The point of fitness

I hate blogs that apologize. No apologies. I do what I want.

I have been slowly getting out of shape over the last few months. My diet isn't as great as it should be (although I have been sticking to 100% vegetarian... about 60% vegan which is not too bad), and I haven't been running much at all. There have been a few hill workouts with the track girls, but being a head coach has been pretty demanding and there were only a few days that I could actually sneak out with the athletes. But anyway... I dragged myself out of bed this morning and went for a run as the sun came up. My lungs hurt a little more than they should have and my legs feel a little bit like jelly even though they really shouldn't... but I made it through the run. I may be out of shape physically, but I haven't lost any of the mental strength I built up earlier this year. With the shape that I'm in, I never would have been able to convince myself to run for that long a year ago... but this morning it was just another run.

Anyway... aside from the results of my run, right now I'm thinking about the point of fitness... the point of working out. I guess I get caught up on the fact that working out seems to create an unnatural state of being. If I worked out every morning I would be lean, muscular, and in great cardiovascular shape... but how do I need that in my daily life? It's not as if being stronger is going to make me more productive to society, or does it? Lets assume, because there are so many benefits of being active, that we were built to lead active lives. Why is it that that activity is so separate from our productivity and liveliness? It's a hobby rather than a necessity.

I know there are a lot of ways to argue with what I've just said. Runners would especially have a lot to say about it. Once you're a runner, you don't have a choice, it is a necessity. Being active definitely increases the amount you contribute to society because it gives you a clearer head. I know these reasons, I just feel there are some contradictions in the way we are built to live and the way we actually live. I wonder how to rectify these.

Aimlessness

I originally started this blog with the idea that I would post about food and issues surrounding it. I'm not sure that's going to work for me so I'm opening it up. From now on the title "Real Sustenance" will be interpreted even more loosely as I explore different issues that strike my fancy. This is partially because, as I have mentioned before, I am quite unsure of the career path I would like to pursue. I want to find out what my interests truly are and to do that I want to explore them all.

I hope you all enjoy the exploration with me.

Ahead of the Times

It seems as though I was one step ahead of the New York Times yesterday when I posted about the image of Vegetarianism and Veganism throughout the country. Today's article, The Carrot Some Vegans Deplore, is about just that.

The article starts by discussing a vegan strip club in Portland, Oregon. The owner, a male vegan (or vegetarian... forgive me for not getting the facts perfect), decided to combine these two interests. He claimed that combining a very masculine place like a strip club with vegan food was a great way to introduce men to this healthy, conscientious lifestyle. Whether spreading veganism was actually his objective is unclear, but apparently the association between animal rights and women's rights is not a new one. The article referenced many other examples of women's bodies being exploited to highlight animal rights, or on the other side, women leading a vegetarian lifestyle in order to highlight their personal struggle. The article did mention and have quotes from the authors of Skinny Bitch, and discussed the ways in which this and other popular vegan items contributed to the gender discussion around this lifestyle.

Overall, I'm not sure the article gave many answers to the questions that I brought up in my post. It did, however, say a lot of the same things. Exposure, even if it comes in the form of extreme ranting or attached to sexually attractive women, is a good thing. If you buy into that, you could argue that the vegan lifestyle gets a disproportionally high level of exposure for the very small percentage of Americans who actually call themselves vegan. On the other hand, many of these issues of fairness and appropriate treatment (whether for men, women, people of color, or animals) should be closely linked in our minds, shouldn't they? Should PETA really sell their message by attaching it to a picture of an attractive, half naked woman?

At least now the NY Times has weighed in on the subject.

Skinny Bitch

I've had Skinny Bitch on my Amazon wish list for a little while now. I knew that this was a "diet" book that ultimately argued the value of the vegan lifestyle. I knew that the authors wrote the book in a very harsh, "stop eating shit, fat-ass" type of tone... but I was looking for some solid philosophical reasons to give up all animal products. I didn't buy the book but I did spend a very enjoyable afternoon at Border's as I was playing hooky this week. I picked a sunny seat by the window, got some tea and read a big chunk of Skinny Bitch. I have to say, I'm glad I didn't spend the $13 to actually own a copy of this book.

I have read a number of blog entries that address the way vegetarianism and veganism are perceived among the omnivores of the world. These slightly extreme subsets of the population can be stereotyped as radical, throw red paint on fur coats, scoff at diners who partake in meat, type of people. Obviously, this is not the case and can lead to the general population to having a negative impression of a healthy, conscientious lifestyle. I felt like the book, Skinny Bitch, through exaggerations, a very harsh tone, and detailed descriptions of animal cruelty, contributed to the negative image of vegetarianism and veganism instead of aiding the cause. Does it really serve a purpose to tell people they're stupid for eating cheese? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to discuss the issues?

I'm sure a number of people are reading this and thinking, "You just don't get it," so lets look at the other side. This is a book about veganism that is hugely popular. Awesome. That's definitely something. Additionally, how many picked up this witty, comedic book and read it because of the entertaining tone... even though they might have been scared by the content had it been presented in a different manner? I'm sure there are A LOT of readers who fall into this category, meaning the tone of the book reached more people than my boring philosophical discussion ever would. I suppose we could refer to this as the Michael Moore presentation advantage, yes? Obviously this book has some positive things to offer the food/health community... I'm just not totally convinced that the net effect is a positive one.

The entertainment factor

I've never wanted to be a salesman. I don't really have the patience or the motivation to try and convince people that they need something or that they want to do something. I prefer to adopt a general, "Do what you want..." type of attitude. I was, however, very interested in education. I love reading, writing, thinking, and discussing; sharing that with others seemed like a great idea. I didn't realize how much of a salesman I would have to be in order to be a good teacher. In order to "be a good teacher" and reach the majority of my students, I must continually convince them that they want to do this. I must "sell" education to them. I hate this.

While writing my senior thesis on the economics of education from contending perspectives, I got into a lot of educational philosophy (I love how close economics and philosophy can get at times!). One very influential book that my adviser pointed me toward was Why Read by Mark Edmundson. In this book Edmundson talks about his experiences as a college professor. Specifically, he discusses the way students evaluate classes. Many students today expect education to be engaging and entertaining... and they expect teachers or professors to orchestrate the course in a way that accomplishes this. I run into it in my classroom everyday and I certainly remember those expectations in college as well. Teachers and professors are supposed to make education entertaining... because, seriously, what's the point if it's not enjoyable? (Sarcasm... hope you can pick up on it!) The New York Times has an article today that brushes on a lot of these same thoughts. The Professor as Open Book .

One of my favorite quotes comes from John Dewey (I know... not original at all for an educator to be quoting Dewey... give me a break), "Education has no end beyond itself; it is its own end." I truly believe that true education is engaging, inspiring, and it's hard work that offers an intrinsic reward. It's not entertaining and enjoyable because the professor is funny or the teacher brings in manipulatives every day... it's amazing because it changes the person that you are and that's fulfilling. Here's the issue though...Why can some people feel it and others need engaging instructors to sell it to them? And... if I hate the entertainment factor while teaching on the high school level... will I hate it while working on the college level? Finally, is this a result of our culture... entertainment all the time... or is it just a natural division within the population, some people are nerds and others aren't?

To me writing, reading, thinking, and discussing are REAL SUSTENANCE. Now I need to figure out what to do with that.

Acceptance of food restrictions

A woman with celiac's disease goes into a restaurant to eat and explains that she needs a gluten free meal. She orders a salad without crutons and explains how sensitive she is to food that is cross contaminated with gluten... but the overworked, slightly annoyed waiter with tired feet just goes back to the kitchen and picks up a pre-made salad, tossing the crutons into the trash on the way back to the table. The woman eats this "gluton free" salad and breaks out in a rash later that night.

