Want to gain muscle, lose fat, boost energy, and slow the effects of aging? Want to do it with minimal time in the gym? And want to do it while eating copious amounts of saturated fat?

No problem.

Back in December, I began a test drive of Mark Sisson’s diet and exercise program, The Primal Blueprint. In mid April, I swapped out the strength training portion for Medhi Hadim’s Stronglifts 5×5.

The diet part of the Primal Blueprint is based on eating the foods that our Paleolithic ancestors ate, and what we evolved to thrive on: plants and animals. In other words, the Caveman diet. No grains, legumes, sugar, or processed foods, but also no fear of natural fat. As the French have demonstrated, fat is not evil.

The exercise portion is also based on imitating cavemen. Contrary to popular belief, they did not spend hours a day on a treadmill. But they did a lot of moving around, lifted heavy things, and occasionally had to run for their life. So this program involves a good amount of easy cardio, bodyweight resistance exercises, and occasional sprints.

However, I didn’t really love the idea of doing very high reps with very light resistance. Going by the book, I would have been doing pushups on my knees, which didn’t seem very effective. I started out by skipping a few levels within the program (e.g., decline pushups instead of knee pushups), but then I joined a gym so I could follow the Stronglifts program.

Medhi has a free ebook explaining Stronglifts, which involves compound lifts with barbells three times a week, 5 sets of 5 reps, for 3 exercises per session. Unfortunately, the 5 pages of actual information is buried between 295 pages of testimonials and sales pitches. Blink and you’ll miss it, but it’s worth finding.

The results? Dramatic, though somewhat less than the optimist in me had hoped for. However, I think I might be able to get the results I want with a few tweaks.

Anyway, Mark’s claim of “effortless weight loss” is almost an understatement. I lost 15 pounds in the first month while stuffing myself (up to 4,000 calories a day, for muscle gain). I had to go out and buy smaller pants, which are now getting loose. Meanwhile, some of my shirts feel like they’re going to rip in the back and shoulders.

Sure, I miss carbs, but I was surprised at how easy it was to completely ditch pizza and lasagna. Apparently these foods are a lot less tempting when you’re not hungry. And a high-fat, low-carb diet doesn’t leave you hungry.

Unfortunately, my weight loss completely stalled after that first month. Of course, if some fat loss was offset by muscle gain, that’s great. But I’d still need to lose another 15 pounds of fat to look like an Abercrombie model. When I did some searching, I found that almond butter and yogurt, two foods that tend to be overeaten by the newly primal, are often culprits in stalled fat loss.

My consumption of almond butter (2 jars a week) is extraordinarily high compared to what people are recommending, so I’ve cut that out completely. I’ve dropped yogurt too, and I’m trying to keep carbs as low as I can for a while. I lost 2 pounds in the week since I made these changes, but I’ll need more time to see if this is going to work.

As for the strength training, that was an unqualified success. Here are my progressions in workout weights for my first three months:

Deadlifts: 185 -> 265
Squats: 135 -> 235 (that’s 100 pounds!)
Bench press: 55s -> 75s (dumbbells)
Rows: 95 -> 155
Overhead press: 85 -> 110

Not bad for a 37 year old who had been stuck on the same weights for the last 15 years.

I can’t really tell you what actions caused what results, because I changed a whole bunch of variables at once. But there’s no denying that something here works. I suspect that ditching grains and sugar is the most important thing. Give it a try; the results may surprise you.

“There is simply no other exercise, and certainly no machine, that produces the level of central nervous system activity, improved balance and coordination, skeletal loading and bone density enhancement, muscular stimulation and growth, connective tissue stress and strength, psychological demand and toughness, and overall systemic conditioning as the correctly performed full squat.”

- Mark Rippetoe

So, you want to do squats. Maybe everyone’s been telling you to do them. Maybe you think they look so cool. Maybe you’re curious why people call them “the king of all exercises.”

But maybe you’re not sure how deep to go, or whether you’re supposed to lean forward, or whether they’re bad for your knees. Read on, and learn all the basics you need to know.

