I got off the phone with my parents this morning, and unfortunately I was rather upset when I got off the horn. It wasn't some emotional conflict, or a dramatic falling out of some kind, which I wouldn't mention on this blog anyway. Instead it was frustration with my parents' beliefs. Specifically their mild ambivalence to modern medical science. They're not so bad as some- who refuse to believe in any form of modern medicine whatsoever. Instead, most of the time they simply choose to compliment modern medicine with various alternative remedies. So long as they're supplementing rather than rejecting evidence-based medicine, my complaints about it have been limited to gentle nudges.
However recently, my father has gotten it into his head that somehow the swine flu epidemic is a “hoax”. At least that's word he uses, the way he uses it though seems to indicate “conspiracy”. This isn't the only crazy thing he believes. Yet he's educated in a technical field, and good at his job no less. I've seen him use critical thinking skills to great effect- but somehow he fails to apply them outside a narrow set of contexts. (It's really almost exactly as Michael Shermer describes it in his book.) So today he told me I shouldn't get the H1N1 shot. I told him that I didn't believe any of the paranoia surrounding it. He told me to check my email for one he sent me about the differences between regular flu and swine flu. I glanced at it, and really it's the difference between any flu and a regular cold. It's in Arabic and I realized he was simply translating directly (in Arabic, the common cold is called “influenza” colloquially). I know the newspapers he reads, and from way over here, I've been seeing horrible reporting they're doing online. What I found most bizarre however was that he told me to get a regular flu shot! I think in addition to being swayed by sensationalist Arabic-language media (which has been just as bad if not worse than English-language media on the issue) he's somewhat unclear on the concept.
My parents have never been anti-vaccination, fortunately. I knew better than to explore my father's perceptions on the issue- which would undoubtedly involve frustratingly vague descriptions and invocations of secrecy and collusion. Instead, I have to convince him that the vaccine is safe, and that H1N1 is a real, perceptible threat. There are a number of sources I can tap into, as illustrated here. One of my favorite informative demonstrations is here, but it's only for the HPV vaccine. I think I can tap into his sense of rationalism if I go about it the right way. My mother is much more persuadable than my father since she's not as emotionally invested in this. I'm more worried about my grandparents, who may have been convinced not to get it by their son. I can't rush into it though, because I really want them to get vaccinated, but I don't want to throw anyone into a defensive lock-down where they refuse to be convinced. I'm going to have to play the diplomat and the maven at the same time, and I'm not good at being diplomatic- not with family. I have a few tricks up my sleeves though, and I think have a few ideas. Mostly they involving making a number of long distance phone calls and firing off some emails.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Limits of Internet Anonymity
Let me be abundantly clear: I believe that everyone, absolutely anyone, has the fundamental human right to anonymous speech. In other words, I do not believe that freedom of speech should exist only on the condition that a person not use an alias to speak. My reasoning is simple, a person is not truly free to speak if they have to worry about repercussions from the community for endorsing an unpopular view- which they have an absolute right to do. Perhaps you want to speak out in favor of a policy or idea most of your neighbors abhor, but you live in a small town where people know you, and might react in a hostile way if they find out. What if you can't find work? No, perhaps it's better to post on Internet forums debating local issues under an alias, or even engage in anonymous flyering/stickering within the confines of the law. Speech alone should not be punished and a person should not be forced to endure scrutiny as a person for arguments to hold their merit.
However, I've recently been frustrated in several conversations and threads I've come across and people have been frustrated with me. First of all, I call myself "The Chemist" for one simple reason- I lack originality. When I was sitting down, thinking of what to call myself for this blog, I spent what felt like half-an-hour sitting there, eventually I just gave up and went with something obvious. It was never intended to be a statement of intellectual superiority (THE Chemist). If anything I'm quite honest about my inexperience and call it a "Chemical Journey" and make no claims that I'm the ultimate (or even a standard) authority on chemistry. It's always been about sharing what I find interesting, and versing in simple terms what most qualified PhDs often take for granted to some extent as basic knowledge. I rely on the fact that I only explain basics, such that anyone can verify to some extent in another source.
Still, some people have mocked me for my screen name when I'm discussing non-science issues. I've even had someone ask me what I could possibly know based on my age and put my screen name in scare quotes (as if to make some statement about how I could not possibly be a chemist)- when I expressed a socio-political opinion, of all things. It was a non-argument of course, and pointed out that it had no salient impact on the substance of my statement. This person, by the way, claimed to be a professor of some kind- which struck me as odd behavior for someone who supposedly teaches. I'd hate to see what passes for "discussion" at that person's lectures.
However the reasons I am anonymous are actually a little less contrived or complicated than it would seem. I'm in a position where I'm not an expert and make no claims to that effect. However I would one day like to be an expert, and I don't want this experimental, cathartic, enterprise to get in the way of employment or other opportunities. Whether it's because I did something to make myself look bad as a chemist once or twice, or because I offended the wrong person's political sensibilities, I want the buffer of anonymity. If for no other reason than to give me room to screw up. I am, after all, primarily a student blogger.
