Are Microwave Ovens Really Safe?

I have mixed feeling about using microwave ovens. Yes, they are easy and convenient, but they do alter what is put in them. This includes the containers that hold the objects inside them, when it is anything other than glass. The unknowns are still to be discovered, and being a grandfather has changed my viewpoint. I want to know more, but the data still is not there, or suppressed by the very people that sell us those very items (tobacco, BHT, BPA, high fructose corn syrup, yellow #5, trans fats, aspartame, MSG, cyclamate, olestra, saccharin, nitrates and nitrites, etc. The list goes on.). In many cases, years, and even decades will pass before the truth comes out about things we felt were safe.

Educate yourself. Make it your business to know what is safe and what is hype. I make no claim to know, but my own education will continue until it is replaced with certainty.

To learn more about microwave oven radiation, go here.

"To Nuke or Not to Nuke"

By Mark Sisson on 06/25/2009

 

The verb itself suggests the unleashing of atomic destruction, but we wondered, “Is there a grain of truth behind the slang?” What’s the real story behind these boxes of convenience sitting in so many of our kitchens? Are microwaves a benign bastion of modern handiness or, as some claim, a sinister contributor to our physiological (at least nutritional) undoing?

It’s likely that we find ourselves in a variety of camps on this issue. Some of us swear them off. Others unapologetically swear by them to get through the normal course of a busy day. And then there are those of us in the dithering middle who routinely stare at each plate of leftovers or bowl of frozen vegetables, sometimes reaching for the pots and pans and other times giving into convenience but always questioning whether we’re paying for it.

Should we be plagued by these pangs of conscience? Are we emitting dangerous radiation into our homes or killing off the nutritional value of our unsuspecting food? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? What should we believe? Is there enough evidence to really tell either way?

We definitely know this much. Grok didn’t have a microwave. But, then again, he didn’t have a jet shower, Bose stereo system, or Hammacher Schlemmer thumper massager. (Trade-offs, you know…) As much as we love Grok and think his era has been unduly disparaged, we aren’t arguing that he had the best life possible or that anything he didn’t have isn’t worth having. Nonetheless, while it’s a naturalistic fallacy to assume that everything post-Paleo is an abomination, it’s both fair and reasonable to question the safety of today’s customary appliances.

Here’s what we found. First, to the question of transforming your home into a radiation zone… There is, not surprisingly, disagreement about this point. However, occasional home use of a fully functional microwave appliance is generally considered safe. Microwaves do, make no mistake, emit radiation, and the FDA has established what it considers “safe” levels for microwaves: over the machine’s “lifetime” the allowable level is “5 milliwatts of microwave radiation per square centimeter…approximately 2 inches from the oven surface.” Guidelines from the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) suggest overall radiation limits of 1 milliwatt per square centimeter “averaged over 6 minutes (0.1 h) period.” Unless you’re using your microwave on a perpetual basis, there’s little reason to worry.) Because the radiation diminishes quickly over distance, standing further away from the microwave during operation cuts your exposure even more significantly. (That instinct to not press your face against the glass door while your lunch was cooking turns out to be right after all…) Additionally, the FDA requires two interlock systems that effectively offer backup security as well as a monitoring system that shuts the microwave down if one of the systems isn’t working or if the door is opened during operation.

Common sense adds that you might want to make sure the microwave seal isn’t compromised by built up tomato sauce or other grime. (Hmmm…anyone?) And, of course, it’s a good idea to replace an old, dilapidated microwave even if it’s a great conversation piece. Safety versus vintage flare…

And now for the more common question. What about the nutrients? (We should mention quickly that microwaving of food isn’t the same as food irradiation, which involves a higher level of energy and is considered much more damaging in terms of “complex chemical changes … in food components.”) But how do nutrients fare behind the closed, latched, double interlock system door? Well, it varies. As we’ve reported in the past, cooking of any kind can sometimes reduce the nutritional value of food and occasionally enhance it. Slow and low are typically the way to go with cooking, as we’ve said. A pretty much universal concept for our friends, fruits and veggies: steaming or cooking/microwaving with small bits of water trumps boiling or deep frying. When it comes to microwaving itself, studies suggest some mixed reviews for individual vegetables or nutrients but indicate, overall, that microwaving generally preserves nutrient levels.

One study using Brassica vegetables found that microwaving resulted in comparable nutrient (glucosinolates, a possible cancer preventative compound) loss when compared to steaming or stir frying.  (Actually, shredding the vegetable ahead of time had more impact on nutritional value than the cooking method.) However, another study using broccoli suggests that antioxidants can be significantly depleted.  (Antioxidants, particularly water soluble vitamins, appear to be most at risk while minerals tend to be generally preserved in microwave preparation.) Yet another study review showed that microwaving with low power settings offered “equal or better retention of nutrients … as compared with conventional, reheated foods for thiamin, riboflavin, pyridoxine, folacin, and ascorbic acid.” University of Illinois research also showed that microwave blanching (brief exposure to high heat used for pre-freezing preparation to lengthen storage ability of frozen produce) was as or more successful in retaining nutritional value than conventional blanching methods. (Nonetheless, blanching does diminish nutrient levels.)

But how could microwaving actually preserve more nutrients in many cases? Not only do we generally use less liquid when cooking in the microwave, cooking times are typically shorter than those for conventional cooking. (As a side note, new ceramic cookware designed for microwave use shows promise to cut cook times further still, which can mean even greater nutrient preservation.)

Our best advice: nuke wisely. If the convenience of a microwave keeps you committed to PB eating, use it as you need to. (We’re all for leftovers, freezing fresh produce to save money, etc.) Nonetheless, thinking outside the micro box is likely a good idea as well. Invest in some small pans for single servings or small cooking jobs. (If it takes up less space in the dishwasher/sink, it seems like less of a chore.) And, of course, avoid heating (and especially reheating) whenever you can to retain the most nutrition. Heat only the ingredients you must to make a dish palatable, and keep water use, time and temp (power level) as low as possible. (Bonus: it helps you avoid those nasty steam burns from handling overheated dishes.)

Beware... pseudoscience is all around us.

What do you believe? How much of what is rolling around in your brain fact and how much is pseudoscience? Do you know the difference? You might be surprised at how much information that has been presented as good science is actually just so much bunk, myself included.

What is pseudoscience? Simply put, it is a set of ideas, exhibited as scientific, when in fact they are not. It masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy, which it would not otherwise be able to achieve.

I am particularly interested in the subject, but I must confess, I am truly just a rookie at it. I am intrigued by so many subject, that when given scrutiny don’t hold up, and in some ways, I still find some of them believable… or want to. That’s the unskeptical part of my brain still wanting to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. I suppose we have a little of that in all of us. Without it, there would be many less drugs, miracle cures, books, movies, television shows, and experts on the subject. Where would we be without the ghosts, UFOs, infomercials, astrologers, creationists, etc. in our lives. It might be a pretty boring place.

