Barefoot Running

I got some Vibram 5 Fingers (VFF) shoes at the end of December 2009 and during the past 4 months I've been experimenting with running in them, to get my feet wet in this barefoot running business that has been much in the news of late. (Technically-minded folks will note that if you're wearing these shoes you're not barefoot, but you're pretty darn close.)

I'll use this post to provide some background links as well as describe my first-hand experiences. I included a couple of self-photos of my KSO's: the first shot was taken during the first week I had them, and the second was taken about 3 months later, after wearing them during the run portion of the Golden Bearathlon. It was a muddy 10K trail run and the shoes cleaned up nicely in the wash. I don't do all my runs in these shoes now, but I'm gradually moving in that direction.

Goodbye Orthotics

Probably the most powerful thing I can say from my experiences would be this: Since I started running in the VFFs, I have dropped my dependency on the custom orthotics that I've worn religiously for the past 15 years. In 1995, I had the orthotics made and wearing them greatly reduced my running injuries; basically I never did a run or went anywhere without them since '95.

However, this has all changed since I've been running in the VFFs. These minimalist shoes are basically socks with some rubber on the soles -- you cannot wear orthotics in them (well, you could, but it would feel very clunky and biomechanically unnatural). So I've stopped wearing the orthotics whenever I run, even when I run with regular, heavy-soled running shoes. I have not encountered any chronic running injuries since, and I no longer need to worry about where my orthotics are at all times (though I still prefer them if I have to do a lot of walking/standing, e.g., spending the day at Disneyland).

Gradual Adaptation

I've been running for fitness for the past 30+ years wearing conventional, cushy, industry-standard running shoes (usually something neutral like the Asics Gel Nimbus). Since running in the VFFs, it's become apparent how woefully undertrained my calves were. By promoting a rear-foot strike (RFS) running form (i.e., landing initially on your heel, then rolling off the toe), standard running shoes effectively shield the calves from doing much work.

Before I acquired the VFF shoes, I spent 1-2 months working on a more fore-foot strike (FFS) running style using my traditional thick-heeled running shoes. This included some barefoot running on grass. I experienced lots of calf soreness during this period, especially after harder, faster training sessions. It took a while to switch my running form from RFS to FFS -- I'd say a solid two months before it started to feel natural. I was lucky enough to get some great coaching from local track coach Steve Kraft to help me learn this new running style, which has more elements to it than just foot strike.

Once I got the VFFs and started doing faster and longer runs in them, my calves experienced even more soreness. I took it fairly easy, running only on soft surfaces (like trails or rubberized tracks) once every 1-2 weeks in the VFFs, using my standard cushy shoes for all other runs. The first time I did a mile's worth of total speedwork in the VFFs, my calves were sore for a week, hard to walk or even bike for the first few days after. Additional feedback on my VFF running form from other experienced runners revealed that I was running too much on the balls of my feet, putting excessive strain on my calves. With practice, I was able to adopt a more neutral foot strike.

Morals: 

1. Be extremely gradual in adding speed and mileage to your VFF runs.
2. Get some feedback from a running coach or experienced runners.

Update, 19 May 2010: Here are a few additional thoughts and tips on barefoot or minimalist shoe running:

Are they comfortable?

This is the most common question I get from random, inquisitive strangers that notice my VFFs when I'm out in public with them. In short, yes they are quite comfy when just lounging around in them. But note that they give about the same degree of support as a pair of socks, so spending a full day standing/walking around in them on pavement will really wipe you out the first time you try it. About two months after I started wearing them I spent two back-to-back days wearing them while visiting Disneyland with my family -- this was definitely overdoing it.

The lightness of being barefoot

The lack of weight at the end of your legs while running is quite addicting. It leads to much less torque on your overall leg motion and permits a more natural gait and more efficient cadence. The low weight and lack of bulk of the VFFs also makes them highly portable. I actually biked with them in a fanny pack, along with a bunch of other gear, for the entire MS150 bicycle ride from Houston to Austin in April 2010. They were my après-cycling footwear.

