Matt Metzgar

Slow Joggers

With spring in the air, I have seen a number of joggers hitting the streets in Vegas.  Unfortunately, I think the probability of these individuals getting in shape this way is very low.

Don't get me wrong, I've run lots of races and even a marathon.  But jogging, especially slow jogging, is not an easy way to get in shape.  There are a number of reasons why.  First, most people do not have good running form, which increases the likelihood of injury and therefore decreases the likelihood of any fitness progress.  Running is one of the few sports where people think no skill is necessary, that you just "lace up and run".  In a perfect world, this would be true.  Certainly, our Stone Age ancestors didn't take running classes.  But they had two significant advantages in developing running form: 1) they ran their whole lives, and 2) they ran barefoot.

The extent that running shoes destroy proper running form cannot be overstated.  In a previous post, I discussed wearing flat shoes for running, such as my personal favorite the Puma H Street.  These other ridiculous running shoes with massive heels make it almost impossible to run correctly.

Slow jogging also misses out on pushing the body into the high-intensity zone.  For example, studies have show that just adding sprints to a program of jogging rapidly increases fitness.  Slow jogging is a strange animal, because it is neither walking nor running.  Far better in my opinion is to have a "barbell aerobics strategy", as fitness author Clarence Bass calls it.  This means to doing lots of low-intensity work (walking), and a bit of high-intensity work (sprinting). 

Slow jogging doesn't yield many benefits and can often lead to injury.  There are better and easier ways to get in shape than "pounding the pavement."   

My Avatar

This video was created with some new software from Logitech.  It can take a live video feed of a person and convert it to a 3D avatar.  It may take the video a few seconds to load before it can play.  Hope you enjoy!

Distortionary Motives

After my last post on profit, I have also come to the conclusion that the profit motive has other negative consequences.  In Las Vegas, the most obvious example is the intertwining of gambling with most everything else.  While casinos draw people in with glitz and glamour, don't be fooled: their motive is to ruthlessly extract as much money as possible from you.

If you walk through a casino, you will notice that there is almost no open space.  There are no places to hang out, to relax and separate yourself from gambling.  You can go to the bar, but video gambling machines are built into all the bar counters.  There are no clocks, and there are usually no maps to show the way out.  To me, their message is clear: they want as much of your money as possible, regardless of what may benefit you.

Even if you don't go to the casinos in Vegas, you will be assaulted by video gambling machines: in the airport, at gas stations, even at the grocery store.  Does anyone even pretend that all of this is good for people?  Does having gambling machines at the grocery store enhance anyone's quality of life?  Please. 

Such are the problems when an industry ruled by the profit motive is allowed to run amuck in a city.  Some definitions may help clear things up: the purpose of a community is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its members.  Good businesses provide something of value to the community while, of course, making a profit if they are to stay in business.  Other businesses prey on human weakness or produce products that appear to be valuable, though they are really not.

Casinos fall into the latter category, yet, they are given prime importance here.  On the other hand, community is not.  Las Vegas has one of the lowest amounts of open space (like parks) per person out of the whole country.  Other things that would benefit the community have also been squeezed out because more public services means more taxes on the casino industry.  But hey, who needs good parks, schools, and medical services if they've got keno at the grocery store?

Profit and Value

Though I am trained as an economist, I have begun having some doubts lately a certain principle: that profit is a function of value.  For a long time, I have thought the two usually go together, except for the occassional con-artist who separates people from their money.  Standard economics says that when entrepreneurs create value, they will be rewarded by profit in our system.

Yet after thinking about the subject more, I believe it is likely that the two don't go together, and if they do interesect, it's by coincidence.  Let me give a few examples. 

The easiest domain to start is work.  Here in Las Vegas I have run into a number of people who are really producing nothing of value, yet are doing well financially.  This may be because customers perceive the product to have value, or they are getting work due to favoritism, or they are in an organization where they can do nothing but still receive a paycheck.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have dedicated teachers making very little money.  There's probably also an army of coaches who work with young people yet receive a paltry income for it.  There are plently of other examples of people doing valuable work but receiving low pay.

On the false value front, real estate is a prime example of an arena where a person can make money but literally produce nothing of value.  During 2004-2005, real estate investors were making a killing in Las Vegas because housing prices increased by 50%.  In many cases, people bought a property then flipped it a few months later for a profit.  But nothing about the property had changed: the house was the same as when it was originally bought.  No value was created.

As far as products sold, I also am seeing less and less of a tie between profit and value.  Look at all these bogus weight loss and exercise products out there.  Are they creating any value?  No.  But many of them are certainly profitable.  A big factor driving purchase decisions is the perception of value or the expectation that the product will be valuable.  But in the end, many goods fail to live up to this.  However, they are profitable and continue to be for years.

I thought about this when I was in the bookstore the other day.  All these books are fighting for readers' attention, claiming they are valuable.  But how many truly are?  Probably very few, but the rest all sell on the false hope that they will be of value to the person purchasing them.

Signs of the Apocalypse

Last week, USA Today featured a front-page article of the Life section on the development of "hyphy" music in the Bay Area.  Why this article deserved a cover spot I'm still trying to determine.

Apparently, hyphy music is music designed to make kids "go stupid" or "go bananas".  This can take the shape of riding with all the car doors open and the music blaring, or doing donuts in parking lots.  One of the hyphy hit songs features the refrain, "tell me where to go, go dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb."  Not only that, the originators of hyphy "really feel proud about what we're doing."

