Over at Naturally Engineered, David Csonka gave a brief rundown of important take-aways from the 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium. We found several of these thoughts particularly interesting. Per Dr. S. Boyd Eaton, for example:

During the paleolithic, male and female equality was greater than anytime since.

This is the second time we’ve heard this. The first was in The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, in which Thom Hartmann doesn’t specify the paleolithic era exactly, but describes the equality between genders are being far greater in “Older Culture” (which is reflective in hunter-gatherer societies). We’d love to hear more from Boyd on this topic, and gain a better understanding of how he’s sourcing this determination, as we weren’t wholly convinced by Hartmann.¹ It seems that every major society from history was lead by men, and while women’s lives may have been comparatively better than women’s lives in more recent history as far as freedoms are concerned, it would seem that subservience to men is a longstanding tradition. Just how much greater was the equality between genders in the paleolithic?

Csonka goes on to mention Dr. Kevin Boyd and Dr. Michael Mew:

• Diet isn’t the only culprit in poor jaw and teeth development, mandibular muscle usage shapes the growing face.
• Use it or lose it, the massive modern reduction in masticatory effort is maladaptive for jaw development.

We keyed in on these points since we finally finished Them Us, in which Danny Vendramini talks about Neanderthal predation. Among his theories is that Neanderthals looked very different than the common stereotype, resembling something more like sasquatch than Cro Magnon man. Vendramini asserts that Neanderthals had no real chins to speak of, but the aforementioned points about jaw development makes us question this notion further. If we assume that Neanderthals were primarily meat eaters, and so more commonly ate foods that required greater bite strength, we can assume that Neanderthals developed jaws at least as developed as our own. Our ape cousins, for example, lack such jaw definition because they tend to eat softer foods, since they are more herbivorous than humans. As omnivores that evolved on a diet containing plenty of meat, it makes sense that we developed jaws capable of rending flesh, since we didn’t cut our food into bite-size pieces using utensils until much later in human history. Why should we not say the same of Neanderthals, who likely ate more meat than homo sapiens sapiens?

Chris Masterjohn wrote a summary similar to Csonka over at the The Daily Lipid, and even reflected on similar points:

[Tucker Max] argued that getting in touch with the violent part of our nature can help reduce violence. He gave as an example the fact that police with training in martial arts are much less likely to engage in brutality, because they do not panic when they face a violent situation.

It’s probably also because police with martial arts training know from practical experience how much force is necessary to neutralize someone, whereas a lack of such training may result in excessive force being used because the police don’t realize it’s excessive. And while we agree with the notion Tucker Max is aiming for here, the suggestion breaks down when we distance ourselves from violence. One extreme example is that of Adolf Hitler, who despite knowing the horrors of war from his experience in WWI, waged a campaign many times worse because he was so far removed from the suffering the average person was going through in WWII.

It’s also not clear if presenting the average person with violence (e.g. MMA) will help curb violence overall. Where an untrained individual might have fled confrontation, the same individual with a background in MMA may very well choose confrontation instead.

Similar Posts:

• Neanderthals, body hair, and sex. – In Them Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more …
• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …
• Weight loss (and health) by eating natural. – Lately, a number of people we know have gotten onto the weight-loss bandwagon, which to us seems abo…

Over the past couple months, we talked to several people about blood tests, and what exactly to test for. Most people place the subject squarely in the hands of their doctors, and care little about delving into the subject themselves. But as we’ve come to learn, many doctors base their findings on conventional wisdom, which can be a dangerous thing; what constitutes a “good” or “bad” value in a blood test is often subjective, and when it comes to certain factors, the recommended value may very well be sub-par even if it’s above-average when compared to the populace at large, because the populace at large is not exactly healthy.

There are several baseline blood tests that people can get, and which tests to choose is based in part on a specific individual’s situation, which a doctor can help advise about. Yet, what we’ve learned is that there are still certain tests that most everyone should get in order to establish a baseline to build from, so you know where you stand before making any significant lifestyle changes.

Comprehensive metabolic panel.

This is the generic blood test most people get when looking at things like cholesterol and, more importantly, fasting glucose. It contains several other values that may be indicators that something is wrong, but the fasting glucose test is significant because it tells you whether you’re on the road to Type II Diabetes, and are becoming (or are already) insulin resistant.

The VAP cholesterol test.

The comprehensive metabolic panel will report “basic” cholesterol information, such as total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, etc. If, by conventional wisdom, everything looks good, then your doctor likely won’t make you follow up with a VAP test, but if things do look questionable based on conventional wisdom, then getting a VAP follow-up is likely in your future. The problem with this line of thinking is that conventional wisdom is based on several theories about cardiovascular disease that are receiving a lot of criticism. In short, the argument comes down to a matter of correlation vs. causation; many argue that high cholesterol in itself is not an indicator of heart disease risk. That said, there are certain flags to look out for, and you won’t catch them unless you get a VAP test.

Of chief importance in the VAP results is the specific type of LDL you may have. “Pattern A” LDL is often described as “large and fluffy”, while “Pattern B” LDL is described as “small and dense”. It’s the former that is of concern, such that regardless of your total cholesterol value, you know something is amiss if your LDL is predominantly Pattern B. This means that even if the comprehensive metabolic panel comes back with a total cholesterol score that is within the threshold defined by conventional wisdom, you’re still missing a key indicator of health if you’re not also getting the VAP test. This is why you should get the VAP test right away, as it compliments the comprehensive metabolic panel.

25-hydroxy (Vitamin D).

Typically, vitamin D levels are not tested for when people get blood tests, and yet most people are deficient in vitamin D. Most people believe they get adequate vitamin D from dairy products, but that’s hardly true. Liquid milk is typically fortified with vitamin D,¹ and much of that isn’t absorbed by the body. Other dairy products are not fortified at all, and contain low levels of vitamin D to begin with.

The reality is that people are designed to get most of their vitamin D from the sun, but in 2011, most of us in the western world aren’t getting outside enough. By some estimates, you’d need to have 80% of your body exposed in direct sunlight for at least 30 minutes a day in order to get adequate vitamin D. This wasn’t difficult for our ancestors who spent most of their days outdoors, but is rather difficult for most office-dwelling homo sapiens today.

What the 25-hydroxy test will tell you is where you stand in regards to vitamin D, so you know how to adjust your sunlight exposure accordingly. Failing that, it will allow you to estimate how best to supplement with vitamin D so you can get your levels up. A score over 70 is ideal, which is higher than the “recommended” value conventional wisdom suggests.

C-Reactive protein.

Your C-Reactive protein score is a flag for internal inflammation. If it’s high, typically above 1.0, then something bad is going on inside you. If this flag comes up red after your blood test, then you know for sure that you need to make a lifestyle change. In many people, that means cutting out gluten, or avoiding some other food.

Testosterone.

It’s rather amazing how many men have sub-par testosterone levels brought on by poor lifestyles, and beyond the obvious effects, low testosterone can result in several other health issues. At minimum, a low testosterone count may indicate high levels of stress. Low testosterone is typically easy to fix by cutting back on the booze, chronic cardio, and increasing your sleep. It’s worth getting it checked, especially for older men who may be going through -manopause- andropause.

