I don’t need to tell you about all the research that has been done about sleep deprivation and its negative consequences. The bottom line is that everyone should be getting a good 8 hours of sleep every night.

Yet, most people don’t get 8 hours of sleep a day, and the reason oft quoted is that their simply too busy.

9 times out of 10, this excuse is completely invalid. It’s usually a case of having bad habits that chew up time, leaving little time for productive work. Whether it be excessive TV watching (especially now that it’s World Cup Time), internet surfing, etc. Eliminating those habits typically saves up the time, which can be put towards a proper sleep schedule.

10% of the time, it’s due to some external factor. It could be a 3 hour commute that chronically shortens your productive periods. Or it could be a hectic time of the year for your business. While this class of problem is harder to resolve, people like 37signals seem to have done it just fine.

In other words: it can be done.

The great thing is, that once you get your act together, this becomes a virtuous cycle. You get enough sleep, and take on the challenges of the day with all the needed energy, finishing up just on schedule and thereby allowing you to get enough sleep again.

Fortunately, getting enough sleep is just like getting enough exercise: starting is hard, finishing is easy, and the results are addictive.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The people who admit to that simple fact are the only ones who even stand a chance.

Related posts:

1. Why I’m Against Vegetarianism Basically, it’s not the healthiest route forward. Regardless of whether...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For the average person, there are thousands of definitions of the word “health”. All of them I think boil down to a similar goal: Prevention or slowing of the onset of aging.

If we assume that the prime disadvantage of aging is damage to individual cells and systems which negatively affect the function of the body as a whole, then we reach a newly-derived goal: Maintenance of our current state.

Maintenance of health is hard. Harder than shooting for growth or preventing disease. It is hard because there are so many things that are happening at once to ensure the maintenance of the body’s current state. Unlike defeating malaria or stimulating muscle growth, pursuing “health” is unspecific.

Furthermore, if we expand our scope of health to encompass subjective areas such as emotional health, the ability for us to define a “state of health” in specific terms becomes very, very remote.

Therefore my message is simple:

1. Objectively speaking, health ≈ prevention of aging
2. Practically speaking, health should be defined by the constant pursuit of desirability of our condition.
3. Accept the uncertainty, keep the end goal in mind, and keep questioning and testing.

Think about that when someone else makes a claim about a “healthiest” or “healthier” food, diet, or compound.

–

Note: Aimed at the population at large.

Related posts:

1. Health Problems: A Car Crash in Slow Motion To summarise this post: Science works by random experimentation, and...
2. Give Up Watching TV for Better Health I blame many heath problems on a sedentary lifestyle. Watching...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’ve seen a derivative of the phrase, “being fat is not your fault”, many times.

It comes up in various forms. Some of these are videos, like this one that cites Gary Taubes, stating that “your’e not getting fat because you’re eating more, you’re eating more because you’re getting fat”. Even in books like ‘Mean Genes’ and ‘Living With Our Genes‘ (both with a favourable mention from biologist E.O Wilson), we find quotes like, “Body weight is more determined by inheritance than by any other factor”. The next sentence follows, “Experiments have shown that mice with a certain type of gene grow fat even when they are given almost no food.” [1]

I am one to believe (because the evidence is there) that body fat is regulated. The problem that I have with all the above sources of information is that:

(a) The statements are ambiguous and can be interpreted falsely; they were not scientific statements
(b) They were targeted at a mainstream audience

Claims

Let’s stay on topic and get to why I dislike the simplistic “fat is not your fault” argument. The first reason is that it simply isn’t true, at least not in its entirety.

There is some truth to the statement, but certainly not in the simplified and ambiguous form as above. For a detailed explanation for why and how bodyweight is regulated I recommend the Leptin series and Bodyweight Regulation Part 1 and Part 2 articles by Lyle McDonald.

If you don’t have the time to go through those admittedly long and slightly technical articles, then I’d suggest to take it for a fact that bodyweight is determined in part by genes, but it is far from a scapegoat for widespread obesity.

In other words, anyone can purposefully reduce body fat percentage in a way that vastly improves their health. No one, except those with the rare cases of mutated genes, is doomed to be obese.

Ambiguous and Misleading Statements

Let’s dissect the above statement, “Experiments have shown that mice with a certain type of gene grow fat even when they are given almost no food.”

