July 17, 2010 by Virginie Montet
Asked by the US military for tips to help combat the growing problem of obesity in the ranks, a popular television fitness guru came up with an unusual answer: mind-soothing and body-bending yoga.
"I know inclusion of yoga in military training sounds a tad alien," Tony Horton, 52, acknowledged as he presented his techniques to a group of 200 people, many clad in gymwear, at the National Press Club in Washington.
"The days of push ups, sit ups and long runs in the military are over," said Horton, whose functional fitness concept combines equipment-free, body weight-based exercises with push-ups, sit-ups and yoga postures.
"Yoga magnifies the positive effects of strength and cardiovascular exercises," he said. "It's lubricating all the major joints and reduces the potential for injury."
The fitness trainer best known for his trendy "P90X" workout regime has trained celebrities like Usher, Bruce Springsteen and Sean Connery, as well as soldiers at military bases, including Andrews Air Force Base and Fort Bragg.
As Horton demonstrated, men and women of all sizes struck yoga poses, arms and feet outstretched.
"Obesity is a national security issue," Horton said, repeating a warning issued earlier this year by two senior retired generals, John Shalikashvili and Hugh Shelton, both former chairs of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"People are too fat to fight," the fitness trainer added.
Pentagon studies say the military's obesity rate has nearly doubled since 2003. According to Horton, the military saw its obesity rate nearly triple from 1995 to 2008 alone, while the overall number of obese troops has grown from 1.6 percent in 1998 to 4.4 percent in 2008.
In the United States as a whole, more than two thirds of states now have an adult obesity rate above 25 percent, Horton said. In contrast, not a single state had a rate above 20 percent in 1991.
The US military also faces a problem with troops already serving who are overweight, Horton said.
"The failure to meet fitness standards has meant each year thousands have had to deal with canceled promotions, loss of education opportunities," he added.
"The statistics are profoundly disturbing."
(c) 2010 AFP
Monday, July 19, 2010
TO FAT TO FIGHT
A group of retired military officials recently expressed concern that school lunches are a threat to national security. According to them, the food being fed to children at public schools is making them "too fat to fight", leaving a potentially considerable gap in military recruitment.
"Mission: Readiness", the non-profit group of over 130 retired military leaders that is calling for healthier federal food for children, is expressing support for new legislation that would outlaw junk food from schools so that more children will qualify to enroll in the military.
The group believes that "national security" is America's top priority, so it is doing everything it can to increase military enrollment, even if that means supporting and passing federal food restriction legislation.
According to the group's report, roughly 75 percent of all young Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 do not qualify for military service because they do not finish high school, have criminal records, or they are not physically fit enough to serve.
According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, the number of states with 40 percent or more of the young adult population being overweight or obese has jumped from one to 39 in just ten years. Currently in three states, more than half of the young adult population is overweight.
Mission: Readiness is calling on Congress to amend the Child Nutrition Act to include three new policies:
- Permit the USDA to adopt updated nutrition standards that would eliminate high-calorie, low-nutrition junk foods from public schools.
- Provide additional funding to improve the quality of food at public schools and increase the number of children who have access to it.
- Administer school-based programs to teach parents how to teach their children to adopt better eating and lifestyle habits.
Sadly, the motivation for such legislation does not seem to be for the actual benefit of the children themselves, but rather to fuel the endeavors of the military-industrial complex.
Sources for this story include:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellne...
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_...
"Mission: Readiness", the non-profit group of over 130 retired military leaders that is calling for healthier federal food for children, is expressing support for new legislation that would outlaw junk food from schools so that more children will qualify to enroll in the military.
The group believes that "national security" is America's top priority, so it is doing everything it can to increase military enrollment, even if that means supporting and passing federal food restriction legislation.
According to the group's report, roughly 75 percent of all young Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 do not qualify for military service because they do not finish high school, have criminal records, or they are not physically fit enough to serve.
According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics, the number of states with 40 percent or more of the young adult population being overweight or obese has jumped from one to 39 in just ten years. Currently in three states, more than half of the young adult population is overweight.
Mission: Readiness is calling on Congress to amend the Child Nutrition Act to include three new policies:
- Permit the USDA to adopt updated nutrition standards that would eliminate high-calorie, low-nutrition junk foods from public schools.
- Provide additional funding to improve the quality of food at public schools and increase the number of children who have access to it.
- Administer school-based programs to teach parents how to teach their children to adopt better eating and lifestyle habits.
Sadly, the motivation for such legislation does not seem to be for the actual benefit of the children themselves, but rather to fuel the endeavors of the military-industrial complex.
Sources for this story include:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellne...
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/MR_...
"The Battle Over Battle Fatigue" Soldiers can now claim trauma from events they didn't actually experience. Is the diagnosilosing meaning?
Military history is rich with tales of warriors who return from battle with the horrors of war still raging in their heads. One of the earliest known observations was made by the Greek historian Herodotus, who described an Athenian warrior struck blind "without blow of sword or dart" when a soldier standing next to him was killed. The classic term—"shell shock"—dates to World War I; "battle fatigue," "combat exhaustion" and "war stress" were used in Word War II.
Modern psychiatry calls these invisible wounds post-traumatic stress disorder. And along with this diagnosis, which became widely known in the wake of the Vietnam War, has come a new sensitivity to the causes and consequences of being afflicted with it.
Veterans with unrelenting PTSD can receive disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. As retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, secretary of Veterans Affairs, said last week, the mental injuries of war "can be as debilitating as any physical battlefield trauma." The occasion for his remark was a new VA rule allowing veterans to receive disability benefits for PTSD if, as non-combatants, they had good reason to fear hostile activity, such as firefights or explosions. In other words, veterans can now file a benefits claim for being traumatized by events they did not actually experience.
The very notion that one can sustain an enduring mental disorder based on anxious anticipation of a traumatic event that never materializes is a radical departure from the clinical—and common-sense—understanding that disabling stress disorders are caused by traumatic events that actually do happen to people. This is not the first time that controversy has swirled around the diagnosis of PTSD.
In brief, the symptoms of PTSD fall into three categories: re-experiencing (e.g., relentless nightmares; unbidden waking images; flashbacks); hyper-arousal (e.g., enhanced startle, anxiety, sleeplessness); and phobias (e.g., fear of driving after having been in a crash). Symptoms must last at least one month and impair the normal functioning to some degree. Overwhelming calamity, not only combat exposure, can lead to PTSD, including natural disasters, rape, accidents and assault.