Running shoe built-into your legs

Barefoot-style running trains your leg muscles, feet, joints, and connective tissues to learn to do more of the shock absorbtion that we've been delegating to conventional running shoes. Running barefoot or with minimalist shoes like VFFs trains your legs to acquire those shock absorbing powers, essentially building a running shoe into your body. Transitioning from a RFS to a FFS style and adapting to minimalist shoes feels like it has given my running legs another "gear" that I can employ regardless of my footwear. It is a more muscular style of running where the legs learn how to absorb the shocks of running and even obtain some elastic recoil from each foot strike. With a RFS running style where the shock of each footstrike is dissipated via the heel, shocks are absorbed primarily via the shoe plus your skeleton, which dissipates the impact energy and provides no recoil opportunity (and can in fact lead to loss of forward momentum via braking).

Easy does it

As Barefoot Ken Bob warns: Don't do too much too soon! There's a strong temptation to overdo it, especially as your feet and legs start adapting. But it really takes quite a bit of time to fully adapt to a barefoot or minimalist shoe running style. The transition is more difficult and longer for folks (such as myself) with a long history of RFS style running.

When starting out, pick the smoothest surfaces you can (such as grass, astroturf, or a rubberized track). Our soft, modern feet take a major pounding when running and bruise/blister incredibly easily. The first time I stepped on a rock the wrong way with the VFFs I got a bruise on the ball of my foot that was tender for several days, and even after 5 months of using the VFFs, I still get hot spots and bruises when I push the pace or terrain (though my feet now recover much faster). Over time, you will learn how to run more gently and your feet will toughen up, but it takes months (maybe up to a year), and you still must always be mindful of your terrain. The plus side of having barefoot/minimalist shoe running is it provides great feedback from the running surface that is otherwise masked standard heavy-soled running shoes. Especially when running on trails, each footstep is unique, giving you a deeper sense of connectedness with your environment and increasing the mental stimulation of running. It can be very reflexology-like. Run barefoot for best results here (feet and terrain-permitting).

Variety is the spice

Even if you are skeptical about the benefits of barefoot/minimalist shoe running and think it's yet another passing fad, you've got to admit that it is way different than what the running shoe industry has been doing for the past 30+ years and it gives a runner something new to play with. This helps inject variety to shake up your routine, get you out of your comfort zone, and can help keep your workouts from becoming stale. This all helps to keep you motivated, which is key to long-term success in sticking with your fitness goals.

Foot stretches.

Helps with tired feet, especially when walking/standing in them for long periods. Here are some stretches, all of which can be effectively performed while wearing VFFs (but not with standard shoes!):

1. Flex and point toes, alternating and holding the stretch and point for ~5 seconds each.
2. Foot circles or "alphabets" where you trace each letter of the alphabet with your foot (caps or cursive).
3. Gripping with toes. Imagine you are trying to grab a ball with your toes. This motion is almost like pointing your toes while dorsiflexing. 'Grip' and hold for a few seconds. Relax by dorsi-extending and fanning toes.
4. Top of toes on ground. Can be done when standing or sitting. Standing on one leg, bend other knee and point toes behind you, attempting to touch the top of foot on the ground behind you. Hold and breathe.
5. Foot massage. While sitting, cross on leg and work one foot at a time. Use your thumb to massage the plantar fascia. Also massage the lower achilles tendon area around the sides of the heel.

Use powder

Applying talcum powder on the inside of the VFFs helps a lot in fighting microbial odors and easing foot entry. I like Burt's Bees; Dr. Scholl's also sells powders with antimicrobial additives. Washing the VFFs with a powdered detergent once/week on a gentle or 'easy care' cycle then air drying keeps them in good shape. Just throw them in with your other laundry.

Additional Links:

• Chris McDougall - Born To Run author, kicked off the most recent VFF/barefoot running craze.
• The Roving Runner Goes Barefoot (NYTimes, 5 Oct 2009)
• History/motivation behind writing of the book "Born to Run" (YouTube)
• Appearance on John Stewart (Aug 2009)
• Talks about wearing vibram five fingers(15 Jun 2009)
• Chris McDougall's informal Google talk (16 Oct 2009)
• Lieberman et al. Nature paper, Jan 2010: "A comparison of the biomechanics of habitually shod versus habitually barefoot runners suggests that running barefoot is not only comfortable but may also help avoid some impact-related stress injuries."
  