A man who has chosen to follow a strictly vegan diet because of his political and moral beliefs is invited to celebrate his grandfather's birthday at a local steak house. The man calls ahead, explains his dietary preferences, and asks the restaurant if they can accommodate him. The restaurant understands and wanting to increase business agrees to do what they can. The night of the celebration the vegan man arrives, introduces himself to the waitress and is greeted with annoyance and irritation. The chef had to go out of her way and the waitress is bothered by "picky" customers. The man is served cold food and treated poorly because he was "difficult."

In both of these situations the diner has a difficult time eating in a restaurant, and the restaurant staff is annoyed by the specific requests and added hassle of meeting the diner's needs. The difference is that the first situation involves an innate dietary restriction while the second one is a chosen lifestyle. The question is... is there a difference? Should people who choose to restrict their diet based on different belief systems have a harder time doing that than people who are required to eat differently than the majority of the population?

Personal anecdotes:

I ate at my favorite brewery recently and I wanted to share the chili cheese fries with my brother who was visiting from out of town (for all you non-New Mexicans - chili cheese fries out here have a green chili pepper sauce on them, not the red bean and beef sauce that other parts of the country call chili). I know that most places make their chili sauce with a little bit of pork so I asked if the brewery had any vegetarian chili sauces. They didn't, but the waitress was super friendly, talked to the kitchen, and came back with a few suggestions that worked out very nicely. The vegetarian "chili" fries were quite tasty. Even though my dietary restrictions are voluntary, in this case I felt they were respected.

On the other hand... I was recently invited to an Easter dinner with a close friend and his family. I made sure that my friend let his family know that I was a vegetarian in advance and I offered to bring something to contribute to the meal. The situation seemed ok, but I received an email about the menu where my friend felt the need to inform me that the meat was really going to be very high quality, free range, natural meat. When I replied saying that I was indeed going to be eating vegetarian, he seemed surprised. I don't tell this story to pick on my friend or insinuate that he was being insensitive - I know he had valid reasons for giving me this information and questioning what I would do - but this situation does make it clear that there is a difference between how chosen diets are perceived versus compulsory ones. My friend never would have asked his uncle, who has a gluten allergy, if he was absolutely sure he didn't want any of the delicious bread.

The question becomes, should there be a difference in how dietary restrictions are accepted and respected? Does it make a difference if it is chosen versus innate? Am I more responsible for the inconvenience my vegetarianism causes because I chose it... or should my choice be respected as a black and white, no-meat type of issue?

I'm sure that we can think of some parallels to draw in this situation. We'll come back to these questions.

Unconscious Cooking

On the I Can Make you Thin program that I watched yesterday... one of the points that Paul McKenna tried to reference repeatedly was that people should eat consciously. This meant that they should pay close attention to how the food actually tasted (this makes sense as many fast food meals are strategically designed to trick our senses into thinking they taste better than they actually do) and to eat very slowly and deliberately. By "eating consciously" you are less likely to overeat and more likely to hear the signals from your body telling you that you've had enough. I totally buy into this. I also enjoy meals a whole lot more when I put my knife and fork down and take the time to enjoy the setting and the company... anyway...

Today I was going about my business. I ate a dinner of leftovers... it was ok. I had a rough day and I was still feeling hungry so I decided to make a yummy desert. I pulled out a bowl, started with plain low-fat yogurt and the remaining canned pumpkin from my fridge. I added some honey and a handful of dark chocolate chips. To finish it off I grabbed a small spice container that I thought had been left on the counter from making my oatmeal this morning - I thought it was pumpkin pie spice. Yummy cinamon, allspice, and cloves... perfect. I was wrong. It was the garlic powder that I left on the counter after making popcorn last night. Damn it! I had a beautiful bowl of pumpkin yogurt with honey and chocolate chips and I sprinkled garlic powder all over it. In an attempt to salvage the desert I found the pumpkin pie spice, added some and mixed it all up hoping that the garlic wouldn't be that noticeable. That didn't work. Bummer.

Desert yogurt number one got dumped in the trash while I toasted some bananas, honey, and a few more chocolate chips for desert yogurt number two. I left the garlic powder out of this version.

So much for unconscious eating... beware of unconscious cooking!