Hi Morelife community,



I confess, I have been lurking (read, as a twist on the

pronounciation: looking) at the messages since summer concluded,

hoping, wishing, trying to write a response -- joshing, because I

purposefully chose not to respond as I've been focusing most of my

attention on developing a knack for science, especially that of my

body.

However, I will be making a change beginning this winter and

continuing through Arizona State spring semester by reserving writing

and thinking time each day for Morelife Yahoo Group, that I might

participate with Paul, Kitty, Steve, and others.



That said, I have a personal concern for your consideration.



I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day

has been working fine for me.  I would also like to exercise 45 min

per day.  BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group

posted 06/04/08:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809



Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent

would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?



David "Jack"emeyer

BioTech student

Methuselah Foundation student/lab rat

On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> Hi Morelife community,

>

> I confess, I have been lurking (read, as a twist on the

> pronounciation: looking) at the messages since summer concluded,

> hoping, wishing, trying to write a response -- joshing, because I

> purposefully chose not to respond as I've been focusing most of my

> attention on developing a knack for science, especially that of my

> body.



It took me many decades to learn that my happiness and overall

productivity are higher when I do not forsake things that I really

*would like* to be doing, because of some misguided idea of what I

really *ought" to be doing. I think that you have not learned that yet.



WRT a "knack for science", there is a major difference between gaining

scientific knowledge and understanding the scientific method as

opposed to actually enjoying the practice of some science. And note

that no one practices any large part of the sciences (at least not at

one time), but rather practices in an extremely narrow area of some

science - this is particularly true for the experimental sciences.

Furthermore, not everyone does or needs to have a "knack for science".

Instead what is necessary in order to be effective in dealing with

reality is adequate knowledge about the findings of those who do have

a "knack for science" and about the logical methodology behind how

such  findings are determined. The latter is both necessary in order

to evaluate for oneself the validity of the claimed findings, and to

apply to one's investigation of any aspect of reality.



> However, I will be making a change beginning this winter and

> continuing through Arizona State spring semester by reserving writing

> and thinking time each day for Morelife Yahoo Group, that I might

> participate with Paul, Kitty, Steve, and others.



Good to hear. And I think that you will find that making the time for

diversions into other interesting/enjoyable activities will enable you

to focus and accomplish better in your studies.



> That said, I have a personal concern for your consideration.

>

> I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day

> has been working fine for me.  I would also like to exercise 45 min

> per day.  BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

> response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group

> posted 06/04/08:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

>

> Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent

> would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

> hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?



Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of

the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.

Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible

after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with

that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at

least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into

a very relaxed state by sleep time.



--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

>

> On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> > Hi Morelife community,

> >

> > I confess, I have been lurking (read, as a twist on the

> > pronunciation: looking) at the messages since summer concluded,

> > hoping, wishing, trying to write a response -- joshing, because I

> > purposefully chose not to respond as I've been focusing most of my

> > attention on developing a knack for science, especially that of my

> > body.

>

> It took me many decades to learn that my happiness and overall

> productivity are higher when I do not forsake things that I really

> *would like* to be doing, because of some misguided idea of what I

> really *ought" to be doing. I think that you have not learned that yet.



You suggest that I am not striking a good balance between practicing

what I like to do and what I ought to do.



I have witnessed others (you and Kitty, e.g.) enjoy both the

processes and outcomes inherent with the scientific method, so I

would like to also gain such reward.  I realize that doing so can

also lead to indirect rewards such as improved ability to predict,

wisdom regarding creative problem solving, and an accumulation of

useful knowledge.  I want to get on that path as quickly as possible.



An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

determining my blood content and their respective concentrations.  I

would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

(rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.

Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,

possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and

effectively draw from myself.

With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean

toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.



The same with being more scientific, both on a daily basis as well as

during times of acute concentration: I think I can eventually lean

toward this mindset rather than shrugging it off repeatedly for an

easier path, and I think the quicker I advance in that direction, the

better.



> WRT a "knack for science", there is a major difference between gaining

> scientific knowledge and understanding the scientific method as

> opposed to actually enjoying the practice of some science. And note

> that no one practices any large part of the sciences (at least not t

> one time), but rather practices in an extremely narrow area of some

> science - this is particularly true for the experimental sciences.

> Furthermore, not everyone does or needs to have a "knack for science".

> Instead what is necessary in order to be effective in dealing with

> reality is adequate knowledge about the findings of those who do have

> a "knack for science" and about the logical methodology behind how

> such  findings are determined. The latter is both necessary in order

> to evaluate for oneself the validity of the claimed findings, and to

> apply to one's investigation of any aspect of reality.



I agree that one does not need to practice in an area of science in

order to evaluate for oneself the validity of claims.  I suspect you

agree then that some, if not many of the skills developed by

practicing the scientific method are also developed outside of

science-based inquiry, and further, that some of those non-specific-

to-science skills may be useful to enable scientists to improve their

processes.

My assessment of my overall success is that I do not attempt many

difficult ventures, thus do not provide myself many opportunities to

succeed (or fail).  My assessment of my scientific skill set is that

I am grossly lacking in integrity to scientific thought and that I

could certainly improve by learning and practicing skills that I am

currently studying.  I want to "get cranking" in this area to bring

it up to speed, to round myself a bit w/ the skills of a scientist,

which I predict will both enhance my confidence WRT difficult

ventures and widen my view (as well as deepen my interest) regarding

serious problems that I could solve.



Even though I could (and sometimes, but not often do) comfortably

ignore these self-assessments by failing to get started in the

morning, and instead decide "to hell with it all" which is currently

my default reaction when overwhelmingly depressed, I prefer to remind

myself in the morning of what I ought to do because I predict these

activities will lead to much improved happiness for me, and

indirectly, those with whom I choose to engage.



> > However, I will be making a change beginning this winter and

> > continuing through Arizona State spring semester by reserving writing

> > and thinking time each day for Morelife Yahoo Group, that I might

> > participate with Paul, Kitty, Steve, and others.

>

> Good to hear. And I think that you will find that making the time for

> diversions into other interesting/enjoyable activities will enable you

> to focus and accomplish better in your studies.

>

> > That said, I have a personal concern for your consideration.

> >

> > I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day

> > has been working fine for me.  I would also like to exercise 45 min

> > per day.  BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

> > response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group

> > posted 06/04/08:

> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

> >

> > Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent

> > would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

> > hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?

>

> Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of

> the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.

> Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible

> after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with

> that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at

> least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into

> a very relaxed state by sleep time.



I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic

response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy

stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey

protein, e.g.).  Is this a concern?



If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead

immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?



Jack



> --Paul

Note: Once again this message has become split into two quite separate

issues. I have therefore responded separately to these. This is the first

such response.



On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

> >

> > On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> > > Hi Morelife community,

> > >

> > > I confess, I have been lurking (read, as a twist on the

> > > pronunciation: looking) at the messages since summer concluded,

> > > hoping, wishing, trying to write a response -- joshing, because I

> > > purposefully chose not to respond as I've been focusing most of my

> > > attention on developing a knack for science, especially that of my

> > > body.

> >

> > It took me many decades to learn that my happiness and overall

> > productivity are higher when I do not forsake things that I really

> > *would like* to be doing, because of some misguided idea of what I

> > really *ought" to be doing. I think that you have not learned that yet.

>

> You suggest that I am not striking a good balance between practicing

> what I like to do and what I ought to do.

>



When I use an expression like the above, "I think that ..." it should

not be taken to mean that I am positive, but rather that I think that

there is a reasonable possibility. It appears that it would be better if

I more explicitly state my degree of uncertainty by changing the words

to something like "I think that perhaps...". But, yes, I was suggesting

that perhaps you have not yet learned that getting more immediate

benefits from quickly rewarding activities each day is necessary in

order to persevere at activities that will only result in a net positive

benefit after a much longer time. One should never do anything merely

because one "ought to" do it. In fact, the whole idea of "ought" is out

of place in the context of rational thinking and evaluating. One simply

performs any given activity because one's best estimate is that doing so

will optimally increase one's lifetime happiness. So if "ought" is ever

used, then that is all that it should ever mean, and since "ought" has

so much emotional and cultural baggage associated with it, I am

beginning to think that the word should be completely abandoned. I

personally feel sad about that decision, because "what could be and ought

to be" was a favorite expression of Ayn Rand, and particularly one

which meant a lot to me in decades past. What makes the word "ought" no

longer tenable is that its meaning, and particularly its content (those

things that one ought to do or that ought to be done), depend so

strongly on individual opinions and assessments.





> I have witnessed others (you and Kitty, e.g.) enjoy both the

> processes and outcomes inherent with the scientific method, so I

> would like to also gain such reward. I realize that doing so can

> also lead to indirect rewards such as improved ability to predict,

> wisdom regarding creative problem solving, and an accumulation of

> useful knowledge. I want to get on that path as quickly as possible.



What you have missed above (and the most important aspect for me) is the

pure enjoyment that one can get from thinking, analyzing, creating and

actually effecting a practical solution. Often the method and practice

of the process, far from being an odious task whose only benefit is the

result, is more enjoyable than the result obtained. I think that perhaps

you also do not realize that the so-called "scientific method" is merely

a portion of rational analysis and logical thought applied to the

physical world.



[This is a good point at which to mention the availability, after many

years out of print, of Henry Hazlitt's fantastic book, _Thinking as a

Science_. I only recently learned that it was published in paperback

in 2005; the copy we have is one Paul acquired back in the late 1970s.

Hazlitt wrote this book in 1916 - 93 years ago, when he was but 21

years old! (The 1969 edition received scant changes as Hazlitt

explains in his forward, which I hope is retained in this new 2005

edition. Instead he wrote a fairly short epilogue for those items

that he would have done differently if he were writing on the subject

for the first time, or it could be considered an addendum.) It was

really done as a way of teaching himself how to be an effective

thinker. The wisdom (as well as errors) from some of his

contemporaries and predecessors, his own observations and methods are

fascinating for their keen discernment and are not outdated by recent

neuroscience findings and are ones I found to be presented in a most

interesting and helpful manner.



How to think in an analytical evaluative manner is something that very

few people learn in their youth and large numbers never learn, to any

significant degree. It is an area of study not included in grade

schools and high schools. And educators beyond that level assume that

their students have learned how to think or they would not be there.

Too often a student finds understanding complex subjects highly

difficult because s/he does not know how to *really* think. The first

two chapters of Hazlitt's book are an excellent non-technical

description of what thinking is and how it is most effectively used.

(Several times I found myself amazed at the depth of understanding

coming from someone only 21 years old.)



It is clear to me that going through the process of discovery and

practice that Hazlitt explains in this, his first book, went a very long

way towards enabling him to later understand and explain economics as

skillfully as he did in numerous articles and several books - writings

that are timeless in their assessment of common ideas and actions that

fall under the classification of economics for their consequences.



Hazlitt's books at mises.org -

http://www.mises.org/store/Hazlitt-Collection-C37.aspx

Hazlitt's books at Amazon.com - http://tinyurl.com/73vqe7



**Kitty]



> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I

> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.



I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct process

of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any

puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that

should be the only negative of the process. Any "sickening feeling of

being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage

(it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of

being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would best work

to eliminate. As with any other irrational emotion, you work to

reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first

having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood

drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself

(enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body

pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the

phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw can be

accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is

someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body

quickly seals and heals the puncture). So as soon as this "sickening

feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this

way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to

"get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on all the

short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results. If

you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated and you

will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your

body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the mind).

Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the

subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you did not

realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general

apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you

fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are

not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and

rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to

making them consistent with those values and thoughts.



[I was a person who for many years dreaded venipunctures and even

fingersticks  - to the point that I actually felt faint when they took

place. (Having been a nurse for 16 years didn't change this.) I knew

that this was a psychological reaction but also knew no way to really

get rid of the awful emotional reaction/physiological sensations that

occurred. I went through the process because I was well aware of the

importance and physical benefit to me; I just tried to not look or

even think about it and hope that I wouldn't pass out.



It wasn't too long after joining Paul that the periodic fingersticks

for fasting blood glucose started - he'd been doing it for years. I

couldn't bring myself to prick my own finger but let Paul do it to me

- while I was lying in bed because the first couple times I felt

faint. With explanation by Paul as to how to take control of these

(and other) emotions (and Paul has improved his explanation since

then), I began to do just that. Within a couple weeks I was sticking

myself with the automatic gadget without any sickening fear. (Changing

the lancet at the first indication that it's beginning to get dull -

it then starts to hurt - makes a big difference.)



I still don't watch the phlebotomist do the actual draw on me - though

I don't mind watching Paul get stuck and had little problem doing

numerous venipunctures on others for starting infusions when I was a

nurse. But I no longer get faint, even when the phlebotomist is not

the very best and misses my excellent veins.



I know from personal experience that ridding oneself of these

pathogenic emotional responses (as Paul has newly named them) can be

done - this experience above is just one where I've succeeded. Maybe

some others on the group will share their experiences. **Kitty]





> Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,

> possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and

> effectively draw from myself.



Any puncture to the body is a chance for infection and should never be

done intentionally unless there is a good overall benefit from its

occurrence. With respect to doing it to yourself, while it would always

be beneficial to learn such a technique, and you could perhaps draw

your own blood from a leg vein, it would be both difficult and possibly

error prone (harmful to yourself) to draw blood from your own arm

(injecting a fluid is far easier than drawing/removing blood).



> With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean

> toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.



You will never do so without conscious action to eliminate your

irrational negative emotions (not to say that negative emotions are

always irrational or that positive ones are always rational) about it

and replace them with positive ones. You will never succeed for very

long at any attempt to act counter to your emotions. Rather you will

only succeed in such action if you eliminate the negative emotion and

replace it with a positive one. Put another way, you cannot for long

make yourself do anything that you do not feel good about, and it is

folly to try, because the ultimate result will only be a feeling of

failure and a resultant loss of self-esteem.



> The same with being more scientific, both on a daily basis as well as

> during times of acute concentration: I think I can eventually lean

> toward this mindset rather than shrugging it off repeatedly for an

> easier path,



While the phrase next below is certainly true, you will not succeed at

"being more scientific" until you enumerate and identify your negative

emotions about it, analyze them and determine that they are not

consistent with your consciously held values and then act to replace

them with positive emotions in the manner described above for blood draw

negativity.



> and I think the quicker I advance in that direction, the

> better.

>

> > WRT a "knack for science", there is a major difference between gaining

> > scientific knowledge and understanding the scientific method as

> > opposed to actually enjoying the practice of some science. And note

> > that no one practices any large part of the sciences (at least not t

> > one time), but rather practices in an extremely narrow area of some

> > science - this is particularly true for the experimental sciences.

> > Furthermore, not everyone does or needs to have a "knack for science".

> > Instead what is necessary in order to be effective in dealing with

> > reality is adequate knowledge about the findings of those who do have

> > a "knack for science" and about the logical methodology behind how

> > such findings are determined. The latter is both necessary in order

> > to evaluate for oneself the validity of the claimed findings, and to

> > apply to one's investigation of any aspect of reality.

>

> I agree that one does not need to practice in an area of science in

> order to evaluate for oneself the validity of claims. I suspect you

> agree then that some, if not many of the skills developed by

> practicing the scientific method are also developed outside of

> science-based inquiry, and further, that some of those non-specific-

> to-science skills may be useful to enable scientists to improve their

> processes.



I think that perhaps you think it is a fact that knowledge of and

practice of some area of science is automatically also a practice of the

scientific method. If so I want to make it clear that this is totally

false. While it is true that no one has really understood a science nor

can they hope to achieve much of any real value from experimenting in an

area of science unless they also have a good understanding of the

scientific method, there are many so-called scientists (far too many)

who are precisely in that category of not achieving much of any real

value because they do not understand the basis of what they are trying

to do. Once again I want to emphasize that the so-called scientific

method is merely the method of sound analysis and logical reasoning

applied to reality. Yes, there are some specific formal procedures for

certain sciences, but very few such procedures are applicable in the

same way to all areas of science. Only the general principles of

analysis and logic are applicable everywhere.



> My assessment of my overall success is that I do not attempt many

> difficult ventures, thus do not provide myself many opportunities to

> succeed (or fail).



I think that perhaps this is because you have never learned to enjoy the

mental process of studying, analyzing and achieving the solution of a

problem, rather than merely the end result of that mental effort. One

has to enjoy the means and methods of any action rather than merely the

results or else one will not be able to persevere at it for long and one

will never achieve any great competence at it.



[Much of this lack may come from the way learning is approached in

schools - the vast majority of them and the teachers employed do not

encourage real learning and understanding but merely the successful

passing of tests for scoring purposes. However, an individual has the

capability of correcting this deficiency once s/he comes to realize or

even suspect that it is there. **Kitty]





> My assessment of my scientific skill set is that

> I am grossly lacking in integrity to scientific thought and that I

> could certainly improve by learning and practicing skills that I am

> currently studying.



