How we know we know nothing.

Ok, guys, I'm going to discuss one of the main areas of 20th Century philosophy, Epistemology, the study of knowledge. Don't be scared, I'm going to do my best to break terms down so this little exposition doesn't sound too technical/boring.

Before we get all academic in this beezy, lets take a quick look at some of the main problems epistemologists have tried to solve/argue incessantly about. Some of the problems are best illustrated by an example, which I will shamelessly steal from my prof., Dr. Creath:

Imagine you have two beakers (I love that word). The first beaker (ha!) has 1 cup of water and the second has 1 cup of sugar. What will happen if you pour one beaker into the other? Give up? Well, you'll get some sweet water. But how much? 2 cups? Actually the solution will only measure about 1 1/2 cups. So what? The problem is that the basic laws of algebra tell us that 1+1=2. Nevertheless, nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that this experiment disproves the laws of basic algebra.

The experiment does, however, point to some very important philosophical and philosophy of science issues. Basically this experiment demonstrates that different forms of reasoning about the same phenomenon can yield different results. Which form of reasoning should we follow? Should some forms of reasoning supersede others? Should quantity of demonstrations count? (i.e. if I show you 1 000 ways that 1+1 does not equal 2, then will you relinquish the belief in the rules of arithmetic?) If we redo the experiment with 1 cup of water in each beaker, most people will say that this confirms 1+1=2. But why only consider the conformational evidence? Doesn't evidence that disconfirms a hypothesis count too?

There is another related issue concerning how we justify claims about knowledge. It is known as the "infinite regress" problem". Generally, when we want to support a claim as true, we point to reasons why it is true. But each of these reasons are themselves claims about objective truth and themselves need to be justified, and so on and so on until...you throw your hands up in the air, and wave 'em like you just don't care. Or you can take an approach some philosophers have taken (most famously Descartes of the "I think therefore I am" fame ) and claim there are some fundamental objective truths about the world and all other facts about the world can be derived/deduced from these truths (some of which will be very very long explanations).

So...we have a problem concerning how to justify claims (as true). Another solution is to say that some claims can be justified through observation. There are however problems with this method of justification beyond the practical problem that sometimes our senses deceive us and we that have no way reliable way of distinguishing between when our senses deceive us and when they don't. (As an aside, it is my humble opinion that most claims of paranormal experiences stem from this inability to distinguish). The philosophical problem is, how do we prove that observation is a reliable method of justifying claims? The only tool we have for this undertaking is observation itself (i.e. we can run experiments to determine if observation is reliable but experiments rely on observational data to confirm/disconfirm hypothese). When you presuppose what you are trying to prove, this, as most people know, is called circular logic and is not particularly helpful in our dilemma.

Ok, so there you have it. A quick overview of the problems in epistemology and philosophy of science. Mainly, what constitutes knowledge? how do we derive knowledge? what methods of obtaining knowledge are reliable? and what do we do in cases where different methods of obtaining knowledge lead to contradictory or incongruous results?

Actually, I was kidding, there is another family of problems, and it has to do with something called apriori knowledge (I'm such a kidder!). Apriori literally means "prior to" and it is in reference to experience. In everyday English it means, "things that you can/do know without having to have empirical (observational) evidence". The typical example is truths by definition, such as: all bachelors are unmarried. You don't have to go around and interview every bachelor in the world to know that this is true. There are other things, usually matters that don't have correspond to anything in the physical world like math and logic. You don't need to go measure every equilateral triangle in the world to know that the Pythagorean theorem is true. It's truth is derived by the understanding of the principles of geometry. Also, principles of geometry like, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, don't need you to do anything more than reflect in your mind to verify it's truth (later we will contend this, but for now, lets say that the Euclidian geometric axiom is true).

Most people, will agree that we do not need experiential knowledge to verify the examples i've given. So where does this knowledge come from? If we don't acquire it from the external world then it must be part of the structure of our brain....hmmm But the story doesn't end here because sometimes we discover that what we thought were absolute truths in logic or math (apriori knowledge), turn out to have alternative explanations or are wrong. Doh! So now we are in trouble. We need a hero who can lift us out of this mess. I present to you....

Actually, I'm going to let that stew in your head for a bit (cuz I've got other stuff to study). Hopefully you'll lose some sleep over it, then when your appetite for knowledge reaches levels unknown to any man hence, you will beg me to reveal, in all it's philosophical glory, Rudolf Carnap's ideas on how to reconcile some of these problems. Ta!ta!