  This begat a flurry of other reports appearing in Jan 2010:
• The Barefoot Professor Daniel Lieberman (YouTube video, Harvard University study, 1/27/10)
• Study: Humans were born to run barefoot (NPR, 27 Jan 2010)
• ScienceDaily coverage of Lieberman study (ScienceDaily, 1 Feb 2010)
• Running Shoes May Cause Damage to Knees, Hips and Ankles, New Study Suggests (Science Daily, Jan. 6, 2010)
• Study: Running Shoes Could Cause Joint Strain (LiveScience, 12 Jan 2010)
• Running Shoes Changed How Humans Run (LiveScience)
• Wikis and Blogs:
• Wikipedia - Barefoot running entry
• Runner's World wiki - Barefoot running entry
• Barefoot running icons:
• Barefoot Ted
• Barefoot Ken Bob Saxton
• Jason Robillard (blog)
• Pose Running method:
• Pose technique originated in the 1970's by Dr. Nicholas Romanov.
  
• Heel striking is way bad, according to the Pose experts.
  
• Opinions on barefoot running:"I would like to mention that barefoot running is not a panacea for avoiding running problems, it is not an automatic guarantee of running proper. It is just another tool for learning to run proper, because of more elements of a proper running technique present there than anywhere else."
  
• Pose advocates claim that their method applies to any sport.
  
• Other links:
• Wiggling Their Toes at the Shoe Giants(29 Aug 2009)
  
• Is it the shoes? It's gotta be the shoes. (YouTube comparison no shoes and with shoes)
  

Bodycare Reform

As president Obama tries to push for much-needed healthcare reform, we are also due for what I would call "bodycare reform" to refine our attitudes towards our individual role in maintaining our own health. I think this is an area that could go a long way toward reducing our nation's healthcare woes. Let me explain.

I recently came across a couple of articles that underscore the trouble with our status quo bodycare mindset. The first is an article by noted software guru Linus Torvalds, explaining that he just doesn't like exercising. The second is a column in the New York Times from a doctor who has difficulties advising her patients about weight control when she herself has trouble maintaining a healthy weight.

Both articles seem to me to share a similar underlying complaint, asking, "Why is staying fit so hard? Give me an easy/enjoyable way to do it and I'll stick to it!"

Here's what I would say in response: Living healthfully is just like doing any other job you care about deeply. There are many enjoyable things about it, but there are also certain required things that need to be done regularly to keep the operation from going to pot.

This duty is what Jack LaLanne, the godfather of fitness, calls "taking care of your most precious possession." Sure, it takes effort he says, but "living is work, dying is easy." Even Mr. LaLanne hates working out, but, he says, "I like the results."

The message here is that engaging in exercise isn't necessarily something we should look to for entertainment or fulfillment per se. Rather, it's the downstream benefits that matter most — the increased fitness, strength, mobility, self-efficacy, improved body image and increased self-confidence, and even better mental acuity that results from regular exercise. Furthermore, exercise can help to minimize the impact of virually all of the major, chronic diseases that are widespread in modern society, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, thereby reducing the overall load on our healthcare system. These things are the real aims of all that work. Keeping fit is not a panacea, but the downstream benefits are well-established. So keep these things in mind while you're sweating!

The results-oriented attitude I advocate for better personal bodycare applies more to exercise than diet, since pleasure is a key component in eating. Eating habits are much more complex because food is essential for existence and involves more deeply-rooted brain circuitry related to needs vs. wants, emotional comfort, and other issues. For me, the key for healthy eating is diversity and balancing the good with the bad, and balancing caloric intake with expenditure (this is where exercise really helps).

It's important to recognize that eating well is a continual struggle for us folks in the developed world, with ample supplies of tempting, calorie-rich foods. You should allow occasional slips without self-abuse, and try to recognize when you are using food to deal with some other issue, or when forces around you are using food to manipulate you (as Dr. David Kessler describes well). Remember: you (assuming you're a non-incarcerated adult) have the ultimate, executive decision power over what goes into your mouth. Don't be afraid to exercise it!