This is how I justify my anonymity, and perhaps one day I'll find reason to shed it completely. However, I would like to point out that while I do believe in anonymity as a right, it does carry one consequence. Being an anonymous blogger, writer, expert, or poster of any kind- you are immediately subject to the Cassandra bubble of credibility. What it means is that you can say what you want, but no one has to believe you as an expert or professional. It's one thing to state simple facts as they are and to point to reputable sources. It's something else entirely to share a complex professional judgement with a layman.
You can't simply call yourself a medical doctor and hide behind a pseudonym while discussing medicine as an uncorroborated expert. The same goes for lawyers, engineers, or any kind of certified expertise. (It's fine if you've been vetted by other named, and openly identified experts, such as is the case for a number of bloggers on ScienceBlogs.) The reason for this is simple, no one should believe CuRlYhAiR3000's comments on the law simply because he or she can use a lot of legal jargon. I, as a layman, may not be able to tell if the person is full of it. Since the person will not give a real name, so that I can check it against a state bar association or list of law school graduates, then I should cast the jargon-laden comment aside. I have no way of knowing if it's true. Similarly, I shouldn't tolerate the anonymous comments of someone discussing blood pressure medication claiming to be an expert if I have no way of verifying the information independently.
The tolerance for anonymity vis-a-vis credibility is also audience dependant. Some anonymous blogger claiming to be an organic chemist need not prove his or her bona fides if all they do is blog about structures and concepts that only organic chemists understand and is targeting colleagues who are capable of recognizing whether the person is a waste of their time. (Of course publishing scientifically novel information is a different issue entirely.)
Views and opinions, while often stated as fact, are frequently self-contained, and there is nothing to be gained or lost by learning the author's identity. An opinion is either backed up well with facts that anyone can verify, or it isn't. It's either convincing or it isn't. It should be judged on its own strengths and weaknesses, authority is a non-issue and credibility shouldn't be tied to revealing a real name. That's the nature of this post. Nothing I say is in any way beyond my audience's ability to evaluate. My opinions I state as fact of course, because I'm convinced of them, but who I am has no bearing on whether this argument makes sense or whether anyone should agree.
However, I've recently been frustrated in several conversations and threads I've come across and people have been frustrated with me. First of all, I call myself "The Chemist" for one simple reason- I lack originality. When I was sitting down, thinking of what to call myself for this blog, I spent what felt like half-an-hour sitting there, eventually I just gave up and went with something obvious. It was never intended to be a statement of intellectual superiority (THE Chemist). If anything I'm quite honest about my inexperience and call it a "Chemical Journey" and make no claims that I'm the ultimate (or even a standard) authority on chemistry. It's always been about sharing what I find interesting, and versing in simple terms what most qualified PhDs often take for granted to some extent as basic knowledge. I rely on the fact that I only explain basics, such that anyone can verify to some extent in another source.
Still, some people have mocked me for my screen name when I'm discussing non-science issues. I've even had someone ask me what I could possibly know based on my age and put my screen name in scare quotes (as if to make some statement about how I could not possibly be a chemist)- when I expressed a socio-political opinion, of all things. It was a non-argument of course, and pointed out that it had no salient impact on the substance of my statement. This person, by the way, claimed to be a professor of some kind- which struck me as odd behavior for someone who supposedly teaches. I'd hate to see what passes for "discussion" at that person's lectures.
However the reasons I am anonymous are actually a little less contrived or complicated than it would seem. I'm in a position where I'm not an expert and make no claims to that effect. However I would one day like to be an expert, and I don't want this experimental, cathartic, enterprise to get in the way of employment or other opportunities. Whether it's because I did something to make myself look bad as a chemist once or twice, or because I offended the wrong person's political sensibilities, I want the buffer of anonymity. If for no other reason than to give me room to screw up. I am, after all, primarily a student blogger.
This is how I justify my anonymity, and perhaps one day I'll find reason to shed it completely. However, I would like to point out that while I do believe in anonymity as a right, it does carry one consequence. Being an anonymous blogger, writer, expert, or poster of any kind- you are immediately subject to the Cassandra bubble of credibility. What it means is that you can say what you want, but no one has to believe you as an expert or professional. It's one thing to state simple facts as they are and to point to reputable sources. It's something else entirely to share a complex professional judgement with a layman.
You can't simply call yourself a medical doctor and hide behind a pseudonym while discussing medicine as an uncorroborated expert. The same goes for lawyers, engineers, or any kind of certified expertise. (It's fine if you've been vetted by other named, and openly identified experts, such as is the case for a number of bloggers on ScienceBlogs.) The reason for this is simple, no one should believe CuRlYhAiR3000's comments on the law simply because he or she can use a lot of legal jargon. I, as a layman, may not be able to tell if the person is full of it. Since the person will not give a real name, so that I can check it against a state bar association or list of law school graduates, then I should cast the jargon-laden comment aside. I have no way of knowing if it's true. Similarly, I shouldn't tolerate the anonymous comments of someone discussing blood pressure medication claiming to be an expert if I have no way of verifying the information independently.
The tolerance for anonymity vis-a-vis credibility is also audience dependant. Some anonymous blogger claiming to be an organic chemist need not prove his or her bona fides if all they do is blog about structures and concepts that only organic chemists understand and is targeting colleagues who are capable of recognizing whether the person is a waste of their time. (Of course publishing scientifically novel information is a different issue entirely.)