Do you need a squat rack?

Yes, you really do. Free weight barbells are the only way to do squats. You’ll need a rack to get the bar onto your back, and you’ll need safety bars to catch the weight if you can’t make it up.

The Smith machine forces you to move through an unnatural path, putting unnecessary strain on your back and joints. It also isolates certain muscles, thereby preventing you from developing core strength and producing the maximal hormonal response. Dumbbbells might be OK if you’re just starting out, but soon you’ll need ones too heavy to lift.

If you really can’t get access to a squat rack, your best option might be pistol squats (one-legged squats using bodyweight resistance).

What’s the difference between high bar and low bar squats?

These are the two main back squat variations. Both are good, but it’s important to know the differences and pick one rather than combining elements of both at the same time.

High bar means resting the bar on your upper trapezius, just below the neck. This is where anyone would naturally put the bar if they weren’t told otherwise. You take a narrow stance and wear shoes with raised heels to keep your balance when you squat deep (e.g., Adidas Adistar, Do-Win). Arnold is barefoot but propping up his heels in the picture above.

Low bar means resting the bar a couple of inches lower, on your rear deltoids. The mechanics are complicated, but this video gives a very detailed illustration of low bar squat grip. You take a wider stance, wear shoes with flat heels (e.g., Chuck Taylor’s, Vibram FiveFingers, bare feet), and you don’t squat as deep, but you can lift more weight because of the better leverage.

The difference in bar placement is only a few inches, but it has important implications. See this page about high bar vs. low bar squatting. Expand the first bullet point to see a picture that will clear up a lot.

To keep your balance, you want the bar to be above the middle of your feet. As you can see in the picture, this means leaning slightly forward in the high bar position, and leaning forward to a greater extent in the low bar position. This impacts the muscles involved (high bar – emphasis on quads and glutes; low bar – emphasis on the posterior chain, particularly the hamstrings). It also affects how deep you can squat (see next section).

Debates rage over which bar position is better. If you want to compete, then powerlifters have to do low bar and Olympic weightlifters have to do high bar (or front squats). Other than that, it doesn’t matter too much.

How deep should you squat?

When high bar squatting, the upright torso position allows you to go ATG (“ass to grass”), to the point where your hamstrings are resting on your calves. A lot of people like to do this.

With low bar squatting, you can’t get this deep. But at a minimum, you need to go just past parallel. “Parallel” means that your thighs are parallel to the floor. When you go past parallel, your hip joint is lower than your knee joint.

The most common squatting mistake is not going past parallel. But you need to get this low in order to recruit your hamstrings and avoid knee problems.

Partial squats develop muscle imbalances and put a lot of stress on your knees when they’re not in a stable position. If you’re currently doing partial squats, stop that, and drop the weight however much you need to in order to do full squats.

When you were a toddler, you naturally squatted deep to pick up things on the ground. But years of sitting in chairs rather than squatting has shortened your Achilles tendons and weakened your supporting muscles. To regain lost balance and mobility, try the Grok squat (0:44 in that video).

If you just squat down to what feels like a reasonable depth, even if you’re making a good faith effort, you probably won’t get close to parallel. You have to find out exactly where parallel is rather than winging it.

Put an empty bar on your back and squat down until just below parallel (use a mirror or ask someone), and note the bar height. Set the safety bars just below this, and now you know how far down to go.

Are squats bad for your knees?

Generally not, as long as you go past parallel. In fact, squats have been known to fix existing knee problems by strengthening connective tissue. However, you can hurt your knees with bad form.

When you crouch down to pick something up, you probably let your hips come straight down while your knees move out in front of your toes. Don’t ever do that with a barbell on your back. You need to descend by pushing your hips back while your knees stay over your feet.

Some people with knee problems have experienced pain when squatting just past parallel, which vanished when they started squatting ATG.

Are squats bad for your back?