Concluding remarks:

Our society here in the U.S. tends to view exercising as something you choose do in your free time, as a form of non-essential, optional recreational activity. This is wrong-headed. It is best viewed as a necessary job that leads to extremely beneficial results in terms of physical well-being and as a proven preventative health measure.

To help us translate this bodycare reform into healthcare reform, I would like to see more incentives to increase our national level of physical fitness. At the rate we are going, the swelling ranks of people with poor health due to physical inactivity will have increasingly wide-ranging negative effects on society. Here are some ideas to help reverse this trend:

• fitness-based health insurance discounts,
  
• better access to fitness centers,
  
• better fitness education and information,
  
• tax breaks on health club memberships and equipment purchases,
  
• government-sponsored fitness events and competitions for the whole family,
  
• improved support for dwindling PE classes in public schools,
  
• [your idea here!].

Though it is primarily a chore, staying fit can be fun, but maintaining that fun takes some creative energy to keep it going over the long-term. To help us stay motivated to improve our fitness, I invite you to sign up with my TeamLaLanne.org project as a way to affirm your commitment to fitness. It is a social networking project I am organizing to help us stay motivated toward our fitness goals (and to say "Happy Birthday" to the guy who played a major role in starting the modern fitness industry). I've had the good fortune to have been able to maintain an active lifestyle all of my life — physical fitness seems to come naturally to me. But I don't think I'm special; it still takes work and I still slip here and there. I'd like to share my advice with anyone that is interested and plan to extend this discussion in the TeamHuman.org fitness tribe. So (since you've made it this far in my long-winded post) I encourage you to join. I'd even be happy to use that site to arrange group workouts for anyone needing some motivation.

TeamHuman.org social network launched

I managed to put together a Pinax-based social networking website for my TeamHuman.org project. Click on the visit link at the bottom of the page. It's still in the early stages and things will change, particularly as Pinax evolves (and as I learn how to write some Django apps). But it seems stable enough to use now, even though it is based on a pre-beta version of the 0.7 Pinax codebase.

My main motivation for getting this site going was, as described in more detail on the site, that my Team LaLanne project needed a place for folks to register their interest in and to organize local group "feat of strength" activities to celebrate Jack LaLanne's 95th birthday on 26 September 2009. So check it out and register if you dig Jack's pioneering efforts to help create today's fitness industry and get us all off our duffs.

And feel free to spread the word about it. This blog post is really my first major announcement about it. My twitter posts to my 9 followers doesn't really count (though I do value you all ;-).

And Happy Earth Day!

Wing Walking Woman Wikified

A few months ago (April 2008) I completed my first significant Wikipedia contribution, a page about the wing walker Lillian Boyer.

I've been meaning to let you, my faithful blog readers, know about this (all three of you) since it represents an interesting slice of U.S. history and the life of a woman who was regularly performing amazing feats way back, when the grandmothers of the extreme sports enthusiasts of today were still in diapers.

What really compelled Lillian Boyer to start hanging off of airplane wings, I can't really say, but I imagine this was her way of expressing herself in an early era of woman's liberation akin to what the flappers were doing, with her own take on the unconventional.

Here's a short history of how her Wikipedia page came to be, in case you're interested:

As I was glancing randomly through a library book brought home by my son Russell when he was in Kindergarten (2006-2007), I happened across a page with an old photograph showing a woman hanging off an airplane wing (can't remember the title of the book, but I think the photo was this one).

It was very useful that Lillian arranged to have her full name plastered in a large, readable font across the body of her stunt plan, since the descriptive text in the book didn't mention her by name at all. It was only by reading her name on the airplane in the photograph that I was able to research her.

I eventually discovered photos of her at The Henry Ford's Heroes of the Sky online exhibit. Googling around the web for "Lillian Boyer" didn't reveal much, and I felt her spirit deserved better recognition. So I created Lillian's initial Wikipedia page (early Jan 2008) with just a little text and some pointers to The Henry Ford site. The article was quickly flagged by Wikipedia as not being sufficiently notable and in danger of getting axed.

