Friday, May 27, 2011

Perturbation training

       In coming blog posts, I would like to introduce essentially what I believe to be a "pyramid" of physical activity requirements needed to attain optimal movement ability. Discrete movement components include strentgth, mobility, balance, coordination, agility, & quickness (acceleration and deceleration) among others.  I dont think it is neccessary for everyone to neccessarily follow the pyramid, its just a source of reference to those interested in attaining sound movement proficiency. Too many people get caught up in one specific paradigm of training only to lose out on other critical components needed to ensure optimal movement. For example bodybuilding without any focus on flexibility and range of motion, or pilates whilst neglecting any form of heavy muscle strengthening. I don't want to be too verbose but it is interesting how a movemnt pyramid could further serve as microcosm for total health as well. In an ideal situation one could shoot for optimal movement along with optimal rest, nutrition, endurance, stress management, and so forth, again forming something of a "fluid" pyramid that adjusts due to training goal and/or requirements.

     Today we'll be specifically focusing on perturbation training. I plan to explain what it is, how it is already built into many activities, the benefits, some research behind it, and finally how to carry it out in one's program.

     Perturbations are a "disturbance of motion, course, arrangement, or state of equilibrium" according to Websters. Perturbation training can basically be thought of of balance training on steroids. However balance training alone consist of very basic exercises such as standing on one foot or with the eyes closed. For athletes and even those in the general population, it is indicated that the exercise be a bit more intense and metabolically more taxing in order to increase time efficiency which  have discussed before (here). Perturbation training taxes 1) the somatosensory, 2) the vestibular, and 3) the visual systems (1). The somatosensory system literally means body sensing, and essentially refers to an individuals ability to sense his or her position in space. For the vestibular system, we're thinking of the the central equilibrium center in head. It is also closely associated with the cochlea, or the hearing/auditory center. In training, the visual and vestibular systems are generally not greatly manipulated, and most of the stress, and thus subsequent adaptations occur within the somatosensory system. The somatosensory system consists myriad receptors that detect different sensations (1). 
Various sensory receptors
 Copied from Taylor, J.B.  
Lower extremity perturbation training, Strength and Cond. Journal 33(2) 76-8

  As I said earlier, perturbation training is built into many activities already. Consider boxing-out in basketball or two linemen duking it out in the trenches in football.The opponent is constantly disturbing the athletes equilibrium with their body. Another example would be skating where it takes  a certain level of ankle stablity to maintain the position of the ice-skates, and further manipulate them to porduce movement. It's my personal belief, that these occurrences in sport are what render athletes more athletic. Many sports involve all of the components to good movment that I discussed earlier in the article, mobility, agility, and so forth, where as when the general population takes on an exercise they inadvertently neglect many of the components of movement. One of the components often neglected are perturbations.  

    So one might be asking, Who cares about perturbations? Well I have already pointed out the ability to overcome perturbations is an important component of sport. It is also important to be a able to overcome perturbations in general life also. A simple example I often give is when it is icy outside, if one has no ability to overcome perturbations, it's going to be a rough winter. General situations in life come to mind, such as missing a step on the way up a light of stairs (you know it has happened to you) and other  everyday activities that don't involve sitting in front of the tv or computer. Perturbation training  is particulary important for females and those that need optimal range of movement and reaction at the knee joint (e.g. soccer players and other athletes).

    In fact most of the published literature to date has focused on lower body perturbations and as a point of reference perturbation training hs been found to increase range of movement about the joint and decrease the phenomenon of co-contraction (2, 3, 4). Co-contraction is essentially when antagonistic muscles about the same joint simultaneously contract to prevent extreme motion. Think of the quadriceps and hamstrings both contracting at the knee joint. This also is relevant to most the population because they tend tend to be quadricep dominant, meaning their quadriceps are overpowering their hamstring muscles. This is not conducive to optimal joint stability and reaction.

     However, we can build perturbations into our training quite easily and in different ways to address our specific needs. Remember in the examples earlier, the basketball, football,  and other athletes are consistently on a stable surface were the perturbation comes from an external factor in the environment (ie opponent) whereas in a sport like hockey, there is intrinsic instability built in to the sport's playing surface. One form of surface perturbation involves the use of a bosu dome, or even a rollerboard or rockerboard when available. The bosu dome can generally be found in many commercial gyms. You can use these to finish up a workout with exercises such as a push up with the dome upside down or squats with the dome right-side up or up-side down. A nice progression for the lower body movements would include closing the eyes, to further stress the somatosensory system, with the loss of visual input. I will copy an image below for those unfamiliar with this equipment below.