While we say testosterone here, for the ladies, getting hormone levels checked may also be worthwhile. Men don’t need to specifically test for estrogen levels, but there are obvious indicators of estrogen increases (and testosterone drops) just from a physical inspection (e.g. man-boobs and a beer gut).

Similar Posts:

• Molyneux says a lot, without really saying anything at all. – Apparently Molyneux is a gaming developer guru, else he wouldn’t be giving talks at the Leipzig Game…
• A MovNat workshop retrospective. – We intended to write a comprehensive review of the one-day MovNat workshop we recently participated …
• The Reverend. – Twelve years ago I ran the streets with a gun. I was a wild kid back then, an arrogant chummer runni…

In Them Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more so. Vendramini argues that given the cold temperatures of ice-age Europe, that neanderthal bodies were covered in thick hair, making them resemble Big Foot more so than brutish early humans. In contrast, Levant-dwelling early humans lost their body hair as a result of neanderthal predation. Vendramini’s argument is that in an effort to differentiate themselves from their predators, early humans favored less hairy mates, thereby selecting for hairless bodies over time.

It’s an interesting theory, but we can’t help but raise the possibility that just because evidence of threaded needles hasn’t yet cropped up among neanderthal sites, that neanderthals didn’t utilize animal fur to supplement their body heat at all. A sizable piece of leather/fur could easily have been draped over the shoulders, for example, or a hole cut out for the head, and then the skin worn like a poncho, perhaps even fastened with a leather strip for a belt. We already know that neanderthals were intelligent, so why should we assume that they would not have thought of such a simple solution to a problem, when they were known to implement other tools and even fire. When we look at Vendramini’s estimates for neanderthal’s capability to live in certain temperature zones, alongside the possibility that they wore simple garments, we can envision a mostly hairless creature still getting by in colder regions. Or, if they were not hairless, their settlement range could have expanded further.

A problem with Vendramini’s “evidence” for supporting neanderthal predation (NP) theory is that he conveniently offers up explanations for things we know by using the NP theory, even though there’s no adequate evidence for causation. That’s not to say that it’s wrong, merely that we should remain skeptical without further evidence.

Take, for example, the hybridization argument, in which Vendramini argues that human-neanderthal hybrids would ultimately have been selected against, and hybrids killed or exiled from Levant encampments on the basis that anything neanderthal was bad. Simply, we don’t find the xenophobia argument convincing; perhaps Levant-dwelling early humans may have hated neanderthals if NP theory is true, but the lengths that early humans would have gone merely to generate a preference in non-neanderthal traits seems nonsensical. Since we know neanderthals were physically superior to early humans, then neanderthal physical traits would have been preferable to Levant-dwelling humans. So if hybridization did occur because of neanderthals raping human women as Vendramini contests, then any such hybrids born and raised by Levant-dwelling humans would have been better able to defend against future neanderthal raiders.

Vendramini does mention physical attributes that early humans would have had to select for in order to evade neanderthal raids, but the obvious isn’t mentioned: hybrids would have stood a better chance of surviving neanderthal attacks, and so genetically, hybrid seeds would have been beneficial for human survivability. This isn’t necessarily in opposition of NP theory, as we can argue two possible scenarios:

1. Sexual predation on-site was not a focal point of neanderthal raids, so the number of hybrid children born among Levant-dwelling humans was minimal, and an exception to the rule. This would make sense if the primary purpose of neanderthal raids was to obtain food. A hunting party would not needlessly risk injury by isolating its members if early humans were at least willing to fight back. If anything, sexual predation would have involved kidnapping of human women¹, but not typically involve on-site rape. The small number of hybrid children born in early human society meant that those who survived into adulthood would have been in a position to pass on their beneficial physical traits. Since they grew up among early humans, these hybrids would have generally acted like their human half-brothers, and defended against neanderthal raiders accordingly.

2. Neanderthal-human interbreeding was less a function of sexual predation as it was a function of trade or “intermarriage,” in which a neanderthal or early human joined the opposite group for some reason. NP theory may be correct, but its extent could be exaggerated. For example, periods of “peace” between neanderthal-human camps could have been brokered by the exchange of individuals and/or resources, with neanderthal raids again becoming common some time later. At the very least, the idea that neanderthals would kidnap human women, keep them alive long enough for them to give birth to hybrids, and then raise those hybrids in neanderthal society is a curious notion if NP theory is true: why raise the hybrid child if it’s physically weak compared to full-blooded neanderthal children? And further, why would a neanderthal take on a hybrid mate if it’s considered “weak,” without the context of simple politics?

Vendramini also argues that sexual control was asserted over Levant-dwelling early human women because of the fear of neanderthal predation. That answer doesn’t seem to follow from Vendramini’s belief that neanderthals raped human women, because no amount of control over human women by their male counterparts would have necessarily protected the women from neanderthal sexual predation. That is, unless human women prefered neanderthal mates, and would actively seek out a neanderthal male to copulate with.

Of all the arguments Vendramini makes, the ones involving sex are the most disappointing, because they don’t seem to hold up to proper scrutiny. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is why neanderthals would bother to prey on early humans sexually in the first place? Why do we assume that there was a shortage of neanderthal females? And if there’s no such shortage, then why would a neanderthal male rape a female sapien when the victim is a sub-par example of neanderthal physical prowess? If NP theory is based on the idea that neanderthals gave in to primal desires for survival, then they would choose to mate with partners that would ensure survival of their offspring. To a neanderthal predator, this means copulating with another neanderthal, not a weak human.

Similar Posts:

• Violence is human. – The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight introduced us to Thom Hartmann’s concept of Older and Younger Cul…
• Thoughts from the 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium. – Over at Naturally Engineered, David Csonka gave a brief rundown of important [take-aways](http://nat…
• The missing link? – Some undergrad in Africa found, on an expedition, an ancient skull belonging to a new genus and new …

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight introduced us to Thom Hartmann’s concept of Older and Younger Cultures, the differences between the two being rather stark. In Hartmann’s view, Older Cultures embody sustainability and peaceful existence, which Easy to be Green summarizes thusly:

• Political Independence
• Egalitarian Structure
• Getting their resources from renewable local sources
• Having a unique sense of their own identity
• Respecting the identity of other tribes

Compare this to the synopsis of Younger Culture, which is the culture that modern humans subscribe to:

• Political Dominance
• Established hierarchy: clear authority structures
• Acquiring resources through trade and conquest
• Absorbing other cultures into their own identity
• Genocidal warfare against others

Hartmann obviously idolizes Older Culture, and for good reason: there are many benefits to following an Older Culture lifestyle, which is realized by some Younger Culture members who decide to live greener, steer clear of commercialism, focus on eating “real food,” etc. But a major component of Hartmann’s differentiation between Younger and Older Cultures is the emphasis on war and conflict, which Hartmann minimizes when he describes Older Culture. To be fair, it’s common to see our ancient ancestors painted in this light: being close to the natural world, respecting all living things, and only occasionally being involved in conflict with neighboring tribes. But something about Hartmann’s portrayal that such conflict was usually non-fatal doesn’t sit well with us. Perhaps it’s a pessimistic view of human nature on our part, but while we acknowledge that Younger Culture may inherently be more violent than Older Culture, we don’t accept that Older Culture was somehow lacking these elements.

