Month: July 2020

Excuses are easy. Results are hard. Fast results are impossible. If your want something, don’t talk about; don’t justify why you can’t; just do it. It might surprise you what you are capable of doing when you apply some effort.

Well-centered fitness seeks to grow in balance in the Spiritual, Physical, Intellectual, Emotional, and Social dimensions of wellness. A key here is balance. It isn’t enough to put all of our focus into one or few dimensions. Growth in one dimension fuels growth in the other dimensions. (Just try to improve your body composition without social support, knowledge, will, and purpose.)

There are no short-cuts to success—in anything. No hacks. No drugs or supplements. No easy way. Success is proportional to effort. (Of course, opportunity plays a key role, but, if you want it badly enough, you can create opportunity.)

Opportunity costs. What are you willing to give up for opportunity? (Ponder this, as we all have our “can’t because…” bullsh**.)
Do something hard. Do something that others say you can’t. You will surprise others. You may even surprise yourself (though you shouldn’t really be surprised by what you can do).

Be your best; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

As we deal with the plethora of challenges that are defining 2020, it is a great opportunity to consider what is working or not working in our education system. Colleges are in peril as COVID-19 threatens face-to-face learning, sports, campus life, etc.—as well as the economic future of many institutions and the jobs of countless faculty. K-12 is scrambling to determine what is safe and appropriate in class scheduling and sports/extracurriculars. In addition, we are seeing nasty battle brewing over “cancel culture”. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we are failing at education. This is not to fault the countless capable and dedicated teachers. Rather, it is a critique of politicians and lawnmower parents who made teaching young people increasingly difficult.

It is my humble opinion, as a college educator, that we have dismissed education for graduation rates and financial “stability”. We confer degrees and diplomas with little concern over the quality of that piece of paper. Politicians want to see graduation rates climb and suggest that standardized tests are an accurate measure of learning. Parents don’t want to see their child struggle and pressure teachers to inflate grades. As such, when I student arrives on his/her college campus. He/She is most concerned with the grade and the diploma and not with how college can change them for the better.

Education should, like a good sermon, “disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed”. As such, we must create thinkers (rather than simply promoting recall) and must challenge the status quo. Students should be made to struggle and afforded the help through those struggles. As faculty, we must not see ourselves as the source of knowledge. Rather we should see ourselves as the conduit to knowledge. We must also accept that our knowledge is not infallible. We should be open to having our instruction challenged. (I encourage my students to challenge me. I expect though that they be able to present a stronger argument than mine—one that is based in solid physiology.)

Students should feel uncomfortable. At the same time, though, they should not feel oppressed or marginalized.

High school graduation requirements in Oregon (the state in which my children are being educated) include four credits in English (English 9, 10, 11, and one credit of English selective), three credits in social studies (one credit of US History and one credit of World Civilizations), three credits of mathematics, three credits of science, one and a half credits of physical education (unless medically excused), and half a credit of health. A minimum of 23 credits is thus required. As well, graduates are required to complete 40 hours (10 per year) of community service.

In college, students will be required to take up to 60 credits (quarter system) of “general education”. The content varies somewhat from school to school, but general span the natural and social sciences to broaden the education experience. It is well-intended, and, personally, I am a proponent of a liberal education (“liberal” should not be confused with the political divide between liberal—i.e., progressive—and conservative; indeed, liberal should suggest a breadth of views and experiences), but it can be flawed by faculty protectionism, the rise of community colleges, and the increasing number of high schools allowing double-dipping with college credits.

As we see the cost of a college education continuing to skyrocket whilst pushing more and more kids into college it might be time to reconsider how we are administering education. I am not of the opinion that “free” college is going to fix anything. If anything, it will magnify the problem as we continue to offer insignificant degree programs and seek to fill them. I would suggest, instead, that we strengthen K-12 and, thus, decrease the need for higher education.

Our Canadian neighbors already have a K-13 system, why not add a year to the U.S.’s system? As a college professor, I have observed a steady decline in math and writing comfort and competency over my career. These competencies come with practice and (challenging) experience. I consistently find students to be fearful of mathematics, in particular. Watching politics and social discourse unfold on social media (the modern gauge of civic competency), it is frightening how little we really know (for many of us, perhaps, remember). Looking at high school standards, it is not surprise.