Usually not, if you’re doing them right. Your back takes on a lot of stress to support your core when doing squats, but it can take it. You probably shouldn’t even wear a lifting belt.

If your back hurts from squatting, bad form is likely the culprit. You’re probably putting the bar too high, or leaning too far forward, or rounding your back at the bottom.

How often should you squat? How many sets and reps?

The conventional wisdom used to be that you can only squat once a week, but now more and more people are saying to squat three times a week. You’ll feel sore in the very beginning, but get used to it within a couple of weeks.

Several programs, such as Mark Rippetoe’s Starting Strength and Medhi Hadim’s Stronglifts, start beginners at 5 sets of 5 reps. Pick a program and stick with it.

Anything I left out? Let me know.

It’s time for another installment of “I can’t believe I never heard of this until now.” Today’s topic: the Neti pot.

The concept of nasal irrigation originated in ancient India, but it’s starting to catch on in the West (apparently it’s already hugely popular in California). The idea is to take a small pot (the Neti pot being the most popular brand) filled with salt water, pour it in one nostril, and let mucus and debris flow out the other.

It’s been shown to be effective for relieving headaches, congestion, coughs, and various sinus conditions, and I think the shock of using it for the first time is something everyone needs to experience. It’s a pretty creepy feeling, taking a breath and feeling like the air is going straight into your brain. For me, the real test will be allergy season. I’m curious if the Neti pot can make antihistamines obsolete.

What I don’t understand is why people feel the need to use it every day, or even multiple times per day. The nose is for the most part self-cleaning, and I think it just needs a jump-start now and then (getting rid of excess mucus lets your cilia do a better job of expelling it). I think I could go for months or years without feeling the need to do it again.

A few words of warning though. While your tap water is probably safe, you don’t want to risk pouring infected water into your sinuses, as it could kill you. Use distilled, sterile, or boiled water. People with ear problems or certain other medical conditions may not want to use a Neti pot. And there may be some dangers in using one too much.

Overall though, I think the benefits of occasional use greatly outweigh the risks. Now that I know about the Neti pot, I have no idea why we’re still using so many drugs to treat the same symptoms. Have any of you used a Neti pot?

Free your feet, and your mind will follow. That’s a marketing slogan for the Vibram FiveFingers shoes, but it also happens to be the truth.

I first heard about these minimalist shoes when Tim Ferriss wrote about them. I always get ticked when I learn that a product has been designed to screw me over, whether it be the QWERTY keyboard, chairs, or in this case, shoes. But I still wasn’t motivated enough to go out and get them.

Later, when I developed shin splints that made it painful to even walk, I figured it was time to try them out. I got the KSOs, one of three styles available at the time, though today there are many more. They cured me pretty much instantly, and I’ve been wearing them on and off for a year and a half since.

The idea behind them is to offer some protection while coming as close as possible to the barefoot experience, letting the foot work the way it was meant to. Normal shoes have a raised heel that throws off your posture, arch support that prevents your arches from working as springs, and thick padding that deprives your nerves of all sensory input.

I love these shoes, and I wish I never had to burden my feet with the traditional clodhoppers we’re expected to wear. They just make walking fun, particularly on soft surfaces or uneven terrain.

There are some downsides though.

One, they’re not exactly office-appropriate. See the Vivo Barefoot Dharma for a compromise you can actually wear to work. They’re very comfortable compared to normal shoes, but no match for the FiveFingers, and I don’t know why they’re so expensive.

Two, you’ll be about a half inch shorter without the raised heel. But then you’ll feel like a giant in normal shoes.

Three, big rocks hurt, so you have to watch your step. They’re certainly not great in the snow, since the freezing water soaks right through.

Four, there’s definitely a risk of injury. Your feet have a lot of joints, muscles, ligaments, and tendons that have become very weak over the years, and you can’t expect them to return to full function without a break-in period (which will take a lot longer than you think). Just take it as easy as you possibly can, and stop if you feel the slightest pain.

Finally, some people think that wearing gloves on your foot is not all that fashionable, perhaps calling them “frog feet.” Mine are black/grey so they can escape the peripheral vision of most passersby, but whenever someone noticed them, I used to get prepared to give a long explanation. Today, it seems that most people already know what they are, so they just say they like them or ask if they’re comfortable.

I wish Vibram had an affiliate program, because they’ve certainly gotten enough free advertising from me. Do any of you have them, and how do you like them?

The Shaolin Temple is considered the birthplace of kung fu (which is a generic name for the Chinese martial arts). From its humble origins, kung fu eventually developed into literally thousands of different styles.

Combined with all the other martial arts that have been developed around the world, there are a virtually endless number of possible ways to beat your enemies senseless. But some ways work better than others. Out of all the different martial arts, which are the deadliest?

Let me be clear that I’m not necessarily talking about the “best” martial arts, only the most practical. Swimming is a great sport, but it will never be as fast as running. Likewise, a martial art heavy on flashy high kicks and choreographed forms may be a great art, but not as deadly as the ones that appear below.

Also, I consolidated similar arts – no need to include judo when BJJ is on the list, Wing Chun when JKD is on the list, etc. Finally, while the arts below are numbered, they are not ranked.

1. Boxing

You’re probably going to say that boxing isn’t really a martial art. While I’d tend to agree (even though I’m not exactly sure why), this list wouldn’t be complete without it.

Despite its apparent simplicity, boxing incorporates a number of elements critical to successful combat, such as timing, footwork, reading your opponent, and putting your weight into your strikes. Not to mention that the training is very practical, with a heavy dose of sparring against resisting opponents.

Advantages:

• Your hands are fast, accurate, and a short distance from your opponent’s head.
• Because of its simple style, emphasis is put on practical application rather than showy display.

Disadvantages:

• If your attacker won’t limit themselves to just using their hands, why should you?
• Anyone who attacks you is likely to be stronger, so trying to outpunch them is a losing proposition.

Notable practitioners: Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Muay Thai

Known as the Art of Eight Limbs, Thailand’s national sport uses punches, kicks, knees, and elbows for eight points of contact. It is generally considered the deadliest type of kickboxing, and is a staple of MMA fighters.

Advantages:

• A Muay Thai roundhouse kick has been compared to being struck by a baseball bat. Instead of using a chamber and a snap, the whole body is thrown into the kick, and contact is made with the rock hard shin.
• An elbow or a knee thrown from the clinch can easily end a fight, which is why they are sometimes banned in competitions in other sports.

Disadvantages:

• The only reason they can kick with their shins is because they’ve kicked enough heavy bags or bamboo trees to build up a thick layer of scar tissue. Do you really want to do that to yourself?
• No attention is paid to the ground game.

Notable practitioners: Saenchai Sor Kingstar, Anderson Silva

3. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

This derivative of Japanese judo is a form of grappling, using chokes and joint locks rather than strikes, leverage and technique rather than strength. It rose to instant prominence in 1993 at the first Ultimate Fighting Championship, where different martial arts were pitted against each other in a contest with minimal rules. BJJ practitioner Royce Gracie won easily, dispatching his three physically superior opponents in a total of five minutes.

Advantages:

• Most fights end up on the ground, where someone who only knows kicks and punches will be outmatched by someone who knows sweeps and armbars.
• When fighting a larger opponent, you take away much of their strength advantage by grappling up close instead of opposing their force directly.

Disadvantages:

• Since many people have now learned how to defend against takedowns, and since fights never start on the ground anyway, ground fighting can never replace stand-up fighting.
• The gi they wear makes it much easier to be grabbed and choked. It represents the suit that all Japanese men would have worn when judo was invented, but today you can’t assume that your attacker will be wearing something that sturdy.

Notable practitioners: Hélio Gracie, BJ Penn

4. Krav Maga

This is another one that people generally don’t consider a martial art, but we have to include it. This eclectic close combat system of the Israeli Special Forces uses wrestling, grappling, and striking to neutralize threats (even weapons) by any means necessary, often by attacking the body’s most vulnerable points.