We’re currently reading Them Us by Danny Vendramini, which thus far is an excellent read. Without going into too much detail, Them Us details a theory of human evolution that relies on what Vendramini calls the Neandertal Predation Theory, wherein Vendramini describes our Neandertal cousins as apex predators that early homo sapiens ran into during our early settlement of the Levant. Vendramini points out that other primates (also typically painted as generally peaceful) are not without violent intent, as they participate in both coalitionary killing (group-based, violent encounters) as well as lethal raiding (targeted violence at a neighbor’s location). Vendramini points out that Neandertals were likely to share these traits with modern primates, just as we humans possess them today.

The take-away is that Hartmann may be correct in saying that warfare as we know it today was not practiced in Older Cultures¹, as the notion of a standing army simply doesn’t make sense in such a setting. But to disavow extremely violent behavior in Older Cultures is a disservice to what we are: animals. That’s not to say that this behavior is necessarily logical in the sense that we may think it from a “civilized” perspective, but it’s still instinctual behavior that stems from something, and similar behavior can be seen in animals today, primates included. That something can be as simple as basic survival, such as fending off predators or even to provide food in a time of limited resources. Other times, that something may be more complex, because when we see the behavior in modern primates or even wolf populations, lethal raiding doesn’t always make sense, and the targets of violence can appear isolated from previous interactions with the aggressor. Regardless, it seems that limited violence is at the core of our species, however unethical our minds tell us it is.

Similar Posts:

• Thoughts from the 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium. – Over at Naturally Engineered, David Csonka gave a brief rundown of important [take-aways](http://nat…
• Neanderthals, body hair, and sex. – In Them Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more …
• We’ve too many people. – On recommendation, we started reading The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann, a book ov…

We intended to write a comprehensive review of the one-day MovNat workshop we recently participated in, but realized that others have already done so, and that our overall impression isn’t much different¹. In short, the experience was fantastic, despite the fact that we started the day with relatively cool weather and a rainy forecast. (This hampered a couple of the planned activities, but as the purpose of the workshop was to present MovNat fundamentals, we were still able to get an understanding of the basic concepts and techniques behind the MovNat philosophy.) We don’t want to echo back every other review out there, but would still like to focus on some points that we find particularly notable about the experience, and general idea behind MovNat.

For those who have no idea what we’re talking about, MovNat is, at its core, a workout philosophy based around the idea that humans evolved a range of movement abilities that helped us to prosper and evolve over thousands of years. Unlike typical gym workouts, working on these movements is the ideal method for preventing injury and developing truly functional fitness². If we practice the basic movements that humans have evolved to perform well over time (the same movements that are foundational to all human activities), then we can argue we’re developing overall fitness in an ideal, safe manner. There are 12 of these core movements: walking, balancing, climbing, jumping, moving on all fours, running, lifting, carrying, throwing, catching, swimming, and defending³.

You can gather considerable appreciation for these movements when you consider that many individuals, who may be able to do, say, a dozen pullups, are not able to climb atop a horizontal bar. This illustrates the notion that many people may have appreciable strength in some areas, but are woefully lacking the ability to properly utilize that strength. In a sense, that strength development is wasted, because it succumbs to considerable weakness that exists in other areas. MovNat is about addressing these weaknesses and developing an overall fit person⁴, akin to those of our ancestors who, in order to survive, needed to fully master the aforementioned 12 movements.

MovNat is not about reenactment, though. The 12 movements aren’t practiced purely because they are important in an evolutionary context, but because they continue to be important today⁵. Just as martial arts address the potential for a fight, so too does MovNat prepare us for the potential circumstances that we might encounter, be they natural disasters, accidents, or other worst-case scenarios. More importantly, MovNat teaches us not only how important the 12 movements are, but how to perform them correctly, so as to not injure ourselves when executing them. Further, these 12 movements are taught to be efficient, so as to expend as little energy as possible when doing them.

It’s also worth pointing out that despite MovNat meeting our inherent need to be outdoors, MovNat itself is not restricted to parks, forests, and other outdoor play-spaces. Indeed, many of the 12 movements can easily be practiced indoors, to include the local gym⁶. A good thing to remember, though, is that a MovNat workout needn’t contain every, or even most, movements in a single session; just work the movements you can, when you can. So if you’re limited to indoors spaces because of inclement weather, there are still workouts you can explore.

MovNat is still in its infancy, and with only three “official” trainers, the movement (no pun intended) is still growing. Founder Erwan Le Corre is in the process of writing a MovNat book, and MovNat coach certification is coming later this year. Only recently, a MovNat alumni group was started on Facebook, which may become an avenue for distributing training materials summarizing workshop lessons to those who’ve already attended a MovNat event. All of these things are excellent, and we continue to look forward to how MovNat evolves.

Is the workshop worth it? If you’re new to the concept of natural movement, you’ll have plenty to learn, and even those of you who’ve explored things like barefoot running or Parkour⁷ in the past, will have plenty to look forward to. The one-day workshops aren’t cheap, but considering the travel required by the instructor, and the lack of other good source material out there, it’s a small investment in one’s future fitness, especially considering that one doesn’t need a gym membership or store-bought equipment to continue doing MovNat workouts. Those considering participating in a workshop in the future needn’t be worried about being too unfit, either; the day’s exercises are illustrative (albeit hands-on), and only a short portion of the day is what could be described as “intense.” Still, you’ll be surprised at how sore you’ll end up just doing seemingly simple exercises.

It’s hard to walk away from the one-day workshop without looking forward to future MovNat workouts; looking at the world differently is an expected outcome. It’s not so much that a new world opens up to you, but rather that you rediscover a world you forgot about as you left childhood. It’s a world you’re happy to have back.

Similar Posts:

• No Warhammer for you! – There’s been talk for some time now about online retailers, and how selling via the web affects bric…
• The Nike+ Fuelband takes on the Jawbone UP. – After receiving our fifth Jawbone UP, we decided to seriously look into the newest competitor in the…
• Why we’re getting a Jawbone Up. – Firstly, Jawbone products are good. Sure, we had problems with the Jawbone 2 earpiece because of a p…

Since switching to a “paleo” diet, we’ve increased our consumption of beef, and a common criticism we’ve heard as a result is that eating beef is not sustainable. Specific arguments include:

1. Raising cows is a direct cause of desertification.

2. The massive demand for beef promotes slash-and-burn of rain-forests.

3. By some estimates, 2500 gallons of water are needed to produce a single pound of beef.

4. The amount of methane produced by cows is a large contributing factor to the production of CO2 in our atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Plus, some of this methane seeps into groundwater, which poisons the earth.

At first glance, these arguments may seem valid, until you realize that they are primarily aimed at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), and not towards grass-fed, pastured livestock. That’s an important difference, because the paleo community’s emphasis on meat consumption is all about the latter. This then begs the question as to how we can respond to the aforementioned points from a paleo perspective, seeing as grassfed, pastured livestock doesn’t come with all the issues that meat derived from CAFO does.

Desertification.

Ethically-raised pastured cows have been shown to reverse desertification in several instances, thanks to the cow’s natural fertilizer that re-energizes the ground. In fact, it’s been shown in Africa that land previously devastated by agriculture (in which the land was no longer fertile enough to support further vegetation for agricultural purposes), could drastically change after the introduction of livestock. Livestock ate remaining grass/weeds, re-fertilized the earth with their feces, and ultimately restored the soil to support agriculture. Proper land management in which livestock and agricultural fields are iteratively rotated through grazing areas allows for a sustainable environment. Only when livestock are not rotated, or when restricted by CAFO, is there an issue of desertification. In fact, without livestock, the only way to prevent desertification in an agricultural environment is to rely on chemical fertilizers or less efficient crop rotations.

Slash-and-burn.

Destruction of rain-forests in order to propagate CAFO is an unethical practice that is counter to grass-fed meat production. The issue here is that corporate greed establishes poor practices that are bound in the CAFO philosophy. Arguably, there’s a lot of land that could be used domestically for animal grazing, a lot of which has undergone desertification due to poor agricultural practices. The destruction of rain-forests in order to support the meat industry is less an argument against meat, and more an argument against corporate greed and unethical animal treatment.

Water use.

Estimates for water use required to produce beef varies considerably. It’s not clear, however, which factors are involved in each computation. While they imply that the water use is based on what an animal needs to drink in its lifetime before it’s butchered, it actually includes the irrigation needs of corn crops.

There’s no indication that these studies differentiate between CAFO and grazing operations, and we have to assume they refer to the former, since that’s the conventional meat-producing method. While CAFO relies on large corn crops to feed animals, grass-fed, pastured operations do not, so we can deduct those water values from the equation. Further, since many small, independent farms slaughter their animals on-sight, we can further reduce water needs because the vast amounts of water used in commercial slaughterhouses is no longer relevant¹.

Methane.

Some argue that cow production of methane may pollute as much as a car, daily. However, this is in great part due to what we’re feeding cows; natural pasture does not result in the same amount of methane production, whereas ryegrass and other chemically-fertilized pasture is not as nutritious, and results in increased methane production.

As per our response to the issue of desertification, the concern over ground contaminants (ammonia, etc) is a non-issue as long as proper grazing rotations are utilized; cow fertilizer actually benefits the earth, and the resulting soil actually traps more carbon than the cows create. Obviously, this relies on proper herd and field management, but that’s the very practices that we need to support, instead of sourcing our meat from CAFO.

Eat grass-fed meat.

Many of the arguments about beef not being sustainable is in regards to conventional cow rearing, and not necessarily applicable to grass-fed cows. CAFO needs to be eliminated, even if that means not eating at McDonalds, or getting access to other cheap sources of meat.

But in the end, even if we begin replacing CAFO with grass-fed operations, is the system sustainable? It is insofar as as the production of nutritious meat goes, but ultimately, there’s no diet that’s both healthy and sustainable for the current human population. Growing grains to support the 6+ billion people on the earth today is only damaging the environment, and results in a growing autoimmune epidemic.

From the perspective of healthy eating domestically, however, there’s no reason that we can’t eat sustainable grass-fed beef at home, without worrying about negative environmental impact.

Similar Posts:

• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …
• A Farm Corps? – In The New York Times, Nicolette Hahn Niman proposes [five things](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeb…
• Meat-eating fish on the prowl. – Some guy could no longer care for two Japanese meat-eating fish, so he dumped them into a Maryland p…

We randomly came across mention of Vibram Five Fingers over at the Mnmlist blog, where author Leo bought a pair despite his “less stuff” philosophy. Curiosity piqued, we had to check them out, and so we started to do our research on the Five Fingers, and the barefoot philosophy that’s earned a very strong niche following.

Background.

It turns out, our feet evolved into one of our most complex skeletal features for a reason. With so many bones and joints, our feet are designed to be incredibly adaptable to terrain changes, aided in part by the feedback our brains get when the terrain beneath us changes form (causing us to shift our posture, gait, stride, etc). In addition to our physical endurance, this evolution allowed humans to become persistence hunters, in which we effectively ran our prey to their deaths. And, we were able to do this despite the fact that we did not strap hooves to our feet.

That all changed when aesthetic variables came into play in the western world. Earlier generations wore leather footwear roughly equivalent to what we think of as a moccasin. This provided our feet with basic protection, but apparently not enough visual appeal. So, Europeans added impractical heels to our footwear, which required a thicker, less flexible sole. The result was an arguably more appealing figure, complete with the curves and stance still present in modern fashion. Of course, this change also resulted in footwear that cut off much of the tactile feedback our brains got from our feet feeling the ground beneath us. Furthermore, with more rigid soles and heels, we began walking “heel-first,” and rolling our feet to our toes before kicking off. This was a far cry from earlier days, when the balls or middle of our feet hit the ground first, and our toes sprung our next kick forward.

Interestingly, you can see the difference between walking with shoes and walking barefoot immediately. Even if it’s the same person. Try it out yourself and pay attention.

Some studies show that the thicker a shoe’s heel/sole, the harder a wearer slams their heel into the ground when walking, as though the brain is subconsciously trying to get the feedback it desires. This heel-slamming that we do in modern society, it damages our knees and joints, because it’s not how our bodies were designed to take shocks. Similarly, changes in posture, resulting from modern shoes, provide other problems as well, such as shin splints, back pain, and the aforementioned knee problems. All because shoes themselves, courtesy of thick soles, aren’t good for our bodies.

The shoe industry, of course, has adopted. It puts a band-aid on some of our problems by adding more cushion, or curving the toes up to make up for the lack of spring our toes would naturally provide. They add “pumps,” soles that flair out, arch support, and a whole slew of other changes (not to mention aesthetic ones), but few companies look to actually alleviate the health problems modern footwear has produced by directly tackling the underlying issues.

Vibram is a company that’s actually looking to address the core problem. They, and other companies, believe in producing shoes with very thin soles, allowing our brains to get far more tactile feedback than with conventional footwear. Most companies like this still opt for close-toed shoes that still benefit somewhat from additional toe movement, but Vibram took things to another level with their Five Fingers line.

Five Fingers are gloves for feet. They provide a thin Vibram sole and pockets for individual toes. This allows a wearer’s toes to move independently and provide natural spring to a run, and because the wearer can utilize their toes more naturally, and their feet too, stability and agility are enhanced accordingly. Vibram’s idea was to give people the barefoot advantage and still provide some level of protection, and judging from the many reviews out there, Vibram has succeeded stunningly with their Five Fingers line.

Models, and sizing.

When we decided to pull the trigger on a Five Fingers shoe, we first had to determine what model we wanted. The main factor in our decision was that we wanted a jack-of-all-trades shoe for daily use. We would still be wearing dress shoes to the office, but when at home, or working out, we wanted a shoe that would work just as well around town as it did running on pavement or going on light hikes. For us, this meant a shoe that was closed on top, and that eliminated three models from the get-go (Classic, Moc, and Sprint). One of three remaining models was ideal for watersports (Flow), but not necessarily for land sports, and one model (KSO Trek) came with a somewhat thicker sole offering better traction for more robust hiking. The “do-all” model that, perhaps, wasn’t overly specialized, was the KSO.

While REI carries the Five Fingers, their selection varies from store to store. Some stores, in fact, don’t carry them at all, and those that do have stocking issues because supply isn’t currently meeting demand. The KSOs and Treks require a size-down adjustment from the other models, so while our local REI didn’t have the KSOs in our size, we were able to try on three sizes in the Classics and Sprints. By the time we left the store, we figured we’d be a 40 in the KSOs, and immediately got online to place an order. Of course, by the time our order arrived, we were dismayed to find that the shoe was too small. It turns out that the black/black KSOs run small, so we returned our 40s and placed another order.