Not everyone who confronts horrific circumstances develops PTSD. Among the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, 34% developed PTSD, according to a study by psychiatric epidemiologist Carol North. After a car accident or natural disaster, fewer than 10% of victims are affected, while among rape victims, well over half are affected. The reassuring news is that, as with grief and other emotional reactions to painful events, most sufferers get better with time, though periodic nightmares and easy startling may linger for additional months or even years.
Large-scale data on veterans are harder to come by. According to the major study of Vietnam veterans, the 1988 National Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Study, 50% of those whose stress reactions were diagnosed as PTSD recovered fully over time. A re-analysis of the data, published in Science in 2006, found that 18.7% of Vietnam veterans suffered PTSD at some point after returning from war, but half had recovered by the time the study was conducted in the mid-1980s.
A 2010 article in the Journal of Traumatic Stress summarized over two dozen studies and found that among servicemen and women previously deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, between 5% and 20% have been diagnosed with PTSD.
The story of PTSD starts with the Vietnam War. In the late 1960s, a band of self-described antiwar psychiatrists—led by Chaim Shatan and Robert Jay Lifton, who was well known for his work on the psychological damage wrought by Hiroshima—formulated a new diagnostic concept to describe the psychological wounds that the veterans sustained in the war. They called it "Post-Vietnam Syndrome," a disorder marked by "growing apathy, cynicism, alienation, depression, mistrust, and expectation of betrayal as well as an inability to concentrate, insomnia, nightmares, restlessness, uprootedness, and impatience with almost any job or course of study." Not uncommonly, Messrs. Shatan and Lifton said, the symptoms did not emerge until months or years after the veterans returned home.
This vision inspired portrayals of the Vietnam veteran as the kind of "walking time bomb" as immortalized in films such as "Taxi Driver" and "Rambo." In the summer of 1972, the New York Times ran a front-page story on Post-Vietnam Syndrome. It reported that 50% of all Vietnam veterans—not just combat veterans—needed professional help to readjust, and contained phrases such as "psychiatric casualty," "emotionally disturbed" and "men with damaged brains." By contrast, veterans of World War II were heralded as heroes. They fought in a popular war, a vital distinction in understanding how veterans and the public give meaning to their wartime hardships and sacrifice.
Psychological casualties are as old as war itself, but historians and sociologists note that the high-profile involvement of civilian psychiatrists in the wake of the Vietnam War set those returning soldiers apart. "The suggestion or outright assertion was that Vietnam veterans have been unique in American history for their psychiatric problems," writes the historian Eric T. Dean Jr. in "Shook over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War." As the image of the psychologically injured veteran took root in the national conscience, the psychiatric profession debated the wisdom of giving him his own diagnosis.
During the Civil War, some soldiers were said to suffer "irritable heart" or "Da Costa's Syndrome"—a condition marked by shortness of breath, chest discomfort and pounding palpitations that doctors could not attribute to a medical cause. In World War I, the condition became known as "shell shock" and was characterized as a mental problem. The inability to cope was believed to reflect personal weakness—an underlying genetic or psychological vulnerability; combat itself, no matter how intense, was deemed little more than a precipitating factor. Otherwise well-adjusted individuals were believed to be at small risk of suffering more than a transient stress reaction once they were removed from the front.
In 1917, the British neuroanatomist Grafton Elliot Smith and the psychologist Tom Pear challenged this view, attributing the cause more to the experiences and less on those who suffered them. "Psychoneurosis may be produced in almost anyone if only his environment be made 'difficult' enough for him," they wrote in their book "Shell Shock and Its Lessons." This triggered a feisty debate within British military psychiatry, and eventually the two sides came to agree that both the soldier's predisposition to stress and his exposure to hostilities contributed to breakdown. By World War II, then, military psychiatrists believed that even the bravest and fittest soldier could endure only so much. "Every man has his breaking point," as the saying went.
In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association adopted post-traumatic stress disorder (rather than the narrower Post-Vietnam Syndrome) as an official diagnosis in the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
A patient could be diagnosed with PTSD if he experienced a trauma or "stressor" that, as DSM described it, would "evoke significant symptoms of distress in almost everyone." Rape, combat, torture and fires were those deemed to fall, as the DSM III required, "generally outside the range of usual human experience." Thus, while the stress was unusual, the development of PTSD in its wake was not.
No longer were prolonged traumatic reactions viewed as a reflection of constitutional vulnerability. They became instead a natural process of adaptation to extreme stress. The influence of individual differences shaping response to crisis gave way to the profound impact of the trauma, with its leveling effect on all human response.
If the pendulum swung too far, obliterating the role of an individual's own characteristics in the development of the condition, it served a political purpose. As British psychiatrist Derek Summerfield put it, the newly minted diagnosis of PTSD "was meant to shift the focus of attention from the details of a soldier's background and psyche to the fundamentally traumatic nature of war."
Messrs. Shatan and Lifton clearly saw PTSD as a normal response. "The placement of post-traumatic stress disorder in [the DSM] allows us to see the policies of diagnosis and disease in an especially clear light," writes combat veteran and sociologist Wilbur Scott in his detailed 1993 account "The Politics of Readjustment: Vietnam Veterans Since the War." PTSD is in DSM, Mr. Scott writes, "because a core of psychiatrists and Vietnam veterans worked conscientiously and deliberately for years to put it there…at issue was the question of what constitutes a normal reaction or experience of soldiers to combat." Thus, by the time PTSD was incorporated into the official psychiatric lexicon, it bore a hybrid legacy—part political artifact of the antiwar movement, part legitimate diagnosis.
While the major symptoms of PTSD are fairly straightforward—re-experiencing, anxiety and avoidance—what counted as a traumatic experience turned out to be a moving target in subsequent editions of the DSM.
In 1987, the DSM III was revised to expand the definition of a traumatic experience. The concept of stressor now included a secondhand experience. In the fourth edition in 1994, the range of "traumatic" events was expanded to include hearing about the unexpected death of a loved one or receiving a fatal diagnosis such as terminal cancer. No longer did one need to experience a life-threatening situation directly or be a close witness to a ghastly accident or atrocity. Experiencing "intense fear, helplessness, or horror" after watching the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on television, for example, could qualify an individual for PTSD.
There is pitched debate among trauma experts as to whether a stressor should be defined as whatever traumatizes a person. True, a person might feel "traumatized" by, say, a minor car accident—but to say that a fender-bender counts as trauma alongside such horrors as concentration camps, rape or the Bataan Death March is to dilute the concept. "A great deal rides on how we define the concept of traumatic stressor, says Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally, author of "Remembering Trauma." In the civilian realm, Mr. McNally says, "the more we broaden the category of traumatic stressors, the less credibly we can assign causal significance to a given stressor itself and the more weight we must place on personal vulnerability."
