science

The Martian

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. I have not been writing nearly as much as I would like to lately. Life has a tendency to get in the way.

This time of year with holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, and the extra curveball life always has in store, often leaves me feeling overwhelmed.

There are some aspects of my life, compartmentalized away, where I am very disciplined. Others however, to include writing, have yet to become a permanant fixture, I find that I am wont to revert back to less engaging activities when i ought to be writing instead.

So it was, that I found myself watching Interstellar for the first time on a long deadhead flight from LAX to ATL. I found the fatherly dynamic of the movie extremely touching. The contrast in Matt Damon’s characters from the Martian to Interstellar, is a great comparison of the spectrum of human problem response.

No spoilers here, even though both movies have been out for quite a while, but Mark Whatney (Matt Damon in the Martian) meets his problems head on, whereas his Interstellar counterpart (Dr. Mann) has a much more defeatist attitude.

Being stranded on Mars with not enough food or supplies, and little hope of rescue is obviously a very dire situation. Much more serious than nearly everything we experience in our daily lives. Yet our brain has a hard time recognizing scale and amplitude without context.

The worst thing that has ever happened to you is the worst thing that has ever happened to you. Whether that is being marooned on an alien planet, or if you spilled coffee on your new shirt. The brain makes assessments on past experiences, not on absolute spectrums.

Fostering an environment of controlled and risk minimal discomfort, can help us recognize where unexpected problems actually fall on that spectrum. It can also help us remain calm and analytical while assessing those problems.

Aviation, parenting, and Jui jitsu all fall into these categories. Maybe that is why I like them so much.

They all present complex.problwms that need to be solved. Some of them may seem overwhelming, or too big to take on. Sometimes it isn’t the size of the problem, but the long list of small problems that never seems to shrink.

Like our space pirate friend said, you get to work. You solve one problem and then the next. If you solve enough problems, you get to go home.

There are a lot of similarities to this philosophy in the aviation world. We have a systematic approach to analyzing our situation, and then working through problems as the arise until reaching a logical conclusion.

These past few weeks, I have summoned my inner Mark Watney more than a few times. You have a plan for how the day is going to go, and it starts going sideways. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the growing tower of problems that need to be solved, tasks that need to be accomplished.

Or you can get to work, one problem at a time. And if you solve enough problems, complete enough tasks, you get to go home.

Jui Jitsu is at its core problem solving. You give your opponent a problem. Theh responds and give you a problem right back. Whoever is unable to solve the problem and respond ends up submitting. Problem solving, with potentially deadly consequences, but in a controlled and risk mitigated environment.

Sometimes, you don’t have the solution readily available. You may have some ideas, theories, guesses, about how to tackle the situation. That leaves you with an uncertain outcome.

That’s where the science comes in. You make a hypothesis. You test it. You gather the information. You analyze the data. Rinse and repeat.

This way of thinking. This way of approaching life’s problems has compounded over generations to change the way we live our lives.

Even if you don’t work in the “sciences,” you can easily see how this philosophy plays out on the mats, or with your kids.

Control the variables you can, make a hypothesis, test it. Collect the data, and go back and try it again. Maybe you break the cycle of submitting (on the mats or with the kids, I still tap early and often.)

If you science the shit out of it, and solve enough problems, you get to go home, where you will likely find some serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week, I want to talk about science.

What is science? Why is it important? How do we verify or approve the results? Is all science good science? These are important questions. Questions, which may not have definitive answers. Just like good science, the answers and insights are not fixed, but rather, continuously evolving.

I take in a lot of salt. That might go against some of the established medical advice regarding blood pressure and heart health, but I do so deliberately and with “scientific” justification.

So when I read the following study, I wanted to share it and explain my thoughts and interpretations. You know, for science.

The title of the paper reads, “Middle-age high normal serum sodium as a risk factor for accelerated biological aging, chronic diseases, and premature mortality.”

The study took blood draws of participants in middle age in years one and three. The blood draw was taken after 8-12 hours of fasting. The blood draw was measured for average serum sodium levels.

The thought process behind this methodology is that average serum sodium levels taken two years apart would provide a baseline for hydration.

Your hydration is regulated to a very tight range by two primary mechanisms in the body, thirst and antidiuretic hormone (ADH).

When you lose water through sweat or fail to take in enough water, the concentration of sodium (among other things) increases in your blood. This triggers the release of ADH which results in less volume and more concentrated urine.

This has led to the guidelines from health organizations to check the color of your urine to gauge your hydration status.

