![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
working out works... out?
Jun. 21st, 2011 05:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
boogieshoesWhatever your approach to health, I think we can all agree getting to 'healthy' requires two things: 'eating correctly' and 'exercising right'.
Different health goals result in different definitions of 'eating correctly' and 'exercising right'. I'm not a physiologist, nutritionist, or medical person; I'm an engineer, and can really only tell you about my experience. I have come up with several theories, but they're primarily based on my experience, and the sum of these experiences are why I espouse Health At Every Size.
For one, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I had to solve - or at least successfully deal with - the majority of my mental/emotional baggage/issues before I could even start to look at body health. This was in large part because I didn't even realize until relatively recently that I had issues regarding food that have affected me all this time. These are the kind of issues that I'll struggle with probably until my dying day, and it influences how I *practice* HAES.
But in the end, as an engineer, I'm fated to believe that there is some kind of model out there that works for everyone. The problem is, the human body is a bundle of interactions as complex as the weather - subject to the butterfly effect, which implies that there is no microscopic level too small to effect the macroscopic presentation. My father, who worked for the Air Force as a meteorologist for 20 years (and still has his books and knows more about the atmosphere than I can hope to forget), tells me that even the most modern and advanced weather modelling is only accurate to about 3 days. They start getting iffy about 5 days out and increase in faultines until they fall apart completely after about 10 days.
And that's *today's* models, not the models my father was working with in the Air Force at the end of his military career in the '80s. Those were worse. The problem in this case isn't stupid modellers; it's that the system is too complex to model completely, or completely effectively. There are several cycles that interact to form weather patterns, plus wind trends, plus geological activities and features, plus... all kinds of stuff - and it's all dynamic, and all subject to the interconnectedness between each other.
The human body is going to shape up to be the same way - several systems, plus 'external influences', all interacting and feeding on and off and to each other, resulting in a complexity of galactic proportions. Can it be modelled correctly? Yes. Just not with any accuracy today, given what we actually know. And we know a *lot* - just not *enough*.
Presumably, though, although everyone will have their own individual variations,
New Body mass = original mass + mass in - mass out - heat produced
Mass out is waste: both the stuff you leave in the toilet bowl and the stuff you sweat through your skin, as well as exhaled gases. You can't really do anything about this; it's part of the body's natural processes and it is what it is, whether you will or no.
Mass in is pretty self-explanatory: it's what you eat.
Like most people, I've got a theory about what you should eat. I believe the most generalized parts of my theory are applicable to everyone - but of course as soon as you start refining things even to 'guideline' level, you automatically move to the 'this works for me category, because I don't have the data that says it works for everyone'. Actually, no one has any data that says 'x' eating rule works for everyone. At any rate, here are the rules I believe work for everyone, caveating, of course, the complete and utter lack of data:
1) Listen to your body (I had to learn to listen to it). Eat when you're hungry, stop when you're comfortably full.
1a) Eat right for your body type and needs. This rule literally can't get more specific without falling down for someone, because *everybody* is going to have different intake needs both in terms of calories and nutrition, and what form they have to take.
2) If you can, avoid HFCS, MSG, and anything that sounds like a chemical in the ingredients list. This includes growth hormones. You may not be able to, or maybe you love Doritoes and can't let them go. That's fine - don't beat yourself up about it. But if you *can* avoid chemicals, do so.
3) Don't worry about indulging - for one, a craving usually signals that you *need* a particular nutrient in your system. For another, if you compromise, you'll end up feeling cheated *and* guilty *and* will continue to crave. If you indulge, get the real thing. Unless the diet thing is what you're craving.
4) Avoid preservatives, chemical insect repellants, and chemical applications to fruit and vegetables, if you can. Again, you may not be able to - this is usually an economic issue, but maybe you don't have or know of the local farmer's market, or you live in MooseJaw, Saskatchewan where you're lucky to get canned goods in the winter. Don't beat yourself up over it - do the best you can and leave it at that. Well, you may want to run fresh fruit and vegetables under hot running water for a few minutes to get the worst of the stuff off of it.