The 41s we received were quite snug. Arguably, we could have gone up another size, and we’re fairly confident that a 41 would be perfect in any other colour or model. Still, the 41s in KSO black/black didn’t feel uncomfortable at all. So, we took them for a spin.

Day one.

Because of the toe pockets, and that our toes are used to being scrunched up somewhat in traditional shoes, getting the KSOs on took a couple minutes. It’s not difficult, but it still takes a little patience to get the smaller toes lined up correctly. In our case, it was the little toe that didn’t naturally slide into its own pocket right away, and instead curled towards its neighbor for safety.

Walking around the house felt good, like some odd combination of socks and slippers. Stepping outside where it was around 50 degrees out, our feet immediately felt the chill. The mesh on top of the shoes doesn’t do much for keeping wind out, and though our long bootcut jeans may have helped a little, it wasn’t enough. With certainty, we can say that we felt the ground better, but we obviously didn’t notice small gravel on the sidewalks. It wasn’t until we stepped on a rock about the size of a marble that we felt uncomfortable pressure, which we would have just rolled over without much thought in our other shoes.

Back to the jeans, the thin sole of the KSOs obviously reduces our height somewhat. In hiking boots, which we’re used to wearing, our jeans are the perfect length, but with most casual shoes, the edge of the back can drag on the ground. Similarly, with the KSOs, our jeans end up getting dirty because the back bottom either ends up dragging on the ground, else is outright stepped on. Without buying a new pair or becoming a seamstress, we figure we can just deal with it, else maybe cut a small slit in the back so the bottom flays out a bit more. Either way, future jeans purchases will take this into account.

A quick trip through town proved that the KSOs were comfortable. We were concerned with the snugness of the fit more than once, not because there was any discomfort, but out of buyer’s paranoia. In fact, our toes had great movement through the shoes despite that two toes on each foot were pretty much touching the end of their respective toe pockets. If anything, the feel of the wind, that we could spread our toes, and the thin sole, pretty much made our feet feel like they were barefoot, or at least close to it. But how would they hold up running?

We decided to go for a jog with our dog, and ended up doing a couple sprints along what amounted to approximately 16 blocks. It quickly became obvious that running on pavement and landing on the balls of one’s feet isn’t exactly super-comfortable. That is to say, impact to this area of the foot isn’t something we were used to while running. It didn’t hurt, but we half expected to bruise this area of the foot if we continued on. Beyond this expectation, however, our feet felt fine, and we naturally avoided landing with our heels. Indeed, it may simply have been a placebo of sorts, but we felt like we could spring forward from a stride much easier now that our toes we free from their typical footwear cages.

Stability-wise, our short jaunt felt good. So good, in fact, that we felt tempted to jump up on low walls like a newbie ninja-in-training. There’s a reason people don’t tend to roll their ankles when barefoot, and that stability is offered by the Five Fingers without question. It’ll probably take a while to acclimate our bodies to barefoot movement overall, but at slower speeds, the transition is automatic, if only because we’re used to moving around barefoot slowly. At speed is in another issue, because it’s rare that we run around barefoot, so it’s no surprise that when we enter speed-walking or running mode, that we tend to drop our heels into the ground pretty heavily.

By the end of our little jog, we noticed that our feet had warmed up considerably, and that they felt pretty cozy by the time we returned home. Given the temperature outside, we estimate that it’d be pretty comfortable running in these shoes most of the year on the east coast.

The next three days.

When we woke up the following morning, we definitely noticed soreness in our calves. Reports from other new Five Fingers users noted this pain, but we casually dismissed it. But no, it’s true: the muscles designed to stabilize our feet while moving barefoot atrophy in most individuals because they’re simply not used much thanks to modern footwear. In our case, our calves felt about what we expect them to the day after working them out at the gym, only in this situation, we didn’t intend to work them out specifically, and didn’t notice much stress on them in our very short run the day earlier.

With limited time to work out the next couple days, we simply managed to go on short walks after work in our Five Fingers, dog in tow. Nothing particularly notable about these walks other than an adjustment in gait to compensate for the heel-striking in our normal, long stride. We’ll add, though, that we naturally began to prefer walking on grass or dirt than pavement, because it feels so much better. In normal shoes, we like the idea of walking off pavement, but stability-wise, pavement feels better. In Five Fingers, walking off-road is simply a better experience all-around.

That said, hanging out in the dog park, which at this time of year is a little muddy, tended to make the bottom of our feet cold when we weren’t moving much. Just throwing a ball around with minimal movement around the field definitely impacted foot comfort, as our feet would have been more comfortable at least wearing socks. Given that our KSOs are already very snug, we’ll likely rule out socks unless we later decide to get a slightly roomier pair of Five Fingers. We’ll still wear our KSOs in these situations, but when autumn sheds into winter later in the year, we’ll obviously have to make a decision as to what to do.

On our last walk in the Five Fingers over the three day period owning the KSOs, we walked over an old cobblestone street, which made us realize the implications of barefoot movement. Modern society, or in this case recent history, clearly dictated adjustments to footwear even beyond aesthetic considerations. Using the cobblestone street as an example, moving across the man-made pathway in our KSOs was about as uncomfortable as driving a car down the same stretch. While the walk was fine when we carefully chose our footing for each step, moving from stone-top to stone-top, a blind walk down the street simply wasn’t comfortable.

We’d be happy to hear that this was only because we’re not used to the feeling, and that our feet will toughen up to this type of terrain over time, but given the experience, we reckon we’d sooner avoid these types of streets in the future. Picturing us distracted where our gaze isn’t on the stones in front of us, we can only imagine a painful outcome to a run down this same street. That said, after returning home, the Five Fingers remained on our feet, where they felt super-comfortable just hanging out. We can definitely see replacing our slippers with a pair of Mocs in the future.

By day three, only a slight soreness in our calves remain. This weekend, we’ll opt for more activity in our KSOs, as we intend to wear them all weekend long. We’ll continue to comment on the experience as time goes on, and if there is reader interest.

Similar Posts:

• Fivefingers: beyond the first week. – Our first week wearing Vibram Fivefingers made for an interesting experience, and while we intended …
• More toe shoes! – The 2011 autumn lineup for Vibram’s FiveFinger’s line looks good. Birthday Shoes, the de facto outle…
• Keeping Nike’s grubby paws off my $29. – I hate running. It’s a boring, uncomfortable routine that months of practicing didn’t make any more …

When we decided to adopt an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), we knew that we’d be fighting an uphill battle against the ignorant masses. Thanks to exaggerated, biased media reports that sell their stories by promoting fear-mongering, the press has demonized a number of dog breeds under the “pitbull” label. It’s unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least which is the euthanizing of hundreds of “pitbulls” in shelters across the United States.

While we did a fair amount of research into the APBT and related breeds, it’s since become more and more obvious to us that the media is still on its mission to place blame on the wrong parties. The Michael Vick story helped bring certain elements of the issue to light, but the damage to “pitbull” breeds was done by Sports Illustrated years ago, and the damage likely won’t be undone for many years to come, if ever. And it’s not just the media, but regular folks who regurgitate untruths because they simply don’t know any better. For the purpose of promoting facts, let’s clarify some points for those whose knowledge of “pitbulls” is based entirely on hearsay and partial information.