Views and opinions, while often stated as fact, are frequently self-contained, and there is nothing to be gained or lost by learning the author's identity. An opinion is either backed up well with facts that anyone can verify, or it isn't. It's either convincing or it isn't. It should be judged on its own strengths and weaknesses, authority is a non-issue and credibility shouldn't be tied to revealing a real name. That's the nature of this post. Nothing I say is in any way beyond my audience's ability to evaluate. My opinions I state as fact of course, because I'm convinced of them, but who I am has no bearing on whether this argument makes sense or whether anyone should agree.
"Hollow" Calories and Hollower Heads
As I stated in a previous post, I intend on completing a short "sprint" triathlon next year, and am currently in training. I knew two things for certain when I started:
1. It isn't going to be a cakewalk (and it isn't).
2. I would encounter a great deal of pseudoscience and unverified claims about nutrition and exercise.
It's this second one that compels me to write this post. Specifically I want to address the myth of "hollow calories" and to illustrate it's uselessness as a term by looking at how it's used.
This was all motivated by my friend, who will be doing the triathlon with me. (Yes, he sometimes reads this blog, and yes, I'm going to set this up so that I seem more awesome than him in general.) We were discussing our routines over the phone -fascinating conversation I'm sure- and when we start discussing my nutritional plan, he admonishes me to avoid "hollow calories". He says something to the effect of, "You don't get as much energy out them as you normally would." Of course, he was full of it. A calorie is a unit of thermal energy, like a joule. In fact, a joule is approximately 0.239 calories. Always. Always, always, always. It's a unit of measure like an inch, how useless would it be if an inch suddenly changes depending on what you're measuring?
So I try to explain to him what a hollow calorie really is, and because he likes to annoy me, he suddenly claimed to have lost interest since I was clearly winning the argument. That's what you get for going into business- can you represent the various kinds of knowledgeable whoop-ass on a spreadsheet for me please? (Actually, I think this guy could.)
Here's the kicker though. I was wrong- well, not really, I fell into that nebulous category of truthiness classified as being "not even" wrong. I still win though, since my friend was still quite clearly more wrong. He was wronger than a penguin on the north pole cracking tasteless ethnic jokes. I however, launched into a spiel of what hollow calories were and what the term is useful for. For naught as it turned out, because before I wrote this post I did some digging and found something interesting. Searches for "hollow calories" and "hollow calorie" (in quotes) generated less than 6,000 results at most. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this humble blog post hits the front page of either search. What I found was that very few people could seem to agree what a "hollow calorie" was. Even Wikipedia was strangely silent on the issue.
I had thought that hollow calorie was a reference to relative nutritive value- i.e. how rich the food is in terms of fiber, vitamins, and other substances that would benefit the body. I thought that it was a legitimate way of saying that getting 100 calories of a sugary beverage isn't as good as getting 100 calories of a vegetable juice. I cannot say where I got the impression that I knew what a hollow calorie was, but as I said before- the search yielded nothing in the way of consistency. In fact, the search was chock-full of obvious nonsense about hollow calories and quick weight-loss schemes. There were no legitimate nutrition websites or experts opining on it, Just look at the About.com pages on Weight-loss and Nutrition. About.com is usually pretty good when it comes to finding legitimate experts on the subjects they explain (even if the subjects themselves are a little loopy)*. Of course it's far easier to prove that a bit of terminology does exist than it is to prove it doesn't.
So instead of explaining a non-existent concept, I'll briefly explain a calorie, and even go a little into how when it comes to nutrition, all calories are all created equal even if they're not equally dealt with. I already explained that a calorie is a unit of thermal energy. Specifically it's the amount of energy needed to bring the temperature of one gram of water, up by one degree centigrade. When you look at the calories on food labels though, this doesn't seem to make sense. You can melt ice cubes in your mouth for an hour before you get bored, yet the average person only uses around 2,000 calories a day (if sedentary). How do you not pass out from exhaustion?
The reason is that nutritionists are speaking a slightly different language. Why? Well, life's not complicated enough it seems. A nutritional calorie, which is what is meant by "calorie" on a nutrition label at the store is actually what chemists would call a "kilocalorie". It's actually 1,000 calories! This is enough to raise the temperature of roughly a liter of water by one degree.
People usually try to denote "kilocalorie" by using a capital "C" as in "Calorie", but you'll find that people use both "calorie" and "Calorie" casually to mean nutritional or "kilo" calories. So in reality, when a food label says "100 calories per serving" it means 100 nutritional Calories (kilocalories) or 100,000 standard calories. This means that you actually expend a tremendous-sounding 2 million standard calories doing very little all day. Obviously it's easier to count calories if the numbers are smaller- which is why the kilocalorie is used as a nutritional standard.
While one nutritional calorie provides the exact same amount of energy as another nutritional calorie from a different kind of food, there can be a subtle difference. The kinds of carbohydrates for example (simple vs. complex), and whether you consume them with some fiber (like in whole wheat bread) can affect how fast you're body digests and converts them into energy. This is critical in an endurance sport, where eating right before a race makes a difference and allows you to hold back from converting your entire breakfast into glycogen (which is what your body ultimately goes to for an immediate energy source) too early, and where products like gel-packs full of simple sugars are used to raise glycogen levels quickly. If you run out, you hit what endurance athletes call "The Wall". It's when your body is simply not capable of making energy available to itself quickly enough for you to continue at a good pace. You feel extremely fatigued- like running through molasses. Ultimately, a calorie is still a calorie energy-wise, but how quickly calories are processed is crucial in certain contexts.
