When you were younger and took gym classes — assuming you did — did they talk about the importance of stretching before running?

I know that for me this was grilled into my head from a young age — stretch before and after running.

They also taught this in college fitness courses.

I've been doing it ever since.

So I was somewhat surprised — although I really shouldn't have been — to read at the gym the other day that experts are re-thinking this. In fact, there is little to no evidence that static stretching — such as bending over to touch your toes — before running is of any benefit. In fact, there is at least one study that indicates static stretching is harmful, weakening the muscles and making them more prone to injury.

Now, they did say that dynamic stretching — such as lifting your legs high while running in warm-up — was beneficial, and warm-ups are crucial. Also, static stretching after working out may still be good or at least ok.

I guess the fitness "experts" are like the diet "experts" in that they really know a lot less about their field of expertise than they would have us all think.

---

Comment link for Facebook readers

Tags: fitness
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: sleepy
Current Music: silence

I seem to be on a punctuation symbol mood lately in my posts, so here is another.

I was watching an — I thought — awful chick flick with my wife a few months ago in which the main character was supposed to be an editor for a publishing company. One of the (many) things that bugged me about the movie was that she kept writing the paragraph symbol incorrectly!

(As an aside, to be fair, my wife does not always pick terrible chick flicks; some even I have enjoyed.)

The paragraph symbol is ¶.

It is also called the pilcrow and has been around since at least the 1400s.

The heroine in the movie kept writing it as if it were a fancy P. But you'll note that it actually is written backwards relative to a P.

sadeyedartist didn't believe me at first, but it is not a P at all. It's actually derived from a C, according to most scholars.

Why from C?

Once again, it has to do with Latin.

The Latin for "chapter" is capitulum, and people used to write c to signify a paragraph. Over time, it came to have a vertical line drawn through it to distinguish it from a normal C. You can see how it could then evolve to the modern symbol.

(Now,… I only have four more entries to catch up with by biweekly quota….)

---

Comment link for Facebook readers

Tags: etymology, punctuation
Current Location: HPLC Lab, Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: hungry
Current Music: 90s mix

I rarely pay attention to news, and you all know I hate politics, but did our president just fire the CEO of a private company? And if so, how is that remotely legal?

Tags: news, politics, questions
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: confused
Current Music: silence

This Thursday and Friday, my University held another Veritas Forum. The speaker was Os Guinness, an author and social critic.

On Thursday, the title of his talk was “Is God Relevant in the Public Square? Living with our deepest differences in a world of exploding pluralism.”

( a long & detailed lecture review )

---

x-posted (in part) on the emergingscholar blog.

---

Comment link for Facebook readers

Tags: culture, education, faith, history, lecture reviews, politics, religion, rights, world views
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: Loreena McKennitt (wife's)

So, I'm busy, and I need to fill my two-week quota, so here's a short and lame entry.

You know how newer cars with automatic windows often have a special feature on the driver's side window where you push once and the window goes down all the way?

Why does it only work one way - going down - in all the cars I've ever driven?

I don't see mechanically why it can't work both ways, but if it can only work one way, why down?

I assume the feature was designed to make paying tolls easier, but it seems backwards to me. When I approach a toll booth, I have to slow down and get in line behind other cars. At such a slow speed, I don't see how holding down the window switch poses any difficulty. I don't really need both hands at that moment; I am driving slowly and in a line of cars.

However, once I pay my toll, I need to be able to accelerate to high speeds and/or merge down to fewer lanes of traffic. Both of these things would be easier and safer with the use of both hands, yet I have to power the window up manually.

Furthermore, the other reason one uses his or her window is for breeze. If my window is up, I will want to adjust it to the desired height. But no, I must roll it all the way down first and then adjust or else cancel the automatic motion of the window.

So I don't get it.

That is all.

---

Comment link for Facebook readers

Tags: driving, questions, technology
Current Location: HPLC Lab, Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: Riverdance soundtrack (the "Spaceship" song)

I have always wondered why the abbreviation for the English system of weight unit "pound" was "lb."

Today, I decided to go on a quest to find out why, and I learned that their are a lot of cool -- in my opinion -- facts about the evolution of the various "pound signs" as well.

Pound signs?

In America, the pound sign is #.

However, elsewhere in the world, it is called the number sign or the hash.

The pound sign in Britain is £, and is used like the American dollar sign ($).