The study followed up with participants after 25 years to assess all cause mortality, biological aging, and chronic disease. The participants were broken down into three categories based on their average serum sodium levels, (a proxy for hydration) optimal, high and low.

So far the authors of the study have a solid hypothesis, (based on previous findings done initially in mice) a good methodology, and an easily identifiable and measurable variable to track.

However, the results (raw data) and the interpretation of those results, start to go a little off the rails.

“Lowest mortality rate was among people with 137–142 mmol/l serum sodium (26.2%, n = 8604), with increased mortality in 135–136.5 mmol/l (39.3%, n = 122) and 144.5–146 mmol/l (34.5%, n = 397) groups.”

“Kaplan–Meier survival analysis gave similar results showing increased mortality rates among people with serum sodium less than 137 mmol/l and greater than 142 mmol/l (Fig. 1e). In Cox proportional hazard time-to-event analysis adjusted for age, sex, race and smoking, serum sodium 135–136.5 mmol/l was associated with 71% increased risk of all-cause mortality, and 144.5–146 mmol/l increased risk of premature mortality by 21% in comparison to the 137–142 mmol/l group (Fig. 1f).”

“Interpretation:
People whose middle-age serum sodium exceeds 142 mmol/l have increased risk to be biologically older, develop chronic diseases and die at younger age. Intervention studies are needed to confirm the link between hydration and aging.”

Lets start out by saying that everything they said in their interpretation is factually correct according to their data.

However, the data suggest a higher risk of all cause mortality, in the low sodium when compared to the high sodium group. (39.3% vs. 34.5% and 71% vs. 21% respectively)

71% vs 21% is a huge difference in your likelihood of all cause mortality. Their own data indicate that the low serum sodium group was at significantly higher risk than the high serum sodium group when compared to the optimal range.

Over hydration, or lack of the required sodium intake, seems to be significantly more hazardous than under hydrating or over consumption of salt. Obviously the optimal range is optimal, go figure. The study results focus on the high sodium side, which was more hazardous than the optiMAl range but an order of magnitude less deadly than its lowernsodium counterpart.

I am a heavy sweater, as you may have guessed from the blog title, my closing remarks, and most of the topics covered. I also know that my sweat is very electrolyte heavy. This can be measured in a lab, or anecdotally, by seeing salt crystals on your workout gear after your sweat dries.

Appropriate hydration and electrolyte replacement are essential to everything I do from triathlon and jiu jitsu, to flying and parenting. You aren’t going to get very far physically or mentally if you are dehydrated or your electrolyte balance is off.

Like we mentioned earlier, this study started off with a good hypothesis, methodology, and the right variables. The data set was robust, and the study should be repeatable. These are all hallmarks of “good science”

I would classify the interpretation as somewhat missing the point. Mayne the the reporting omitted the more important or the more significant finding, maybe it was biased toward a specific outcome.

I don’t know the authors. I dont know the editors. I dont know their advisors or bosses. I don’t know their funding, their political leanings, or their personal inclinations. Frankly, none of that matters. Science is not partisan. It is cold, unemotional, and calculating.

While I believe you should “trust the science” (as we have heard so often these past few years) I also believe, in the wise words of President Roosevelt, you should trust but verify.

In this case the science was good, the interpretations less so. Knowledge is power, and sometimes that power needs to be mined with cognitive effort, ingenuity, and a little sweat. (As long as you replenish fluids and sodium 😉

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Methods

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week I heard an interesting anecdote that I thought was important enough to share and discuss.

Before we get to the story, the backdrop is important. It involves something I have been practicing for the better part of three years now. Intermittent fasting (IF) or time restricted feeding (TRF).

The terms are used somewhat interchangeably in diet/health and wellness culture, but they are quite different when examining the scientific literature.

In the scientific literature (peer reviewed journal articles and studies) intermittent fasting refers to days with severely reduced or no calorie intake. For example eating normally for five days and severely restricting or entirely eliminating calories for two days.

Time restricted feeding on the other hand, refers to eating all of your calories for the day within a restricted feeding window. The most common of which is an eight hour feeding window and a sixteen hour fasting period.

This article provides a meta-analysis of the literature on intermittent fasting and time restricted feeding. That is a fancy way of saying that the authors read all the studies that have been done in the area. Evaluated their methodology, data, and interpretation. Then, decided on which studies to include.

They are not conducting the studies, but rather analyzing all of the studies together for a 20,000′ view of the landscape.

