will take all your dedication and willpower to keep up the routine. In the latter scenario your psychological wellbeing will ultimately suffer and you will typically find yourself worse off in the long term than if you had simply done something you would have enjoyed more and been more able to stick to.

You can also spice up your exercise routine from time to time. For example, if after three months of running your bored, try swimming for the next three months (especially if its warmer weather). Not only will this keep you psychologically happy but it will exercise your body in different manners to! If you’ve been exercising for a long period of time (were talking a few months at least here) and you’re really losing momentum, sometimes taking a week off is good, just to allow you to relax, take a quick break, and come back all the more refreshed. Providing these breaks stay the exception they are perfectly within reason, indeed encouraged. Sometimes it’s good to time these breaks too. If you’re about to go on holiday or if the gym is closed for a week over Christmas, this the perfect opportunity to take refreshing break from your exercising. You’ll really be surprised how effective these breaks can be for your psychological wellbeing and how a simple break can help boost morale. Often after a week off a sport you love and enjoy (but are just temporarily a bit tired of) you’ll find yourself wanting to be doing the activity towards the end of your break off.

If for some reason you simply still cannot bring yourself to do any form of exercise I would ask you to simply go for a walk around your area. Find a nice park (preferably on a nice day) go for a little stroll for say half an hour or so and just see the mood you are in when you get back home. Typically you will be feeling greatly refreshed and amazingly upbeat. If you do simply tell yourself that this is the sort of quality of life I can expect to have if I find a form of exercise that I enjoy and can commit too.

Motivation is a complex topic and different techniques will work for different people. My best overall advice for motivation is to stay positive, progress at a realistic pace in your activity of choice and make sure you enjoy what you do. Enjoying what you do will motivate you further. Not only this, but life simply is to valuable to waste doing things you don’t enjoy, yet at the same time realise that certain things will pay off long term and help improve your overall quality of life. Make sure to think long term, as anything gained by a small burst of willpower will typically not last. What we need here is long term motivation, all the more reason why you should make sure you enjoy what you do.

The Many benefits of Exercise, Part 3:

2007-12-21T14:22:00.000+11:00

This is the final section of "The Many Benefits of Exercise" series, in which we explore the most fascinating aspects of physical activity, namely: How exercise affects us psychologically, and improves our minds!

As you may know exercise is good for us physically, but it’s important to realise that many of the physical benefits in turn benefit the mind. The age old adage “healthy body healthy mind” rings true. The increased ability for the blood to pump oxygen can for instance help send oxygen to the brain which increases its ability to work effectively. There has indeed been a link found between exercise and intelligence, although intelligence is of course a difficult thing to measure (generally IQ is used for intelligence tests in humans). There have been studies done on mice which show how one group with access to running wheels do better in what is known as the “Morris water maze” test than those without access to a running wheel. So it seems that by exercising (and thus being generally fitter and healthier) these mice are able to function better in how they think. Why does this always surprise us so much? After all our brains are still physical entities, and benefit, like the rest of the body, from physical activity.

Exercise strengthens the brain such that is increases cognitive processing speed and boosts memory. Thus it essentially builds the most useful muscle of all, the brain (I was of course speaking metaphorically there). There have also been studies that show that there is a strong relationship between academic achievement and fitness, clearly there is something here.

“Many studies have proven that people who exercise on a regular basis have better memory, reaction time and concentration than their sedentary counterparts. They also stand a much better chance of avoiding such diseases as Alzheimer’s and senility. And it doesn’t take much: walking for 45 minutes three times a week is enough to improve your degree of mental sharpness. Aerobic activity stimulates the middle-frontal and superior parietal regions of the brain, which are associated with attention and keeping goals in mind.” - http://ririanproject.com/2007/10/11/10-benefits-of-exercise-and-how-to-start-doing-it/

But wait it gets even better. Scientists once thought that quite early on in life the brain could no longer renew itself and that the neurons in our brains were fixed almost from birth. The theory was that as we aged these neurons died off and were not replaced causing mental decline. However the neuroscientist Fred H. Gage, through tests on mice, found that neurons do in fact keep renewing themselves up until we die. That’s lovely Sam you say, but what does it have to do with exercise? Well, while all the mice were producing new neurons up until death, those mice who were athletic were producing up to two to three times as many neurons that those that weren’t!