Americans are deeply moved by the men and women who fight our wars. We have an incalculable moral debt, as Abraham Lincoln said, "to care for him who shall have borne the battle." Yet rather than broaden the definition of PTSD, it would do our veterans better to ensure they first receive quality treatment and rehabilitation before applying for disability status. Otherwise, how can we assess their prospects for meaningful recovery no matter their diagnosis?
The new regulations announced by Mr. Shinseki take the definition of PTSD further than any of his predecessors surely imagined.
Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Modern psychiatry calls these invisible wounds post-traumatic stress disorder. And along with this diagnosis, which became widely known in the wake of the Vietnam War, has come a new sensitivity to the causes and consequences of being afflicted with it.
Veterans with unrelenting PTSD can receive disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. As retired Army Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, secretary of Veterans Affairs, said last week, the mental injuries of war "can be as debilitating as any physical battlefield trauma." The occasion for his remark was a new VA rule allowing veterans to receive disability benefits for PTSD if, as non-combatants, they had good reason to fear hostile activity, such as firefights or explosions. In other words, veterans can now file a benefits claim for being traumatized by events they did not actually experience.
The very notion that one can sustain an enduring mental disorder based on anxious anticipation of a traumatic event that never materializes is a radical departure from the clinical—and common-sense—understanding that disabling stress disorders are caused by traumatic events that actually do happen to people. This is not the first time that controversy has swirled around the diagnosis of PTSD.
In brief, the symptoms of PTSD fall into three categories: re-experiencing (e.g., relentless nightmares; unbidden waking images; flashbacks); hyper-arousal (e.g., enhanced startle, anxiety, sleeplessness); and phobias (e.g., fear of driving after having been in a crash). Symptoms must last at least one month and impair the normal functioning to some degree. Overwhelming calamity, not only combat exposure, can lead to PTSD, including natural disasters, rape, accidents and assault.
Not everyone who confronts horrific circumstances develops PTSD. Among the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, 34% developed PTSD, according to a study by psychiatric epidemiologist Carol North. After a car accident or natural disaster, fewer than 10% of victims are affected, while among rape victims, well over half are affected. The reassuring news is that, as with grief and other emotional reactions to painful events, most sufferers get better with time, though periodic nightmares and easy startling may linger for additional months or even years.
Large-scale data on veterans are harder to come by. According to the major study of Vietnam veterans, the 1988 National Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Study, 50% of those whose stress reactions were diagnosed as PTSD recovered fully over time. A re-analysis of the data, published in Science in 2006, found that 18.7% of Vietnam veterans suffered PTSD at some point after returning from war, but half had recovered by the time the study was conducted in the mid-1980s.
A 2010 article in the Journal of Traumatic Stress summarized over two dozen studies and found that among servicemen and women previously deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, between 5% and 20% have been diagnosed with PTSD.
The story of PTSD starts with the Vietnam War. In the late 1960s, a band of self-described antiwar psychiatrists—led by Chaim Shatan and Robert Jay Lifton, who was well known for his work on the psychological damage wrought by Hiroshima—formulated a new diagnostic concept to describe the psychological wounds that the veterans sustained in the war. They called it "Post-Vietnam Syndrome," a disorder marked by "growing apathy, cynicism, alienation, depression, mistrust, and expectation of betrayal as well as an inability to concentrate, insomnia, nightmares, restlessness, uprootedness, and impatience with almost any job or course of study." Not uncommonly, Messrs. Shatan and Lifton said, the symptoms did not emerge until months or years after the veterans returned home.
This vision inspired portrayals of the Vietnam veteran as the kind of "walking time bomb" as immortalized in films such as "Taxi Driver" and "Rambo." In the summer of 1972, the New York Times ran a front-page story on Post-Vietnam Syndrome. It reported that 50% of all Vietnam veterans—not just combat veterans—needed professional help to readjust, and contained phrases such as "psychiatric casualty," "emotionally disturbed" and "men with damaged brains." By contrast, veterans of World War II were heralded as heroes. They fought in a popular war, a vital distinction in understanding how veterans and the public give meaning to their wartime hardships and sacrifice.
Psychological casualties are as old as war itself, but historians and sociologists note that the high-profile involvement of civilian psychiatrists in the wake of the Vietnam War set those returning soldiers apart. "The suggestion or outright assertion was that Vietnam veterans have been unique in American history for their psychiatric problems," writes the historian Eric T. Dean Jr. in "Shook over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War." As the image of the psychologically injured veteran took root in the national conscience, the psychiatric profession debated the wisdom of giving him his own diagnosis.
During the Civil War, some soldiers were said to suffer "irritable heart" or "Da Costa's Syndrome"—a condition marked by shortness of breath, chest discomfort and pounding palpitations that doctors could not attribute to a medical cause. In World War I, the condition became known as "shell shock" and was characterized as a mental problem. The inability to cope was believed to reflect personal weakness—an underlying genetic or psychological vulnerability; combat itself, no matter how intense, was deemed little more than a precipitating factor. Otherwise well-adjusted individuals were believed to be at small risk of suffering more than a transient stress reaction once they were removed from the front.
In 1917, the British neuroanatomist Grafton Elliot Smith and the psychologist Tom Pear challenged this view, attributing the cause more to the experiences and less on those who suffered them. "Psychoneurosis may be produced in almost anyone if only his environment be made 'difficult' enough for him," they wrote in their book "Shell Shock and Its Lessons." This triggered a feisty debate within British military psychiatry, and eventually the two sides came to agree that both the soldier's predisposition to stress and his exposure to hostilities contributed to breakdown. By World War II, then, military psychiatrists believed that even the bravest and fittest soldier could endure only so much. "Every man has his breaking point," as the saying went.
In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association adopted post-traumatic stress disorder (rather than the narrower Post-Vietnam Syndrome) as an official diagnosis in the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
A patient could be diagnosed with PTSD if he experienced a trauma or "stressor" that, as DSM described it, would "evoke significant symptoms of distress in almost everyone." Rape, combat, torture and fires were those deemed to fall, as the DSM III required, "generally outside the range of usual human experience." Thus, while the stress was unusual, the development of PTSD in its wake was not.
No longer were prolonged traumatic reactions viewed as a reflection of constitutional vulnerability. They became instead a natural process of adaptation to extreme stress. The influence of individual differences shaping response to crisis gave way to the profound impact of the trauma, with its leveling effect on all human response.
If the pendulum swung too far, obliterating the role of an individual's own characteristics in the development of the condition, it served a political purpose. As British psychiatrist Derek Summerfield put it, the newly minted diagnosis of PTSD "was meant to shift the focus of attention from the details of a soldier's background and psyche to the fundamentally traumatic nature of war."
Messrs. Shatan and Lifton clearly saw PTSD as a normal response. "The placement of post-traumatic stress disorder in [the DSM] allows us to see the policies of diagnosis and disease in an especially clear light," writes combat veteran and sociologist Wilbur Scott in his detailed 1993 account "The Politics of Readjustment: Vietnam Veterans Since the War." PTSD is in DSM, Mr. Scott writes, "because a core of psychiatrists and Vietnam veterans worked conscientiously and deliberately for years to put it there…at issue was the question of what constitutes a normal reaction or experience of soldiers to combat." Thus, by the time PTSD was incorporated into the official psychiatric lexicon, it bore a hybrid legacy—part political artifact of the antiwar movement, part legitimate diagnosis.
While the major symptoms of PTSD are fairly straightforward—re-experiencing, anxiety and avoidance—what counted as a traumatic experience turned out to be a moving target in subsequent editions of the DSM.
In 1987, the DSM III was revised to expand the definition of a traumatic experience. The concept of stressor now included a secondhand experience. In the fourth edition in 1994, the range of "traumatic" events was expanded to include hearing about the unexpected death of a loved one or receiving a fatal diagnosis such as terminal cancer. No longer did one need to experience a life-threatening situation directly or be a close witness to a ghastly accident or atrocity. Experiencing "intense fear, helplessness, or horror" after watching the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on television, for example, could qualify an individual for PTSD.
There is pitched debate among trauma experts as to whether a stressor should be defined as whatever traumatizes a person. True, a person might feel "traumatized" by, say, a minor car accident—but to say that a fender-bender counts as trauma alongside such horrors as concentration camps, rape or the Bataan Death March is to dilute the concept. "A great deal rides on how we define the concept of traumatic stressor, says Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally, author of "Remembering Trauma." In the civilian realm, Mr. McNally says, "the more we broaden the category of traumatic stressors, the less credibly we can assign causal significance to a given stressor itself and the more weight we must place on personal vulnerability."
Americans are deeply moved by the men and women who fight our wars. We have an incalculable moral debt, as Abraham Lincoln said, "to care for him who shall have borne the battle." Yet rather than broaden the definition of PTSD, it would do our veterans better to ensure they first receive quality treatment and rehabilitation before applying for disability status. Otherwise, how can we assess their prospects for meaningful recovery no matter their diagnosis?
The new regulations announced by Mr. Shinseki take the definition of PTSD further than any of his predecessors surely imagined.
Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Thursday, July 8, 2010
"Marines are warriors.
Comprised of smart, highly adaptable men and women, the Marine Corps serves as the aggressive tip of the U.S. military spear. Ours is a smaller, more dynamic force than any other in the American arsenal, and the only forward-deployed force designed for expeditionary operations by air, land, or sea. It is our size and expertise that allow us to move faster. Working to overcome disadvantage and turn conflict into victory, we accomplish great things, and we do so together. In the Marine Corps, there is a motto that describes our commitment to each other, our organization, and our country. It is Semper Fidelis or 'Semper Fi.' Translated from Latin, it means 'Always Faithful.
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.'- President Ronald Reagan, 1985"
Comprised of smart, highly adaptable men and women, the Marine Corps serves as the aggressive tip of the U.S. military spear. Ours is a smaller, more dynamic force than any other in the American arsenal, and the only forward-deployed force designed for expeditionary operations by air, land, or sea. It is our size and expertise that allow us to move faster. Working to overcome disadvantage and turn conflict into victory, we accomplish great things, and we do so together. In the Marine Corps, there is a motto that describes our commitment to each other, our organization, and our country. It is Semper Fidelis or 'Semper Fi.' Translated from Latin, it means 'Always Faithful.
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.'- President Ronald Reagan, 1985"
Sunday, July 4, 2010
BREATH CONTROL for the WARRIOR ATHLETE
4 second breathing is recommended by many stress physicians, and this deliberate breathing is practiced by many athletes. It assists in controlling your parasympathetic nervous system. When a stressful moment occurs, when you feel the urge to fight or flee, slow down for a moment. Now consciously inhale, one gentle and deliberate intake through the nose-to the full count of four seconds. The belly expands first, the rib cage second, the chest and back fill third and fourth the collar bones rise. The slow exhale is the hardest part of the process, requiring the most concentration. At the minimum repeat this breathing pattern holding your body still at least 5 times. The US Olympic Biathlon Team uses this technique to gear down from high speed to steady concentration. Their event requires them to ski at top speed then halt and aim and fire their weapon accurately. They use four second breathing to slow and steady their heart rate and their trigger finger. It is also scientifically proven to control stress during periods of physical and mental exertion such as combat. It will allow you to restore yourself moment to moment and steady your weapon.
http://www.warriorathlete.org/
http://www.warriorathlete.org/
Thoughts on the Warrior Athlete
Every member of the military and law enforcement community is a "professional warrior athlete." They should be training as such.
Warrior (n) = 1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle 2. One who is engaged aggressively/energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict
Athlete (n) = A person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength
Because our AD/AR Marines stationed at independant duty sites throughout the country do not have the fitness facilities and access to personal trainers that Marines have on an installation have, they still need the resources and education to provide a variety of fitness/PT protocols to keep their Marines "combat conditioned and operational ready."This is why we now have the CFT and the PFT. I realize the CFT is not the all-encompassing answer but it does get Marines training DIFFERENTLY, which forces the body to adapt to new stimulus and creates improved performance.I would much rather have someone next to me when it gets thick that has conditioning for speed, agility and quickness (SAQ), which more accurately reflects the movement patterns in combat, than one who primarily trains on distance running or isometric exercises . Just a thought - if you are running a 10-miler in combat, you might be lost.
Warrior (n) = 1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle 2. One who is engaged aggressively/energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict
Athlete (n) = A person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength
Because our AD/AR Marines stationed at independant duty sites throughout the country do not have the fitness facilities and access to personal trainers that Marines have on an installation have, they still need the resources and education to provide a variety of fitness/PT protocols to keep their Marines "combat conditioned and operational ready."This is why we now have the CFT and the PFT. I realize the CFT is not the all-encompassing answer but it does get Marines training DIFFERENTLY, which forces the body to adapt to new stimulus and creates improved performance.I would much rather have someone next to me when it gets thick that has conditioning for speed, agility and quickness (SAQ), which more accurately reflects the movement patterns in combat, than one who primarily trains on distance running or isometric exercises . Just a thought - if you are running a 10-miler in combat, you might be lost.