I think that perhaps you need first to learn to enjoy thinking for its

own sake, regardless of the end result. For this I think you need to

return to your childhood, where you apparently never learned this mental

enjoyment, and do rather simply mental problems that give you immediate

enjoyment from accomplishment and the clear illustration of the efficacy

of your mind. One type of such that I sometimes use as a mental

diversion from longer term activities, and which I find particularly

relaxing before going to sleep, is to play logical computer games such

as sudoku, free cell and spider. These are excellent for helping to

quickly gain the enjoyment of mental efficacy.



> I want to "get cranking" in this area to bring

> it up to speed, to round myself a bit w/ the skills of a scientist,

> which I predict will both enhance my confidence WRT difficult

> ventures and widen my view (as well as deepen my interest) regarding

> serious problems that I could solve.



This is all good and important, but it appears to me that you do not yet

know how to enjoy thinking at all (and that is why you are not much good

at it). You must first learn to enjoy simple thinking activities before

you attempt more complex ones. Taking an online course in logic and

doing all the exercises would both help this and give you more

experience with logic.



META: I had never before heard the expression "get cranking", but having

googled it, I find that it is a variant of the more common expression

"get cracking" ("more common" being derived from the number of examples

of each shown by Google).



> Even though I could (and sometimes, but not often do) comfortably

> ignore these self-assessments by failing to get started in the

> morning, and instead decide "to hell with it all" which is currently

> my default reaction when overwhelmingly depressed, I prefer to remind

> myself in the morning of what I ought to do because I predict these

> activities will lead to much improved happiness for me, and

> indirectly, those with whom I choose to engage.



After lengthy observation, I have come to the conclusion that your

problems are deeper and more fundamental. With respect to the enjoyment

of using your mind for logical, purposeful, rational activity you are

still at the crawling stage. Unless and until you learn to enjoy such

mental activity (even to find it exciting and thrilling - as Kitty said

to me the other day over my enormous enjoyment at successfully making a

very difficult programming change to the wiki software on which I am

working (needing to learn linux shell commands, PHP programming and

mySQL database commands as well as understanding the general structure

of the wiki software), it felt as good as a great orgasm - actually very

different, but overall better in many ways since it was more promotional

to my self-esteem and feeling of efficacy wrt to reality.



--Paul



[The old saying, "All work and no play will make Jack a dull boy" came

to mind. It is a mistake to very severely reduce short term pleasures,

especially those one finds particularly enjoyable in doing, as part of

one's efforts to gain longer term benefits. Such a reduction will have

the same effects as do crash diets for those who love the taste of

food. For me and Paul, dancing energetically to melodic house, trance

and especially eurodance music is just great. We really enjoy being

skillful and improvisational to these types of music; our only

disappointment is the low frequency of the really high energy

offerings from the first two genres in clubs and the absence entirely

in AZ of the last. (There's still a bit in the Toronto area from what

I learn online but there is nothing of any of our favored genres in

rural Ontario where we are 6 months of the year.) But occasional

events of high energy trance are super (Aura in Tempe by Overmindworks

is up next on Saturday 1/24/09 - highly recommended!) And most

Wednesdays we get some good higher energy house at Switch Wednesdays

in Scottsdale after an almost guaranteed high energy 30 to 45min dance

workout at Karamba in Phoenix. (Oops! I got carried away here about

the dance/music environment.)



Now energetic dancing is not everyone's fare - though I can't imagine

why not ;>) - but plenty of other physical activities can provide

someone with much enjoyment. Having at least one physical activity

that is engaged in at least once weekly is highly recommended for the

pure enjoyment experience. And the physiological health aspects are

there too of course. Lots of people simply enjoy the feel of the air

against their body when they run or ride a bicycle. Maybe it's the

pleasurable sensation of the water gliding over the body when swimming

or diving into water. Maybe it's the pleasure associated with

succeeding to reach the top of a hill and gazing out on the view

below. Maybe it is one of the many martial arts. Perhaps it's

participating in a pair or group sport - tennis, soccer, basketball,

volleyball, etc.



The same also applies to stimulating mental activities which provide

one with enjoyment after a relatively short time (as Paul has

described above). Also there are those which require a combination of

mental and physical skills coordinated together (actually best of

all).



The pleasure associated with using one's body (extremities and mind)

skillfully alone, or in voluntary activities with others, is always

beneficial. Such an activity must be maintained even while one

attempts to work toward longer term goals and it can not be avoided if

one wants to maximize hir lifetime happiness. **Kitty]

Hi Paul and Kitty



I hope you are both well



Regarding Hazlitt's books and especially "Thinking as a science",

it seems that they can be read online here:



http://mises.org/books/thinking.pdf   for thinking as a science

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&Id=170 for many of

his other books.



Thanks for your work



François Rose



[Thank you very much, François, for these links. Although I receive

the daily article from mises.org and often go into their archives of

articles, I did not realize that there were actual books by Hazlitt

and other writers (besides Mises himself) available online there.

Great find and a wealth of information and much wisdom available to

all. Spread the word!



Link for all books online at mises.org -

http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject&Id=117



The big drawbacks to online books at this stage in technology for me

is that I must read them on my computer at my desk (or laptop set up

somewhere) and I can't make the notes I typically do in the margins.

Yes, I know Kindle by Amazon looks promising, but it's not yet as good

as having the text on paper in front of me. On the other hand, one can

do a word or phrase text search with the online version - a real plus

sometimes.



**Kitty]



--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:



> What you have missed above (and the most important aspect for me) is

> the pure enjoyment that one can get from thinking, analyzing,

> creating and actually effecting a practical solution. Often the

> method and practice of the process, far from being an odious task

> whose only benefit is the result, is more enjoyable than the result

> obtained. I think that perhaps you also do not realize that the

> so-called "scientific method" is merely a portion of rational

> analysis and logical thought applied to the physical world.

>

> [This is a good point at which to mention the availability, after

> many years out of print, of Henry Hazlitt's fantastic book,

> _Thinking as a Science_. I only recently learned that it was

> published in paperback in 2005; the copy we have is one Paul

> acquired back in the late 1970s.

> Hazlitt wrote this book in 1916 - 93 years ago, when he was but 21

> years old! (The 1969 edition received scant changes as Hazlitt

> explains in his forward, which I hope is retained in this new 2005

> edition. Instead he wrote a fairly short epilogue for those items

> that he would have done differently if he were writing on the

> subject for the first time, or it could be considered an addendum.)

> It was really done as a way of teaching himself how to be an

> effective thinker. The wisdom (as well as errors) from some of his

> contemporaries and predecessors, his own observations and methods

> are fascinating for their keen discernment and are not outdated by

> recent neuroscience findings and are ones I found to be presented in

> a most interesting and helpful manner.

>

> How to think in an analytical evaluative manner is something that

> very few people learn in their youth and large numbers never learn,

> to any significant degree. It is an area of study not included in

> grade schools and high schools. And educators beyond that level

> assume that their students have learned how to think or they would

> not be there.

> Too often a student finds understanding complex subjects highly

> difficult because s/he does not know how to *really* think. The

> first

> two chapters of Hazlitt's book are an excellent non-technical

> description of what thinking is and how it is most effectively

> used. (Several times I found myself amazed at the depth of

> understanding coming from someone only 21 years old.)

>

> It is clear to me that going through the process of discovery and

> practice that Hazlitt explains in this, his first book, went a

> very long way towards enabling him to later understand and explain

> economics as skillfully as he did in numerous articles and several

> books - writings that are timeless in their assessment of common

> ideas and actions that fall under the classification of economics

> for their consequences.

>

> Hazlitt's books at mises.org - http://www.mises.org/store/Hazlitt-

Collection-C37.aspx

> Hazlitt's books at Amazon.com - http://tinyurl.com/73vqe7

>

> **Kitty]

This is a response to a portion of message 1964.



> > An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

> > never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

> > determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I

> > would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

> > (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

> > likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.

>

> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct process

> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any

> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that

> should be the only negative of the process.



I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced

some sort of "shut down" by my body.



> Any "sickening feeling of

> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage

> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of

> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would best work

> to eliminate.



I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the

draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right there

in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.

I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the

needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one where the

needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.



I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one

described above) to the draw with a larger needle.



Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive

thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting

physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I

always watch the needle enter and leave.  I typically am slightly tense

just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,

breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by

emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in danger

("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to

blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say

because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).



When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,

between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.

Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain

but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush

came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality

almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery within

minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.



I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and

"sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood

pressure drop making any sense to me.

Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,

further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?



> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to

> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first

> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood

> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself

> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body

> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the

> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw can be

> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is

> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body

> quickly seals and heals the puncture).



These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives

and learning more details of the healing puncture.



I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...



> So as soon as this "sickening

> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this

> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to

> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on

> all the

> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.



Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an

index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other thoughts.

  I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus

inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining focus

will help.



(Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange with Chad)



> If

> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated and you

> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your

> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the mind).



"Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)



> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the

> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you did not

> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general

> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you

> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are

> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and

> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to

> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.



I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I

described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied

feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in addition

to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange

phenomenon, but I also realize that I have missed out on much more

happiness regarding future blood draws.



--David Jackemeyer

(left the remainder for context and review)



> [I was a person who for many years dreaded venipunctures and even

> fingersticks  - to the point that I actually felt faint when they took

> place. (Having been a nurse for 16 years didn't change this.) I knew

> that this was a psychological reaction but also knew no way to really

> get rid of the awful emotional reaction/physiological sensations that

> occurred. I went through the process because I was well aware of the

> importance and physical benefit to me; I just tried to not look or

> even think about it and hope that I wouldn't pass out.

>

> It wasn't too long after joining Paul that the periodic fingersticks

> for fasting blood glucose started - he'd been doing it for years. I

> couldn't bring myself to prick my own finger but let Paul do it to me

> - while I was lying in bed because the first couple times I felt

> faint. With explanation by Paul as to how to take control of these

> (and other) emotions (and Paul has improved his explanation since

> then), I began to do just that. Within a couple weeks I was sticking

> myself with the automatic gadget without any sickening fear. (Changing

> the lancet at the first indication that it's beginning to get dull -

> it then starts to hurt - makes a big difference.)

>

> I still don't watch the phlebotomist do the actual draw on me - though

> I don't mind watching Paul get stuck and had little problem doing

> numerous venipunctures on others for starting infusions when I was a

> nurse. But I no longer get faint, even when the phlebotomist is not

> the very best and misses my excellent veins.

>

> I know from personal experience that ridding oneself of these

> pathogenic emotional responses (as Paul has newly named them) can be

> done - this experience above is just one where I've succeeded. Maybe

> some others on the group will share their experiences. **Kitty]

>

>

> > Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,

> > possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and

> > effectively draw from myself.

>

> Any puncture to the body is a chance for infection and should never be

> done intentionally unless there is a good overall benefit from its

> occurrence. With respect to doing it to yourself, while it would always

> be beneficial to learn such a technique, and you could perhaps draw

> your own blood from a leg vein, it would be both difficult and possibly

> error prone (harmful to yourself) to draw blood from your own arm

> (injecting a fluid is far easier than drawing/removing blood).

>

> > With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean

> > toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.

>

> You will never do so without conscious action to eliminate your

> irrational negative emotions (not to say that negative emotions are

> always irrational or that positive ones are always rational) about it

> and replace them with positive ones. You will never succeed for very

> long at any attempt to act counter to your emotions. Rather you will

> only succeed in such action if you eliminate the negative emotion and

> replace it with a positive one. Put another way, you cannot for long

> make yourself do anything that you do not feel good about, and it is

> folly to try, because the ultimate result will only be a feeling of

> failure and a resultant loss of self-esteem.

On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.

>

>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

>>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I

>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.

>>>

>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct process

>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any

>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

>> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that

>> should be the only negative of the process.

>>

> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced

> some sort of "shut down" by my body.



Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine

any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a

psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety

within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your

conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.



>> Any "sickening feeling of

>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage

>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of

>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would best work

>> to eliminate.

>>

> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the

> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right there

> in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.



First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell

on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.

Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot

you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because

of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results. Think

about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your

skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you

to have this same shut down due to anxiety. In fact, likely quite the

opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not

even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,

particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the

cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem

the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference

(except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused

by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of

carelessness.



> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the

> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one where the

> needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.

>

> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one

> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.



You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any

other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without

anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the

procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV

purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former

registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself

intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of

the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.

Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring

during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the

mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.



[I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your

circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the

past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually

doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related

matters, but purposely do not look. This method and the others that I

took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for

multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even

blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time

thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is

important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not

especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and

that is my interest.



Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require

multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly. This is a

very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the

phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the

vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture

site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I

think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have

experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if

you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost

always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete

the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a

hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply. **Kitty]



> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive

> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting

> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I

> always watch the needle enter and leave.



At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you

would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics

of the draw.



Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your

descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you

have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator

viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In

fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person

(actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and

cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly

experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and

dilettante spectator of your own life. I urge you to do your utmost to

stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to

your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully

living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious

titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors

on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect

you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),

but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own

life that way.



> I typically am slightly tense

> just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,

> breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by

> emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in danger

> ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to

> blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say

> because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).



Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body

accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel

the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence? If you did not

(as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish

to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a

controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try

your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that

I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which

can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of

which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction

and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts

that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,

particularly for someone who uses tools.)



> When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,

> between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.

> Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain

> but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush

> came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality

> almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery within

> minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.

>

> I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and

> "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood

> pressure drop making any sense to me.

> Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,

> further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?



The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood

pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not

likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate

psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,

which increases heart rate and BP.



>> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to

>> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first

>> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood

>> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself

>> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body

>> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the

>> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw can be

>> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is

>> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body

>> quickly seals and heals the puncture).

>

> These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives

> and learning more details of the healing puncture.



Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease

any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at

least until you have eliminated all anxiety.



> I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...

>

>> So as soon as this "sickening

>> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this

>> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to

>> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on

>> all the

>> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.

>>

> Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an

> index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other thoughts.

> I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus

> inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining focus

> will help.



Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the

mechanics of the blood draw.



> (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange with Chad)



Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.



>> If

>> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated and you

>> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your

>> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the mind).

>>

> "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)



It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in

this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be

useful.



>> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the

>> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you did not

>> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general

>> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you

>> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are

>> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and

>> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to

>> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.

>>

> I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I

> described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied

> feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in addition

> to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange

> phenomenon,



These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with

you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious

spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of

those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and

introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly

done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost

always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my

self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly

experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into

perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more

successful in similar future circumstances.



> but I also realize that I have missed out on much more

> happiness regarding future blood draws.



I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more

"missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.



> --David Jackemeyer

> (left the remainder for context and review)



I also left it in for now.



--Paul



>> [I was a person who for many years dreaded venipunctures and even

>> fingersticks  - to the point that I actually felt faint when they took

>> place. (Having been a nurse for 16 years didn't change this.) I knew

>> that this was a psychological reaction but also knew no way to really

>> get rid of the awful emotional reaction/physiological sensations that

>> occurred. I went through the process because I was well aware of the

>> importance and physical benefit to me; I just tried to not look or

>> even think about it and hope that I wouldn't pass out.

>>

>> It wasn't too long after joining Paul that the periodic fingersticks

>> for fasting blood glucose started - he'd been doing it for years. I

>> couldn't bring myself to prick my own finger but let Paul do it to me

>> - while I was lying in bed because the first couple times I felt

>> faint. With explanation by Paul as to how to take control of these

>> (and other) emotions (and Paul has improved his explanation since

>> then), I began to do just that. Within a couple weeks I was sticking

>> myself with the automatic gadget without any sickening fear. (Changing

>> the lancet at the first indication that it's beginning to get dull -

>> it then starts to hurt - makes a big difference.)

>>

>> I still don't watch the phlebotomist do the actual draw on me - though

>> I don't mind watching Paul get stuck and had little problem doing

>> numerous venipunctures on others for starting infusions when I was a

>> nurse. But I no longer get faint, even when the phlebotomist is not

>> the very best and misses my excellent veins.

>>

>> I know from personal experience that ridding oneself of these

>> pathogenic emotional responses (as Paul has newly named them) can be

>> done - this experience above is just one where I've succeeded. Maybe

>> some others on the group will share their experiences. **Kitty]

>>

>>

>>> Instead of comfortably avoiding blood drawings, I ought to seek them,

>>> possibly even participate in training to learn to safely and

>>> effectively draw from myself.