And that's as close as you can get to universal intake rules, as far as I can see.
This leaves the other part of the equation:
Heat produced: This includes both energy of being - what it takes to keep you functioning at your basal temp - and calories burned by exercise.
And here's where I - and many others - fall down on the job. It makes sense that if this is at all formulaic that there's a minimum level of physical fitness that counts as 'fit' - but what is that level? FDA recommends raising your heart-rate 30 minutes 3x a week. That's a reasonable start, but it's a rather vague description. Raising your heartrate through watching a horror movie and/or having nightmares afterwards, for example... probably doesn't count as 'fit'.
Cross-fit philosophy defines 'fit' as 'as much as it takes to allow you to do what you want to do with your body'. That sounds good, because it's somewhat job-related (where 'job' isn't just what you do to earn pay, but is rather defined as 'the functions you ask your body to do'). It's not very specific, either, but at least you can start defining it on a somewhat individual basis.
For example, Ragen, whom I remind myself to keep in mind as an inspiration, is impressive to me: she's 5'4", 284lbs, and dances ballet 25 hrs a week. This sounds like an awful lot to me, but it 'only' works out to be 5 hrs in a workday. Only is in quotes there because she's also a company CEO, and puts in 60hr workweeks on a regular basis. I don't know if the dancing is in addition to, or as a part of, but either way, i'm always awed that she does that. I'm also somewhat croggled, because my only real-life experience with athletes is the low-body-fat due to training kind. But it's obvious that Ragen is fit, and much fitter than many other people at that. (That's the inspirational part, because even if I don't lose the amount of weight I'm aiming for, Ragen is the proof that you can kick major muscle, grace, and power, even with a plus-size bod.)
I'd like to be able to garden and/or work in a wood-shop 4-5hrs/day if i feel the need to, and I'd *really* like to be able to hike all kinds of terrain that doesn't require climbing links in all kinds of weather. I'd also like to be able to do some gymnastics, especially the flexibility and strength moves.
But see, here's where cross-fit philosophy falls apart on the face of it*. See, I can get as fit as I can to do most of that stuff, but the hiking may prove difficult. Running, too, although it'd be nice - I've got joint issues with my hips, ankles, back, and knees that might preclude me ever running again, and I might not ever be able to jump on the trampoline, and power moves on floor and power release/ dismount moves are right out. So I've got this 'hard-limit' issue that I've got to work with. Am I never going to be 'fit' because my body will never move like a little kid's again? (And my *sister's* little kid-body, at that!)
Obviously, the answer is 'no' - but the question has to be asked, because it pays to define 'fitness' in terms that are acheiveable. On the individual level, this is fairly easy define for yourself, because specific you can take into account all the variables of what you can and can't do and then you can decide what you want to define 'fit' as. You might or might not need professional help to set up an exercise program to fit your needs, but don't hesitate to ask questions, certainly.
On the macro-level, however, 'minimally fit' becomes infinitely difficult to define across any cross-section of the population, simply because there's all kinds of ability levels, preferences, etc, even between the members of small groups - and if the group becomes too small, the data is statistically insignificant. What is an engineer to do?**
Truthfully, I don't have an answer. I don't think anyone really does. All I say is that I'm out of shape by both the FDA standards, and my own, which right now amounts to 'can spend an afternoon doing a garden project and actually get it done... assuming she has all the equipment and materials she needs.' All I can say to others looking to 'get fit', and feeling somewhat lost about it, is that you shouldn't tie your final fitness goals to weight. Instead, look to Ragen and other athletes of size to remind you that 'fit' constitutes 'being able to do without overly stressing your body', not 'must be within the BMI range'.
But since I'm an engineer, I'll keep thinking about this, and maybe one day I'll have general trend data that's worth something and makes some sense.
-bs
* If you dig a little deeper into their websites, cross-fitters generally actually say 'you should be as fit as you *can* be, which is somewhat different than 'be as fit as you need to be to do X'. I know it sounds the same, but when you start picking it apart with an eye towards limiting issues, the differences show up fast. To be frank 'as fit as you can be' is a better way of thinking about things, but I'm taking a bit of authorial license here for illustrative purposes.