Okay, here's a question: what happens when it comes time for the "hyphy" listeners to get a job?  Who wants to hire a person who "goes dumb"? 

It needs to be said that a lot of these African-American "entrepreneurs" are really just preying on urban youth who have little guidance in life.  Here, they're selling junk records with no regards to the consequences.

Further, why did USA Today spotlight this group?  Shouldn't the media be promoting and publicizing the best of our culture, not the worst?  Surely, there are groups in the Bay Area trying to make a positive difference in the lives of urban youth.  I would much rather hear about them than these "hyphy" goons.

Worst Book of the Year Nominee

If you go in any Borders bookstore, you're bound to find a number of copies of the bestseller, "The Da Vinci Code."  It was probably only a matter of time, but some enterprising soul has co-opted the theme for weight loss, writing "The Diet Code: Revolutionary Weight Loss Secrets from Da Vinci and the Golden Ratio."

Apparently, the author has found a "secret mathematical formula" that will "boost metabolism and spark weight loss".  Translated into specifics, this formula recommends things like, "Eat bread - but not without fat or protein," and "use the Golden Ratio to balance fat, protein, and carbs."

Good God, how did something like this ever get published?  I should note that I've found the secret to weight loss as well: exercise.  Throw in a Stone Age diet and you'll also maximize your chances at internal health.  Now I just need some kind of hook.  Maybe I'll give a prize to the reader who comes up with the best (or worst) hook. 

Comfort Beliefs

I just couldn't resist it: the Tom Cruise interview with Diane Sawyer.  I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise or anything, but I couldn't help being sucked into this pop culture moment.  A bit like junk food for the mind, I was unable to turn off the tv.

The interview focused  on Scientology and its role in Tom's life.  Apparently, Tom Cruise has reached "level 7" in Scientology and can now cure people of things like tuberculosis, asthma, and arthritis.  He has converted his fiance Katie Holmes to Scientology, and their future child will be taught in some type of Scientology home-school setup.

I remember skimming through a Scientology book in a bookstore years ago.  In a nutshell, it made no sense.  As I dug deeper, I discovered that the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, started out as a science fiction writer.  At some point, he basically decided to make up his own religion and thus Scientology was born.

I'll just go ahead and say it: Scientology isn't true.  Stated like this it is only my opinion, but any scientific inquiry would prove this.  However, it's really not worth any scientist's time to disprove it, so it will linger on.    

Why does Tom Cruise (or anyone else) believe in such weird things?  I think it comes down to "comfort beliefs", that is, it provides a way for people to feel good about themselves and the world.  Whether the beliefs are true or not is irrelevant: the benefits come from believing.

Michael Shermer wrote a book on this topic, "Why People Believe Weird Things".  I haven't read it, but I have read other books and articles by him, so I assume the content is good.  Shermer is part of the Skeptic Society, a group that debunks all kinds of bogus claims.

I briefly followed the skeptic stuff years ago, but quickly lost interest.  The main reason: it wasn't very much fun.  Yes, there is no scientific evidence to show that people can move things with their minds, that people can predict the future, etc.  But isn't it sometimes fun to believe in things that may not be?  After all, why tell children about Santa Claus only to have the truth come out later?

For sure, I won't be going to see Tom Cruise if I ever have problems with asthma or arthritis.  But if his beliefs give him some measure of happiness, maybe there's no harm in it.  Beliefs can keep us going during times when reality doesn't seem too caring.  And let's face it: sometimes fantasy is better than reality.  The Easter Bunny hasn't visited my house in a couple of decades, but he sure seemed to make Easter more fun when he was here.

Meat and Cholesterol

One of my goals for this year was to lower my cholesterol.  The last two times I had it checked, it was around 200 total. 

Over the last month or so, I have made two dietary changes: 1) cutting out meat for lunch, and generally cutting out any lunch most days, and 2) just recently, I have tried to limit my total meat intake to three servings per week.

I am experimenting with a lower meat intake based on a few things I read.  First off, no one knows for sure what hunter-gatherers ate.  We do know that they ate "natural foods" - plant food and animal food.  But the balance between the two is uncertain.  A little history: for years, the best estimate was that hunter-gatherers obtained 65% of their calories from plant food and 35% from animal food.  Then, Loren Cordain ran some analyses a few years ago and found the reverse: 35% plant food and 65% animal food.

Could the ratio change as new evidence is found?  Sure.  For example, some researchers theorize that cooked tubers were a bigger part of the Stone Age diet than has been previously thought.  If this turns out to be true, it would shift the balance back towards plant foods and away from animal foods.

I just got the results of my cholesterol test back, and the total was 160, which is pretty good.  My "good" cholesterol (HDL) was 70, while my "bad" cholesterol was 90.  These numbers make the cut for modern health guidelines, but they are still not at Stone Age standards.  Loren Cordain has shown that LDL should be in the 50 to 70 range, like the hunter-gatherers.  So I will keep making some modifications to get my LDL down even lower. 

At least I can celebrate this small victory getting my cholesterol down to 160.  Even though some medical authorities feel that anything below 200 is normal, don't be fooled.  Total cholesterol around 200 is a recipe for health problems.  For example, this study shows that in a group with average total cholesterol of 195, there were problems with endothelial vasodilation (blood flow).   

Health authorities will continue to lower the acceptable range for cholesterol as more evidence becomes available.  Yet if you follow the logic of the Stone Age model for health, it already shows you what it should be: total cholesterol around or below 130, and LDL between 50 and 70.