My first attempt at answering a philosophy question (from the unwashed masses)

Yay! I have my first question! Thank you to auntie katinka for submitting your question. I'll do my best to answer (I hope it's ok that i divulged your identity, I know how you like to keep things on the DL!)

Here's the question:

oh! oh! you just caused me to have a question... so... when you were talking about the "inherent insufficiency in our representational system" I thought, what if our measely 5 senses aren't enough. What if the way we see the world is actually the way a blind person "sees" the world. If a blind person suddenly had sight, they'd go "holy crap - is THAT what the world looks like??!!" Maybe we can't see objects, just their representation with our difficient senses!

This is a good question which can partly be answered by philosophy and partly by science. There are a couple ways to interpret what your getting at so I'm going to put words in your mouth in order to separate the issues.

One implication of your question is that perhaps there are qualities of the physical world that do not have a causal connection to our perceptual system (i.e. we do not have a sense organ that can detect them). In fact, we already know this is true. For example humans can only perceive a small portion of the light spectrum and can only hear a limited range of sound frequencies. Nevertheless, while it is true that we cannot perceive these qualities directly, it does not mean we cannot infer or deduce their existence. Modern science has inferentially and deductively "perceived" the existence of just about every sub-atomic particle which are orders of magnitude smaller than an atom (except one--the elusive Higgs Bozon particle). Because every thing in the universe is either matter or energy we can devise instruments to aid us in detecting them. All matter can be detected be cause we know it has mass. So long as we are able to calibrate our instruments finely enough, we can detect any amount of matter, no "matter" how small. As for energy we know that in the universe energy is only ever found in 4 forms: strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational. Again, so long as the instruments are sensitive enough, any amount of energy can be detected. I'm not sure if this is what you implied with your question, but in case it wasn't...

Another possible implication of your question is that if only we had a few more senses we could perceive the physical world for what it actually is. But this side steps the whole philosophical problem. The problem is not that we don't have enough sensory data to build and accurate representation of the world. The problem is that when we see the final product of the causal chain of perception (light reflects off the object, light wave goes into eye, eye sends an electro-chemical impulse to visual cortex, visual cortex does something with that signal, and presto we see a representation of "x") that what we are seeing is a representation of the sense data after a long causal chain, not the particular object in the external world off of which the light was reflected. Unfortunately, adding more senses does not escape the problem as each sensory organ functions under the same principles. The main philosophical point is that we never perceive reality directly: only as a reconstructed representation by our sense organs in our mind.

Thanks again for the question! It really helps me clarify my thoughts to have to explain them to others...

Phun for Philosophers...

The pain and agony philosophers go through to really understand philosophical topics and issues is probably only paralleled by the agony of a mathematician trying to solve a proof that no one has yet solved. Think about it. That's basically what philosophy is...trying to solve the epistemic underpinnings of our world that, still after thousands of years of brilliant people trying, no one has been able to do. This requires a lot of patience, hard work and agony.

I like what A. W. Carus says on the topic of learning/doing philosophy, "Patience is a primary virtue in philosophy. Genuine understanding is a rare and valuable commodity, not to be obtained on the cheap". I think I would expand the scope of endeavours for which this assertion is true to include mastery of an art/instrument and probably just about any academic subject.

Enough blathering, I want to return to the original topic of this post..."phun for philosophers". (I spelled "fun" "phun"...gosh, I'm soooooooo cleaver!) What constitutes phun for a philosopher? The same thing that constitutes fun for anybody heavily steeped in oceans of purely theoretical knowledge with no practical purpose...showing everybody that you are soooooooooooooo s-m-r-t and that you know things they don't. For complete veracity (see! look at my fancy words! I can't just say "truthfulness", I have to conspicuously display, for all to see, my abnormally large....vocabulary), I would add that I enjoy expounding upon such topics in such a way as to make sure you definitely leave the conversation more confused then when we started. Then, and only then will I feel a warm glow inside me because I will know that all that time sitting at my desk while the other kids went partying on Friday night was worth it.

But, dju see...I'm not that kinda guy (ok, maybe a little bit...sometimes...). In order that you don't feel left out I'm going to explain to you as clearly as I can that which you missed while having a great time with your friends tonight...

