Ever had any pain in a joint? Any problem with flexibility or mobility?
My wife and I attended a Crossfit Mobility Certification given by Kelly Starrett in California early this year. Kelly is a genius and gave us some stuff to work with that has changed our flexibility and pain in our shoulders in particular.
We learned the joys that a properly applie Lacrosse ball could create. We learned stretches that we had never seen before. We learned that Kelly has an offbeat but awesome sense of humor.
And now Kelly has a daily WOD (Workout of the Day) just for mobility! Check it out at mobilitywod.blogspot.com.
Need some structure to get all those knotted-up muscles working properly again? Check out Kelly's awesome, free, daily post. Start today.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Before and current
Well, it was bound to happen. Eventually I'd post an old picture with a current picture. Below are two pictures. The first is from almost exactly 5 years ago, during a family vacation in 2005. The second picture I took just before my daughter and I went on a 6 day trip together about a week ago. I went off diet and pigged out with her for most of the trip, so I'm about 3 pounds heavier, but never mind that. It will go away within another week. Heck, I'll even post a newer pic sometime in October to prove it!
I think I've actually improved in 5 years. Well, It would be even better if I smiled in the more current picture, but at least I'm not risking harpoon marks like I was in that first one!
I was walking out of the water in that picture, and shortly after I reached shore a group of volunteers arrived and tried to drag me back in! They kept saying "Splash water around his blowhole and keep his skin wet till we get him back in the water!" Once I convinced them I wasn't beached they left me alone.
I like to think that I'm a pretty trim guy who just went through a heavy period. That period lasted from, oh, about high school graduation until I was 40.
Please show these pictures to anyone who questions whether or not a high fat diet works. In the picture on the left I was eating a pretty typical Standard American Diet. In the picture on the right I'm eating about 70% of my calories from fat. A typical lunch is a pound of grass fed beef with some veggies. I eat between a pound and pound and a half of meat every day, and cook things in butter and coconut oil. I'm not strictly low-carb any longer, but a high carb day is about 100 carbs unless I'm having a free meal/day. And on those days anything goes. Well, anything except grains and legumes.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Get your degree at ACCU!
Welcome to ACCU! We only have one curriculum here, and it's the study of how things relate to each other.
That's it.
The Association Correlation Causation University was founded a few minutes ago when I decided to compose this post. In that short period of time, we've educated no one. But we have high hopes for the future. VERY high hopes.
I hope that once you earn your degree at ACCU you will recommend it to your friends. Now let's get started:
First please notice that the name, ACCU, is the same as the first four letters in "accurate". That's a complete accident, and I just noticed it myself so I thought I'd point it out. But it does bring us to the "A" in ACCU, which stands for Assocation.
Assocation is the state of being associated. Not too helpful, but it's a start. Associate means to join or connect together. So to say two things are associated says they are connected somehow. It doesn't say anything more or less.
Let's look at an example: Drinking water is associated with living. In other words, there is a connection between drinking water and living. But only a connection. To say they are associated doesn't imply that more water makes anyone live longer. Nor does it say less water will make someone live longer. In fact, drinking water is also associated with dying. Most people who die have at some point had a drink of water. Not all, but most, so it's fair to say they're associated. Again, just association.
Now if you start noticing trends in your associations then you might have a Correlation. Correlation is a step beyond association. Merriam Webster said it beautifully:
"a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone."
You're only seeking a Bachelor's Degree at ACCU, so let's keep it simple. If one thing correlates to another, it means they vary positively or negatively with each other. As one increases, the other increases is a positive correlation. A negative correlation means one goes up the other down, etc. An interesting example is the presence of fire trucks and fires. There is a strong positive correlation between fire trucks and fire damage. The more fire trucks present at a fire scene, the more damage done at a fire scene.
Now, this is an accurate correlation. The two things vary positively with each other. But are the fire trucks causing the fires? No! Notice that a correlation only shows that two things vary together in a way "not expected on the basis of chance alone." Correlation does not show Causation.
Oops, it appears we're nearing the end of our curriculum, because that's the final C in ACCU! Causation is the act or process of causing. It's important to realize, as the example shows, that two things which correlate may or may not indicate causation. It is a common mistake prior to attending ACCU to naively accept causation when all that has been observied is correlation. In some cases, even simple assocation is enough to convince some people of causation.
I once had a friend who said that milk couldn't be bad for you because there were people who lived more than 100 years and they drank milk. Pop quiz, what is this relationship? It's just association. Some people who drink milk live longer than 100 years. It isn't even a positive correlation, which would take the form of evidence that lifespan increases with increases in milk consumption. Yet this simple assocation convinced this person of causation. Don't fall prey to the same error in thinking.
Which brings us to an additional point (don't worry, I'm only going to cover two of them) which is the idea that all of these relationships are assumed to be taken on average. The presence of exceptions at the association and correlation level doesn't necessarily invalidate the relationship though it may shoot some holes in causal relationships.
As an example, consider that higher IQ correlates with higher net worth. In other words, the smarter you are, the more wealth you accumulate. There may be rich idiots and broke geniuses, but ON AVERAGE there is a trend in the association between IQ and wealth that is greater than can be explained on the basis of chance alone.
Let's just hit that next point as well and be done with it, which is the idea of a confounding variable. Up till now our examples have only included two variables. It is quite possible to establish a false correlation via confouding variables. It is even possible to become convinced of causal relationships by ignoring confounding variables.
So just what is a confounding variable? Let's imagine that we have a theory that drinking in night clubs causes lung cancer. So we create a poll of 10,000 people and we ask them these two questions: 1) Do you frequently have drinks in a nightclub? 2) Do you have lung cancer?
Now let's imagine that 5000 people say they DO have drinks in a nightclub and of those 5000, 500 of them have lung cancer. Of the other 5000 people who said they DO NOT have drinks in a nightclub, 100 of them say they have lung cancer.
The math is simple. 500/5000 people who drink in nightclubs have lung cancer and 100/5000 people who don't drink in nightclubs have lung cancer. The next step is a headline on a newspaper or magazine which reads "Nightclub drinking makes you five times more likely to get lung cancer."
That's where those bizarre headlines come from, but it doesn't necessarily mean that because of two things. First, this is a correlation based on observation, it does not prove causation. Second, there might be confounding variables. It might be that if we added a third question to our poll, "Do you smoke cigarettes?", then we might find that what we thought was a correlation between nightclub drinking and lung cancer is really a correlation between nightclub drinking and smoking, and it is the smoking that correlates to the lung cancer.
So it's time for your graduation from ACCU. I'll deliver the commencement speech. Here it is:
Go forth and use what you've learned to listen critically to the flow of B.S. that occurs in the media, in books, and in conversation. The next time you hear a headline that reads "Study shows that increased camel feces consumption lowers heart attack risk." find out if the study really showed causality or if it just observed a correlation. Read the actual text of the study and see if causality is demonstrated or if correlation was observed. Ask yourself what confounding variables the researchers might not have considered. And just in general, don't be a dolt.
Throw your little square hat thingy in the air now and you don't have to come to class any longer.
That's it.
The Association Correlation Causation University was founded a few minutes ago when I decided to compose this post. In that short period of time, we've educated no one. But we have high hopes for the future. VERY high hopes.
I hope that once you earn your degree at ACCU you will recommend it to your friends. Now let's get started:
First please notice that the name, ACCU, is the same as the first four letters in "accurate". That's a complete accident, and I just noticed it myself so I thought I'd point it out. But it does bring us to the "A" in ACCU, which stands for Assocation.
Assocation is the state of being associated. Not too helpful, but it's a start. Associate means to join or connect together. So to say two things are associated says they are connected somehow. It doesn't say anything more or less.
Let's look at an example: Drinking water is associated with living. In other words, there is a connection between drinking water and living. But only a connection. To say they are associated doesn't imply that more water makes anyone live longer. Nor does it say less water will make someone live longer. In fact, drinking water is also associated with dying. Most people who die have at some point had a drink of water. Not all, but most, so it's fair to say they're associated. Again, just association.
Now if you start noticing trends in your associations then you might have a Correlation. Correlation is a step beyond association. Merriam Webster said it beautifully:
"a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone."
You're only seeking a Bachelor's Degree at ACCU, so let's keep it simple. If one thing correlates to another, it means they vary positively or negatively with each other. As one increases, the other increases is a positive correlation. A negative correlation means one goes up the other down, etc. An interesting example is the presence of fire trucks and fires. There is a strong positive correlation between fire trucks and fire damage. The more fire trucks present at a fire scene, the more damage done at a fire scene.
Now, this is an accurate correlation. The two things vary positively with each other. But are the fire trucks causing the fires? No! Notice that a correlation only shows that two things vary together in a way "not expected on the basis of chance alone." Correlation does not show Causation.