HTTP://WWW.WARRIORATHLETE.ORG
Occupational Therapy for the Warrior Athlete"
Our Integrative Mind-Body Program provides the 21st century "Warrior Athlete" the tools for injury prevention, strict discipline, sustained mental focus, enhanced marksmanship skills, integrative strength & flexibility, the ability to sustain calmness while under battlefield conditions. Our Regenerative 'Prehab' Fitness Model enhances power, proprioception, speed, agilty, quickness, breath control, balance and core strength."
Sadie Nardini
Author and Founder of Core Strength Vinyasa YogaPosted: November 30, 2009 03:05 PM
BIO
Become a FanGet Email Alerts
Bloggers' IndexThe War Of Yoga: Bringing Our Troops To The Mat!
I posted a request from YogaforVets.com on my Facebook page the other day. Seems simple, right?It's a site, founded in 2007 by Navy diver and yoga instructor Paul Zipes. He says he had the idea for the site because he wanted to support the troops and their recovery from war-related stress and injury. He says, "as a yoga teacher and a vet myself, listing free yoga classes for war vets was an easy decision."Zipes is asking yoga teachers everywhere to offer 4 free yoga classes to veterans of any war, so these men and women can learn a skill to help them cope with the stresses and traumas of active duty. He wanted me to help spread the word."Good idea", I thought--a no-brainer, actually.But some of the negative responses from yoga students and teachers I received made me think again."How do you reconcile this post with the fact that yogis are against 'himsa'--or "violence", as set forth by yogic scriptures, and your support of war is shockingly non-yogic", one yoga practitioner wrote.And there was more where that came from."Combat is inherently anti-Yoga"..."Patanjali would never condone this...""War is wrong. How can you ask us to give yoga to those in alignment with it?"Well, here's how. A fuller understanding of karma, or the outcome of actions, Dharma, or the human path of freedom and peace, and Ahimsa, or practicing "nonviolence" makes it impossible to judge warriors, or war, for that matter, as inherently good or bad. I'll show you why in a moment.When it comes to their own, bliss-filled circles, many yogis feel right at home. They can walk into and out of their own yoga sanctuary with ease, armed with tunnel vision and a limited concept of yogic philosophy and be accepted by their peers, surrounded by their like-minded yoga family.Bring a foreign element to the door however, especially one they don't agree with, and you'll see that often, this yoga home is closed to certain people, though open wide to those who share their views. This sanctuary is then revealed as the dogma-house it really is.And frankly, I'm over it.In my view, anyone who wants to try yoga, and seek a path of self-knowledge and harmony for any reason, should be welcomed onto the mat. As teachers, we have a responsibility to teach, not to judge, period. If I had to agree with everyone's views who came to my classes, my studio would be near-empty.Besides, let's talk about yoga as the personal path of transformation it is, not in terms of "scripture", as if it's a religion that's set in stone. There are as many philosophies about how to reach self-awareness as there are people to teach the path, many of them directly contradicting the other.One of yoga's most foundational texts, the Bhagavad Gita, tells the story of Krishna, a god, who is trying to get this guy, Arjuna, to march onto the battlefield and kill his family, friends and teachers, because, basically, they're anarchists who are keeping a kingdom under immoral and abusive rule.Krishna himself won't participate in the violence, but he sends Arjuna his army. He explains that Arjuna's battle is just, because it protects humanity's Dharma, or universal harmony and freedom from oppression.The war is called the "Dharma Yuddha", meaning a conflict fought on behalf of justice.One yoga practitioner, Lt.Col Randy Fridley, USMC (Ret.), who was deployed to Vietnam, has found solace in yoga, and healing for his body and mind.To those who might decline to teach a veteran yoga, he offers this advice: "Say what you want about more recent ventures into war by our country. History will judge them too. But that's not the point. Peace is best promoted by one at peace soul at a time.He continues, "If a just war presents itself as a necessity, I suspect many in yoga would go, and continue to do yoga and keep their inner peace accordingly. Yoga promotes a peaceful soul. Who could find fault with that?"Our culture, and most of them before ours, have consisted of different sections of society. There are healers, teachers, workers, artists and clergy. There is also the warrior class. And there's a good reason for this, in my opinion.Yoga philosophy states that we should practice Ahimsa, or non-violence towards our fellow man and ourselves, as one way to release our resistance to our universal nature. If you're angry all the time, it's hard to realize your inherent goodness, and connection to all things. Check.However, we are also taught that at certain times, employing force may be necessary in order to protect the larger right of a community to live according to their Dharma. We could call this "conscious himsa".When Patanjali's meaning of ahimsa is applied appropriately, if done for the greater good, and from a place of fighting for people's freedom, and not against it, of denying bullies their choice to terrorize innocent civilians, and all this is truly done on behalf of justice, then it is not the enlightenment-busting form of violence he describes.Any yogic concept, be it war, ahimsa, Dharma, or Upward Dog, has a positive and negative polarity. You can take action in your yoga poses in a way that harms or harmonizes you. It's the same way with anything. One person would call Elvis "a sinner" while another would call him "a star".Unfortunately, we've often pigeonholed ourselves in the yoga community into "this is bad, this is good", this is "spiritual", this is "not enlightened" without thinking about the action's purpose and origination point.Is the action decisive, or unifying? Done from fear, or love? If an action is taken from love and unity, the outcome will resonate that.When it comes to embracing warriors on our mats, we also tend to conveniently forget our foundational teachings that actions taken for peace will be of constructive karma and actions taken from fear will be of destructive karma, or outcome. Yogically, it's whether you're acting on behalf of unity or separatism, love or hate, universal equality or ego that makes karma "good" or "bad". "War", "Veteran", "Fighting" can be either. It all depends where you're coming from in your heart of hearts, and if the war can said to be truly just.I'm not making any statements about any of our current wars, or any war for that matter. This article is only to say that much of our warrior class joined the forces in order to protect and serve, two highly "spiritual" values. And, even if our choice would not be theirs, we can lessen this yogic revulsion to a man in uniform and learn to open our hearts with the same compassion we extend to those we do agree with.Dharma, on the level of human beings, means our "true nature". The Dharma of sugar is sweet, for example. And our collective Dharma is to be free and equal, to live and love and worship as we wish and strive for good and to do our life's work without repression or fear.If as yogis, we take an all-or-nothing view of Ahimsa as always wrong, and then judge the warriors in our society for their actions, no matter what kind of war they're fighting, or for what reason, then we miss the bigger picture of spiritual understanding of the outcome of warring actions taken on behalf of ultimate peace.Now, granted, most wars nowadays seem to be more about greed and political power than protecting the inalienable rights of a people to exist without living in terror. However, they are not all about power. There is some justice in our violence yet.And yogis, if you say that Ahimsa is always wrong, and it leads you to deny a Marine from taking your class, or turn your Yogier-than-thou sights on someone who is showing anger, then let me ask you a hard question, one that is quite disturbing, so brace yourself:If you walked into your home, and some stranger had broken in and was trying to kill your child, would you stand back and chant Om Mani Padme Hum at them with a soft, compassionate smile on your face...or would you do what you had to do to stop it, using force if necessary?Personally? I would do anything it took to protect that child's life and innocence. And I bet, even if you're an animal rights activist, you eat vegan, and you are anti-war...you might, too.Think seriously about it. And if your true