**Gripe. (Smirk)
Different health goals result in different definitions of 'eating correctly' and 'exercising right'. I'm not a physiologist, nutritionist, or medical person; I'm an engineer, and can really only tell you about my experience. I have come up with several theories, but they're primarily based on my experience, and the sum of these experiences are why I espouse Health At Every Size.
For one, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I had to solve - or at least successfully deal with - the majority of my mental/emotional baggage/issues before I could even start to look at body health. This was in large part because I didn't even realize until relatively recently that I had issues regarding food that have affected me all this time. These are the kind of issues that I'll struggle with probably until my dying day, and it influences how I *practice* HAES.
But in the end, as an engineer, I'm fated to believe that there is some kind of model out there that works for everyone. The problem is, the human body is a bundle of interactions as complex as the weather - subject to the butterfly effect, which implies that there is no microscopic level too small to effect the macroscopic presentation. My father, who worked for the Air Force as a meteorologist for 20 years (and still has his books and knows more about the atmosphere than I can hope to forget), tells me that even the most modern and advanced weather modelling is only accurate to about 3 days. They start getting iffy about 5 days out and increase in faultines until they fall apart completely after about 10 days.
And that's *today's* models, not the models my father was working with in the Air Force at the end of his military career in the '80s. Those were worse. The problem in this case isn't stupid modellers; it's that the system is too complex to model completely, or completely effectively. There are several cycles that interact to form weather patterns, plus wind trends, plus geological activities and features, plus... all kinds of stuff - and it's all dynamic, and all subject to the interconnectedness between each other.
The human body is going to shape up to be the same way - several systems, plus 'external influences', all interacting and feeding on and off and to each other, resulting in a complexity of galactic proportions. Can it be modelled correctly? Yes. Just not with any accuracy today, given what we actually know. And we know a *lot* - just not *enough*.
Presumably, though, although everyone will have their own individual variations,
New Body mass = original mass + mass in - mass out - heat produced
Mass out is waste: both the stuff you leave in the toilet bowl and the stuff you sweat through your skin, as well as exhaled gases. You can't really do anything about this; it's part of the body's natural processes and it is what it is, whether you will or no.
Mass in is pretty self-explanatory: it's what you eat.
Like most people, I've got a theory about what you should eat. I believe the most generalized parts of my theory are applicable to everyone - but of course as soon as you start refining things even to 'guideline' level, you automatically move to the 'this works for me category, because I don't have the data that says it works for everyone'. Actually, no one has any data that says 'x' eating rule works for everyone. At any rate, here are the rules I believe work for everyone, caveating, of course, the complete and utter lack of data:
1) Listen to your body (I had to learn to listen to it). Eat when you're hungry, stop when you're comfortably full.
1a) Eat right for your body type and needs. This rule literally can't get more specific without falling down for someone, because *everybody* is going to have different intake needs both in terms of calories and nutrition, and what form they have to take.
2) If you can, avoid HFCS, MSG, and anything that sounds like a chemical in the ingredients list. This includes growth hormones. You may not be able to, or maybe you love Doritoes and can't let them go. That's fine - don't beat yourself up about it. But if you *can* avoid chemicals, do so.
3) Don't worry about indulging - for one, a craving usually signals that you *need* a particular nutrient in your system. For another, if you compromise, you'll end up feeling cheated *and* guilty *and* will continue to crave. If you indulge, get the real thing. Unless the diet thing is what you're craving.
4) Avoid preservatives, chemical insect repellants, and chemical applications to fruit and vegetables, if you can. Again, you may not be able to - this is usually an economic issue, but maybe you don't have or know of the local farmer's market, or you live in MooseJaw, Saskatchewan where you're lucky to get canned goods in the winter. Don't beat yourself up over it - do the best you can and leave it at that. Well, you may want to run fresh fruit and vegetables under hot running water for a few minutes to get the worst of the stuff off of it.
And that's as close as you can get to universal intake rules, as far as I can see.
