Blog Archives - Anima Journey

Did you know that there is essential fat?

10/29/2014

by Willow Aureala

As Iʻve written in other posts, Iʻve been reading Dr. Lavieʻs The Obesity Paradox and sharing some fascinating tidbits from the book with you.

I learned another that I want to share today: there are two categories of fat: essential fat and storage fat. Essential fat is necessary for normal, healthy functioning and can be found in fairly small amounts in the bone marrow, organs, central nervous system, and muscles. For men, essential fat is about 3% of their body weight, and for women, it is about 12%. Womenʻs essential fat also has sex-specific fat, which is critical for normal reproductive function, and thus found in breasts, pelvis, hips and thighs.

Storage fat is the fat accumulated underneath the skin, in muscles and other specific areas in the body. It includes fat that protects the internal organs from injury, and women and men have about the same amounts of storage fat.

I left a teaser in my last post about The Obesity Paradox: that not all fat real estate is the same. Well, Dr. Lavie reports that "excess visceral, or belly, fat is the classic sign of being over-weight and susceptible to health risks" (p. 57). This type of fat releases fatty acids, inflammatory compunds and hormones that can lead to problems like high ʻbadʻ cholesterol and high blood pressure. It may be, researchers speculate, that visceral fat is so problematic because it is related to an overactive stress response. Visceral fat cells also release their metabolic products directly into the portal circulation: blood going from the gastrointestinal tract and spleen through the portal vein to the liver. Visceral fat is also associated with insulin resistance and accelerates the aging process.

The fat around womenʻs hips, thighs, and buttocks keeps its contents, meaning it doesnʻt release harmful metabolic products into the body. These fat cells hold on to their fat very tightly and protect the liver, but also makes it hard to lose the fat in these areas. Studies have found, too, that the body fat in these areas [hips, thighs, buttocks] actually has high value for the body, protective factors. In fact, studies have shown that the fat in these areas may actually help reduce cardiovascular risk factors, as well as lower triglyceride levels. Thus, liposuction of these areas might actually increase risk for heart disease!

Thus, as Lavie points out: "Body fat has different personalities we never knew existed and that have everything to do with our health and longevity" (p. 60).

More to come on The Obesity Paradox!

How to Do What You Love by Paul Graham

10/27/2014

Searching for the next phase or career or opportunity to do what you love? You might be interested in this article written in 2006 by Paul Graham. He discusses topics such as prestige, the opinions of others, and some other contemplative topics. Hope you enjoy!

Is there such a thing as a healthy person who is obese? Some say yes!

10/26/2014

by Willow Aureala

As Iʻve mentioned before, Iʻve been reading The Obesity Paradox by Lavie, and itʻs been quite interesting! One of the things many of you probably already know is that inflammation is a possible indicator of illness and disease, and keep us metabolically healthy [no disorders such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or the like]. Interestingly enough, there are many people who are classified as obese according to the body mass index [BMI], but do not develop such diseases and they are called metabolically healthy obese, and make up as much as 35% of the obese in the U.S. In fact, studies have been conducted that have shown that metabolically healthy people had lower levels of several inflammatory markers, whether obese or not. Thus, those with ʻgoodʻ inflammatory profiles also tend to have healthy metabolic profiles.

In a study reported in Diabetologia, researchers suggest that one reason for those who are obese but do not have metabolic disorders is that these people may have better functioning mitochondria. People who are obese and also metabolically unhealthy tend to "have impaired mitochondria and a reduced ability to generate new fat cells" (p. 51). And, those with impaired mitochondria and problems with fat cells may explain "why fat cells in unhealthy obese individuals balloon to the point that the cellsʻ internal machinery is impaired and they die off" (p, 51-2). This leads to inflammation and accumulating fat where it is more problematic: heart, muscle, and liver where it damages those organs. While fat cells in obese people who are metabolically healthy can make new cells to store excess fat and it tends to go under the skin where it is fairly harmless. So, one question researchers are exploring is whether it is the damaged mitochrondria that leads to inflammation or inflammation that leads to damaged mitochrondria.

More research is being done on understanding the role of exosomes, which are small sacs produced by fat and other cells. These exosomes may go to other parts of the body and induce disease-triggering mechanisms.