answer is closer to the second action than the first, then maybe it will bring a little gray into your black and white Ahimsa outlook.Because it's maddening to me that we as yogis continue to spout this "no Ahimsa, no matter what" dogma, when in fact, sometimes it can be necessary to save the innocent people of entire cultures.I know Gandhi is going to pop up in the comments, so let me address that here.He was able to lead a relatively nonviolent protest against the English, who ultimately were civilized and democratic enough to react to the revolt with treaties and withdrawal. Plus, the whole time and cultural equation was right for that type of protest to be effective.Do you think those responsible for the genocide in Darfur, or suicide bombers who believe in total Jihad against nonbelievers are going to "see the light" of a nonviolent protest by the people? Doubtful. They want you dead, and most likely, no amount of economic sanctions or making your own clothing or salt is going to change this type of aggression into peace. Because equality and harmony is not what they seek, but power, and destruction.Perhaps you can also see some gray area around the warriors that go to fight in conflict, as a combination of really hard choices and factors--some of which are also striving for others' good, for freedom and protection from harm.Would I like to see diplomacy take the place of war? Of course (Go, Obama!), but it takes two to come to the table, and we hit a wall when one of those two sides still prefers suicide bombs to negotiating for peace. Because it's not peace they want--it's for the enemy to be wiped off the planet, forever.So yes, the reasons both parties are in conflict are opposing. So who is to say what's "best" for one side isn't good for everyone? Well, most rational people can say that erring on the side of allowing a people to live in peace is more constructive than allowing one group to terrorize others, and in order to live their idea of freedom, they must destroy other societies and all the people in them.I'm not saying any of this to make you believe that war is good, or "right". I think it's always a method of last resort (or should be...right, W?).I am, however, inviting you to broaden your perspective about the facets of conflict, so maybe you'll have more compassion for those who go to fight in them, at least when the fight is for the freedom of both sides to live in Dharmic harmony. I'm not saying all wars do that, but in my opinion, some of them have the protection of people in mind, and not annihilation.One thing's still for certain, says Fridley, "The world is out of balance. ""The fighting man and woman sees that firsthand in a dramatic way that the protected could not begin to appreciate. Their experience often has thrown them out of balance and they struggle to get it back."He explains that for him, the practice of yoga is one answer to tipping the scales back again."Yoga is much about living a balanced life and really has contributed that effect to me. It is really helping me with my delayed onset Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ."LCDR Eric Fretz, USN (Ret.) who is in support of veterans--or anyone--doing yoga, agrees, adding,"I would say that if warriors have to be deployed, regardless of how you feel about it, a peaceful centered warrior is the best warrior to have on your side.Zipes has seen firsthand the healing effects of yoga for so many current and former troops. It reduces their PTSD symptoms, stress and injuries. It helps them deal during, and after deployment, with mental and physical issues I can't possibly imagine.And, he adds, "Regardless of your view about war (most common answer: "War is bad"), if you are a real yogi you should care about people, even if they fought in wars. As a teacher, you have something positive to offer these people."Whatever you believe about war, yogis, how can any of us call ourselves teachers of a universal spirituality...and then try to prevent any single human being from seeking their ultimate peace? That's not just uninformed, it's arrogant and separatist--which is the root cause of so many wars and conflicts everywhere.You want to "be the change?" Start with acting in accordance with the unity and welcoming all seekers of the light that yoga truly represents.Follow Sadie Nardini on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SadieNardini
Our Integrative Mind-Body Program provides the 21st century "Warrior Athlete" the tools for injury prevention, strict discipline, sustained mental focus, enhanced marksmanship skills, integrative strength & flexibility, the ability to sustain calmness while under battlefield conditions. Our Regenerative 'Prehab' Fitness Model enhances power, proprioception, speed, agilty, quickness, breath control, balance and core strength."
Sadie Nardini
Author and Founder of Core Strength Vinyasa YogaPosted: November 30, 2009 03:05 PM
BIO
Become a FanGet Email Alerts
Bloggers' IndexThe War Of Yoga: Bringing Our Troops To The Mat!
I posted a request from YogaforVets.com on my Facebook page the other day. Seems simple, right?It's a site, founded in 2007 by Navy diver and yoga instructor Paul Zipes. He says he had the idea for the site because he wanted to support the troops and their recovery from war-related stress and injury. He says, "as a yoga teacher and a vet myself, listing free yoga classes for war vets was an easy decision."Zipes is asking yoga teachers everywhere to offer 4 free yoga classes to veterans of any war, so these men and women can learn a skill to help them cope with the stresses and traumas of active duty. He wanted me to help spread the word."Good idea", I thought--a no-brainer, actually.But some of the negative responses from yoga students and teachers I received made me think again."How do you reconcile this post with the fact that yogis are against 'himsa'--or "violence", as set forth by yogic scriptures, and your support of war is shockingly non-yogic", one yoga practitioner wrote.And there was more where that came from."Combat is inherently anti-Yoga"..."Patanjali would never condone this...""War is wrong. How can you ask us to give yoga to those in alignment with it?"Well, here's how. A fuller understanding of karma, or the outcome of actions, Dharma, or the human path of freedom and peace, and Ahimsa, or practicing "nonviolence" makes it impossible to judge warriors, or war, for that matter, as inherently good or bad. I'll show you why in a moment.When it comes to their own, bliss-filled circles, many yogis feel right at home. They can walk into and out of their own yoga sanctuary with ease, armed with tunnel vision and a limited concept of yogic philosophy and be accepted by their peers, surrounded by their like-minded yoga family.Bring a foreign element to the door however, especially one they don't agree with, and you'll see that often, this yoga home is closed to certain people, though open wide to those who share their views. This sanctuary is then revealed as the dogma-house it really is.And frankly, I'm over it.In my view, anyone who wants to try yoga, and seek a path of self-knowledge and harmony for any reason, should be welcomed onto the mat. As teachers, we have a responsibility to teach, not to judge, period. If I had to agree with everyone's views who came to my classes, my studio would be near-empty.Besides, let's talk about yoga as the personal path of transformation it is, not in terms of "scripture", as if it's a religion that's set in stone. There are as many philosophies about how to reach self-awareness as there are people to teach the path, many of them directly contradicting the other.One of yoga's most foundational texts, the Bhagavad Gita, tells the story of Krishna, a god, who is trying to get this guy, Arjuna, to march onto the battlefield and kill his family, friends and teachers, because, basically, they're anarchists who are keeping a kingdom under immoral and abusive rule.Krishna himself won't participate in the violence, but he sends Arjuna his army. He explains that Arjuna's battle is just, because it protects humanity's Dharma, or universal harmony and freedom from oppression.The war is called the "Dharma Yuddha", meaning a conflict fought on behalf of justice.One yoga practitioner, Lt.Col Randy Fridley, USMC (Ret.), who was deployed to Vietnam, has found solace in yoga, and healing for his body and mind.To those who might decline to teach a veteran yoga, he offers this advice: "Say what you want about more recent ventures into war by our country. History will judge them too. But that's not the point. Peace is best promoted by one at peace soul at a time.He continues, "If a just war presents itself as a necessity, I suspect many in yoga would go, and continue to do yoga and keep their inner peace accordingly. Yoga