There is so much to know, and the availability of good and factual information, is difficult to decipher from what is presented as the truth, but is in fact anything but.

The following is a collection of facts, descriptions, and narratives collected on the subject, from multiple sources readily available to you. I find them thought provoking, and elevates my curiosity to know more and enhance the knowledge I do have. I hope you find some of some of the following information interesting and in finds a way to peak your own curiosity. Some you may not agree with, but that is part of what the scientific process is designed to do. As Fox Mulder so often repeated, “The truth is out there”. Find it for yourself, develop your own skills, but enjoy the ride, but above all, never stop asking questions or being satisfied with the status quo.

Pseudoscience has one or more of the following features:

Hostility towards scientific criticism

Science requires criticism. Bad ideas and methods get knocked down. Pseudoscientists can feel picked on by such criticism and cry conspiracy. Science provides a system for validating ideas and forces disconfirmation of wrong beliefs.

Ignorance is a virtue

Pseudoscientists can fancy themselves as being untainted by the scientific community and therefore able to think outside the box. Science thrives on creative thinking for problem solving and testing hypotheses to explain existing data.

Start with a conclusion and work backwards

Pseudoscientists can start with a "theory" and then retrofit or cherry pick evidence to fit the conclusion that they want. Creationists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature. Scientists modify or discard theories based on new evidence, granted that the process can be slow.

Unnecessary jargon

Pseudoscientists can use jargon to dazzle and obfuscate instead of illuminate. Scientists use jargon to increase precision and remove ambiguity. Scientologists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature.

Shift the burden of proof

Pseudoscientists can shift the burden of proof away from themselves and challenge others for disproof. But the burden of proof is on the claimant. And the more extraordinary the claim, the higher the bar of evidence.

Failure to consider all hypotheses

Pseudoscientists can prefer sensational hypotheses over more likely mundane ones, and they can even propose whole new laws of physics to explain phenomena instead of considering existing ones.

Reliance on anecdotes

Pseudoscientists can rely heavily on personal testimonies and anecdotes rather than well-documented studies. This is especially the case with health and medicine. And it's a red flag when fundemental principles are based on a single case, such as with chiropractic and iridology. Scientists count the misses, not just the hits.

Simple solutions to complex problems

Pseudoscientific solutions can range from a universal theory of everything to a single medicine, procedure or product that cures all ills. As to why such simple solutions have been overlooked all this time can be attributed to grand conspiracies.

What are the warning signs of bogus science?

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially.

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

Some pseudoscientific claims are based on an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation science devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such dogmas are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world. The main purpose of creationism and intelligent design is to defend a set of religious beliefs.

A scientific theory like the theory of natural selection is not based on a text. Creationists* distort the truth when they call evolution "Darwinism," as if the science were based on a belief in the infallible words found in Origin of Species or Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Natural selection is one of several mechanisms put forth by scientists to explain the fact of evolution. The various theories of evolution, i.e., mechanisms that explain how evolution occurs, are defended not by deference to texts but by empirical evidence from several scientific fields: embryology, the fossil record, homology, genetics, biogeography, molecular biology.

Pseudoscientists claim to base their ideas on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory or hypthesis that is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits"

Ockham’s Razor:

“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”

The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).

Simple is Best

One of the principal techniques, if not the primary technique of the practitioners of thought control and Deskeption, is the unethical use of Knowledge Filtering through Simplicity.  The core technique involves the mis-use of Ockham’s Razor in two ways:

1. as an application to filter out unwelcome DATA as not fitting my ‘simple’ truth.

2. as a way to enforce the ‘simplest’ explanation as already proven, when in fact, no science has been done to support it.

These are both practices of pseudoscience.

Ockham’s Razor, or the discernment of Plurality versus Singularity in terms of competing Hypotheses, is a useful tool in determining whether Science should be distracted by bunk theories which would potentially waste everyone’s time and resources. But it is an act of pseudoscience to apply Ockham’s Razor to data.

Data stands on its own.  Additionally, when found in abundance, and not eliminated one at a time by the false anecdotal application of “Occam’s” Razor Knowledge Filtering or through Plausible Deniability Extrapolation, can eventually be formulated into a construct, which then will vie for plurality under the real Ockham’s Razor, a useful science method principle. Data should not be dismissed for the sole reason that it does not fit or that one does not like it. This is pseudoscience.

The full text, along with other sources can be found with the following links:

http://debunkatron.com/Pseudoscience.html

http://mukto-mona.net/new_site/mukto-mona/Articles/randi/science_pseudoscience.htm

http://woofighters.org/2010/06/warning-signs-that-something-is-not-scientifi/

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

http://deskeption.wordpress.com/tag/occams-razor/

Your smart phone is wrecking your health

 I don't own a smart phone and have no intention of doing so. They are a costly distraction and are responsible for unintended consequences that are happening everywhere because of them. Among these is the fact that they are detrimental to your overall health. I found this article by Bill Phillips and the editors of Men's Health, and felt that it typifies the kinds of things that a phones like these are doing to reduce your overall health. If you use one, keep these things in mind to minimize the negative effects a smart phone is having on you.

Another thing to note: this article refers to smart phones as cell phones. The terminology is blending over the years. A smart phone may be a cell phone, but a cell phone may not be a smart phone. Think about it. There is a clear distinction.

1. Your Cellphone Is ... Destroying Your Ability to Focus

You don’t own your phone—it owns you. Researchers in Finland found that most people obsessively check their menu screen, news, e-mail, and apps, even though the likelihood of seeing new and interesting information keeps decreasing. “The more you do it, the less you gain,” says study author Antti Oulasvirta, Ph.D.
Your move: Oulasvirta recommends setting specific times to touch base with your touchscreen, such as on the hour—or half hour if the withdrawal is too much.

2. Your Cellphone Is ... Making You Sick

All that tapping, typing, and swiping may make your touchscreen as germy as your computer keyboard, according to a study published in the Journal of Applied Microbiology. “We found that about 20 percent to 30 percent of viruses on a glass surface similar to a smartphone screen will transfer to your fingertips,” says study author Tim Julian, Ph.D. And it’s a short trip from there to your mouth or eyes.
Your move: If your phone has Gorilla Glass (many do, including the iPhone) and it’s not coated to resist fingerprints or glare, you can safely clean the screen with a disinfecting wipe, like Clorox’s. Also avoid texting and crying, so you have no reason to wipe your eyes.

3. Your Cellphone Is ... Hurting Your Eyes

The combination of holding your phone too close and staring at a sadistically small font can lead to eye strain, headaches, dry eye, and blurred vision, according to research from the SUNY State College of Optometry.
Your move: Increase the font size to twice the smallest size you’re able to read, says study author Mark Rosenfield, O.D., Ph.D., and maintain a distance of at least 16 inches between the screen and your eyes. If you’re reading for longer than a few minutes, take regular 20-second breaks.