The first question would be what experiments, and can they even be trusted? Many issues from commercial bias, publication bias, to plain old bad reporting may lead us to question the veracity of a source of information. For a good overview, read ‘The Fitness Skeptic‘ by Jamie Hale. For now, we should all accept that some research is poor and the second-hand reporting of such research even poorer.

The next question would be what is the definition of ‘almost no food’? In the article, ‘Why do Obese People not Lose Weight on Low Calorie Diets‘,  we find horrendous under-reporting of caloric intakes. Just like my posts, ‘How much Are You Eating?” and “Chinese New Year Goodies” show, people are really bad at judging their food intake.

But wait, the study was done on mice, so the above problem should be solved. It was. In fact, we know the details of the exact type of study in which the ambiguous statement was referring to.

Those of you who painstakingly went through all of Lyle McDonald’s articles above will find out that there was a documented study with a type of mouse the researchers called the OB (obese) mouse. It produces none whatsoever of the hormone called leptin. It has a depressed metabolic rate, and truly gained fat while eating very little.

Now the question to ask is, “Is this applicable to humans?” Unsurprisingly, the answer is no. It turns out that while there are documented cases of humans with no leptin, thereby experiencing the problems of the OB mouse, these people are extremely rare. For the vast, vast majority of people, this particular finding is meaningless.

No doubt, the research did find out other things that have some application to humans. To those who are interested, I once again highly recommend the articles stated above.

In any case, my point is that statements like those above can be ambiguous and thus thoroughly wrongly interpreted. That brings me to my final point.

A Mainstream Audience

There are implications when writing to a mainstream audience, and the most important one being that the writer must assume that the audience has no scientific knowledge whatsoever.

The problem therein is the fact that statements like the ones above are interpreted without reference to the scientific research they were based upon and therefore generate a completely false impression in the mind of the mainstream reader.

For example, the fat phobia that overtook the 1980s cost some people their health, be it their true physical well-being, or their emotional health from all the worry and stress over what they were eating. The carb phobia of today is somewhat similar to that.

Both of the above stem from the same problem: Some research showed specific trends that were applicable under specific sets of conditions. Trends, not data, were reported. The people interpreted trends and simplified them in a way that didn’t match the data. Then the idea spread.

If you were the rational, mainstream person who lived through all these eras, one logical conclusion would be to give up with science. After all, one moment it tells us fat is bad, and then the other moment it says that fat is good. What a bunch of hypocrites those scientists are!

It isn’t fair to assume that a mainstream audience is able to appreciate the vagaries of the scientific method and the results it produces. It isn’t fair to blame the (good) scientists who report their data accurately. It isn’t fair to blame the (honest) journalist searching for a good story to report.

We can blame the people who publish vague remarks and ambiguous claims are either stupid (lacking the necessary knowledge) or irresponsible (spurred by ulterior motives to mislead). They create sensationalism, and an urge for simplistic explanations. They create a haze of nebulous remarks that shroud good reporting and diminish its demand. Most importantly, they make looking for good information increasingly difficult for the mainstream reader.

Unfortunately, the only defence is to acquire the necessary knowledge. Until the mainstream public is willing to do that, we will always be vulnerable to faults in knowledge.

In light of that, I’m one to believe that those with good information should still do their best to spread it. However, the more realistic expectation is to reach out to those who are already sceptical. To those people, best they can do is to gain the required knowledge for themselves, and apply it.

—

Disclaimer:

What I said above appeals to the majority of people. I will acknowledge that the term ‘majority’ implies that the above information applies to more than 50% of the population.

Needless to say, I am also concerned about the minority, however small that I have neglected and probably wrongly accused in the above post.

Why I say this is because there are legitimate cases where the situation is not so straightforward. Of these cases, I think the most common one would be that of diabetes. As Jenny Ruhl stated in her article, “You did NOT eat your way to diabetes” , there are likely genetic roots to this disease that plagues millions.

In this case, it is possible that someone who is diabetic but eating a higher carbohydrate diet in caloric deficit to have much more difficulty losing fat. The problem then is a lack of knowledge, of which if this case describes you, I highly recommend you check out Blood Sugar 101.

In the above post, I am trying to highlight faults in the publication of information. But do realise that though there are exceptions to the rule, making recommendations based on the exceptions should never be the first step, especially to a mainstream audience.

Notes:
[1] These quotes were taken from ‘Living with Your Genes’.

