Zen and the art of not hating running

11 05 2013

It may have been a weak moment. I blame February. February is cold, dark, and confining, just the thing that would make me agree to something on a whim that I might regret later.

In February I sat down to lunch with some friends, and an hour later returned to my office having agreed to participate in a 5K run in which the sole purpose — other than charity — is to be repeatedly colour-bombed until you stumble away resembling a technicolor Smurf.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Just one problem, though. I am not a runner. I’m not even particularly fit. I’m the type of person who pokes around the edges of fitness the way small children play with their vegetables instead of eating them. Kickboxing was fun, but that wasn’t so much for the fitness as for the opportunity to hit things repeatedly and with substantial force. Then I tried an early morning mixed fitness class with a perky trainer named Brian* [*note: His name may have been changed to protect his identity.** (**Or maybe not.)], but he was a bit too happy for my sleepy, under-caffeinated self. He would stand there all smily and smug with his arms crossed as we alternated between weights, cardio, and standing on our heads. I was not amused. Then there was a spin class in which the instructor would try to motivate us with visualizations, like imagining we were passing a dump truck on the highway. Really? Chasing imaginary vehicles on a stationary bike gave me an inkling of what my cat must go through in pursuit of the pesky red dot. Finally I settled on swimming — a good, low-impact, full-body workout that also provides stress relief, provided you’re not stuck with a bunch of noobs who can’t read signs and swim in the wrong direction. If there was such a thing as aqua-kickboxing that involves pretending to drown perky trainer Brian and people who swim in the wrong direction, I’d be all set. But there’s not.

This brings us back to running. Clearly, not my first choice. Or even my second or third* [*or fourth depending on whether you count the time I tripped over an aerobics step before the class even started...]. Suffice it to say, it’s probably a good thing that I just said “yes” to the 5K without thinking, because if I had enough time to think, I surely would have found plenty of reasons not to do it. In the end, however, I chose to do it for pretty much only one reason:

Because I can’t.

General fitness woes aside, running has always been the thing I sucked the most at. I couldn’t even run a convincing three-legged race in grade school, never mind a race in which I wasn’t being dragged along by another person strapped to my leg.

I think that’s precisely why I feel compelled to do it now. It’s not (just) about fitness. It’s about resetting my own expectations. You see, the part of me that says “I don’t run” is the same part that once fled in a cold sweat at the very mention a black tie dinner and the necessity *gasp* of an evening gown, the same part of me that then confronted a Spanx-loving dress Nazi and lived to tell the tale. Somehow, that part of me emerged not only in an evening gown, but with a newfound sense of possibility and a love of bright and happy shoes. So, red shoe, blue shoe, green shoe, running shoe? Why the hell not?

But let’s not be fooled by optimism. Running is hard. Beginning running, especially when you’re about as nimble and fleet-footed as a pair of Clydesdales, is really hard. And not hating it?  Sigh.

You hear people talk about getting a “runner’s high”, or about the Zen of running, but when I first stepped onto the treadmill, all that came to my mind was the theory of relativity: the faster you go, the slower time goes. Time doesn’t fly when you’re not having fun.

someecards.com - If you think a minute goes by really fast, you've never been on a treadmill.

But here’s a confession: I’ve stopped hating running. I wouldn’t call it Zen and I certainly wouldn’t call it fun, but as time goes on, I find that my hostility toward running has lost its edge. Maybe it’s just a consequence of my body now being otherwise occupied with its continuous state of muscle repair, or maybe it’s actually getting easier, I don’t know.  Here’s what I do know so far:

  1. Music is essential. Half of my motivation is an ever-changing playlist that provides a balance between music familiar enough to get lost in, and varied enough to keep things interesting when the run gets tough. How else would you imagine Eminem and Dr. Hook on the same playlist?
  2. Have a buddy. And by buddy, I don’t mean someone to run with. That’s what music is for. I mean a person who won’t let you quit, that you can still be friends with after they won’t let you quit. I am fortunate to have two — one is an avid runner; the other, like me, began running only begrudgingly. One appreciates the small victories (i.e. “Yay, I ran today!”). The other prods (i.e. “Are you strength training?”). Together, there’s no getting off the hook.
  3. Keep it simple. When you start off not being able to run for a minute, and you’re staring down a 5K on the calendar, beginning seems a daunting task in itself; there’s such a long way to go. As useful as it is to have a goal and a deadline, I’ve learned it’s best not to think about it too much. The frustrating thing about trying to do something you’re not very good at is that in order to get anywhere, you first have to give yourself permission to suck at it. And then, even with a training plan and the best intentions, there are still days when progress still feels slow. On those days, I have to keep it really simple: Did I run today? Was it more than I ran yesterday? Am I still breathing?  If the answer is yes, it’s progress. Another day that running didn’t kill me.

