Going on about Diets

Go on a trip, go on a mission, go on strike, go on leave, go on break. And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

When we "go on" something, we do it temporarily, then revert to whatever state we were in before whatever we went on. The reason is that whatever the thing is is typically unsustainable, usually because it is either drastic or costly.

So, implicit in the very phrase "go on a diet" is the intention of going overnight from eating 4,000 calories of fast food and soda to 1,500 calories of salad and water, going from zero exercise to an hour a day on the elliptical machine, and killing yourself to maintain this impossible regimen for two to three weeks at best.

And yes, when you define "dieting" like this, you are almost guaranteed to fail, literally by definition.

This is what we've done to the word "diet," bastardized it to the point that it means "to immediately adopt drastic and unsustainable eating and exercise practices with the goal of losing weight only temporarily."

There are situations where this can be appropriate, like dropping a few extra pounds to go on a cruise or vacation, or when fighters or wrestlers diet to reach a certain weight for a match. But for the majority of people that would just like to reach a healthy weight and feel good, over the long-term, dieting, as we have have come to define it, is just wrong.

The body likes homeostasis, "maintaining a stable, constant condition," in other words any lifestyle, exercise or dietary habit. Whenever homeostasis is disrupted, you experience discomfort. This can be true when changing behaviors for the better, or for the worse.

Positive examples include the discomfort associated with breaking drug, alcohol and nicotine addictions, or exercising for the first time in a long time. Negative examples can include an upset stomach from eating junk food when accustomed to a healthy diet, or the depression that comes when those who exercise regularly miss a day.

If the changes are too large, the discomfort becomes too great, and the change unsustainable -- the reason most diets don't work, and perhaps the reason some people can never break addictions. This points to the key to building sustainable habits to maintain a healthy weight and feel good, incremental change.

Ideally, we should eat a sugar-free diet of mostly whole foods and exercise a few times a week. But going from a vegetable-free diet of mostly fried foods and walking to the fridge a few times a night to this immediately is nearly impossible.

Instead, start by drinking a few less sodas a day. Try to take one walk on the weekend. At first, again, even this may not feel great, but with just a little repetition, it will come to feel very good. After that, try drinking diet soda and going for two walks.

Breaking the sugar addiction and the fatigue of the extra walking may be stressful at first, but the regularized blood sugar and insuline levels and increased oxygen in your body will again make you feel better. Move on to reducing the processed grains in your diet and adding some weight training.

Eventually get to a diet of almost all whole foods and fairly regular strenuous exercise. If the individual changes are small enough, then each associated positive result in terms of physical well being will outweigh the discomfort of each change.

There are different definitions of a healthy weight, measured using either body mass index for most people or body fat percentage, but reaching a healthy weight should be easily doable for most otherwise healthy people through this kind of incremental change. It should also make most people feel happier.

Past that, I think the end goal hinges on your individual definition of happiness. Eating tasty foods makes us happy. It's part of evolution. Eating them sometimes as part of a healthy diet and regular exercise plan probably helps some maintain their psychological health and overall happiness.

For others, the happiness gained from seeing a defined set of abdominal muscles far outweighs any temporary happiness they might gain from their taste buds. And for others still, the happiness of eating tasty foods all the time outweighs the happiness of living to an old age and not suffering from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and the monetary costs that follow.

Facecrack

I listened to a good comparison the other day between the advent of cell phones and social networking sites.

When cell phones were first introduced, everyone but the tech-savvy (read: "nerds") was concerned, for two main reasons. One was that they would blur the line between public (included in that, work) and private life.

The other was that they were another possible substitute for face-to-face interaction, which most people accept as more genuine. Both of these concerns certainly materialized, but at the same time nowadays you might as well communicate by telegram if you're only going to have a house phone.

The same set of concerns now exists for social networking sites. Here are two statements to that effect from the online dating site OkCupid:

"One thing I do not like is Facebook. I don't have it. I don't want it and I'm currently plotting it's destruction.

"I keep in touch with people I already know by calling them and making plans to see them. Talk to them in person. I like nonverbal communication like facial expressions. I like hearing the tones of peoples' voices. So much communication is lost through technology. I'm a teacher and I worry about the skills of the children I teach."

To the extent people, and I think especially children, replace real interaction completely with technology like facebook, it is unhealthy. At the same time, as with most arguments in this country, I wonder why it has to be either-or. I like to spend time interacting with friends and doing plenty of things in the real world, but I also like being able to interact when I can't do so, like when I take a break from working on something at home to discuss something on facebook.

Also as someone who writes for a living, I think facebook can provide a forum that encourages written discussion, and I think that is something we need more of. At the same time it certainly can also provide a forum just for "loling," "omging" and "wtfing", which isn't exactly writing, lol

The same things can be said of online dating sites like OkCupid. Using them doesn't have to mean you are completely romantically socially inept and incapable of possibly meeting someone to date in the real world, unless that's the only way you meet people. It can just be one more thing and not a substitution.