     The advantage of both forms of perturbation that I have mentioned or training of the somatosensory receptors we discussed earlier. There is also an endurance component to this. In addition to the balance component, the core is taxed to avoid the perturbation as well and the exercises are both metabolically taxing while offering some degree of a muscular strengthening component. For those with poor mobility, these exercises even address that area as well. I recommend saving these exercises for near the end of practice/training. Obviously we receive greater sensory input and act accordingly when we are fresh. However we want to be able to maintain this activity, which is why I recommend saving perturbation training for towards the end of the exercise training session. Perturbation training on the bosu or with the partner assisted perturbation is not the main strengthening or endurance component of training but does offer critical potential for adaptation, so think of it as an accessory or supplement to to the prime exercises in a session, back squat, deadlift, rows, etc. for strength and bike sprints, running, complexes, etc for conditioning.

     The current recommendations in the literature are for 60-90 seconds of perturbation followed by 60-90 second rest intervals to allow for tissue and neuromuscular recovery (1). In the real world, legendary strength & conditioning coach Vern Gambetta has recommended dedicating about 5-10 minutes of training time to these exercises a day, about 3-4 dys per week(5). 

Add caption

      I really like and trust Vern's advice. The guy has been around longer than the journals that pertain to strength and conditioning and he has worked with athletes spanning from high school to the pros (check out his website). In addition, perturbation can be thought of as just one small piece of the optimal movemtn pyramid. However for core stability, improved balance, and gait reaction time, and even for the rehabilitation setting (6), 5 to 10 minutes of perturbation built into the training session is crucial to to tax the systems we discussed and gain the benefits discussed as well.

Bosu Dome
      However before you go overboard with the ol' bosu dome, remember what I just wrote, not all perturbations come from unstable surfaces. Eric Cressey has written about this extensively for those interested in further reading (see here). Other measures one might take to engage in perturbation would be having a partner or trainer offer external perturbations during the performance of exercises such as the split squat or the plank. 

Friday, May 20, 2011

Unsettling Findings in GMOs

      In my most recent post (see here), I discussed GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, spefically pertaining to food. We discussed how these foods are produced, as well as some history, technology, and business preactices involving GMO.s Today I specifically wanted to discuss the science behind the GMOs, are they safe or not. Is the current body of literature ambuguous in it's findings, and has it been conducted adequately?
    I am by no means an expert in the field of GMO research but I have read many articles regarding genetically modified foods on aletrnative health websites, blogs, and even mainstream publication such as the Huffington Post. With that in mind, I have come to be highly suspicious of secondary sources over the years so I try to find the primary documents (in case the original research). Its always a good idea to start research in an area with a few review papers. A 2007 review by By Varzakas (1) noted that while science is obviously a major arena in he tdetermination of a GMO efficacy, other issues such as economical, political, ideologica/philosophical, ethical, and human issues are also concerned. The authors concluded that inadequate legislative measureshave been taken to protect consumers from their consumption. This is based on their reasoning that there has not been enough experimentation conducted to ensure safety. Interestingly these ressearchers are based out of the Institute of Kalmata in Greece. Here in the US,  even fewer legislative measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the consumer.