Two months of it not killing me may still be a long way from Zen, but it’s not a bad start.





Viewer discretion advised?

18 12 2012

Earlier this month, I opened up my iPad news aggregator and was shocked by the image that greeted me:  a man, staring down the New York subway tracks at an oncoming train, helplessly scrambling to pull himself to safety. The headline:  ”DOOMED:  Pushed onto the subway track, this man is about to die.”

The now (in)famous full-page cover photo of the December 4th New York Post is a haunting image, for both the story it tells and story it doesn’t. Why was no one there to help the man?  Why did the photographer choose to take a photo in a life-or-death moment rather than lend assistance? And what editor decided it was a good idea to publish it as a full-page cover photo?

The cover immediately prompted a public backlash about the photo, what it means, who’s to blame, and what it says about our society.

On Friday, as I heard news of the Connecticut school shooting, I couldn’t help but wonder the same thing.

We’ve seen it all before. Gunman walks into a public place, commits an unspeakable act of violence, and then turns the weapon on himself. It’s become a cliched template for a repeating news hourly news cycle: the sullen correspondent reporting live on the scene, the eyewitness accounts, the timeline. Still-shots of tearful bystanders segue to a commercial break. Coverage returns to the studio where, within hours, the networks have tracked down old high school classmates of the suspected gunman who claim they never imagined him committing such an atrocity. Then comes the expert opinion of a psychologist who speculates about the mental health of the gunman. Cue the president offering supportive words and promises of meaningful action that never quite materialize.  Hour after hour, the endless commentary struggles to fill the void left by an unanswerable question:  Why?

It’s been 13 years since Columbine, and the media are still dutifully trotting out the same story.

A journalist snaps a photo of a man about to die on a subway track, and the critics pounce on him for not doing more to help. But year after year, Journalism continues to stand idly by as history tragically repeats itself — in schools, theatres, and shopping malls — and we don’t just condone the coverage, we expect it.

Don’t misunderstand me.  I don’t blame the media for the violence. I blame the media for complacency. For continuing to tell the easy story. For allowing the difficult issues to be swept under the latest news of Royal morning sickness or Mitt Romney having a bad hair day.

How many people have to die before gun violence becomes a story that will not go away? How many times do we have to watch a tragedy unfold before we look at it is as something other than a random, senseless act? These  aren’t natural disasters; these are people killing people with legally purchased assault weapons. The story is no longer about the actions of one disturbed individual, or even about who or how many died. At some point, these shootings have to stop being treated like isolated events and start becoming a catalyst for meaningful public dialogue.

Will Sandy Hook finally prompt the media to put down the camera and help rewrite the script? Or will they keep standing on the sidelines showing us pictures that are all too painfully clear, as we wait for the next one to happen?

 





Why does interdisciplinarity matter?

16 11 2012

Because this is what can happen when scientists let other scientists go on YouTube:

It’s just like the original. So wrong. But kinda catchy too.

Potentially educational, if the faces don’t distract you.

It just makes you want to dance, doesn’t it?

This one’s for you, Mr. Maestripieri. My, what a big…uh…conical, you have!

Had one of those once. Now I got 99 problems but a bench ain’t one.





Where are all the supermodel scientists? (Why, in binders, of course!)

20 10 2012

You know, there’s one thing I’ve always wondered about men in science. Why do we always get the nerdy-looking  ones? How come I can get calendars with hot firemen but can’t seem to find any pinups of ruggedly handsome, half-naked men in lab coats?  Is it because they’re all so pale and fragile-looking? Maybe they think they can compensate for their weak physical attributes with their stunningly attractive intellect?

I mean…brains are sexy too…right?