4. Your Cellphone Is ... Causing You Stress

You bought your phone so you’d be accessible 24-7, but now you never seem to have time to unwind. Why? Because you’re never unreachable, you’re constantly expecting to be reached. In fact, a University of Worcester study showed that this constant stress can actually trick people into believing that their phone vibrated from a new text or e-mail even when no messages came in.
Your move: Start by shutting off your phone for an hour every day, and slowly work your way up to 2-hour breaks. And, no, while you’re sleeping doesn’t count.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Practical Ways to Beat Depression

 By Carisa Holmes

A team of researchers took a critical look at all the studies done on antidepressants and reported their findings in The New England Journal of Medicine. They dug up some serious dirt. After looking at 74 studies involving 12 drugs and over 12,000 people, they discovered that, while only 14 of 36 drug studies with negative results were published, 37 of 38 drug studies with positive results were published. Also, those that showed even the negative results were, in their words, "published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome." The problem is much worse than it sounds, because even the positive studies showed little benefit in the first place. A startling 80 percent of people got better with just a placebo.

Taking antidepressant drugs is not the answer for the epidemic of depression. After all, we are not depressed because we are all suffering from a deficiency of antidepressants! The real cure lies in re-balancing the systems in your body, mind and spirit that are at the root of the problem.

Here are simple, practical things you can do to prevent or relieve depression:

1. Move It: Exercising vigorously five times a week for 30 minutes increases levels of BDNF, a natural antidepressant in your brain. If you aren't able to keep that schedule, know that even milder forms of exercise can lift the spirits, get your blood and chi flowing and make you feel more alive.

2. Cool the Inflammation: Food allergies and sensitivities and the resultant inflammation they cause have been connected with depression and other mood disorders. Continually eating foods to which you are allergic or sensitive throws your body into a tailspin of imbalances that can cause anything from mind fog and irritability to compulsive behavior, panic attacks and full-blown hallucinations.

Even if you have no food allergies or sensitivities, your mood can still be affected by foods that cause inflammation in the body. Shift your diet to primarily anti-inflammatory foods, like whole vegetables and fruits, fish and other seafood and filtered water to reduce inflammation and elevate your moods.

3. Focus on the B Complex: It is vital to get the whole range of B vitamins for overall health, but be sure to get adequate B12 (1,000mcg a day), B6 (25 mg) and folic acid (800 mcg) if you are experiencing depression. These vitamins are critical for metabolizing homocysteine, which can play a factor in depression, and folate also affects neurotransmitters that impact your moods. To keep the good mood foods at hand, stock up on dark leafy greens, eggs, fish, beans, lentils and chicken.

4. Let in the Light: Deficiency in “vitamin” D (actually a steroid hormone) can lead to serious depression. Additionally, lack of sun or bright light in general can trigger Seasonal Affective Disorder, or SAD, a form of depression that plagues many people during the winter months. To preserve your 'sunny' disposition, expose a maximum amount of your skin to sunlight for as long as your skin can tolerate without damage. If you are not able to sun yourself regularly, supplement with at least 2,000 to 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day and test your blood levels at least twice a year, as it is easy to overdose on supplemental forms.

5. Balance Your Omegas: Humans need omega fats to stay healthy and happy. The two most crucial, omega-3 and omega-6, need to be in balance at a 2:1 ratio, or two parts omega-6 to one part omega-3. The omega-3 fats help increase your serotonin levels, which fights depression and other mental and emotional difficulties. If you are low in omega-3’s, it’s no wonder you may be feeling a little less than joyful.

In order to balance yourself and feel happier, cut back your consumption of omega-6 laden foods, (corn, soy, canola, fried foods and most processed foods) while increasing your intake of omega-3 with mercury-free fatty fish (like wild Alaskan salmon or barramundi), chia seeds or Neptune krill oil supplements. Additionally, note that free-range and pasture-raised meats are higher in omega-3 fats than conventionally raised meats. Also, animal source omega-3 is much easier for the human body to process and absorb than omega-3 from plant sources. If you are vegan, be very careful about how much omega-6 you eat, as you will not likely be able to absorb enough omega-3 from plant foods to compensate.

6. Check for Hypothyroidism and/or Adrenal Fatigue: These largely unrecognized epidemics are a leading cause of depression. Hypothyroidism can cause lethargy and low mood while adrenal fatigue can cause you to feel “burnt out”, easily overwhelmed by little things and inexplicably fatigued. A blood and saliva test can tell you if you suffer from either of these conditions, but you can take action to heal yourself with or without getting an official diagnosis. Get more minerals from food-based supplements and whole foods like organic land and sea vegetables to help correct any deficiencies that may be causing poor adrenal/thyroid function.  

7. Get Checked for Metal: Heavy metal toxicity has been correlated with depression and other mood and neurological problems. It is not uncommon to see toxic levels of lead, mercury, aluminum and copper on lab test results of people suffering from mood and behavioral disorders. Most heavy metals are free radicals (substances that cause oxidative stress) that have an affinity for the brain, damaging brain tissue structure and metabolism. Reduce your exposure to heavy metals by using all natural body, lawn and home care products, safely removing metal tooth fillings and consuming whole, organic foods and low-mercury seafood. Be sure to have your blood tested for heavy metals if you suspect this form of toxicity is sabotaging your health.

8. Be Grateful: An attitude of gratitude is perhaps the most powerful weapon we have against depression. Placing your focus on that which you are grateful for, rather than what's seemingly missing from or “wrong” in your life, shifts your mind to a more positive vibration. Consciously shifting into gratitude helps us to attract more positive feelings and things in our lives rather than attracting what we do not want. With these ways to beat depression, you are now empowered to discover the happiness that is available to you, right now, no matter what else is going on in your life. You deserve to lead a joyful life, so get busy cultivating those good feelings; you will always reap what you sow.

About the Author: Carisa Holmes is a holistic health advocate, Reiki practitioner and author based in Columbus, Ohio. Carisa has worked in the holistic health and natural beauty fields for nearly 10 years

The Perils of Texting While Parenting

The technology is great, but it also has its demons. We all think we are all great multi-taskers, but plenty of studies have shown that we are fooling ourselves.
====================================
Are too many parents distracted by mobile devices when they should be watching their kids? A recent rise in injuries, reversing the longstanding trend, has doctors worried that the answer is yes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One sunny July afternoon in a San Francisco park, tech recruiter Phil Tirapelle was tapping away on his cellphone while walking with his 18-month-old son. As he was texting his wife, his son wandered off in front of a policeman who was breaking up a domestic dispute.

"I was looking down at my mobile, and the police officer was looking forward," and his son "almost got trampled over," he says. "One thing I learned is that multitasking makes you dumber."

