Comments (31)

By kilax, January 25, 2012 4:38 am

Or both?

I feel like I am getting buried at work, and the more I do to dig a hole out for myself, the more I get piled on. It doesn’t seem to matter if I come in early, work on the weekends, or stay late – I can’t get caught up.

I feel stressed. I’ve been talking to my favorite coworker about it, my close friends, and of course, Steven. There is nothing I can do but go through tasks one by one. So I do. And I try not to spaz. In the long run, this all won’t matter. It’s just hard not to get worked up about it when I am in the moment. 

When I finally got a chance to look at google reader yesterday, I saw this article titled “When Stress is Good For You.” How appropriate! The article goes over what physically happens in our bodies when we are stressed.

The body has a standard reaction when it faces a task where performance really matters to goals or well-being: The sympathetic nervous system and the hypothalamus, pituitary and adrenal glands pump stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol, into the bloodstream. Heartbeat and breathing speed up, and muscles tense.

How you react to that determines whether stress is harmful or helpful:

• If your blood vessels constrict, your blood pressure will rise, and may feel dizzy as your heart beats irratically (HARMFUL).
• If your blood vessels dilate, blood flow to the brain increases and you feel a surge of energy, similar to getting pumped when you work out (HELPFUL).

You know, I never thought of the physiological aspects of stress. I always just thought of my mental panic. I didn’t think that stress could actually be good for me. This article suggests that you can have some control over whether you feel harmful or helpful stress, by practicing thinking positively, deep breathing, meditating, and regulating your mental and physical states. You know, all those things you know you are supposed to do but forget about in the heat of the moment. 

The article even mentioned that:

Many workplace wellness programs have also begun coaching people to hit “the optimal performance zone”—with enough stress “to be stimulating, to focus you, to challenge you” without taking a physical toll.

Well, that sure sounds nice!

I keep bringing this up over and over (work stress), but it is my way of dealing with it. I hope I have a reason to quit talking about it soon.

Do you most often feel helpful or harmful stress?

Do you perform well when you stressed?

Comments (23)

By kilax, January 5, 2012 5:13 am

Can you all tell I have had time to catch up on old magazine articles over the holidays?

Somehow I ended up with a subscription to Whole Living. It’s obviously related to the relay triathlon I did last summer because it comes addressed to Team One Leg at a Time – our team name. I am just not sure why I get it. But… I actually really like it! There are lots of neat vegetarian and vegan recipes in each issue, lots of eco friendly stuff, and tons on life balance. I actually hope I continue to receive it in the mail.

So here we go. There was a interesting article about willpower in the Jan/Feb issue (click here to read) that I highly recommend! Like the article first says, I did think willpower was just something I don’t have. Why else can’t I stop eating chips and salsa, or impulsively signing up for races?

But the whole point of the article is that we all use willpower every day, and our ability to access it is much within our control. We can’t only look at when we think we “lack” willpower (drinking too much, eating too much, snapping at our spouse), but we have to think about all the “right” decisions we make too – working on a project in advance of its due date, working out instead of sitting on the couch, paying bills on time… you get the idea. The article is saying that instead of thinking about willpower as “forcing yourself to do things you don’t want to do,” think of it as “having the strength or willingness to do what matters most to you.”

Silly, but that kind of blew my mind because I was always in the “I have no willpower” and “willpower’s only use is to make me stop eating cookies” camp. Thinking about using it each day, for multiple things, is a very new thought to me… now I just have to think about what matters most to me.

I wanted to share the four willpower “facts” from the article because they were all news to me (don’t you love it when you read a magazine and feel like you aren’t reading some regurgitated crap you’ve seen before? That must be why I like this mag – I’ve never had one like it). Most of this is taken word for word, so credit goes to the article (well, for this whole post, really).

1. We’re wired for it – willpower is not strictly mental – it has a physiological basis, much like the “fight-or-flight” response in moments of stress. Willpower comes in the form of “pause and plan,” however - it does not kick in as fast as flight-or-fight because it is not related to immediate survival. It’s trickier to notice, but it is an instinct we all have.
2. It fluctuates – we have a limited amount of willpower. Willpower requires glucose (energy stores your brain draws on) – and we probably all know we don’t make our best decisions when we are hungry. “Every decision that is not habitual – choosing from 20 bottles of shampoo at the store – uses willpower.” “It taxes the system at a very low level.” After we use our willpower, we have to refuel and restrengthen. Also – no one has perfect self-control on the time! So be easy on yourself, and work on strengthening your willpower (they gave 7 exercises which you can see in the link).
3. Guilt doesn’t work- labeling your actions as “bad” can lead to self-sabotage. Creating guilt and shame, and remorsing over what you did, can lead you right back in to doing it again. On the other side of the spectrum – don’t be overconfident about good behavior. Psychologists calls this “moral licensing” – when we think we’ve succeeded at something, and reward ourselves, but the reward reverts us back to old behaviors.
4. There are three parts. The three types of willpower are “‘I will’ power: the ability to do something we don’t want to do because it’s good for us. ‘I won’t’ power: the ability to stay away from things that are bad for us, and ‘I want’ power: making decisions based on goals.” “People can be strong in one area, but not others.” “The secret to changing habits lies in paying attention to all three of the powers.”