Oops, it appears we're nearing the end of our curriculum, because that's the final C in ACCU! Causation is the act or process of causing. It's important to realize, as the example shows, that two things which correlate may or may not indicate causation. It is a common mistake prior to attending ACCU to naively accept causation when all that has been observied is correlation. In some cases, even simple assocation is enough to convince some people of causation.
I once had a friend who said that milk couldn't be bad for you because there were people who lived more than 100 years and they drank milk. Pop quiz, what is this relationship? It's just association. Some people who drink milk live longer than 100 years. It isn't even a positive correlation, which would take the form of evidence that lifespan increases with increases in milk consumption. Yet this simple assocation convinced this person of causation. Don't fall prey to the same error in thinking.
Which brings us to an additional point (don't worry, I'm only going to cover two of them) which is the idea that all of these relationships are assumed to be taken on average. The presence of exceptions at the association and correlation level doesn't necessarily invalidate the relationship though it may shoot some holes in causal relationships.
As an example, consider that higher IQ correlates with higher net worth. In other words, the smarter you are, the more wealth you accumulate. There may be rich idiots and broke geniuses, but ON AVERAGE there is a trend in the association between IQ and wealth that is greater than can be explained on the basis of chance alone.
Let's just hit that next point as well and be done with it, which is the idea of a confounding variable. Up till now our examples have only included two variables. It is quite possible to establish a false correlation via confouding variables. It is even possible to become convinced of causal relationships by ignoring confounding variables.
So just what is a confounding variable? Let's imagine that we have a theory that drinking in night clubs causes lung cancer. So we create a poll of 10,000 people and we ask them these two questions: 1) Do you frequently have drinks in a nightclub? 2) Do you have lung cancer?
Now let's imagine that 5000 people say they DO have drinks in a nightclub and of those 5000, 500 of them have lung cancer. Of the other 5000 people who said they DO NOT have drinks in a nightclub, 100 of them say they have lung cancer.
The math is simple. 500/5000 people who drink in nightclubs have lung cancer and 100/5000 people who don't drink in nightclubs have lung cancer. The next step is a headline on a newspaper or magazine which reads "Nightclub drinking makes you five times more likely to get lung cancer."
That's where those bizarre headlines come from, but it doesn't necessarily mean that because of two things. First, this is a correlation based on observation, it does not prove causation. Second, there might be confounding variables. It might be that if we added a third question to our poll, "Do you smoke cigarettes?", then we might find that what we thought was a correlation between nightclub drinking and lung cancer is really a correlation between nightclub drinking and smoking, and it is the smoking that correlates to the lung cancer.
So it's time for your graduation from ACCU. I'll deliver the commencement speech. Here it is:
Go forth and use what you've learned to listen critically to the flow of B.S. that occurs in the media, in books, and in conversation. The next time you hear a headline that reads "Study shows that increased camel feces consumption lowers heart attack risk." find out if the study really showed causality or if it just observed a correlation. Read the actual text of the study and see if causality is demonstrated or if correlation was observed. Ask yourself what confounding variables the researchers might not have considered. And just in general, don't be a dolt.
Throw your little square hat thingy in the air now and you don't have to come to class any longer.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Sayings I hate, Part 2
"Isn't that a little obsessive?"
To be more accurate, I hate that phrase when it is the response to my statement that I don't consume grains.
To be fair, for a while I wondered if these people were onto something. Maybe life would be simpler if I didn't hold such high standards for doing what I was convinced was best. I tried it for a couple of weeks and they turned out to be the most expensive weeks of my life:
First, I got tired of filling the tank for my exotic saltwater fish* with fresh water that had been dechlorinated and purified. In fact, it was much easier to just fill the tank with leftover bottles of Diet Coke** that I had quit drinking. I figured it was a good way to use them up and not let them go to waste. Imagine my horror when all my tropical fish died in a bath of carbonated water and Aspartame! Dangit!
So I decided I'd jump in my big yellow truck to go get some fish to replace the dead ones, but the truck was almost out of gas. I was in a hurry so I just filled it up with water from the hose by the driveway. I only made it to the end of the alley before the truck quit running and wouldn't start!
All those years of being obsessive about putting only gasoline in my truck might have been the best plan after all, but I didn't want to stop my experiment too early. I pushed the truck back to the house planning to have it towed to the dealer to have the tank drained and lines flushed to get it back in working order. By the time I got home though, I was incredibly sore from pushing (it's a big truck) so I decided to take a few Advil*** for my sore muscles.
I opened our medicine cabinet but couldn't find the Advil anywhere! Assuming my wife must have taken them, I looked at what else might be available. I certainly wasn't going to be obsessive about finding a particular drug! Finally, I just took a few swigs of children's cough syrup, a couple of old antibiotics that someone hadn't finished, and a few of Aerial's (my Portugese Water Dog) hormone pills.
When I woke back up 3 days later I reconsidered how the little details count.
Fact is, exotic saltwater fish don't live long on diet coke. My truck won't run on water...or diesel...or propane. It runs well on 89 or higher octane unleaded gasoline.
Interestingly enough, my body runs MUCH better without grains. The effects aren't as acute or immediate as they are when I try to use water in place of gasoline, but they exist. And I have a basis for thinking that this is the case that is not only based on science, but also confirmed by experience.
Yet the same people who would tell me I'm obsessive for not eating grains would tell me I'm an idiot for putting water in my gas tank. So, just like I did on my last "Sayings I hate" I'm going to translate this idiotic saying: "I don't want to investigate the details to see if your choice has validity, especially since I would be faced with what I consider a difficult choice if I come to the same realization as you. Instead I will avoid awareness of my own ignorance by insulting your knowledge-based choice."
There you have it.
*I don't really own exotic fish.
**I don't drink diet coke...well, maybe 2 or 3 a year when the mood strikes me.
***I don't take Advil if I'm sore. I either rest, stretch, or workout more.
To be more accurate, I hate that phrase when it is the response to my statement that I don't consume grains.
To be fair, for a while I wondered if these people were onto something. Maybe life would be simpler if I didn't hold such high standards for doing what I was convinced was best. I tried it for a couple of weeks and they turned out to be the most expensive weeks of my life:
First, I got tired of filling the tank for my exotic saltwater fish* with fresh water that had been dechlorinated and purified. In fact, it was much easier to just fill the tank with leftover bottles of Diet Coke** that I had quit drinking. I figured it was a good way to use them up and not let them go to waste. Imagine my horror when all my tropical fish died in a bath of carbonated water and Aspartame! Dangit!
So I decided I'd jump in my big yellow truck to go get some fish to replace the dead ones, but the truck was almost out of gas. I was in a hurry so I just filled it up with water from the hose by the driveway. I only made it to the end of the alley before the truck quit running and wouldn't start!
All those years of being obsessive about putting only gasoline in my truck might have been the best plan after all, but I didn't want to stop my experiment too early. I pushed the truck back to the house planning to have it towed to the dealer to have the tank drained and lines flushed to get it back in working order. By the time I got home though, I was incredibly sore from pushing (it's a big truck) so I decided to take a few Advil*** for my sore muscles.
I opened our medicine cabinet but couldn't find the Advil anywhere! Assuming my wife must have taken them, I looked at what else might be available. I certainly wasn't going to be obsessive about finding a particular drug! Finally, I just took a few swigs of children's cough syrup, a couple of old antibiotics that someone hadn't finished, and a few of Aerial's (my Portugese Water Dog) hormone pills.
When I woke back up 3 days later I reconsidered how the little details count.
Fact is, exotic saltwater fish don't live long on diet coke. My truck won't run on water...or diesel...or propane. It runs well on 89 or higher octane unleaded gasoline.
Interestingly enough, my body runs MUCH better without grains. The effects aren't as acute or immediate as they are when I try to use water in place of gasoline, but they exist. And I have a basis for thinking that this is the case that is not only based on science, but also confirmed by experience.
Yet the same people who would tell me I'm obsessive for not eating grains would tell me I'm an idiot for putting water in my gas tank. So, just like I did on my last "Sayings I hate" I'm going to translate this idiotic saying: "I don't want to investigate the details to see if your choice has validity, especially since I would be faced with what I consider a difficult choice if I come to the same realization as you. Instead I will avoid awareness of my own ignorance by insulting your knowledge-based choice."
There you have it.
*I don't really own exotic fish.
**I don't drink diet coke...well, maybe 2 or 3 a year when the mood strikes me.
***I don't take Advil if I'm sore. I either rest, stretch, or workout more.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why your low-fat, vegetarian diet is really a high animal fat diet
What? How does that even make sense, right? I also considered another title:
"Why your low-fat vegetarian diet works..for a while"
or
"Why any successful weight loss diet is an animal fat diet"
Figured it out yet? Let's have some fun with numbers and you'll see what I mean. Take for example a typical adult male who needs about 2000 calories a day to exist. Let's assume he's overweight and The China Study (thorougly debunked here) finally convinced him to start 'eating healthy' and become a vegetarian.
So our example new vegetarian starts chowing on broccoli, brussel sprouts, and spinach and just in general eating like a goofball. Without being smeared or cooked in butter, that stuff all tastes like crap. Trust me, I tried it years ago. Eating steamed broccoli without butter (and preferably Kerry Gold at that!) is not too yummy.
As a result, he manages to squeeze in 800-1000 calories a day and the weight starts coming off. In fact he loses about 2 pounds a week! Success! And after a bit of adjustment he claims to feel great and have more energy. How can that be?
Simple: He's getting about half his calories from animal fat! Still haven't figured it out? IT IS HIS ANIMAL FAT! That's right, if he needs 2000 calories to cover his energy expenditure and he only gets 1000 from his veggies, the other 1000 has to come from somewhere. It comes from his fat stores (and some from breaking down muscle as well) and that means he's getting 50% of his calories from animal fat.
But ask ANY new vegetarian how they feel, and they will tell you they feel fantastic. Well of course they do, they're finally getting adequate amounts of saturated fat. Now that works for a while, but then what happens when they lose the weight and their body starts becoming increasingly insulin resistant from the constant exposure to carbs as the only source of food and fuel?
Well, for that you can just ask Lierre Keith. Or read her book, which you can read more about on her website. In a nutshell, if you don't give your body what it needs for long enough, your body won't work well. Seems to make sense.
So what to eat? Well, the new vegetarians who claim to feel great and lose weight aren't lying. So instead of getting a high animal fat diet from your own fat, buy some tasty animal and eat it's fat instead. Some avocado and some coconut oil wouldn't hurt either, but make the source of your fat healthy saturated fat, preferably from grass fed beef or other natural sources.
Start getting 5-20% of your calories from plants, preferably slowly absorbed veggies. Get 15-25% of your calories from protein. Finally, get 55-75% of your calories from good fats. 'Good' means that the vast majority of it will come from animal fat.
Take the vegetarian's brussel sprouts, steam them, slather them in butter, and eat 3 or 4 along with a pound of grass fed beef. Sounds like a lunch I could be okay with.
"Why your low-fat vegetarian diet works..for a while"
or
"Why any successful weight loss diet is an animal fat diet"
Figured it out yet? Let's have some fun with numbers and you'll see what I mean. Take for example a typical adult male who needs about 2000 calories a day to exist. Let's assume he's overweight and The China Study (thorougly debunked here) finally convinced him to start 'eating healthy' and become a vegetarian.
So our example new vegetarian starts chowing on broccoli, brussel sprouts, and spinach and just in general eating like a goofball. Without being smeared or cooked in butter, that stuff all tastes like crap. Trust me, I tried it years ago. Eating steamed broccoli without butter (and preferably Kerry Gold at that!) is not too yummy.
As a result, he manages to squeeze in 800-1000 calories a day and the weight starts coming off. In fact he loses about 2 pounds a week! Success! And after a bit of adjustment he claims to feel great and have more energy. How can that be?
Simple: He's getting about half his calories from animal fat! Still haven't figured it out? IT IS HIS ANIMAL FAT! That's right, if he needs 2000 calories to cover his energy expenditure and he only gets 1000 from his veggies, the other 1000 has to come from somewhere. It comes from his fat stores (and some from breaking down muscle as well) and that means he's getting 50% of his calories from animal fat.
But ask ANY new vegetarian how they feel, and they will tell you they feel fantastic. Well of course they do, they're finally getting adequate amounts of saturated fat. Now that works for a while, but then what happens when they lose the weight and their body starts becoming increasingly insulin resistant from the constant exposure to carbs as the only source of food and fuel?
Well, for that you can just ask Lierre Keith. Or read her book, which you can read more about on her website. In a nutshell, if you don't give your body what it needs for long enough, your body won't work well. Seems to make sense.
So what to eat? Well, the new vegetarians who claim to feel great and lose weight aren't lying. So instead of getting a high animal fat diet from your own fat, buy some tasty animal and eat it's fat instead. Some avocado and some coconut oil wouldn't hurt either, but make the source of your fat healthy saturated fat, preferably from grass fed beef or other natural sources.
Start getting 5-20% of your calories from plants, preferably slowly absorbed veggies. Get 15-25% of your calories from protein. Finally, get 55-75% of your calories from good fats. 'Good' means that the vast majority of it will come from animal fat.
Take the vegetarian's brussel sprouts, steam them, slather them in butter, and eat 3 or 4 along with a pound of grass fed beef. Sounds like a lunch I could be okay with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)