Not according to neuroscientist Dario Maestripieri, who allegedly posted the following comment to his Facebook page:

My impression of the Conference of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans. There are thousands of people at the conference and an unusually high concentration of unattractive women. The super model types are completely absent. What is going on? Are unattractive women particularly attracted to neuroscience? Are beautiful women particularly uninterested in the brain? No offense to anyone..

No offence?  No offence!?

I’ve been to many scientific conferences too, so I can see where his comments are coming from. In fact, I’m kind of pleased that he’s finally noticed the hoards of balding white guys (no offence to you either, Mr. Maestripieri) and has chosen to speak up about the persistent gender inequality that exists in the sciences.

But as a woman in science, how do I not take offence to the Maestripieri’s suggestion that a scientific conference is supposed to be a beauty pageant? Or to his implication that, as women, we’re just there to be eye candy, while our scholarly contributions are secondary?

It’s really a shame that we can’t all be supermodels, but we’ve been kinda busy working against a systemic gender bias that creates barriers for female scientists at various stages of our professional development — not the least of which is being judged by our appearance rather than our intellect. I’m sorry to say that it doesn’t leave a lot of time for spa days and shopping trips. It’s a system, by the way, that was created and is reinforced by men. So, Mr. Maestripieri…if you don’t like what you see, change it. We’ve been trying to change it for years, and trust me, we share your disappointment in the results.

Maybe you could ask Mitt Romney for some help finding suitably qualified..er…attractive candidates.  I hear he’s got ”binders full of women.” About the only thing that could make that sound even more stalker-ish and creepy  is if the binders had photos. But how else do you know if you’re getting a supermodel?





Republican Science Theatre 2012

1 10 2012

All right, let’s get things started with a toss-up question (with all due apologies to Mystery Science Theatre 3000):

Where in the @^%# did we find these people, and how did they get to run for office?

I’m speaking, of course, of the Republicans, who between them appear to be hard-pressed to pass a high school science class.  I thought things had taken a turn for the worse in 2008 when Sarah Palin didn’t understand the value of “fruit fly research“, but I suppose it’s to be forgiven, since her understanding of the world seems to be limited to what she can see from her doorstep in Alaska. (Ya know, like Russia!)

Never mind…she didn’t win.

But now it’s four years later, the menagerie is back in town, and once again, I fear for America’s scientific future. Last week we had Mitt Romney wryly (we hope?) commenting about the hazards of airplane windows that don’t open:

It’s a real problem, all right.

It’s not Romney’s first scientific gaffe. Take this gem from his last year’s interview with the Washington Examiner:

I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with — with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.

Romney is referring to the now infamous 1989 announcement by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann of the University of Utah — a claim that was quickly refuted by the scientific community at the time. Is anyone concerned that Romney’s view of alternative energy in 2012 rests on a 23-year old discredited experiment on cold fusion? Or that he believes in the “analysis” of new sources of energy? Analysis and action are two different animals, as all the dithering over scientific “consensus” for climate change demonstrates. More on that later.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Romney is that he considers science something to be “believed” in, as though it’s a matter of faith, not a body of empirical evidence, of tangible, verifiable, facts.

Indeed, it’s this principle of “belief” that underlies so much of conservative thinking about scientific issues: evolution, abortion, stem cell research, climate change. It’s as though they can make the facts disappear simply by choosing not to “believe” in them. Considering that we’re talking largely about the religious right, I’m curious: What would God think about such cherry-picking of “faith”?

And what about the danger that such rejection of scientific consensus poses to the public? The anti-vaccine conspiracists were scary enough; now we have a presidential candidate campaigning for “aggressive” (and possibly dangerous) treatment of a condition that the medical community has found no scientific basis to support.

OK, maybe I should stop picking on Mitt…he’s had a bad week. But he’s not alone.

Remember Todd Akin and his suggestion that victims of “legitimate rape” could not get pregnant? This is a guy who serves on the House Science and Technology Committee, right along with a guy who thinks that cutting down trees will stop greenhouse gas production.

Suddenly, a foreign policy based on one’s backwoods backyard view of Russia doesn’t seem quite so terrifying.

More terrifying are the global repercussions of an anti-science White House. After all, as Mitt himself said,  ”the reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming.”

Americans: please remember that before you vote for the guy who thinks cutting down trees will solve the problem.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers

%d bloggers like this: