Why do I think this is crazy? "This" is an article about physical therapists using a Nintendo Wii gaming console to provide physical activity for their patients.
Why do people think that technology can "save" us? Why do people use shiny new tools instead of tested, reliable methods?
Why aren't these people doing yoga?
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Physical Therapy via Video Games
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Milk: The Perfect Food?
To a traditional Indian yogi, milk is considered the perfect food. It is so revered that the maker of the substance, the cow, is considered holy; when you visit an Indian city, you'll see cows wandering around, munching on grass here and there, like stray cats in American cities. Some yogis only drink milk; that is their diet, without solid food of any kind. They say it is the only physical food that they need.
In the United States, milk is considered a poison, full of harmful little beasties like tuberculosis and salmonella. So, we boil it mercilessly. We shatter its structure because we want the entire container to be of uniform density; no cream on top for us, thanks. If you drink raw, unprocessed milk, you are believed to have a deathwish.
I'll guaran-damn-tee you that those Indian yogis haven't been pasteurizing and homogenizing their milk for thousands of years. They wander up to one of those docile, feral cows, milk them a bit, and exchange devotion and love for that cup of sustenance. Here in the United States, we cage them, feed them unbelievable meals (such as the remnants of their relatives - bones, brains, meat), and their milk is stolen from them via machine. If you "are what you eat", then these cows are made of disgust, capitalism, and poison. No wonder our milk supply is so bad for us.
This system is propped up by outdated and unfair laws which prohibit raw milk from going pretty much anywhere. In some states, raw milk is effectively close to illegal; it must be processed immediately before it can even leave the premises of the dairy. Yet, if you own your own animal, you can drink the milk from it; it is, after all, your own property. In some states (such as Colorado), this leads to "milk co-ops"; you buy a share of a herd of cows, and you are entitled - as an owner - to a portion of their milk. The plus side: most co-ops don't pasteurize or homogenize their milk; even if they do, you can often still request raw milk.
If you've never had raw, unprocessed milk still warm from the teat, you have missed something wonderful. I'm not a regular drinker of milk, but I love butter, ghee, and ice cream. Yet, after reading more about milk, "modern" milk, etc., I wonder if raw milk would be good for me. According to Ayurveda, my constitution (50% pitta) benefits greatly from the cooling, soothing, and nourishing aspects of milk. Milk is a sattvic food, assisting in meditation and self-realization.
In the past few days, I've eaten probably a pint of ice cream to myself. When I was younger, I would eat a pint of ice cream in one sitting - almost every night. Yes, you heard that correctly. I liked the cold, moistening sweetness. Some people like ice cream with "things" in it; I prefer simple vanilla (a few simple nuts thrown in for textural balance is fine, too; my current favorite is Haagen-Dazs "Vanilla Swiss Almond"). This is obviously for my constitution: cool for the pitta, sweet for the pitta, moistening for the pitta. Of the doshas, I have the least of kapha, so it doesn't seem to aggravate that too much.
I think eating the ice cream lately has brought dairy to the forefront of my mind. We've also made a couple of pints of ghee lately, and have been cooking with it (if you've not cooked with ghee, go get some right now!). The place we buy meat also has milk (both cow and goat) from a raw dairy. So, we have a source, and it's reasonably inexpensive for what some consider a "perfect food". Modern agricultural practices have always bothered me, but none so much as how we treat our cows and chickens; it's abominable. Buying from a local co-op allows me to see how it's produced and to get an idea of the ingredients of the milk. Is it made from "anger, disgust, and violence" or "love, care, and respect"?
If you think that "attitude during preparation" doesn't matter, bake a pie for your worst enemy; think about them the whole time, remember why you hate them, and talk out loud about how you'd like to hurt them. Then, bake a pie for your closest loved one; remember them, smile, talk about how wonderful they are. I'll guarantee you that the second pie will not only taste better, but would be more nourishing, both physically and energetically. This is often the reason why a daily dinner may taste "just OK", but a Thanksgiving meal tastes like the best food on the planet. Both Ayurveda and Zen have strict kitchen procedures and rituals to promote good energy around the food and its preparation, and it pays off.
Ayurvedic medicine also uses "milk decoctions"; herbs are steeped in warm milk, which is then drunk as a medicine. Medicated ghee is also used. Maybe I'll have to try to come up with "Ayurvedic ice creams", as they seem to be non-existent. ;-)
So, is milk a "perfect food"? No, I don't think so. This universe isn't perfect, so nothing within it can be perfect (some people may argue this point, but it's my point-of-view at the moment). But, can a single food provide a lot of what someone needs? Absolutely, it can. So, I wonder if all of our dairy intolerance issues in the U.S. stem from not the milk itself, but the energies implanted into it during its production. The processing itself could definitely cause issues, but so can the hate, disgust, and profiteering. We in the west usually forget - or actively discount - this. If we do, we do so to our detriment.
I think I'll find out more about that raw milk co-op. I think it's time to experiment with good, wholesome milk for a while, and to test the yogic theory of "milk as the perfect food".
Labels: ayurveda, dairy, diet, energetics, environment, evolution, history, nutrition, philosophy, sattva, society
Monday, November 19, 2007
Rant : Yoga Competitions
Oh, barf. Read this article. Frankly, it makes me sick.
I'm a yoga teacher. Yoga is not "just exercise"; it is a complete toolkit to help to focus one's mind. Here in the United States, most people think that "yoga=stretching", and that's just not true. Out of the 198 sutras of Patanjali, only 3 of them are about asana, the physical postures of classical yoga. Yoga is so much more than just physical poses.
I'm also not a fan of Bikram yoga. During my teacher training course, we were required to take classes in various styles - Iyengar, Kundalini, Ashtanga, Kripalu, Bikram - so that we would have exposure to the different kinds of yoga available. I didn't take the Bikram class, as not only is it contraindicated for my constitution (I'm already very "hot"/pitta, and very warming practices basically cause me to burst into flames), but I completely disagree with pretty much everything Bikram teaches. Instead, I spent a couple of hours and wrote a short paper, "Why I Will Not Attend A Bikram Class", accompanied by about 30 pages of highlighted news articles about Bikram's attitude, approach, and injuries suffered by people in his classes. I can see the therapeutic aspects of a flow style of yoga, and even the heated environment, but I can't stand Bikram's attitude. It's not yogic; it's "Western, greedy, arrogant capitalist".
The sponsors and participants have even figured out a way to justify this event in their minds:
"It's actually a championship, not a competition," said Sarah Ittmann, owner of Bikram Yoga Hampden. "In a competition, you compete against other people. A championship is a measure of your own prowess - your own strength and determination."Oh, yeah, that's it; "champions" aren't champions because they are better than others. That makes it all better.
When I see western culture and society warping such an amazing tradition and practice so badly, I can't just sit here and let it go. I have to yell, "NO! That's not yoga!"
Labels: ayurveda, philosophy, pitta, psychology, society, yoga
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Place and Food : Eating Local
I'm currently living in the Denver, Colorado, area. There are many farms, free-range organic butchers, and wild animals around here. One can eat locally-grown or harvested food here pretty easily. I know; I do it.
I've thought about moving to Alaska. Fewer farms (but more than you may think!), but plenty of paleo food: wild meats, fish, berries, and herbs. A very large percentage of Alaskans live a subsistence lifestyle, living off the land. Some of them live in very remote areas, but many live in cities or towns. The land and its resources allow such a lifestyle.
I lived in Tucson, Arizona. In southern Arizona, there are many wild resources, but they are mostly plants and fruits. There are some animals around, including some large game, but it is a bit harder to find than in some other places in the continental U.S. Most of the Native American tribes in the area survived by combining wild foods with farmed foods such as corn.
Not only are "raw resources" part of the equation, but also the societal acceptance (or lack thereof) of such a lifestyle. In Alaska, for example, a subsistence lifestyle is considered pretty normal. Even city-dwellers eat wild meats and berries, even if only occasionally. Yet, in northern Colorado, the idea that we are interested in eating items that don't come wrapped in plastic from Whild Foads is weird; many people think we're nuts. They don't freak out too badly when we say we eat locally-grown, free-range, grass-fed meat, because that's pretty trendy and "eco"; when we mention that the meat is buffalo, we get funny looks. In Tucson, we did some dumpster diving and ate large amounts of fresh, clean produce that we found; most people there thought we were completely insane except for the other divers.
Does the area in which you live provide enough natural resources to sustain a healthy, varied diet? And, if so, does your surrounding society support such a choice?
Labels: diet, environment, individualism, meat, nutrition, philosophy, society
Monday, October 15, 2007
How Does One Support The Environment? (Blog Action Day Post)
Today, October 15, is Blog Action Day, a time when thousands of writers from all over the world write about a single subject. This year's subject is “the environment”. I feel that our diets and lifestyles directly affect the overall surrounding environment, so that's the tangent I'm going to follow today.