Before I start, and you get all excited that you're about to learn some cutting edge philosophy (indeed it is, this theory came out this year! aren't you excited!) you should know that I'm actually doing this as an exercise to ensure my own comprehension of the theory (of what I've read so far of the 600+ page book!) and to see if I can explain it is semi-lay terms (ha! lay terms! ...but I'm going to try)

Tyler Burge's Empirical Objective Representationalist Theory of Perception (scared yet?)

Preamble: In the 20th Century most modern philosophical problems have centred in one way or another on this basic epistemological (having to do with the nature of knowledge) problem: How do we acquire facts/beliefs about the external world? The obvious answer is--one of the ways-- through our perceptual systems but this implies that we are not in direct contact with physical world. The typical account of how our perceptual system works is that we receive sensory input (light, sound, touch, etc..); it is received through the sensory organs, converted into electrochemical signals which are processed by the brain, which in turn creates a representation of the external physical world. This representation created by the brain may or may not resemble the particular qualities of objects in the physical world. We have no way of knowing because we only have access to the representation in our mind of the physical world, not the physical world itself. With out getting too off track, this is called the representationalist account of how we acquire information and beliefs about particulars in the physical world. There are other theories, but this one and it's variations have dominated the last century.

The Two Main Current Representationalist Theories

Both theories can broadly be described as Compensatory Individual Representationalist theories. Lets take a look see at why! (wheee!)

Here's a quick over-view of both theories. Both theories postulate objective empirical (to do with sensory input) representations (the finished product representation of the physical world we see in our mind) cannot occur without us having some sort of pre existing mental attributes to impose form on the incoming sense data. For example: for me to perceive "redness" I have to have a pre-existing psychological tool to recreate "redness" in my mind. In fact, in the first version of the theory, for every particular quality in the physical world (shape, texture, colour, etc..) I need pre existing psychological equipment that can recreate it in my mind (the representation). If I don't have this psychological equipment, then I can't recreate this quality in the representation.

The second version of the theory came in the second half of the 20th Century and it was in response to the obvious complexities and inherent problems with the first theory. Instead of saying we need a different pre-existing psychological structure for every particular quality encountered in the physical world, the theory was simplified: Instead of particulars, the mind will supply generals. That is to say, when all the sense data (particulars) come-a-flying down your neuro-pathways your mind will organize them and reconstruct them according to general principles found in the physical world (causation, constancy, differentiation, physical laws).

The upshot of both theories is that the mind supplies content to the representation. It is called a compensatory theory because it assumes there is an inherent insufficiency in our representational system and the qualities of the physical world for us to be able to represent directly. We need to compensate for this insufficiency by adding our own mental content to the raw sense data.

It is an individual theory because it is the individual that makes objectivity (the ability to accurately represent the physical world) possible by having the right psychological structures to allow for accurate representation of the sense data.

It is a representationalist theory because the physical qualities we perceive must be mirrored internally as a representation. I.e. you need internal mechanics/systems to recreate representationally the sense data; we don't directly perceive the particulars of the physical world.

Holy Crap! It's 5 in the morning...no wonder I can't see straight. I thought it was cuz of something else... Ok, mull over this for a while and I'll try to finish it before it finishes meeeeee! ahhh! But on a serious note (yes, folks it happens), I'd appreciate any feedback on my explanation so far. Since I want to be a philosophy instructor one day so I need to be able to break this shit down so my hommies and my peeps can dig what I'm hollering...about...y'all cool wit dat? yah! high five! Reality TV rulz!

Oh! and also any genuine questions about this topic I will gladly try to answer. It will help me better learn the material (which, quite honestly, is making my head hurt) and you'll learn something to impress your friends with!

Thanks for reading e'rrbody!

Blindsided

Wow! I did not see that coming...a year of planning wiped out. So here's the dealee-yo. Last week I went online to register for my classes and an error message kept popping up "the classes you have requested are not in the system" or something like that. Knowing that most university/public service websites have infinitely more glitches than corporate ones (why? do universities get the first year computer students to design the sites?) I wasn't too worried and wrote an email to the department head explaining the problem.

Rewind about 6 weeks....I'm listening to NPR (the US equivalent of CBC radio) and the president of UNLV (my university) is being interviewed. The gist of the interview was that due to state budget cuts, UNLV was getting significantly less money this year and 7 programs would have to be cut. Several programs were mentioned as potential candidates but my program never came up. No decisions had been made but the university was trying to figure out which ones to cut.