The American pound sign (#) is most often used before a number as an abbreviation for "number", as in "He is my #1 fan." Why then do we call it the pound sign?

Well, apparently, some cook books, etc. also use it as an abbreviation for a pound of weight, as lb. is usually used: "Add 3# hamburger." And this usage is older.

I don't understand how it came to mean "number" when written before a numeral when it means "pound" when written afterward, but how did it come to look the way it does at all?

It actually evolved from writing the abbreviation lb.

First, because the "l" in "lb." could be confused with a 1, people began writing/printing it with a line through it: lb. or lb.

You can see how that sort of looks like a # already, and sure enough, over time and with some sloppiness, it was simplified to #.

(As an aside, some places use the "numero sign" instead of the number sign: №3, instead of #3, which really makes a lot more sense to me.)

But in England, you don't write # for a pound of currency, you use £, and this is called the pound sign, as in £500.00.

It's evolution is thus: A Latin word libra meant "scale, balance" but it also was a Roman unit of currency similar to a pound. (Oddly, the word "pound" itself comes from a different Latin word pondus, "weight".) So, the pound symbol comes from an L with a line through it (L), similar to how $ is an S with a line through it (although the evolution of the dollar sign is hotly debated).

So, in case you haven't just figured it out, the pound abbreviation (lb.) derives from the same Latin word as the pound sign, that is from libra.

I never would have guessed the lb., £, and # were all really abbreviations for the same Latin word.

I hope you all did not find that overly boring.

---

Comment link for Facebook readers

Tags: etymology, punctuation
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: silence

Poll #1367185 Opinions of Personal Property
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

With which things are you more careful?

Which things do you value more?

I recall a teen church convention that I attended as a youth in which we were assigned into "breakfast clubs". During these discussion groups, we had a list of questions that were meant to get us thinking about things related to the speeches to be heard later in the day.

I recall vividly only one of the questions: "Do you value things more that you got for yourself or that others gave to you?"

I was quite shocked that I was the only one at my table who chose the latter option. (I recall that a certain girl I had a crush on argued quite strongly against my viewpoint, something that lowered my opinion of her a bit.) Moreover, it was clear from the rest of the questions that the writer assumed everyone would answer the former.

To me, something I cannot earn is far more valuable. If I could earn something and it was lost or destroyed, most likely, I could earn it again. But I cannot guarantee at all that the person will give me the item again.

I also recall what I see to be a similar question at summer camp when I was even younger, but I forget entirely the context. This question was the first one in my poll. Again, I myself am far more careful if I am using someone else's things.

Working in a laboratory with numerous people breaking group equipment and leaving messes in common areas has revealed to me that not everyone thinks this way.

I have a hunch that how one answers this question depends on his or her world view, so I thought I could take a poll. I have other thoughts, but they haven't fully formed yet, so you'll have to be patient.^*

---

( * )

---

Comment link for Facebook readers

Tags: environment, ethics, polls, world views
Current Location: Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: frustrated with lab
Current Music: that stupid Killers song about a boyfriend who looks like a girlfriend (mental)

This entry is related in part to one I posted nearly three years ago on the "spiritual left"'s view of nature.[1] In that entry I wrote about how many in today's world assume that natural = good.

Another assumption that many people seem to hold about nature as part of their world view is that nature is an equilibrium. Usually, it follows that this equilibrium is good, that this equilibrium should be maintained.

In other words, it is fine and dandy if animals kill each other or lighting causes forest fires that destroy acres, because of a "circle of life", because of a "balance". If the predators kill too many of their prey, they'll run out of food, die off a bit, and then the prey will reproduce again. After the fire destroys the forest, it will leave behind good soil and more space for new trees to grow. Balance.

But the odd thing is that this goes contrary to Darwinian evolution. Evolution is supposed to be all about natural selection, "survival of the fittest". That is to say, the unfit die off and that is a natural thing. This results first in change, not equilibrium; adaptation, not balance.

Granted, in the struggle to survive, an equilibrium tends to occur, but this is accidental. Systems tend to attain equilibrium when "shaken up". This happens automatically, not because any species decides to hold off on eating another for the greater good of Nature.

No, all of the animal species are "selfish" -- Darwinian evolution says -- they want to pass on their genes; they don't care about the other species. But when one species adapts, survives, and advances, it does so by destroying other life until it is repelled by another force and equilibrium occurs -- not because equilibrium is necessarily a good thing, but because the effect of the new adaptation in the species has reached its limit. Nature is all about opposing forces -- the balance is from war, really, not about peace. It's like trying to argue that there was peace in World War I because the Western Front was staying in the same place. How is that good?