So ignore tripe about "hollow calories". If you're counting calories, you might want to avoid a small 200 calorie square of chocolate and opt for a more filling and nutritious 200 calorie big salad instead, but don't spend a lot of time worrying about a concept that has as much legitimacy and usefulness behind it as unicorns
*I am not endorsed by About.com in any way; nor do I necessarily condone, or bear responsibility for, the information on their pages.
1. It isn't going to be a cakewalk (and it isn't).
2. I would encounter a great deal of pseudoscience and unverified claims about nutrition and exercise.
It's this second one that compels me to write this post. Specifically I want to address the myth of "hollow calories" and to illustrate it's uselessness as a term by looking at how it's used.
This was all motivated by my friend, who will be doing the triathlon with me. (Yes, he sometimes reads this blog, and yes, I'm going to set this up so that I seem more awesome than him in general.) We were discussing our routines over the phone -fascinating conversation I'm sure- and when we start discussing my nutritional plan, he admonishes me to avoid "hollow calories". He says something to the effect of, "You don't get as much energy out them as you normally would." Of course, he was full of it. A calorie is a unit of thermal energy, like a joule. In fact, a joule is approximately 0.239 calories. Always. Always, always, always. It's a unit of measure like an inch, how useless would it be if an inch suddenly changes depending on what you're measuring?
So I try to explain to him what a hollow calorie really is, and because he likes to annoy me, he suddenly claimed to have lost interest since I was clearly winning the argument. That's what you get for going into business- can you represent the various kinds of knowledgeable whoop-ass on a spreadsheet for me please? (Actually, I think this guy could.)
Here's the kicker though. I was wrong- well, not really, I fell into that nebulous category of truthiness classified as being "not even" wrong. I still win though, since my friend was still quite clearly more wrong. He was wronger than a penguin on the north pole cracking tasteless ethnic jokes. I however, launched into a spiel of what hollow calories were and what the term is useful for. For naught as it turned out, because before I wrote this post I did some digging and found something interesting. Searches for "hollow calories" and "hollow calorie" (in quotes) generated less than 6,000 results at most. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this humble blog post hits the front page of either search. What I found was that very few people could seem to agree what a "hollow calorie" was. Even Wikipedia was strangely silent on the issue.
I had thought that hollow calorie was a reference to relative nutritive value- i.e. how rich the food is in terms of fiber, vitamins, and other substances that would benefit the body. I thought that it was a legitimate way of saying that getting 100 calories of a sugary beverage isn't as good as getting 100 calories of a vegetable juice. I cannot say where I got the impression that I knew what a hollow calorie was, but as I said before- the search yielded nothing in the way of consistency. In fact, the search was chock-full of obvious nonsense about hollow calories and quick weight-loss schemes. There were no legitimate nutrition websites or experts opining on it, Just look at the About.com pages on Weight-loss and Nutrition. About.com is usually pretty good when it comes to finding legitimate experts on the subjects they explain (even if the subjects themselves are a little loopy)*. Of course it's far easier to prove that a bit of terminology does exist than it is to prove it doesn't.
So instead of explaining a non-existent concept, I'll briefly explain a calorie, and even go a little into how when it comes to nutrition, all calories are all created equal even if they're not equally dealt with. I already explained that a calorie is a unit of thermal energy. Specifically it's the amount of energy needed to bring the temperature of one gram of water, up by one degree centigrade. When you look at the calories on food labels though, this doesn't seem to make sense. You can melt ice cubes in your mouth for an hour before you get bored, yet the average person only uses around 2,000 calories a day (if sedentary). How do you not pass out from exhaustion?
The reason is that nutritionists are speaking a slightly different language. Why? Well, life's not complicated enough it seems. A nutritional calorie, which is what is meant by "calorie" on a nutrition label at the store is actually what chemists would call a "kilocalorie". It's actually 1,000 calories! This is enough to raise the temperature of roughly a liter of water by one degree.
People usually try to denote "kilocalorie" by using a capital "C" as in "Calorie", but you'll find that people use both "calorie" and "Calorie" casually to mean nutritional or "kilo" calories. So in reality, when a food label says "100 calories per serving" it means 100 nutritional Calories (kilocalories) or 100,000 standard calories. This means that you actually expend a tremendous-sounding 2 million standard calories doing very little all day. Obviously it's easier to count calories if the numbers are smaller- which is why the kilocalorie is used as a nutritional standard.