UNLV is quite a large university with at least 60 programs so I'm listening to this thinking..."hmm, what are the odds that my program will be cut?" Well, technically it's 11.6 % but *spoiler alert!* apparently the odds were much higher....

Something like this is so out of left field that you never formulate a contingency plan in the months leading up to classes. Can you imagine your academic advisor looking over your application and projected study plan and saying, "ok, it looks like you've done a good job of planning you're education, but I don't see any contingency plan for if the state financially collapses, forces major budget cuts on our university, cuts your program with only a month before the first day of class and stomps on your hopes and dreams."...To which I'd wittily reply, "what's your contingency plan for when they cut your position?"

I just can't help but laugh at the irony of cutting my program: Ethics and Policy Studies. First of all this is Las Vegas. To many it already a source of much smirking that there even is an ethics program. But think about it, without an ethics program, who besides the Mormons (Nevada has many Mormons) is going to waive a self-righteous finger at the city? At least we can provide arguments besides "this would make sweet baby Jesus cry" or "god says it's baaaaaaaaaad" or "our loving, forgiving god is gonna condemn all you sinners to hellfire for eternity" or "not even magic pyjamas will protect you from the consequences of your sinful deeds" ...I could go on and on, and just might!

But the irony doesn't stop there. Nevada is ranked 50th (basically last) for education in the states. What are the ethical (and practical) implications of a policy that further decimates an already crumbling government service. Can Nevada really afford to cut education? How can you have a stong economy with high skill/education/wage jobs when most of the population has only basic literacy at best. Has anyone seen the movie "Idiocracy"? It's already happening...I meet these people every day. Maybe they are intentionally cutting this program as a pre-emptive defensive strike against qualified critics.

So, what do? After I received the news from my dept. head that the program had been cancelled the theme song for A-team and/or Mission Impossible started playing in my head as I tried to devise a plan using nothing but my wits and a compooter. First thing I did was type random keys on my computer so if anyone were filming me it would look like I was typing something really important, really fast. Then I turned my computer on.

The next thing I did was run to my car, jump in through the open window and peel out. I am a man of action. I get shit done. After circling the block, I came back into my house at sat down at my computer now that it had booted up. (Did I mention I bought more MEGS of RAM for it? It's really improved the MEGA pixles.) I checkout out the two closest universities that offer masters programs in philosophy and discovered that I can register as a general grad student until Aug. 1.

After a day or two I decided I'd go to Arizona State University because it's close to Vegas and I love the desert climate. There's a catch--actually a few. Because Arizona is home to many right wing nut jobs (anything the gov't tells you to do is by definition baaaaad) and alt-med people (anything from the "medical-industrial complex" is by definition designed to make you sick!) there's a strong anti-vaccination movement there. This means no herd immunity. The enlightened folk and ASU don't want any viral outbreaks on campus (who can blame them) so enrolment is contingent on proof of having had your MMR vaccine.

I had my shots when I was an infant but where the crap am I going to get documentation of this. Does anyone really have their childhood vaccine documentation? Especially when it was done in the pre-computer era? Unfortunately, after being passed around and spending inordinate amounts of time on hold with the Skeena Valley Health Authority I was told that they only had records going back to 1984 (I had my first shot in 1976...wow! I'm old!).

Luckily, there is an out. You can get a blood test that (hopefully) shows immunity to MMR. Got that scheduled for Mon. After that I can register for classes.

So, check this out. Classes start Aug. 16th i.e. in one month. So, I basically need to leave Las Vegas in 20 days to give myself time to find a place to live, buy books and get settled before class.

Not all is rosey though...As a general grad student only 3 classes can be used as credit toward a degree program. All degree programs start in the fall. This means I'm going to go to school for 1 semester, apply for the degree program beginning the following fall, then wait for 9 months before I (assuming I'm accepted) start again fall 2011. I already waited a freakin' year to start at UNLV. Oh, well, it's not like I have other options. Anyway, that sums things up as they stand right now. Hopefully, I'll have good news early next week about the blood test and will be able to register for classes. I guess the lesson here is, to use a hackneyed marketing line for bad action movies, professional wrestling and monster truck exibitions, "expect the unexpected".

Health and Nutrition Part 3: Sleep

Health and Nutrition Part 3: Sleep (Hopefully last one--then I can get back to more interesting material)

Ok, first I'd like to express gratitude to my brother and sister for not only reading but commenting. Now that I've thanked you I'd like to discuss some of your comments because they raise some interesting issues.