     The next review I came across was more favorable towards GMO, but did have obvious flaws in reasoning.  A 2008 review by Key et al  (2) concluded that "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health)". These researchers also more or less state that current safety testing in place is adequate, which is contradictory to Varzakas. In my opinion, these conclusion are pretty much laughable (except this is a serious issue!). To begin with, there is no mandated labelling of GMOs in the US so even if there are health ramifications associated with GMOs it will be impossible for future researchers to do an accurate epidemiological study in regards to GMO consumption. In additon the analysyes of such a study would be just about inconceivable, requiring a multivariate regression  analyses that, in theory, teased out the numerous other dietary offenses of the average US citizen such as excess sugar consumption and disproportianate w6:w3 ratio. Cause and effect could never be determined.
      Secondly, on the conclusion of Key et al, that current testing is adequate, GM foods must go through the FDA for approval, but there is no required independent safety testing, meaning the testing is left to the producer(see fda website). If nothing else, at the minimum, the research is thus subject to an obvious conflict of interest. There has been essentially no long term animal toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be concerned about.
  As far as some of the actual investigations involving GM foods and health outcomes, researchers such as Arpad Pusztai (3) and Irina Ermakova (4) claim to have found negative outcomes stemming from GMO intake including organ damage and fertility issues whuch I will further discuss shortly. Other researchers have noted negative outcomes as well such as  hypertrophy of the  villus epithelial cells in the small intestine,  hypernucleation, disrupted microvilli, and  mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles,all indications of an inflammatory reponse. This has been one of the key concerns with GMOs (5). Pusztai suggests transgenic proteins can have major effects on their gastrointestinal tract. As most proteins are immunogenic their consumption may trigger immune/allergic effects both in the mucosal immune system of the gut and more worrisome a systemic effect, where by the reaction affects the whole body. In the latter case, the size, structure, and function of other internal organs would be affected, particularly in individuals more succeptible, such as the immunocompromised (the young and elderly member of a population).
     However the work of Pusztai was refuted in the review by Key et al for inadequate sample size and poor methodolgy leading me to  question 1) Pusztai's work, but also 2) question why Dr Pusztai has simply not been asked to do further experiments in order to clarify the issues brought into question. To the best of my knowledge,similar studies have not carried out by Pusztai or others. Another important consideration is that Ermakovas work finding infertility following GMO is exclusively sponsored by GreenPeace and is not found in mainstream peer reviewed journals. While I have no qualms with GreenPeace, their ideological believes run contrary to the use of GMO crops and I find it odd that her findings are not published in a respected journal. In addition to Ermakova's work, there is one other 2010 trial that is often discussed in anti-gmo circles.

     One of the most unsettling studies in regards to gentically modified foods was first reported in the U.S. by Jefffrey Smith and published in the Huffington Post. (see here). This story has floated around the internet quite a bit. Unfortunately The story is based upon findings that were unpublished in the scientific literature at the time and do this date, the only study I have been able to locate that is even similar to this experiment is an abstract from a Russian journal with no author name listed (6). Supposedly the research was carried out by Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and colleagfues seeking to find if GM soy beans lead to problems in growth or reproduction. The researchers used  hamsters, and divided the population into 4 groups. All groups were fed a normal hamster chow diet (control), in addtion to non-GM soy, GM soy, and "high" amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group. After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the high GM soy diet, displayed alarming results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among offspring.
   Researchers are said to have selected new pairs from each group of the first generation, which generated a total of  39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group (standard chow only) and 78 to the non-GMO soy group. In the GMO feed groups (both groups), only 40 pups were born, and 25% of those born are reported to have died. This equates to a  fivefold higher death rate in GMO fed groups than the 5% seen among the controls. Also worthy of note, is that of the hamsters that ate "high" GM soy content, only 1 female hamster gave birth. The researchers claim that she had 16 pups and roughly 20% died. Although no statistics are given, Smith wrote that Surov claimed near total sterility in the third generation of GMO fed hamsters. These finding are certainly unsettling (if they are ever properly substantiated) especially when one considers that endocrine impairment is already being witnessed today. A recent study by Travison found a decline in serum testosterone levels in American men witnessed across all age matched groups compared to just 20 years ago (7).

      To wrap things up, I am uneasy about eating GMO food personally, based upon the current body of scientific literature. While it appears that most of the available literature in the peer reviewed journals has not found drastically shocking findings against GMO foods, there are also some findings that are definitely alarming. I do wish that the research that does appear to against GMOs had more mainstream credibilty, however, alot of research has been funded industry (mainly biotech industry but some anti GMO interests) as well. This leaves one to question if market forces are suppressing truth. Big tobacco comes to mind as a reference point.
     At the least we can say that there are inadequacies in the research. There are other factors that must be  questioned as well; How thorough researchers can be in their work simply due to current knowledge limitations. For example it is only possible to compare currently known properties and constituents of GMO foods in contrast to conventional foods. I would imagine there are still several unknown constiuents that are not even known, making it impossible to analyze these differences. This creates a severe limitation on selection criteria observed. Also results based solely on chemical analysis of macro/micronutrients and known toxins is at best inadequate and, possibly dangerous dangerous. One of the examples I read was compairng the protein, fats, etc of  healthy cows to those oo a cow with BSE (mad cow disease). They may be the same, but no one wants to eat the cow with mad cow disease.  So with all that said, I would reccomend avoiding GMOs and the best way to do that with out stressing out about it is to once agian just eat real food! Most of these crops are only found in processed foods containing GMO corn, soybean, canola, and the other usual suspects.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Genetically Modified Foods; Friends or Foes