On the other hand, those who held that Darwinian evolution and natural selection were good things and should occur came to such historical atrocities as eugenics and the Holocaust. Thinking that nature is all about change and that that change is always good does not sit well with me either.

Perhaps, asking how nature should be is an impossible question to answer, but one almost has to face it when dealing with issues of the environment. Should we try to change nature, because change and adaptation are best? Should we try to maintain a balance of death and rebirth, because equilibrium is for the best? (And best for whom or what?) Should we try for something altogether different?

Tags: environment, ethics, evolution, nature, questions
Current Location: Computer Lab, Remsen Hall
Current Mood: okay
Current Music: silence

I was reading on nikkijeanne04's blog the other day about how she and her husband are going to start using sign language[1] with their new child, I.[2] This made me happy.

In discussing this with her, she indicated that she and her husband were also going to not use made-up words, i.e. "baby talk" with her. This also made me happy.

I've never understood why people do that with babies. Yes, my tone changes a little when I talk to babies and children, but I don't make up nonsense words or mispronounce things. How is that a help to the poor things? They are struggling hard enough to learn language from scratch!

Now with our pet dog growing up, I used to say things like, "You are such a dumb dog, yes you are!" in a happy and excited tone. The dog would jump up, run in circles, and wag his tail, thinking we were going for a walk, simply because of my tone of voice.

This seems similar to how some people talk to babies -- in saying something nonsensical but using a happy tone. Sure it makes the babies laugh, but are they learning anything? It seems to me that the adult wants the baby to laugh more for his or her own pleasure than for the benefit of the baby, just as I thought it was fun to see my dog run happily in circles.

But a baby is a little human, not an animal. Shouldn't baby talk be reserved for pets and not humans?

Or am I being too harsh? Maybe there is some benefit of which I am unaware in just making weird sounds to babies. But even if there is, wouldn't actual language be better?

Tags: animals, children, communication, education, imago dei, linguistics
Current Location: Our apartment
Current Music: wife's DDR music (mental)

In my recent entry on locker room nudity and whether or not it is rude[1], an anonymous commenter used the term "rude-if-act-against-majority". This got me thinking about what exactly rudeness is.

Webster says:

rude 2: lacking refinement or delicacy: a: ignorant , unlearned b: inelegant , uncouth c: offensive in manner or action : discourteous d: uncivilized , savage e: coarse , vulgar

For most of these definitions, it seems to me that the issue is more a matter of cultural expectations than of any sort of moral or ethical issue. Take 2 a:, for example: rude people may simply be "ignorant" or "unlearned" as to these cultural expectations.

As is the case with much etiquette, there is little logic behind the reasoning of many cultural expectations.

On the other hand, I don't think it is a good thing to consciously offend others. I think we should try not to.

But this raises the issue as to why I may feel offended if someone does or says something to me.

Is it because someone has injured me?

Is it because someone has stolen an opportunity from me?

Is it because someone has slandered me with false information?

Is it because someone said something I don't like?

Is it because someone did something I think is wrong?

Is it because someone did something that the majority of people don't do?

I have a hard time justifying why some of these things should emotionally bother or offend me. A couple examples to contrast:

If someone cuts in front of me in line, one could argue that he or she has "stolen" time from me, I suppose. This would be rude, and I would be offended by this action. I think I could logically argue that I had been wronged.

If someone burps in front of me, he or she has done something that I don't like to hear, something that I try very hard not to do in the presence of other people. This would be rude, and I would be offended by this action. But should I be? Could I logically argue that I had been wronged? I don't think so. What purpose does my taking offense serve?

I wonder, if people were not so focused on the times they feel offended, would they consider as many things that other people do to be rude?

I would propose that -- before I write-off people of as rude -- I should consider whether they are simply ignorant to my cultural expectations, consider that their intent may not be to offend me or make me feel uncomfortable. Maybe they were never taught that burping is culturally unacceptable. Perhaps, I should give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the problem is not their rudeness but my being too quick to take offense, too prideful.

Maybe. But sadly, today, I think that many people are intentionally trying to offend. This really is just rude, plain and simple.

Tags: culture, definitions, ethics, etiquette
Current Location: HPLC Lab, Remsen Hall, Johns Hopkins University
Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: Pandora mix