So, researchers, and thus the public, is learning more about metabolic health, as well as the role that different organelles, such as mitochondria and exosomes, play in obesity and metabolic health. Lavie also mentions that while belly fat has been said to be the worst kind of fat to carry, mainly because it is involved in inflammation compounds, it may be, as Lavie states, that "when it comes to fat real estate, location matters. But, itʻs not everything" (p. 53). More on that to come!

Maybe atherosclerosis is not a modern plague?

10/17/2014

There has been much discussion and debate about hardening of the arteries [atherosclerosis], which can lead to heart attacks and strokes. It seems like this condition started becoming a noticeable problem along around the 1950s and has been a growing concern with our more sedentary lifestyles, smoking cigarettes, and obesity rates skyrocketing. However, CT scans of mummies spanning four geographies and over four thousand years show that atherosclerosis has almost always been a common condition, especially in older folks. 137 mummies show that atherosclerosis could just be a part of the aging process, rather than poor diet or being a couch potato. Your thoughts?

From: Lavie, Carl. 2014. The Obesity Paradox: When Thinner Means Sicker and Heavier Means Healthier.

Mastering Money

10/17/2014

If you are like many, you struggle to figure out how to invest your money wisely, and make a profit on your investments. Not only is it difficult to figure out which investments to put your money into, the way the markets work today, with nanosecond trading occurring with sophisticated software that the average person doesn't have access to, making a profit on your investments seems even more difficult.

I recently listened to this two-part audio interview with Tony Robbins and Tim Ferris, mainly discussing Robbins' new book Money - Master the Game. Supposedly, Robbins breaks down how the average person CAN make a profit on their investments, informing how the markets work, why it's difficult to earn money on mutual funds, and other tips. I haven't purchased the book, so I can't really speak to that. I've read quite a bit about investing over the years, and sort of gave up thinking that I could really 'master' the investment process. And I've certainly wondered how to better invest my money for the long-term. Robbins says that for the most part, it's very difficult to earn a profit on mutual funds. Hmm....

Anyway, you might want to listen to the audio interview, and then see if you want to buy Robbins' book. You can listen at this link [scroll down for the two audio sections]:
http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/10/15/money-master-the-game/

Multi-tasking may make you dumb says more than one study

10/13/2014

Thought this was an interesting article...

By Travis Bradberry

I'm sure this "study" is probably flawed, as most of them are, and it could be that its conclusions are being over-sold by the press.Still, I believe this. I feel dumber myself.You've likely heard that multitasking is problematic, but new studies show that it kills your performance and may even damage your brain.

Research conducted at Stanford University found that multitasking is less productive than doing a single thing at a time....Well of course. But you often hear people claim that they're "good at multitasking." Usually they claim this right after they make some error due to not paying attention to a specific task, instead choosing to "multitask." And when you say "Well you probably screwed up because you weren't paying attention to one thing," they'll say "But I'm so good at multitasking." Well, apparently they're not.

But what if some people have a special gift for multitasking? The Stanford researchers compared groups of people based on their tendency to multitask and their belief that it helps their performance. They found that heavy multitaskers—those who multitask a lot and feel that it boosts their performance--were actually worse at multitasking than those who like to do a single thing at a time. The frequent multitaskers performed worse because they had more trouble organizing their thoughts and filtering out irrelevant information, and they were slower at switching from one task to another. Ouch.

So people who pay attention to one thing at a time are better at multitasking (when they're required to) than people who prefer to "multitask."Oh, and supposedly it makes you dumb.Again, I know this is true. I am dumber now....

Research also shows that, in addition to slowing you down, multitasking lowers your IQ. A study at the University of London found that participants who multitasked during cognitive tasks experienced IQ score declines that were similar to what they’d expect if they had smoked marijuana or stayed up all night. IQ drops of 15 points for multitasking men lowered their scores to the average range of an 8-year-old child.

So, there you go.

For more, see this link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2014/10/08/multitasking-damages-your-brain-and-career-new-studies-suggest/

Thrive: What On Earth Will It Take?

10/6/2014

You might enjoy and appreciate this documentary/info movie [it's two hours long]:
http://youtu.be/Mt4N9GSBoMI

What do you do with all those banana peels?

10/2/2014

Since we eat a lot of smoothies, and we make them with bananas, we have a LOT of banana peels left over at the end of the day. We were talking about what to do with them; is there a way to make some sort of concoction or potion or something and take advantage of all those peels, besides composting them? I have also heard that there is some serotonin in the peels, and that maybe they could be used to help reduce depression, but I wasn't sure how to do that.

I did a little internet research [because that's where all the answers are!], and found these suggestions:

rub the inside of the peel onto an itch or sore
boil the peels and put them in a tea or other drink or smoothie
attract birds and butterflies by laying them out in the garden
they supposedly make a good cleaner/burnish for leather and silver - rub with the peel, then clean with a cloth

indoor plant feeder: soak a banana peel in a jar of water overnight, then dilute with five parts of water, then use a watering can to water indoor plants [not sure exactly what the plants are getting from the peel water]

tomato plant feeder/protector: somehow [I'm not sure exactly how that looks like] wrap a peel around a tomato plant and it will feed the plant while it's growing and then dissolve or blow away when the peel dries up
you can make a salad dressing with vinegar; there are different recipes; just do a search for banana peel salad dressing

I wish I were more of a chemist so that I could utilize more of the serotonin that is supposed to be in banana peels. There could be some actual research studies on banana peels that chemists or other researchers have done, but I haven't done a search for those kinds of studies yet.

Anybody have any other ideas for using up those banana peels?

The Psychology of Market Trading. Or How to Easily Lose a Million Dollars.

10/2/2014

About a decade or so ago, I [Willow] decided to try my hand, so to speak, on learning how to trade in the stock market for income. I devoted a great deal of time to reading and investigating the 'best' methods to make money in the stock market. There is lots of discussion and difference of opinion about this topic, aside from the basics of fundamentals and technicals and other stock market jargon.

Partially because of all the confusion and differences in opinion about how to be successful in the stock market, I decided to rely mostly on the 'advice' of Martin Weiss; a long-time writer and spiller of market news and advice. You gotta rely on something, and I decided for various reasons to mostly rely on him.

So, I put a little money in a trading account, and kept detailed track of it, for a while. But, I found that I'm not very good at whatever it is that it takes to be a day trader, and certainly not very good at predicting and mind reading and guessing about stocks and mutual funds. And, because of that, I became a long-term mostly mutual funds holder and a small-time dabbler in stocks [and I do mean small time].

I started reading What I Learned Losing a Million Dollars recently by Jim Paul and Brendan Moynihan, and found one of my beliefs about the stock market to be supported by the guy who wrote a book about losing a million dollars - that stock market traders who have been successful often have opposing strategies, and that luck can play a big role in being successful, or not, in the stock market. I had decided long ago that I didn't seem to be a 'lucky' stock marketer, and that from reading a whole bunch about people who write about stocks and stock trading were mostly making money on their newsletter. After all, why would someone spend time writing a newsletter if he [or she, but mostly he] was doing well in the stock market? I have also read many reports and research information demonstrating the results of some of the more popular stock market advisers/newsletter writers, and that the research showed that time and again, their advice of these popular writers was no more accurate or on target than trading on the S&P 500 and going for long-term holds.

I appreciated Paul and Moynihan's discussion of some of the many cliches one hears about stock market trading: "Don't discuss market positions because the pros don't", "Cut your losses short", "Don't follow the crowd. Go against the herd", and "Don't trade on hope or fear or make emotional decisions." Ad nauseum. For the gem "Cut your losses short" - how does one decide when the losses are losses? How does one define a market loss? At some point, every market decision will show a loss, so when is it time to cut and run, and when is it time to hold because that stock or fund will come back up? Certainly, many newsletter advisers I read said that one should have a minimum number in mind [or, ideally, written down] and if your position falls below that, then get out. But, how does one determine that number?

Paul and Moynihan discuss the psychological factors that go into losing as Paul decided that was the best approach for him [instead of reading the views of marketers which were essentially opposites of each other]. They claim that people "can't match the profitable performance records of the market advisory services they subscribe to because of psychological factors that prevent them from applying the analysis and following the recommendations... mostly due to psychological distortions" (p. 68) which they discuss in the second half of their book [the distortions].

I'm reading this book on the recommendation of someone else because they said that not only did it apply to stock market trading, it would apply to lots of things in one's life. So, I'm on the second part where the authors are discussing the psychology of trading and I'll find out if their points are educational in other matters of life. It'll be interesting to see!