>>>

>> Any puncture to the body is a chance for infection and should never be

>> done intentionally unless there is a good overall benefit from its

>> occurrence. With respect to doing it to yourself, while it would always

>> be beneficial to learn such a technique, and you could perhaps draw

>> your own blood from a leg vein, it would be both difficult and possibly

>> error prone (harmful to yourself) to draw blood from your own arm

>> (injecting a fluid is far easier than drawing/removing blood).

>>

>>

>>> With the right schedule and attitude, I think I could eventually lean

>>> toward drawing blood rather than avoiding it.

>>>

>> You will never do so without conscious action to eliminate your

>> irrational negative emotions (not to say that negative emotions are

>> always irrational or that positive ones are always rational) about it

>> and replace them with positive ones. You will never succeed for very

>> long at any attempt to act counter to your emotions. Rather you will

>> only succeed in such action if you eliminate the negative emotion and

>> replace it with a positive one. Put another way, you cannot for long

>> make yourself do anything that you do not feel good about, and it is

>> folly to try, because the ultimate result will only be a feeling of

>> failure and a resultant loss of self-esteem.

>>

Meta

Hi Paul

Hi Kitty,



When I preview this message, it's a mess!  I have not changed any

settings in either Yahoo Groups nor Thunderbird Compose.  Any thoughts?

Possibly the preview is inaccurate and you will receive a well-groomed

message...



-Jack



[Except that your response lines were not ended by hard returns (Yahoo

seems to have stopped inserting these for a text only group), which

are easy enough to insert, the formatting, as received in Kitty's

email notice and in the group queue, is perfect. --Paul]

/Meta



--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

>

> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> > This is a response to a portion of message 1964.

> >

> >>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

> >>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

> >>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I

> >>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

> >>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

> >>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.

> >>>

> >> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct

> >> process

> >> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any

> >> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

> >> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that

> >> should be the only negative of the process.

> >>

> > I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced

> > some sort of "shut down" by my body.

>

> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine

> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a

> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety

> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your

> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.



I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in

subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.  More below...



> >> Any "sickening feeling of

> >> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage

> >> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of

> >> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would

> >> best work to eliminate.

> >>

> > I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the

> > draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right

> > there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.

>

> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell

> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.



OK, I'll start here, but do you mean all together?

I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before

or during a draw.  I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how

the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,

followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the

vessel walls, etc.



> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot

> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because

> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.



"How counterproductive", agreed.



I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply

to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally

poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in

hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could

become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could

move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a Jack-of-all-trades.



Why do you choose to use "idiot"?



> Think

> about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your

> skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you

> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.



Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize

if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.

All other times I react as you describe:



> In fact, likely quite the

> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not

> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,

> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the

> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem

> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference

> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused

> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of

> carelessness.



Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).



> > I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the

> > needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one

> > where the

> > needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.

> >

> > I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one

> > described above) to the draw with a larger needle.

>

> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any

> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without

> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the

> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV

> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former

> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself

> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of

> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.

> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring

> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the

> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.



Your last sentence is my hope!



> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your

> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the

> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually

> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related

> matters, but purposely do not look.



Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my

evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead

taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and

asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took

too large of a bite".



> This method and the others that I

> took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for

> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even

> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time

> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is

> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not

> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and

> that is my interest.



Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?



> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require

> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.



Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.



> This is a

> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the

> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the

> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture

> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I

> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have

> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if

> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost

> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete

> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a

> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.

> **Kitty]

>

> > Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive

> > thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting

> > physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I

> > always watch the needle enter and leave.

>

> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you

> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics

> of the draw.

>

> Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your

> descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you

> have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator

> viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In

> fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person

> (actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and

> cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly

> experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and

> dilettante spectator of your own life.



I agree that at times I have practiced delightful examination of my

activities, since I have become interested in dealing with two

difficulties: 1) making sure my presentations were palatable and 2)

discovering actions that conflicted with my intentions.

For an example regarding 1), when I've given a presentation of something

important to me, I am often nervous that

a) I am considered far beneath those in attendance, and

b) none of them (know how to) care to participate in my development.

In class, at a lab meeting, and at Meetup groups, I get the sense that

most are inwardly obsessed and socially careless.  Since I notice this

attitude often, I want to do my best to not exaggerate the distance

between myself and them by replacing a set of poor habits that are

related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from

middle and high school experiences).

Instead of self-protection, I hope redirect my focus toward reading

the audience well and coupling this with a presentation that draws

them (as many as possible) in for a deeply meaningful exchange, both

in terms of fully addressing the subject and my own personal growth in

presenting information for consideration.



To address this, I watch myself and look for distracting qualities; I

also attempt to model others who I consider to be inviting and

intriguing.  I do gain delight in real-time self-reflection.



It is possible that I spend too much time doing this and also for the

wrong reasons (e.g. to make sure I look pop-culturally attractive).



Vicariously, I highly doubt;  the concept suggests that I am

developing a second personality, one that can mostly independently

judge the original.  In addition to doubt, I am confused why you have

chosen this word; if you have the interest and time, will you

elucidate?



> I urge you to do your utmost to

> stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to

> your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully

> living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious

> titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors

> on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect

> you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),

> but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own

> life that way.



Intuitively, I think I had been doing both, fully living and delightfully

studying my responses.

I am fascinated that I do become so deeply engaged in some activities

whereas others are sleep-inducing (yawns, disinterest, much reduced

excitement for the moment).  More surprising is that I can create a

philosophy that discourages most reasoning for participation in an

activity, say playing basketball, and then demand of myself that I

cease a particular action for two years -- yet -- that activity,

basketball, might bring me hours of continuous joy, even after the two

year drought!



Likewise, I can create a philosophy that brings to the top the most

important reasoning for participation in an activity such as learning

about my body/health/wellness, and then demand of myself that I

practice the related activities for two years -- yet-- I will cease

that activity 100% the day after two years and feel no loss!



I like to watch and analyze myself now and then to discover the secrets

to my failures and successes.



> > I typically am slightly tense

> > just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,

> > breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by

> > emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in

> > danger

> > ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to

> > blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say

> > because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).

>

> Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body

> accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel

> the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence?



Only if I visually witnessed the puncture -- to this day, I can

vividly recall two 15-18 year-old acquaintances of mine wrestling for

control of a tool they each found in the basement of their home -- it

had a long wooden handle, like that of a garden hoe and the end

equipped with a metal hook.  I visually witnessed the hook end enter

(1/4 to 1/2 inch) and leave the right calf of the older (brother).

Even though it happened to someone else, I experienced the suddenly

intense response.



I can recall one vivid visual removal of 1/2 inch of Honey Locust thorn

http://www.mitzenmacher.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/thorn.jpg

from the area just below my knee cap. That caused quite a horrified

reaction as I yanked it out and immediately after as I comprehended

the entry and removal of the thorn.



All other foreign objects (splinters, scratches, etc) that I do not

see enter, do not bother me a bit (besides some pain).  All rougher

damage that I do see, such as deep scratches, smaller thorns with

barbs, splinters, etc. do not bother me either.



> If you did not

> (as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish

> to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a

> controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try

> your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that

> I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which

> can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of

> which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction

> and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts

> that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,

> particularly for someone who uses tools.)



I agree that I have been acting counter to my values, and for some

unknown reasons, treating similar occurrences very differently, which

is wrong.

I do not consider myself foolish nor idiotic however.  IMO, these two

terms should be reserved for one who cannot improve hir intellect.

Those who can improve intellect yet lack in judgment and act contrary

to their values can be described with words such as naive and immature.



The last "note" is understood.



> > When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,

> > between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.

> > Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain

> > but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush

> > came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality

> > almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery

> > within

> > minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.

> >

> > I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and

> > "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood

> > pressure drop making any sense to me.

> > Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,

> > further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?

>

> The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood

> pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not

> likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate

> psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,

> which increases heart rate and BP.

>

> >> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to

> >> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first

> >> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood

> >> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself

> >> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body

> >> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the

> >> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw

> >> can be

> >> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is

> >> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body

> >> quickly seals and heals the puncture).

> >

> > These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives

> > and learning more details of the healing puncture.

>

> Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease

> any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at

> least until you have eliminated all anxiety.



Noted.



> > I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...

> >

> >> So as soon as this "sickening

> >> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this

> >> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to

> >> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on

> >> all the

> >> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.

> >>

> > Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an

> > index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other

> > thoughts.

> > I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus

> > inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining

> > focus will help.

>

> Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the

> mechanics of the blood draw.

>

> > (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange

> > with Chad)

>

> Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.

>

> >> If

> >> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated

> >> and you

> >> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your

> >> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the

> >> mind).

> >>

> > "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)

>

> It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in

> this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be

> useful.

>

> >> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the

> >> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you

> >> did not

> >> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general

> >> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you

> >> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are

> >> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and

> >> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to

> >> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.

> >>

> > I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I

> > described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied

> > feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in

> > addition

> > to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange

> > phenomenon,

>

> These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with

> you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious

> spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of

> those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and

> introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly

> done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost

> always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my

> self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly

> experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into

> perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more

> successful in similar future circumstances.



I am glad that you are thinking about me and offering critical

analyses for my consideration.  I expand/explain a little above and I

have no intention of brushing aside your comments; instead, I am

deliberately considering what you have shared and looking for

opportunities to practice directly experiencing events coupled with an

awareness to postpone introspection to afterward.

Thank you for the suggestions!



> > but I also realize that I have missed out on much more

> > happiness regarding future blood draws.

>

> I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more

> "missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.



I am thinking about it.



--David Jackemeyer



> > --David Jackemeyer

> > (left the remainder for context and review)

>

> I also left it in for now.

>

> --Paul



<snipped the remainder previously left in>

On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:



Meta

Snipped meta comments.

/Meta



> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

>

>> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>>

>>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.

>>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

>>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

>>>>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I

>>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

>>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

>>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.

>>>>

>>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct

>>>> process

>>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any

>>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

>>>> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that

>>>> should be the only negative of the process.

>>>

>>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced

>>> some sort of "shut down" by my body.

>>>

>> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine

>> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a

>> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety

>> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your

>> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.

>

> I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in

> subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.  More

> below...



Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled

experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue

creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor

pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.



>>>> Any "sickening feeling of

>>>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage

>>>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of

>>>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would

>>>> best work to eliminate.

>>>>

>>> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the

>>> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right

>>> there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.

>>>

>> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell

>> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.

>

> OK, I'll start here, but do you mean all together?

> I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before

> or during a draw.  I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how

> the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,

> followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the

> vessel walls, etc.



Jack, why is it that if I leave any detail out you always miss my

meaning? (This is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer, but

merely for you to think about.)

Perhaps the following written above would have enabled you to understand:

"First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw *on yourself*.

When you are having blood drawn do not think of the physical procedure

with respect to yourself, do not watch the needle, tubes, etc, rather

dwell on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole."



Yes, it is always beneficial to learn about any physiological

operation of the body. But when you are doing the learning approach it

as if it applies to humans in general not yourself.



[When I was learning to start intravenous infusions, I practiced

getting the feel of lower arm and hand veins on others and myself. But

I did not imagine inserting the needle into my own veins. Even now I

can view and palpate the veins on my arms and note which ones are good

for IVs (if that were ever needed - last time was when I had the

ureteral stone Jan 2003). But I do not envision the puncture of skin

and vein. I do not see any point in getting this graphic on *myself*

and I do not think it is a good idea for you to do it for *yourself*

either. **Kitty]



>> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot

>> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because

>> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.

>

> "How counterproductive", agreed.

>

> I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply

> to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally

> poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in

> hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could

> become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could

> move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a Jack-of-all-trades.

>

> Why do you choose to use "idiot"?



1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I

was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that

way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so

concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is

both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many

things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or

knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"



2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from

/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.

Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul. 2009)

"a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination, or

judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular

subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/

about budgeting>

Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a

particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.



3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way

to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your

conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional

subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"

and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is

best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding

and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.



4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in

current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my

word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all

usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best

of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.



>> Think

>> about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your

>> skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you

>> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.

>

> Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize

> if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.

> All other times I react as you describe:

>

>> In fact, likely quite the

>> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not

>> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,

>> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the

>> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem

>> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference

>> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused

>> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of

>> carelessness.

>>

> Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).



So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being

when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold

your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it

to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.



>>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the

>>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one

>>> where the

>>> needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.

>>>

>>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one

>>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.

>>>

>> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any

>> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without

>> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the

>> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV

>> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former

>> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself

>> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of

>> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.

>> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring

>> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the

>> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.

>

> Your last sentence is my hope!

>

>> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your

>> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the

>> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually

>> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related

>> matters, but purposely do not look.

>

> Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my

> evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead

> taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and

> asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took

> too large of a bite".



Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational

behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling

correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action

toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.

However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full

reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or

intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and

reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional

evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered

when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious

evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know

that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is

that you are evading).



>> This method and the others that I

>> took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for

>> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even

>> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time

>> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is

>> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not

>> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and

>> that is my interest.

>

> Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?



[I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate

time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all

think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I

get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not

the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really

bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,

if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is

changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a

large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using

Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to

dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1

tube. **Kitty]



>> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require

>> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.

>

> Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.

>

>> This is a

>> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the

>> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the

>> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture

>> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I

>> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have

>> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if

>> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost

>> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete

>> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a

>> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.

>> **Kitty]

>>

>>> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive

>>> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting

>>> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I

>>> always watch the needle enter and leave.

>>>

>> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you

>> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics

>> of the draw.

>>

>> Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your

>> descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you

>> have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator

>> viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In

>> fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person

>> (actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and

>> cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly

>> experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and

>> dilettante spectator of your own life.

>

> I agree that at times I have practiced delightful examination of my

> activities,



I too am (and always have been) highly analytical of my thoughts and

actions, but I would never call this a "delightful" examination.

Rather it is strictly for the purpose of ascertaining, understanding

and modifying for the better, if necessary and to the extent that that

can be done. The only times that I actually "delight" in something

about myself is when I accomplish things that I consider worthwhile or

even just difficult and when my body reacts in a thoroughly healthy

and capable manner to some event. I remember an incident many years

ago when I had not had the flu for a very long time and I was actually

pleased to see my body react positively and normally to getting it.



[Jack, the way you describe "delightful examination of [your]

activities" sounds like taking part in a spectator sport. **Kitty]



> since I have become interested in dealing with two

> difficulties: 1) making sure my presentations were palatable and 2)

> discovering actions that conflicted with my intentions.

> For an example regarding 1), when I've given a presentation of something

> important to me, I am often nervous that

> a) I am considered far beneath those in attendance, and



Jack, you need to get it strongly into your head that you are not

"beneath" any other person nor is anyone "beneath" you. There are things

that you know and understand which no one else does and for any other

person there are things which s/he knows and understands which you do not.



> b) none of them (know how to) care to participate in my development.



What you are missing here is that it is only right and proper for others

to be primarily interested in their own knowledge and development.

However, if they rationally and most efficiently pursue that objective,

then the actions that they take will automatically contribute to your

knowledge and development. I also do not "care to participate in [your]

development". I am only taking actions which aid your development so

that I will have a friend who is better developed and will return values

to me in various forms and ways, some of which will hopefully even aid

my own development.

Once again the purpose is maximizing lifetime happiness. Development of

oneself as a person is only an important and necessary means to that end.



> In class, at a lab meeting, and at Meetup groups, I get the sense that

> most are inwardly obsessed and socially careless.  Since I notice this

> attitude often, I want to do my best to not exaggerate the distance

> between myself and them by replacing a set of poor habits that are

> related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from

> middle and high school experiences).



I am baffled about how all the above inter-relate.

1) How do you *reasonably and surely* "get the sense that most are inwardly

obsessed and socially careless"?

2) Why are you trying to assess others as a group? They are all

individuals with enormous variations of egoism, social attitudes and

social actions of all kinds. Concentrate on those who seem to have

qualities that you find interesting and to your own benefit, and

ignore the others.

3) What is the connection between "inwardly obsessed" and "socially

careless"?

4) How do these two characteristics (to the extent that they exist)

relate to "exaggerate the distance between myself and them"? - Note

again that you are lumping everyone else into a collective who is

going to act as one toward you, when in fact, each of the others

around you acts totally as an individual in hir relationship to you.

Lumping people together like this is a certain way to not be ready to

gain anything positive from some individual one of them.

5) How is any of the above related to "a set of poor habits that are

related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from

middle and high school experiences)"?