In both animal models and human trials, IF and TRF both show incredibly promising results. Decreased body weight, improved cholesterol numbers, reduced glucose, insulin, and increased insulin sensitivity, and improved inflammatory markers.

Several different studies that included feeding windows varying between four hours and twelve hours where reviewed and analyzed. The evidence on the benefits of intermittent fasting and time restricted feeding are very difficult to dispute.

By far the most popular in the health and wellness community is the right hour feeding window. This is what I (generally) practice, and it has become a dogma for some. With the results of peer reviewed science just mentioned it is easy to see why.

What I find fascinating though, is the anecdote shared by Dr Huberman on the Huberman labs podcast.

One of the earliest studies in the space, that produced the results that led to so many other follow on studies, used an eight hour feeding window. This was chosen not because of a scientific hypothesis, or even an educated guess of a reason. The eight hour window was chosen because the graduate student who was conducting the research was in a relationship.

The graduate student’s significant other made it clear that they would not be allowed to live in the lab, and had to spend some time at home. So an eight hour window, plus some set up, cleanup, and reporting time, struck this balance.

As I have noted, the meta analysis reviewed for this post covered varying TRF windows ranging from four to twelve hours. But, one of the most pivotal early studies in the space, one that the health and wellness community has certainly gravitated toward, had it’s methodology set around a college romance.

This in no way hindered the science, but it begs the question, is that the best way? The data are compelling, but what if the baseline was established at six hours? Four hours? Ten hours?

A decision was made (one I totally understand as someone who spends lots of time working away from home) to make the baseline eight hours.

I read the meta analysis, listened to scientific podcasts explaining them, and decided it was a good idea for me to try. To do my own scientific experiment with how I respond to TRF. I felt the data was compelling enough to merit individual exploration.

There has been a lot of talk in the last few years about trusting the science. The data doesn’t lie. But, the methodology is important. Asking questions, evaluating, and exploring help pave the way to better understanding, and ultimately serenity.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Laps in the pool and first time on the heavy bag in a long time.

Interesting

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As I continue my research on language and communication, I continue to find little tidbits that transcend communicology, and have relevance to the areas we tend to discuss here.

Obviously, the things we discuss here, (flying, fitness, fatherhood, etc…) are all things that I, and I presume at least to some extent you, are interested in.

With that in mind, the following passage from Noam Chomsky’s On Language struck me as especially appropriate.

“I think this whole discussion comes down to a confusion between two senses of the word interesting. Certain things are interesting in themselves- for example: human action. But there is another meaning of the word interesting, in physics, for example. A phenomenon in itself does not have interest for a physicist. What happens under the conditions of a scientific experiment is of no importance itself. It’s interest lies in it’s relation to whatever theoretical principles are at stake.

There are a great many things that I have read recently in the course of my research that I find interesting in the second sense of the word. Frequently, after reading some academic passage three or four times to make sure I understand it, and cursing the author for forcing me to look up definitions every other sentence, I will find a nugget (like the one above) that is interesting as it relates to my life, or experiences, or the project I’m working on.

When I excitedly share these findings with my wife, I am very quickly reminded of the difference from the first sense of the word interesting. Many of these theories, findings, hypotheses, are so steeped in academia and so far removed from real life that they are difficult to digest, much less get excited about.

But, because the have a relation to a project, or a passion, they become interesting in the second sense.

The two different types of interesting can also be thought of in terms of the way they affect people. Anything can be interesting in itself to someone without being of interest to someone else. But when it can be related in some other way it’s interest broadens.

Getting stronger with IM FL 70.3 approaching quickly

Linguistics and communicology is not interesting in itself to most people, (as I’m reminded when I discuss it with my wife). But when it can be related to a specific event/topic/situation, (see my previous post about a tough road to hoe) it becomes interesting because now there is context and real life application.

This interplay of interesting is fascinating, especially with my boys. There are some easy guesses on what they will find interesting, but other times I am surprised and fulfilled by their interests.

I recently had lunch with my wife and El Duderino on a layover. We sat down at an old timey diner burger joint. I had a little bit of nostalgia listening to the blues guitar oldies play over the speaker as our burger, fries, and shakes were brought out to the table.

El Duderino’s meal even came served up in an Old school Cadillac dinner tray, wing tips and all. What four year old American boy doesn’t love cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes? But when asked what his favorite part of lunch was, (I was sure it would be the milkshake) he told me it was playing air keyboard along with the diner music.

