While I was starting to do sit-ups again today, I was thinking how difficult it was for me to do just 20. I was still able to do 20 without break and at a reasonable pace, but I was definitely near my limit. While I was at 10, I was just thinking how easy it was to do 100 before high school. I remember thinking how useless this exercise was, and never thought that it could be difficult for others. I thought people were just lazy and find excuses not to do them.
Now even doing a single push-up is a struggle for me. I have always been weaker with push-ups. In my youth, push-ups were my weakest exercise where there was a limit on the number of push-ups, maybe 50.
7 minute mile was considered kind of slow, now I struggle with a 12 minute mile. I even now notice that my reflexes are slower.
But there is still hope because I still see people easily twice my age run faster and longer. My father can run marathons yearly. So I am slowly changing my lifestyle to be more fit. Life has made it a little difficult lately, but still on my mind.
Today, I had a sudden drop in my weight, 3 pounds. I am not exactly sure why as I had been maintaining 243-244 pounds for the last couple weeks. I think eating less/healthier and evening walks every other night have lowered my weight a little bit, but then I was adding weight by drinking more water at night so I didn't notice my weight loss. Last night, I didn't drink any water. Anyways, I hope this is good news and not something else. I feel physically normal.
Showing posts with label hope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hope. Show all posts
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Thursday, June 15, 2017
My struggles with overeating
For those who is reading my blog for the first time, I do exercise quite regularly but still cannot lose weight or yo-yo when I lose significant amount. I am not fond of sharing my personal health experiences, but I do wish to help others and I found it helpful to know that other people have struggled and overcame their struggles.
I say that I exercise regularly, but I do go in slumps. In the big picture, I typically do the worst when I am at a new job because I overwork, eat poorly, eat more frequently, don't exercise, and sleep less. I get too tunnel-visioned in learning as much as I can in as short period of time. I do this rather successfully at the expense of my health.
I also do very, very well when I do not work. I lost 30 pounds in a summer when I was volunteering. I lose a lot of weight when I am between jobs. Basically, I do well when I just focus my attention at one particular lifestyle.
Lately, I have been doing better at balancing these two. Unfortunately, I still have a lot of bad habits. Eat a lot and frequently. I know it, but it is still hard to avoid it. No matter how much I tell myself... I could be telling myself the entire day that I should stop late night eating, I will still waver hard and indulge..... even when I wasn't even hungry.
I do not know why. But once it is late, I just want to eat. By this point, I have already eaten the usual 3 meals. I am even worse when I actually feel hungry. This has a multi-part problem. First, I don't cook frequently so I cook an entire week's worth of food over the weekend. Second, I do not like to waste food (in a broader view, I do not like wasting in general). Third, when I do something I go all the way. Fourth through to infinite, I am pretty bad to almost all bad eating habits except for sweets.
I have never been much for candy, cakes, ice cream... unless they are the only available edible foods which I practice eat them more like a meal than a snack. I also do not have a problem with snacking, but I like snack foods. So if I am hungry, I can down a bag of potato chips. In between meals, I have no problems avoiding it. Once I am hungry and I eat one chip... the bag will basically be consumed within minutes.
So if there is food around, I will want to "finish" it even if I am full. I don't like leftovers, so I will eat it all. Even if I am stuffed, I will finish off the food. Because I don't buy candy or snacks, I am at least able to avoid very unhealthy foods. When I host parties and have leftover snacks... sadly I will eat them. To avoid this, I have been giving them away as guests leave or bring them to the office.
But easily my one biggest issue is late night eating...
I eat an extra late night meal. This is so hard and no amount of logic can explain why I still want to eat... except out of habit. I will look into every nook and cranny for some resemblance of food that needs to be consumed and make-up some excuse that it needs to be done before it expires. Even to this day, I am staring at the food and practically yelling at myself (or the food) that I should not eat... I will not eat it.... over and over.
I do not know what triggered the change, but in the last week, I have actually been able to put the food back into the fridge and just not eat it. And like that, I have been able to lose 1-2 pounds a day. It does not even matter if I ate unhealthy (fried chicken, fries, etc.). I am not saying that I should be eating it, but this just shows how unhealthy late night eating has been for me. I am already down 8 pounds in the last week. (Just for some reference to those who is trying to lose weight, I should weigh around 170 and currently 250 at the start of losing... so don't be thinking you'll lose a pound if you are already at average weight.)