Adding a year to high school can have a lot of benefits for the upcoming generations. For many, this year would be a sufficient substitute to college (certainly, there is a great need for tradespeople). We could do well to double up on social/civics studies. Science and inquiry skills could likewise be bolstered. (In the digital age, information abounds, but the capacity to think critically is lacking.) Our young could stand to have more physical education/activity (even without adding a year to the present K-12 system). Then, there are sports and extracurriculars. Few students will have opportunities beyond high school. Having an additional year to develop Physically, Emotionally, and Socially, as well as Intellectually, can be of great benefit.

As my theme is always one of “well-centered fitness”, I would be amiss to neglect the Spiritual dimension. The scale of high school is a great opportunity to teach our young people that they are a part of something greater than self—e.g., family, school, community, state, nation, world, and Universe. It is an opportunity to breakdown the barriers that divide us. This puts the onus, however, on the educators and the education system to not create these divisions—instead, educators must be held accountable for encouraging free and independent thinking.

Honest and respectful discourse is at the heart of a liberal education. The result of an education should not simply be a degree. Instead, the result should be a generation that is capable of coming together to resolve the issues that the preceding generations have yet to remedy. Education should not be divisive, and it should not be stagnant. Education is the path to a better world.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

When are we going to wake up? We are different. We have differing views, opinions, and politics. This is good. (It should be considered good.) Unfortunately, those who would have us divided keep putting fuel on fires that might otherwise die out on their own. (And, by fires dying out on their own, I am not suggesting that they will just go away, if we ignore them. Quite the contrary.)

A friend on social shared a meme of a sign purportedly posted in the window of a socially liberal business window. It suggested that “All are welcome here. Except….” Apparently, those who would sow discord have not mastered Photoshop. The exceptions that followed and the statement: “you people can go f*uck yourselves and die” lacked any evidence of perspective. Sadly, many see this crap and take it for real. They use it to further the divide in this nation. This, my reader, has to stop!

I have written often about the division that is tearing the fabric of this great nation. It is not accidental. It is the agenda of those would seek to have power. (I am sounding like a conspiracy theory nut here, but, trust me, I am not.) We need to seek unity at the cost of self.

I read also, today, about the forced resignation of Dr. Stephen Hsu, Vice President of Research and Innovation at Michigan State University (MSU) “after he promoted a 2019 study that found there to be no racial bias in incidents of officer-involved shootings.”¹ Admittedly, I do not know all of the details of the story or MSU President Samuel Stanley’s decision to ask Hsu for his resignation. Apparently, 800 or so people signed a petition titled “Fire Stephen Hsu” circulated by the Graduate Employees Union (GEU) at MSU. While nearly 2,000 supporters signed a counter-petition, this didn’t seem to matter. Nor does it seem to matter that Michigan State University has an enrollment of nearly 50,000 student and the campus surely employs thousands of administrators, faculty, and staffers. It would appear that the loud voice of a few was hear over the many.

“True diversity flourishes best under conditions of free inquiry, because such a philosophy demands that everyone have a seat at the table and that views be evaluated on the basis of cogency of the supporting reasoning and strength and internal consistency of the accumulated evidence rather than the identity, power, number, or vociferousness of the people expressing them.”—Stephen Hsu’s supporters in a letter to MSU President Samuel Stanley

The GEU at MSU suggested that Dr. Hsu could not uphold the mission of the University or the commitment to “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”. This may or may not be. I cannot, personally speak to this. It does, however, appear consistent with my own experiences with university diversity, equity, and inclusion promoters. It is unfortunate, when we consider these issues to be “us” v. “them” rather than, simply, and “us” issue. Diversity, after all, benefits us all. It benefits us most, however, when we recognize the unique contribution that every member of society contributes to the collective. Diversity, in its pure sense, is to give a voice to everyone. It is not yielding the voice of the minority or the marginalized to the power of a few.

True diversity, equity, and inclusion should not divide us. It might, and should, make us uncomfortable, but this is what promotes growth—what promotes change.

We need leadership that seeks to unify rather than divide. It would behoove us to consider what a “Kingdom of God (a God who is ‘love’)” might look like. I’ve said this before: The problems in our society will not be corrected by taking sides. They will be fixed by standing at the lines of division and extending hands to both friend and enemy.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow,

Carpe momento!