      So the last time I posted, I thought I would have another post up within 24 hrs. Yeah not so much. Sorry but time was not on my side.I finally determined what/where I will be doing a research project next year for my masters degree, and the I started my job milking on a small dairy this week.On Saturday I took a trip back to Chicago to find an apartment and listen to Jeffrey Smith give a presentation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Anyways today I would like to do a post GMOs myself.

     First off I want to say that I am not against the idea of genetically altering foods. Plant and animal breeding has taken place since the advent of horticulture. However this form of genetic manipulation is what one would call vertical gene transfer.The desired genes are transferred down from the parent organisms to the offspring. For example, a cattleman and dairy farmer might cross breed their herds to yield a breed that is both productive for producing milk and well muscled for meat production. An example of this would be the breed known as the American Milking Shorthorn (productive milk and beef producer). Similar means are used to produce desirable plants and flowers. Most of us probably remember learning a bit about this back in Middle School or High School science classes with Gregor Mendel and his pea plants (see more here). GMOs, however, are not achieved via vertical gene transfer. The technology utilized involves the use of horizontal gene transfer.
American Milking Shorthorn
The production of GMOs relies on a form of horizontal gene alteration known as transformation.For a thorough description of this process, you may want to refer to this article by Michael Peel, of the agriculture extension agency at North Dakota State University (here). The shortened version is something like this; a desirable gene is identified and isolated, and transferred to a bacterial plasmid (a small circular piece of DNA) for protection. The plasmid is then inserted into the cells of the plant the scientists seek to alter, with the hope that the gene on the plasmid will teansfer to the target cell. The other, more common means of transfer is coating particles of metals such as gold with the genes of interest and shooting them into the target cells with a gene gun (sounds sci-fi right?)  The scientists can then use certain markers to identify if the gene transfer has taken place between the plasmid (remember its carrying the desirable genes) or the gene carrying particles and the target plant cells.

Diagram of the described horizontal gene transfer for the visual learners out there.
      Now that we've discussed how GMOs are made, lets take a look at the implications. Genetic modification is not only used in foods. This technology can also be used to produce pharmaceutical drugs, and supplements. It is used in industry to produce useful chemical agents, and can also be used for genetic mapping purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the technology used for artifical genetic modification has only been in use since the early 1970's coincident with the Green Revolution (discussion on green revolution). There first study I could find on the use of genetic modification dates back to '73 and was done by Stanley Cohen and colleagues at UC-San Francisco (1).

  In my opinion, the discoveries of Cohen and others during the green revolution were beneficial to the quality of life for mankind, with the increased production of  high quality food (although I cant say the same for the earth as a whole due to increased population pressure and environmental degradation). Contrary to others, I dont think the green revolution was spurred by malice. The occurence of the Green Revolution is a major reason the population has ballooned from 3.7 in 1970 roughly 7 billion today. In the words of Cohen et al,
   " Here is potentially useful for insertion of specific sequences from prokaryotic or eukaryotic chromosomes or extrachromosomal DNA into independently replicating bacterial plasmids."

    I believe the intent was great, but unfortunately overzealous corporations and policy makers have been too quick to allow the rapid proliferation of genetically modified crops into our food system and business practices have been less than scrupulous to say the least. In theory drought resisatant rice in sub saharan Africa sounds great to alleviate hunger in the region. I would love to see cold tolerant banana & cashew treeshere in my native midwest, but there are several catches to be considered.

   To begin with, the production of GMOs is most often carried out large corporations with profits in mind, more so than the greater good of man. Four companies, Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, and Monsanto are thought to control more than half of the world's seeds (2) Monsanto alone holds over 650 seed patents! In addition to owning a lion's share of these market these companies do not have trhe greatest track record. For example it has been well reported in documentaries such as Unatural Selection the foreign media such as The Dailymail and The Telegraph across the pond in the UK that the practices of Monsanto led to massive suicide numbers by indian farmers. Anecdotally I have discussed with many India natives over the years as well. This 2008 article in The Dailymail by Andrew Malone describes the situation (3).