Related posts:

1. Reading About Science Just like Michael Shermer said, “Science is not a thing,...
2. Scientific Research: The compilers, commentors and the researchers In this article, I talk about the biases that can...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Sprinting is straightforward. The path is predictable, and the sole determinant was your effort and ability, you charged forward and finished first.

Navigating a cave (spelunking) is tricky. The goal is clear but the path was foggy. Much was beyond your control, and you didn’t want to charge into a wall, fall into a crevasse or use up your energy. You took it conservatively, following rules of thumb (follow the fresh air), stumbling over stalactites and stalagmites, but eventually reaching the exit.

In other words, some challenges in life are sprinting tracks, some challenges are caves; it’s either always according to plan, or never according to plan. Success in some challenges require all-out effort, others require general rules-of-thumb. Before you begin any phase of your journey, ask yourself, “Am I sprinting or spelunking?” [1]

—

[1] Just to give a fitness specific example:

Sprinting – pushing through a set of weights, literally sprinting up a hill, etc
Spelunking – setting guidelines for your diet during the weekends, determining what exercises to do, etc

Related posts:

1. The Experimenter Mindset In my last post about The Right Beginner Training Mindset,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Be it trying to lose some weight, sticking to an exercise regime, taking your vitamins, quitting smoking, or any other goal, if it is something that goes against your usual routine, adopting a new habit is going to be met with some resistance.

You can reframe the problem (it’s about building NEW habits, not destroying OLD ones) and explain the problem (it’s about the gap between short term happiness and long term-fulfillment), and yet you would not be anywhere closer to resolving it.

I think the key concept is here: Everyone is Different.

Sure, You Are Not Different when it comes to certain parameters like metabolic rate (which is what the linked article talks about) [1].  But you are different in many other ways.

The fact that you rise every morning and see your running shoes, reminding you of your commitment to the morning is something that makes you different.

The fact that you keep your supplements in the same place as you brush your teeth every morning could potentially increase the rate which you take your supplements. [2]

Even the fact that your college lecture theatres are located miles away from each other (it happens) makes you different, and increases your energy expenditure as such.

From this very informative talk from Rory Sutherland, remember this: The Interface fundamentally determines the behaviour.

I’m a big Tim Ferriss fan, and for a period of time, he worked strictly while listening to a particular type of music at 3am in the morning, sitting in the exact same spot with the Bourne Identity running on a large screen TV behind him with the volume muted. All of that just to create the work environment where he could work the most productively.

Irrational, yes. But problems with bingeing, smoking and any other impulsive activity happen so often because of little triggers in the environment which affect us subconsciously, and are by definition, irrational. That box of cookies sitting on the counter-top may not look appetising today, but just wait 7 days.

I’m sure that many people know intellectually that they need to lose weight, but simply cannot muster the willpower to adopt the necessary change. Perhaps then we should try to give willpower a little hand by manipulating the interface.

The key lies in constantly questioning; to look under the couch for the remote, and that big red button that you’ve spent all this time sitting on.

—

Notes:

[1] It is worth mentioning that metabolic rates typically vary within a +- 15% range. Thus the person with the lowest metabolic rate will have it quite a bit lower than the person with the highest metabolic rate.

[2] For an old lady who only needs 2 tablets – a Vitamin D boost and a Calcium/Magnesium supplement – this is going to make a huge difference in long term health.

Related posts:

1. Freedom, Symbolism & what all this means to being healthy In this post, I talk about what I define to...
2. The Cost of a “Healthy” Diet One very pertinent issue that must cross people’s minds in...
3. Irresistible Urges This sums up the entire post. While I strive for...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Don’t be one of those people.

Statistics are there to define the average person, with average habits, and the average diet, and the average job, average relationships, etc.

Looking at the most healthy people in the world, they all have one thing in common. And that is the fact that they live outside the realm of what statistics can describe.

In other words: Decide to live remarkably in all aspects of life.

Related posts:

1. Freedom, Symbolism & what all this means to being healthy In this post, I talk about what I define to...
2. Have a Great 2010 The year 2010 will be like a blank sheet of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

To summarise this post: Science works by random experimentation, and then picking out patterns. More importantly, we pick what we think is statistically significant; patterns which apply to a large enough set of averages.

Health problems can be compared to a car crash, one that takes place over the course of years.

Take this case in point. The designers of a car designed the car after studying endless amounts of slow-motion footage and millions of points of data from crash-test dummies. But the best that they can do is to design a single life-saving mechanism (say a new air-bad design) for a single model of car that will save the most number of people.