First off, there is no “pitbull” breed. The media lumps several breeds under this label, to include the APBT, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and others. This even includes mastiff mixes and other mutts. Basically, any dog that vaguely visually resembles a stocky, yet athletic dog, similar in appearance to the APBT, is designated a “pitbull.” Interestingly, the APBT is the only breed with “pitbull” in its name, and it’s the second smallest of the aforementioned breeds. In fact, of those breeds, only the American Bulldog typically exceeds 85lb in weight. Stories of 100+lb pitbulls refer to mastiffs or mastiff mixes. The APBT, for example, maxes out at around 60lbs for a male. APBT’s on the lower end weigh as little as 30lbs. But to understand the “pitbull,” one has to know more than its size.

A little history.

One of the first things anyone will tell you about the “pitbull” is that it was bred to fight other dogs, but this is only a half-truth. To understand the whole picture, one has to go even further back in history. All of the aforementioned breeds have a common ancestor: the old English bulldog. This bulldog breed weighed 45 pounds average (the median weight for an APBT), and was a working dog that technically no longer exists. It was also the father of the modern-day English Bulldog, which is derived from a cross-breed of the old English bulldog and the Pug, and further bred for certain aesthetic elements, resulting in today’s rather unhealthy breed. Its ancestor, on the other hand, was a very powerful, agile, working dog.

The old bulldog breed was named after a sport that placed the breed in high demand: bull-baiting, a sport later outlawed. Mind you, it was also used for other working tasks of the era, to include pulling loads, working cattle, and other farmhouse activities. Nonetheless, the popularity of bull-baiting made the old English bulldog a popular breed, and it is said that the breed was derived of smaller mastiff stock, later bred with greyhounds to increase agility.

The sport of bull-baiting required two important factors, which remain with modern-day APBTs and many “pitbull” breeds. Firstly, strong jaws were required in order for the dog to grab ahold of a bull’s snout and hold on despite any movement by the bull. It is important to distinguish strong jaws and the behavior to hold on at all costs with “lock-jaw,” however, which is a myth. Where the myth of “lock-jaw” originated, we don’t know, but there is no physical mechanism for a dog to “lock” its jaws in a bite. In fact, “pitbulls” don’t have exceptionally stronger bite strength than other dogs, but merely retain the knack of holding onto a target. Most other breeds, when confronted, have a tendency to snap, gnash, slash, and tear. Secondly, “gameness” was required to confront an enormous, bucking bull. This fierce courage would become an important trait for a bulldog’s success in the “pit.” Note that the “pit” in “pitbull” refers to a hole that the bull, and bulldog, were placed into for bull-baiting. It does not refer to a dogfighting pit.

When bull-baiting was banned in 1835 by British Parliament, the bulldog’s popularity declined. Around that time, dog-fighting began to rise in popularity, and it was then that the bulldog was bred with trace amounts of old English terrier in order to increase the breed’s agility. These terriers, too, were known for their gameness. The resulting breed, still quite similar to the bulldog of old, became known in the US as the APBT, while in England, it was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. By the 1960s, dog-fighting was banned in most US States, with the last State signing off on the ban in 1976.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is of the same stock as the APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, only bred further for the show ring (and to distance the breed from dog-fighting). The APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, meanwhile, remained working dogs. While they were favored by dog-fighters, they were still used for a variety of working purposes, much like their bulldog ancestors. In fact, so respected were these dogs, that the US adopted the APBT to symbolize America: friendly, courageous, hard-working, and loyal. Indeed, the APBT was considered such a good family dog, and so good with children, than it was referred to as the “nanny dog.” The dog in The Little Rascals: yeah, it was an APBT.

How was the APBT’s reputation not marred back then, despite dog-fighting still being legal in the United States? One reason is simple: traditional dog-fighting did not tolerate human-aggression. In a typical dog-fighting ring, not only were there two dogs, but there were at least two people inside the ring as well, constantly re-positioning their respective dog’s bites for scoring purposes. With human hands in such close contact with fighting dogs, mid-fight, signs of human aggression were not tolerated. If such aggression materialized, the dogs would immediately be put down. Thus, the only fighting dogs that were further bred were those without any signs of human aggression. So it was no mystery that these same dogs, fierce in the ring against other dogs, would be very good household companions. After the ban on dog-fighting was put in place, dog-fighting naturally declined. Most APBTs involved in the sport were re-integrated in the general house-pet populace, along with their non-fighting APBT brothers, and their American Staffordshire Terrier cousins. Since, the APBT has continued to excel as a working and family dog.

Today, dog-fighting lives on, primarily in low-income, high-crime areas. Dog-fighting is linked to the drug trade and violent gangs, and it’s no surprise that most dogs used in the ring for this purpose lead pretty awful lives, not just when they fight, but in their daily lives as well. They are generally uncared for, malnourished, and never properly socialized or trained. Sadly, APBTs are often still favored for the sport, because what made them great at bull-baiting, and in the dog-fighting of earlier days, also make them great at dog-fighting today: their bite-and-hold, gameness, strength, and agility.

Regarding aggression.

Sites like dogsbite.org suggest that “pitbulls” are dangerous, but in actuality, sites like dogsbite.org lie. In this case, it’s a matter of the site owner having been attacked in the past, and now going on a rampage against “pitbulls” out of ignorance. Truth is, the “facts/conclusions” on those sites are made up, and not actually supported by purposeful studies, if any real studies whatsoever.

Based on the history above, there’s an obvious correlation between dog-fighting and APBTs, even though it’s not what APBTs were specifically bred for. Moreover, other dog breeds were used in dog-fighting too. However, the APBT’s traits have made them a choice breed for the bloodsport, in much the same way the breed excels at other working tasks: the “Superdog” title is used to describe any dog that has earned UKC titles in four areas open to all breeds, namely conformation, agility, weight pull, and obedience. Twenty of 47 Superdogs have been APBTs, and nine others Staffordshire Bull Terriers. That means over half of all Superdogs are of the same bulldog/terrier stock, illustrating just how intelligent, athletic, and flexible these dogs are. Similarly, three out of nine UKC Ultradogs were APBTs.

But back to aggression, the CDC’s Dog Bite Fact Sheet draws no conclusions based on breed.

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years… It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic… There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concurs. For a longer read, The Pit Bull Placebo has additional facts supporting the CDC’s and ACMA’s claims.

Still, those who claim that the APBT is aggressive relies on the APBT’s dog-fighting past. But as the KC Dog Blog points out, it’s been over 70 years since the American Staffordshire Terrier was formalized, and with most State bans against dog-fighting being enacted in the 1860s, one can reasonably argue that there have been at least seven generations of dogs that were not bred for the ring, so even if a genetic disposition for canine aggression existed, it likely wouldn’t exist today.

And even if such a genetic disposition were scientifically proven to exist in most APBTs today (it hasn’t), it still wouldn’t indicate any level of human aggression, and if anything, would likely debunk any claims of human aggression at all, considering that the very practice of dog-fighting would have increased canine aggression at the expense of human aggression.