6) Why were you embarrassed by these clowns, rather than just telling

them what idiots they were? I can only remember two incidents of

embarrassment from my school years and they were both due to high

school teachers chiding, in one case, an uncharacteristic foolishness

and, in the other, a harmless habit in front of the whole class.



Note: All the above are rhetorical questions, not requiring answers here, but

merely for you to think about.



> Instead of self-protection, I hope redirect my focus toward reading

> the audience well



Any audience is composed of individuals. One cannot "read" an audience

even as well as one can "read" one person (and that is not much at all

either). All that one can do is to present to a stereotype of what one

expects and/or wants the typical person in the audience to be. I say

this as a teacher of many, many years of many types of courses.



[I am getting the impression that you view yourself as always "on

stage", as if in some performance. However the facts of reality are

that wherever you and whatever you are doing (short of actually being

part of some entertainment for others) very few people around you are

actually examining you at all. This is because most people are mainly

concerned about themselves, as it is right and proper that they should

be. **Kitty]



> and coupling this with a presentation that draws

> them (as many as possible) in for a deeply meaningful exchange,



Again you are going way overboard. You are never going to have a

"deeply meaningful exchange" with a whole group of people at once. At

best, you may provide some information that is "deeply meaningful" to

a few of them, but whether or not it is "deeply meaningful" is more up

to them than it is to you. A few of those few may return some "deeply

meaningful" information as comments. However, depending on the subject

matter, there may be nothing "deeply meaningful" to possibly be

communicated at all. In addition, what is "deeply meaningful" in your

consideration may not be so in the consideration of most others, or

perhaps even of anyone who is listening to you.



> both in terms of fully addressing the subject



Unless a subject is very narrow, small and simple, it can never be

"fully addressed" within any verbal presentation.



> and my own personal growth in

> presenting information for consideration.



Your personal growth is mostly dependent on you rather than your

listeners or readers, except perhaps for some valuable comments if you

are so lucky as to get them.



> To address this, I watch myself and look for distracting qualities;



I don't see how you can know what is "distracting" to others since

that is a very subjective characteristic. Instead just be yourself and

seek to attract similar others.



> I also attempt to model others who I consider to be inviting and

> intriguing.



It is essential to first analyze just why and how such people are

"inviting and intriguing". Only if their "inviting and intriguing"

characteristics are rationally and honestly based and presented, are

such role models positive to emulate.



>  I do gain delight in real-time self-reflection.



As I explained before, I find it strange to label the benefit of a

psychologically healthy self-analysis as a "delight".



> It is possible that I spend too much time doing this and also for the

> wrong reasons (e.g. to make sure I look pop-culturally attractive).



Once again, be yourself (if you really have a self of which you are

proud). Act as you consider to be appropriate and effective and ignore

the cultural notions, particularly the trendy-pop ones.



> Vicariously, I highly doubt;  the concept suggests that I am

> developing a second personality, one that can mostly independently

> judge the original.  In addition to doubt, I am confused why you have

> chosen this word; if you have the interest and time, will you

> elucidate?



Vicarious:

*1* *:* having the function of a substitute *:* serving instead of

someone or something else *:* acting for a principal *:* representing or

taking the place of something primary or original *: DELEGATED

<memory is /vicarious/ experience in which there is all the emotional

value of actual experience -- John Dewey>

*2* *:* performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another

or to the benefit or advantage of another *: SUBSTITUTIONARY

</vicarious/ sacrifice>

*3* *:* experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic

participation in the experience of another <was getting a /vicarious/

kick out of watching a fellow female preening herself over the

capitulation of the male -- Helen Howe>

/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .

Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (16 Jul. 2009).



In the context of yourself it means that you have a somewhat "split

personality". One part of you gets great delight (jovial amusement) in

watching the other part of you (as if it were another person) and for

that reason, does not attempt to change the other part of you, since

doing so would spoil the continuing delightful enjoyment. This is how

you appear to me.



[As I noted above, your descriptions remind me of someone who is watching

hirself perform, always assessing for a better *performance*. **Kitty]



>> I urge you to do your utmost to

>> stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to

>> your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully

>> living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious

>> titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors

>> on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect

>> you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),

>> but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own

>> life that way.

>

> Intuitively, I think I had been doing both, fully living and delightfully

> studying my responses.



You can't simultaneously do both effectively. The second is bound to

inhibit the first.



[It seems to me that one can reasonably examine one's own past actions

or an ongoing situation, but it is not possible to effectively examine

*at the very time* of engaging in some action or exchange with

another. If, during an exchange, a person is paying strong attention

to hir own actions, thoughts and words, then s/he is not really

listening to and noting the behavior of the other person. And

conversely, if that same person is giving hir undivided attention to

the other person's actions and/or words, then s/he is not at that time

examining hir own behavior, thoughts, emotions, etc. **Kitty]



> I am fascinated that I do become so deeply engaged in some activities

> whereas others are sleep-inducing (yawns, disinterest, much reduced

> excitement for the moment).  More surprising is that I can create a

> philosophy that discourages most reasoning for participation in an

> activity, say playing basketball, and then demand of myself that I

> cease a particular action for two years -- yet -- that activity,

> basketball, might bring me hours of continuous joy, even after the two

> year drought!



Again I don't understand this "fascinated" relating to something about

which you ought to instead be puzzled, concerned and even unhappy at

the inconsistency.



The above shows that your new ideas (your newly created philosophy of

life) has not yet been fully integrated - your emotions are still not

consistent with your consciously held convictions. "Creating" a

philosophy does not *integrate* it fully into your mind. Consciously

reasoning out why some actions will be more long-run beneficial than

others (if that is what you mean) does not automatically teach and

train all parts of your mind to act in accord with these new ideas.

Rather your mind is a highly complex interconnection of somewhat

independent parts (using computer language, I call them background

subprocessors), the conscious reasoning part being only the one of

them that you are directly aware and in control of. (Although the

later is also debatable since conscious awareness has been shown to

arise milliseconds after some other clearly connected brain response,

so perhaps the conscious is merely a form of presenter of what some

other part of the mind considers to be the most important current

information of which it should be aware.)



Only rooting out and modifying emotional attachments to the previous

philosophy, now deemed incorrect, will enable such total integration.

This applies to both old positive emotions for things that you no

longer consciously value as much and old negative emotions ("yawns,

disinterest, much reduced excitement") for things which you now value

highly.



[I don't understand why you had been berating yourself for playing

some basketball and then denied yourself that pleasure for 2 years. A

couple hours a week isn't any obsession and its good physical

activity. It sure beats spectator sports that so many spend many more

hours on weekly.



We have lots of foods that we enjoy eating but we do not do so

chronically or even periodically because we are convinced that doing

so would be harmful. But we do eat them once or twice a year - because

we enjoy them and we are highly confident that this frequency is not

detrimental to us. I suppose that we could eliminate them entirely but we do not

think it is overall cost productive. Food tastes (and other sensual pleasures)

are not directly substitutable one for another.



Another related thought - even thinking excessively can be detrimental if the

person then avoids actually doing things physical, activity which is necessary

for health maintenance. Both mental and physical activities are needed to

maintain overall good health. **Kitty]



> Likewise, I can create a philosophy that brings to the top the most

> important reasoning for participation in an activity such as learning

> about my body/health/wellness, and then demand of myself that I

> practice the related activities for two years -- yet-- I will cease

> that activity 100% the day after two years and feel no loss!



This makes no sense at all to me. If the knowledge gained and the

practices undertaken during those two years is of benefit to you how

can you not feel a loss (at least a concern for your ongoing health)

at not continuing such practices and more learning to make them even

more beneficial.



The remark above also applies to this - you haven't integrated fully

into your mind (Branden's word is "owned") the ideas that your

conscious reason considers to be most correct and beneficial for you.



> I like to watch and analyze myself now and then to discover the secrets

> to my failures and successes.



It is clear that you have been watching far too much and analyzing the

reasons for your inconsistent behavior far too little.



>>> I typically am slightly tense

>>> just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,

>>> breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by

>>> emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in

>>> danger

>>> ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to

>>> blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say

>>> because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).

>>>

>> Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body

>> accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel

>> the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence?

>

> Only if I visually witnessed the puncture -- to this day, I can

> vividly recall two 15-18 year-old acquaintances of mine wrestling for

> control of a tool they each found in the basement of their home -- it

> had a long wooden handle, like that of a garden hoe and the end

> equipped with a metal hook.  I visually witnessed the hook end enter

> (1/4 to 1/2 inch) and leave the right calf of the older (brother).

> Even though it happened to someone else, I experienced the suddenly

> intense response.

>

> I can recall one vivid visual removal of 1/2 inch of Honey Locust thorn

http://www.mitzenmacher.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/thorn.jpg

> from the area just below my knee cap. That caused quite a horrified

> reaction as I yanked it out and immediately after as I comprehended

> the entry and removal of the thorn.

>

> All other foreign objects (splinters, scratches, etc) that I do not

> see enter, do not bother me a bit (besides some pain).  All rougher

> damage that I do see, such as deep scratches, smaller thorns with

> barbs, splinters, etc. do not bother me either.



Then think about the inessential difference (the end result of a

wound, loss of blood and tissue healing requirement is the same) and

tell yourself strongly how silly you are for making such a distinction.



>> If you did not

>> (as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish

>> to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a

>> controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try

>> your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that

>> I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which

>> can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of

>> which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction

>> and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts

>> that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,

>> particularly for someone who uses tools.)

>>

> I agree that I have been acting counter to my values, and for some

> unknown reasons, treating similar occurrences very differently, which

> is wrong.



The "unknown reason" is that you still have not understood the concept

of integrating, and making internally consistent, your consciously

held desires/values with your emotional reactions. Your emotions were

all programmed by your values and experiences of your past, and they

can be reprogrammed to react differently and consistently with your

new ideas, values and desires. You are ultimately the ruler of your

emotions. Your emotions are not there to rule you. Their purpose is to

be both tools of cognition and the means by which you experience the

positives and negatives of the external world as it relates to your

values.



> I do not consider myself foolish nor idiotic however.  IMO, these two

> terms should be reserved for one who cannot improve hir intellect.



It is up to you if you do not wish to apply such terms to yourself in

particular aspects. I have always applied them to myself whenever I do

foolish, idiotic or stupid things. That is the way that I chastise

myself and impress on myself the need to not do such a thing again.



[I can readily say that I consider 2 points in my life when I was

foolish. The first was when I was 16 and a junior in high school, I

took without questions the guidance counselor's statement that physics

was not a field for women. I don't even recall considering that I

should discuss it with my father (I do recall though that this was a

period in time when he was very involved with getting a new career

started after retiring from the Navy - retirement pay was not going to

pay all the bills.) But many years later I looked back and thought how

foolish I'd been at the time. Even much later than that when I

mentioned it to my Dad in the late 1980s, he was so surprised that I

hadn't told him. His comment was that "we'd have found some way to get

you that kind of education."

The second incident was one I acknowledged fairly soon afterward -

that was in not taking my Dad's advice about the fellow I was dating

and then got engaged to right after completing my nursing education.

Dad was right about Rudy and I was wrong, but I at least didn't keep

on being so foolish as to marry him.



Of course I've done some silly things on occasion and even said so out

loud. Mostly these have been as a result of not paying close

attention. **Kitty]



> Those who can improve intellect yet lack in judgment and act contrary

> to their values can be described with words such as naive and immature.



It is not improvement in your "intellect" that is needed here. But if

you wish to scold yourself by applying the terms "naive" or "immature"

to yourself when you catch yourself in an emotion which is contrary to

your consciously held values, then that should work fine too.



> The last "note" is understood.

>

>>> When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,

>>> between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.

>>> Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain

>>> but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush

>>> came over me.  I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality

>>> almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery

>>> within

>>> minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.

>>>

>>> I was shocked and interested in why it happened.  "Low sugar" and

>>> "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood

>>> pressure drop making any sense to me.

>>> Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,

>>> further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?

>>

>> The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood

>> pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not

>> likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate

>> psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,

>> which increases heart rate and BP.

>>

>>>> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to

>>>> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first

>>>> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood

>>>> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself

>>>> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body

>>>> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the

>>>> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw

>>>> can be

>>>> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is

>>>> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body

>>>> quickly seals and heals the puncture).

>>>>

>>> These are VERY helpful, thank you.  I am practicing these perspectives

>>> and learning more details of the healing puncture.

>>>

>> Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease

>> any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at

>> least until you have eliminated all anxiety.

>

> Noted.

>

>>> I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...

>>>

>>>> So as soon as this "sickening

>>>> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this

>>>> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to

>>>> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on

>>>> all the

>>>> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.

>>>>

>>> Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an

>>> index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other

>>> thoughts.

>>> I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus

>>> inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining

>>> focus will help.

>>>

>> Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the

>> mechanics of the blood draw.

>>

>>> (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange

>>> with Chad)

>>>

>> Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.

>>

>>>> If

>>>> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated

>>>> and you

>>>> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your

>>>> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the

>>>> mind).

>>>>

>>> "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)

>>>

>> It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in

>> this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be

>> useful.

>>

>>>> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the

>>>> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you

>>>> did not

>>>> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general

>>>> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you

>>>> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are

>>>> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and

>>>> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to

>>>> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.

>>>>

>>> I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I

>>> described above.  However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied

>>> feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in

>>> addition

>>> to debilitating.  I gained some happiness from considering the strange

>>> phenomenon,

>>>

>> These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with

>> you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious

>> spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of

>> those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and

>> introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly

>> done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost

>> always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my

>> self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly

>> experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into

>> perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more

>> successful in similar future circumstances.

>>

> I am glad that you are thinking about me and offering critical

> analyses for my consideration.  I expand/explain a little above and I

> have no intention of brushing aside your comments; instead, I am

> deliberately considering what you have shared and looking for

> opportunities to practice directly experiencing events coupled with an

> awareness to postpone introspection to afterward.

> Thank you for the suggestions!



Yes Jack, I am still trying to get my ideas through to you. I have not

totally given up on you, even though I fear that we are so extremely

different from each other that we will never be able to be kindred

spirits. So I am far from certain that I will ever see a return of

value of the kind that I mostly want from others. I do not mean this

comment to be any criticism of you or to even suggest that you are not

a responsible returner of value - it is only that you are not (and I

strongly suspect that you never will be) capable of returning the

types of values that I most desire.



>>> but I also realize that I have missed out on much more

>>> happiness regarding future blood draws.

>>>

>> I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more

>> "missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.

>>

> I am thinking about it.



That is good, but you need to do more than just "think about it".



--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

>

> On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>

> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

> >

> >> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> >>

> >>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.

> >>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

> >>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

> >>>>> determining my blood content and their respective

> >>>>> concentrations. I

> >>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

> >>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

> >>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my

> >>>>> body.

> >>>>

> >>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct

> >>>> process

> >>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as

> >>>> is any

> >>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

> >>>> physiologically receive. If the phlebotomist is competent, then

> >>>> that should be the only negative of the process.

> >>>

> >>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always

> >>> experienced some sort of "shut down" by my body.



I can now recall one incompetent phlebotomist...more about this near the

end of this message.



> >> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even

> >> imagine

> >> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly

> >> a

> >> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the

> >> anxiety

> >> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your

> >> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.

> >

> > I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in

> > subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.

> > More below...

>

> Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled

> experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue

> creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor

> pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.



This last sentence is what I have been "taking ownership" of through

daily reminders of Paul's statement and by listing the potential

benefits along side the costs.

As a physical animal, the pin prick hurts!  But as a big-brained animal,

I have abilities to look past the pin prick and generate a strategy that

supports participating in a blood draw in anticipation of future benefits.



> >>>> Any "sickening feeling of

> >>>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological)

> >>>> baggage

> >>>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea

> >>>> of

> >>>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would

> >>>> best work to eliminate.

> >>>>

> >>> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics

> >>> of the

> >>> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right

> >>> there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.

> >>>

> >> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply

> >> dwell

> >> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the

> >> whole.

> >

> > OK, I'll start here, but do you mean altogether?



meta

<changed from "all together" to altogether>

/meta



> > I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before

> > or during a draw.  I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how

> > the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,

> > followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the

> > vessel walls, etc.

>

> Jack, why is it that if I leave any detail out you always miss my

> meaning? (This is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer, but

> merely for you to think about.)



Very little was missed -- I came to the same conclusion as you describe

below, that I should continue learning the application to humans in

general, and stopping when the blood draw was on myself.

I asked the question above in case your suggested method began with a

period of temporary but complete refrain.



> Perhaps the following written above would have enabled you to

> understand:

> "First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw *on yourself*.

> When you are having blood drawn do not think of the physical procedure

> with respect to yourself, do not watch the needle, tubes, etc, rather

> dwell on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the

> whole."