promotes a peaceful soul. Who could find fault with that?"Our culture, and most of them before ours, have consisted of different sections of society. There are healers, teachers, workers, artists and clergy. There is also the warrior class. And there's a good reason for this, in my opinion.Yoga philosophy states that we should practice Ahimsa, or non-violence towards our fellow man and ourselves, as one way to release our resistance to our universal nature. If you're angry all the time, it's hard to realize your inherent goodness, and connection to all things. Check.However, we are also taught that at certain times, employing force may be necessary in order to protect the larger right of a community to live according to their Dharma. We could call this "conscious himsa".When Patanjali's meaning of ahimsa is applied appropriately, if done for the greater good, and from a place of fighting for people's freedom, and not against it, of denying bullies their choice to terrorize innocent civilians, and all this is truly done on behalf of justice, then it is not the enlightenment-busting form of violence he describes.Any yogic concept, be it war, ahimsa, Dharma, or Upward Dog, has a positive and negative polarity. You can take action in your yoga poses in a way that harms or harmonizes you. It's the same way with anything. One person would call Elvis "a sinner" while another would call him "a star".Unfortunately, we've often pigeonholed ourselves in the yoga community into "this is bad, this is good", this is "spiritual", this is "not enlightened" without thinking about the action's purpose and origination point.Is the action decisive, or unifying? Done from fear, or love? If an action is taken from love and unity, the outcome will resonate that.When it comes to embracing warriors on our mats, we also tend to conveniently forget our foundational teachings that actions taken for peace will be of constructive karma and actions taken from fear will be of destructive karma, or outcome. Yogically, it's whether you're acting on behalf of unity or separatism, love or hate, universal equality or ego that makes karma "good" or "bad". "War", "Veteran", "Fighting" can be either. It all depends where you're coming from in your heart of hearts, and if the war can said to be truly just.I'm not making any statements about any of our current wars, or any war for that matter. This article is only to say that much of our warrior class joined the forces in order to protect and serve, two highly "spiritual" values. And, even if our choice would not be theirs, we can lessen this yogic revulsion to a man in uniform and learn to open our hearts with the same compassion we extend to those we do agree with.Dharma, on the level of human beings, means our "true nature". The Dharma of sugar is sweet, for example. And our collective Dharma is to be free and equal, to live and love and worship as we wish and strive for good and to do our life's work without repression or fear.If as yogis, we take an all-or-nothing view of Ahimsa as always wrong, and then judge the warriors in our society for their actions, no matter what kind of war they're fighting, or for what reason, then we miss the bigger picture of spiritual understanding of the outcome of warring actions taken on behalf of ultimate peace.Now, granted, most wars nowadays seem to be more about greed and political power than protecting the inalienable rights of a people to exist without living in terror. However, they are not all about power. There is some justice in our violence yet.And yogis, if you say that Ahimsa is always wrong, and it leads you to deny a Marine from taking your class, or turn your Yogier-than-thou sights on someone who is showing anger, then let me ask you a hard question, one that is quite disturbing, so brace yourself:If you walked into your home, and some stranger had broken in and was trying to kill your child, would you stand back and chant Om Mani Padme Hum at them with a soft, compassionate smile on your face...or would you do what you had to do to stop it, using force if necessary?Personally? I would do anything it took to protect that child's life and innocence. And I bet, even if you're an animal rights activist, you eat vegan, and you are anti-war...you might, too.Think seriously about it. And if your true answer is closer to the second action than the first, then maybe it will bring a little gray into your black and white Ahimsa outlook.Because it's maddening to me that we as yogis continue to spout this "no Ahimsa, no matter what" dogma, when in fact, sometimes it can be necessary to save the innocent people of entire cultures.I know Gandhi is going to pop up in the comments, so let me address that here.He was able to lead a relatively nonviolent protest against the English, who ultimately were civilized and democratic enough to react to the revolt with treaties and withdrawal. Plus, the whole time and cultural equation was right for that type of protest to be effective.Do you think those responsible for the genocide in Darfur, or suicide bombers who believe in total Jihad against nonbelievers are going to "see the light" of a nonviolent protest by the people? Doubtful. They want you dead, and most likely, no amount of economic sanctions or making your own clothing or salt is going to change this type of aggression into peace. Because equality and harmony is not what they seek, but power, and destruction.Perhaps you can also see some gray area around the warriors that go to fight in conflict, as a combination of really hard choices and factors--some of which are also striving for others' good, for freedom and protection from harm.Would I like to see diplomacy take the place of war? Of course (Go, Obama!), but it takes two to come to the table, and we hit a wall when one of those two sides still prefers suicide bombs to negotiating for peace. Because it's not peace they want--it's for the enemy to be wiped off the planet, forever.So yes, the reasons both parties are in conflict are opposing. So who is to say what's "best" for one side isn't good for everyone? Well, most rational people can say that erring on the side of allowing a people to live in peace is more constructive than allowing one group to terrorize others, and in order to live their idea of freedom, they must destroy other societies and all the people in them.I'm not saying any of this to make you believe that war is good, or "right". I think it's always a method of last resort (or should be...right, W?).I am, however, inviting you to broaden your perspective about the facets of conflict, so maybe you'll have more compassion for those who go to fight in them, at least when the fight is for the freedom of both sides to live in Dharmic harmony. I'm not saying all wars do that, but in my opinion, some of them have the protection of people in mind, and not annihilation.One thing's still for certain, says Fridley, "The world is out of balance. ""The fighting man and woman sees that firsthand in a dramatic way that the protected could not begin to appreciate. Their experience often has thrown them out of balance and they struggle to get it back."He explains that for him, the practice of yoga is one answer to tipping the scales back again."Yoga is much about living a balanced life and really has contributed that effect to me. It is really helping me with my delayed onset Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ."LCDR Eric Fretz, USN (Ret.) who is in support of veterans--or anyone--doing yoga, agrees, adding,"I would say that if warriors have to be deployed, regardless of how you feel about it, a peaceful centered warrior is the best warrior to have on your side.Zipes has seen firsthand the healing effects of yoga for so many current and former troops. It reduces their PTSD symptoms, stress and injuries. It helps them deal during, and after deployment, with mental and physical issues I can't possibly imagine.And, he adds, "Regardless of your view about war (most common answer: "War is bad"), if you are a real yogi you should care about people, even if they fought in wars. As a teacher, you have something positive to offer these people."Whatever you believe about war, yogis, how can any of us call ourselves teachers of a universal spirituality...and then try to prevent any single human being from seeking their ultimate peace? That's not just uninformed, it's arrogant and separatist--which is the root cause of so many wars and conflicts everywhere.You want to "be the change?" Start with acting in accordance with the unity and welcoming all seekers of the light that yoga truly represents.Follow Sadie Nardini on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SadieNardini
Semper Fidelis Health & Wellness is presenting a Nutrition and Wellness Lecture at MCVET.ORG today.