Advantages:

• It teaches how to make weapons out of everyday objects, which are probably all you’ll have when you’re attacked.
• It teaches what to do in life or death situations.

Disadvantages:

• It’s just a bunch of eclectic crap thrown together. When you know a million techniques, it’s hard to quickly decide which one you need now.
• It can be very hard to find a good school.

Notable practitioners: Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer (well, can you name a real one?)

5. Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do

There’s always a lot of confusion surrounding Bruce Lee’s Way of the Intercepting Fist. People love to discuss what JKD is and is not, and how it is what it isn’t, and isn’t what it is. But here, I’m simply referring to his signature style without any of the philosophy.

Jeet Kune Do is a hybrid system that borrows heavily from several arts, especially Wing Chun, boxing, and fencing. But unlike most hybrid systems, it absorbs what is useful while casting off what is useless, arriving at the bare combat essentials. Movements are direct, straightforward, and non-classical.

Advantages:

• By training in four different combat ranges (kicking, punching, trapping, grappling), the practitioner becomes well-rounded.
• It stresses simplicity and efficiency, conserving time and energy in all movements.

Disadvantages:

• Although it’s theoretically very effective, it’s fairly obscure and hasn’t been tested very much.
• Good luck finding a decent school where you live.

Notable practitioners: Bruce Lee, Ted Wong

6. MMA

Mixed martial arts was originally a sport that saw people competing with very different styles. However, when it became apparent what was effective and what was not, a new hybrid style emerged, and this is what I mean by “MMA.” This style may be customized by each fighter, but generally combines boxing, Muay Thai, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

Advantages:

• Combines stand-up and ground skills to produce a well-rounded fighter.
• The effectiveness of this style has been tested and proven more than any other.

Disadvantages:

• It’s only been tested and proven for a particular set of rules. The game changes when you allow 12-6 elbows, small joint manipulation, eye gouging, biting, groin strikes, headbutts, rabbit punches, etc.
• What works best on another MMA fighter is not necessarily what will work best against your attacker.

Notable practitioners: Fedor Emelianenko, Randy Couture

7. To be determined

Let’s hear it. What is YOUR choice for the deadliest martial art?

“We are like you; the thought pressed into his mind. We did not mean to murder, and when we understood, we never came again. We thought we were the only thinking beings in the universe, until we met you, but never did we dream that thought could arise from the lonely animals who cannot dream each other’s dreams. How were we to know? We could live with you in peace. Believe us, believe us, believe us.”

- The Formic hive queen, Ender’s Game

Eating animals is wrong. If you think that statement is hypocritical coming from a meat eater, you would be correct (I’ll come back to that later). But that doesn’t make it any less true.

I certainly don’t expect to convert anyone to veganism with this post, but I hope to at least lead some people to the unavoidable conclusion that eating animals is wrong, even if they choose not to act on it. If someone has a convincing argument for the opposing side, I’d love to hear it (no sarcasm meant there).

For a long time I never understood why vegetarians had such a moral objection to eating meat. Sure, it would be great if we were powered by wind or sunlight. But since we’re not, some other life forms have to be on the losing end of the food chain, right? Does it make that much of a difference who eats whom?

Granted, the rules for what animals are OK to eat don’t exactly make sense. Pigs, for example, are smarter than dogs, more affectionate than cats, and cuter than horses. Why don’t we put them on the same pedestal? Who decides these things? I don’t even know all the rules. Is it OK to eat snakes? Dolphins? Hippos? Gazelles? Giraffes? Lions, and tigers, and bears? Oh my!

But let’s say we all agreed on which animals were most expendable. We’ve identified some species that are delicious, sanitary, have the right number of legs, and are cute enough, but not too cute. What then, is the problem with these crazy vegetarians?

Photo by Create For Animal Rights

When I looked into it, I quickly saw that the issue (for me, at least) isn’t whether meat is murder. Of course it’s murder, but I’d have no problem if it were only that.

