Matt Metzgar

Hope

The little league post triggered thoughts about another subject for me: hope.  When I lived in Canton, Ohio, I was always surprised at the emotion invested in neighboring Massillon's high school football team.  Massillon has won a number of championships, but it has been quite a while since their last one.  Every year before the season started, you could sense the optimism in the town growing, and also the sense that, "this could be the year".

What was the big deal, I wondered?  They had won championships before, and will probably win again (they almost did last year).  But even if they did win, would anything in the town change?  Would the lives of the fans be that different?

I've thought about this a great deal, and I believe that hope is a value unto itself, regardless of whether the outcome one is hoping for ever comes true.  To say it differently, I think being hopeful facilitates an optimistic outlook on things, and this outlook yields benefits in life.

For example, why did Boston Red Sox fans stick with their team through decades of failure until they finally won the World Series?  I would argue that the Red Sox provided them an opportunity to exhibit optimism.  It almost seems like things would have been better if the Red Sox didn't win.  If you've been waiting your whole life for the Red Sox to win, and then they finally do, then what do you have to look forward to? 

Further, why do many people cheer for underdogs?  If people only looked at things statistically, they would cheer the favorite.  Underdogs win less often, but when they do win it's sweeter.  And along the way, fans of underdogs have had an outlet for their optimism.  It would be neat to test this and see if optimists are more likely to cheer for underdogs than pessimists.

I also think of the old movie, "Midnight Cowboy", starring Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight.  Dustin Hoffman plays a character "Ratso" Rizzo, who dreams of moving to Florida and finding happiness.  This dream drives him throughout the movie, but "Ratso" dies at the end of the movie riding the bus to Florida. 

Yet whether the character made it to Florida or not seems inconsequential.  The seemingly unattainable dream gave Rizzo a purpose, something to hope for.  Just like the Massillon Tigers give their community something to hope for each fall. 

So what about people who buy exercise devices but then never use them?  Was it a wasteful decision?  Perhaps in some ways, but I would argue that this action has other indirect benefits: they chose to be hopeful, they took action, and this series of events most likely put them in a good mood.  The person is in effect "exercising" hope and optimism, thereby strengthening their psychological resources for the future.

If all this is true, maybe little leaguers dreaming of the big leagues isn't all bad.  They are learning to dream big and be optimistic, and that in itself has tremendous value.

Little League Roundup

A reader sent me a quality response to my previous little league post.  The reader said that most parents do not have illusions about their child making the big leagues, and that parents often view sports as an investment of sorts.  If a child gets hooked on a sport, they have an outlet for their energy, they will learn teamwork and other goals, etc.  The reader also said that the money flowing into youth sports is because of its importance and value.

Fair enough, all this seems reasonable to me.  Perhaps my assessment of little league was too harsh.  One other thing I thought of is that youth sports may function as a way to bring all the parents together, and hence build a stronger community.

I still would like to see little league sports be a low-budget affair, however.  It just seems to lend itself better to that.  I think too much money takes away the innocence of the game.  Going the low-budget route lets kids be kids in my opinion.  Amateur means "love", as in love of the game, and I think that should be the focus, not the equipment and uniforms.

Little League Terror

The area I live in here in Vegas seems to be big on youth sports.  In fact, the city of Henderson was just voted the "Top Youth Sports Town in Nevada" by ESPN.  I end up walking by various nearby sports complexes, and I really don't like what I see.

For one, I don't see what the big deal is.  Here's what's really happening: a bunch of little kids are hitting a ball around.  Yet the amount of attention that adults are putting on this is enormous, and really it's too much.  Yes, I understand that parents want to see their kids do well, that sports teaches lessons, etc.  But the amount of attention put on this suggests to me that something else is also implicity involved: some parents' erroneous belief that if kids practice hard they can make it big (i.e. to the professional level).

What else could explain the money put into youth sports - the new uniforms, the new equipment, the upkeep of the field?  And what else could explain the intensity of some parents - parents getting into fights with umpires, yelling at their kids, etc.?

When I walk by the local tennis complex, I often see the same father and son practicing on the tennis court.  The father seems to be barking out orders and drilling the son the whole time, "bend your knees, move your feet," etc.  From my view, the son doesn't seem to be enjoying himself too much.  Is this child going to be the next Pete Sampras?  If so, the signs would probably be there already, and the drill seargent father won't really increase the odds of this kid making it.

When I played youth sports, it was really just "no big deal".  I don't remember my parents coming to many of my soccer games, and frankly, I probably didn't want them there.  Why?  Because it really wasn't that important.  We were just a bunch of kids kicking around the ball and having fun.  Silly me, I must have thought that adults had better things to do than to watch child's play.  I remember one parent who was at every game, always screaming at his son.  We laughed at him, because it was just funny that this adult took it so seriously.

Let's be honest: if a child truly has that one-in-a-million level of athletic talent, with just a little bit of guidance and opportunity, they will make it.  Sammy Sosa grew up in the Dominican Republic where they didn't even have baseball equipment, yet he comes to America and hits 500 plus home runs in the major leagues.  Lebron James grew up in a housing project in Akron, and yet was drafted into the NBA at age 18.  I'm sure some of Lebron's cohorts were also practicing hard and trying to make it out through sports.  Yet he's the only whose "Hoop Dreams" came true because of his immense talent.

So given that the chance of making it to the "big leagues" is governed almost exclusively by talent, are youth sports really that important?  For the kids, it's probably important as they want to make.  For the parents, I can't see what the big deal is.

Culture and its Effects

I went to a party last night for a co-worker who is of Indian descent.  The event was at a ritzy estate belonging to a doctor cousin of his.  Upon arriving I thought, isn't it amazing how financially successful many Indian immigrants are?

All this got me to thinking about how different immigrant cultures have fared in the United States.  On one hand, you have the Indian culture which has produced many successful doctors, businessmen, etc.  If you go to the doctor's office, and the physician you see is Indian, this usually isn't a surprise to anyone.

On the other hand, you have the African-American culture, which was brought into the U.S. under the worst conditions, and hasn't fared too well.  I took a minute to think: have I ever met an African-American doctor, laywer, or even a dentist?  No, I don't think I have.  I'm sure they are out there, but the numbers must be so small that a lot of people don't end up meeting them.

This seems like such a travesty to me, that a group like African-Americans that makes up a large chunk of the population is so under-represented in the higher professions.  Instead, the dominant role models in African-American culture seem to be the "lottery" careers - professional sports and music.  These are inappropriate role models for youth for two main reasons: 1) both careers depend on inborn talent, and 2) only the handful at the very top are financially successful.

This first point has really been bugging me lately, because I think it distorts a lot of people's ambitions.  Being a professional athlete (or musician) depends largely on talent - you can't just "practice hard" and become an NFL player.  You see evidence of this to an extreme when the Heisman Trophy winner in college doesn't even get drafted into the NFL.  Why?  Because he doesn't have the physical gifts, not because he didn't work hard.

I feel it's a disservice to youth to not give them realistic expectations and appropriate role models, and this is where the African-American culture has failed miserably.  For African-American youth, maybe one in a million (or less) makes it as a professional athlete or entertainer.  So what happens to the rest of them?  As I said above, they don't seem to be turning into doctors or lawyers.

Young African-Americans would be better served by having role models in careers where hard work can lead to success, like the Indian culture does.  Anyone with average intelligence can bust their tail and become financially successful in America, as the Indians have shown.  Many immigrants come to the U.S. with nothing, yet by the end of their life become financially successful and pave an even better path for their kids.  I truly hope the African-American culture changes its ways starts providing prudent role models for its youth.

Positive Technology

I have been sucked into Andrea Gaggioli's Positive Technology Journal over at his website.  I had no idea about all the technology that is out there and coming soon.  It makes me feel like I've been living in the dark ages.

Computers on your wrist?  Cellphones that express emotion?  Virtual reality to cure phobias?  It's all here or in the pipeline.  It seems the technology pioneers are more and more creating our future.

Chaos and Creation

I had to put in a review for Paul McCartney's latest CD, "Chaos and Creation".  The album was nominated for "Album of the Year" at this year's Grammy Awards, and I just picked it up last week.

All I can say is that this album is off the charts.  I'm a Beatles fan, so maybe I'm biased, but this is the best album I've heard in years.  To be able to keep producing this level of work now that McCartney is in his 60s is just amazing.

Some albums you listen to and you immediately know they're special.  I remember listening to Alanis Morisette's "Jagged Little Pill" when it came out years ago, and just saying, "wow, this is it!"  The album went on to win multiple Grammys which was no surprise to me.

Here's to Paul McCartney and hopefully many more great albums to come.

Sunshine and Cancer

A thoughtful reader, Charles Dewitt, tipped me off on a subject he's been researching: the relationship between sunlight and cancer.  It's a given that our Stone Age ancestors spent much more time in the sun that we did, and that genetically, our bodies "expect" daily sunlight exposure.

Some research last year showed that sunshine is indeed a necessary ingredient for good health.  One part of the article that jumped out for me is cancer rates in the Northeastern United States, where people get less sunlight, are higher than in areas where people get sunb year-round.  This makes me glad I left Ohio!

