Matt Metzgar

Nevada and Education

After living in Nevada for a while, I have acquired a greater feel for the people and the culture.  One thing that jumps out at me is the underlying lack of education that exists for many of the residents.  Mostly, I see the results of this when I drive to work and witness a bizarre collection of vehicles: "monster" trucks, trucks on hydraulics, SUVs on hydraulics, and souped-up Japanese imports.  Originally, I thought this might be a West Coast thing, but after taking a few trips to California, I've found this is not true.  California has normal cars, Nevada doesn't.

The number of pickup trucks here in Nevada is astounding; and strangely enough, 90% of them are never carrying anything.  This might be the only big city I've been in where trucks outnumber cars.  There seems to be an eternal contest here of who can have the biggest truck (hence, the hydraulics).  I asked an acquaintance why there are so many trucks here, and he responded that "it's just the style". 

The main function of these monster trucks seems to be intimidation, and this is what highlights the underlying lack of education.  The uneducated, who are fairly powerless in modern society, often turn to aggression and intimidation to try and get their way.  Normal, successful people aren't driving monster trucks and trying to run people off the road.  In fact, recent research connects the lack of a mother's education with violence and aggression in male children.

I wanted to confirm my hypothesis about Nevada's lack of education, so I did some research.  Sure enough, Nevada ranks near the bottom as the 47th "smartest state" in the U.S.  Only New Mexico, Mississippi, and Arizona are ranked lower than Nevada.   Even my home state of West Virginia, which doesn't have the greatest reputation, is ranked higher at 34th. 

I'm not sure how Nevada ended up this way or if anyone is interested in changing it.  One obstacle in the way of any potential change is this: Nevada is Las Vegas, and Las Vegas is all about casinos.  Over 70% of the Nevada's jobs and tax dollars come from Las Vegas, and in Las Vegas, the casinos are king.  Do the casinos really care if the residents and workforce of Las Vegas become more educated?  I doubt it. 

The hospitality industry and the construction industry combine to make up over half of all the jobs in Las Vegas.  And how much education do you need for either of these industries?  Not much.  What the casinos want are more tourists, not more residents or better educated residents.  As long as the casinos are sending billions in tax revenue to the state, their voice will be heard.  Hence, I don't think the lack of education in Nevada, and all the problems associated with it, will be disappearing anytime soon.

Breastfeeding and Diabetes

Breastfeeding is a subject that I wish would receive more study.  All Stone Age babies were breastfed, and also were most likely breastfed for several years.  Breastfeeding has been around for millions of years, and it is a part of our evolutionary heritage.

When traditional practices get displaced by modern substitutes there can be many secondary, unknown consequences.  For example, baby food is often used in place of breastfeeding.  The switch seems simple - the baby still gets food, and the burden is reduced on the mother.

However, such an action can have many unwarranted consequences.  In an earlier post, I mentioned how breastfeeding can protect children against myopia.  Now a new study shows how breastfeeding may help reduce the risk of diabetes for the mother.  The article also mentions how other studies have shown that breastfeeding may reduce the risk of breast cancer for the mother as well.

Tinkiering with physical practices that have worked for millions of years is risky business.  Modern science is just beginning to embrace the evolutionary framework for health, and no one can know all the consequences of straying from this framework.  For now, the safest bet is to follow the lead of our Stone Age ancestors as best we can.

Energy Flux and Heart Disease

Energy flux describes the level of calorie intake and calorie expenditure for a person.  If a person eats little and exercises little, they have a low energy flux.  If they eat a lot and exercise a lot, they have a high energy flux. 

To put it simply, the human body is made for a high energy flux.  Hunter-gatherers exercised a lot obtaining food, and also ate a great deal when the opportunity came about.  If you operate at a low energy flux, you are sending the wrong signals to your body.  From an evolutionary standpoint, a low energy flux of diminished eating and little activity sends the message that 1) exisiting food is low, and 2) opportunities for new food sources are not good (or you would be out "exercising" after them).  This is not the recipe for fat loss; instead the body will interpret these signals as potential starvation.

A new study highlights these concepts in relation to heart disease.  “The fact is that those who both exercised more and ate more nevertheless had low cardiovascular mortality,” said the study's lead author.  The press release also mentions that those who eat less won’t necessarily be thinner, and how eating more does not have to translate into obesity.

Eating less is not the right way to lose weight or improve health.  Operating at a high energy flux is what our Stone Age bodies are built for.

Counting Calories

Years ago, when I bought into the diet myth, I tried counting calories for a little while.  It had its value, as I found out how calorie-dense some foods were (like fast food).  This practice didn't last long, as it became too cumbersome to keep track of everything.  Also, it was very difficult to determine how many calories I was expending each day.

Now new research shows that those who eat "intuitively" are better at managing their weight than those counting calories.  The study highlights people's relationship with food, how food should be thought of as a necessary, nurturing substance rather than something to be avoided or maligned.

In a nutshell, intuitive eaters try to make good food choices and eat until they're full, whether there is food left or not.  This is the method I have abided by for years.  I don't count calories, and I have no idea how much protein, fat, or carbohydrate I consume each day.  I just try to eat healthy foods (that is, Stone Age foods), and then focus on exercise for controlling body composition.

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving is such a great time to spend time with family, feast, and watch some football.  Here's hoping everyone has a great day! 