Then the article included seven ways to build self-discipline. I thought they were so-so, but you can see them in the link.

But wow. I thought there were so many cool tidbits in this article. Like the “pause and plan” reflex. I need that to be my new motto! And the idea that we are using willpower all the time to make decisions. And the “moral licensing”… and the three types. These are all very new ideas to me that I am exited to think about!

What is your view on willpower? Do you view it like I did, or do you think more in line with the article? Where are you strong in willpower and where do you need improvement?

Comments (27)

By kilax, January 3, 2012 5:36 am

I was reading this interesting article (click link to read) about empathy in the December issue of SELF, and it really got me thinking about a few things. The focus of the article was about how empathy is declining, but that being empathetic not only makes you happier, but makes you more successful at work. And the article went in to a few ways to increase your empathy. 

The whole article was interesting to me, but the first thing that really stood out was the paragraph on how we may be becoming less empathetic because of technology:

Except, as a society, we seem to be getting less empathy practice than we used to—and technology may be to blame. In the Michigan study, the decline in empathy test scores was especially sharp after the year 2000, which is when Friendster, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter came on the scene. To Konrath, that’s no coincidence. “Spending so much time interacting online could certainly change our ability to empathize,” she says. “When you see someone face to face, you get multiple signals—you hear her voice, note the movement of her eyes, take in her posture,” she says. But on Facebook, it’s tough to know how others are really feeling, not least because you rarely see the whole truth. (We’re all familiar with “friends” who use the medium to constantly trumpet how fabulous their life is.) At times, it can seem as if social media is more about creating a perfectly polished image than making a genuine connection. “It’s not that Facebook itself is going to somehow rot our capacity for empathy,” Konrath says. “It’s that it doesn’t require us to use much of it.” So after a while, if you spend more of your hours online, your instinct for reading others falls off. If you don’t use it, you could lose it.

So, the more time we spend interacting with people online, the less practice we get being empathetic in person. Sure, that makes sense. We shouldn’t be hermits. And online identities are often heavily edited* – we can’t trust our perception of their face value. 

What do you think – does your online interaction with people affect how you relate to people in real life?

Another thing that stood out to me was that “empathy is the glue that keeps all relationships humming: friends who are skilled at understanding each other are less likely to have conflicts and are better at resolving them when they do happen.” When you make an effort to understand where the other person is coming from and feel for that, it opens up communication, you’re less judgmental, and strengthens the relationship (according to the article). They talked about how crucial this is in marriage – agreed!

Also, the article talked about how being more empathetic makes you happier, and why the higher ups at work don’t seem to be empathetic (didn’t you always want to know?) and how important empathy is in the work environment. 

This article was kind of all over the place, and this post definitely is too. Please read the article (link above) if you are interested! But I do want to ask  - how empathetic are you?

I’ve noticed that I start out quite empathetic with people. But the more I learn about them, the more or less empathetic I come. For example (and we all have this person in our lives) – I know someone who is irresponsible and continually makes bad decisions, yet has the “the world is after me” attitude. No it’s not, honey. You need to grow the eff up. And there it is <– a lack of empathy. When crappy things happen to that person, I have such a hard time forgetting their crappy personality and feeling empathy for them. I think “Karma, baby. You get what you deserve.” How awful is that?

On the other hand, I do have many friendships where I’ve have gotten to know someone more and more that I just really feel for everything that happens to them. Their sadness is my sadness. Their joy is my joy. If they are uneasy, I am too. It’s pretty amazing that you can be that close with someone! And the article is right – that amount of empathy does make me happy, and feel good. Not exactly in the moments of sadness and unease, but when I thinking “Wow, I really connect with this person.”