>

> Yes, it is always beneficial to learn about any physiological

> operation of the body. But when you are doing the learning, approach it

> as if it applies to humans in general not yourself.

>

> [When I was learning to start intravenous infusions, I practiced

> getting the feel of lower arm and hand veins on others and myself. But

> I did not imagine inserting the needle into my own veins. Even now I

> can view and palpate the veins on my arms and note which ones are good

> for IVs (if that were ever needed - last time was when I had the

> ureteral stone Jan 2003). But I do not envision the puncture of skin

> and vein. I do not see any point in getting this graphic on *myself*

> and I do not think it is a good idea for you to do it for *yourself*

> either. **Kitty]



Understood.



> >> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot

> >> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because

> >> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.

> >

> > "How counterproductive", agreed.

> >

> > I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply

> > to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally

> > poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in

> > hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could

> > become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could

> > move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a

> > Jack-of-all-trades.

> >

> > Why do you choose to use "idiot"?

>

> 1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I

> was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that

> way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so

> concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is

> both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many

> things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or

> knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"

>

> 2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from

> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.

> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul.

> 2009)

> "a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination,

> or

> judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular

> subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/

> about budgeting>

> Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a

> particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.



I did not conclude that you were calling me such nor using the word to

describe me as a whole.  And if I were to witness your verbal use of

"idiot", I know well that you are likely in an emotionally charged state

and describing the irrational thoughts and behavior, rather than the

whole being.



> 3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way

> to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your

> conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional

> subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"

> and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is

> best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding

> and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.



In my experiences, once anxiety begins, I respond by reasoning that I do

not sanction further anxiety, yet it still comes (probably with less

power each time).  I predict a long-term contribution with this practice.

Further, since beginning university studies in 1996, I've been reducing

strong chastising behavior because I understood there to be insufficient

quantitative or qualitative benefits:drawbacks ratios.  Instead, my

practice has been to calmly address the problem through 1) timely and

time-consuming discovery/introspection of my thoughts and actions, 2)

determination whether the thoughts and actions conflicted with my

esteemed values, 3) estimation of whether the conflict (problem) was

severe enough to dedicate energy/time to, and whether the conflict was

easily addressable (probably due to prior "game plan" set up to address

that very problem), then 4) "self talk" in an effort to a) try again

using different thought process and actions or b) repeat reminders of

the idea enough times in hopes that desired future changes in thoughts

and actions would occur.



What are the benefits to strongly chastising and scolding the emotional

subconscious part over *or* in-addition-to diligently addressing and

redirecting the emotional subconscious part?



Without good data nor vivid experience (naivety), I suppose the former

would have a faster effect.



> 4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in

> current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my

> word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all

> usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best

> of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.



Increasingly, I too am curious about the root meanings, which is greatly

aided by my use of Merriam Webster's Unabridged Online Dictionary

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

and the Online Etymology Dictionary.

http://www.etymonline.com/



> >> Think about all the times that you have cut, scraped or

> >> otherwise caused your skin to be punctured and bleed

> >> profusely and how these did not cause you

> >> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.

> >

> > Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize

> > if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.

> > All other times I react as you describe:

> >

> >> In fact, likely quite the

> >> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small

> >> (sometimes not

> >> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,

> >> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the

> >> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem

> >> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference

> >> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused

> >> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of

> >> carelessness.

> >>

> > Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).

>

> So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being

> when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold

> your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it

> to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.



Addressed and questioned above.



> >>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the

> >>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one

> >>> where the needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist

> >>> new but fairly steady.

> >>>

> >>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one

> >>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.

> >>>

> >> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any

> >> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without

> >> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the

> >> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV

> >> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former

> >> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself

> >> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of

> >> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.

> >> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring

> >> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the

> >> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.

> >

> > Your last sentence is my hope!

> >

> >> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your

> >> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in

> >> the

> >> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually

> >> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related

> >> matters, but purposely do not look.

> >

> > Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my

> > evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead

> > taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and

> > asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took

> > too large of a bite".

>

> Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational

> behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling

> correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action

> toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.

> However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full

> reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or

> intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and

> reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional

> evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered

> when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious

> evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know

> that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is

> that you are evading).



Yes I agree, and until the very recent past, I naively placed both types

of evasion into [one negative category] which I think led me to "bite

off more than I could chew" in more than one area of my lifestyle.



> >> This method and the others that I took when

> >> I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for

> >> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even

> >> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time

> >> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is

> >> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not

> >> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and

> >> that is my interest.

> >

> > Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?

>

> [I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate

> time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all

> think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I

> get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not

> the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really

> bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,

> if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is

> changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a

> large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using

> Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to

> dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1

> tube. **Kitty]

>

> >> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require

> >> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.

> >

> > Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.



I decided to make a visit to the local Mesa, AZ LabCorp for my a.m.

blood draw (no caloric intake for 15 hrs, no exercise for 42 hrs), which

is to be assessed per LEF's $189-sale-price Male Panel:

http://tiny.cc/iJ03z



The night before, I had a stressful time falling asleep, taking over 1.5

hours to initially fall asleep, then waking throughout the night.  I

actually did not think much about the blood draw that I planned to

complete in the morning; instead, my brain was concerned with EVERYTHING

else!



Without an alarm, I woke at 8:20am, shaved, showered, packed my bags for

work, and brought ice water and a book in case of a long line at the

LabCorp; I left the house at 9am.



Arriving to a mostly empty parking lot and only nine people in the

waiting room and no line for signing in, I did so, and within 5

minutes, was called; in fact I was the first to be called since I had

arrived.  Fast service, a plus :)



{Anxiety creeps up to 5%}

A female named Joe P was assigned my draw.  She left the door to the

room open, which felt good because in an 8 x 8ft room, I might have felt

restrained.

(On second thought, I might have enjoyed the enhanced focus that comes

with privacy.)

I requested a butterfly-style needle and tubing -- Joe hesitated and

said she was not well-practiced with the butterfly.  I thought for a

moment, "fine, first and foremost, I want her to be confident and calm".



{Anxiety 10% -- things are not going according to plan}

So I suggested an ordinary needle and tubing would be fine, in fact,

that *her choice* of apparatus would bring me most comfort.

But she responded, "No, no, if you'd like a butterfly, then we'll do the

butterfly."



OK, whatever, just do your job and I'll do mine!



{Anxiety 15% -- can I trust this person?}

I stated out loud that I had a little trouble in the past controlling my

response to blood draws, but that I was more confident now that I was

thinking of the plethera of benefits of such a procedure coupled to a

small cost, the prick of a needle.



I avoided all visual contact with the apparatus as she neared and

strapped on the tourniquet, drawing from my right arm.  Small prick and

an increase in {Anxiety 20% -- feeling the needle prick, but not

imagining entry}, so I continued to think about the relative gain versus

the small cost of minimal pain PLUS the fact that this was a controlled

situation, not some accidental puncture wound...



"You're all done", said Joe.



Wow, that was fast!  Yippee!  I am a champion!

I glanced over at the two tubes of blood and commented to Joe that in

the past, the tubes were a little smaller, and *five* in number.

Just as I was leaving the room, she called me back in -- oops, only did

half the draw!



{IDIOT! --  Oops!  That slipped out...  I'm angry and would like her to

step down.  Anxiety bumps up to 25%}

So, I sat back down and requested the left arm, where she found a new

vein...and failed!  I did not look, but I could not avoid her nervous

call to the supervising nurse -- "We have a bleeder" coupled with my

now throbbing left arm.



{This MUST be a joke!  Why would she say THAT out loud?  Anxiety up to

50%, doubling as I don't trust Joe to improve at this point and both

arms are throbbing.}



I'm getting pretty flustered, but before I can bolt for the door to

escape whatever wrath lay before me, the supervisor glides in, expertly

eyes the appropriate vein, and without more than a expert's nod, slips

the third butterfly almost perfectly between nerve endings -- I felt no

new pain.



Supervisor says, "Take care of this one -- I've got to go."



{No, please don't go... at least don't leave me here with her!  Anxiety

caps at 50%}



Needless to say, my chest was full of anxiety.  I kept breathing and

making small talk as Joe wrapped up the draw, without further incident.



I was out of there!  I still managed to walk out with a smirk on my face

but only because of the unusual timing and circumstances surrounding my

experience, where I intended to simplify my blood draw to a few

manageable details.



Subsequent, I drove to work and really worked on my self to appreciate

the valuable information from this and future blood draws.  I HAVE NO

NEED FOR THE ANXIETY!  I am uninjured!!

Nevertheless, the anxiety took awhile to decrease as my arms pitifully

throbbed (slightly) painful reminders of the draw(s).



When I phoned Kitty, I described some of these details to her and shared

one of my heartiest laughs of 2009 while discussing the ridiculous

parts along with the important growth.

This was an important part of my experience, thank you Kitty :)



--Jack (David Thomas Jackemeyer)



> >> This is a

> >> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the

> >> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the

> >> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture

> >> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I

> >> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have

> >> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if

> >> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost

> >> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete

> >> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a

> >> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.

> >> **Kitty]

> >>

> >>> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very

> >>> positive

> >>> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting

> >>> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I

> >>> always watch the needle enter and leave.

> >>>

> >> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you

> >> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the

> >> mechanics of the draw.



<snipped remainder about living as a stranger in one's one experience>

On 08/24/2009 01:26 AM, olehenry1 wrote:

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

>

>> On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>>

>>

>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.

>>>>>

>>>>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have

>>>>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for

>>>>>>> determining my blood content and their respective

>>>>>>> concentrations. I

>>>>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits

>>>>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less

>>>>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my

>>>>>>> body.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct

>>>>>> process

>>>>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as

>>>>>> is any

>>>>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you

>>>>>> physiologically receive. If the phlebotomist is competent, then

>>>>>> that should be the only negative of the process.

>>>>>>

>>>>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always

>>>>> experienced some sort of "shut down" by my body.

>>>>>

>

> I can now recall one incompetent phlebotomist...more about this near the

> end of this message.

>

>>>> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even

>>>> imagine

>>>> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly

>>>> a

>>>> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the

>>>> anxiety

>>>> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your

>>>> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.

>>>>

>>> I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in

>>> subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering.

>>> More below...

>>>

>> Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled

>> experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue

>> creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor

>> pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.

>

> This last sentence is what I have been "taking ownership" of through

> daily reminders of Paul's statement and by listing the potential

> benefits along side the costs.

> As a physical animal, the pin prick hurts!  But as a big-brained animal,

> I have abilities to look past the pin prick and generate a strategy that

> supports participating in a blood draw in anticipation of future benefits.



Exactly! There is a real sense in which the human brain/mind is at once

several distinct and somewhat independent entities. All of these

entities can be somewhat "controlled" (perhaps a better word than

"ownership" for such an interactive state). Some of these entities are

autonomic and cannot totally be controlled (eg. pain response). Some of

them are rapid (preceding even conscious awareness) which is highly

important for those that warn one of real potential danger. However,

most of these rapid but non-autonomic response entities of the

brain/mind are effectively learned habits (a result of the learning that

takes place as a human grows and develops - and all emotions are

examples of such learned habits) which can be "unlearned" and modified

in the same manner as any other habit. Rationally, any such habit needs

to be modified if the habit caused a decrease in overall value to some

action, which in overall evaluation, apart from that habit response,

optimally increases one's lifetime happiness. (More about the

independent entities approach later).



meta

Snipped portion not needing response.

/meta



>>>> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot

>>>> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because

>>>> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.

>>>>

>>> "How counterproductive", agreed.

>>>

>>> I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply

>>> to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally

>>> poor intellects.  The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in

>>> hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station".  I could

>>> become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could

>>> move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a

>>> Jack-of-all-trades.

>>>

>>> Why do you choose to use "idiot"?

>>>

>> 1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I

>> was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that

>> way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so

>> concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is

>> both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many

>> things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or

>> knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"

>>

>> 2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from

>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.

>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul.

>> 2009)

>> "a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination,

>> or

>> judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular

>> subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/

>> about budgeting>

>> Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a

>> particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.

>

> I did not conclude that you were calling me such nor using the word to

> describe me as a whole.  And if I were to witness your verbal use of

> "idiot", I know well that you are likely in an emotionally charged state

> and describing the irrational thoughts and behavior, rather than the

> whole being.



I am pleased that you understand that now, since when I am "emotionally

charged" (as you well phrased it), I do not take the time to phrase my

words nearly as well as is needed for full comprehension and as I almost

always do when writing.



>> 3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way

>> to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your

>> conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional

>> subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"

>> and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is

>> best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding

>> and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.

>

> In my experiences, once anxiety begins, I respond by reasoning that I do

> not sanction further anxiety, yet it still comes (probably with less

> power each time).



Yes, habits ( whether of the emotional type or not) take time to unlearn

and the more deeper, earlier ingrained and rapid the habit, the longer

such reprogramming will take.



> I predict a long-term contribution with this practice.

> Further, since beginning university studies in 1996, I've been reducing

> strong chastising behavior because I understood there to be insufficient

> quantitative or qualitative benefits:drawbacks ratios.  Instead, my

> practice has been to calmly address the problem through 1) timely and

> time-consuming discovery/introspection of my thoughts and actions,

> 2) determination whether the thoughts and actions conflicted with my

> esteemed values, 3) estimation of whether the conflict (problem) was

> severe enough to dedicate energy/time to, and whether the conflict was

> easily addressable (probably due to prior "game plan" set up to address

> that very problem), then 4) "self talk" in an effort to a) try again

> using different thought process and actions or b) repeat reminders of

> the idea enough times in hopes that desired future changes in thoughts

> and actions would occur.

>

> What are the benefits to strongly chastising and scolding the emotional

> subconscious part over *or* in-addition-to diligently addressing and

> redirecting the emotional subconscious part?

>

> Without good data nor vivid experience (naivety), I suppose the former

> would have a faster effect.



This is a good question which definitely needs some psychological

research (maybe there is some - if someone would care to do the work

then I would be highly receptive to finding out). From the point of

view of my own analysis and understanding of human brain/mind/body

operation, as long as the psyche involved is not overly delicate (ie,

it already has a strong self-esteem), I think that the self-chastising

will most definitely speed up the unlearning and reprogramming

process. My reasoning relates to the description posed above of the

brain/mind being essentially several somewhat independent entities. If

that is true then chastising is a form of internal social

preferencing. It is the conscious mind making an evaluation of some

other one of the independent entities, and, just like any other

person, that entity has its own self-esteem and does not want to be

negatively evaluated, particularly not by someone (another internal

entity) whom it respects. Another way to look at this, particularly

for reprogramming an emotion, is that that emotional entity will be

more responsive to another emotion (scolding/chastisement).



>> 4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in

>> current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my

>> word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all

>> usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best

>> of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.

>

> Increasingly, I too am curious about the root meanings, which is greatly

> aided by my use of Merriam Webster's Unabridged Online Dictionary

> http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/

> and the Online Etymology Dictionary.

> http://www.etymonline.com/



Thanks for the link. I had not used that one, but it is now in my bookmarks.



>>>> Think about all the times that you have cut, scraped or

>>>> otherwise caused your skin to be punctured and bleed

>>>> profusely and how these did not cause you

>>>> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.

>>>>

>>> Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize

>>> if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.

>>> All other times I react as you describe:

>>>

>>>> In fact, likely quite the

>>>> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small

>>>> (sometimes not

>>>> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,

>>>> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the

>>>> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem

>>>> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference

>>>> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused

>>>> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of

>>>> carelessness.

>>>>

>>> Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).

>>>

>> So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being

>> when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold

>> your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it

>> to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.

>

> Addressed and questioned above.



To which I answered above. And see how well my previously described

method above fits that reasoned answer just now provided above. Of

course, just as one should never tell a child to change some behavior

merely "because I say so", so you should never try to change a habit

without having fully elucidated the reasons for doing so and constantly

reiterating these to yourself.



>>>>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the

>>>>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one

>>>>> where the needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist

>>>>> new but fairly steady.

>>>>>

>>>>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one

>>>>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.

>>>>>

>>>> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any

>>>> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without

>>>> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the

>>>> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV

>>>> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former

>>>> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself

>>>> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of

>>>> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.

>>>> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring

>>>> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the

>>>> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.

>>>>

>>> Your last sentence is my hope!

>>>

>>>> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your

>>>> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in

>>>> the

>>>> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually

>>>> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related

>>>> matters, but purposely do not look.

>>>>

>>> Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my

>>> evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead

>>> taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and

>>> asking the professionals about the strategies/methods.  Maybe I "took

>>> too large of a bite".