While one nutritional calorie provides the exact same amount of energy as another nutritional calorie from a different kind of food, there can be a subtle difference. The kinds of carbohydrates for example (simple vs. complex), and whether you consume them with some fiber (like in whole wheat bread) can affect how fast you're body digests and converts them into energy. This is critical in an endurance sport, where eating right before a race makes a difference and allows you to hold back from converting your entire breakfast into glycogen (which is what your body ultimately goes to for an immediate energy source) too early, and where products like gel-packs full of simple sugars are used to raise glycogen levels quickly. If you run out, you hit what endurance athletes call "The Wall". It's when your body is simply not capable of making energy available to itself quickly enough for you to continue at a good pace. You feel extremely fatigued- like running through molasses. Ultimately, a calorie is still a calorie energy-wise, but how quickly calories are processed is crucial in certain contexts.
So ignore tripe about "hollow calories". If you're counting calories, you might want to avoid a small 200 calorie square of chocolate and opt for a more filling and nutritious 200 calorie big salad instead, but don't spend a lot of time worrying about a concept that has as much legitimacy and usefulness behind it as unicorns
*I am not endorsed by About.com in any way; nor do I necessarily condone, or bear responsibility for, the information on their pages.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Ingenious Library Solutions
Check out this particular idea for people like me who own too many books and look at that Kindle stuff with a jaundiced eye. Trust me, I only have hundreds of books, and I think I could get use out that. Imagine in ten years or so when (if I'm extrapolating correctly) I'll have thousands.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Why I Haven't Been Blogging
Where have I been? It's a good goddamn question. The answer is busy, busy, busy. This past week especially is eating into free time. Aside from multiple projects which have set this blog on the back-burner, I've recently been sucked into a rather strange activity. It's a little complicated- let me explain.
There's something about friendship most people take for granted, that at its core, there are two things that sustain it. Those two things are the ability to have a mutually satisfying conversation, and other far more important thing is sharing common activities. A lot of people have the misconception that friendships are about sharing common ideas. Okay, but think about it, how many of your friends have you really probed for their idealistic leanings, and how many flat out disagree with you on ideas you hold near and dear? I think you'll find most of the time that sharing a common ideal isn't as important as the other person being in the mood to do the things you like to do when you want to do them.
I am not an athlete. I have never considered myself to be one, despite the fact that I was on the wrestling team, and did track & field in high school. I never felt the desire to really dedicate myself to a sport. I mostly did it to kill time, and stay out of the house, where I whittled most of my teenage years into a dull nothing. So it came as a surprise to me, when I brought up the subject of triathlon competition with a close friend who has been getting into running. I'm not sure what black magic was involved, but suddenly I found myself working on my stamina, running and biking for the past week. I never explicitly said that I was planning on doing a triathlon but there I was, pretending to train all the same. Today my friend sent me an email, linking a standard length triathlon taking place in 2010. It was then I realized, "This shit just got real."
So now it's pretty much confirmed, I'm in training for a standard distance triathlon next year, to be followed (eventually) by a full-distance Ironman triathlon. Of course, that's still a while away, but it's what the two of us have pretty much decided was our de facto goal. It wasn't all my idea of course, I just sort of languidly raised the topic over dinner and he expressed a desire to eventually go for it. He has been constantly goading me to get off the couch and join him in his runs by this point. So I guess I'm just a sucker for peer-pressure.
For now my workouts are pretty simple, trying to acclimate my body to a higher level of sustained aerobic activity. I've been making excellent progress (if I do say so myself), and have bumped it as high as an hour and a half at a decent pace. Once I start pushing the two hour mark, I'll start working on bringing the pace up a bit. Meanwhile I'm trying to shed extra poundage, which you would think would provide energy, but really just acts like dead-weight. This makes endurance training difficult. Firstly you're trying to carry that dead weight, which admittedly gets easier and easier, but if you're me, you're doing this before breakfast. It's this second part that makes it the most difficult. I don't consume carbohydrates past 6 PM the previous day, to maximize fat metabolism. This is the exact opposite of what distance runners do, but my first priority to condition my body to burn fat and get used to the feeling of that kind of oxygen intensive activity. I'm not training nearly hard enough to hit "the wall" yet, but I am trying to eventually get there.
What's funny is that I didn't go into this to lose weight, even if I was aware that might be result. I lost about sixteen pounds a while back because I thought I was getting too heavy (I was), and after that I stopped giving it much thought. Then this triathlon thing comes along and I'm suddenly feeling the strain of moving all my extra weight along with me. So now I'm watching what I eat and when I eat, which is hard and easy at the same time. It's easy in the sense that I know what to eat and how to gauge caloric intake, and I have several strategies for meals. I've lost a lot of weight in relatively short time periods before, as I mentioned previously. (I would like to mention that I didn't regain that weight, I'm well aware of that yo-yo dieting is supposedly the bane of human existence.) What's hard is breaking bad habits, like snacking. I don't smoke or drink, my one vice is food. I tend eat when I'm nervous, and I have to admit I'm fairly high-strung.
Snacking is what I would say gets most people in trouble, and this is why I hatehatehate things like the 100 calorie-packs and so forth that get peddled to inevitable yo-yo dieters. It just sets people up to fail, because it allows them to operate under the delusion that eating snacks is a natural way to manage hunger. It's one thing to tide yourself over with something when you're delayed or too busy to have a full meal, but it's something else entirely to eat a Snickers bar or bag of chips in between two well portioned scheduled meals- all the time.