So what you’re saying here Sam is that exercise can increase my intelligence simply by exercising? Well I’m not exactly sure if I’d say it quite like that. Clearly genetics play a role, as do other factors like nutrition and so on, but, hypothetically I’d say that if we had two realities, one in which you made the commitment to exercise regularly and one in which you didn’t, that your brain would function better in the first case, plus it would degenerate less and would not only work better but longer. But let us be realistic, this does not mean you can increase your IQ by 20 points or anything like that. But if you could just feel a little more refreshed and think with greater ease all while curbing your chance of suffering from mental illness and depression by simply running around a few times a week, wouldn’t you take it? I know I would.

This brings me to the next part of this article which relates to hormonal changes caused by exercise that help our psychological wellbeing on a daily basis. Exercise releases hormones called endorphins which you may well have already heard of. Endorphins are natural pain killers and are related to hormones like dopamine and serotonin which increase happiness levels and thus general feelings of well being. So exercise can help alleviate depression, give us a psychological boost and sharpen our ability to think. I know I have brushed over these concepts quite quickly but I think the benefits here are rather self-evident. If your always feeling happy and sharp you will obviously succeed more in whatever manner you wish to in life, than if you were to drudge through life in a depressed negative state. Clearly exercise has many benefits for the mind, indeed the list is ever growing as scientists continue to reveal the benefits of exercise for our psychological wellbeing. Here is a little extract from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web2/mmcgovern.html which you may find interesting:

“Fortunately, it may be possible to exercise to happiness. It has been shown that physically active people recover from mild depression more quickly, and physical activity is strongly correlated with good mental health as people age (7). Depression is related to low levels of certain neurotransmitters like serotonin and norepinephrine. Exercise increases concentrations of these neurotransmitters by stimulating the sympathetic nervous system (12).

In fact, a combination of exercise and antidepressants (which increase BDNF via the serotonin-BDNF loop) has been particularly effective in treating depressive behaviors in rats.”

There is still one more aspect of exercise I wish to touch on, this time relating not so much to exercise itself, but rather the routine behind it.Making the commitment to exercise regularly requires some commitment and dedication. Simply by giving yourself a routine and sticking to it you are increasing your ability to set yourself goals and actively pursue them, exercise again helps in this area. Regular exercise can not only provide a sense of routine, security and structure but also allow the exerciser time to relax, as the conscious mind does not have to stress over the days troubles. Make sure you make exercise enjoyable, make sure you make it a way for your mind to unwind this will grant some of the greatest benefits by simply giving you a well deserved mental break while at the same time encouraging commitment to a regular activity.

I know that I often think a lot when exercising, although often this is not very consciously, and often people get good ideas while they are exercising. Think about Einstein, who got his theory of relativity while riding a bike. Coincidence? Quite possibly, but I guess we’ll never truly know. There is however some proof to the idea that we get our best ideas when we are in a relaxed state of mind, and exercising is just one way of being just that. Another place people often get good ideas is in the bathroom, but that’s a story for another article.

The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 2:

2007-12-20T15:25:00.000+11:00

Exercise (or any physical activity) is of essential importance to both physical and psychological wellbeing. In this article we will examine the physical benefits of exercise, of which there are many indeed. If nothing else I hope this article will motivate those who do little exercise to increase it, for it truly does pay off great dividends.

Most people think only of the benefits of weight loss or weight maintenance when it comes to exercise. This is indeed one important aspect of it however it has many more important facets which are well worth thinking about. Often we get far to caught up with media driven images of body image and thus use exercise to obtain a more aesthetic physique. The focus should more so be on health, as many of the benefits of exercise may not be physically obvious, but nonetheless it has been proven without a doubt that exercise is fantastic for our overall wellbeing. When we exercise all sorts of hormones are released which change how the body reacts to further external stimuli. It is a very complex hormonal interplay which to be honest I am not qualified to speak of in detail however, regardless of what exactly is going on, we do know what many of the results of this are:

Exercise has been shown to decrease ones rate of heart disease, high blood pressure, osteoporosis (better bone density as a result of exercise), diabetes and weight gain. It has been shown to increase energy levels and also increase ones quality of sleep. If you lead a sedentary lifestyle try exercising more and see if it helps you to sleep better. Exercise also strengthens the immune system, sharpens reflexes and can even combat the most feared disease of all, cancer! (Heres a reference for that rather strong claim: http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/exercisephysiology/a/aa090501a.htm) Exercise has also been proven to increase longevity, albeit only by a small amount. (I will add a link to a future post on this shortly)

However one way in which exercise is often overlooked is in its ability to increase ones strength and energy, which results in a better quality of life. Particularly the elderly, disabled and weak can benefit from these effects. As people do less physical activity today than ever before more and more people are susceptible to easily avoidable injuries. Exercise could curb this problem.

Increasing your activity levels will also help with more psychological based problems, thus exercise is good for both your physical and psychological wellbeing. The next post, "The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 3", will focus on these psychological benefits and illustrate how the psychological and physiological aspects of humanity are indubitably intertwined. You’ll no doubt be surprised at what a remarkable effect a little exercise can have upon the brain.

The Many Benefits of Exercise, Part 1:

2007-12-19T22:33:00.000+11:00

In today’s society we exert ourselves less than ever before. It’s hardly surprising given the circumstances. We simply live in a society that encourages a lazy lifestyle. Lifts instead of stairs, cars instead of walking, running or cycling, you get the idea. When coupled with the ready availability of food, well, problems abound and their not hard to spot!

Essentially the modern definition of exercise is identical to “activity”, although it can certainly get a little more academic than I have just described it as. Yet the word exercise specifically has become a nasty word caught up with matters of obesity, weight gain, sex appeal, success and the list goes on. These associations aren’t very positive, are highly competitive and lead the majority of society to feel guilt at not meeting a largely unobtainable media ideal. People dread exercise more and more as it becomes something associated with sweat and pain. While not all people have a negative internal definition of exercise, it seems that many do. If you believe you are one of them I suggest you read "Exercise and Motivation".

Regardless of whether we enjoy exercise or not (an important question in itself, but not the one being debated here, again refer to the link above) it has been scientifically proven to be one of the most beneficial things we can do for our own health. Yes part of the benefit can be related to what every one thinks about when we think exercise, namely weight control. However, there are even more important aspects to exercising than simply fat levels.

Exercise helps physically through the manipulation of hormones, controlling energy balance, improving the immune system and so on. However it does more still, helping psychologically through feelings of wellbeing and protection from depression. Yet still further exercise has been proven to help with intelligence and stopping both mental and physical decline. Diseases can be averted, cancer curbed and all because people do a little exercise. Part of the greatest irony is that it doesn’t even have to be much. The more you do the less return you get. So the greatest return is for those who go from doing nothing to doing just a little exercise every week. Of course the more you do the fitter and healthier you are, but even us mere mortals who are not professional athletes and don’t get paid to stay fit can obtain great benefit from just a few short exercise sessions every week, particularly if your willing to jack up the intensity a bit. See "Exercising Efficiently, the Intensity Debate” if you wish for for a more in depth look at the impact of exercise intensity.

I will be following this post up with two posts, the first relating to the physical benefits and the second with the more psychologically based benefits, only so as to split it up and stop it being too much for one go. In the meantime, start looking for an exercise or activity you can do and really enjoy, you’ll thank me for it one day.

About the Author:

2007-12-18T20:56:00.000+11:00

The author of this website, Samuel Bryson, is somewhat unsure of how to best describe himself. This website is in many ways an interesting insight into his own character, much as a journal or diary is for any individual. Broadly speaking his interests concern personal development, philosophy, cycling, generally staying fit and healthy both physiologically and psychologically all while enjoying the world we find ourselves in. He is creative and enjoys experimenting, and feels that certain ideas are important and or interesting, and thus deserve sharing with the world. Hence this website, "Total Wellbeing" came into existence.

This “about the author” page is somewhat of a work in progress, and at the time being relatively bare. Consider the above as a guideline into Sam’s interests, to help you understand the viewpoint he comes from. As this website grows this page will no doubt become more detailed in its description of its author. He knows he will benefit from discussing the ideas contained on this website, ideas which he considers of importance, and hopes you will too.