¹https://bluelivesmatter.blue/university-administrator-forced-to-resign-over-study-finding-no-racial-bias-in-police-shootings/?fbclid=IwAR1QtLieuB4T5njrnijGXxJb70geeGkLkElr3AwEBV4Oe7a3M8NlwYpbJ6s

Independence is worth celebrating. Happy 4^th of July!!!

Independence is worth sharing, as well. What does that mean? It means freedom for all. In the In the Declaration of Independence, the authors stated that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” We haven’t gotten this perfect over our history, but our Purpose is to grow—to be better today than we were yesterday. We cannot celebrate independence and be divided.

The divisive “us” v. “them” mentality that is currently rampant in these United States of America is contrary to the ideal upon which this country was founded. An environment in which we increasingly gather in small collectives that define all those who don’t belong as evil is simply un-American. Having (or wanting) a government that fails to derive its power from the “consent of the governed” is no longer freedom. If we demand the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” yet deprive another of that right, we are no longer free.

Freedom is not free of responsibility. Indeed, it comes with greater responsibility. Consider this when you think about exercising your “freedom”.

A country that is free is ironically united. In my humble opinion, freedom is the exercise of love your enemy and love your neighbor as yourself.

Happy Independence Day!!

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!

At least for the present, face masks are a mandatory part of out lives. Yes, being mandated to wear them is an encroachment on our personal freedoms, but….

There are reasons to swallow our individualism and to take one for the team. There are people who are getting sick and dying from the coronavirus. Businesses and schools will remain closed until we get this virus under control. While most of us will be asymptomatic (if we catch the virus), we can possibly still transmit the virus. I saw a meme¹ recently (Isn’t it sad that so much of our information lately is delivered by memes and social media?) that demonstrated the likelihood of the virus being transmitted from an affected to a healthy person depending on who is wearing a mask. When neither individual wears a mask, the risk is high. When the healthy person wears a mask, the risk is moderately high when the COVID-19 carrier doesn’t wear a mask. If the carrier wears a mask, the risk of transmission is low. If both wear masks, the risk is very low. If one has symptoms (of COVID-19, flu, cold, etc.) and doesn’t wear a mask in public, it doesn’t speak well of that person. When we wear a mask in public, it speaks to our respect of others—especially when ones is compromising his/her views on personal freedom. Wearing a mask is also absolutely essential when in the presence of vulnerable friends and family. (Let’s face it. Social distancing is not really practical in all situations.) Masks may be essential if we are going to get back to face-to-face learning and sports in schools.

So, the question comes up: Are masks safe? There are numerous pseudo-scientific demonstrations circulating that are “proving” the safety (or lack thereof) of wearing masks for extended periods. To evaluate these some basic understanding of human physiology is required. We need to understand hemoglobin, Dalton’s Law, and the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve.

Hemoglobin is a four-subunit protein that is responsible for transporting oxygen in the blood. Each subunit contains an iron atom that can bind an oxygen molecule. Saturation refers to the percentage of these heme groups that are binding oxygen. If every heme group bound an oxygen molecule, the blood would be 100% saturated. Normally, hemoglobin saturation is between 96 and 98%.

Dalton’s Law is the law of partial pressures. It states that the total pressure of a gas mixture is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the individual gases. The air we breathe is composed primarily of nitrogen (N₂, 78.1%), oxygen (O₂, 20.9%), and carbon dioxide (CO₂, 0.03%). These percentages remain roughly the same no matter the elevation (i.e., the air at 10,000 ft still has 21% O₂, but the partial pressure is affected because the total pressure is less). Normal atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 760 mmHg. Thus, at sea level the PO2 is 0.21 x 760 mmHg or around 159 mmHg. At 9000 ft, the barometric pressure is about 543 mmHg. So, the PO2 would be around 114 mmHg. Sounds dramatic, but, as we will see it really isn’t because of the functioning of hemoglobin.

The oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve (pictured above) plots the saturation of hemoglobin relative to the partial pressure of oxygen (PO₂). My professor in grad school described hemoglobin at the part of the graph where the curve is relatively flat as “greedy”—hemoglobin grabs on to as much oxygen as it can. In the area where the curve is steep (low PO₂), hemoglobin is “benevolent”—hemoglobin is more willing to give up oxygen. This dynamic allows hemoglobin to bind oxygen in the lungs where the partial pressure is high and to release it the tissues where the partial pressure of oxygen is lower.