Injuries among young children are on the rise as the number of Americans who own a smartphone grows. Many child-health experts see a possible connection between device distraction and increased injuries. WSJ's Linda Blake and Ben Worthen report.

Yet a few minutes after the incident, he still had his phone out. "I'm a hypocrite. I admit it," he says. "We all are."

Is high-tech gadgetry diminishing the ability of adults to give proper supervision to very young children? Faced with an unending litany of newly proclaimed threats to their kids, harried parents might well roll their eyes at this suggestion. But many emergency-room doctors are worried: They see the growing use of hand-held electronic devices as a plausible explanation for the surprising reversal of a long slide in injury rates for young children. There have even been a few extreme cases of death and near drowning.

Read the entire article at "The Perils of Texting While Parenting".

Making the Grade

This article comes from a friend of mine. Read through it. Ask yourself the questions she proposes. How do you stack up?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Making the Grade by Marlene Harris, NSCA-CSCS, NASM-CES

While chatting about knots and kinks in nutrition and fitness efforts, I inadvertently stumbled upon a concept that seemed to resonate with a couple people. In this edition, I’m going to cast a broader net highlighting the discussion in hopes that it may stimulate thinking about where your own efforts shake out on the continuum.

In one instance, following a somewhat lackluster weigh n’ measure, I was discussing nutrition efforts with a gal at the gym, and I asked her to name, as a percentage, the amount of time she was “on task” in following her program. She reported “about 70-75% of the time”. I responded, “Oh, a “C”.

She looked at me quizzically, so I followed up with; “You’re getting a “C” as a grade, you’re doing C (average) work.” She responded; “Wow! I never thought of it that way!” This seemed to clarify things for her, and she noted that perhaps some improvements were in order to spark better results.

Most of us are brought up in educational systems that assign a letter grade as a representation of the quality or quantity of our efforts. Add to this my protracted (understatement!) tenure as a college student, and assigning a letter grade to a percentage is about as automatic as Pavlov’s pup’s response to the dinner bell. Outside of academia, the idea and has a good track record here in the rest of life as well; wonky efforts, wonky results, average efforts, average results, above average efforts, above average results, and so forth.

Here’s the connector; recent research is suggests that, in order to make any measurable and motivating progress on fat loss, you need to be “at least 90% compliant” in your chosen plan of attack. In other words, you need to be following your plan at least 90% of the time and over the long haul, not just for a day or a week or two. Of course, in the world of grades this 90%+ designation is the equivalent of maintaining an “A” average, doing honor’s level work.

So, how’s your progress? Try to step back and, as objectively as possible, assess the percentage of time you’ve been true to your game plan. Don’t have one? Well, there’s the first issue. If you don’t have a game plan, get one. Words to live by: “Fail to plan, plan to fail”. If you do have a game plan, that’s a great start, but you actually have to follow the fool thing in order to get any results. Yes, I know, that’s the tough part. But, what percentage of time are you true to your plan? Below 20%? The big F. Epic fail. 50%? Better than nothing, but still, essentially a fail. 60%? Below average—how’s those results looking, D list? 70-ish? Well, we already have some idea of how that plays out (yawn..). 80%? Not bad, but you’re not fast trackin’ it are you? 90%+? Things should be looking pretty good for you, unless, of course, your plan is flawed (as in, you’re really, really good at following a really bad plan).

All that aside, be honest with yourself as you look at your fitness and fat loss efforts. How’s your report card looking? How are you doing, really? Assign yourself a grade based on the percentage of your efforts. If you’re doing “A” work and getting the results you want, use that as point of congratulations and put yourself on the honor roll. If you’re not, use the unfavorable grade as sign that you need to step up your efforts, same as in school. Want to make the grade? Up the percentage of your efforts, pretty please!

The Unknown Unknowns

This article is courtesy of the Wednesday August 1 edition of eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

The Unknown Unknowns

BY MICHAEL SHERMER

At a press conference on February 12, 2002, the United State Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld employed epistemology to the explain U.S. foreign entanglements and their unintended consequences: “There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

It is this latter category especially that is the focus of Stuart Firestein’s sparkling and innovative look at ignorance, and how it propels the scientific process forward. Firestein is Professor and Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University, where he teaches a wildly popular course on ignorance, inviting scientists in as guest speakers to tell students not what they know but what they don’t know, and even what they don’t know that they don’t know. (Would you rather earn an A or an F in a class called “Ignorance”?, he muses.) This is a slim volume about a fat topic, but Firestein captures the essence of the problem by contrasting the public’s understanding of science as a step-wise systematic algorithm of grinding through experiments that churn out data sets to be analyzed statistically and published in peer-reviewed journals after a process of observation, hypothesis, manipulation, further observation, and new hypothesis testing, with the Princeton University mathematician Andrew Wiles’ description of science as “groping and probing and poking, and some bumbling and bungling, and then a switch is discovered, often by accident, and the light is lit, and everyone says, ‘Oh, wow, so that’s how it looks,’ and then it’s off into the next dark room, looking for the next mysterious black feline” (p. 2), in reference to the old proverb: “It is very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room. Especially when there is no cat.”

If ever there was a time to think seriously about ignorance it is in our age of digital knowledge. Consider an Exabyte of data, or one billion gigabytes (typical thumb drives that most of us carry around consist of a couple of gigabytes storage capacity). It has been estimated that from the beginning of civilization around 5,000 years ago to the year 2003, all of humanity created a grand total of five exabytes of digital information. From 2003 through 2010 we created five exabytes of digital information every two days. By 2013 we will be producing five exabytes every ten minutes. The 2010 total of 912 exabytes is the equivalent of 18 times the amount of information contained in all the books ever written. It isn’t knowledge that we need more of; it is how to think about what we know and what we don’t know that is becoming ever more critical in science, through a process Feinstein calls “controlled neglect.” Scientists “don’t stop at the facts,” he explains, “they begin there, right beyond the facts, where the facts run out” (p. 12). It must be this way, he argues, because “the vast archives of knowledge seem impregnable, a mountain of facts that I could never hope to learn, let alone remember” (p. 14). Doctors and lawyers and engineers need many facts at their ready, as do scientists, but for the latter “the facts serve mainly to access the ignorance” because this is where the action is. “Want to be on the cutting edge? Well, it’s all, or mostly, ignorance out there. Forget the answers, work on the questions” (pp. 15–16).

To Rumsfeld’s epistemological categories Firestein would one add more: unknowable unknowns, “things that we cannot know due to some inherent and implacable limitation.” He puts history in this category, but I would not, for if we take the broader construct of history as anything that happened before the present then most of astronomy, cosmology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology are historical sciences, subject to testing hypotheses no less rigorously than their experimental scientists in the lab. And I worry slightly that an overemphasis on our ignorance about this or that claim opens the door to creationists, Holocaust deniers, climate deniers, and post-modern deconstructions who wish to challenge mainstream scientists because of religious or political agendas. Acknowledging our ignorance is good, but let’s acknowledge and celebrate what science has confidently given us in the way of well-supported theories.