Layovers don’t get much better than this

You never really know what someone else will find interesting, or how what you find interesting will relate to someone else’s lived experience. But sharing our interests, and finding those sometimes hidden relations is a sure path to social connection and serenity. Thank you for sharing in some of what I find interesting.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Grind

Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. This week I want to talk about an article from trail runner magazine I recently came across, and it’s scientifically backed message to embrace the grind.

The article (found here) references a 2019 study (found here) published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research on the training predictors of success in elite long distance runners. The cliff notes version, is that there is no magic workout, the greatest predictor of success is volume of easy runs.

As with any scientific experiment, it is important to understand what was being measured and tested, and what the limitations of the study were, in order to draw any reasonable conclusions about the results and what they mean for our own training.

The study only looked at male elite athletes, and categorized their training as: short intervals, long intervals, tempo running, easy running, and racing. The intervals and the tempo categories were differentiated by distance and percentage of max heart rate.

The athletes reported their training regimens as well as their results at events and the data was analyzed at the three, five, and seven year mark.

As David Roche from trail runner points out, every athlete is an N=1 experiment. For those of you not academically or scientifically inclined, N is the sample size in a controlled study. Roche makes the important distinction that even though 85 male athletes from the same sport were in the study, each one has his own biodiversity and variables which are important to acknowledge.

With all that annoying science and reading stuff out of the way, what this study really means for average joe athletes, is embrace the grind. The most significantly correlated predictor of success is volume of easy runs. In other words… Just go run.

It’s not the maximum effort, is not tabata or HIIT, it’s not a new pair of shoes or an altitude mask, it’s repetition of the most basic and fundamental motion that will ultimately predict success.

I think that is true of almost all endeavors, grind out the repetitive volume of the fundamentals, and the results will follow. SerenityThroughSweat is an ultra, and serenity is found in the grind.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.

Trust

Happy new year! Thanks for joining me for another edition of the SerenityThroughSweat blog. As we leave 2020 behind us and move together into 2021, I want to offer the advice of a sage Russian proverb, Doveryai, no proveryai.

I recognized this quote from the Reagan administration, without realizing is origin as a Russian proverb. Suzanne Massey introduced the phrase to Reagan as saying that the Russian’s liked talking in proverbs and he should know some. It has been used in political context several more prominent times since Reagan.

When your toddler is in his room “putting concrete on the road” trust but verify he isn’t spreading lotion all over the floor

Trust, but Verify, is a critical concept and part of the daily routine for both aviators and parents. All the checklist discipline and training in the world is still no substitute for verifying switch positions and systems functionality prior to a critical phase of flight.

Despite how charming El Duderino’s smile is, and how nice he interacts with Speedy, I still need to make sure he isn’t taking up the familial grappling mantle using his 9 month old brother as a drill partner every time I walk out of the room. (Training starts promptly on Speedy’s 4th birthday matching family singlets mandatory)

Despite the prevalence of Trust, but Verify, in so much of what I do day to day, what brought it to mind for me today was science, and more specifically scientists.

I’m working my way through Breath by James Nestor. A little more than half way through, I’m captivated by Nestor’s ability to weave complex scientific research and sometimes ancient beliefs and practices into his own narrative of breathing better.

Last run of 2020 working on buteyko breathing

Throughout the book (thus far) there are a myriad of examples of scientists, doctors, instructors, or other uncertified but results verified “pulmonauts”, whose work has been derided, ridiculed, banned, or otherwise lost to history.

These men and women used various methods to improve breathing in their patients and have both legitimate scientific, as well as anecdotal results to back up their methodologies. Every chapter seems to feature a new brave soul who discovered either the cause, or the cure, to a breathing ailment only to be chased out by scientific peers and forgotten.

Slogging through the wind and the nasal breathing for the first run of the new year with my favorite running buddy napping.

In a very complicated and somewhat oxymoronic twist of fate, good science requires both trust and doubt simultaneously. We as the public must trust scientists to follow the strict procedures and processes that are demanded of true experimentation. Scientists are taught to doubt their own preconceived notions and trust the data. Scientists are also taught to doubt the data and trends that may emerge unless they are repeatable.

Trust and doubt can together be a uniting or a dividing force. They can be used to create the robust science we need for modern problems or they can be weaponized to divide what is already a polarized nation.

Trying to find a rhythm breathing easier through the nose on runs, still a lot of work to do

As we move into a new year there will be plenty of opportunities to be divded by doubt. I think we can all find a little serenity, if we trust, but verify.

Thanks for joining me, stay safe and stay sweaty my friends.