   The gist of it is that in India for millenia, farmers have farmed using heirloom seeds and re-collected the native seeds every year at no cost. In recent years, Monsanto has marketed their seeds to farmers promising higher yield. The farmers pay the premium for Monsanto's patented seeds and chemicals (Roundup anyone?) with loans expecting high yields to pay back their loans. Unfortunately the promised high yields have not come to fruition in many cases, leading the farmers to yield net loss rather than financial gain. Furthermore, since the seeds are Monsantos they cannot recollect them. They must but more seeds. Several farmers have been driven so far into debt that they are forced to relinquish their familt land, which has often been passed generation to generation for several genearations. The circumstances have led many to commit suicide. Fortunately activists such as Vandana Shiva are doing their part to educate the Indianfarmers and reclaim Indias farming sovereignity. Farming in smaller, "less developed" nations is less of a business and small farms can not afford to risk their financial livlihoods on promises of companies such as the four listed above. On another positive note, farmers in other nations have got the message as well.
    Coverage of the Haiti earthquake aftermath by the mainstream media died down pretty quickly, but the Huffington Post reported that Haitian farmers actually burned seeds "donated" by Monsanto. The article reported that  peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called for the immediate burning the of 60,000 seed sacks to be donated  by Monsanto, thus saving the farmers from having to continually purchase Monsanto seeds and the pesticides that often accompany the seeds. The farmers may or maynot have given up higher yileds by burning the seeds, but I have to agree with there decision, in that I would not want to play financial russian roulette with the Monsanto seeds either.

     Well its getting past my blogging time limit, and I have some gardening to do, so let me try to top this post off. Tomorrow I plan to discuss the health implications of GMOs. As I said I am not completely against the idea of gene modification and the improvement of plant characteristics, but as noted earlier the technology is extremely recent, relatively speaking, and I don't think these plants should have been introduced to our food system without thorough inspection on health implicationsfirst. Unfortunately that is not the case. Animal studies have been mixed in regardes to health findings in animal feeding models. Negative findings have included organ damage and sterility within 3 generations of feeding aniamls GMO feed! I plan to discuss this tomorrow.

   As I stated above, our media has not done a great job of informing the public on GMOs, the possible associated risks, and the bad business practices taking place. Below is the story of two respected journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre who were censored from reporitng an unflattering news piece on a local Florida Fox station. No conspiracy here, as it makes perfect financial sense for media mogul Rupert Murdoch not to risk losing millions in advertising dollars from Monsanto for his Fox empire (see Murdoch wiki).

     In conclusion let me finish this up with a little positive news and a couple of resources. The knowledge on GMOs is finally going a little more mainstream. Prince Charles has actually been calling for cessation on the use of GMO and even spoke against factory farming just days after the recent royal wedding (45). Jeffrey Smith, one of the worlds leading advocates made a recent appearance on the Dr. Oz show to discuss GMOs (here). The Huffington Post   recently reported that 9 out of 10 Americans would like to see GMOs labeled (which they currently are not) and 53% of those polled stated they would make a conscious effort NOT to buy GMOs if they knew what foods they were found in (here).

I really have not discussed the health findings that may lead many to want to forfeit GMOs quite yet but for those interested in learning more I suggest navigating the Institute for Responsible Technology. There you can find non GMO shopping guides, as well as read the blog solely dedicated to GMOs, and download other resources such as audio CDs you can use for your own further education and to give to friends , family, etc.
Heres the link....

Lastly (no really), a quick tip I often reccomend to avoid GMOs is to just avoid processed foods (as you should be doing anyway) and read your PLU's when you buy produce. If it begins with 4, it's conventional. If it begins with 9, it's organic and if the PLU begins with 8, the product is GMO. In the 3-4 years I have known to do this, I have never seen a PLU beginning with an 8. Heres an example just in case; 4060 = broccoli, 94060 = organic broccoli, 84060 = GMO broccoli. Again just an example, Ive never seen GMO broccoli. A mnemonic my mom came up with is 8 is evil, 9 is nice.