There is some reduction in the percentage of oxygen in the lungs as it mixes with carbon dioxide, but at low intensities of physical activity, this is not as pronounced as it might be during maximal exercise. By the time the air reaches the alveoli in the lungs (where gases are exchanged with the blood), the PO₂ in the alveoli is approximately 100 mmHg. Conversely, the PO₂ in the pulmonary arteries is approximately 40 mmHg (depending on the amount of oxygen being consumed by the tissues). Gases will move from high pressure to low pressure. So, as long as a pressure difference exists, gases will be exchanges. (The margin of difference for CO2 is quite small—usually somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 mmHg v. 46 mmHg.) The body will get the oxygen it needs.

Let’s look at this relative to the videos that report reduced oxygen with masks. Again, normal atmospheric pressure at sea level is approximately 760mmHg and the PO₂ is around 159mmHg. At 9000 ft, the barometric pressure is about 543 mmHg. So, the PO₂ would be around 114 mmHg. In one of the videos someone shared on Facebook, the guy recorded the oxygen inside the mask to be around 15%. (The drop was pretty much the same no matter what type of mask you are wearing—neck gaiter, cloth mask, or N95.) As such, the PO₂ would be about 114mmHg (760 mm Hg x 0.15)—similar to being at 9000 ft. Obviously this might be a bit uncomfortable, but not necessarily dangerous. Notice (on the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve) that, even at such a reduced PO₂, the hemoglobin saturation is not significantly affected. Now, the “study” in the video where he measured the concentration of O2 inside the mask is flawed for many reasons. Mainly, it is notable that the 15% O₂ is because of a degree of CO2 rebreathing—not because the mask is restricting the flow of oxygen. This occurs normally in the lungs, so it is not that significant. (Again, the PO₂ is going to drop to about 100 mmHg by the time it reaches the alveoli.) Let’s assume (incorrectly) that drop in PO₂ from the atmospheric air to the alveolar air is consistent (i.e., 59 mmHg). As such, the masked air would reach the alveoli with a PO₂ of 55 mmHg. Accordingly, the hemoglobin saturation would still be in the “greedy” range and about 90%. The pressure difference between alveolar air and the pulmonary arteries (deoxygenated blood at a PO₂ of around 40 mmHg) is still sufficient for gas exchange and the blood remains sufficiently oxygenated. Unless one has a preexisting respiratory disease, wearing a mask should not pose a health risk (though I would encourage workers to take frequent breaks for “fresh” air).

It is more appropriate to look at the oxyhemoglobin (Hb-O₂) saturation in response to wearing a mask. Hb-O₂ saturation is measured using a device called a pulse oximeter. There are pseudo-science experiments floating about social media that attempt to demonstrate this, but I have not seen a video that appropriately demonstrates the effects of wearing a mask on Hb-O₂ saturation, but I don’t need to. We can see the effects of incremental exercise. In most exercisers, the partial pressure of oxygen is maintained within about 10-12 mmHg of resting values. This is shown to be more pronounced in elite endurance athletes with very high oxidative capacities because their maximal exercise is significantly higher, and ventilation just can’t keep up with the high demand for oxygen. Accordingly, it is worth noting that Galen Rupp won the 10,000-meter final in the USA Track & Field Championship in 2011 with a time of 28 minutes and 38.17 seconds wearing a face mask because the pollen count had spiked, and he is allergic. It obviously did not affect his performance. The m2 sports Mask² is designed to filter pollen, which is larger than the coronavirus, but the effect of PO₂ might be expected to be similar to the surgical masks most folks are wearing. It is also notable that work (or grocery shopping) intensity is not as high as running a Championship 10-K. Despite a mask, whatever the type, we can expect the Hb-O₂ saturation to remain relatively stable.

There is no evidence that wearing a mask is detrimental—unless you have a respiratory disease. The notion that wearing a mask is going to lead to CO₂ poisoning is bullsh**. If you are out for a run or bike ride alone, I personally don’t think a mask is warranted. If required or you expect to come in close proximity of others (which can be quite likely exercising in public) wear a mask that is comfortable for you (any mask will make others feel more comfortable). The neck gaiters are a reasonable choice. Many cyclists and runners already wear these to block dust. They might not guard against transmission as effectively as an N95 masks (masks that should be reserved for health care workers, first responders, and those who are most vulnerable), but they will block large droplets. If your gym ask you to wear one, do so. After all, you are making it possible to the gym to remain open, and exercise is going to do much to boost the health of the herd. If you are concerned about wearing a mask while exercising talk to someone who wears an “altitude” mask during exercise—they will try to convince you of the benefits.