Which is really what technology of course is in all its permutations -- the printing press, telegram, phone, answering machines, cell phone and social networking sites -- convenience, more and easier ways to do things.

And with all of technologies there are inevitable truths. The first is that, if they work, it is only a matter of time before they are broadly accepted. The second is that over-reliance can have negative consequences. But if we accept them and use them in moderation and with concern for our health, they can make our lives easier and more fun. #SNS #fb #OkCupid #tech

Ain't Got No Double Negatives

Got to thinking about double negatives in English, because I'm weird and thinking about abstract linguistic concepts is one thing I do for fun.

I knew from studying Romance languages and Japanese that there are plenty of languages like these in which double negatives are grammatical, and got to wondering why we ain't got no double negatives in English too (neither?). Turns out we used to have them, but then they disappeared. The reason was a concerted effort on the part of British grammarians to impose the mathematical rule of double negatives resulting in a positive on grammar.

Not being a "math guy," this got me wondering about negative numbers in general. Apparently, ("apparently" meaning of course "according to Wikipedia") negative numbers have been used historically almost exclusively for debt and arbitrary scales like temperature, and have also been known as "absurd" or "nonsensical" numbers.

With debt, there is never really negative money, only two positive totals, one of money you have and one of money you owe. "Negative" temperatures are only temperatures below some arbitrary temperature and not the opposite of heat, hence absolute zero. So, suffice it to say that negative numbers aren't really "real" to begin with.

Take the phrase "I have no idea." It would be grammatically incorrect in English to write this as "I don't have no idea." But why? This is exactly how they write it in Spanish, French, Japanese and plenty of other languages. So is it really wrong, logically?

Look at the subject and verb, "I have" -- I exist, and the action of having is taking place, in other words I am having something. But the thing that I am having, "no idea," doesn't exist, so how can I have it? I don't think I can. If the thing doesn't exist, then by definition I can't have it. So does this then make the double negative correct?

I think the answer is "kind of." If something doesn't exist, then you can't have it -- two negatives, logical. And not having something that doesn't exist doesn't make it appear somewhere -- in other words a double negative isn't a positive.

But what we are really trying to say in the sentence is where the point lies.

If someone asked you about something, and you didn't have a good response, you might say "I have no idea." What you're saying of course is "There may or may not be a good answer to your question, I just don't have it," or, more simply, "I don't have any idea." Again, the idea may or may not exist, you just don't have it.

So, while "I don't have no idea" is preferable to "I have no idea," and hence used correctly in other languages, they both miss the point. The first says nothing happens to something that doesn't exist. Fair enough, but you're not communicating anything. The second says you have something that doesn't exist, which makes just doesn't make sense.

So why are there three different ways to say the same thing in English and other languages -- "I have no idea," "I don't have no idea," and "I don't have any idea." -- yet only one of them is logical? Because we all know what they mean and that's all that counts. But it's fun to think about, for me anyway :)

HealthCrap

Reaction to the recent passage of health care reform embodies the pure stupidity of American partisan politics.

Democrats touting the passage of the bill and Republicans screaming about the final loss of personal responsibility leave me with the impression that we certainly must be a country quite concerned about the state of our health. But we are not. 60% of everyone, blue and red, pretending to care about health care reform is overweight, and half of those are obese.

In a civilized society, working people shouldn't die from congenital or non-lifestyle-induced chronic disease for lack of access to medical care. We also shouldn't subsidize a food system that poisons people. These are valid macro, governmental level concerns. At the same time, personal responsibility for health has become so lost that we now have a formal fat acceptance movement. People shove fried corn derivatives in their mouths because they're fast, easy, and taste good, not because they're the cheapest calories for the dollar, although this is also true, and also a problem.

Quality foods and information about them should be readily available to everyone. This is a problem of our system. At the same time, people need to take the time and responsibility to learn about and eat these foods. This is a problem of the individual.

If we did not have a food system engineered to make us unhealthy, and a population that cared enough to eat well and exercise, there would be plenty of money in our health care system to care for those with legitimate medical needs.

Somehow we persist in taking sides in a political system that insists in dichotomy, either-or and polarization. I find this to be anti-intellectual, destructive and frankly embarrassing as a member of this country. I also think that people that ally themselves too strongly with either side are some combination of stupid and vindictive. For me, this frustration was crystallized in the recent health care debate and passage of HCR. The difference is this time, partisan intellectual immaturity and disregard for objectivity will effect that which is most important, our health, and that is sad.

So be thankful helpless people should get some help. But don't celebrate with a six pack and a dozen wings. Be concerned about the loss of personal responsibility for health. But don't do it from your couch watching reruns of 24. Do it while you walk around the block.