Success/Failure

I read a book this weekend, "The Art of Possibility", that really changed my view on some things.  A lot of it is connected to my previous post on the undersampling of failure.  One of the main themes of the book is how the whole viewpoint of success/failure is inappropiate in a lot of cases. 

The book illustrates how life is a process and how focusing on individual events as successes or failures is often unnecessary.  For example, let's say a musician releases a number of songs over the years, some top hits and some bombs.  These individual songs can be viewed as successes or failures, but these labels miss the whole point: the musician is growing and trying new things, and the various songs are just part of the process.  The top hits could not have come without the bombs, because it is this experimentation, this trial and error, that leads to new songs and outcomes.

This is where the media misses the boat.  The often paint the picture of successful people as walking down a golden path in life.  They do not point out the many missteps along the way.  And by doing this they designate failure as something to avoid, rather than a natural part of the growth process.  

For example, Pablo Picasso created more than 20,000 art objects in his lifetime.  What percentage of these creations were masterpieces?  Very few.  Yet these masterpieces would not have come about without his constant experimentation.  Wouldn't anyone produce a few gems if they made 20,000 pieces of art?

This reminds me of a research experiment I read about years ago (I've been unable to find the source).  Students signing up for an art class were divided into two sections.  One section had all semester long to produce one piece of art.  They were to be graded on this piece and it would be their only grade.  The other section was graded on quantity - how many pieces they produced.  At the end of the semester, the group who spent all semester on one piece were judged poorly, while the group that cranked out pieces actually produced better work. 

Again this shows that development is a process, and that success/failure labels are not always necessary.  Feedback is what is needed, not the stigma that comes with along with judgment. 

Further, stigmatizing success or failure often creates tension that restricts performance.  Everyone knows that "choking" is when someone tenses up when victory is near.  Yet one is less likely to choke if they focus on the process and not the outcome.

Failure and success are simply stops along the road of development and learning.  Viewing everything through this lense is not necessary and creates undue stress and pressure.

Undersampling of Failure

Can you learn to be successful by studying successful people?  Many people would say yes.  Yet some recent research by Jerker Denrell shows that studying success is only half of the equation.  Failure must also be studied, even though it is typically minimized and swept under the rug.

Denrell points out how some characteristics, such as risk-taking, may be present in both those who are successful and those who are not.  A risky move that turns out to be successful is regarded as "visionary", while a risk that doesn't pay off is considered "reckless".   

The media often focuses on people's success while barely acknowledging their failures along the way.  For example, Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, failed a number of times before he hit it big with MicroSolutions.  In one of his blog entries, he recounts his many mistakes and setbacks, such as trying to sell powdered milk and getting fired from a software company.  He points out that "no one really asks me" about these failures.  All they want to hear about is how he made millions (and how they can too).

Moving

Blogging has been a little slow this week because of a recent move.  We had a little less help this time, so we ended up doing most of the grunt work.  This has spurred us on to get rid of some useless items.  I have already made one trip to Goodwill, and will probably make another. 

Walking Speed

Simply put, walking is a great way to lose weight.  Yet some people try to overcomplicate things by walking at a very fast pace.  The most important element in a walking program is volume, not speed. 

Now new research shows that slower walking may be better for obese individuals than faster walking.  Subjects walking at a slower pace actually burned slightly more calories per mile than those walking at a faster pace.  The research also shows that slower walking may put less stress on joints.

When I take my daily walk, I just walk at a normal, moderate pace.  I do not believe that "racewalking" or very fast walking is good for the body.  Walking too quickly also dimishes the stress reduction benefits of walking.  If someone wants an intense workout, they should run or lift weights.  Let walking be what it it is: an enjoyable, low-intensity activity that can alleviate stress and help a person lose weight.

Power Positions

Commercial gyms are full of all kinds of machines - machines to work your back, arms, chest, abs, and down the line.  Over time, I have gravitated away from these machines and instead try to perform "natural" movements.  I primarily engage in whole-body free weight exercises, such as the deadlift, presses, and rows.

One of the biggest reasons to do this is injury prevention.  When you sit or lay or contort yourself to fit into a machine, your muscles are not in their natural positions.  Hence, your body applies more force to your joints and connective tissue, raising the chance of injury.

The best practice is to try to mimic movements that would naturally occur out "in the wild".  The deadlift is one of the simplest and most effective exercises there is.  You just squat down and lift the weight off the floor.  It's functional, and it involves muscles throughout the whole body.  Man (and woman) has been deadlifting for millions of years.  Yet at the commercial gym I go to, I've never seen anyone else deadlift but me.

Something else I've been working on is to put my body into "power positions".  That is, I imagine that I am performing a real, functional movement, as opposed to an artificial movement in a gym.  Let me explain.  For example, if you deadlift in a gym, you just lift the weight up and then set it down.  But if you were moving a weight in "real life", you would most likely pick it up and then do something else with it, such as carry it, pass it to someone else, or lift it up onto a ledge.  When you perform these movements in real life, you make sure your body stays in balance so you can move with the weight.  This is the feeling I strive for on lifting movements.  For deadlifts specifically, this means keeping the weight on the balls of my feet and keeping my hips over my feet.  Small changes such as this have made my lifts feel more athletic and given me greater body control.