My premise is fairly simple: one can only change oneself, and by changing oneself, one changes the world. Of course, this is both very easy and extremely difficult. There are many aspects to change, as well.
Respect & Connection
I think that the most important thing we can have is respect — respect for ourselves, respect for others, and respect for the environment. If one has respect, any other needed changes follow.
Everything is connected, in some manner, to everything else. If one has respect for one thing, it will flow along the connections to other things. Before you know it, other seemingly unrelated attitudes and outlooks have shifted.
Diet
We all eat. What do you eat? Meat? Veggies? Organic or natural foods? What you eat is what is used to build your body. But your dietary choices cause ripples outwards into the environment. If you eat something that came from the store wrapped in plastic, you've used oil (an unsustainable resource) and placed non-biodegradable trash into a landfill somewhere. As an aside, notice that it is often the case that the food with the most unsustainable packaging is also the least healthy. So, not only have you damaged your body by eating trash, you've also damaged the environment.
So, how does one go about having a diet that is not only healthy for the individual but also for the environment? There are many ways. The most important action you could take is eating locally-grown natural & organic foods. These foods have been grown without a lot of artificial fertilizers, and haven't used a lot of unsustainable resources to transport them from the producer to your table. By doing this, you probably do another important thing: supporting local stores and producers. Most large grocery chains won't carry such things as “grass-fed beef from 20 miles away”, so you may have to go to a local butcher, farmer's market, or health food store. This supports local small businesses, and is a way to build strong communities.
Another way to eat in a sustainable manner is to hunt and gather for some or all of your food. By eating local wild animals and plants, one comes to learn about one's environment and their effects upon it. Wild meat is known for being very healthy for a human being; its nutrient, protein, and fat profiles fit very closely with the dietary needs of an active human being. Literally, we are built to eat wild meat. Wild plants offer a wide range of nutrients and tastes as well, and they grow in soil that has not been depleted by damaging farming practices. And an added benefit: it all tastes so much better than store-bought food that you'll forever question the worthiness of anything from the aisles of the chain grocery down the street.
Transportation
Do you drive an automobile? How often, and for how far? It is probably arguable that the automobile has done more to damage the environment than many other creations of man. Not only does it produce toxic exhaust, but it consumes massive amounts of energy in its construction and operation, and fosters the development of anti-social living patterns (picture gated suburbs where no one knows their neighbors and where everyone drives many miles each day to their jobs). Frankly, I think the best thing that we could do for ourselves, our society, and our environment is to make cars prohibitively expensive for most people, improve our public transportation infrastructure a hundredfold, and reform our cities and towns into a more mixed-use style of organization.
What can one do to bring their modes of transportation more in-line with healthy patterns? Use public transportation. Bicycle. Walk. If you have a car, only use it sparingly, and then only when needed for reasons of distance, carrying cargo, etc. If you are an urbanite, live near your work and the other places you enjoy, not way out in the 'burbs. If you live in a rural area, consolidate your trips so that they serve multiple goals, hence making your travel more efficient while reducing its frequency. If you often travel long distances via plane, consider other options: carpooling with other travelers (craigslist has a rideshare section under "community"), taking the train or bus, or reducing long-distance travel significantly (jet airplanes cause a significant percentage of the pollution in the atmosphere).
From my personal experience, I can tell you that changing from “driving everywhere” to “bicycling most places, and taking the public bus for longer distances” has been an incredible boon to my life. I'm healthier, I'm more aware, and I'm less stressed. Also, my exhaust isn't as toxic for the environment as that which comes out of a tailpipe.
Lifestyle & Socialization
Another aspect of supporting or damaging the environment is one's lifestyle. This can encompass various things such as one's job, social interactions, exercise, and spirituality. Diet can be considered a part of one's lifestyle, too, but I've discussed it separately.
What do you do to make a living? Do you have friends? How close are you to your family? Do you exercise regularly? Do you go to a church, a temple, or a mosque? Each one of these things can improve the environment, either directly or indirectly.
Let's take one's job, for example. Do you sit in front of a computer all day with fluorescent lights beating down upon you, doing the same abstract task over and over? Do you have a job that takes place at least partially outdoors? Do you work directly with others, or mostly alone? If your job is unsustainable, then it is damaging both to the environment and to your health. If you could change your job to something that would be more worthwhile and would support the health of the environment as well as you, what would that job be?
Social networks also help the individual, which in turn helps the environment. If you have close friends and family, it has been shown in various studies that you are less easily stressed. If you attend some sort of spiritual services regularly, you believe in something greater than the individual, and it improves the functioning of your immune system. Notice that I'm not talking about “having a lot of friends on MySpace”; that's not a social network, no matter what its creators may call it. A social network includes face-to-face interaction between people.