>>>

>> Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational

>> behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling

>> correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action

>> toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.

>> However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full

>> reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or

>> intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and

>> reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional

>> evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered

>> when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious

>> evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know

>> that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is

>> that you are evading).

>

> Yes I agree, and until the very recent past, I naively placed both types

> of evasion into [one negative category] which I think led me to "bite

> off more than I could chew" in more than one area of my lifestyle.



Aha! I think that I know at least one other person who is guilty of not

distinguishing intentional from unintentional evasion (the former is

probably better termed "rational avoidance", generally temporary, but

not always or necessarily so).



>>>> This method and the others that I took when

>>>> I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for

>>>> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even

>>>> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time

>>>> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is

>>>> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not

>>>> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and

>>>> that is my interest.

>>>>

>>> Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?

>>>

>> [I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate

>> time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all

>> think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I

>> get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not

>> the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really

>> bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,

>> if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is

>> changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a

>> large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using

>> Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to

>> dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1

>> tube. **Kitty]

>>

>>>> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require

>>>> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.

>>>>

>>> Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.

>

> I decided to make a visit to the local Mesa, AZ LabCorp for my a.m.

> blood draw (no caloric intake for 15 hrs, no exercise for 42 hrs), which

> is to be assessed per LEF's $189-sale-price Male Panel:

> http://tiny.cc/iJ03z

>

> The night before, I had a stressful time falling asleep, taking over 1.5

> hours to initially fall asleep, then waking throughout the night.  I

> actually did not think much about the blood draw that I planned to

> complete in the morning; instead, my brain was concerned with EVERYTHING

> else!

>

> Without an alarm, I woke at 8:20am, shaved, showered, packed my bags for

> work, and brought ice water and a book in case of a long line at the

> LabCorp; I left the house at 9am.

>

> Arriving to a mostly empty parking lot and only nine people in the

> waiting room and no line for signing in, I did so, and within 5

> minutes, was called; in fact I was the first to be called since I had

> arrived.  Fast service, a plus :)

>

> {Anxiety creeps up to 5%}

> A female named Joe P was assigned my draw.  She left the door to the

> room open, which felt good because in an 8 x 8ft room, I might have felt

> restrained.

> (On second thought, I might have enjoyed the enhanced focus that comes

> with privacy.)

> I requested a butterfly-style needle and tubing -- Joe hesitated and

> said she was not well-practiced with the butterfly.  I thought for a

> moment, "fine, first and foremost, I want her to be confident and calm".

>

> {Anxiety 10% -- things are not going according to plan}

> So I suggested an ordinary needle and tubing would be fine, in fact,

> that *her choice* of apparatus would bring me most comfort.

> But she responded, "No, no, if you'd like a butterfly, then we'll do the

> butterfly."

>

> OK, whatever, just do your job and I'll do mine!

>

> {Anxiety 15% -- can I trust this person?}

> I stated out loud that I had a little trouble in the past controlling my

> response to blood draws, but that I was more confident now that I was

> thinking of the plethera of benefits of such a procedure coupled to a

> small cost, the prick of a needle.

>

> I avoided all visual contact with the apparatus as she neared and

> strapped on the tourniquet, drawing from my right arm.  Small prick and

> an increase in {Anxiety 20% -- feeling the needle prick, but not

> imagining entry}, so I continued to think about the relative gain versus

> the small cost of minimal pain PLUS the fact that this was a controlled

> situation, not some accidental puncture wound...

>

> "You're all done", said Joe.

>

> Wow, that was fast!  Yippee!  I am a champion!

> I glanced over at the two tubes of blood and commented to Joe that in

> the past, the tubes were a little smaller, and *five* in number.

> Just as I was leaving the room, she called me back in -- oops, only did

> half the draw!

>

> {IDIOT! --  Oops!  That slipped out...  I'm angry and would like her to

> step down.  Anxiety bumps up to 25%}

> So, I sat back down and requested the left arm, where she found a new

> vein...and failed!  I did not look, but I could not avoid her nervous

> call to the supervising nurse -- "We have a bleeder" coupled with my

> now throbbing left arm.

>

> {This MUST be a joke!  Why would she say THAT out loud?  Anxiety up to

> 50%, doubling as I don't trust Joe to improve at this point and both

> arms are throbbing.}

>

> I'm getting pretty flustered, but before I can bolt for the door to

> escape whatever wrath lay before me, the supervisor glides in, expertly

> eyes the appropriate vein, and without more than a expert's nod, slips

> the third butterfly almost perfectly between nerve endings -- I felt no

> new pain.

>

> Supervisor says, "Take care of this one -- I've got to go."

>

> {No, please don't go... at least don't leave me here with her!  Anxiety

> caps at 50%}

>

> Needless to say, my chest was full of anxiety.  I kept breathing and

> making small talk as Joe wrapped up the draw, without further incident.

>

> I was out of there!  I still managed to walk out with a smirk on my face

> but only because of the unusual timing and circumstances surrounding my

> experience, where I intended to simplify my blood draw to a few

> manageable details.

>

> Subsequent, I drove to work and really worked on my self to appreciate

> the valuable information from this and future blood draws.  I HAVE NO

> NEED FOR THE ANXIETY!  I am uninjured!!

> Nevertheless, the anxiety took awhile to decrease as my arms pitifully

> throbbed (slightly) painful reminders of the draw(s).

>

> When I phoned Kitty, I described some of these details to her and shared

> one of my heartiest laughs of 2009 while discussing the ridiculous

> parts along with the important growth.

> This was an important part of my experience, thank you Kitty :)



That was a great (and funny) description! You did an excellent job of

managing it and I strongly congratulate you on a job well done and an

important lesson learned.



[For others, the phone call from Jack was not for the purpose of

telling me about this related experience but something totally

unrelated and at the end he mentioned that he had had the blood draw

done (a day or two before as I recall). He then asked if he should

just wait to write about it for the group or would I like to hear the

details. I was definitely interested in hearing how it all went - and

Jack has related most of what I remember. But Jack, what about your

exit from the "back room" into the lobby displaying your 3 band-aids

and warning those waiting about the ordeal? ;>) I forget what term you

used to describe the tech who was responsible - ?vampire?.



My understanding during our phone conversation about the lab draw

"adventure" was that there was nothing amusing about it at the time.

It was only afterward during your relating of it that you could look

back - somewhat with relief and satisfaction that you'd managed to

block the rising anxiety, from my interpretation - and you could laugh

at the near calamitous events. I know that I would not consider it

funny - and told you I didn't - that the technician really was not

well practiced in using a butterfly. But the entire episode and how

you related it brought out the humor - and many times I have found

that laughing at a situation that is not life threatening or major

asset losing is better than getting angry. This is especially true

when there are other individuals involved over whom you have little if

any control.



You did all the right things, kept your anxiety level under control

and proved to yourself that you can do just that - avoid a panic

attack. This then becomes evidence that you can do it again - and with

other similar situations too, though the exact techniques will likely

be different. **Kitty]



meta

Snipped portion not responded to.

/meta



--Paul

This is my response to the second part of the original for which the

subject title is still appropriate.



On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

> >

> > On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:



<big snip of what was previously responded to>



> > > I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day

> > > has been working fine for me. I would also like to exercise 45 min

> > > per day. BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

> > > response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group

> > > posted 06/04/08:

> > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

> > >

> > > Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent

> > > would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

> > > hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?

> >

> > Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of

> > the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.

> > Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible

> > after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with

> > that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at

> > least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into

> > a very relaxed state by sleep time.

>

> I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic

> response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy

> stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey

> protein, e.g.). Is this a concern?



I don't think so. If there is a great deal of stored energy, the

autophagic effects of recycling proteins will not be high anyway,

since the energy stores of carbohydrates (and fats, but to a lesser

extent because they are harder to liberate) will tend to be used first

for fuel as they are more easily converted to fuel. WRT, ingested

ingredients, the whole purpose of fasting and exercising in a fasted

state is precisely because there are no longer any ingested

ingredients available - they have all gone past the point where they

can be absorbed.



META: I had hoped that Olafur would respond to this part since he

certainly knows the area.



> If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead

> immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?



That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,

the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs

should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.



--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:

>

> This is my response to the second part of the original for which the

> subject title is still appropriate.

>

> On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> >

> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

> > >

> > > On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>

> <big snip of what was previously responded to>

>

> > > > I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal

per day

> > > > has been working fine for me. I would also like to exercise 45 min

> > > > per day. BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

> > > > response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife

Yahoo Group

> > > > posted 06/04/08:

> > > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

> > > >

> > > > Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what

extent

> > > > would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

> > > > hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?

> > >

> > > Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical

activities of

> > > the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.

> > > Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible

> > > after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will

interfere with

> > > that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise

by at

> > > least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and

get into

> > > a very relaxed state by sleep time.

> >

> > I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic

> > response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy

> > stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey

> > protein, e.g.). Is this a concern?

>

> I don't think so. If there is a great deal of stored energy, the

> autophagic effects of recycling proteins will not be high anyway,

> since the energy stores of carbohydrates (and fats, but to a lesser

> extent because they are harder to liberate) will tend to be used first

> for fuel as they are more easily converted to fuel. WRT, ingested

> ingredients, the whole purpose of fasting and exercising in a fasted

> state is precisely because there are no longer any ingested

> ingredients available - they have all gone past the point where they

> can be absorbed.



I agree with Paul here. Jack, I don't know how familiar you are with

autophagy, but autophagy is basically a process whereby the body eats

itself because it is lacking energy stores and the building blocks

required to support anabolism. Now here is a logical exercise for you

Jack (This relates to the use of logic Paul spoke about in your last

post). The question you have to ask yourself here is *why* is there an

increase in the liberation of energy stores during exercise? Why does

your body start liberating fat and increasing glucose output from the

liver when you exercise, and how does that relate to autophagy?



If you think about the answer you can come to realize that it doesn't

make sense that exercise would cause autophagy to decrease. The answer

is that energy stores are being liberated because the muscle tissue is

burning up so much energy and it needs more of it to keep the exercise

going. The energy stores thus are being liberated in order for the

muscles to take up the energy they need (glucose and fat) to keep

functioning at high efficiency. Now this energy has to come from

somewhere and since you have not eaten for a long time it makes sense

that the body has to turn to itself by both breaking down stored

energy (glycogen and fat) as well as by eating itself through

autophagy. Note that the liver can not store much glycogen and as it

starts to empty it will have to increase gluconeogenesis (the

synthesis of glucose from noncarbohydrate precursors such as amino

acids). Now where do the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis come

from? Again the answer is from autophagy, if you haven't eaten for a

while that is.



Energy depleting exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the muscle

tissue being exercised, which increases uptake of nutrients such as fat

and glucose into the muscle tissue being exercised. The muscles are

basically creating a funnel for nutrients. This increased insulin

sensitivity in the muscle tissue being exercised also lasts a while

after the exercise is over causing increased nutrient uptake into the

exercised muscle for a while after the exercise. But this effect is

strongest right after exercising and fades somewhat afterwards which

is one reason it is beneficial to eat immediately after exercising as

opposed to eating later on. If you eat right after exercising more of

the nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. Much of the

glucose f.ex. will go towards filling the muscles glycogen stores

leaving less of it left to cause harmful elevation of blood glucose.



> META: I had hoped that Olafur would respond to this part since he

> certainly knows the area.



Paul I am familiar with the noun "meta" which you have used a lot in

your writings, but I can't figure out what the term "META" means. I

did not find it in any dictionary (including the unabridged Merriam

Webster dictionary). Is it an abbreviation for something? Please explain.



> > If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead

> > immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?

>

> That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,

> the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs

> should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.



Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of

exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before

eating it as you appear to have understood it. Anyways your point

still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of

the exercise on promotion of autophagy.



BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be

better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather

than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question

but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:



1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer

since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an

hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase

the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the

exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been

increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising

at this time should strongly induce autophagy.

2) As I mentioned above exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the

muscle tissue being exercised. The action of contracting your muscles

causes translocation of GLUT-4 to the cell surface of the skeletal

muscle cells. GLUT-4 is the main glucose transporter in human muscle

tissue. This consequently leads to increased uptake of glucose into

the exercised muscle tissue. This will in turn cause more of any

ingested glucose to be taken up by muscle tissue rather than

contributing to harmful elevation of blood glucose levels. And this is

an effect that is generally strongest right after exercising.

3) During exercise blood flow to the muscle tissue being exercised is

increased considerably. This fades quickly when the exercise is

stopped but lasts for a while after the exercise. This contributes to

increased nutrient delivery to the muscle tissue during and right

after the exercise. The effect again is that more of any ingested

nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. The benefits of this

include a lower blood glucose spike from a meal that is eaten after

exercising compared to if it were eaten later. Also since the

increased blood flow to the working muscle fades fairly quickly after

the exercise it is important to eat right after the exercise if one

wants to take advantage of the increased nutrient delivery and the

potential benefits it has.



BTW to take advantage of some of the benefits I mentioned above I

myself try to always eat my biggest meal of the day right after

exercising. I also partition a large share of my daily carbohydrate

intake during this meal knowing it will likely cause less of a rise in

my blood sugar than if I were to consume them at other times.

META: Again my response to the original message will be in two parts

since the original has two unrelated content portions. This message is

a response to the content portion that diverges from the original

subject because it stems from a meta-comment in the message previous

to that. My response to the other content portion of the original,

which continues the same subject, will be delayed for a week in accord

with the group policy concerning moderator response.



--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...>

wrote:

>

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:



[snip of text related to the message subject - response separated]



> > META: I had hoped that Olafur would respond to this part since he

> > certainly knows the area.

>

> Paul I am familiar with the noun "meta" which you have used a lot in

> your writings, but I can't figure out what the term "META" means. I

> did not find it in any dictionary (including the unabridged Merriam

> Webster dictionary). Is it an abbreviation for something? Please

explain.



I am not sure about your meaning in the first sentence above, partly

because I don't understand how you can be familiar with the usage of

"meta" (which is always an adjective and never a noun, as far as I am

aware) and yet not understand why I had prefixed my statement with

"META:". Therefore, I will take some time to explain the usages of

"meta", in general, and, specifically, why I chose to prefix my

statement with  "META:", have done so again related to the note at the

start of this message and plan to continue using for this purpose.



What Olafur appears to have missed is that the major use of "meta" in

English is as a "combining form", specifically as a prefixed modifying

adjective to other words such as with "metaphysics", "metamorphosis"

and "meta-analysis" (sometimes written without the hyphen) to name

three of the most commonly known ones. However, as with so many words

in the English language its meaning becomes somewhat ambiguous because,

over time, its meaning has been multiplied into variations, some of

which are quite distinct from the original.



Below are the pertinent (for my purposes) parts of the current

Merriam-Webster Online Unabridged Dictionary entry for "meta-".



Function: prefix

1 a : occurring later : in succession to : after <metachronism>

<metabiosis> <metagenesis> <metainfective> b : situated behind :

posterior <metapore> <metanephron> c : later or more highly organized

or specialized form of <Metazoa> <metaphyte> d : with : occurring with

<metacinnabar>

2 a [Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin, from Greek,

from meta] : change in : transformation of <metamorphosis>

<metaplasia> b : produced by metamorphism <metadiorite> <metasediment>

3 a [Middle English, from Medieval Latin, from Greek meta after, as

used in ta meta ta physika the (works) after the physics -- more at

METAPHYSICS] : beyond : transcending <metaphysics> <metapsychosis>

<metageometry> <metabiological> <metempirics> b : of a higher logical

type -- in nouns formed from names of disciplines and designating new

but related disciplines such as can deal critically with the nature,

structure, or behavior of the original ones <metalanguage>

<metatheory> <metasystem>



My preferred meaning of "meta-" and the meaning that I always intend

when I use the term, either as a prefix modifier (as in "Social

Meta-Needs") or as a prefix to a set of remarks and to clearly

separate them from the content (as with "META:"), is mostly related

to the meanings given in 3 above, but also includes the meaning given

in 1.a. above, as I will explain. In particular, the meaning 3.b. -

"of a higher logical type", is a major part of the meaning that I use

for "meta-" at the start of the Natural Social Contract definitions

(see: http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#existent).



With respect to my usage "META:", the capitalization was for emphasis

(as I have previously done with "NOTE:") and the colon was to signify

that the description (adjective) applied to the entire following set

of statements. Technically the META tag should have had a closing tag

(perhaps "/META" as with text markup commands) to show clearly where

the meta text ended and non-meta text (directly relating to the

message content) began. I will do this in future so that things are

clearer.