Another cautionary note is that Vitamin D gets trapped in fat, so that obese people have lower levels of Vitamin D, and hence, higher rates of cancer.  This is just one more of the thousands of reasons to stay in shape.

And what about wearing sunblock?  Other research shows that sunblock "is no protection against cancer."  This is because it can stop burning, but not effectively filter out the harmful UVA rays.  In sum, it makes sense to regulate sunshine the natural way - get as much as you can without getting burnt. 

I Think I Can

I got a laugh out of this story I read the other day.  On the PGA Tour this last weekend, Luke Donald won the Honda Classic.  Apparently, this has made him semi-delusional as he now has his sites set on World No. 1 Tiger Woods.

A little perspective on these two players make this story humorous.  Tiger Woods is 30 years old, has 48 PGA Tour victories, including 10 major titles.  Luke Donald is 28 years old and now has 3 PGA Tour victories - none of which were majors.  In fact, one win came when the final round got washed out, another win wasn't even an official PGA event, and his win at the Honda Classic was against a weak field.

But one shouldn't let reality get in the way of things.  In fact, Donald states that "surely I can be the best player in the world".  How does he intend to do this?  Not through hard work; Donald states, "I don't think I need to practice that much harder".  Instead, he feels that he has to "start believing you're the best player in the world".

Attitude does have an impact on performance, but how can you "think" your way to success without putting in the work (or having the talent)?  I love reading that other golfers choke or fold and "give" Tiger Woods some victories.  This may be true in a few cases, but it ignores the obvious: Tiger Woods is better than everyone else at golf.  It doesn't matter if other people play good or bad, Tiger still manages to win.  For example, Luke Donald has won three times in his career; Tiger has already won three times this season.

Why do people have trouble admitting that someone wins for the simplest reason: that they're better?  Maybe it's anti-American to do so, I don't know.  You can work and improve your performance, but you can always come up against someone who is just plain better than you.  There's no shame in this - someone either has put in more work, has more talent, or both.

We can always get better at things, but we can't all be the best.  And that's okay, because "the best" isn't the right measuring stick for success anyways. 

SuperSlow

A reader asked if my recent post about TIme Under Tension was related to SuperSlow.  SuperSlow is a weight-lifting technique where the weight is lifted slowly (10 seconds up and 10 seconds down, or a variant of this).  I have experimented with SuperSlow in the past, even going to visit Doug McGuff at his Ultimate Exercise gym in South Carolina. 

I did SuperSlow workouts for a number of months, but they weren't really my cup of tea.  For one thing, it was pretty damn painful.  That might be okay if the technique caused me to sprout Popeye muscles, but it only gave me typical results.   

The other big drawback is that the technique really has no physical historical precedent; in other words, when do you really lift something that slow in real life?  The answer: you don't.  If you're picking up a heavy box or a sofa, you just try to lift it up at a normal speed - about one second.  You might lower it a bit slower just to be careful.  This cadence is what I use when I lift weights: about one second up, two seconds down.

The research studies show that SuperSlow is comparable to normal speed weight training as far as results.  Yet I worry that SuperSlow could also jack your blood pressure up too high.  When you're moving slowly and never taking the strain off the muscle, the body never has a chance to relax.  This is all speculation, as I do not believe there are any studies showing these negative effects of SuperSlow. 

When in doubt, and when there is not enough available research on a subject, it is often best to go back to our Stone Age roots, and follow the same guidelines.  Our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't lift anything super slowly, and it doesn't appear that we should either.

Who Needs Lunch?

Though lunch is standard fare in modern society, it was not so for our prehistoric ancestors.  In Loren Cordain's latest Paleo Diet newsletter, he mentions that for hunter-gatherers, "lunch was rarely or never consumed".   

To this end, I have been experimenting with skipping lunch several days each week.  Whereas I used to always each lunch seven days a week, now I eat lunch only about three days a week.  I eat lunch on days when I'm feeling hungry, and just skip it the rest of the time.

After making the change, I've learned that in the past I may have been eating lunch out of habit, not because I was actually hungry.  I've also noticed how tired some of my co-workers are after coming back from eating big lunches.  A lot of times it seems my energy  levels are higher when I skip lunch than compared to when I eat it.

I could go all the way and just never eat lunch, but I think the way you've eaten your whole life programs your body to some degree.   I've been consistently eating lunch for decades now, so I think my body "expects" it to some degree.  Maybe over time I will phase out lunch, but for now a gradual change seems wiser.  Hopefully this change will yield some positive health benefits.