So then why does the media focus so highly on “pitbulls”? Well, for one, the media doesn’t care about the truth: sensational headlines sell papers. And really, if the average person can’t differentiate between breeds, what makes anyone think that a journalist can? In fact, DNA testing of dog breeds suggests that visual breed identification is only about 12% accurate. That’s why most shelters refer to any medium-to-large size, black dog as a “black lab mix,” and why “shepherd” mixes are unusually common. The reality is that aesthetic breed-specific traits are notoriously difficult to identify visually, which is why the media lumps so many breeds into the “pitbull” category, despite the fact that many “pitbull” dogs demonized aren’t even of the same bloodhound/terrier stock. This, of course, brings us again to the 100+lb “pitbull” stories, which are in all likelihod mastiff mixes, else dogs from “backyard breeders” who have spent years developing ill-tempered, unhealthy breeds for certain aesthetic characteristics (i.e. low, stocky build, bent-out shoulders, etc). For those who do argue genetics, note that most of these larger “pitbulls” were bred with mastiffs, which were not bread for any human bite-inhibition.

Don’t blame the breed.

The media isn’t just wrong to demonize based on breed, it’s wrong for forgetting what real investigative journalism is. If visual identification of breeds doesn’t work, then why not look for facts that do correlate between dog attacks? The recent killing of a two-year-old girl in Virginia has elements common to similar news stories.

1. The dog was a “resident” dog, not a family dog. In other words, it was not part of the family routine, but instead left outside and not fully integrated into the family.
2. The dog was chained up. This is generally considered a poor way to restrain a dog, is unhealthy, and yet by many dog-fighters, is considered good practice to toughen up a dog and build strength.
3. The neighborhood the incident took place in was below the poverty line, suggesting that the family likely lacked the education, and means, to raise a dog properly. In fact, the dog was probably malnourished, and was probably not routinely taken to the vet, either.
4. The family was obviously negligent. If a two-year old child can wander outside on its own and escape it’s mother’s watch, then imagine what little care the family had for the dog in the first place.
5. Given the family’s financial situation, it’s highly unlikely that there were any lineage papers for the dog, so there’s absolutely no evidence of breed identification in this case, bringing us back to the limitations of visual breed assessment. For all we know, especially since there are no pictures of the dog readily available on any site reporting the attack, the dog was a chihuahua. Aside from the dog’s age, was there anything descriptive about the dog noted, other than that neighbors (who were similarly ignorant) referred to the dog as a “pitbull”?

What all of this comes down to, like many other things, is education. If we had our way, we’d require any potential dog-owners to acquire a license before adopting a dog, to prove that they have the means, and education, to properly care for their pet. (Indeed, this should probably be extended to children also, but let’s discuss one thing at a time.) With no desire to truly incorporate a dog into one’s family dynamic, and no plans to properly train and care for a pet, one does everyone a disservice, and it’s no surprise that a child has died from these circumstances. While the investigation into this last specific case is still ongoing, I wouldn’t hesitate to pass a good chunck of the blame onto the parents here, and file criminal charges against them.

In any case, let’s stop with the stereotypes: with experts concluding that there’s no evidence to justify breed specific legislation, let’s end the “pitbull” hate.

Similar Posts:

• Overcoming Apple TV’s file-type limitations. – We really want to like the new Apple TV. For one, it’s cheap for a media center at only $100. Two, i…
• The Gracie let-down. – I meant to post sooner about last Saturday’s long-awaited showdown between Matt Hughes and Royce Gra…
• Hillary not a gamer. – When Hillary Clinton was elected U.S. Senator out of lovely New York, I got the hell out of Dodge. I…

Lately, a number of people we know have gotten onto the weight-loss bandwagon, which to us seems about six-months early since we’re not even close to the holiday season yet, but to each their own. The methods we’ve recently heard for losing weight range from crazy dietary restrictions (like no alcohol!) to long-winded work-out routines. Even more recently, our friend Maxator started what he calls the “hunter gatherer diet”, which effectively cuts out processed sugar and flour, and potatoes. The diet has worked for him, as he’s lost 20 pounds in 30 days, with no other major behavioral modifications other than the types of food he eats.

While some of Maxator’s friends may have been surprised at Maxator’s weight loss resulting from his modified diet, we were less surprised, as his modifications are very similar to those described by other individuals. For example, StrongLifts.com proposes a similarly healthy diet, albeit with the goal to fuel fast muscle growth by increasing protein intake. The core phlosophy at StrongLifts.com is simple: earlier generations didn’t struggle as much with weight because they were constantly working, and the more manual labor done, the greater muscle strength is, and those with greater muscle strength tend to burn fat much quicker/easier than those who are weak and flabby. In other words, by building muscle and not taking in carbs/sugars that can’t easily be burnt off, weight problems will be minimal.

Both Maxator and StrongLifts.com refer to prior generations and their food intake. These comments remind us of Mean Genes, an absolutely excellent book, which we would make required reading if mendax.edu were a reality. In short, Mean Genes is a reflection of man’s behavior as it relates to many years of genetic programming/evolution. In other words, the authors pinpoint why people tend to do certain things based on the things our ancestors had to do to survive. While the scope of the book exceeds the subject of this post, there’s a chapter on health and beauty that refers to the foods modern man is drawn to, and why that is. For example, the western world prizes sugar, to the point where high fructose corn syrup is in a significant percentage of the things we eat and drink. We’re drawn to such sugary substances because ancient man needed a desire for then-rare sugars that occur in nature, such as fruits. These sugars weren’t just tasty, but they were tied to foods that had nutrients necessary for survival. Unfortunately, programmed to seek out sugar, modern man indulges in all-too-accessible sugars, which corporations exploit easily.

The point? Cutting down on sugars that we don’t need will help us regain a healthy balance in regards to our food intake. The willpower to do so isn’t always easy, but as Maxator has shown, is quite possible to gather. What we find comment-worthy about his ordeal isn’t the focus on weight-loss, however, but rather in the premise that natural foods are inherently better for consumption that unnatural ones. For example, a major tenet of his diet is the lack of processed sugars and flour, which many organic eaters have touted for years.

For those who don’t know about processed sugars, we’re not simply talking high-fructose corn syrup, though that’s obviously one of the worst kinds of sweeteners. Rather, even table-sugar is processed, which is immediately evident in its coloration: “pure” sugar isn’t white, it’s brown-ish. In fact, cane sugar is bleached just like flour is, to give it that super-clean unnatural whiteness that people are so fond of. In the case of flour, the processing is even worse, because not only is flour bleached, but most of its nutrients are ripped clean in the process. That’s why ingredients like “whole wheat flour” are so important, whereas the lack of the words “whole wheat” tends to refer to a much less healthy product. As for sugar, if cancer-inducing Splenda is not one’s cup of tea (it’s certainly not ours), consider using raw cane sugar, which can be found in most grocery stores, and also served in little brown packets at many cafes (Peets and Starbucks included). For home use, there’s also organic blue agave nectar, a syrupy substance that sweetens foods and drinks beautifully.