[Perhaps there would have been no confusion for Olafur (or at least

none after researching in MW unabridged) had Paul's comment, unrelated

to the message content, started like this "[META-TEXT: ....]" or

"[META-COMMENT:...]". Simply leaving out the word "text" or "comment"

was a short form, since "meta-" - outside of, with a step away from,

the original content  was the important aspect. **Kitty]





Clearly, the meanings of "beyond" and "transcending" are closely

related to that of "of a higher logical type" and all those are also

related to "above" or "outside of", which I also think of when I use

the term "meta-". Note also the description "of a higher logical

type", as dealing "critically (and analytically) with the nature,

structure, or behavior of the original" - "the original" being the

subject matter described by the noun that is prefixed with "meta-"

(generally a hyphen after a prefixed modifier gets dropped once the

word combination has been in usage for a long enough time). So in that

sense one can think of "form" being "meta-" with respect to "content"

- ie. form = meta-content. Similarly in describing language one could

(and should) think of syntax (with grammar as a subset) as being a

meta-language concept - it describes and enables analysis of the

structure of the language elements. This is just as metamathematics is

the study of the form and structure of mathematics - a branch of the

philosophy of mathematics. Actually, meta subjects are generally

always part of the philosophy ("study of") the respective subject from

an outside, "distanced" and logically separated position.



Alright then, so how does the meaning "occurring later" relate to what

I have just described? The answer is that one cannot study the form

and structure of subject A unless subject A already exists! Thus,

meta-subjects must come after (wrt time) the subjects they study. Even

from a logical point of view, A must exist at some logical level,

before one can even imagine looking at A from outside or above at a

"higher" logical level.



However, I regard the meanings of 1.b., 1.c. (the later with the

meaning of "more highly organized") and 1.d. as distortions and I do

not use them except if I need to use a word that has already

incorporated them. OTOH, even though I don't use the meanings given in

2.a. and 2.b. above, I can understand how they came about since change

and transformation can only come *after* the initial existence of what

is changing or transforming. Also since some metamorphoses (as a

caterpillar to a moth) are so total in character, it is reasonable

that the originators of that usage thought of it as an above and

beyond, change of state, type of situation.



I will now examine and analyze some usages of the meta prefix.



At the beginning of the NSC, I define: "Meta-Realities are disjoint

sets of Elements that are necessary in order to describe, communicate,

Control and alter the Elements of Reality." This usage is taken

directly from that of "metaphysics" meaning "analysis of the relations

obtaining between the underlying reality and its manifestations" (here

"physics" is used in the original meaning of everything relating to

reality, rather than meaning a specific branch of the sciences) and

"metamathematics" meaning "the analysis of the meaning and

relationship of such mathematical concepts as "function", "variable",

"real number, etc, which form the elements of all mathematics".



In the paragraph at:

http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html#ref14 of the

essay on Social Meta-Needs, is the sentence:

"I define the term Meta-Needs as the class of those Environmental

conditions without which it is impossible to obtain the more direct

and immediate requirements for the normal functioning of the life-form

- ie. they are above and prior to (Meta) direct and immediate life needs."

My use of the word "prior" in the above may have been confusing to

some because it appears to be in direct conflict with the meaning of

meta as "occurring later". The confusion arises because, while the

"occurring later" relates to time, the usages of "prior" or "before"

relates more to understanding, logical analysis and fundamental

nature. In that sense metaphysics can be seen as prior to any attempt

to operate in reality because one cannot do well that of which one

does not understand the fundamentals. And similarly with

metamathematics - if one does not understand the meaning and

relationship of the elements of mathematics, then one will not be very

good at mathematics. It should be seen that this is true of any

subject - if you don't understand what you are talking about, then

your talking is of little value. So in that sense, meta-needs form the

grounding upon which any understanding of obtaining more direct needs

must rely.



With regard to the field of medical sciences one finds many "meta-analyses"

of previously conducted clinical trials. Clearly these analyses come

later and are "above" in the sense of being an overviewing and combining

of data and/or results from the whole set of specific trials that fall

into the category being analyzed.



Well, I think that is enough for now. If anyone has other usages of

"meta", that they would like me to help them analyze, then please bring

them up here.



One last thought. The prefix "meta" should not be confused with the

phrase "a priori", which has the following meanings given in the

Merriam-Webster Online Unabridged Dictionary:



Function: adverb

Etymology: Latin, literally, from the former

1 : by reasoning from definitions formed or principles assumed : DEDUCTIVELY

2 : without examination or analysis : PRESUMPTIVELY

3 : independently or[sic] experience : INTUITIVELY



META: As written the above meaning, 3, makes no sense. I have

contacted Merriam-Webster to suggest that it should read

"independently of experience". /META



It should be clear that meanings 2 and 3 are useless activities and

should never be pursued. However, even meaning 1 cannot stand in a

vacuum before anything else. Rather, there must be some abstraction of

properties, characteristics or essences from some other domain about

which one is then making definitions and stating principles relating

those definitions, all for the purpose of reasoning about those

abstractions within a realm absent and devoid from all their

potentially confusing and distracting other characteristics left

behind. This is precisely what is done in mathematics.



Think of simple arithmetic. One examines reality and sees that, while

no two elements of reality are ever identical, nevertheless, one can

see that such things as apples have certain common characteristics and

they can then reasonably be thought of a equivalent to one another

with respect to those characteristics - the wholeness of each being

the simplest characteristic of the individual apple and the number of

apples sitting in a group being the simplest possible characteristic

of that group. So one abstracts this idea of number from the reality

of just what things are being enumerated and, behold! - one gets the

metalanguage called arithmetic!



It is at this point that one can apply the term "a priori" to

something that is a definition of "number", some methods of operating

with numbers and relating them to each other; the principles (or

axioms) that govern these definitions and manipulations; and the

results obtained from them. Once that is done, the deductive method may

produce some result that was not apparent from a direct examination of

the underlying reality of the abstraction and such a result (prediction)

can then be tested for its validity in the underlying reality. If it

fails then the principles applied to the abstracted entities simply do

not apply to the underlying reality (the model is not valid). If it

succeeds then something important and beneficial has been achieved.

Such testing must continually be done in order to revalidate the model

as more information about reality is discovered. This is precisely how

the Newtonian model of physical reality was shown to be not valid in

certain areas of values of the underlying variables and was replaced

by relativity theory on the one hand and quantum theory on the other.



[snip of additional text related to the message subject - response

separated]



--Paul



[Reading through parts of Paul's explanation above may require more

than 1 reading for understanding - it did for me with the very last,

but now it is clear. But making it simpler - "dumbing it down" - will

eliminate the essentials for true understanding of the concept. It is

"dumbing down" that occurs in virtually all educational institutions

rather than assistance for individuals in expanding their mental

abilities, learning how to assess from their observations and

experiences. Prior to university, the main reason is the compulsion

factor (attendance laws); at the university it is generally either

assumed that this skill has been learned or that it is unnecessary.



All too often students in S-chools (as John Holt refers to formal,

compulsory schools) are taught primarily by way of examples and

analogies, never learning to generalize. It is like learning only that

2+2=4 and 10+10=20 and 500+500=1000 but never understanding that

a+a=2a.



At MoreLife Yahoo, readers are challenged to think by me and Paul, and

indirectly also by some of the posts from others. I and Paul do not

think that "dumbing down" material is helpful in the wide view long

term. This does not mean that we use jargon or phrasing to confuse or

impress. So if something either of us has written still does not

become clear after 2 or 3 readings, and possibly some reference to

another item we've written and/or a good dictionary, feel free to post

a message asking for clarification. **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...> wrote:

>

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

> >

> > This is my response to the second part of the original for which the

> > subject title is still appropriate.

> >

> > On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> > >

> > > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> >

> > <big snip of what was previously responded to>

> >

> > > > > I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day

> > > > > has been working fine for me. I would also like to exercise 45 min

> > > > > per day. BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

> > > > > response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group

> > > > > posted 06/04/08:

> > > > > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

> > > > >

> > > > > Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent

> > > > > would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

> > > > > hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?

> > > >

> > > > Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of

> > > > the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.

> > > > Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible

> > > > after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with

> > > > that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at

> > > > least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into

> > > > a very relaxed state by sleep time.

> > >

> > > I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic

> > > response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy

> > > stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey

> > > protein, e.g.). Is this a concern?

> >

> > I don't think so. If there is a great deal of stored energy, the

> > autophagic effects of recycling proteins will not be high anyway,

> > since the energy stores of carbohydrates (and fats, but to a lesser

> > extent because they are harder to liberate) will tend to be used first

> > for fuel as they are more easily converted to fuel. WRT, ingested

> > ingredients, the whole purpose of fasting and exercising in a fasted

> > state is precisely because there are no longer any ingested

> > ingredients available - they have all gone past the point where they

> > can be absorbed.

>

> I agree with Paul here. Jack, I don't know how familiar you are with

> autophagy, but autophagy is basically a process whereby the body eats

> itself because it is lacking energy stores and the building blocks

> required to support anabolism. Now here is a logical exercise for you

> Jack (This relates to the use of logic Paul spoke about in your last

> post). The question you have to ask yourself here is *why* is there an

> increase in the liberation of energy stores during exercise? Why does

> your body start liberating fat and increasing glucose output from the

> liver when you exercise, and how does that relate to autophagy?

>

> If you think about the answer you can come to realize that it doesn't

> make sense that exercise would cause autophagy to decrease. The answer

> is that energy stores are being liberated because the muscle tissue is

> burning up so much energy and it needs more of it to keep the exercise

> going. The energy stores thus are being liberated in order for the

> muscles to take up the energy they need (glucose and fat) to keep

> functioning at high efficiency. Now this energy has to come from

> somewhere and since you have not eaten for a long time it makes sense

> that the body has to turn to itself by both breaking down stored

> energy (glycogen and fat) as well as by eating itself through

> autophagy. Note that the liver can not store much glycogen and as it

> starts to empty it will have to increase gluconeogenesis (the

> synthesis of glucose from noncarbohydrate precursors such as amino

> acids). Now where do the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis come

> from? Again the answer is from autophagy, if you haven't eaten for a

> while that is.



This last part helped me understand that the increase in

gluconeogenesis is fueled by amino acids liberated during

autophagy -- I did not understand the details, so this has

spurred my further investigation.



Is there known to be a self-reported difference in the quality

of performance of subjects between fueling vigorous exercise

with gluconeogenesis versus fueling with stored gylcogen or

fat stores?  Quality of performance meaning relative

sluggishness, alertness, or emotional motivation in response

to physical performance.



I'm wondering because if yes, then maybe it be wise to

exercise vigorously when stored glycogen and fat stores

are available to ensure peak physical performance, with

the remaining hours of regular caloric demand between

exercise and meal expected to be powered more-so by

autophagy.



> Energy depleting exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the muscle

> tissue being exercised, which increases uptake of nutrients such as fat

> and glucose into the muscle tissue being exercised. The muscles are

> basically creating a funnel for nutrients. This increased insulin

> sensitivity in the muscle tissue being exercised also lasts a while

> after the exercise is over causing increased nutrient uptake into the

> exercised muscle for a while after the exercise. But this effect is

> strongest right after exercising and fades somewhat afterwards which

> is one reason it is beneficial to eat immediately after exercising as

> opposed to eating later on. If you eat right after exercising more of

> the nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. Much of the

> glucose f.ex. will go towards filling the muscles glycogen stores

> leaving less of it left to cause harmful elevation of blood glucose.



Understood -- these are good reasons for scheduling a meal

to immediately follow exercise.



[snipped part on META --Paul]



> > > If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead

> > > immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?

> >

> > That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,

> > the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs

> > should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.

>

> Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of

> exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before

> eating it as you appear to have understood it.



Yes, for 8 weeks now I have exercised followed ~40 min later

by a 2-hour meal.  Since I take a shower, gather my study

material, then walk to the cafe, I must be missing an important

period of nutrient uptake since my heart rate, sweating, and

overall physical exertion has decreased to pre-workout status.



> Anyways your point

> still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of

> the exercise on promotion of autophagy.

>

> BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be

> better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather

> than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question

> but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:

>

> 1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer

> since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an

> hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase

> the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the

> exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been

> increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising

> at this time should strongly induce autophagy.



Regardless of the time of day of exercise, as long as all other

things were equal, one would always end up metabolizing the

same amount from both normal body stores (glycogen and fat)

and autophagy.  However, what I gather from each of you is

one can increase the autophagic effect by pushing exercise to

later in the day, but this seems false because, calories-in

calories-out, there is no difference in the number of calories

taken in and likewise, no difference in the amount/type of

energy-expending exercise.

The difference I do see, which does not strike me as significant,

is: during a much earlier bout of exercise, one will rely less on

autophagy for energy, but the autophagy will show an increase

earlier in that day, whereas during a much later bout of exercise,

  one will rely more heavily on autophagy for energy, and the

autophagy will show an increase later in the day-- but this

difference is only in timing exercise to match with autophagy,

which does not necessarily change the calorie count.



Are you suggesting that timing exercise so one relies more

heavily on autophagy as a source of energy brings an additional

calorie-burning advantage versus timing exercise to rely more

heavily on glycogen and fat stores as a source of energy (and

thus leaving autophagy for later, relaxed states)?



--Jack



[snipped text not responded to. --Paul]

On 03/18/2009 06:58 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...> wrote:

>

>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

>>

>>> This is my response to the second part of the original for which the

>>> subject title is still appropriate.

>>>

>>> On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>>>

>>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On 12/31/2008 11:21 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

>>>>>

>>> <big snip of what was previously responded to>

>>>

>>>

>>>>>> I would like to fast for extended periods, and one 2hr meal per day

>>>>>> has been working fine for me. I would also like to exercise 45 min

>>>>>> per day. BTW, I have completely cut out alcohol from my diet, in

>>>>>> response to the posts related to message 1809 on Morelife Yahoo Group

>>>>>> posted 06/04/08:

>>>>>> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/1809

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Question: If I finished my (one per day) meal by noon, to what extent

>>>>>> would exercising seven hours later disturb the important pathways

>>>>>> hypothesized to occur during a long fast period?

>>>>>>

>>>>> Exercise will always enhance the beneficial biochemical activities of

>>>>> the fasting state. The time you give appears to be quite ideal.

>>>>> Exercise is best in relation to fasting if done as long as possible

>>>>> after eating, but not so close to sleeping that it will interfere with

>>>>> that important activity - ie it is probably best to end exercise by at

>>>>> least 2 hours before sleep so that the body can wind down and get into

>>>>> a very relaxed state by sleep time.

>>>>>

>>>> I was concerned that when exercising, my body might retard autophagic

>>>> response to fasting because of the increased liberation of energy

>>>> stored in liver, muscles, fat, and ingested ingredients (whey

>>>> protein, e.g.). Is this a concern?

>>>>

>>> I don't think so. If there is a great deal of stored energy, the

>>> autophagic effects of recycling proteins will not be high anyway,

>>> since the energy stores of carbohydrates (and fats, but to a lesser

>>> extent because they are harder to liberate) will tend to be used first

>>> for fuel as they are more easily converted to fuel. WRT, ingested

>>> ingredients, the whole purpose of fasting and exercising in a fasted

>>> state is precisely because there are no longer any ingested

>>> ingredients available - they have all gone past the point where they

>>> can be absorbed.

>>>

>> I agree with Paul here. Jack, I don't know how familiar you are with

>> autophagy, but autophagy is basically a process whereby the body eats

>> itself because it is lacking energy stores and the building blocks

>> required to support anabolism. Now here is a logical exercise for you

>> Jack (This relates to the use of logic Paul spoke about in your last

>> post). The question you have to ask yourself here is *why* is there an

>> increase in the liberation of energy stores during exercise? Why does

>> your body start liberating fat and increasing glucose output from the

>> liver when you exercise, and how does that relate to autophagy?

>>

>> If you think about the answer you can come to realize that it doesn't

>> make sense that exercise would cause autophagy to decrease. The answer

>> is that energy stores are being liberated because the muscle tissue is

>> burning up so much energy and it needs more of it to keep the exercise

>> going. The energy stores thus are being liberated in order for the

>> muscles to take up the energy they need (glucose and fat) to keep

>> functioning at high efficiency. Now this energy has to come from

>> somewhere and since you have not eaten for a long time it makes sense

>> that the body has to turn to itself by both breaking down stored

>> energy (glycogen and fat) as well as by eating itself through

>> autophagy. Note that the liver can not store much glycogen and as it

>> starts to empty it will have to increase gluconeogenesis (the

>> synthesis of glucose from noncarbohydrate precursors such as amino

>> acids). Now where do the amino acids required for gluconeogenesis come

>> from? Again the answer is from autophagy, if you haven't eaten for a

>> while that is.

>

> This last part helped me understand that the increase in

> gluconeogenesis is fueled by amino acids liberated during

> autophagy -- I did not understand the details, so this has

> spurred my further investigation.



