We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I have posted most of these concepts in the past, but it's time to revisit them.
First off, people use the term to refer to different things. Some use it to refer to anything that raises your heart rate at all, such as walking, hiking, or swimming aerobic laps. Anything we do to remain active, if not to reach for better levels of fitness, is worthwhile.
Why is low-intensity activity worthwhile? Because it helps maintain a current level of function. Keep walking 1-3 miles daily, and odds are you will keep doing it until something physical intervenes. That's all that most people want.
However, I think of "cardio" as heart-centered exertion. That means stressing the heart with the goal of improving fitness and conditioning. While my favorite forms of cardio (treadmill, stair machine, rower) keep many muscle groups busy if not stressed, the goal is cardiac muscle power. That is why cardio focus is almost 1/3rd of the Maggie's Fitness for Life program.
How do you stress your heart muscle, rather than just using it a little bit? By making high demands just as you can do with other muscles. That means sprints on your favorite "cardio" forms. That's assuming your doctor tells you that you are fit for intensity.
Regardless of the exercise, it's easy to know when you are sprinting because it's all-out for 30-60 seconds at intervals. That is HIIT. Sprints are anaerobic, not aerobic. People claim that heavy weight-lifting can have the same effect, and that is likely true. Still, I feel a couple of hours/week of HIIT cardio is a good supplement, plus endurance, plus mental health.
Why do people with any fat stores ever feel hungry, or eat anything at all, considering they may have 1-5 month's worth of energy stored as fat? (We term the hunger experienced by overweight people "False Hunger," because it is.) Except in the truly malnourished or extremely fit, low body-fat athletes, hunger is rarely a signal of an energy deficit or of any nutritional need.
Think about it. Even normal-weight (neither overweight nor underweight) people carry 8-10 weeks of energy stored in fat if they can only access it.
You can consider appetite in the pudgy or overweight, not to mention the obese, to be a design flaw based on the hunting and gathering, and, earlier, just plain gathering condition of human existence, same as the other great apes who only become overweight in captivity. Agriculture and food abundance, along with sedentary life, exposed the design flaw for people who overnourish themselves. Of course, physical inadequacy is another side effect.
There's nothing magical about that number, but it's a lot more active than 100 steps. On average, 10,000 steps is 5 miles. That's easy for New Yorkers and other city-dwellers, not so easy for suburbanites.
From a practical standpoint, body fat can only be gained, or lost, through nutrition. Exercise is minimal for fat loss. I'd make an exception for those hiking 15 miles/day on the Appalachian Trail while carrying 40-60 lbs of gear, food, and water. Or the kid.
I have seen people treated for cancer until the day they died with the poisons still dripping into their veins. I disapprove, although I am not an oncologist. There is a time to be born, and a time to die. Hospice care is a blessing with opioid meds as needed.
Monogamy is a good arrangement, especially for child-rearing, at least in the Western world. Marriage is (supposedly) a life-long committment to one person. When defied, it can cause serious damage.
Is monogamy "natural"? Of course not, because of the unrelenting sex drive of humans. Humans are always in heat, especially when younger but it never stops entirely. Regardless of how committed one is, all anybody needs to do is to check your fantasies. Temptation abounds.
The Executive Branch should tell me what to eat and drink as if I were an infant? Apparently people want to increase the $750/month SNAP poverty allowance for food.
Readers know that I view sex changes as a sort of cosmetic thing, an extreme version of nose jobs and tummy tucks. I have no problems with such things if people want to pay for them. Some people want to be taller and find a surgeon to lengthen their legs, and I have seen people who truly benefitted from breast reduction. Don't laugh, because huge breasts can be a sort of handicap.
So I do not hate cosmetic surgery. It makes plenty of doctors very wealthy, but it is not me. When it comes to elective sexual mutilation, though, I have to draw some sort of a line. In fact, I can't imagine a physician who would be willing to do it.
First year Organic is often viewed as one of the sieves to sort out chemists, biochemists, medical aspirants of all sorts, and so forth. First year Organic does not require Calculus, but it certainly requires a grip on all pre-calc maths. Lots of equations.
As a non-STEM college major, I figured out the tricks of Chem 1 and Organic quickly. It's just logic based on relatively simple math. Here are my tricks: 1. Have a smart study partner to challenge you, and to teach. 2. Approach manipulating carbon molecules as fun puzzles. 3. As with General Chem (Chem 1), make sure you can reconstruct the equations by understanding them, and not by memorization. If you understand them you don't need to trust memorization on an anxiety-producing exam.
My Organic Prof was useless, and the TA grad students were just annoyed with us wasting their research time. They just said "Study the textbook." This Prof seems like a real teacher:
There is nothing wrong with low-intensity exercise (better than not moving at all), but as for heart, muscles, bones - and now maybe brain - the harder it is, the better.
Unfortunately, hard things are unpleasant. Self-improvement is not fun, but it's just a choice.
Many city people are asking that question.From a Psychiatric point of view, here are some of the difficulties:
First, prediction of dangerousness (like predictions of dangerousness to self) are notoriously unreliable. Only reliable after the fact.