Alright that's it for today.


Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Back and Balanced

Whew...took some time off there.

       Im not a self help guru and will never proclaim to be, never. I am too indecisive (open-minded, to be more positive) and I am willing to consider that in nearly all endeavors there is not a crystallized right and wrong way to do things. However,I just thought today would be a good day to stress the importance of balance in one's life. I have not posted in just over month and here is why; This semester I decided to take 4 graduate level courses, help a copuple of other grad students with their research project, work 2 teaching assistant (TA) positions, and continue with my part time job at the gym.In addition to this load, in January I also decided it was time to start passing some of my acquired knowledge forward (to anyone who wants to read it of course) and start a blog.With that in mind, I will always feel the need to workout at a high level of intensity and maintain a diet that I feel is at least in the ball park of being optimal for health.

     Needless to say I turned the concept of balance into a balancing act.Something had to give, if I were to maintain the little bit of sanity Im working with, so I figured with only a very small following, the blog would be the least impactful on my or anyone else's interests. Fortunately I am done with the semester now, and have decided to scale back my work load.  Don't get me wrong, I dont think my schedule was exactly back breaking, relatively speaking. For example, one of students this semester worked full time as a cop, took 12 credit hours, and maintained a marriage.  I know other people who maintain a much more daunting schedules than myself as well, but I think it again all comes down to balance, and what the individual's priorities are. I'm ofetn interested and wonder how long these people can this up also.

   For me to maintain my happiness, I need to be able to get my time in the gym, sleep about 7 hours per, allocate enough of my time to each of my respective endeavors to do reasonably well in each of them, maintain my JERF diet (just eat real food!), and have some quiet time at night just to read and think. It may sound like a lot, but if this is not happening, the lifestyle is not sustainable for me, as it is not conducive to my happiness and overall well being.  For some people, doing what they do well may not be a priority (unfortunately I see this alot), or a maybe they have no qualms with eating convenience "food", they workout less frequently, and the list goes on. For some of us the deal breaker maybe lack of socializing, television, and again the list goes on.

   The point is that I think it's key for all of us to periodically take the time to consider what's important in our lives and from there try to allocate our time in such a manner that we achieve what we, as individuals, believe to be balance. After we allocate time to balance our lives we have to try to remember that these activities, pursuits are important to us, or they bring us joy, or at least consider the alternative. Basically just don't lose sight of why your doing what your doing

    Also, in order to maintain the sanity, happiness, fulfillment, or  (insert whatever), I think it's important we don't lose sight of what we do because we like to versus what we do beacause we have to. Robb Wolf does a great job discussing this in the stress management portion of The Paleo Solution. He likens us to being "zoo humans". I couldn't agree more. My own thoughts, in addtion to just talking with fellow stressed out peers, friends, et cetera, kind of reaffirmed for me how many of us constantly feel the need to do things that are not actually neccessary. For example, you can study 2 hours and get a B  on an exam or study 5 hours and get an A. Its kind of like a spin on Pareto's. Our society selects the types who put in that 5 hours, but I have to wonder how admirable that really is. I know I have spent numerous hours in front of the ol' monitor that could have been spent relaxing, socializng , self educating, and so forth. For me, I find the A to be gratifying, a quantifiable means of verifying my intellligence or ability to work hard. This applies in other area of live too, needless to say.

I cant count how many days this semester I would stress about having to get my workout, rather than focusing on I get to workout, or I get to read. These are activities I like to do, but unintentionally turned them into chores. I just hope everyone reading can learn from my mistake and not make the same indiscretion. Its a privelege to spend time with family, going to work to earn money (at least in this economy anyway), gettingan education. Unfortunately we all lose sight of this sometimes. As busy as my schedule was , I know I would much rather it, than to be sitting back on my mom's couch.

   Well before I turn this into a complete vent session (hopefully I haven't done so already), I want to conclude that I am back, and I plan on posting at the minimum, weekly. In order to keep this task from becoming a chore, the length may be cut down a bit, as well as the diligance I put fourth in citing every meaningful claim/statement, but I want to continue to do this in sustainable manner that allows me to have fun while at the same put out informantion that may help others to improve their health as well. Look out for a post in the next 24 hours!

“Anything worth doing is worth doing badly – at first”....Lesson learned!