One point that Olafur did not mention is that if a person has stores

of easily available triacylglycerols, then glucose (and other other ATP

production precusors) will be generated first from decomposition of

those triacylglycerols (stored in fat cells) into free fatty acids and

glycerol (a three carbon hydroxylated chain), with the glycerol

portion then used to produce glucose.



[Recall that triacylglycerol is the correct biochemical term for what

is often still referred to as triglyceride -

http://morelife.org/glossary/stu.html#triacylglycerol **Kitty]



Because this process is always third in line after glucose production

from digestion and from glycogen stores, it is only natural that the

body "eats" its own fat before it then starts eating its own proteins,

particularly muscles (since fat takes far less work to store as a

source of energy than does production of protein, and proteins are

more important for continuation of survival).



In fact, the whole point of taking acipimox is to *prevent* the

decomposition of triacylglycerols and the consequent use of the

liberated glycerol as a glucose source in order to force the body to

recycle its own proteins. It should thus be clear that acipimox is not

something that a person attempting to lose weight from reduction of

calories and fasting should be taking. Acipimox is only beneficial for

enhancing autophagy for people such as me and Kitty who have no more

fat to lose and do not care to go through a fat storage and release

cycle every 3 days. Rather we want to go through a mainly protein

breakdown, recycling and buildup process at as high a rate as

possible. Again the reason for this is because the greater "pressure"

(need by the body) for energy substrate, the greater will be the

likelihood of breaking down dysfunctional proteins.



> Is there known to be a self-reported difference in the quality

> of performance of subjects between fueling vigorous exercise

> with gluconeogenesis versus fueling with stored gylcogen or

> fat stores?  Quality of performance meaning relative

> sluggishness, alertness, or emotional motivation in response

> to physical performance.



This is a good question that I will leave it to Olafur (and his twin

Egill - who is even more into exercise physiology than is Olafur). My

own thoughts on this are that theoretically the level of physical

exertion capability should decrease in the order of glycogen, fat and

protein use. See my recent post in this thread for a personal example

relative to this point.



> I'm wondering because if yes, then maybe it be wise to

> exercise vigorously when stored glycogen and fat stores

> are available to ensure peak physical performance,



That would probably be true if you had any good reason to want to

"ensure peak physical performance". This again raises the question

about the purpose of the physical performance and why it needs to be

"peak" (and what constitutes "peak", for that matter). There is a huge

difference between exercise for the purpose of health and longevity

and exercise to achieve some sports, other cultural or personal

enjoyment goal.



[The phrase "ensure peak per performance" most definitely requires

from the speaker/writer definitions of "performance" and "peak". These

are very subjective terms and rely entirely on the value judgments of

each individual - the choice of what activity is being performed and

the level that is considered to be "peak". **Kitty]





> with the remaining hours of regular caloric demand between

> exercise and meal expected to be powered more-so by autophagy.



Ignoring "peak performance", yes, it makes sense that sufficient

exercise to burn up your glycogen and easily available fat, and then

consuming acipimox to prevent further fat decomposition, should enable

protein autophagy to take place for the longest period. However, the

overall effect of the amount of protein autophagy would only be

increased by any such method given that the amount of exercise and the

fasting period remained the same and your amount of stored fat

reserves had not yet reached a minimal level (where each fat cell

contained so little actual stored triacylglycerols that any left were

not easily released).





>> Energy depleting exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the muscle

>> tissue being exercised, which increases uptake of nutrients such as fat

>> and glucose into the muscle tissue being exercised. The muscles are

>> basically creating a funnel for nutrients. This increased insulin

>> sensitivity in the muscle tissue being exercised also lasts a while

>> after the exercise is over causing increased nutrient uptake into the

>> exercised muscle for a while after the exercise. But this effect is

>> strongest right after exercising and fades somewhat afterwards which

>> is one reason it is beneficial to eat immediately after exercising as

>> opposed to eating later on. If you eat right after exercising more of

>> the nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. Much of the

>> glucose f.ex. will go towards filling the muscles glycogen stores

>> leaving less of it left to cause harmful elevation of blood glucose.

>

> Understood -- these are good reasons for scheduling a meal

> to immediately follow exercise.

>

>>>> If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead

>>>> immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?

>>>>

>>> That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,

>>> the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs

>>> should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.

>>>

>> Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of

>> exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before

>> eating it as you appear to have understood it.

>>

>

> Yes, for 8 weeks now I have exercised followed ~40 min later

> by a 2-hour meal.  Since I take a shower, gather my study

> material, then walk to the cafe, I must be missing an important

> period of nutrient uptake since my heart rate, sweating, and

> overall physical exertion has decreased to pre-workout status.



See my other message in this thread for reasons and evidence that eating

*immediately* after a strenuous workout is *not* healthy. I think your

40 min delay is likely quite excellent and you should not change it.



>> Anyways your point

>> still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of

>> the exercise on promotion of autophagy.

>>

>> BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be

>> better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather

>> than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question

>> but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:

>>

>> 1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer

>> since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an

>> hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase

>> the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the

>> exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been

>> increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising

>> at this time should strongly induce autophagy.

>

> Regardless of the time of day of exercise, as long as all other

> things were equal, one would always end up metabolizing the

> same amount from both normal body stores (glycogen and fat)

> and autophagy.



Yes, if you are not eating less calories than you are using and if you

are not taking acipimox. And note that if you are not losing weight,

then you are also restoring those same body stores of glycogen and fat

every eating, sleeping and exercising cycle of your body.



>  However, what I gather from each of you is

> one can increase the autophagic effect by pushing exercise to

> later in the day, but this seems false because, calories-in

> calories-out, there is no difference in the number of calories

> taken in and likewise, no difference in the amount/type of

> energy-expending exercise.

> The difference I do see, which does not strike me as significant,

> is: during a much earlier bout of exercise, one will rely less on

> autophagy for energy, but the autophagy will show an increase

> earlier in that day, whereas during a much later bout of exercise,

>  one will rely more heavily on autophagy for energy, and the

> autophagy will show an increase later in the day-- but this

> difference is only in timing exercise to match with autophagy,

> which does not necessarily change the calorie count.

>



Your logical is impeccable and is similar to what I wrote above (about

the timing not mattering overall). With regard to calories, the only

thing that can be changed is the amount of energy that is from protein

autophagy versus that from usage of stored fat. I have no more fat to

lose and by the usage of acipimox, I am forcing my body into protein

autophagy (moreso than it would normally be) and saving it from having

to use up and then restore fat. This is very different from Olafur's

considerations for himself since he has more fat than I do and is more

concerned with retaining muscle mass and strength (for no good reason

that I have ever been able to discern).



However, the consideration of protein recycling via autophagy is not

the only one of concern to Olafur nor to me. Also highly important is

the contribution of blood glucose toward glycation and ultimately to

AGE formation. It is for this purpose that Olafur's scheme of

exercising soon before eating (moderated by my information about the

digestive needs) is important, since it should reduce the highest

blood glucose levels if not the average blood glucose level. Recall

that glycation rate increases faster than directly proportional

(linearly) to blood glucose.



> Are you suggesting that timing exercise so one relies more

> heavily on autophagy as a source of energy brings an additional

> calorie-burning advantage versus timing exercise to rely more

> heavily on glycogen and fat stores as a source of energy (and

> thus leaving autophagy for later, relaxed states)?



Actually this is true to a certain extent because usage of protein for

energy takes more usage of energy and is highly wasteful of chemical

components (all the nitrogen containing amine groups are ultimately

excreted by the kidneys). The energy needed to reclaim each calorie

from stores increases in the order from glycogen, fat, protein (which

is why the body reclaims that energy in that order).



--Paul

META

I apologize for the delay in posting this (it should have come before

Jack's recent reply to the same message). I had composed it almost

immediately, but did not post it due to my self-imposed 7 day wait

restriction. However, the original never did arrive in my inbox from

Yahoo, so my system of tagging posts that I plan to answer could not

work for it, and because of my preoccupation with other intensive work

it then got totally forgotten. However, there is some benefit

afterall, since I have new input to it that makes it even better than

it would have been if posted immediately.

/META



--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson <olafurpall@...>

wrote:

>

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:

> >

> > This is my response to the second part of the original for which the

> > subject title is still appropriate.

> >

> > On 01/07/2009 11:30 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:



[big snip of text not in need of response or responded to elsewhere]



> > > If this is viable, are these concerns mitigated if exercise instead

> > > immediately precedes the 2hr large meal?

> >

> > That would be an even better time for it. The more deeply fasted state,

> > the better effect of the exercise on promotion of autophagy. And 2 hrs

> > should give your body sufficient time to recover before the large meal.

>

> Since he wrote "immediately precedes" I think Jack was speaking of

> exercising immediately prior to eating the meal not 2 hrs before

> eating it as you appear to have understood it.



Indeed you are correct, and Jack's sentence was clearly written to

signify that. I was not in top form when I read/responded and, partly

for that reason, Kitty was not totally focused either.



[Neither one of us can remember what Paul was referring to here at the

time that he originally wrote this reply (almost two months ago now).

However, it had nothing to do with his mysterious leg syndrome that

began it's infrequent, though initially quite severe in symptoms,

appearance back in March 2000. It has now been over *14 months* since

the last episode - the one before which he was seen by a local

infectious disease specialist, had some blood tests during and the

resulting bill was subject of a Focus on Freedom article -

http://selfsip.org/focus/healthcareexample.html Because of this

usually lengthy hiatus and because the last episode was not at all

like previous ones, we have great hopes and some conviction that the

cause of that ailment has been eliminated (whatever it was). **Kitty]



> Anyways your point

> still stands, that the more deeply fasted state, the better effect of

> the exercise on promotion of autophagy.

>

> BTW in case anyone is wondering which is better I think it would be

> better to exercise immediately prior to eating the single meal rather

> than 2 hours before eating it (I know Jack didn't ask this question

> but I'm on a roll here:-). There a few reasons I think this is the case:

>

> 1) If you exercise immediately prior to eating there will be longer

> since you last ate when you exercise compared to if you exercise an

> hour or two before eating. Not having eaten for so long will increase

> the demand for autophagy to provide the energy required for the

> exercise, not to mention that autophagy will already have been

> increased considerably if it is so long since you last ate. Exercising

> at this time should strongly induce autophagy.

> 2) As I mentioned above exercise increases insulin sensitivity in the

> muscle tissue being exercised. The action of contracting your muscles

> causes translocation of GLUT-4 to the cell surface of the skeletal

> muscle cells. GLUT-4 is the main glucose transporter in human muscle

> tissue. This consequently leads to increased uptake of glucose into

> the exercised muscle tissue. This will in turn cause more of any

> ingested glucose to be taken up by muscle tissue rather than

> contributing to harmful elevation of blood glucose levels. And this is

> an effect that is generally strongest right after exercising.

> 3) During exercise blood flow to the muscle tissue being exercised is

> increased considerably. This fades quickly when the exercise is

> stopped but lasts for a while after the exercise. This contributes to

> increased nutrient delivery to the muscle tissue during and right

> after the exercise. The effect again is that more of any ingested

> nutrients will be taken up by the muscle tissue. The benefits of this

> include a lower blood glucose spike from a meal that is eaten after

> exercising compared to if it were eaten later. Also since the

> increased blood flow to the working muscle fades fairly quickly after

> the exercise it is important to eat right after the exercise if one

> wants to take advantage of the increased nutrient delivery and the

> potential benefits it has.

>

> BTW to take advantage of some of the benefits I mentioned above I

> myself try to always eat my biggest meal of the day right after

> exercising. I also partition a large share of my daily carbohydrate

> intake during this meal knowing it will likely cause less of a rise in

> my blood sugar than if I were to consume them at other times.



Your reasoning is correct as far as it goes, but, since it only

examines the consequences of eating immediately after exercise on the

blood sugar and the muscles, I do not think that it is complete. The

reason that I wrote above: "2 hrs should give your body sufficient

time to recover before the large meal" is that, although I have no

cites for evidence, it seems very clear to me that if the body is

still heated up, heart racing, with high blood pressure and entirely

focused on using some of its muscles, it will not be in optimum

condition to either consume or digest food.



Remember that the digestive system is not passive but is rather a

large organ that requires a lot of energy to adequately do its job.

This is why many people feel tired after a large meal and take a nap.

All animals do the same thing. (Think of lions gorging themselves and

then sleeping after a kill - this is not due to the weight of the food

on them, since the same lion is capable of dragging the entire carcass

for hundreds of yards to a sheltered and relaxed feeding place). Just

as animals need a safe place during sleep, so those that eat large

amounts at once, and are not the top local predators, need a safe

place in which to eat. Humans are no different. This is particularly

the case when one has not eaten for some time and has also been

exercising during that period. Just today this phenomenon showed

itself strongly to me. Yesterday was a fasting day, but it was also a

desert music/dance event. We got there by 5pm did our usual hiking and

desert trash cleanup and then began dancing, which was extremely

intensive to excellent music between 11pm to 1am (and the desert

ground is *not* easy to dance on). We had nothing but our tea drink

during the entire time until 1pm today (after stopping any food intake

at 10pm 2 days before that). After eating most of the first half of

the meal today - smoothie plus a large veggie cheese omelet, I felt so

tired that I could not finish the salad portion and actually laid down

for about 20 mins in the dark and quiet. My analysis of this situation

is that because of its highly depleted state (and I had taken acipimox

right after rising late, only 2 hours before eating), my body was not

able to supply the digestive system with enough energy to digest the

food and at the same time to still keep me alert and fully functional.

At 2.5 hours after finishing that food I am up and able to this work.



[I did not experience the same degree of fatigue as Paul this

afternoon. I did dance last night for almost as long a period - my

pedometer recorded 32,209 steps for the day while his was at 40,336 -

though the intensity was not quite as great as what I would have done

to the great music output by Spyder (11pm-1am slot) if the surface had

been smooth. (I stopped for short periods to snap photos and also to

converse with some friends and curious new people ... :)



I've not been taking any acipimox the past 2 weeks because it appears

to be linked to a return of diarrhea; I'm just now back to full

reinstitution of all my other supplements and will see how that goes

before any retry of the acipimox. While I did feel a noticeable

decrease of energy in the mid-afternoon today that I do not experience

on fasting days, it was not so great that I stopped my writing (of a

lengthy online comment) to go lie down. **Kitty]



Therefore, there must be some minimal time after exercise, probably

depending no the length and intensity of the exercise, and perhaps on

the condition of the individual, which is needed to rest and recover

the body *before* the consumption and digestive processing of food can

optimally occur. I do not expect that this time is as long as 2 hrs

(unless perhaps a person had exercised to total exhaustion), but I

would expect that it would always be at least 15 mins and could well

be longer.



Therefore, my general recommendation would be to act as Olafur stated

(and for the reasons that he gave/explained), but to be sure to wait a

sufficient amount of time after exercising so that your physiological

state fully recovers to basal levels. For most people this should be

automatic with the normal amount of time taken for a shower, a change

of clothes and readying the food for consumption.



Another important point is that although Olafur's recommendation (with

my moderation of it) is good theory, I know of no studies that show

that such an approach is conducive to either increased health or

longevity. And, as a general rule of biology - particularly human

biology, it is so complex that more often than not good theories do

not stand the test of experiment.



--Paul



[In conjunction with Paul's comments above about digestive processing,

I went to his copy of Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology (8th

ed.) to see what information could be discerned about the

gastrointestinal tract's requirements for its task of transporting,

mixing, digesting and absorbing nutrients (from) the food one

consumes. The subject is far too great for me to absorb in a short

time the information on all that the GI tract does. But as a brief

indicator of the amount of work being done in this part of the body,

I'll just quote from the subsection "Gastrointestinal Blood Flow" (Ch

62 Principles of Gastrointestinal Function - Motility, Nervous Control

and Blood Circulation):

"Under normal conditions the blood flow in each area of the

gastrointestinal tract, as well as in each layer of the gut wall, is

directly related to the level of local activity. For instance, during

active absorption, blood flow in the villi and adjacent regions of the

submucosa is greatly increased. Likewise, blood flow in the muscle

layers of the intestinal wall increases with increased motor activity

in the gut. For instance, after a meal the motor activity, secretory

activity, and absorptive activity all increase, and likewise the blood

flow increases as much as 100 to 150 percent, usually lasting for 3 to

6 hours."



This textbook is probably the best one on human physiology. For those

who take their life-extension practices very seriously and therefore

want to really understand what is happening in their bodies, this book

should always be readily available for consultation. I see from

looking at Amazon that for the newest edition (11th - 2005) under Book

Description:

"Offers access to the full text and other valuable features online via

the STUDENT CONSULT website"  This makes the book even more valuable

in the way of accessibility and usability. **Kitty]