21 August 2008: still no VP news…

Workout notes 6 mile run, Nancy’s yoga-lattes class, 4 mile walk home (light rain)

My run was somewhat better than two days ago, but still challenging. I am trying to force myself to bend my knees when I run.

Olympics: I watched more boxing; the CNBC commentators were harsh; in one of the quarterfinals they expressed dismay that boxers whose form is this bad could make the Olympic quarterfinals.

For more Olympic stuff, here are some cool videos:

3000 meter steeple chase highlights (men)

1500 meter run (men)

200 meter run (men); note that not only the WR was broken, but that two guys got DQ’ed for running out of their assigned lanes (you can’t step on the lane lines on the inside).

Fitness: here is one of those articles where it says that “it is better to be fat but fit than thin but unfit”. Ok, exercise is good for most people; I agree with that. But for heaven sakes, look at what is being called “fit”:

But the most striking finding was that fitness level, regardless of body mass index, was the strongest predictor of mortality risk. Those with the lowest level of fitness, as measured on treadmill tests, were four times as likely to die during the 12-year study than those with the highest level of fitness. Even those who had just a minimal level of fitness had half the risk of dying compared with those who were least fit.

During the test, the treadmill moved at a brisk walking pace as the grade increased each minute. In the study, it didn’t take much to qualify as fit. For men, it meant staying on the treadmill at least 8 minutes; for women, 5.5 minutes. The people who fell below those levels, whether fat or thin, were at highest risk.

The results were adjusted to control for age, smoking and underlying heart problems and still showed that fitness, not weight, was most important in predicting mortality risk.

The article continues

Stephen Blair, a co-author of the study and a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, said the lesson he took from the study was that instead of focusing only on weight loss, doctors should be talking to all patients about the value of physical activity, regardless of body size.

“Why is it such a stretch of the imagination,” he said, “to consider that someone overweight or obese might actually be healthy and fit?”

Why? Because most of the time, it isn’t true. Yes, there are exceptions; for example Lynne Cox has 33 percent bodyfat and yet is a world class open water swimmer (English Channel swimming records, many swims that would kill the rest of us, etc.) In fact, I am currently reading her book Swimming to Antarctica ; it is very good!

But I digress. Most of the time, fat people ARE hopelessly out of shape.

As far as my example: yes, I worked out even when I was morbidly obese and I went on 8 mile hikes while weighing 300 pounds. But those took me forever (3 hours!) and my little two mile course took me 36 minutes to walk; even my much older wife (who has a wire in her toe and two artificial knees) can do better than that.

Of course, things can change (see Tammy’s blog: 100 pounds overweight at one time became a nationally ranked masters racewalker) but it takes work and commitment.

This kind of “exercise” isn’t going to cut it.

Sports: what’s fair; what isn’t. A nice take on things by a historian (e. g., is it ok to take drugs to steady your hands so you can shoot better in a competition?)

Then again, you could give me diver’s fins, hand paddles and floats and I still couldn’t swim like those swimmers in that Olympic 10K swim!

Politics

I have to disagree with Friendly Atheist here:

The Democratic National Convention will open next week with an interfaith gathering. Representatives from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths will be there.

No atheists, though.

We weren’t invited.

The Secular Coalition for America has tried to persuade Convention CEO Leah Daughtry to allow atheists to be a part of the gathering, but to no avail.

Daughtry did, however, speak to the press about the SCA’s letter. From a piece by Ronald Aronson:

“Atheists speaking at an interfaith service… does that work?” a “befuddled” Daughtry was quoted as asking in a July 19 story by the AP’s Eric Gorski. “I don’t quite know. But they’re part of the party, you treat them with respect.”

The first sign that treating them with respect was not a priority for Daughtry was her lumping all notheists who include not only agnostics but also humanists, skeptics, and believers in spirit but not a personal god into atheists.

And the second came with the announcement of the lineup for what had once been thought of as a “values” and a “unity” event: no one represents the millions of secularists. Daughtry: “Democrats have been, are and will continue to be people of faith – and this interfaith gathering is proof of that.”

But what about those Democrats who are not “people of faith?” Are they not invited? Or invited just to watch others pray? Should their own outlook not even be acknowledged?

If the Democrats are trying to strike unifying chords among their entire kaleidoscopic range of liberals, moderates, and progressives, it should be obvious that secularists cannot dare be left out of the “big tent” event, and that it should be about beliefs and values, not solely about religion.

Sorry, but I wouldn’t belong at a “faith” meeting of any kind, because I really don’t have any. Yes, I have morals and values (and too often I fall short of living up to them) but “faith” (which means believing in what one doesn’t have evidence for); no I don’t see that as a good thing.

Of course, this nuance isn’t the real issue; in fact the Democrats really don’t want to be publicly identified with us because it would hurt them politically. I understand that too.

Politics: a sober look at the state of the current general election. The race is close, but Obama retains a slight advantage overall.

Political fun: 25 steps to being a good wingnut.