The real problem is that meat is torture. More specifically, raising animals for food in the way we do is torture. Our demand for animal products has just grown far beyond our ability to supply them humanely. We no longer just kill the animals; we do things to them that I doubt you would be willing to do personally.

I’m not going to go into a lot of details here, but the video Cruelty to Animals: Mechanized Madness gives a good look at how animals are raised for food. It’s pretty graphic. For a much milder and more entertaining version, watch the two cartoon movies at The Meatrix.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

- Lord Acton

People seem to be hardwired with an “us vs. them” mentality. What happens when one group is bigger, stronger, or technologically superior to another? They trample the rights of the weaker group, or even consider it to at their disposal. That torturing a weaker group is wrong seems to be a lesson the human race needs to keep relearning.

Manifest destiny, the belief that the European settlers were under a divine mandate to conquer North America, fueled them to do unspeakable things to the poorly armed Native Americans. Ditto for African American slaves, as well as the many examples of slavery in other countries. The Holocaust, women’s rights, gay rights, there always seems to be another group to discriminate against, despite the lessons of the past.

And for God’s sake, this is just a matter of accepting that people are people. We’ve got a long way to go before everyone acknowledges that animals are entitled to basic dignity as well.

Murder and torture become much easier with distance. It’s not too hard to send a drone to kill people without remorse. It’s a lot harder to pull the trigger yourself. And it’s even harder to actually twist a knife into them.

Would you be able to go Jack the Ripper on a little piglet while it squeals in pain? (See the Cruelty to Animals video above.) Probably not, but we have no problem paying thugs to do our dirty work for us. There’s so much distance between us and the animals, it’s easy to ignore what goes on.

You only like your sausage because you don’t have to watch it being made. And if you wouldn’t be willing to make it yourself, you have to admit that it’s wrong.

“Marge, kids, the things I saw. It makes me never want to eat meat again. Just fish, chicken, burgers, veal on Fridays, deer, but only in season, and if necessary, the sweetest meat of all: human.”

- Homer Simpson

Now, to address some anticipated objections:

1. “But we’re supposed to eat meat.”

I do think that we evolved to eat meat. We also evolved to lose our teeth, our eyesight, and die in our twenties, but we’ve managed to make some improvements on that. Our bodies may have evolved without ethical considerations, but that doesn’t mean our brains can’t do better.

Anyway, we weren’t meant to eat nearly as much meat as we do. Many of our health problems are a direct consequence of dietary problems, one of which is excessive meat consumption. Our closest relative, the chimp, eats mainly plants.

2. “But you can’t get enough protein from a vegan diet.”

Tell that to a 400-pound gorilla as it munches on leaves, fruits, and shoots. Or a 110-ton vegan Argentinosaurus, the largest land animal that ever lived. Or any of the vegan athletes out there. Maybe there aren’t that many, but you can start with Carl Lewis.

3. “But vegans are at risk for a vitamin B12 deficiency.”

Isn’t it just a little ironic for someone to brag about their adequate intake of vitamin B12 while they march down the path to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer? I don’t happen to know where vegans can get B12 from, but this seems like a minor issue.

4. “But it doesn’t do any harm to consume animal products, if you’re not actually eating the flesh.”

It may not seem so, but it does. See this Undercover Investigation at Hy-Line Hatchery for the shocking impact of eating eggs. (Does it remind anyone else of when Itchy sent all the Scratchys from the cloning machine to the killing machine?) There are similar issues with drinking milk.

5. “But animals aren’t entitled to the same rights as people.”

No one’s saying that pigs should be able to vote. But since they’re smarter than three year old children, maybe we shouldn’t castrate them without anesthetics. Just sayin’.

6. “But where do you draw the line? You can’t end all animal abuse. Look, you just stepped on an ant.”

We can’t prevent all homicides either. That doesn’t mean we might as well declare open season. Don’t worry about where the line will ultimately be drawn, just start moving towards it. Currently, we’re far less compassionate to animals than their natural predators are. We have plenty of room before we reach the line.