Think about that. It means that if car crash fatalities in X brand car went from 100 deaths per 1,000 to 50 deaths per 1,000, there is a likelihood that the new air-bag design helped. But is the correlation that strong? Could it be that there were new traffic laws passed? Could it be that drivers drove less due to hiking gas prices? Or could it be other factors?

Most importantly, there are 50 people who are still dead. If your child is now dead because the manufacturer could not cater to the “exception” of young children and design an air-bag as such, how would you feel?

There are exceptions in the realm of health beyond our control. There are fat people who live to a 100. There are skinny diabetics. There are lean athletes who die of clogged arteries.

Fortunately, staying healthy is a long-term project for each and every one of us. As such, it isn’t like a car-crash. Instead, we all have the ability to react and respond to the changing circumstances. Most importantly, in regular life, you can shout “HELP!”, and someone can hear you.

I believe that we need to respect the scientific method, and trust in its efficacy. I also believe that we need to bear in mind that science can only tell us so much, and that we improve our ability to maintain our health by constant testing hypothesises on ourselves. Finally, I believe in the roll of the dice.

Related posts:

1. Defining Health Again For the average person, there are thousands of definitions of...
2. Give Up Watching TV for Better Health I blame many heath problems on a sedentary lifestyle. Watching...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is to all the obsessive people in the world:

Get out, get a life, get some perspective, get off your high horse and your holier-than-thou mindset.

Get a breath of fresh air.

Get some quiet.

Get some peace of mind.

Become clear of what you need to do, and why you need to do it.

Get on with life.

However….

Admit that it’s not easy.

Admit that it’s going to take some time.

Admit that you will get there.

Related posts:

1. Being Obsessive vs Being Thorough I don’t believe one can plan too much. When I...
2. Do You Have what it takes? On the pursuit towards health and fitness (Handstands @ 90):...
3. Being Fat is Your Fault The people who admit to that simple fact are the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

All too often, people like to shift between two modes.

They’re either on a diet, or off a diet.

They’re either eating clean, or swallowing everything in sight.

Either on a perfect workout routine, or doing nothing at all.

I’m guilty of that as well, and I attribute it to my impatience and perfectionism.

Very fortunately, thanks to the knowledge-base on the internet, I have gotten some perspective. The recent post on Martin Berkhan’s Leangains gives a great overview of this topic. The following are some of my own

The Truth is never quantifiable

People who tout absolutist approaches often like numbers. On the Atkins diet you are allowed only X number of carbs per day. On the warrior diet you must constraint your eating phase to 4 hours. On the DC program you must rest exactly 30 seconds between rest-pauses.

These are rules, rules that are made up by humans based on some observation. The body, however doesn’t thinks in terms of rules and numbers. It is in constant flux. (link to martin’s post about the fasted state)

On top of that, such rules often represent ends of a spectrum. Why can’t the truth be in the middle?

It’s all about your own happiness

Human emotion isn’t rational. My problem with the Black and White approach to health and fitness is that there will always be fluctuations of both physiological and emotional state. Very often, the result is people forcing themselves to try and stick to whatever rules they were supposed to follow and end up beating themselves up over it. (The dieter may over-consume 10g of carbohydrates on the Atkins diet and therefore feel a sense of failure.)

The problem is that numbers are specific, but our emotions never are. If you live solely by numbers, the rare times which the numbers align are the only times that you will be happy. [1]

Final Words

Some people have the kind of personality traits to thrive with a flexible lifestyle. Others, like myself, like to see things down in paper and execute based on numbers and feedback.

The only piece of advice is to create your own rules, know what you want to achieve, and slowly chip away to achieve that goal.

To give a specific example, I want to ensure that I do not stress over my diet. When I can afford it, I get onto my structured nutrition plan and stick to it. I sometimes purposefully plan to overeat (like on Christmas), and make up for the surplus later with dieting.

However, I set another rule: that I have to schedule time to relax those rules, and try to “eat by feel”. I get familiar with the feeling of that middle ground, to forget about numbers. Over time, the blacks and whites merge into grey.

—

Notes:

[1] A broken clock is still correct twice a day

Related posts:

1. Diet Self-Sabotage 3: The Lack of Flexibility This is part 3 of the Self-Sabotage in Fat Loss...
2. Sprinting vs Spelunking Sprinting is straightforward. The path is predictable, and the sole...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.