EngineeredTheology

This is the last of the books read over vacation, discussing the rise and current state of string theory. It begins with some history of the theory and describes the basic principles (most of which are well covered, but I suspect would be confusing if this was someone’s first book on string theory). The interesting portion of the book describes the current cult following of string theory and how it may be bringing about the end of science.

I’ve always had a problem with string theory because I have never really understood it. I understand the high level concepts, but the reasoning behind it always seems elusive. The main reason behind this is because no one really understands string theory. This is partially because there is no one string theory, and string theory isn’t currently testable (or falsifiable). In fact, it is so varied, you can make just about anything into string theory.

This last point is where the author sees the problem. There has been so much hype about string theory finally bringing about a theory of everything, it is career suicide to do anything but research string theory. Any other competing science is blocked out because there has been such widespread belief that string theory is IT. Unfortunately after 20 years, string theory hasn’t developed into much, and we aren’t any further into understanding it. His argument is maybe it is time to look at the theory on its merits, and not what it might be able to do.

Having a theory that is not falsifiable and can encompass everything is no longer science. One main aspect of science is that you are never truly done. The overwhelming majority of theories are proven wrong sooner or later. This is what fuels are understanding of the world. It is ok to work feverishly on a direction, thinking it describes the world, only to change directions in a few years. In science, it is crucial to be able to be wrong. Once you stop having the ability to change directions, all scientific progress stops as well.

After being interested in string theory for many years, this is the first new book that even touches that there might be something besides string theory.

Review of Nike Free 5.0

I was in need of some new shoes, and the Nike Free series had really caught my eye. I have been in favor of more natural running styles (closer and closer to barefoot running). There are always studies that will prove any idea you have, so if an idea sounds plausible the only thing to do is try it out. Granted, a sample size of one does not imply a trend, but that one sample (me) is all I’m really concerned about.

I have seen major changes in the comfort of running and overall speed due to a shift from a heal-toe to midfoot running style. Another claim of barefoot running is that the stiffer sole of running shoes prevent the foot muscles from strengthening properly, and moving to a more flexible (or no) sole will increase foot strength and can solve pronation problems. The major plus of the Nike Free shoes have extremely flexible soles (there are cuts in the sole that allow it to flex unlike normal running shoes.

When I first pulled the shoes out of the box I noticed
1. Good lord these are the ugliest shoes I’ve ever seen – I could only get them in “blinding green” seen in the picture above.
2. They are extremely light (I thought the box was empty)
3. They don’t have a spot for a Nike+ sensor

The Nike+ sensor is a little accelerometer that can attach to a shoe. There is a mating reciever for your iPod, and it can roughly calculate your speed and distance run (for me it is usually +/- 2% in accuracy). All new Nike running shoes support this, apparently for this one.

I’ve logged three runs with the new shoes. I’ve heard that if you don’t do a lot of barefoot walking (I have a genetic aversion to shoes) you feet will be sore until they build up some strength. Because of this my first run was a sprint interval of about 3 km to take it somewhat easy. The second run was 8k, and I ran a 10k for the third (then got the flu and haven’t run in a few days).

From those three runs I’ve seen
1. I can’t wear socks with the shoes, they are too form fitting.
2. They really are light. I’m surprised a few ounces makes a difference
3. I feel a lot lighter on my feet
4. I have a much smoother gate (I had some slight pronation issues)

The most dramatic thing is I am running significantly faster (shaving about 20 seconds off my mile to average a 7:30 mile on the 10k). I don’t know how much of this is psychological and how much is physical (I suspect the psychological is having some effect) – but the data shows I’m running significantly faster.

We’ll see how I feel after a month or two, but right now I’m impressed.

Like most people, I have pains when I run. Knee pain, shin splints, hip pain, etc. I don’t really mind running, but I wonder if it really is supposed to be so painful. Weren’t we meant to run?

It is obvious we were born with the ability to run, but I wonder if our current shoe technology is forcing us to run in ways that are not biomechanically correct.

If you were to take a look at any modern running shoe, you would see a very thick heal and much less at the toe. The thought when this design was created was that this would enable the runner to always be running “downhill”. This thick padding started allowing heaver and heavier heal strikes when running. What this means is that you can run impacting the heal first, then rolling back to the toes. This is extremely uncomfortable way to run if you don’t have any shoes on. As a matter of comparison, if you take a quick run around the room barefoot, you’ll find you can’t reasonably land heal first every time.

This heavy heal strike, even with the significant shoe padding is extremely tough on the joints. When a runner reaches forward with their front foot and lands, there are impact forces that are created. With the quick vector diagram above, there is a force pointed down (to counteract gravity) and a resultant force pointed in the opposite direction of motion (i.e. a reaching heal strike will slow down your forward momentum).

When the force is followed up through the leg, it goes directly to the knee joint (as often the leg is straight). There is no dampening available, so the knee joint (specifically the cartilage) will see all the impact force. This then flows up into the hip joint. It is not a dramatic leap to hypothesise that this could create knee pain.

The main next question is, is there a different way to run? When I watch my kids run, the do not know to land with their heal first. They run (both barefoot and with shoes) on their “toes” – on the ball of their foot to the midfoot. This is the same way you will find yourself forced to run if you do the little experiment running barefoot around the room.

Running on the midfoot (think of landing on the back part of the balls of your feet – the heal can still touch, but it is not taking the impact forces) can be a natural way to run, but may have been un-learned by years of wearing “comfy” shoes. You will naturally find youself no longer reaching your front leg in front of you and landing with your foot directly under your body (if not even a little behind).

This has two main effects.
1. There is no longer a force opposing your momentum (it should take less energy to keep moving forward)
2. The knee will be bent

While the first effect is nice, it is the second that can help with joint pain. First, landing on the balls of your feet, there are dampening forces (think shock absorbers). When landing on the midfoot, the impact force goes not through your tibia, but from the achillies tendon to the calf muscle. This then works its way up to the quads and hamstring muscles. Since muscles are meant to expand and contract, they are much more able to handle these types of forces than the cartilage in joints. The hip and knee joints are active participants, but will not be required to take direct compressive forces.

This is the way I have begun to run. Of course, even this is not perfect. I have replaced knee pain for significant muscle and tendon pain. On the onset, the pain was far more severe. I suspect this is due to significantly higher forces being required of muscles that have never been required to handle them. After a month they are all but gone away and I have absolutely no hip or ankle pain and significantly less knee pain than before.

The interesting thing is that I have been able to run much farther and much faster than ever before.

I’ve learned that in literature there are two types of classics. There are those classics that really should be read because they are important. They are so well written, inspiring, and thought provoking that they have a timeless quality. Then there are classics that were important when they were written, but when they are read years later one of the only things learned is that the book really would have been better off it was kept on the shelf. Flatland is definitely the second kind of classic.

I think one of the reasons some classics are better left on the shelf is that many of them deal with their contemporary issues. They are social commentaries that were incredibly insightful, but when we are no longer in the culture those subtle metaphors get subtly lost. This is what happens when I read books like Gulliver’s Travels. I finish the book and think, my God that was aweful. How did that turn into a classic?

Flatland has some ground-breaking views of helping readers wrap their mind around higher dimensional spaces – back in the 1800′s. It is written in the perspective of a square in 2D space, who comments on his surroundings, has visions of cultures in 1D space (lineland), and also a encounter where he is preached the gospel of 3D space. I also know it has some commentary aspects of the social culture at the time which seem a little odd to me because I am not up to speed on Victorian social norms. From a mathematics point of view, it breaches the topic that most people never concern themselves with – what would a being who lives with extra dimensionality appear like to us. This is marginally interesting because some theories (string theory) depend on extra dimensionality of space. As for the book though, it really is best left as a book that is talked about and not actually read.

If fat loss is more complex than a simple two variable equation, the interesting topic is what the key variables are. There currently is quite a lot of research going on regarding the effects of leptin and insulin on body metabolism and fat levels. While there may be some science to back up what I think, I have to admit that most of what I think I know is due to plain old trial and error. Due to this, some of the chemical responses in the body are much easier to describe in meta-form.

The point in the exercise is to understand what your body is trying to control, and provide the right inputs into the system to have it behave in the fashion you wish. It would be nice if we had control over our body composition as we do over our respiration (we can control it if we think about it, but otherwise it performs automatically), but unfortunately it is not so simple.

Supposing that protection against starvation is a fundamental principle, caloric intake must be sufficient if trying to loose weight. Any sort of calorie counters will be off base due to the dramatic differences between people. Fortunately there is a much easier method since you have a built in caloric counter. The bottom line is to eat when you are hungry and not to worry about how much. Specifically what to eat is another whole topic.

Once the body feels safe from starvation, it must be given a reason to change. It has no concept of what you want it to do, only on what it thinks you are going to expect from it. If all it expects you to do tomorrow is work at a computer for 9 hours, then watch TV for another 3 it will prepare you to do that. It is another thing to expect that you will need to run or lift something as if your life depended on it. If all you have ever done is led a sedentary lifestyle, it will take a lot to finally have your body believe that you are going to need it to perform again tomorrow. The most difficult part of working out is that in order to get your body to change from its current state, you must continue to push it. What worked this week or month, will not be sufficient next month. If you have been doing the same workout for the last 6 months and expecting things to continue to change, you are working from the (calories in) – (calories burned) = (fat loss) regimen. Forget about target heart rates and cardio zones. The point is to continually push your body (within its limits) to force it to change, and to feed yourself what you need to allow it to do so.