Ez, in part one you brought up your experience that when you exercise you find yourself eating healthy foods. Although we are only 2 little points on a graph and our evidence is anecdotal I have to concur that there seems to be a positive feedback loop with exercise and healthy eating. I also think the opposite is true--poor exercise regime leads to poor eating habits. I would like to offer a crackpot theory on why this is true.

When you work out your body will need better nutrition to recover. Healthier foods generally offer better nutrition, so your body craved these healthier foods. There's probably a psychological reason too. After a good workout nobody wants to "waste" all that hard work by eating junk food. I think the psychological reason could apply to the negative feedback loop too. If you're sitting at home eating donuts and ice cream watching the tube after a certain point you think "ah, what's the point".

Of course you could argue that in some cases exercising can lead to eating unhealthy foods. For instance, after a long run you come home and you've been craving cheese cake. After your meal you eat it because you justify to yourself that you've "earned" it or can afford it calorically. It's your reward. I'd counter this argument with another argument! ah! ha! I acknowledge that this type of behaviour does actually happen (guilty!) but tends to represent episodic, not habitual behaviour.

Now, Ez, while I do agree with your/our positive feedback hypothesis, I respectfully disagree with some of your other comments. Regarding my rant that if you're not sweating you're not working out you dared to challenge me and advanced the idea that walking was the best exercise to build upper body strength. You might of accuse me of misrepresenting your argument but for those readers who didn't read the comments, you look like a fool.

Back to reality, you tendered the idea that sweating might not be the best indicator of good exercise. Let me clarify. When I say that, if you ain't got no sweat comin' outta youz, then you ain't axercising, what I'm really referring to is exercise intensity. Sweat output is a good measure of this but, I concede, is inaccurate because it does not take into account environmental temperature and individual propensity to sweat. So, I will grant you this.

The best measure of exercise intensity is heart rate. I do not believe in these BS low intensity "fat burn zone" exercise program. Show me one person that does low intensity exercise that is slim. Show me just one and I'll believe the hype.

I believe these programs are designed by the fitness industry to take over our minds and make us kill the Malaysian prime minister....oops, I mean get people of below average fitness levels to buy gym memberships. People are such babies that they'll cry and go home if you make them work too hard. They'll never come back when they wake up with, horror of horrors, every muscle sore the next day. Guess what crybaby nation? (My pro-wrestler alter ego is coming out!) That's what happens if you sit on your ass for 10 years or more, eating donuts and then finally get up to do something beyond walking to your car. The gyms know this. They know people are soft but they want as many people as possible to buy memberships, use personal trainers, and do the classes. So they design a program that's so easy and painless (and useless) that you will keep paying for more....and KILL THE MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER! That said, I will agree that some exercise is better than none at all, but people should seek to maximize their efficiency in the gym. This means higher intensity. If you're going to go for an hour get as much out of that hour as possible.

I have one more bone to pick with you Ez: You suggested that swimming was a strenuous activity in which one doesn't sweat. Actually you do sweat, ya just don't notice cuz you're already in the water. What's next? I don't breath when I'm in air!? Booya!

To address your question about how long to exercise, there is a short and long answer. The short answer is 45 min of med-high intensity not including warm up and cool down. The long answer is that it depends on your fitness goals. For the average Joe shmo 3x a week of 45min is fine. But if you want above average fitness you need to put in above average work. I find that if you want to take it to the HNL (hole nuva lev'l) you should work out 4x a week 45-60min a session. When you approach the 60min mark the law of decreasing marginal returns starts kicking in (unless you are an endurance athlete--I'm just talking about general health, fitness and "wellness"). But in truth, if you are working out with sufficient intensity, eating healthful foods (notice I didn't say "healthy". Bet ya didn't know that "healthful" is the correct adjective!) , and are mindful of your caloric intake, 3 days a week is fine.

Coonie, I offer my sincerest apologies for the mistakes with my possessives. I usually write at about 2am and finish at 3am. By then my proof reading skills aren't anything to write home about. Nevertheless, I will be more vigilant.

SLEEP

Done with the comments from the peanut gallery...last item to discuss in the triad of health: Sleep. I know! It sounds so simple! But as someone who suffered from insomnia for 5 years, I can tell you it isn't always. (I overcame my insomnia 2 years ago). Allz I'm gonna say is that if you aren't getting enough sleep regularly, the other 2 elements of health (exercise and nutrition) don't mean poop. In fact, without sleep, exercise can harm your health.