So I decided to see if I could get the photos from The Henry Ford into Wikipedia directly. The Henry Ford graciously donated the seven images I requested, and after lots of further research into how exactly to submit them into Wikipedia, the images are now in place and the notability notice on Lillian's page has been removed.

It was quite a learning experience about all the various licenses that can cover different kinds of media in Wikipedia. Initially, I began submitting the photos as public domain by adding them to Wikimedia Commons, since they were taken before 1923. However, since there is some uncertainty in the date of the photos and since The Henry Ford still claims to control copyright on them, I removed them from Wikimedia Commons and submitted to Wikipedia directly under a more appropriate Non-Free/Fair Use license.

The Wikipedia page is quite sparse on her biographical information (compared to another early woman aviator Bessie Coleman, whose life is very well documented). If anyone has more biographical information about the (late?) great Ms. Boyer, please either contribute to her Wikipedia page directly, or let me know and I'll do it.

Man-made back hole could eat Earth this May August October 21st (2008) November 2009

That's when physicists will perform the first high-energy particle collisions with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Actually, the chances of anything untoward happening is extremely unlikely. This is according to physics types, who were correct in predicting that the detonation of an atomic bomb would not in fact set fire to the Earth's atmosphere, as some had theorized at the time.

The threat of a planetary-scale disaster has certainly added to the air of excitement concerning the LHC. Sure, charting new territory into our understanding of matter and the Universe is exciting in a general, abstract sort of way. But the modicum of doubt about whether or not we could really obliterate the Earth in a single experiment injects a degree of tangibility that anyone can grasp, and has a way of inspiring awe in our technological prowess, notwithstanding the unlikeliness of such an outcome.

But just how unlikely is it? I'm not a physicist, but after browsing the web a bit, I wouldn't recommend cashing in your retirement account just yet. Here's my understanding of the situation: The micro black holes that might be created by high-energy collisions in the collider would be very, very tiny. They're so tiny, they would make a proton look ginormous. If there was a black hole the size of a proton, it would weigh 2 billion metric tons, or about 10^12 kg, but the micro black holes would weigh on the order of 10^-24 kg, so the micro black holes are around 36 orders of magnitude smaller than a proton. These micro black holes are expected to be ephemeral and dissipate almost as soon as they are created by something called Hawking radiation, though there's some speculation about whether Hawking radiation actually occurs.

Even if the micro black holes hung around for some time, they would consume matter at an exceedingly slow rate: about 1 iron atom every 3 hours. At this rate, it would take about 10^46 years to consume the Earth. So these quantum-scale black holes are really not much of a threat, and could teach us something.

The only risk is if billions of the micro black holes could persist long enough to coalesce into a larger black hole, which requires some other conditions being just right (the accretion occurring exactly at the center of mass of the collision; short-range gravitational forces being stronger than expected; not getting zapped by Hawking radiation; etc.). If all these things fall into place, the accreted man-made black hole would get pulled toward the Earth's core, sucking in matter along the way and rapidly growing ever denser until all matter on Earth gets compressed into a nugget about the size of a chunk of kitty litter.

Another danger unrelated to micro black holes that has been raised concerning the LHC is the potential generation of strangelets. But this threat seems even more remote than that from micro black holes (which is pretty darn remote). Still, if things start getting "strange" in May, well, it's been good to know you!

Regardless of what happens after the LHC goes into business (new discoveries about fundamental physics or world annihilation), my only regret is that it's not happening in the U.S.

Here are some additional links about the LHC buzz:

• Scientists Discover Teeny Tiny Black Hole, (Slashdot, 2008-04-02)
  
• Particle Accelerator Shield, (Lifeboat Foundation, ca. 2006)
  
• Artificial Black Holes, again..., (Physics Forums discussion thread, 2006-06-05)
  
• Good news! Black hole won't destroy Earth, (Newscloud, 2006-09-20)
  

Serendipitous mashup humor

There was an interesting convergence of unrelated AP news stories and Slashdot posts at ~4:20pm PST on 3/18/08, which made for this serendipitous yet seemingly insightful juxtaposition within my Yahoo main page.