That caveat aside, Ignorance includes an important discussion about scientific errors and their propagation in textbooks. I’m embarrassed to admit that I perpetrated one of these myself in my latest book, The Believing Brain, in which I repeated as gospel the “fact” that the human brain contains about 100 billion neurons. Firestein reports that his neuroscience colleague Suzana Herculano-Houzel told him it is actually around 80 billion (after undertaking an actual neural count!), and that there are an order of magnitude fewer glial cells than the textbooks report. As well, Firestein continues, the “neural spike” every neuroscientist measures and every student learns as the fundamental unit of neural activity when the cell fires, is itself a product of the electrical apparatus employed in the lab and ignores other forms of neural activity. And if that isn’t bad enough, even the famous “tongue map” in which sweet is sensed on the tip, bitter on the back, and salt and sour on the sides that is published in countless popular and medical textbooks is wrong and the result of a mistranslation of a German physiology textbook by Professor D. P. Hanig, and that the localization differences are much more complex and subtle.

These and other errors are the result of our lack of skepticism of the knowledge we have and our lack of respect for ignorance. “Ignorance works as the engine of science because it is virtually unbounded, and that makes science much more expansive” (p. 54). Indeed it is, and as the expanding sphere of scientific knowledge comes into contact with an ever increasing surface area of the unknown (thus, the more you know the more you know how much you don’t know), we would do well to remember the mathematical principle of surface area to volume ratio: as a sphere increases the ratio of its volume to surface area increases. Thus, in this metaphor, as the sphere of scientific knowledge increases, the ratio of the volume of the known to the surface area of the unknown increases, and it is here where we can legitimately make a claim of true and objective progress.

Just a quick note about kids and water

Now is the time when kids spend a lot of time in and around swimming pools.

Watch your kids around water!

Check this out

Finished. Now it's time to begin.

I just finished reading Fit2Fat2Fit.

There were a few surprises in it, but the best parts were when Drew Manning related the unexpected lessons he learned along the way, during his journey. He made personal discoveries and connected with the rest of us on a level that only doing what he did can accomplish. It made for some interesting sideline stories, and it drove the point home that we all have the same kinds of stories in our own life from which we can draw.

He stressed the importance of having a support community around you, and this may be my weak point. As I gather the impetus to pursue my own weight loss/ conditioning program, this is the area where I am the most susceptible to hiccups along the way. I have long ago cast off the need for sodas and fries (except on rare occasions), and I have adopted Drew's spinach shake, but I worry that my ability to maintain the workout and food regimen, is all too easily thwarted by a loss of momentum, which has always been a problem. All the good intentions in the world can be easily derailed with out a firm and realistic execution plan. This one is going to be almost all on me.

Fit2Fat2Fit has shown me that anyone can do it. Now it's up to me to chart my own journey and make it work. Wish me luck.

Smartphone and driving: A bad mixture

I was coming home from a short trip the other day and there was a car going a little slower in the right-hand lane. As we got further from the intersection, this car cross over the bike lane and very nearly crashed into the curb. As I drove by this person, I could see that it was a young girl, still texting on her smartphone, apparently unmoved by the fact that she nearly crashed her car into the curb.

I couldn't believe what I had witnessed. This girl was seemingly oblivious to the danger she was causing to herself and the people around her, because using her smartphone to talk to someone else was more important. As a driver in another car there was nothing I could do, but what I wanted to do was pull her over and knock some sense into her, or at the very least report her for her dangerous driving tactics.

I don't own a smartphone and have no intention of owning one in the future. Seeing things like this on an everyday basis makes me even more set against them. I know I have to devote even more attention of my driving time to be on the lookout for people like this. I have a feeling it's just going to be a matter of time before habits like this is going to eliminate these people or their unsuspecting victims from the gene pool.

If you use a phone while driving, STOP IT. Wake up, pay attention, be alert. You are driving a mobile weapon, and what you do behind the wheel, affects more than your need to send a text.

If you need any more proof, go here...

Watch the movie clips!
Dangers of Text Messaging and Driving

Texting while driving

Texting While Driving: How Dangerous is it?

Be safe. Do the right thing.

Getting the old me back

I began reading Drew Manning’s Fit2Fat2Fit, and he has done a nice job so far of talking about his anxiety and frustrations. It will be interesting to see how this book develops and I get further into it. I am inspired though.

I certainly can identify. My own journey began as far back as 2001, so in some ways his short term experience exhibits a lot of what most of us feel as we move along the rocky path to lose weight and get into better condition. In most cases though, the bad habits and poor diet we’ve established are well ingrained into our daily life. We have no recent memory of eating well and working out to draw from. For many of us, this compounds the problems we face.

I, at least, have a mixed bag of good and bad, so it’s not as dire for me as for many others, but my issues have their own history.

To begin with, I have a life long history of ADD. I have long ago learned adult coping skills to deal with it, but in truth, we never outgrow it, so it is an ever present bug in my brain's software, and I have to be mindful of its presence. Maybe this is why I have been so poor at execution of a number of things I've done in my life. I am very good at some things, and have had some real brainstorms at times, but for some reason, I never saw them through to their most positive conclusion. Don't get me wrong, I have had some great successes, like my early effort at racing motorcycles, getting my bachelor degree, reaching 18,800 ft while mountaineering, achieving black belt status in Japanese swordsmanship, raising two great boys, and building a street rod from scratch, but these things could have been even better. The misses are the ones that haunt me at times. They could have made my life a lot different.

I have known about the importance of eating right and conditioning my body, but old habits are tough to break. When you add in the spans of time when doing these, it makes a difficult combination. Too much work, unplanned distractions, and self-doubt, make it easy to fall off the wagon.

I was doing OK in 2006. I was a little overweight, but was maintaining, and working out at a reasonable pace. Then my brain tumor struck, and everything changed. Although the surgery and therapy rid me of this menace, the chemo kicked my butt. From the time I began it until I was over the residual effects of the fatigue, was around two and a half years. By that time, I was far behind the eight-ball, and picking up martial arts again was a bigger hill to climb than I expected. Although the desire was there, I just couldn't muster enough encouragement to make it a priority. People around me were too busy with their own lives to take an interest in challenges that weren't their own. I never faulted anyone else, but it made my own climb an even steeper one.

I knew better though. In 2004, I gained my certificate as a personal fitness trainer, so I knew that deep inside it was up to me, it was just that all the effort to get it and all that had happened in between, seemed like a mountain I would never scale again. In the last two and a half years, if felt like my body's metabolism had changed. I was eating about the same, but the lack of any real physical activity, was helping me to pack on the pounds. Before I knew it, I was courting 200, and not very successful at getting it back off. I was still playing racquetball with my son, and going to the gym, but nothing was making a difference. I even hired a trainer at the gym to help me regain my old form, but despite this effort, I made little progress. I seem to be resigning myself to the fact that this was going to be the new me. I've tried several times since to make a difference, but nothing to date has taken off more than a few temporary pounds.