So, yes, wearing a mask is uncomfortable, but it won’t kill you—or anyone. Yes, they look dorky, but, if everyone is wearing then, well, you’ll look like a dork for not wearing one. There are a lot of cool designs available with the pandemic, so find one that suits your personality. (I am waiting for my WVU neck gaiter to arrive. I am also hoping my son’s wrestling team might sell some as a fundraiser.) The sooner we stop complaining about wearing them, the sooner we will be done with them. Given that masks can limit the spread of viruses, I hope it might become the norm for when people have “ordinary” viruses even after COVID-19 is history.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento

I hope this is what you wanted.

¹SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/spectrumhealthbeat

² http://www.mu2sportsmask.com/

My wife asked me about lifting shoes this morning. She finally recognized what I have been saying about her squatting in her running shoes. She has begun to realize that the shoes cause her to roll onto her toes. There are other reasons not to wear running shoes to lift in, and I will get to that.

Athletic shoes have gotten increasingly specialized—and expensive. With the tremendous markup in athletic shoes, it is no surprise that many try to get by with one shoe for most everything. This can be a mistake.

I am old enough to remember when our sneaker selection was essentially PF Flyers and Keds. I remember wrestling in middle school in my Puma Clyde’s. In early high school, my go-to “all-around” was the Nike Cortez. In college, we began to see the influx of what began to be called “cross-trainers”—somewhere between a court shoe, aerobics shoe (yeah, we started to see those along with puffy lifting pants), and running shoes. Overall, the trends haven’t been too bad, but the diversity of shoes is growing to a point where specialization needs to be considered.

For the recreational lifter—especially those who do mostly machines—a more general shoe is probably sufficient. Lifting weights, particularly when beginning to lift more appreciable amounts of weights and squatting and deadlifting, will require more appropriate shoes.

Let’s begin by underscoring that running shoes are for running. They are designed to be extremely lightweight and cushioning. The sole is designed to facilitate forward movement. Hence, they are a lousy shoe in which to squat or deadlift. Due to the soft sole, the forces produced by the muscles will first have to go into compressing the sole before the weight will move. This wastes contractile energy, as well as caused excessive wear on the shoes. Running shoes are already expensive and have limited life when used properly. Running shoes are usually made of soft, rather delicate, material that provides very little lateral support. Simply put, there are better uses for running shoes.

So, in what shoes should the average lifter exercise? There are two things to consider: purpose and cost. With regards to purpose there are really three applications: powerlifting, Olympic lifting, and all-around (e.g., general power/Olympic lifting and/or crossfit-style training). Olympic lifting shoes are highly specialized and should be considered a must if you are serious about the sport. These have a bit of a raised, solid sole and are designed to allow for a deeper squat and more vertical back for the snatch and cleans. They are not cheap. Powerlifting shoes are often a bit more specific to the lift. Deadlifts favor a flat sole, whereas squatting favors something a bit more in between a flat, thin sole and a raised Olympic lifting shoe. Again, the degree of seriousness about the sport might dictate one’s choices.

For most of us (who want to push some serious weight for only for the purposes of health and/or sport), we don’t have to go to extremes. We do, however, want a suitable shoe. If you are going to be doing squat and deadlift variations, you will want a rather flat-soled and rigid shoe. Many lifters opt for the “old-school” Converse Chuck Taylor All-Stars or something similar (like the PF Flyers of my youth). I have also found soccer-style shoes or shoes like my old Puma Clydes to be good, as well. Overall, these styles are “cheap” (by comparison—I still find $55 for Chuck Taylors to be ridiculously over-priced). Another great option is a wrestling shoe. For the deadlift, these are especially close to the ground and allow for maximum force development (short of lifting barefoot or in deadlifting slippers). Personally, I favor wrestling shoes (maybe because it keeps me connected to the sport), but they can be a bit restrictive in dorsiflexion for the squat. Once sufficient ankle mobility is established, though, the ankle support may assist with ankle stability. Chuck Taylors or Dan Gables, anything but running shoes. You want a shoe that fits the budget and is going to last. Above all, though, you want a shoe that is going to suit its purpose: to grip the floor and facilitate bigger lifts to make your stronger and improve your physique.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow.

Carpe momento!