On a related tangent, anthropologists have what they call “Dunbar's Number”. This represents the largest social network that a human brain can understand. Anything larger than this is unsustainable with regards to a human's neural network. I believe that smaller, more coherent social groups cause less damage to their environment (this has actually been proven in studies of tribal societies). The interesting thing about this is that it was the predominant social structure of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years before the Neolithic Revolution; it's called “tribalism” and has a modern form called “neo-tribalism”.
Form or find your “tribe”. Share your respect, your lives, and your food with one another, and by your acts you will respect the environment.
Overall Approach
At the beginning of this post I said, “one can only change oneself”. Often, we seem to think that others can make these large changes that we seek. We give money to environmental charities, hoping that their actions will solve the problems. We vote for politicians because they say they are "green" and love the outdoors. I have news for you: this approach is backwards.
I can't change your mind; only you can do that. Yet, if you do that, other things will be affected. Instead of the “top down” approach described in the preceding paragraph, I suggest the “bottom up” approach: improve self, then improve family, then improve tribe, then improve world. You can also look at this as “individual-centric”.
Start with yourself, and the effects expand to fill the entire universe.
Conclusion
I have already started down the path I describe in this post. After 15 years in the IT industry, I have changed to a more fulfilling and wonderful career; I am a yoga teacher. I have changed my diet from one of junk and processed "food products" to natural meats, organic vegetables and fruits, and locally-grown items. I often grow some of my own produce in a co-op garden plot. Sure, I still have habits that are unsustainable (I drink teas from India and China, shipped halfway around the world), but nothing in this universe is perfect, especially me. And that's OK.
Some people (such as me) have advertisements on their blogs and receive a small amount of money in return. On this Blog Action Day, some people have pledged to hand over their earnings for the day to environmental charities. So, I will do something similar: if I receive money from this blog today (if you click an ad, I get a few cents; it will cost you nothing but a few seconds of your time), I will put it towards my own personal improvement. Maybe I'll take more yoga classes (hey, even teachers are students!). Maybe I'll buy a book that will help me to understand my place in the universe a little bit better. Maybe I'll buy a locally-grown, grass-fed bison steak and eat it for dinner. In any case, I will improve myself and therefore improve the environment around me.
If you have any comments, please feel free to leave them here. You must have a Blogger or Google account to comment, and comments are moderated by me before they are published. If you wish your message to remain private, just say so.
I would also like to apologize if this post seems a bit disorderly or has any grammar or spelling errors. I was unaware of Blog Action Day until this morning, and this post was written fairly quickly. Nonetheless, I hope that you find my blog useful to you.
Thank you very much for reading my blog today. I invite you come by more often and see what I've done. I would also like to suggest that you read those blogs written by people whom I deeply respect. They are listed on the right sidebar, under "Related Blogs".
Love well. Eat well. Think well. Live well, and the Earth will be well.
Labels: Blog Action Day, diet, environment, evolution, history, meat, nutrition, obesity, philosophy, psychology, society, yoga
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Cow Farts Are Destroying the World!
I just read this article and I'm flabbergasted. I've highlighted things that stuck out to me and added my comments next to them.
Eating less meat may slow climate change
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Wed Sep 12, 9:06 PM ET
LONDON - Eating less meat could help slow global warming by reducing the number of livestock and thereby decreasing the amount of methane flatulence [We're seriously arguing over cow farts?! - ed] from the animals, scientists said on Thursday.
In a special energy and health series of the medical journal The Lancet, experts said people should eat fewer steaks and hamburgers. Reducing global red meat consumption by 10 percent, they said, would cut the gases emitted by cows, sheep and goats that contribute to global warming.
"We are at a significant tipping point," said Geri Brewster, a nutritionist at Northern Westchester Hospital in New York, who was not connected to the study.
"If people knew that they were threatening the environment by eating more meat, they might think twice [Twice? People don't even think once! - ed] before ordering a burger," Brewster said.
Other ways of reducing greenhouse gases from farming practices, like feeding animals higher-quality grains [Whew! Saved by monoculture and incorrect diet! - ed] , would only have a limited impact on cutting emissions. Gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.
"That leaves reducing demand for meat as the only real option," said Dr. John Powles, a public health expert at Cambridge University, one of the study's authors.
The amount of meat eaten varies considerably worldwide. In developed countries, people typically eat about 224 grams per day. But in Africa, most people only get about 31 grams a day.
With demand for meat increasing worldwide, experts worry that this increased livestock production will mean more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. In China, for instance, people are eating double the amount of meat they used to a decade ago.
Powles said that if the global average were 90 grams per day, that would prevent the levels of gases from speeding up climate change.
Eating less red meat would also improve health in general. Powles and his co-authors estimate that reducing meat consumption would reduce the numbers of people with heart disease and cancer. One study has estimated that the risk of colorectal cancer drops by about a third for every 100 grams of red meat that is cut out of your diet.
"As a society, we are overconsuming protein," Brewster said. "If we ate less red meat, it would also help stop the obesity epidemic [HAHAHAHAHA! *can't...breathe* HAHAHAHAHA! - ed]."
Experts said that it would probably take decades to wane the public off of its meat-eating tendency. "We need to better understand the implications of our diet, [You're damn straight you do! You're all confused right now! - ed] " said Dr. Maria Neira, director of director of the World Health Organization's department of public health and the environment.
"It is an interesting theory that needs to be further examined," she said. "But eating less meat could definitely be one way to reduce gas emissions and climate change."
I get more disgusted with modern people and society by the minute.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Telepathic Gorillas, and Lack of Doing
So, I'm reading "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. It's a good book and basically suggests adopting a paleolithic lifestyle. It's told as an interesting, somewhat warped, story taking place between a disgruntled man and an intelligent, telepathic gorilla. Worth a read.
And where does the author live? In Houston, Texas - in a city, living a neo-neolithic life.
Why don't people actually act upon their beliefs?
Labels: history, individualism, philosophy, society
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Why I Don't Listen to Doctors
The largest part of a paleo-style diet is meat. For most people reading this blog, that meat is probably purchased at a store. I am of the opinion that such a separation from our food source is very unhealthy, especially spiritually. Farmed meat has a significantly skewed nutritional profile; the omega-3/6/9 ratio is often completely wrong for the human body. There are toxins from intensive clustering of animals. One should also consider the spiritual matters of harming the creatures needlessly, the damage to the environment, and the corrupted and rotten energy of the capitalistic food farm imprinted upon the meat. It is for all these reasons and more that I have decided to start hunting and fishing for my meat.
Of course, society is based on control. And it's easier to control people if they believe that they have no choices. This article, "Deer Hunting May Put Men's Hearts at Risk", makes people think they have no choice. From the article, I quote:
In a study of 25 middle-aged male deer hunters, researchers found that the activities inherent to hunting -- like walking over rough terrain, shooting an animal and dragging its carcass -- sent the men's heart rates up significantly.So, getting exercise in a natural environment, doing a natural activity, can KIIIILLLLLL YOUUUUUUUU!!!!!! BOO! Fearfearfearfearfear. Another quote:In some cases, this led to potentially dangerous heart-rhythm disturbances, or diminished oxygen supply to the heart.
Of the 25 hunters, 17 had established coronary heart disease, while the rest had risk factors such as being overweight, smoking or having high blood pressure or cholesterol.The findings suggest that for men like these, hunting could boost the risk of heart attack or cardiac arrest...The combination of physical exertion, adrenaline rush and the stress of rough terrain and cold weather may explain the "excessive cardiac demands" seen with hunting.
So, they had a tiny sample, and it's pretty normal: a bunch of beer-gutted fat, white Americans who eat junk then go out hunting "for fun". Hunting meat will do these people no good whatsoever. One more quote:
[M]ost of the men in the study were taking part in an exercise program to treat their heart disease, or were regularly physically active. Hunting could be an even greater strain on the heart in men who are usually sedentary, the researchers note.
So, these men were already being "treated" by the medical industry for their heart problems in the typical allopathic manner: WRONGLY! They were in "exercise programs", but I'll almost guarantee that those programs were warped and unhelpful, and I'll bet none of the men made significant dietary and/or lifestyle changes.
This article is an example of societal control of the individual, to the individual's detriment (which, although society would disagree with me, also damages society). So, I will try to counteract that influence with a simple statement: you can have control over your life! You must only take hold of your life and stop letting others steer you where they want you to go.So, how do we keep ourselves away from such a fate? Well, it's easy: change your lifestyle to one which supports your life, and away from one which damages it. Eat natural foods in the proportions needed by your body and spirit. Get a wide range of exercise to keep your body in good shape. Meditate or pursue some spiritual path to keep your mind and spirit healthy. And never stop trying, learning, and living.
Labels: diet, energetics, nutrition, society