It was only by chance that I stumbled onto Drew Manning's clip on the news. I was intrigued by his experiment. Could this be the difference I was missing? Did this guy understand what many of us had tried and failed to do? That still remains to be seen, but contacting him through his web site, gave me a little hope.

The one thing that he told me though that I still am not sure I have, but he stressed as a very important part, and that is the support from those around me. I'm not talking about occasional patronizing remarks. I'm talking about solid, measurable support. All the diet, and exercise you can gather, is not going to get you where you need to go (particularly for someone like me), unless there is something more. I aim to try my best, but it will be tough to break old (practically hard-wired) habits, and put on a new suit of discipline.

The desire is there. Let's see how well it holds up when the rubber hits the road. Wish me luck.

Fit2Fat2Fit

I caught wind of Drew Manning a short while ago, and I have to admit, I was pretty inspired by him. He made a gutsy move to abuse his good condition, and stop working out, eat badly, and gain the kind of weight we are all fighting. Then, lost it all again and got back to his former self, and he did all this to help him identify with the rest of us overweight slobs, and to show us that we can do it if we want to.

You can check it all out on his web site Fit2Fat2Fit.com.

Anyway, I bought his book and am going to try to do something about my own situation. At my age, I'm not going to get many more opportunities to make a difference in my physical condition, health, etc. Growing old is not for sissies, and I don't want to hear my granddaughter tell me how fat I am anymore.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. I wonder if I still have what it takes to pick it up and run with it.

Who we are

We have seen and done more than you can imagine, and are still alive to talk about it. We have no ego to bruise, nobody we feel we need to impress, and nothing to prove to anyone. We are...... Old Guys.

Think

Slow down, Pay attention, Question everything, Start now

Space music

I don't know how many of you out there can use it like I can, but I found a music station on the internet that plays some of the best relaxation music I've found. If you go to Sky.fm, and choose the station Space Music, you can get some of the best easy to listen to music around. I can listen to this when I'm working of just chilling out. Give it a look. Here's a sample of what you'll hear. Click here to enjoy.

Our last goodbye to those we lost in 2011

It has become a sort of ritual for me to take a last look at the list of those who have passed on during the year. Some I knew, and others were unexpected, but in every case, I find an opportunity to reflect on them and the contributions they have made.

We always hope that the next year will be better than the last, but it is never done without looking back to see where we have been, and this past year is no exception. As expected, we lost some memorable people in 2011. For some, their name and their legacy will live on. Others will pass by us for the last time. Some have influenced us, and others have had no impact at all.

This list seems a little long, but in fact is just a smattering of the true loss we have had. Read through the list and see how many you recognize. Take the time to look up the ones you don't (I did). They won't pass your way again.

========================================

January

• Anne Francis, 80, American actress (Honey West, Forbidden Planet, The Twilight Zone), pancreatic cancer.
• Jack Ertle Oliver, 87, American scientist, provided seismic evidence supporting plate tectonics.
• Tom Cavanagh, 28, American ice hockey player (San Jose Sharks), blunt force trauma.
• John Dye, 47, American actor (Touched by an Angel), heart attack.
• Bill Bower, 93, American aviator, last surviving pilot of Doolittle Raid, complications from a fall.
• David Nelson, 74, American actor (The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet), colon cancer.
• Mississippi Winn, 113, American supercentenarian, Louisiana's oldest person.
• Susannah York, 72, English actress (Tom Jones, Superman), bone marrow cancer.
• Barney F. Hajiro, 94, American soldier, was oldest living Medal of Honor recipient.
• Poppa Neutrino, 77, American adventurer, crossed Atlantic Ocean on raft made of discarded material, heart failure.
• David Frye, 77, American satirist and Richard Nixon impersonator, cardiopulmonary arrest.
• John Barry, 77, British film score composer (From Russia with Love, Chaplin, Out of Africa), five-time Academy Award winner, heart attack.
• Eunice Sanborn, 114, American supercentenarian, oldest living person in America at the time of her death.

February

• Lena Nyman, 66, Swedish actress (I Am Curious (Yellow), I Am Curious (Blue), Autumn Sonata), cancer.
• Gary Moore, 58, Irish rock guitarist and singer (Thin Lizzy), heart attack.
• Christian J. Lambertsen, 93, American diving engineer, inventor of first SCUBA device, renal failure.
• Frank Buckles, 110, American supercentenarian soldier, last living U.S. World War I veteran, natural causes.
• Jane Russell, 89, American actress (The Outlaw, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes), respiratory illness.

March

• Johnny Preston, 71, American pop singer ("Running Bear"), heart failure.
• Alberto Granado, 88, Argentine-born Cuban biochemist and writer, travel companion of Che Guevara (The Motorcycle Diaries).
• Hugh Martin, 96, American songwriter ("Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas") and film composer (Meet Me in St. Louis), natural causes.
• John Nettleship, 71, British teacher, inspiration for character of Severus Snape, cancer.
• Joe Morello, 82, American drummer (The Dave Brubeck Quartet).
• Dorothy Young, 103, American actress, assistant to Harry Houdini.
• Mayhew Foster, 99, American brigadier general, flew captured Hermann Goering to interrogation.
• Dame Elizabeth Taylor, 79, British-American actress (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Cleopatra, BUtterfield 8), heart failure.
• Harry Coover, 94, American inventor (Super Glue).
• Carl Bunch, 71, American drummer (Buddy Holly and the Crickets).

April

• Wayne Robson, 64, Canadian actor (The Red Green Show).
• Violet Cowden, 94, American pilot, member of Women Airforce Service Pilots during World War II, heart failure.
• Walter Breuning, 114, American supercentenarian, world's third oldest man ever.
• Trevor Bannister, 76, British actor (Are You Being Served?, Last of the Summer Wine, The Dustbinmen), heart attack.
• Michael Sarrazin, 70, Canadian actor (They Shoot Horses, Don't They?; The Flim-Flam Man; For Pete's Sake), cancer.
• Phoebe Snow, 60, American singer-songwriter ("Poetry Man"), brain hemorrhage.
• Yvette Vickers, 81–82, American actress (Attack of the 50 Foot Woman), singer and model (Playboy). (body discovered on this date).

May

• Jackie Cooper, 88, American actor (Skippy, Our Gang, Superman) and director (M*A*S*H).
• Lawrence Johnson, 97, American boat trailer inventor and manufacturer, natural causes.
• Bill Summers, 75, American car builder (Goldenrod).
• Seiseki Abe, 96, Japanese shodo and aikido teacher.
• Joseph Brooks, 73, American Grammy-winning songwriter ("You Light Up My Life"), suicide by asphyxiation.
• Jeff Conaway, 60, American actor (Grease, Taxi, Babylon 5).