Even now as I write this post, I still have the urge. It has become literally to the point of my left arm pulling my right arm away. So, I really hope anyone who is trying to lose weight that you are not alone in your struggle. It is hard... and sometimes there really is no good explanation except purely will-power to make a change in one's life. So, keep fighting even if you fail.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Human Decency - Mr. Rogers - Senate Subcommittee (1969)
Still relevant today...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetestimonypbs.htm
Senator Pastore: Alright Rogers, you've got the floor.
Mr. Rogers: Senator Pastore, this is a philosophical statement and would take about ten minutes to read, so I'll not do that. One of the first things that a child learns in a healthy family is trust, and I trust what you have said that you will read this. It's very important to me. I care deeply about children.
Senator Pastore: Will it make you happy if you read it?
Mr. Rogers: I'd just like to talk about it, if it's alright. My first children's program was on WQED fifteen years ago, and its budget was $30. Now, with the help of the Sears-Roebuck Foundation and National Educational Television, as well as all of the affiliated stations -- each station pays to show our program. It's a unique kind of funding in educational television. With this help, now our program has a budget of $6000. It may sound like quite a difference, but $6000 pays for less than two minutes of cartoons. Two minutes of animated, what I sometimes say, bombardment. I'm very much concerned, as I know you are, about what's being delivered to our children in this country. And I've worked in the field of child development for six years now, trying to understand the inner needs of children. We deal with such things as -- as the inner drama of childhood. We don't have to bop somebody over the head to...make drama on the screen. We deal with such things as getting a haircut, or the feelings about brothers and sisters, and the kind of anger that arises in simple family situations. And we speak to it constructively.
Senator Pastore: How long of a program is it?
Mr. Rogers: It's a half hour every day. Most channels schedule it in the noontime as well as in the evening. WETA here has scheduled it in the late afternoon.
Senator Pastore: Could we get a copy of this so that we can see it? Maybe not today, but I'd like to see the program.
Mr. Rogers: I'd like very much for you to see it.
Senator Pastore: I'd like to see the program itself, or any one of them.
Mr. Rogers: We made a hundred programs for EEN, the Eastern Educational Network, and then when the money ran out, people in Boston and Pittsburgh and Chicago all came to the fore and said we've got to have more of this neighborhood expression of care. And this is what -- This is what I give. I give an expression of care every day to each child, to help him realize that he is unique. I end the program by saying, "You've made this day a special day, by just your being you. There's no person in the whole world like you, and I like you, just the way you are." And I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great service for mental health. I think that it's much more dramatic that two men could be working out their feelings of anger -- much more dramatic than showing something of gunfire. I'm constantly concerned about what our children are seeing, and for 15 years I have tried in this country and Canada, to present what I feel is a meaningful expression of care.
Senator Pastore: Do you narrate it?
Mr. Rogers: I'm the host, yes. And I do all the puppets and I write all the music, and I write all the scripts --
Senator Pastore: Well, I'm supposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the first time I've had goose bumps for the last two days.
Mr. Rogers: Well, I'm grateful, not only for your goose bumps, but for your interest in -- in our kind of communication. Could I tell you the words of one of the songs, which I feel is very important?
Senator Pastore: Yes.
Mr. Rogers: This has to do with that good feeling of control which I feel that children need to know is there. And it starts out, "What do you do with the mad that you feel?" And that first line came straight from a child. I work with children doing puppets in -- in very personal communication with small groups:
Senator Pastore: I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned the 20 million dollars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetestimonypbs.htm
Senator Pastore: Alright Rogers, you've got the floor.
Mr. Rogers: Senator Pastore, this is a philosophical statement and would take about ten minutes to read, so I'll not do that. One of the first things that a child learns in a healthy family is trust, and I trust what you have said that you will read this. It's very important to me. I care deeply about children.
Senator Pastore: Will it make you happy if you read it?