The other habit I'm breaking (that I should have broken the first time I did something like this) is the soda fixation. If you eat out a lot, you inevitably drink gallons of sugar. In most of the US, the cups are "bottomless". There was a recent study that said even people who drank "diet" sodas were more likely to have obesity related issues. Small wonder, since people who have developed the habit of drinking sugary-tasting drinks are probably deciding not to compromise to lose weight. There is a solution of course, WATER. It's better for you. They do sell little low-calorie powder packets that you can supposedly mix in to add color and flavor. I tried one and can't say it blew me away, and it introduces the after-taste factor. If you want your water with a little 'zazz I would recommend club soda with lime or lemon. It's nowhere near the sweet-drinks with food habit, since it's mostly savory.
I say all this for the benefit of people interested in the subject of course. There's a lot of nonsense out there. Even I have probably fallen prey to it. I don't have the time I want to look into all the claims out there about hydration and so on while I train, so I pretty much rely on the people who've done this sort of thing to walk me through it as I retroactively check all the assumptions. It's hard to be skeptical about things when you're in a bit of a whirlwind of activity.
I will say that there are definite downsides to what I'm doing. Sometimes, I just don't want to do it when I wake up in the morning. I do it anyway, of course. Then there's the fact that it eats a chunk of my day. The upsides are numerous, however. I watch less television, a chunk of my day that it turns out I can do without. I have more energy during the day. That period of time during the workout where you can think quietly, but your mind is slightly distracted by the task at hand provides the perfect space for epiphanies and solutions to tough problems. I've also been able to sleep better, and my insomnia has all but disappeared. My family also has a history of diabetes, and that should probably be my number one reason to get really serious about fitness. It's a good thing.
(Posted un-proofread)
There's something about friendship most people take for granted, that at its core, there are two things that sustain it. Those two things are the ability to have a mutually satisfying conversation, and other far more important thing is sharing common activities. A lot of people have the misconception that friendships are about sharing common ideas. Okay, but think about it, how many of your friends have you really probed for their idealistic leanings, and how many flat out disagree with you on ideas you hold near and dear? I think you'll find most of the time that sharing a common ideal isn't as important as the other person being in the mood to do the things you like to do when you want to do them.
I am not an athlete. I have never considered myself to be one, despite the fact that I was on the wrestling team, and did track & field in high school. I never felt the desire to really dedicate myself to a sport. I mostly did it to kill time, and stay out of the house, where I whittled most of my teenage years into a dull nothing. So it came as a surprise to me, when I brought up the subject of triathlon competition with a close friend who has been getting into running. I'm not sure what black magic was involved, but suddenly I found myself working on my stamina, running and biking for the past week. I never explicitly said that I was planning on doing a triathlon but there I was, pretending to train all the same. Today my friend sent me an email, linking a standard length triathlon taking place in 2010. It was then I realized, "This shit just got real."
So now it's pretty much confirmed, I'm in training for a standard distance triathlon next year, to be followed (eventually) by a full-distance Ironman triathlon. Of course, that's still a while away, but it's what the two of us have pretty much decided was our de facto goal. It wasn't all my idea of course, I just sort of languidly raised the topic over dinner and he expressed a desire to eventually go for it. He has been constantly goading me to get off the couch and join him in his runs by this point. So I guess I'm just a sucker for peer-pressure.
For now my workouts are pretty simple, trying to acclimate my body to a higher level of sustained aerobic activity. I've been making excellent progress (if I do say so myself), and have bumped it as high as an hour and a half at a decent pace. Once I start pushing the two hour mark, I'll start working on bringing the pace up a bit. Meanwhile I'm trying to shed extra poundage, which you would think would provide energy, but really just acts like dead-weight. This makes endurance training difficult. Firstly you're trying to carry that dead weight, which admittedly gets easier and easier, but if you're me, you're doing this before breakfast. It's this second part that makes it the most difficult. I don't consume carbohydrates past 6 PM the previous day, to maximize fat metabolism. This is the exact opposite of what distance runners do, but my first priority to condition my body to burn fat and get used to the feeling of that kind of oxygen intensive activity. I'm not training nearly hard enough to hit "the wall" yet, but I am trying to eventually get there.
What's funny is that I didn't go into this to lose weight, even if I was aware that might be result. I lost about sixteen pounds a while back because I thought I was getting too heavy (I was), and after that I stopped giving it much thought. Then this triathlon thing comes along and I'm suddenly feeling the strain of moving all my extra weight along with me. So now I'm watching what I eat and when I eat, which is hard and easy at the same time. It's easy in the sense that I know what to eat and how to gauge caloric intake, and I have several strategies for meals. I've lost a lot of weight in relatively short time periods before, as I mentioned previously. (I would like to mention that I didn't regain that weight, I'm well aware of that yo-yo dieting is supposedly the bane of human existence.) What's hard is breaking bad habits, like snacking. I don't smoke or drink, my one vice is food. I tend eat when I'm nervous, and I have to admit I'm fairly high-strung.
Snacking is what I would say gets most people in trouble, and this is why I hatehatehate things like the 100 calorie-packs and so forth that get peddled to inevitable yo-yo dieters. It just sets people up to fail, because it allows them to operate under the delusion that eating snacks is a natural way to manage hunger. It's one thing to tide yourself over with something when you're delayed or too busy to have a full meal, but it's something else entirely to eat a Snickers bar or bag of chips in between two well portioned scheduled meals- all the time.