*This could really be an entire blog post in it’s own, but I am feeling lazy, so I will add it down here! There was also an interesting blurb in this magazine about “FOMO” – the fear of missing out. Click here to read it. Basically, it says “we tend to show an upbeat version of ourselves online, leaving out the bad parts.” So when you go online and see everyone is doing all these fun things, you have the fear of missing out. But you have to remember that other people may only be showing their “idea selves” online, and not to let yourself get down because you aren’t feeling as merry. Also, it says make your own plans with friends if you are feeling left out! Honestly, I was passing on invites during the holidays because I had too much to do! But I did see posts of many parties on Facebook and in blogs, so I can see why people might feel this way. 

Comments (24)

By kilax, January 29, 2011 7:28 am

I read an interesting and brief article this morning on the WSJ about defriending (“Why I Defriend the Old-Fashioned Way“), and how the author thinks it is a cowardly thing to do on Facebook. He thinks defriending should be a “face-to-face,” or at least performed in an honest, straight-forward manner. He says that when you defriend someone on Facebook, they don’t know if it’s because of something they did, or just because you were purging your friend list. I suppose that’s true.

The author even (sarcastically) mentions Dunbar’s number (which I talked about last January) – the idea that human beings can only handle 150 relationships at a time, and your brain cannot handle anymore than that. That’s probably also true.

However, people amass so many Facebook friends, that I think getting defriended on Facebook is quite a bit different than ending a relationship in real life. For example, awhile ago I was reading a friend’s Facebook status and saw a mutual friend had commented on it. “Oh,” I thought, “I haven’t seen what mutual friend is up to in awhile! I’ll click on her name and check out her Facebook page.”

Access denied.

Yeah. I was defriended. And it wasn’t because I did anything. It was a mutual friend that I barely knew (and through the internet, nonetheless).  The mutual friend was probably just purging their list, and decided to take me off. And that is fine. I didn’t mind at all. I found it funny, in fact.

Of course, I wouldn’t recommend defriending your actual close friends, it’s just that Facebook is a somewhat different beast than real life relationships.

From here

So, how do you defriend in real life? That is something that had evaded me. You know, all of these “Start Fresh in the New Year!” articles advise on ending toxic relationships, but how? How do you say to a friend, “I am sick of your bullsh*t and need to end our relationship. You bring me more stress than happiness.” You would have to have a lot of balls to say something like that. I imagine most people just slowly cut back on communication. And maybe defriend on Facebook. Ha.

In fact, this article “How Do You Break Up With a Friend?” doesn’t have many great suggestions – they say to avoid the friend, ignore them (?), and only have a true heart-to-heart if they are a close friend. And even then, maybe just write a one-sided email. Hmm. In the end the article says that letting nature take its course might take care of it as well.

I haven’t had to break up with any friends. I don’t have the luxury of having that many friends! But I find this all very interesting.

Have you ever been defriended on Facebook? How did that make you feel? Or have you be the “defriend-er”? Have you ever broken off a friendship in real life?

The winner of the Magnetic Photo Frame Giveaway is J! J, please email me your mailing address, and I will send the frames your way!

Comments (19)

By kilax, December 18, 2010 5:38 am

I want to be able to bend like that. ^^^

Steven and I saw Black Swan last night. I have always* had a crush on Natalie Portman, and will see any movie she’s in (either in the theater or on DVD), no matter how good (The Professional, V for Vendetta, Brothers) or bad (Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, Garden State). Steven thinks it’s ridiculous that I would want to see a movie just because she is in it, but surely, I am not the only one who does that…

Do you ever see movies just because a certain actor is in it (or rather, does your interest to see a movie ever start because of a certain actor?)? Which actor?

The movie was very interesting and well done. I think it deserves all of the rave reviews it’s getting. It tells the dark story of Nina Sayers, who wants to be the perfect ballerina, but struggles with her inner demons and obsessive personality. Actually, there are many parallels to her ballet career and my running career – we both strive to be perfect, the best!

Ha! I am totally kidding! Big time!

Anyway, everyone has very different taste in movies, but I wanted to say that I enjoyed this one. It made me want to go to the ballet (never been). And I had to appreciate the work that went in to the movie. Portman took ballet until she was in her early teens (I think) then started practicing for this movie a year in advance. Portman and Mila Kunis both lost about 20 pounds each to play these roles.

Speaking of weight, did you see that blurb this week about New York City Ballet dancer Jenifer Ringer? A New York Times critic wrote a review of her work as the Sugar Plum Fairy in “The Nutcracker,” saying she “looked as if she’d eaten one sugar plum too many.” The remark is very interesting, considering she looks extremely slim to me. The Today Show did an interview with Ringer, and I think she is very well posed:

The original blurb I read is here.

I normally don’t talk about weight/size/etc., but wow, I have to say, Ringer does not look plump to me at all. Of course, I know NOTHING about ballet.