The 8 Causes of CravingsThe body is amazing. It knows when to go to sleep, wake up, go to the bathroom, maintain 98.6 degrees, and tighten the eyes when the light gets bright. It knows the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth. Your heart never misses a beat. Your lungs are always breathing. The body is a super-computer, and it never makes mistakes. Look at the foods, deficits and behaviors in your life that are the underlying causes of your cravings. Many people view cravings as weakness, but really they are important messages meant to assist you in maintaining balance. When you experience a craving, deconstruct it. Ask yourself, what does my body want and why?
The eight primary causes of cravings are:
1. Water. Lack of water can send the message that you are thirsty and on the verge of dehydration. Dehydration can manifest as a mild hunger, so the first thing to do when you get a craving is drink a full glass of water. Excess water can also cause cravings, so be sure that your water intake is well balanced.
2. Lack of primary food. Being dissatisfied with a relationship or having an inappropriate exercise routine (too much, too little or the wrong type), being bored, stressed, uninspired by a job, or lacking a spiritual practice may all cause emotional eating. Eating can be used as a substitute for entertainment or to fill the void of primary food.
3. Yin/yang imbalance. Certain foods have more yin qualities (expansive) while other foods have more yang qualities (contractive). Eating foods that are either extremely yin or extremely yang causes cravings in order to maintain balance. For example, eating a diet too rich in sugar (yin) may cause a craving for meat (yang). Eating too many raw foods (yin) may cause cravings for extremely cooked (dehydrated) foods or vise versa.
4. Inside coming out. Often times, cravings come from foods that we have recently eaten, foods eaten by our ancestors, or foods from our childhood. A clever way to satisfy these cravings is to eat a healthier version of one’s ancestral or childhood foods.
5. Seasonal. Often the body craves foods that balance the elements of the season. In the spring, people crave detoxifying foods like leafy greens or citrus foods. In the summer, people crave cooling foods like fruit, raw foods and ice cream, and in the fall people crave grounding foods like squash, onions and nuts. During winter many crave hot and heat-producing foods like meat, oil and fat. Cravings can also be associated with the holidays, for foods like turkey, eggnog or sweets, etc.
6. Lack of nutrients. If the body has inadequate nutrients, it will produce odd cravings. For example, inadequate mineral levels produce salt cravings and overall inadequate nutrition produces cravings for non-nutritional forms of energy like caffeine.
7. Hormonal. When women experience menstruation, pregnancy or menopause, fluctuating testosterone and estrogen levels may cause unique cravings.
8. De-evolution. When things are going extremely well, sometimes a self-sabotage syndrome happens. We crave foods that throw us off, thus creating more cravings to balance ourselves. This often happens from low blood sugar and may result in strong mood swings.
The 8 Causes of CravingsThe body is amazing. It knows when to go to sleep, wake up, go to the bathroom, maintain 98.6 degrees, and tighten the eyes when the light gets bright. It knows the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth. Your heart never misses a beat. Your lungs are always breathing. The body is a super-computer, and it never makes mistakes. Look at the foods, deficits and behaviors in your life that are the underlying causes of your cravings. Many people view cravings as weakness, but really they are important messages meant to assist you in maintaining balance. When you experience a craving, deconstruct it. Ask yourself, what does my body want and why?
The eight primary causes of cravings are:
1. Water. Lack of water can send the message that you are thirsty and on the verge of dehydration. Dehydration can manifest as a mild hunger, so the first thing to do when you get a craving is drink a full glass of water. Excess water can also cause cravings, so be sure that your water intake is well balanced.
2. Lack of primary food. Being dissatisfied with a relationship or having an inappropriate exercise routine (too much, too little or the wrong type), being bored, stressed, uninspired by a job, or lacking a spiritual practice may all cause emotional eating. Eating can be used as a substitute for entertainment or to fill the void of primary food.
3. Yin/yang imbalance. Certain foods have more yin qualities (expansive) while other foods have more yang qualities (contractive). Eating foods that are either extremely yin or extremely yang causes cravings in order to maintain balance. For example, eating a diet too rich in sugar (yin) may cause a craving for meat (yang). Eating too many raw foods (yin) may cause cravings for extremely cooked (dehydrated) foods or vise versa.
4. Inside coming out. Often times, cravings come from foods that we have recently eaten, foods eaten by our ancestors, or foods from our childhood. A clever way to satisfy these cravings is to eat a healthier version of one’s ancestral or childhood foods.
5. Seasonal. Often the body craves foods that balance the elements of the season. In the spring, people crave detoxifying foods like leafy greens or citrus foods. In the summer, people crave cooling foods like fruit, raw foods and ice cream, and in the fall people crave grounding foods like squash, onions and nuts. During winter many crave hot and heat-producing foods like meat, oil and fat. Cravings can also be associated with the holidays, for foods like turkey, eggnog or sweets, etc.
6. Lack of nutrients. If the body has inadequate nutrients, it will produce odd cravings. For example, inadequate mineral levels produce salt cravings and overall inadequate nutrition produces cravings for non-nutritional forms of energy like caffeine.
7. Hormonal. When women experience menstruation, pregnancy or menopause, fluctuating testosterone and estrogen levels may cause unique cravings.
8. De-evolution. When things are going extremely well, sometimes a self-sabotage syndrome happens. We crave foods that throw us off, thus creating more cravings to balance ourselves. This often happens from low blood sugar and may result in strong mood swings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)