The article I draw from is on runbare.com entitled New Study by Dr. Daniel Lieberman on Barefoot Running Makes Cover Story in Nature Journal. The study itself can be found at the Skeletal Biology Lab at Harvard University. in Nature 463: 531-5 and Nature 432: 345-352, both in .pdf.

In this study, Dr. Lierberman and his team looked at the difference between barefoot runners and shod runners. They studied and compared those who always wear shoes while running, testing with and without shoes, and those who do not wear shoes while running. The key points from the summary on runbare.com are:

Higher Impact and Lower Efficiency When Heel Striking: “…running on the heel increases impact (up to three times the impact force of forefoot landing, and up to 7 times the impact loading of running barefoot) and decreases efficiency (causing a braking effect with each stride) while running on the forefoot decreases impact and increases efficiency, by translating stored kinetic energy in the muscles into rotational or forward propulsion.”

Barefoot Runners Lower Center of Gravity to Reduce Impact. “…barefoot runners suffered no greater impact when landing on hard surfaces than soft surfaces… dispels the myth that we could once run barefoot on the Savanna, but cannot do so on harder ‘modern’ surfaces such as asphalt and pavement…”

We Evolved to Run on Our Forefoot. “Natural selection suggests that if endurance running was important to our survival, then forefoot running came about to protect the foot and reduce the chance of injury. While barefoot runners or those who wear minimalist shoes avoid rear foot landings and the associated impacts, in contrast, most shod runners today land almost exclusively on their heels.”

Modern running shoes may be dangerous. “…they promote a heel foot strike, which…produces far greater impact than landing on the forefoot… barefoot running may help reduce the chance of injury…”

The authors and researchers do conclude that more study is needed.

When I used to run, with prescription Brooks Beast, I ran with a heel strike. If I do take up running again, it will be barefoot running with a forefoot strike. To read the articles and educate yourself, follow the links above.

• Real-life Jedi: Pushing the limits of mind control by Katia Moskvitch, Technology reporter, BBC News.
• Mind-control computers for disabled people

Read the article entitled Count on Yoga: 38 Ways Yoga Keeps You Fit.

One summer, years ago, I worked in a unionized government warehouse. The older guys would take smoke breaks, frequently. When I came along, one in particular would watch me move two boxes, then would stop me while he had a smoke break. I’d move two more boxes, then he’d smoke another one. It was such a waste of time and effort that it really motivated me to continue my education. Truthfully it wasn’t the smokers that did it. It was when the highlight of the day for the warehouse crew was putting sheets of bubble wrap over the floor and then driving the forklift back and forth across it and listening to it pop. I refused to end up like that.

I’ve wondered, would a non-smoker be more productive? Not necessarily. Smokers just need to limit their breaks. But since I’ve been changing my eating habits, I find I can have high energy all day. Am I more productive because I don’t get dozy after lunch and run out for a chocolate bar? Or vegetate in front of my computer until it passes? I don’t need to frequent the coffee machine either. I don’t need the morning java juice to get me going. Is someone who eats like me more productive?

I hear from other raw food people: cookbook authors, sprouters, health advocates, that yes, they are high energy, and they are more productive since they started eating like this. Next time I hire, I’ll look for this on resumes.

Over the past month, as good as the cereal had become, I don’t do it anymore. Two weeks ago after I killed the Magic Bullet, we purchased the Vita-Mix 5200 Blender, and it is terrific. Now I put everything in, and I mean everything: greens, fruits, berries, nuts, spices, herbs, olive oil, water, and blend it up. That super-smoothie is breakfast and my daily drink, with an apple or salad for lunch. Fast. Easy. Healthy.

Many people who eat mainly raw foods talk about percents of the food mix in their diets: vegetables vs fruits vs nuts. One very healthy person I use as a personal example has 80% fruit, about 15% vegetable, and the remaining 5% nuts. Another has 1/3 of each. I am learning where I fit, and it seems closer to 50% vegetable, 20% fruit, and 30% nut.

After a month my weight is still the same, my waist is still the same, blood pressure is still nice and low. My legs seem more muscular, though 20 KM a day sure helps. But my understanding of which food affects me has certainly increased. Now that the vegetable garden is in, I’ll be eating many more greens at harvest time, and looking forward to learning more.