He's a couple of quick notes on sleep (mostly directed at those who have some degree of sleep disorder): 1) Try to keep a regular wake up schedule. 2) Only use sleeping pills for 1 or 2 nights in a row to get back on schedule, never use them regularly (you build tolerance--at one point I would take 4 and still be wide awake) 3) Be outside as much as you can to get direct sunlight--at least 30 min a day. 4) Invest in blackout curtains. 5) Avoid any stimulants (caffein, cocain) after noon. It takes at least 8 hours for caffein to completely leave your body. 6) Read academic books before bed (anecdotal...worked ok for me). Reading books that don't require much brain power and are plot driven won't tire you and will end up drawing you in making you stay up even later. 7) Find time for yourself during your day for your mind to unwind (no TV or internet!). Rushing around from the time you get up until the time you go to bed leaves your mind no time to reflect on your day and this need is what might be keeping you up.

Anywho, those are some things that worked for me. I hope that in writing this somebody can learn from my mistakes and hard earned knowledge. Most of my life I've made a living off my body, whether it be manual labour, sports, dancing, or prancing. To maintain my livelyhood I've done plenty of tinkering with different approaches to exercise, nutrition, and sleep. Through trial and error and research I've learned a lot and I've also been very fortunate to have met many people along the way that were willing to share their hard earned knowledge with me. Shout out to: Coach Buono, James Wilcox, Carlos, Shaun Thomas, my seester (coondawg), my ma, my pa, Anne, Auntie Katinka, Tiki, Clay Cannon, Lind Walter, Yohan, Chris Connel, quackcast.com (Mark Crislip), Skeptics Guide to the Universe, and many more I can't remember at this moment.

By the by here are some AP approved websites for health info:

quackwatch.org

saveyourself.ca (canadian website...woohoo!)

skepticblog.org

pubmed.gov (for research--u can access all published medical studies here, unfiltered by the "evil" media)

Health and Nutrition Part 2

This entry will be about what to eat and how to exercise 

Ok, I don't want to get carried away with this topic. I chose it last week because I'd promised myself I'd write. I was tired and it required the least amount of thought. On the other hand I don't want to leave a bunch of loose ends. So lets see if I can wrap up the nutrition portion of this treatis (sp?).

First, there are a couple of important (unintentional) omissions from the previous post. I got sooooo carried away with the calories and macronutrition thing that you'd think there's no need for fruit and vegetables. Aux contraire! (For those of you who don't speak French, this means "I like chocolate chip cookies".) Veggies and fruits are obviously important in your diet because a) they contain many of the vitamins and minerals you need, and b) you can eat a lot of veggies to fill yourself up to avoid over-eating higher calorie foods.

Although many vitamin companies will tell you that you need to supplement, the truth is a North American diet has more than enough of most of the vitamins we need (with the possible exception of vitamin D, which is added to milk...so problem solved!). Most North Americans eat a lot of meat and meats have just about everything we need. Think of it this way...we are made of meat, so if we eat that of which we are composed, we are consuming that which we need. A totally unscientific oversimplification....but true.

There are of course some vitamins and minerals for which vegetables and fruit are an equal or better source, not to mention the importance of fibre. So, eat meat, eat vegetables, eat fruit. Nothing new here since what they told you this in Kindergarten. I will however add some moderately helpful information. 1) Since vegetable are low in calories, fill up on them before you eat the protein, carb, and fat portion of your meal. 2) Don't overdo it on the fruit. People think that it's automatically good for you in all cases but forget that fruit is high in calories. Fructose, despite "being natural and therefore good for you" (google "naturalistic fallacy") is still sugar. Your body treats a gram of fructose the same as it treats a gram of sucrose or dextrose...or maltose...or bigtose..babytose. A gram of sugar, regardless (by the way, to anyone who misuses this word and says "irregardless"; I will tackle your ass!) of it's source or it's number of hydrogen atoms has the same caloric value...they just have very slight differences in absorption rates. So once again, we need to refer back to the calories in/out equation in deciding what to eat.

What if I'm craving something sweet and fruits not gonna do it? Here's what works for me: Modern protein bars, unlike their barely palatable ancestors basically taste as good or better than a chocolate bar...and there are just as many flavours to chose from. Buy a box. Have them on hand. Eat them when you're craving sweets; it tastes just as good and the protein will make you feel full.

Doh! Somehow, I've gotten bogged down in details again! Ok, I'm gonna sum up nutrition: 1) Pay the most attention to calories in vs. calories out/used. 2) Tinker with the ratios of protein/carbs/fats to find the ideal mix for you. 3) Avoid white (i.e. processed) carbs. 4) Eat your meal in this order: veggies, protein, carbs&fats. 5) Be aware of the calories in fruit. 6) Eat protein bars when you're craving "bad-for-you" sweets.

Why the crap did it take me 2 blog entries to say what I just condensed into a paragraph? My first year English teacher would have a fit and make me rewrite the whole damn thing...and he'd be right! But...Too late!

In the spirit of condensing things lets look at another leg people often get wrong: Exercise

AMI'S OPINIONATED GUIDE TO EXERCISE:

You know what? Before I even start, there are a couple of things I should say right away pertaining to what exercise is not. (I warned you it would be opinionated!) Based on some of the behaviours I've seen in gyms all over the world, it seems that there is some confusion over what it means to exercise--please allow me to clarify 1) If you're not sweating...you're not exercising PERIOD! (Sorry, the period key on my computer was temporarily broken so I had to type it out....) 2) If you can sip a mocha-latte machiato with 1 pump of vanilla while on a cardio machine...you're not exercising PERIOD! (Darn button is acting up again!) 3) If you can squawk incessantly to your friend while on any machine (especially one near me)...you're not exercising PERIOD! (gotta get that key fixed). Ah! I feel much better....serenity now! serenity now!

There are obviously many types of exercise and you should find one that you enjoy. For some people it's the gym, others prefer an organized sport (golf and base/soft ball don't count--see rant #2), others might prefer a solo activity like hiking, running, or rock climbing, others might like dance or aerobics. It doesn't matter what it is, or if you combine various types. What matters is that you engage in some physical activity at least 3x a week and it is more probable that you will do so if you actually enjoy the activity.

For simplicity sake I will focus on rules of thumb for success in the gym. Not because I think it's superior to other forms of exercise but it is probably the most popular.

Priority of Body Parts:

It's important to know that all body parts do not have equal importance in the gym. What I mean is that if you have limited time and you have to choose between training body part A or body part B, there is a correct answer to this dilemma. The larger the muscle group the greater the priority: 1) Legs 2) Back 3) Chest 4) Shoulders/traps 5) Arms. Notice a couple of things: a) Arms are last. If I want to find the most out of shape person in the gym I just look for the area where people train bi's and tri's. If I want to find the most fit people, I go to the leg equipment, especially the squat rack. Don't believe me? Try it at your gym. b) Notice the midsection is conspicuously missing, that's because you should do minimum 3 sets for your midsection every time you go to the gym (abs/lower back).

Why is important to prioritize in this order? 1) Using large muscle groups burns more calories. Think how many calories are burned doing leg press or a squat vs. a bicep curl. It's simple physics: F (force) xD (distance)=Energy. With the larger muscle groups you can use more weight so you can exert a greater force thereby using more energy. 2) When you engage your major muscle groups (legs, back, chest) to lift weights your body releases HGH (human growth hormone) which, in short, is the fountain of youth.

So when you plan your workouts make sure you give most of your attention to the big 3 areas (legs, back, chest). What you should not do is give equal time to back or chest and arms (for example). You already engage your arms in every pushing and pulling upper body movement when you work your back, chest, (and shoulders) so it is overkill to do more sets for your arms. You've already worked them. As an example I do about 12-16 sets for my chest and on that same day only 4 or 5 sets for my triceps. I've already worked the triceps in every pushing movement so why do more? It's more beneficial to do extra sets for the chest.

Related to this is the concept of compound movements. Unless you are training for a professional bodybuilding competition you should always chose compound movements over isolation movements. A compound movement as you may have gathered, is one that engages more than one muscle group. Some examples are: the squat i.e. the king of all exercises (quads, glutes, hamstrings, lower back, traps), bench press (chest, front delt, tricep) , dips (same as bench press), pull ups (lats, biceps, forearms, triceps) and so on. 

 Basically, if you are going to the gym for fitness you want to choose exercises that use as many muscle groups as possible because you are using more energy per movement and therefore being more efficient with your time. Also, for sports and general co-ordination it's better to do compound movements because it aids in neuro-muscular co-ordination (I threw in the "neuro" to make myself sound more science-y. For you new age-y types I will re-write the last sentence for you in your language) ...it's better to do compound movements because it is a more holistic approach to moving the weight and will help you feel more balanced and centred (by increasing your chi).

Ok, this is taking waaaaaaaay too long I'm gonna wrap it up and recap. If you have specific questions, just ax me:

1) Always exercise large muscle groups first and more. 2) Choose compound movements over isolation movements. 3) Don't ever let me catch you sipping a grande mocha latte machiato on or near a cardo machine...I'll tackle your ass!

Hope this was helpful!

I was planning on attacking some recent comments on facebook supporting quackery but since it's 2:30am I'm going to keep this short and simple. Instead of tearing down someone else's ideas on health I'm going to briefly discuss what has worked for me. Why you ask? I suppose it's because I frequently get asked questions like, "how do you stay in such good shape?" "what do you eat?" "how often do you go to the gym etc...." Well, I don't mean to brag and I don't mean to boast but for 36 years old, I'm fitter than most! But all rimes aside, without further ado here are my proscriptive ideas on health:

I look at physical health as a necessary balance between 3 key elements: nutrition, sleep, and physical exercise. Think of these three constituents as 3 legs on the table of health. If any one is out of proportion with the others the table will be off balance. And obviously if any element is completely missing, the table of health falls.

Lets look at the first leg--nutrition. Many people underestimate the importance of correct nutrition in general and over estimate the importance of the particulars. Let me explain. I know many people who are obsessed with getting the right amount of magic vitamin x, or new "superfood" y, or this great "all natural" (so it must be good for you) herbal supplement that will make you live forever. People--These are just fads. Another way for supplement companies to empty your wallet.

What people really need to focus on is their calories in vs. calories out. It's very simple, all the magical herbs and supplements in the world will not stop you from gaining unwanted weight if you don't deal with this basic equation first. Here's the way it works: if you consume more calories than you burn, you're going to put on weight. If you burn more than you consume you will lose weight. Sounds simple right? But so many people get it wrong. They focus on the minutia of magical supplements and such and ignore the big picture while eating donuts. As a side note, you don't always want to consume less than you burn. If you are already at your ideal weight or underweight than you will want to adjust you caloric intake accordingly.

People ask me all the time how to lose weight. I always begin by citing this equation. Then I say, you can chose: you can continue the same caloric intake and exercise alot more, or you can eat alot less--the net result is the same. I say this just to illustrate a point, actually the correct thing to do is to both consume fewer calories and burn more. You'll achieve your goal faster.

Next level of importance in nutrition is macro-nutrition. It's not enough just to count calories, it is also important where those calories are coming from. Your body needs a certain amount of protein to function properly and you also need energy from carbohydrates and fats to live. There have been many fad diets in the area of macro-nutrition, some saying to get all your calories from protein and fat, some say mostly from carbs and so on. (Not so) surprisingly recent medical studies (I'll look for them later if you're really interested) have shown that when attempting weight loss, the respective ratios of macro-nutrients don't really matter. The only thing that was a factor in success was the calories in vs. calories burned equation. That's not to say that the proportions are not important but rather that for those who are interested in weight loss you should stop obsessing over details and just eat less (and/or do more!).

So what's the magical ratio? Depending on your lifestyle and metabolism it will vary from person to person. You need to experiment and see what works for you but I recommend something close to these values: Protein 20-30%, Carbohydrates 50-60%, Fats 15-25%. When it comes to carbohydrates it's really important that most of them are whole grain complex carbs. If you're not sure what carbs are good, use the "don't eat white carbs" rule. (I just made that name myself!). I.E. avoid white sugar, white bread, white rice, potatoes. And regarding fats everyone knows to avoid saturated fats...stick to vegetable fats when possible (avocado, olive oil).

But what about vitamins and super magical herbs, and this amazing new plant from the most remote rainforest in the world? Forget it. You can get everything you need from a balanced diet of whole foods.

But what if I'm sooo hungry and I overeat? Here's how you can reduce food consumption without feeling hungry (as a wrestler who had to cut weight for competition I'm an expert on this!). Before your main meal eat a HUGE salad and whatever vegetables you want because they have almost no caloric value but are high in nutrition (except potatoes!). Your stomach will start to send signals to the brain that it's full. Next eat the protein portion of your meal. Protein causes your body to release chemicals that make you feel satiated. Next eat the carbs and fats. Now you're done! Yum! and so am I. It's almost 3:30am....I'm gonna have to continue this later. Time for me to work on the sleep leg!