June

• Andrew Gold, 59, American singer-songwriter ("Lonely Boy", "Thank You for Being a Friend"), heart attack.
• James Arness, 88, American actor (Gunsmoke), natural causes.
• Lilian Jackson Braun, 97, American author (Cat Who series), natural causes.
• Fred Steiner, 88, American television composer (Perry Mason, Star Trek, The Twilight Zone).
• Peter Falk, 83, American actor (Columbo, Murder, Inc., Pocketful of Miracles, The Princess Bride).
• George Ballas, 85, American entrepreneur, inventor of the Weed Eater.

July

• Betty Ford, 93, American First Lady (1974–1977) and co-founder of Betty Ford Center.
• Roberts Blossom, 87, American actor (Doc Hollywood, Escape from Alcatraz, Home Alone).
• Jerry Ragovoy, 80, American songwriter ("Time Is on My Side"), stroke.
• Amelia Trice, 75, American Kootenai tribal leader and activist, leader of the last Indian war against the United States, cancer.
• Elliot Handler, 95, American businessman, co-founder of Mattel, namer of the Barbie doll, creator of Hot Wheels, heart failure.
• Linda Christian, 87, Mexican-born American actress, first Bond girl (1954 television adaptation of Casino Royale).

August

• George Devol, 99, American inventor, creator of Unimate, the first industrial robot.
• Albert Brown, 105, American veteran, oldest survivor of Bataan Death March.
• Gun Hägglund, 79, Swedish television personality, world's first female television news presenter, after short illness. (Swedish)
• Jerry Leiber, 78, American songwriter ("Stand By Me", "Hound Dog", "Jailhouse Rock", "Kansas City"), cardiopulmonary failure.

September

• Liu Huang A-tao, 90, Taiwanese activist, first comfort woman to sue Japan for compensation.
• 44 ice hockey players and coaches killed in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash.
• Cliff Robertson, 88, American actor (Charly, Spider-Man, PT 109), natural causes.
• Walter Bonatti, 81, Italian mountain climber.
• Tom Wilson, Sr., 80, American cartoonist (Ziggy).
• Wilson Greatbatch, 92, American engineer, inventor of the implantable cardiac pacemaker.

October

• Kenneth H. Dahlberg, 94, American businessman and World War II fighter ace, natural causes.
• Steve Jobs, 56, American computer entrepreneur and inventor, co-founder of Apple Inc., pancreatic cancer.
• Roger Williams, 87, American pianist (Autumn Leaves), pancreatic cancer.
• Bob Galvin, 89, American businessman, CEO of Motorola (1959–1986).
• Dennis Ritchie, 70, American computer scientist, developer of the C programming language and the Unix operating system. (body discovered on this date)
• Paul Leka, 68, American pianist, arranger and songwriter ("Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye", "Green Tambourine").
• Chuck Ruff, 60, American drummer (Edgar Winter, Sammy Hagar), after long illness.
• Edgar Villchur, 94, American inventor of the acoustic suspension loudspeaker.

November

• Andy Rooney, 92, American journalist, 60 Minutes correspondent (1978–2011), surgical complications.
• Joe Frazier, 67, American boxer, World Heavyweight Champion (1970–1973), liver cancer.
• Bil Keane, 89, American cartoonist (The Family Circus), heart failure.
• Evelyn Lauder, 75, Austrian-born American philanthropist (The Breast Cancer Research Foundation), creator of pink ribbon symbol, complications from ovarian cancer.
• Lee Pockriss, 87, American songwriter ("Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini").
• Karl Slover, 93, Slovak-born American actor (The Wizard of Oz).
• Anne McCaffrey, 85, American science fiction writer (Dragonriders of Pern series), stroke.
• Vasily Alekseyev, 69, Russian Olympic gold-medal winning weightlifter (1972 and 1976), heart failure.

December

• Bill McKinney, 80, American actor (Deliverance, The Outlaw Josey Wales), esophageal cancer.
• Bruno Bianchi, 56, French cartoonist and animator (Heathcliff and The Catillac Cats), co-creator of Inspector Gadget.
• Pusuke, 26, Japanese dog, world's oldest known living dog at time of death, natural causes.
• Jerry Robinson, 89, American comic book artist (Batman) and reputed creator of The Joker.
• Harry Morgan, 96, American actor (M*A*S*H, Dragnet), pneumonia.
• Bonnie Prudden, 97, American rock climber and physical fitness advocate.
• Bert Schneider, 78, American film and television producer (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The Monkees), natural causes.
• Kim Jong-il, 69 or 70, North Korean Supreme Leader (since 1994), heart attack.

Taking a moment to reflect

It has been nearly six years since I received my emergency surgery for my grade IV Glioblastoma multiforme. During all this time, Sue has been my rock, and I am blessed to have her by my side.

You can look this up on Wiki, where there is a pretty good write-up on them, and where I got some of this info. Cancer cells with stem cell-like properties have been found in glioblastomas (this may be a cause of their resistance to conventional treatments, and high reoccurrence rate). The median survival time from the time of diagnosis without any treatment is 3 months, but with treatment survival of 1–2 years is common. Increasing age (> 60 years of age) carries a worse prognostic risk.

Long-term benefits have also been associated with those patients who receive surgery, radiotherapy, and temozolomide chemotherapy (which I received). However, much remains unknown about why some patients survive longer with glioblastoma. Age of under 50 is linked to longer survival in glioblastoma multiforme, as is 98%+ resection and use of temozolomide chemotherapy and better Karnofsky performance scores.

Based on existing data, for someone in my age group, I had about a 4.0% chance of surviving to the five year mark. Why and how I'm managing to beat the odds is beyond me, but I am thankful for everyday I'm still here. There is so much left to do, and I have plenty of reasons to look to the future. My family ties are the bond that keeps me strong, and I want to be around and healthy for as long as humanly possible.

With a lot of love and luck, I will still be here to dance at my granddaughters wedding.

7 Laws of Leaness

A good friend of mine puts out a periodic newsletter. This last one covered a subject I thought worth passing on. I hope you get something good from this. I sure did.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

7 Laws of Leaness

The essential rules that separate the fat from the fit!
Why do some people seem naturally thin—able to torch cheeseburgers and never gain a pound? And why do some of us—okay, most of us—sweat and diet and sweat and diet some more, and never lose enough to get the body we want? Because those "naturally thin" people actually live by a series of rules that keep them from gaining weight. And if you know their secrets, you can enjoy meals without packing on the pounds. Follow these 7 Laws of Leanness for effortless weight loss. 

We’ve spent the past two decades interviewing leading experts, poring over groundbreaking studies, and grilling top athletes, trainers, and celebrities for their health and fitness advice. And we’ve learned that what separates the fit from the fat, the slim from the sloppy, the toned from the torpid, is a set of rules. And what’s amazing is that none of them involves spending hours on a treadmill, eating nothing but grapefruit and tree bark, or having part of your small intestines replaced with fiberfill. Follow these simple rules and weight loss will be automatic.