Second, medical treatment without consent is typically illegal (assault, in fact) except in extreme circumstances.
Third, treatments for the chronically psychotic are commonly ineffective or only partially effective. Furthermore, many chronically-ill do not follow-up with treatments for a variety of reasons.
Fourth, perhaps the most dangerous category is Psychopathy which is a personality abnormality at its extremes. I doubt it is treatable, but it doesn't matter because these people lie and do not seek help anyway.
That's not to mention civil liberties.
There are other issues, but that's enough for now. AVI is an expert in the topic, so I hope he has something to add.
Physicians are trained to be skeptical. I am, sometimes to a fault.
There is a basket of vague medical complaints which include things sometimes diagnosed as Epstein-Barr, Long Covid, Chronic Lyme Disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and so forth.
I don't know what to think about these things. They used to be known as Neurasthenia.
I think that is part of why so many people get satisfaction, if not pleasure, from spending 5 or 6 hours per week maintaining or building physical fitness.
Fitness goals are simple and measurable. Furthermore, the relative mindlessness of it is a relief from the stresses that other life goals give us. For me, workout sessions lift me out of my mind into a pure animal zone of bodily effort. It is my form of meditation (if meditation implies emptying one's mind). Playing sports does something like that, as does sex. Regardless of age, don't underestimate the importance of sex.
I do not mean to say that sports are mindless, but once you get used to a sport, much of it is reflex. That is training: Down the line or cross-court.
Recreation: Hiking, sports, swimming, and general functioning/vitality are rewards for fitness.
Statistics say that 73% of Americans are overweight. Everybody knows the health and functional consequences of being overweight, however defined. Most people do not care. It's a free country, so I don't care if you do not.
If you care about fitness and functionality, staying trim and strong is a good idea. Staying strong is easy: Go to the gym or something daily with weights and cardio and calisthenics. It is rewarding if not exactly fun. Exercise will not keep many people trim.
It's an American thing. I don't know why because many parts of the world are full of cheap, tasty fast foods.
Without wanting to seem obnoxious to any overweight readers, I have to offer the best article I've seen about nutrition and weight. It's a bit of a long read, but entirely reasonable: Behavioral Nutrition.
The authors are correct. For many people, willpower doesn't work. Habits do. A quote:
Modern weight-loss approaches thus constitute an incomplete approach to long-term weight-control and one that must be complimented by a much more comprehensive appreciation of dietary habits, thought patterns and behaviors, and individual differences in consumption, food preferences, and control, as outlined below in a new approach to weight-loss [21]. Indeed, the selection and consumption of food in the modern era of abundance may have little to with nutritional analysis, appropriate macronutrient levels, or sustenance, as educational programs over the past decades have ensured that most the population is aware of what constitutes a healthy diet. Instead it could be argued that food consumption (and thus long-term weight control) is driven by a host of forces including personality, cognitive processes, food history, personal habits, ingrained behaviors, genetics, responses to environmental cues, neurochemistry and biological drivers, and mood states. In such circumstances, the current model of weight loss, with its emphasis on education, caloric restriction, moderation (moderate food intake) and will power, is ill equipped to promote sustainable weight-control and instead may have resulted in high rates of failure. One must question where the scientific evidence for this longstanding and continued approach to weight management lies, or perhaps by focusing on the most obvious factor, calories, and the field has overlooked the most critical, the person consuming those calories...
This is not intended to be about either weight loss or weight gain. It's about feeling good and lively all day without a siesta.
According to the stats, adult Americans are overfed or, more accurately, are overeating. Food is a pleasure, usually. Too much of a good thing makes us slothful, if not foggy or sleepy. The trick is to consume food until the moment that any feeling of hunger disappears. It is a "Stop" signal.
The challenge for many is that the sensation of satiety lags behind food intake by 15 or 20 minutes. If you eat quickly, you can miss that signal especially when the offering is delicious.
My advice (feel free to ignore it) is, unless underweight, to quit eating when a feeling of hunger disappears. It doesn't take much food if you eat slowly and chat with whoever is with you. After all, the reason to sit down with others is to socialize.
Most restaurants have "small plates" these days. They are usually plenty for most people. The point is that there is no law that we must clean our plates anyway.
... the group of people who have done particularly well from the free-marketization of sex are men high in the personality trait that psychologists call “sociosexuality”: the desire for sexual variety.
…Worldwide, there is a significant difference in average sociosexuality between the sexes, with men generally much keener to sow their wild oats than women are. The full WSJ piece is here.
I believe that most humans are highly sexual and sexually-motivated creatures. Many fantasies, if not action. It's about mostly-private thoughts. It is not as if men are always ready to go (although it is true that men are easily interested or seduced). Still, womens' sexual interests and fantasies are underestimated. Women always check out other women's clothing, but they check out men just as often.
Progress is a funny word. There is no doubt that Homo sapiens is remarkable in the ability to change and control the planet to meet its own needs and wants, with a population boom as a result.
What is "flavor." and where does it come from?