I take it as a sign of political commentary by the collective intelligence of the Internet.

Here are links to the stories:

• "Bush says Iraq war was worth it"
  
• "The Reality Distortion Field Is Real" (which addresses a marketing phenomenon, not politics)
  

More Scientists?

Gene Sperling's 24 July 2007 article in the Washington Post, "How to Get Fewer Scientists", painted a dire picture for NIH-funded research given a dwindling NIH budget. I generally agree this is a cause for concern, but it made me think, "How many more scientists do we need? How will we know when we have enough?". It also stirred up thoughts about "the big picture" of how and why we should fund science.

As a scientist by training and by nature, I'm all for more scientists. But the ultimate goal isn't necessarily to get more research-oriented, principle investigator (PI) scientists, which the NIH budget primarily feeds, but to improve the scientific health of the country, ensuring a continuous stream of new knowledge and innovations to foster national competitiveness and generally improve the human condition. PI-driven R&D is but one component of a larger scientific landscape that drives these goals, and I feel we would benefit from a resource allocation strategy that takes this whole landscape into account.

I think there are two main paths to improved national scientific health:
    1) diversification of scientific career path options,
       and
    2) greater public appreciation of and accessibility to the scientific process.

Goal 1: Diversification of scientific career paths

Even in the most pro-science society, there will be a limit to governmental funding levels for basic R&D. So as we (hopefully) inspire ever increasing ranks of young folks eager to do science, we must also give them an awareness of the diversity of scientific career options available to them, and help foster new scientific niches as new knowledge unfolds. Whether we need more diversification or simply need to be better at communicating the existing diversity is open to debate.

Our scientific health would benefit if we could promote a range of viable and rewarding career paths to budding scientists, rather than cultivating a monoculture of Ph.D.s intent on the academic, R&D-oriented, federally funded career path. Increased awareness of scientific career options would also help attract folks interested in transitioning to science from other fields.

Increased diversification of the scientific work force would preserve the investment made in publicly funded scientific education, since it would diffuse the competition for jobs over a wider range of occupation types, making it less likely for trained scientists to opt out of the system due to difficulty finding employment for a limited number of tenure track positions. A greater diversity of scientific professions would also promote a positive scientific perspective throughout society, putting science on a more sustainable footing for future growth and furthering the cause of goal #2.

Goal 2: Greater public appreciation of and accessibility to the scientific process

Ultimately, I think we will see better governmental support for science when the general public is more scientifically appreciative. By this I don't necessarily mean more knowledgable, but rather interested in the scientific underpinnings of things, motivated to know how things work, and how they go awry. We need to do a better job at keeping alive our natural curiosity about how we know what we know, presenting the methods and discoveries of science as tools for addressing the problems of humanity, and encouraging a willingness to face both the benefits and risks of new innovations within a broader societal context. Discussing these things with kids and providing pointers to age-appropriate resources would be a good start.

This does two things. First, it will make the voting public more appreciative of important issues that require science funding, leading to funding levels that are commensurate with their true value to society. Second, it encourages more people to follow a scientific career path, spreading appreciation for the scientific understanding across a wider swath of society and enlisting more brain power to help solve complex problems ammenable to the scientific method.

As for how to best achieve the goals outlined above, science education and journalism play a big role. Stay tuned to the comments on this post for more ideas here.

Causes of Concern, Signs of hope.

One might even ask whether it makes sense to devote more funds toward R&D spending in the biosciences at a time when around half of the US public rejects evolution. Clearly, we need to do a better job getting more people on board and better educated about fundamental aspects of the life sciences. With that in place, I'd expect funding prospects to be a whole lot rosier.

I've seen some signs of improvement in science journalism in the mass media. The science section of the New York Times often has very compelling science stories and extended online-content. The health and technology sections of the Wall Street Journal often has very well-written stories as well, though their content is not open to non-subscribers. Wired does a decent job at hyping science to the techies, a key population segment. A Wired article on microRNA from 2005 turned up at the top of their most popular list on 8/11/07, and a 2003 article on RNAi appeared as #5 on the most popular list on 1 Oct 2007. Beating out other hot topics as Web 2.0 and pornography is quite an achievement, even if transient.