The other habit I'm breaking (that I should have broken the first time I did something like this) is the soda fixation. If you eat out a lot, you inevitably drink gallons of sugar. In most of the US, the cups are "bottomless". There was a recent study that said even people who drank "diet" sodas were more likely to have obesity related issues. Small wonder, since people who have developed the habit of drinking sugary-tasting drinks are probably deciding not to compromise to lose weight. There is a solution of course, WATER. It's better for you. They do sell little low-calorie powder packets that you can supposedly mix in to add color and flavor. I tried one and can't say it blew me away, and it introduces the after-taste factor. If you want your water with a little 'zazz I would recommend club soda with lime or lemon. It's nowhere near the sweet-drinks with food habit, since it's mostly savory.
I say all this for the benefit of people interested in the subject of course. There's a lot of nonsense out there. Even I have probably fallen prey to it. I don't have the time I want to look into all the claims out there about hydration and so on while I train, so I pretty much rely on the people who've done this sort of thing to walk me through it as I retroactively check all the assumptions. It's hard to be skeptical about things when you're in a bit of a whirlwind of activity.
I will say that there are definite downsides to what I'm doing. Sometimes, I just don't want to do it when I wake up in the morning. I do it anyway, of course. Then there's the fact that it eats a chunk of my day. The upsides are numerous, however. I watch less television, a chunk of my day that it turns out I can do without. I have more energy during the day. That period of time during the workout where you can think quietly, but your mind is slightly distracted by the task at hand provides the perfect space for epiphanies and solutions to tough problems. I've also been able to sleep better, and my insomnia has all but disappeared. My family also has a history of diabetes, and that should probably be my number one reason to get really serious about fitness. It's a good thing.
(Posted un-proofread)
Friday, August 21, 2009
Scuttle
In terms of expectations, Obama has had me on a roller-coaster ride since the beginning. I was never in the group of people that are enamored of him, and I doubt I ever will be for any president. I did vote for him- but only as the best candidate and nowhere near what I would consider an ideal candidate. One day I genuinely hopeful about the direction the president seems to be taking on certain issues, the next I’m cynical. Today I’m unimpressed with Obama’s progress on healthcare, while before I was somewhat hopeful that he was coming around on the public option. Here’s an MSNBC clip that discusses where Obama seems to be going on this if you need background.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I’ve said before and I’ll say again that my last thoughts on the issue involve the private insurers. In business or out, I don’t really care, all that I care about is whether or not Americans have a better system that they have now. However, for me the mandate is a major issue. Government mandated insurance is in some cases understandable. Car and other forms of insurance that get mandated by state or other authorities make sense. These mandates are designed to guarantee restitution to blameless individuals affected by the unexpected. However, except in limited cases and in limited ways, Americans who have health problems rarely impose on unaffected parties. Certainly they may pose a burden on their families and loved ones, but the burden is voluntarily born.
There are several reasons for to be against a mandate. Mandating health insurance, unlike a tax, places different burdens on different Americans, and there is no way to opt-out of these burdens. If we do have healthcare reform in this country that carries with it an insurance mandate, then a public-option is absolutely necessary. One is that mandates should not be placed on individuals to take care of their individual needs, it’s a restriction of liberty unless the government will provide the service when the person is unwilling or unable. The second principle reason that a public option is necessary is that the government should not be in the business of enforcing the patronage of private enterprise. In some cases it’s literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The government taking money out of my pocket for the public good is one thing. The government taking money out of my pocket for the good of others is something else entirely.
I would rather see healthcare reform deleted from the agenda than deal with a process that seems in part designed to give for-profit insurance companies the entire American population as a customer base and risk pool. This is not an all-or-none attitude by any means. Even a limited public option system, or a hybrid system is acceptable. Whatever process is inevitably put in place, it should be the essence of simplicity and worry-free healthcare. I’m willing to compromise, after all, my preference is a single-payer system supported by national sales tax. What bother me most however, as always, is that no one is having this debate! No one is discussing the important things. No one is having reasonable arguments.
It is my greatest fear that is any hope of real effective healthcare reform has been completely scuttled by the absolute annihilation of honest and patient discourse in this country. Sensationalism and mythology have prevailed, and the national media is less interested in informing us than it is in forcing us to take a side. Clarity and openness have fallen by the wayside. We have become subject to the tyranny of confusion and the despotism of paranoia.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Anti-Environmentalism Spin
I'm quick to attack faux-environmentalists who take things too far and get paranoid about what should be non-issues. It's not that I dislike environmentalists as a group, I like environmentalism, but only when it's facts-based and reflective of an objective reality. So when something like this heavily spun, bent, spindled, and mutilated piece comes out of that snake hole that is the Washington Times very clearly mocking both environmentalism and sensible facts- I'm all too ready to roll my eyes at them as well.
The ACS issued a statement- oh wait, the ACS doesn't really issue health statements to the public. Oops. Well, in this much more sober account, we find that a study was presented at the recent ACS conference in DC (which a number of other chemistry bloggers are probably going to discuss in the coming days) that candles are probably releasing carcinogenic fumes. For some reason, someone thought that maybe you should be aware of this while chillaxing in the tub, going on a romantic candle-lit date, or just celebrating Hanukkah. The study covers something that's rather hard to doubt. I don't have access to it at the moment, and the authors may or may not be overextending some of the conclusions, but the basic premise seems very sound.
What the article does is frame the issue as scientists arguing that candles are polluting our planet. Of course, if you aren't doing hard drugs right now, you'll realize that no one implied such a thing. Instead one Jennifer Harper, decided that maybe since the word "environment" was maybe used once or even simply implied, that suddenly it was part of some green conspiracy to keep her from her ear-candling appointment. She writes,
There's a part of me that makes me want to think she's saying all this tongue-in-cheek, but the nature of Poe is such that I really can't tell. All I know for sure is how it's getting interpreted by the folk in the Fark thread where I discovered the story. People really are responding to the story without apparently even reading it. They're incredulous at the seeming gall of scientists declaring everything environmentally unfriendly.
The reality of the situation is both much milder and more interesting. If you burn a candle, and hold a thick piece of ceramic over the flame for a moment, you'll get a scorch mark. Except it isn't a scorch mark. You can wipe away most of the scorch away with your finger (when it cools people, when it cools) because it's just soot. This is chemistry 101. Ideally when you combust hydrocarbons in air, it only generates carbon dioxide and water vapor. Realistically though, substances like paraffin are impure mixtures of hydrocarbons with different chemical formulas and don't burn completely in normal atmospheric concentrations of oxygen. Soot is a sign of the inefficient burn, in fact arson investigators look at whether there's too little soot in a house fire to determine if an accelerant was used. Soot is comprised of all kinds of organic components, some of which are proven carcinogens. What these scientists are saying is that people who surround themselves with candles as a matter of habit should take this into consideration. That's all. It's really up to epidemiologists to determine how elevated your risk for cancer may be.
Harper ends the article by quoting some pithy manager of a steakhouse who spouts some hogwash about negative ions being created by the candles. Putting aside for the moment that oxidation (read: burning) implies a loss of electrons or negativity- ergo "positive ions", I'll take the word of the most whacked-out, incompetent member of the ACS while he or she is drunk/stoned/high off their ass before I really give a shit about what some random restaurateur thinks. For the record, I'd probably still eat at candle-obsessed restaurants anyway.
The ACS issued a statement- oh wait, the ACS doesn't really issue health statements to the public. Oops. Well, in this much more sober account, we find that a study was presented at the recent ACS conference in DC (which a number of other chemistry bloggers are probably going to discuss in the coming days) that candles are probably releasing carcinogenic fumes. For some reason, someone thought that maybe you should be aware of this while chillaxing in the tub, going on a romantic candle-lit date, or just celebrating Hanukkah. The study covers something that's rather hard to doubt. I don't have access to it at the moment, and the authors may or may not be overextending some of the conclusions, but the basic premise seems very sound.
What the article does is frame the issue as scientists arguing that candles are polluting our planet. Of course, if you aren't doing hard drugs right now, you'll realize that no one implied such a thing. Instead one Jennifer Harper, decided that maybe since the word "environment" was maybe used once or even simply implied, that suddenly it was part of some green conspiracy to keep her from her ear-candling appointment. She writes,
"The eco-minded now have a new source of guilt. The green police have a new target, and hypochondriacs might balk at romantic suppers. The study also could have profound repercussions, perhaps, on politicians with romantic trysts on their minds, or journalists intent on wooing sources."
There's a part of me that makes me want to think she's saying all this tongue-in-cheek, but the nature of Poe is such that I really can't tell. All I know for sure is how it's getting interpreted by the folk in the Fark thread where I discovered the story. People really are responding to the story without apparently even reading it. They're incredulous at the seeming gall of scientists declaring everything environmentally unfriendly.
The reality of the situation is both much milder and more interesting. If you burn a candle, and hold a thick piece of ceramic over the flame for a moment, you'll get a scorch mark. Except it isn't a scorch mark. You can wipe away most of the scorch away with your finger (when it cools people, when it cools) because it's just soot. This is chemistry 101. Ideally when you combust hydrocarbons in air, it only generates carbon dioxide and water vapor. Realistically though, substances like paraffin are impure mixtures of hydrocarbons with different chemical formulas and don't burn completely in normal atmospheric concentrations of oxygen. Soot is a sign of the inefficient burn, in fact arson investigators look at whether there's too little soot in a house fire to determine if an accelerant was used. Soot is comprised of all kinds of organic components, some of which are proven carcinogens. What these scientists are saying is that people who surround themselves with candles as a matter of habit should take this into consideration. That's all. It's really up to epidemiologists to determine how elevated your risk for cancer may be.
Harper ends the article by quoting some pithy manager of a steakhouse who spouts some hogwash about negative ions being created by the candles. Putting aside for the moment that oxidation (read: burning) implies a loss of electrons or negativity- ergo "positive ions", I'll take the word of the most whacked-out, incompetent member of the ACS while he or she is drunk/stoned/high off their ass before I really give a shit about what some random restaurateur thinks. For the record, I'd probably still eat at candle-obsessed restaurants anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