7. “But I just like the taste of meat.”

I know. This sounds like the weakest reason, and yet it’s the one that stops everyone from making a change (along with other practical issues like wanting to fit in, or difficulty finding vegan alternatives in some situations).

I’ve gone vegetarian or vegan for several weeks at a time on a few occasions, but I’ve always come back to eating meat. It’s just too easy to forget what the animals go through, and too easy to remember that I like chicken burritos.

I know that eating animals is wrong, but this is a really tough habit to break. I just don’t feel enough of a repulsion enough of the time to want to make much of a change.

So why the hell am I writing this, and why don’t I get off my high horse? Because it’s not an all-or-nothing thing. Every little bit counts, and some changes are very easy to make.

I ditched milk with no problem at all. That’s a few more cows who won’t be injected with hormones and have their babies killed while they get sucked dry. I’m mostly off pork. That’s a few more pigs who won’t be crammed into disgusting cages and butchered alive. And I’ve cut way back on red meat in general. More cow friendliness.

If even these things are too much to give up now, what else can you try? Can you refuse to eat foie gras? You probably don’t eat it anyway, so it should be pretty easy to take a stand against it. There’s a big continuum here, so if you can’t jump to the other side, just take whatever steps you can.

Many people wonder, if there’s a god, then why does he let bad things happen? They think that if they were god, there would be no suffering. But guess what? Compared to animals, you are god. What will you do with that power?

Hay House sent me a review copy of Defy Gravity: Healing Beyond the Bounds of Reason by best-selling author and medical intuitive Caroline Myss. My first thought was “Boy, did they pick the wrong guy for this.” I found it OK, but keep in mind that I’m not exactly in the target audience, and people who are would like it more than I did.

“Gravity” here refers to serious or weighted thoughts and emotions. And defying gravity is about healing diseases by abandoning the fruitless quest for reason and logic when it comes to illness.

She says that you can’t reason with illness; you can’t always determine why you became sick, and you’re not going to heal yourself by learning the lesson you’re supposed to learn. But what can possibly heal you, when reason can’t, is the power of grace.

People tell me I’m too much into reason, and maybe that’s why I found the book hard to follow. I did get a general good feeling from reading it, but a lot of it seemed to not even be about healing, more about how to live well by forgiving and letting things go.

It should appeal to a fairly wide audience, since it’s not tied to any specific religion, and it’s moderate on the woo-woo factor. My favorite part might have been where she shows the connection between the 7 deadly sins, the 7 chakras, and what she calls the 7 inner graces.

I know someone who was recently given 2 years to live with stage 4 colon cancer. Her doctors have given up, and she actually had to tell them to stop being so negative around her or she’s going to find new doctors. If I were in that situation, I’m sure I would be diving into books like this. But since I’m not, I found it hard to relate to.

For those who are facing a health crisis, Defy Gravity is worth considering. For those who are not, there are still some things you might pick up from it, particularly if you’re open to going beyond the bounds of reason.

Is living longer always better, or would you rather accept a shorter life span in exchange for living and dying how you want to?

I started thinking about this in a discussion in Steve Pavlina’s forum about raw foods. Steve said “If you’re an American, you have an 80-90% chance of dying from heart disease or cancer.” I took it that people who eat only raw foods have a much lower risk of succumbing to those diseases.

But is that necessarily a good thing? Your total probability of dying from all causes combined is 100%. That doesn’t change. So if you reduce the probability of dying from heart disease or cancer, you must increase the probability of dying in some other way, because it all has to add up to 100%.

If you knew that you were going to die from a heart attack at 65, maybe you’d change your diet to prevent that. But maybe then you’d live long enough to be skeletonized by piranhas at 66. Is that so much better? Suddenly the heart attack is looking pretty good.