I get frustrated when I read whatever the latest fad is on how to get in shape because it is usually based on some pretty shoddy science with conclusions that seem pretty unsupported. One of my bigger pet peeves is going into the gym and watching personal trainers. To me, the workouts they often have their clients somewhat shows that they have not seriously sat down and thought about the biomechanics of what they are doing (just compiling a list of workouts they learned when they were in high school football). The two biggest misconceptions I think many people have are below.

Fat loss can’t be targeted. This is one of my favourites because it is something that everyone knows, but somehow seem to forget when they start working out. The body does not consume the fat immediately next to the muscle being used. The prime example is to see the person who is 50 pounds overweight doing sit ups. Really? When was the last time you saw someone with big flabby arms and legs with a rock hard washboard stomach? The most likely thing that will happen is that the waistline will grow as the muscles under those 50 lbs of fat grow – usually the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish.

There is more to fat loss than counting calories. The body is complex when it comes to weight loss. It is the typical black box with inputs we can vary, and we observe the outputs to see the effect. From that we try to predict what are the driving factors in that black box.

For a lot of people, the black box is a basic equation.

(Calories in – Calories Burned)/3,500 = Fat loss/Gain

The outcome is then: if we can just eat less (few calories in), and work out a little more (calories burned) to accumulate 3,500 then we will loose a pound of fat. While the equation my have some scientific validity, the behaviour it drives is off the mark. The main thing missed is the realisation that while we may understand how many calories we put in, and we can somewhat estimate our body fat %, we have no way of knowing throughout the course of the day how many calories our body decided to burn.

The reason the calories burned can fluctuate is because our body is also thinking about the inputs it is given, and trying to come up with the best possible survival scenario. It seems (from testing and observation) that starvation is a main concern of the body. If given extra food, it will most likely store that energy in case a time comes up that we have no food and starve. If there were a global food shortage and no one could eat, the fat people would probably live the longest. When we go on a diet and cut our calorie intake, our body reacts in a starvation survival mode. It cuts our energy level to reduce the calories burned to prolong the time we can survive until we can find enough food (or re-balance the equation so the calories used equals the incoming calories). It doesn’t know there is a McDonalds right around the corner.

I must confess that I was expecting to have some issues with Mr. Borg’s theology, and of course that is a self fulfilling prophecy. It is interesting that when I read a book that I agree with the arguments are insightful, when I don’t the arguments look contrived and misleading. There is little I can do to hide my own biases.

The book appears to be written to people who already have a predisposition to Mr. Borg’s views. Ideas such as dutero-Isaiah, the inclusion of Q and early dating of of Mark, and authorship of various books are assumed as facts without any discussion that there may be opposing views. Since this is the “Thinking Person’s Guide to the Bible” opposing views must mean that you do not fall into that category (my biases showing through).

I did appreciate his inclusion of opposing views in the section of the Revelation. Of course, this is where it is easiest to concretely contrast one viewpoint from another (and of course where I agree with his exegesis).

While I do not agree with much of Mr. Borg’s analysis on historical accuracy, I can agree with him that we can have further discussion on what these passages mean to us. We have lost the heart of the prophets when we forget their timely social message and indictment of the ruling classes. We must remember that Paul was writing actual letters, focusing on specific problems at hand, not concentrating on developing a manual for Christianity for thousands of generations. We must not lose the historical setting of these books. While they may mean more, it certainly cannot mean less.

There have been times in my life that I have had a strong sense of deja vu (literally meaning “already seen” – living in France has some benefits). In the last few years the feeling has come in pairs. The strange thing is that when I feel that I’ve already done something like this before, I remember the first time I did it (and had the feeling that I had done this before). This would mean that my first feeling of deja vu was not that I already had seen this, but that I would see this again.

The latest was on Friday. I was sitting at my desk reviewing some prints at my desk and had a strong sense of deja vu. After a quick second I remembered a few months ago, sitting at my desk and having a strong sense of deja vu (looking at similar prints in a similar manner, looking for a similar thing). Admittedly, none of this provided me any answers, direction, or insight (cancer was not cured, no one was saved from impending doom, and it actually took me longer to do the job because I was now distracted).

The question this brings up is the relationship between memory and time. String theorists predict that there are multiple dimensions in the current reality that are currently undiscovered (10+). An expansion of the time dimension would disrupt our basic ideas of “future” and “past”, and would allow strange things (as allowing us to remember things that have not happened).

Since this type of future telling that I think I have experienced has not provided any benefit once soever, it is difficult to see it as anything but a temporal anomaly. The possibility that such an anomaly could exist must then expand my ideas of what is and is not possible in this world.