Mr. Rogers: I'd just like to talk about it, if it's alright. My first children's program was on WQED fifteen years ago, and its budget was $30. Now, with the help of the Sears-Roebuck Foundation and National Educational Television, as well as all of the affiliated stations -- each station pays to show our program. It's a unique kind of funding in educational television. With this help, now our program has a budget of $6000. It may sound like quite a difference, but $6000 pays for less than two minutes of cartoons. Two minutes of animated, what I sometimes say, bombardment. I'm very much concerned, as I know you are, about what's being delivered to our children in this country. And I've worked in the field of child development for six years now, trying to understand the inner needs of children. We deal with such things as -- as the inner drama of childhood. We don't have to bop somebody over the head to...make drama on the screen. We deal with such things as getting a haircut, or the feelings about brothers and sisters, and the kind of anger that arises in simple family situations. And we speak to it constructively.
Senator Pastore: How long of a program is it?
Mr. Rogers: It's a half hour every day. Most channels schedule it in the noontime as well as in the evening. WETA here has scheduled it in the late afternoon.
Senator Pastore: Could we get a copy of this so that we can see it? Maybe not today, but I'd like to see the program.
Mr. Rogers: I'd like very much for you to see it.
Senator Pastore: I'd like to see the program itself, or any one of them.
Mr. Rogers: We made a hundred programs for EEN, the Eastern Educational Network, and then when the money ran out, people in Boston and Pittsburgh and Chicago all came to the fore and said we've got to have more of this neighborhood expression of care. And this is what -- This is what I give. I give an expression of care every day to each child, to help him realize that he is unique. I end the program by saying, "You've made this day a special day, by just your being you. There's no person in the whole world like you, and I like you, just the way you are." And I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great service for mental health. I think that it's much more dramatic that two men could be working out their feelings of anger -- much more dramatic than showing something of gunfire. I'm constantly concerned about what our children are seeing, and for 15 years I have tried in this country and Canada, to present what I feel is a meaningful expression of care.
Senator Pastore: Do you narrate it?
Mr. Rogers: I'm the host, yes. And I do all the puppets and I write all the music, and I write all the scripts --
Senator Pastore: Well, I'm supposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the first time I've had goose bumps for the last two days.
Mr. Rogers: Well, I'm grateful, not only for your goose bumps, but for your interest in -- in our kind of communication. Could I tell you the words of one of the songs, which I feel is very important?
Senator Pastore: Yes.
Mr. Rogers: This has to do with that good feeling of control which I feel that children need to know is there. And it starts out, "What do you do with the mad that you feel?" And that first line came straight from a child. I work with children doing puppets in -- in very personal communication with small groups:
What do you do with the mad that you feel? When you feel so mad you could bite. When the whole wide world seems oh so wrong, and nothing you do seems very right. What do you do? Do you punch a bag? Do you pound some clay or some dough? Do you round up friends for a game of tag or see how fast you go? It's great to be able to stop when you've planned the thing that's wrong. And be able to do something else instead -- and think this song --
'I can stop when I want to. Can stop when I wish. Can stop, stop, stop anytime....And what a good feeling to feel like this! And know that the feeling is really mine. Know that there's something deep inside that helps us become what we can. For a girl can be someday a lady, and a boy can be someday a man.'
Senator Pastore: I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned the 20 million dollars.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Evolution - The Wrong Point of View
I am on the side of "evolution" in the discussion of evolution versus creation. But unlike most evolutionists, I can understand where creationists can also be correct. I chose my side because it coincides with my essence to seek the truth. My problem with creationism is that there really is not much else to seek because logic can basically stop at any point where my mind cannot conceive the idea and say it was just created that way. So it really is not a matter that I "picked" a side but rather I accept both as a possibility except that there isn't much else to "study" for creationism.
Back to the topic of the point-of-view of the word "evolution," to clarify, the evolution of animals/creatures. Fundamentally, I believe the word evolution is not the proper root to use because the connotation is that evolving is a positive mutation as if there was control of the mutation. Looking back in time, it appears to be evolving because it "adjusted" to the changing environments as if the animal decided on its new features.
The better term should be that animals are mutating (although mutation does have a negative connotation... perhaps there is a better neutral term). And only those that have the mutation that can survive the current and future environments keep living. Unlike movies or tv shows that show radical mutations, mutations are usually very small changes. Most of those small mutations are not life altering. Mutations happen all the time and can easily be observed even among ourselves from generation to generation.
Let's say a hypothetical situation where people build a higher tolerance to either heat or cold. Because we are much more mobile and free to move from place to place, people with higher tolerance to heat will slowly migrate towards hotter locations while people with cold tolerance move to colder locations where they will meet other similar people. These mutations are harmless. If the pattern continues, people will likely mate with similar people due to closer proximity to similar people. Eventually, the extremes of both people can no longer tolerate the opposite extreme but life continues.
So neither side really consciously chooses which mutation to change towards, but the natural habitat plays a factor in increasing certain mutations. While a mutation to have an extra finger may not have any factor (except maybe social ones where 5-fingered and 6-fingered people fight).
Now let us say there was a catastrophic world phenomenon where the world is freezing over. The heat tolerance people start dying off because they can no longer survive. While the cold tolerance people are surviving just enough to have future generations. In another 200 years where "freezing" temperatures are not normal weather, the cold tolerance people "evolved" to the new extreme. On the other hand, the opposite scenario could happen if the world heated up.
Of course, physics is much more complicated than that where the extreme tolerance would have likely changed other physical attributes of a person. Of course, there is guided "evolution" where we artificially bias a mutation over another for example plants. Sweet fruits used to spread because their seeds were able to travel further distances by the animals that eat them. Poisonous fruits protect themselves by preventing animals eating them. Now we produce sweeter fruits by only breeding the fruits that are sweeter.
So evolution is real or at least a pattern shown by the current creation iteration. Can I really "prove" that evolution occurred over millions of years? No, because nothing can survive even remotely that long. We cannot even prove someone did something even when strong evidence shows the high likelihood that it happened only 24 hours ago. Neither can I disprove that a fossil was created yesterday but "created" in such a way to carbon date millions of years ago.
So I do hold that creationism is possible and one that I would at least be partially possible. I would imagine that a replicator (like the one in Star Trek) would have the same principle where it could just "create" a million-year-old fossil even though it was just created.
Anyways, I hope this helps clarify some basic points and also hope that there are people who are capable of accepting multiple possibilities (a confident doubt, if you will).
Back to the topic of the point-of-view of the word "evolution," to clarify, the evolution of animals/creatures. Fundamentally, I believe the word evolution is not the proper root to use because the connotation is that evolving is a positive mutation as if there was control of the mutation. Looking back in time, it appears to be evolving because it "adjusted" to the changing environments as if the animal decided on its new features.
The better term should be that animals are mutating (although mutation does have a negative connotation... perhaps there is a better neutral term). And only those that have the mutation that can survive the current and future environments keep living. Unlike movies or tv shows that show radical mutations, mutations are usually very small changes. Most of those small mutations are not life altering. Mutations happen all the time and can easily be observed even among ourselves from generation to generation.
Let's say a hypothetical situation where people build a higher tolerance to either heat or cold. Because we are much more mobile and free to move from place to place, people with higher tolerance to heat will slowly migrate towards hotter locations while people with cold tolerance move to colder locations where they will meet other similar people. These mutations are harmless. If the pattern continues, people will likely mate with similar people due to closer proximity to similar people. Eventually, the extremes of both people can no longer tolerate the opposite extreme but life continues.
So neither side really consciously chooses which mutation to change towards, but the natural habitat plays a factor in increasing certain mutations. While a mutation to have an extra finger may not have any factor (except maybe social ones where 5-fingered and 6-fingered people fight).
Now let us say there was a catastrophic world phenomenon where the world is freezing over. The heat tolerance people start dying off because they can no longer survive. While the cold tolerance people are surviving just enough to have future generations. In another 200 years where "freezing" temperatures are not normal weather, the cold tolerance people "evolved" to the new extreme. On the other hand, the opposite scenario could happen if the world heated up.
Of course, physics is much more complicated than that where the extreme tolerance would have likely changed other physical attributes of a person. Of course, there is guided "evolution" where we artificially bias a mutation over another for example plants. Sweet fruits used to spread because their seeds were able to travel further distances by the animals that eat them. Poisonous fruits protect themselves by preventing animals eating them. Now we produce sweeter fruits by only breeding the fruits that are sweeter.
So evolution is real or at least a pattern shown by the current creation iteration. Can I really "prove" that evolution occurred over millions of years? No, because nothing can survive even remotely that long. We cannot even prove someone did something even when strong evidence shows the high likelihood that it happened only 24 hours ago. Neither can I disprove that a fossil was created yesterday but "created" in such a way to carbon date millions of years ago.
So I do hold that creationism is possible and one that I would at least be partially possible. I would imagine that a replicator (like the one in Star Trek) would have the same principle where it could just "create" a million-year-old fossil even though it was just created.
Anyways, I hope this helps clarify some basic points and also hope that there are people who are capable of accepting multiple possibilities (a confident doubt, if you will).
Monday, November 18, 2013
Life: Detached Life, Attached Life, What Life Do I Want?
Do I want to rage in my life or observe from a detached point-of-view? Here I want to differentiate "I" from "us" because I want to be clearer that this is a choice that an individual cannot take both extremes. Most of us will fall in between the two, but we will likely lean more towards one than the other.
And as I ponder on this thought, my curiosity is more on what made me decide the path to take and what made you who you are. The more that I think on it, the harder it was to imagine that I made my choice without the world around me. It is like a void that I filled.
My life has taken me towards a path, while my talents have driven me towards a subset of those paths. Given all the choices I've made and the choices of the people around me has made, my one single path is the one that I lived. My future may have infinite paths, but not all paths are available to me.
I will never know what it was like to be homeless, parent-less, and the same time I will also not know what it is to be king or wealth beyond my imagination. I can guess, but I'll never know. It is just life to me because there is nothing I can do about what is. This does not make me sad or happy.
By the same thought at the more extremes, do criminals exist because of the situation they were put into? I am not perfect. Assuming that everyone is imperfect, there are bound to be "cracks" in society that almost seem like it necessitates the existence of "evil" within our world.
So to solve our worldly issues, we cannot "not" care about the world around us. To me, the solution is to strive to be self sufficient and be able to help at least one other person so that my idea can survive. If I can help at least two other people, then I have at least made the world a better place. Eventually those two people can help at least one other person.
I can choose to be a more pro-active person or an indirect person. I believe both paths can solve our problems. To reach the point to safely guide someone else, we need to reach a point where we are comfortable with our existence. Whether you find your sufficiency through a god, multiple gods, no gods, science, nature, personal faith, or even questionable existence, I believe we all seek a greater truth and we can all reach there faster with everyone. For a Buddhist monks see things that a pope does not see which neither can truly see what you nor I see. By sharing our vision, we can see a bigger picture... hopefully, we'll see that none of us are wrong. We just saw it differently.
Reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-OYmHVchQ
And as I ponder on this thought, my curiosity is more on what made me decide the path to take and what made you who you are. The more that I think on it, the harder it was to imagine that I made my choice without the world around me. It is like a void that I filled.
My life has taken me towards a path, while my talents have driven me towards a subset of those paths. Given all the choices I've made and the choices of the people around me has made, my one single path is the one that I lived. My future may have infinite paths, but not all paths are available to me.
I will never know what it was like to be homeless, parent-less, and the same time I will also not know what it is to be king or wealth beyond my imagination. I can guess, but I'll never know. It is just life to me because there is nothing I can do about what is. This does not make me sad or happy.
By the same thought at the more extremes, do criminals exist because of the situation they were put into? I am not perfect. Assuming that everyone is imperfect, there are bound to be "cracks" in society that almost seem like it necessitates the existence of "evil" within our world.
So to solve our worldly issues, we cannot "not" care about the world around us. To me, the solution is to strive to be self sufficient and be able to help at least one other person so that my idea can survive. If I can help at least two other people, then I have at least made the world a better place. Eventually those two people can help at least one other person.
I can choose to be a more pro-active person or an indirect person. I believe both paths can solve our problems. To reach the point to safely guide someone else, we need to reach a point where we are comfortable with our existence. Whether you find your sufficiency through a god, multiple gods, no gods, science, nature, personal faith, or even questionable existence, I believe we all seek a greater truth and we can all reach there faster with everyone. For a Buddhist monks see things that a pope does not see which neither can truly see what you nor I see. By sharing our vision, we can see a bigger picture... hopefully, we'll see that none of us are wrong. We just saw it differently.
Reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-OYmHVchQ
“Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground a few feet in order blindly and dumbly to rot and disappear forever.” -Ernest Becker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)