LAW #1: Lean People Don’t Diet, They Adopt a Lifestyle
Lean people practice good habits and adhere to a lifestyle that allows them to be lean and stay that way. If you are caught in a spin cycle of going into overdrive to take weight off only to return to the old habits that that made you plump out to begin with (and will most certainly return you to that same state), then you are dieting, NOT practicing a healthy lifestyle. 


LAW #2: Lean People Don’t Go Fat-Free
A European study tracked nearly 90,000 people for several years and discovered that participants who tried to eat “low fat” had the same risk of being overweight as those who didn’t. You need fat in your diet to help you process certain nutrients, like vitamins A, D, and E, for example. And many “fat-free” foods are loaded with sugar, and therefore have even more calories than their full-fat cousins. Even the American Heart Association says that fat-free labels lead to higher consumption of unhealthy sweets. A bit of fat helps keep you full and satisfied. Fat-free will amp up your sugar intake and send you running back to the fridge in an hour, hungry for more. 



LAW #3: Lean People Slow Down, and Sit Down to Eat
In fact, the more and the longer you sit down and enjoy your food, the leaner you’re going to be. Greek researchers recently reported that eating more slowly and savoring your meal can boost levels of two hormones that make you feel fuller. 


Note: researchers at Cornell University found that when people sat down at the table with plates already set up with appropriate portions of food, they consumed up to 35 percent less than they did when eating family-style—that is, by passing serving dishes around the table. 



LAW #4: Lean People Know What They’re Going to Eat Next
Planning your responses to hunger may help you shed pounds faster, say Dutch researchers. They posed their subjects questions like “If you’re hungry at 4 p.m., then . . . what?” Those who had an answer (“I’ll snack on some almonds”) were more successful at losing weight than those who didn’t have an answer.


LAW #5: Lean People Eat Protein
In a recent European study, people who ate moderately high levels of protein were twice as likely to lose weight and keep it off as those who didn’t eat much protein.

A New England Journal of Medicine study looked at a variety of eating plans and discovered that eating a diet high in protein and low in refined starches (like white bread) was the most effective for weight loss. Protein works on two levels: First, you burn more calories digesting it. Second, because your body has to work harder to digest a chicken breast than, say, a Ho Ho or a bag of chips, you stay fuller longer. 



LAW #6: Lean People Move Around More

Simply put, fit people augment their fitness by having fun just moving around. Scientists have a name for how you burn calories just enjoying yourself. It’s called NEAT: non-exercise activity thermogenesis. Sounds complicated, like something only policy wonks at a global warming summit are qualified to discuss. But it’s pretty simple: Pick a few activities that you enjoy, from tossing a stick for your dog to bowling with your best friend, and just do them more often. The average person makes 200 decisions every day that affect his or her weight. That means you have around 200 chances each and every day to do better, to make better choices, to improve yourself, and to make progress!

LAW #7: Lean People Watch Less TV
Instead of calling it the boob tube, maybe we should call it the man-boob tube. Of those who watch more than four hours of TV a day, nearly 30 percent have a BMI that high—the cutoff line for obesity, according to a study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. In contrast, only about 18 percent of people who watch less than two hours of TV a day have a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In a study at the University of Vermont, overweight participants who cut their daily TV time in half (from an average of 5 hours to 2.5 hours) burned an extra 119 calories a day. And a recent study of people who successfully lost weight found that 63 percent of them watched less than 10 hours of TV a week. Want more? A study in the journal Annals of Behavioral Medicine reported that lean people have an average of 2.6 television sets in their homes. Overweight people have an average of 3.4. Finally, researchers in Australia recently discovered that every hour in front of the television trims 22 minutes from your life. Yikes!

This is a great subject and worth evaluating in your own life.
More on this later...

Not enough weekend

So it's Sunday... it's overcast outside, making me slightly demotivated to get out back and do a little yard clean up. I'm trying to watch some football, evaluate some bokkens for a guy back in Iowa, start one of the books I just bought from Amazon, set up the new iPod Shuffle I got, because my Nano has to be sent back to Apple for a recall issue, clean up the garage, so I can take down the last baseboards to finish the wood flooring project in the family room, and find some time to relax with the time I have left. By the time Monday rolls around and it's time to go back to work, I'm wondering where the weekend went, and why I'm so tired. Ha, ha... yeah right.

I just posted a couple old pencil drawings on facebook, but I'd like to tell a little story about them first.

Back even before I joined the Navy, I became an aspiring artist.

In high school, I dreamed of becoming an architect. Frank Lloyd Wright was an early role model of mine, and I read and collected everything I could on him. I visited Taliesin West and was convinced that this was what I wanted to do as a career. Unfortunately, my dismal GPA and the ever present draft for the Vietnam War, kept me from pursuing anything close to this.

In an effort to satisfy my artistic side, I started taking commercial art classes and messing around with freehand media.

I was a huge Ed "Big Daddy" Roth fan (still am). In high school, I met him at a car show at the state fair grounds, and was so overwhelmed by it, that when I finally had the chance to talk with him, I couldn't think of a thing to say or ask.


Anyway, while I was studying art when in the Navy in 1972 at UCSD, among other things, I made numerous pencil drawings. I had a lot of free time while on the ships during our Vietnam tours' of duty, so I needed something to take my mind away from everything going on around me. These are the only two I did that survived until now. My dreams of becoming an artist were there for many years, but never quite managed to go from interested amateur, to the real thing. Life has a way of twisting your hopes toward other directions, and although I still have a mild interest, I just don't have the time to pursue it. These are just the some of the remnants of times gone by. I hope you enjoy them.

This first is one I drew of my sister. It's obvious I looked at her with a teenage outlook of a sibling. I need to give this to her. I think she'd enjoy seeing how much she has changed.


I'm not sure about the history of the second one. Vietnam was certainly on my mind, so I can only assume its impressions were strong in me.

Left to my thoughts

I'm sitting at the kitchen table, having taken the day off to move things back after our partial remodel, and getting ready to go see a friend I haven't seen in almost 40 years.

While I'm waiting for Home depot to open, I took the time to clean up all of the posts on this blog. I removed a pile of them posted, but not written by me. The soap box is closed for a bit, but I'm sure it will be back. I left a few tidbits worth pondering.

What is left are mostly my own... things meant to induce some sort of introspective mood. I haven't written much in a while. With the remodel of the place, a granddaughter than demands I spoil her, and assorted other distractions, I've left things like this blog to sit and wait. I intend to get back to it, but my attention is still being drawn away to pursue the follow-up list of projects that always come after a big job is nearing its end.

Writing is one of those outlets I don't do near enough. So many ideas, but so little time to get them out.

Sois sage