Free Will

I just posted to a slashdot discussion about how neuroscience appears to be eroding the notion of free will. Some really interesting philosophical threads there that touch on tangents in physics, biology, and religion.

The genetic angle on this topic comes up in the field of sociobiology, which ties into what I mentioned at the end of my slashdot post. Genes create predispositions for certain behaviors, many of which impart a selective advantage. So many of our behaviors, at a coarse level, are in place since they helped our ancestors survive. At a fine level, evolution doesn't shape our specific, day-to-day behaviors, but it certainly channels us into certain predictable directions.

The physical structure of our brains is necessary by not sufficient for all the specific behaviors we have or are capable of having. Borrowing a concept from genetics, one could say that significant alterations in brain physiology by things like tumors, are likely to have pleiotropic effects on many things that depend on brain function, such as all of our characteristically human behaviors.

So given this, we should not be so surprised when a tumor is proven to have been at the root of someone's decision making process. I guess it shakes our world view regarding what it means to be human.

Halo Xbox: Why don't I play more?

In a word: I suck. In more words, read on.

Guys at work often have Halo 2 Xbox video gaming sessions, and I often intend to show up, and have played a few times, yet typically I bail. On the surface, my excuse is that I opt to spend time with family. Yet the games often go on long after everyone at home is off to bed, so I think there is a deeper reason why I tend to no-show.

I play the game so rarely that I usually need to relearn the complex joystick device (which is much more than a "stick") and have no finesse whatsoever. After an hour or two, I'm starting to get the hang of it again, but still feel woefully outclassed by everyone else, who race around me like 8 year olds at a toddler park. "No Steve, don't eat the sand!" Usually, other players leave me alone, since there's not much sport in offing someone who's barely able to avoid smacking into walls and what not. But this only leads to feelings of isolation.

I'm not usually one to whine or turn down a challenge, but there's only so much demoralization and frustration one can tolerate. It starts to feel like "Getting Hit on the Head Lessons" (No, not "owww!", but "waaah!". "Waaah!". "Good!"). So I usually only show up when in an exceptionally resilient emotional state that can take any amount of abuse and inferiority trip.

One of these days when my boys are older, mind, I'll have one of these devices at home and will be able to spend hours at a time on it, without getting interrupted to change a diaper. It's really quite an impressive immersive experience. In no time, my reflexes will be optimized for these joysticks on steroids, I'll have hardware accelerated my gray matter to dominate virtual worlds of mass destruction. Co-workers beware! Or maybe I'll take up Tai Chi instead. Could go either way.

Language Evolution vs. Human Evolution

I posted a comment on a slashdot thread about Merriam-Webster launching Open Dictionary, inspired by a comment made by a poster that evolution produces "better" organisms and that humans are therefore "better" than bacteria.

One area I didn't get into (my post was wordy enough), is the notion of the unit of selection and the substrate upon which language evolution operates. I imagine that the forces of language evolution operate on individual words as well as phrases and other linguistic constructs, similar to how biological evolution can operate at the level of genes, biochemical pathways, individuals, and societies.

As for substrate, language cannot exist without minds that understand and speak it, so the evolution of language is played out on a mental substrate. Given that there is fairly strong evidence for innate neural language modules in our brains, language evolution thus likely has played a role in our biological evolution, physically shaping the development and structure of our brains.

And human language hasn't been around very long in evolutionary time, originating as recently as 40,000 years ago. So this language-based shaping of the human neurobiology and evolution is happening literaly as we speak (sorry, couldn't resist).

Language itself is a substrate for the evolution of memes. It's interesting to think about what sort of role language evolution might play in meme evolution, and the interplay in the evolution of memes, languages, minds, and societies.

• Can we identify memes that are able to persist through long-term changes in a language?
  
• How do memes influence language evolution and biological evolution of individuals/societies in which the meme persists?
  
• What properties of memes allow them to span different languages?
  

This speculation is all well and good, but there is some genetic evidence emerging for a link between language evolution and biological evolution. The FOXP2 gene in humans may have played a key role in the emergence of language in human beings. See these links for more on this fascinating story:

• FOXP2 and the Evolution of Language
  
• Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language
  

Political Oy Veh!

Well, I hope everyone isn't too depressed. I believe that the closeness of the election will convince the Bush administration to act differently in the future. However, the safest course of action may be to move to Canada. Gotta start practicing my hockey skills and saying, "ya, you betcha".

Some interesting links:
* CNN's county-by-county maps for each state
* Electoral vote predictor

CA shows a marked gradient with a locus of Kerry support in San Francisco (83%) that dissipates as you proceed in any direction N, S, and E. The county where we live (Alameda) had a strong showing for Kerry at 74%, so we did our part here in the SF Bay area.

MO shows widespread Bush support except for an isolated "jewel" of Kerry support in St. Louis City (81%), and to a lesser extent, county (55%) and Kansas City area (58%).

I think the main hurdle for Kerry was the fact that its nigh impossible to unseat an incumbent during a war -- it's never occurred in the history of the US. Bush's own blundering into Iraq was probably what saved him, even though many feel it was a mistake. It's just that now that it's started, people are reluctant to switch presidents while it's still on-going. Imagine a college firing the head coach of it's football team during a losing game, or a patient electing to switch surgeons during an operation, even if the guy amputated the wrong leg.

I believe Kerry was an incredibly strong candidate across the spectrum: smarts, patriotism, machismo, eloquence, common sense, faith, hair, etc. and he out-shined Bush on virtually all fronts. The high voter turnout and closeness of the election are a testament to his overall strength.

In addition to the wartime incumbent issue, the other major thing that iced it for Bush was the "moral" issue, where Bush was viewed as being on higher ground. This includes things like same-sex marriage, where 11/11 states approved constitutional amendments codifying marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. This sentiment aligns with Bush.

At this point, I recommend we all take a deep breath, put the election behind us, and work like the dickens to negate the possibiliy of Cheney taking over in 2008.
:-O

Hawaii triathlon

Well, it wasn't the Ironman, but I managed to do a sprint-length triathlon during our Hawaii trip last week (on 7/3/04) Here are the race results.

I wasn't quite adapted to the time zone and climate, and I was using our friend's not-too-fancy road bike, not my usual fancy racer. Even still, I had a reasonably good race, passing about 30 people on the bike after a wavy ocean swim to finish 30th overall (out of 150) and 5th in my age group (out of 14). For what it's worth, my time also puts me 5th in the age group below me (30-34) and 6th in the next one down (25-29), suggesting, perhaps, that I'm aging well.

Gene expression in aging human brains

There's an interesting study in Nature and reported in today's Wall Street Journal that used Affymetrix arrays to do expression profiling on brain tissue across a wide age range.

As Early as Age 40, Genes in the Brain Begin to Deteriorate (WSJ) (They mention Affy in the last paragraph.)

Gene regulation and DNA damage in the ageing human brain" by Lu et al. (Nature)

Abstract:
The ageing of the human brain is a cause of cognitive decline in the elderly and the major risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. The time in life when brain ageing begins is undefined. Here we show that transcriptional profiling of the human frontal cortex from individuals ranging from 26 to 106 years of age defines a set of genes with reduced expression after age 40. These genes play central roles in synaptic plasticity, vesicular transport and mitochondrial function. This is followed by induction of stress response, antioxidant and DNA repair genes. DNA damage is markedly increased in the promoters of genes with reduced expression in the aged cortex. Moreover, these gene promoters are selectively damaged by oxidative stress in cultured human neurons, and show reduced base-excision DNA repair. Thus, DNA damage may reduce the expression of selectively vulnerable genes involved in learning, memory and neuronal survival, initiating a programme of brain ageing that starts early in adult life.

This study used the HG-U95Av2 arrays. The WSJ reports that the authors are repeating the study using newer (U133) arrays.

I imagine this report will get increased attention in light of the fanfare surrounding
Ronald Reagan's death.

Keep taking those antioxidant supplements & drinking green tea folks! :-)

Welcome | Willkomen | Bienvenue | Benvenuto | Shalom | Karibu

Thanks for stopping by. Not much here yet. Stay tuned... :-)