• A spoonful each of raw almonds, walnuts, pecans, and pumpkin seeds that had soaked overnight.
• A couple of spoonfuls of extra virgin olive oil.
• Half a banana.
• Buckwheat groats that had sprouted for six days.
• About 1/16 each of a teaspoon of spirulina, maca root, and hemp seed.
• Three drops of iodine.
• Filtered water.

After blending, I added in some more sprouted buckwheat groats and the rest of the banana, sliced up, for something to chew.

It sat, in the Magic Bullet cup, for two hours until I ate it, after my morning cycle commute and settling in.

It is quite good. It is not sweet, but has a palatable taste. Less than 8 grams of fructose. I’m getting there.

The agave was great in our raw food recipes, and once the bottles were empty, we found that our neighbourhood Costco had begun selling it, cheap. I wondered at the time what effect a distribution network like Costco would do to it. Could the quality be maintained when it was mass produced? What about the source of the agave plant? Would mass production be harmful for the, and its, environment?

We have been buying and using agave, but after hearing some potentially negative things about it, I decided to do some online reading. Along with about a half dozen articles, I found a Dr. Mercola article This Sweetener Is Far Worse Than High Fructose Corn Syrup which also discussed fructose. The middle of the article has a chart with the fructose levels of various fruits:

Fructose chart from Dr. Mercola

After reading the article I realized that maybe I am eating too much fructose. Last summer I cut out processed foods, and other than the rare treat (holiday feasting), and eating out 1-2 times a month, about 90% of the fruits and vegetables I eat are raw. Having gone from 200 pounds down to 173, cycling 80 KM a week, other exercising and yoga about 2-3 hours a week I still have a belly. a beer gut, even though I was never a beer drinker and now don’t touch any alcohol at all. Even when I was running half marathons and did lots of sit-ups, I still had a gut.

You may be thinking that is is alright to eat fructose in fruits, because that is ‘natural’ versus the fructose in processed foods. From what I read, maybe not. Fructose may be fructose, with the same effect on our bodies, in whatever form. I’ll experiment with my food regimen for the next month and see what happens.

My morning cereal, which is mainly almonds, pecans, walnuts, and various seeds soaked, rinsed, and put through a Magic Bullet, sometimes with rejuvelac (wheatgrass) and dates, and poured over a bowl of sliced fresh fruits, may be too much fructose. I’ve eliminated the dates and all fruits except for one banana, and have added in locally grown blackberries and raspberries.

My daily smoothie, an eclectic mix of, in descending order: fruits, vegetables, sprouts, nuts, olive oil and spices, has had the fruits removed. This morning’s was barely palatable. It needs some work.

Over the next month I’ll try to eat this way, and see how eating much less fruit, but more vegetables, affects me and my gut. Hopefully I will find ways to make raw food relatively sweeter and more palatable without using fruits with high concentrations of fructose.

Here is the CBC article:

Cancer-fighting additive weighed for junk food
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 | 12:50 PM ET

Canada is investigating whether to approve a cancer-fighting additive’s use in junk food, but Health Canada wants consumers to weigh in on the idea first.

The concern surrounds a chemical byproduct called acrylamide that is produced when carbohydrates such as bread or potatoes are cooked at high temperatures.

Studies in mice suggest acrylamide may cause cancer. There is less evidence in humans, but the suggestion that it might has governments and food manufacturers looking for ways to reduce the potential.

That’s where the additive comes in. It’s an enzyme used in some chemotherapy agents that could bring down levels of acrylamide.

Health Canada’s safety assessment of the enzyme, which is called asparaginase, didn’t turn up any health or safety concerns.

Use of the enzyme is approved by regulators in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and Denmark, and has been given a green light by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives, Health Canada said.

The Canadian regulator is seeking public comments on the proposal until Feb. 21.

The proposal has generated a lot of opinions from consumers.

“I thought Health Canada was supposed to encourage healthy eating habits,” Judith Ryan told CBC News. “If the additive is used, people will think junk food is safe and eat more. The result will be more obesity, more diabetes and more heat disease, and eventually more costs to the health-care system. How smart is this?”

Liz Head called the proposal “rubbish.”

“When are we going to learn that to be healthy human beings we need to change our eating habits? The best way to prevent cancer is to eat a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, complex carbohydrates and some protein. At some stage, we need to take responsibility for our own good health and I know those changes are hard to make. Just put some sour cream and onion chips in front of me!”

Copyright © CBC 2009