The health benefits of eating naturally aren’t the only gains for an individual, however: natural foods tend to taste better than processed foods also. For example, while we grew up drinking milk, at one point we stopped drinking a glass of milk a day, and for decades never considered going back. Sure, we’d eat dairy products and even put milk in our espresso drinks, but we simply didn’t find milk tasty enough to drink solo. That is, until recently, when we first realized just how much better whole milk was than the needlessly skim milk most Americans buy, and later in just how much better organic (and especially raw) milk tastes than the processed crap found in most stores.

It’s easy enough to point at natural foods as hippy foods, but this is a misnomer: they’re legacy foods that technocrats deemed unnecessary in order to promote capitalism and production over time-tested health benefits. That’s not to say that processed foods are without nutrients entirely, merely that they’re sapped of many nutrients one could otherwise find in a natural counterpart. And that’s not hippy, it’s ancestral.

Similar Posts:

• Our paleo challenge. – While we’ve already been eating healthier in recent years than we used to, it wasn’t until we stumbl…
• Upgraded to a grande? – It’s bad enough when establishments charge the same price for a smaller item. Take Starbucks as an e…
• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …

When Hillary Clinton was elected U.S. Senator out of lovely New York, I got the hell out of Dodge. In fact, I moved way the hell out of Dodge, across the country to Phoenix, where I hoped the desert would quell my rage for having to hear more about her political career. Hillary’s one of those million politicians who do what they do because they want recognition and a fancy career, not because they really care, or really want to do what’s best for the country. No, Hillary represents pretty much everything I hate about politicians – going with what’s popular, caring more about themselves than the country, and spinning subjects up to terminal velocities without bothering to do a minute of real research.

Enter Hillary’s latest bit of paranoia, ironically mirrored by conservative rednecks across the country: violent video games are the devil, and should be banned. Never mind that parents should take some responsibility for once, and admit that they don’t actually watch what their children buy in stores. Never mind that little kids, too young to have jobs, shouldn’t be running around with pockets of cash, alone in a store, to buy whatever suits their fancy without parental supervision. No, let’s place the responsibility on the retailer, and fine them when some kid’s parent is incapable of raising their child properly. Hillary, you’re the queen of brilliance.

The bottom line is that video games with truly pornographic and violent content is being marketed to our children,” Clinton said. “As parents and advocates for children, we have to draw the line.”

Hillary, name three video games sold at a major video game retailer that has “truly pornographic” material out-of-box. Can’t do it? Okay, name two? Can you name one? Naturally, Hillary’s latest tirade is based upon the recent hubbub concerning Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, in which a modder in the Netherlands claims to have unlocked a mini-game wherein the game’s main character has sex with women. This “Hot Coffee” mod, as it is known as, either exploits a bit of code that the developers decided shouldn”t be linked from the main game for obvious reasons, or is a full-fledged add-on written by the mod community. Fact is, it doesn’t really matter how it was made or who made it. Fact is, the sex-game, while pornographic in nature, isn’t part of the game you buy. No one can purchase the PC version of the game (the only version Hot Coffee works on, despite the lack of such reporting by the media), and play porno mini-games without first downloading and configuring files from the Internet. And, the mod isn’t downloadable from any official Rockstar web site. This means two things: one, parents should be monitoring what their kids are downloading in the first place, and two, Hillary (and the media) is incapable of dealing with the real facts, because the spin is far more interesting.

If the material is imbedded in the game and available by a few simple steps, Clinton said she will call for a nationwide recall of the game so that all who bought it believing the M rating can be reimbursed.

The funny thing is, Hillary, the people who bought the game believing the M rating got exactly that: a mature game. Not a game with accessible pornographic content, not a game mislabeled, just a mature game with content similar to many titles out there. I can cut’n paste nude breasts onto the scantily clad pictures in Maxim magazine just to look at porn. That doesn”t mean Maxim, which displays mostly nude women, is suddenly exposing full-on pornography. But here we are, yelling at Rockstar for selling something that isn’t what Hillary is making it out to be.

“The disturbing material in Grand Theft Auto and other games like it is stealing the innocence of our children and it’s making the difficult job of being a parent even harder,” Clinton said. “I am announcing these measures today because I believe that the ability of our children to access pornographic and outrageously violent material on video games rated for adults is spiraling out of control.”

Making the job of being a parent even harder? Jesus Christ, Hillary, how did you raise your daughter? Did you think raising a kid was supposed to be easy? God forbid something comes up where a parent needs to make a responsible judgment call, and God forbid your kid gets angry at you because you told them that they can’t buy the video game they wanted. No, let’s put that responsibility on a third party, all because you’re a weak parent.

As to the issue of violence taking away our children’s innocence, have you watched the news lately? Are you aware that our children are being raised in a society where war is touted as patriotic? Despite the fact that you and other politicians aren’t able to differentiate Iraq from terrorism, some fourth graders are, and they’re being told it’s not okay to buy violent video games until they’re 17, but that it’s more than reasonable to start thinking about joining the Army at that age, so they can be patriotic and kill insurgents in a country that hasn’t been firmly linked to the attack on the World Trade Center.

Oh, but kids these days are supposed to be free from violence immediately around them. Just like the kids of the ’30s who didn’t grow up to be obsessed killers despite the fact that they watched people around them get killed on a daily basis, hearing mortars and bombs and some watching their family toted away to be killed in camps. And kids back in Rome, we all know that watching the games in the Colliseum, ripe with death from the gladius or a lion, all grew up to be crazed killers.

What Hillary doesn’t understand, maybe because the land of politics has blurred her common sense, is that kids lose their innocence. That’s what makes them become adults. If it’s not killing a buffalo, going to war, or going through some other rite of passage, kids lose their innocence and become adults. What kids see these days, on TV, in video games, or what they listen to in music, isn’t going to make them mad murderers any more than our forefathers who witnessed strung up pirates on local fisherman’s docks, the beating of blacks in the South, or the massacre of Native Americans. And if those same kids who live in happy Pokemon-land start to think that virtual, simulated violence in video games is akin to the real thing, then your kids either already have problems, or you need to start talking to them.

Research has, for years, confirmed a link between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior in children. A new study by researchers at Indiana University School of Medicine show that playing violent video games triggers “unusual brain activity” among aggressive adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders, said Dr. John Walsh, founder and director of the National Institute on Media and the Family.

Yeah, unusual brain activity in already aggressive adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. Sure there’s a link between disturbed kids and violent video games, but that link is linear; kids with violent tendencies will inherently be attracted to violent video games. That doesn’t mean violent video games make kids have violent tendencies.

Clinton’s soon-to-be-proposed legislation will call for a $5,000 maximum penalty for retailer caught selling or renting violent and pornographic video games to minors. Much like the way cigarettes and alcohol are sold, M- and AO-rated video games would be kept out of minors’ reach by being placed in locked cases and behind counters, only to be retrieved with ID, she said.

And I, Hillary, would like to propose that any parent found purchasing such a game for their 9-year-old child, be sentenced to same. Silly? Yes, exactly.

Similar Posts:

• Why am I not surprised? – Social responsibility is lacking these days, plain and simple. From the cries of parents about viole…
• Free Realms like Harry Potter – attracting adults? – We raise an eyebrow as commentary on Free Realms continues. Not because Free Realms is a poor idea, …
• Monopoly’s most-hated rule is the best one. – There’s a rule that most Monopoly players don’t know about, which we remember a cousin telling us ab…