Once you take heart disease and cancer off the table, so many unlikely causes of death become more realistic. Will you fall into a giant vat of sulfuric acid? Get strung up by an angry mob and burned at the stake? Get chopped up by an axe murderer who takes a little too much pride in his work?

The point of all this is that everyone talks about wanting to live longer, and many people make big sacrifices to do so. But dying from heart disease or cancer at a normal age doesn’t seem so bad. Dying a bit older in a horrible accident is worse. And worst of all is living too far past your prime, watching your body and mind slowly deteriorate as you run out of money, friends, and dignity.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “Wish not so much to live long as to live well.”

I’ve never written much about food, but I came across an interesting post by Evita Ochel that I had to comment on. The post is called Going Behind the Scenes of the Food We Are Told to Eat By The News Media.

We hear about all kinds of foods that the media says we should eat. We’re told to eat salmon for the omega-3 fatty acids. We’re told to drink red wine for the resveratrol. We’re told to drink milk for the calcium. We’re even told to eat chocolate for the antioxidants.

We hear about a magical substance, and think that it’s the key to good health. So anything that contains it must be a miracle food. Red wine contains resveratrol, so it must give you immunity from cancer. Never mind all the alcohol. I suppose paint thinner or gasoline or rattlesnake venom would be nutritious too, if they added resveratrol.

Evita clears up some misconceptions about these foods. My favorite part: to get enough resveratrol from red wine, you’d need to drink 1,000 bottles a day. Bottoms up!

Why do we go nuts over every potential miracle food? I think it comes down to seeking an easy solution. If we can isolate the one chemical we really need, we can put good health in a pill.

So when one thing turns out not to be a magical substance, we go looking for the next one. Soy, beta-carotene, vitamin C…surely there must be one simple thing we can take for perfect health without restricting our diet in any way, or doing any of that damn exercise. What kind of a cruel world do we live in where effort is required?

But no, there’s no ambrosia that will make up for all the crap you eat and all the healthy food you don’t. It will take effort.

Evita points out that instead of eating junk because it contains trace elements of a good thing, we can just get that good thing from its source. Instead of eating salmon laced with mercury, pesticides, and antibiotics, we can simply eat the plants that the salmon get their omega-3 from. And instead of becoming winos in the name of good health, we can just eat red grapes.

Many years ago, I was at a wedding and deciding what to drink. I said “I like white wine much better, but everyone says red wine is good for you.” My friend replied, “Well, it’s not like people train for marathons by drinking red wine.”

Do you have sugar cravings? Admit it, that cookie looks really good to you!

For many people, sugar cravings become a full blown addiction, taking a severe toll on their health and self-esteem. They may suffer weight gain, emotional roller coaster rides, cardiovascular issues, diabetes, tooth decay, and other issues. Not to mention the thousands of dollars they’re compulsively spending on desserts.

Akemi Gaines offers to free people from their sugar addictions, with her new ebook Stop Craving Sugar! She used to have severe sugar cravings, until she learned the practices that made her petite, emotionally stable, and able to enjoy all the foods she likes, without being driven to binge eating.

Since I’ve already written a testimonial, I get to quote myself:

“Most nutrition books just talk about the food itself. Akemi goes deeper by tying together the physiological, emotional, mental, and spiritual causes of sugar cravings. Because let’s face it, you won’t cure your cravings just by forcing yourself to stop eating sugar. You need to address the root causes, and that’s what Akemi shows you how to do.”

You hear about a lot of different diets–high carb, low carb, high protein, low protein, vegetarian, vegan, raw, etc. People will try these diets and get completely different results, so it’s hard to know what to eat. That’s why I think it’s helpful to look beyond just the food to figure out the underlying causes of sugar addiction.

This ebook is scientific enough, but still easy to read. You don’t have to be a doctor to understand what Akemi’s talking about. This is something you can really put into practice right away.

It comes with a money-back guarantee as well as a special bonus offer: a free coaching session (normally $125) from weight loss coach Angie Monko, a friend of Akemi’s.

Do you experience sugar cravings? Get back your health with Stop Craving Sugar!