This leaves the other part of the equation:
Heat produced: This includes both energy of being - what it takes to keep you functioning at your basal temp - and calories burned by exercise.
And here's where I - and many others - fall down on the job. It makes sense that if this is at all formulaic that there's a minimum level of physical fitness that counts as 'fit' - but what is that level? FDA recommends raising your heart-rate 30 minutes 3x a week. That's a reasonable start, but it's a rather vague description. Raising your heartrate through watching a horror movie and/or having nightmares afterwards, for example... probably doesn't count as 'fit'.
Cross-fit philosophy defines 'fit' as 'as much as it takes to allow you to do what you want to do with your body'. That sounds good, because it's somewhat job-related (where 'job' isn't just what you do to earn pay, but is rather defined as 'the functions you ask your body to do'). It's not very specific, either, but at least you can start defining it on a somewhat individual basis.
For example, Ragen, whom I remind myself to keep in mind as an inspiration, is impressive to me: she's 5'4", 284lbs, and dances ballet 25 hrs a week. This sounds like an awful lot to me, but it 'only' works out to be 5 hrs in a workday. Only is in quotes there because she's also a company CEO, and puts in 60hr workweeks on a regular basis. I don't know if the dancing is in addition to, or as a part of, but either way, i'm always awed that she does that. I'm also somewhat croggled, because my only real-life experience with athletes is the low-body-fat due to training kind. But it's obvious that Ragen is fit, and much fitter than many other people at that. (That's the inspirational part, because even if I don't lose the amount of weight I'm aiming for, Ragen is the proof that you can kick major muscle, grace, and power, even with a plus-size bod.)
I'd like to be able to garden and/or work in a wood-shop 4-5hrs/day if i feel the need to, and I'd *really* like to be able to hike all kinds of terrain that doesn't require climbing links in all kinds of weather. I'd also like to be able to do some gymnastics, especially the flexibility and strength moves.
But see, here's where cross-fit philosophy falls apart on the face of it*. See, I can get as fit as I can to do most of that stuff, but the hiking may prove difficult. Running, too, although it'd be nice - I've got joint issues with my hips, ankles, back, and knees that might preclude me ever running again, and I might not ever be able to jump on the trampoline, and power moves on floor and power release/ dismount moves are right out. So I've got this 'hard-limit' issue that I've got to work with. Am I never going to be 'fit' because my body will never move like a little kid's again? (And my *sister's* little kid-body, at that!)
Obviously, the answer is 'no' - but the question has to be asked, because it pays to define 'fitness' in terms that are acheiveable. On the individual level, this is fairly easy define for yourself, because specific you can take into account all the variables of what you can and can't do and then you can decide what you want to define 'fit' as. You might or might not need professional help to set up an exercise program to fit your needs, but don't hesitate to ask questions, certainly.
On the macro-level, however, 'minimally fit' becomes infinitely difficult to define across any cross-section of the population, simply because there's all kinds of ability levels, preferences, etc, even between the members of small groups - and if the group becomes too small, the data is statistically insignificant. What is an engineer to do?**
Truthfully, I don't have an answer. I don't think anyone really does. All I say is that I'm out of shape by both the FDA standards, and my own, which right now amounts to 'can spend an afternoon doing a garden project and actually get it done... assuming she has all the equipment and materials she needs.' All I can say to others looking to 'get fit', and feeling somewhat lost about it, is that you shouldn't tie your final fitness goals to weight. Instead, look to Ragen and other athletes of size to remind you that 'fit' constitutes 'being able to do without overly stressing your body', not 'must be within the BMI range'.
But since I'm an engineer, I'll keep thinking about this, and maybe one day I'll have general trend data that's worth something and makes some sense.
-bs
* If you dig a little deeper into their websites, cross-fitters generally actually say 'you should be as fit as you *can* be, which is somewhat different than 'be as fit as you need to be to do X'. I know it sounds the same, but when you start picking it apart with an eye towards limiting issues, the differences show up fast. To be frank 'as fit as you can be' is a better way of thinking about things, but I'm taking a bit of authorial license here for illustrative purposes.
**Gripe. (Smirk)