Before she played Queen Amidala in Star Wars.

Comments (24)

By kilax, October 6, 2010 5:08 am

I have a very weird skill of remembering exact dates of events. For example, when Steven says “when did we go skiing in Colorado?” I start to think of significant dates nearby and instantly remember that it was on Valentine’s Day/President’s Day weekend in February of 2009.

It works that way with any other event – I remember significant* dates around it and picture a calendar in my head until I figure it out.

Steven, however, is not very good at remembering dates, so I am in charge of birthdays/anniversaries/etc. I just read an interesting article about a very small study that showed people remember birthdays closest to their own. This is an example of the “self-reference effect” in memory, which makes memories you relate to easier to remember.

I think this might be true for Steven. He always seems to remember his friend’s/family’s birthdays in months around his (as well as remembering the one friend who has a birthday on Halloween).

Are you good at remembering dates (birthdays, events, etc.)? Do you think you are more likely to remember those closest to your own? Do you think this skill even matters?

Seriously, I do like being able to recall things, but having so much on information on my website, I can look up almost anything there too! And you can see most of your friends’ birthdays on Facebook… so… is there even a point in remembering things?

Speaking of remembering things, today is my nephew’s 6th birthday and my parent’s 31st wedding anniversary! Happy Birthday Nicholas (Nicky)! Happy Anniversary Mom and Dad!

Here’s a picture of Steven with our nephew Nicky. Aww, isn’t Steven great with kids? (???)

And my parents…

Alright mom and dad, new goal – take more photos of you two! Where one of you, ahem, is not making faces. Most of the photos I have of you two look like this:

or this:

*I usually use “significant” dates of holidays, birthday and our engagement as milestones.

Comments (27)

By kilax, August 9, 2010 5:00 am

There was an interesting article about sibling relationships in USA Today last week titled “Having a sister can be good for your emotional health.” The information in the article was not earth-shattering, but it did make a few interesting points:

• Affectionate siblings have positive influences on each other no matter their age, gender, or how many years they are apart.
• Loving brothers and sisters promote behaviors such as kindness and generosity. They also protect against delinquency and depression.
• According to the study, having a sister prevents depression more than having a brother. This may be because girls are better at talking about problems or are more likely to take on a caregiver role.
• The study also found that siblings have twice as much influence than parents over performing good deeds — including volunteering, doing favors for others and being nice to people.
• Siblings who fight can have the opposite effect. Brothers and sisters who exhibit hostility toward each other are more likely to portray aggressive behaviors in other relationships.
• Sibling influence is stronger in families with two parents compared to one. A child with a single parent may become a “parent figure” to a younger sibling, which changes the typical brother or sister role.

So, basically, this is an iteration that we learn from the environment that we grow up in. Again, not earth-shattering, but interesting.

I am nosy curious, tell me about your relationship with your siblings. Did/do you feel any influence from them? Did you get along growing up? Do you now? If you are an only child, do you think you were influenced by your parents or peers more?

And we love polls…

[poll id="24"]

I have two brothers (older and younger) and a sister (younger). We mostly got along growing up, except for the occasional fight and relentless teasing of my younger sister. I definitely feel like I picked up a lot of cues on how to act from them. Not that we are at all the same person, but we do have some similar traits (hot temper, stubborn, giving, helpful, fun-loving, laid-back, etc.).

This picture is from 2007, but that’s the four of us – Anthony, me, Nick and Christina.

Now we all live completely different lives, so their influence is gone. It’s weird that you live with these people for however many years, and probably interact with them on a day to day basis, then once you move out of the house, you rarely see each other/communicate (and in my situation, that is just because I live in a different state than the three of them – they all still live near our hometown – I wonder what it would be like if I still lived in Iowa).

Comments (27)

By kilax, July 22, 2010 5:15 am

There was an interesting article on the Well blog yesterday about whether or not running shoes should be fitted based on your foot type (low arch, normal arch, high arch).

According to the article, the military began analyzing new recruits’ foot type a few years ago and assigning specific shoes to them to prevent injury.  However, studies they did show almost no correlation between wearing the “right” shoes and preventing injury. Injury rates were high among runners, and highest among those who received shoes for their foot type.

In another study, experienced women distance runners were given shoes based on their foot type rather than arch shape (underpronators were given cushiony shoes, overpronators motion-control shoes and so on). They then followed a 13 week half marathon training course, and by the end, a third had missed days due to pain, with the majority of these runners being those who received specific shoes for their foot type (the motion control shoes were the most injurious).

The article concluded that we cannot simply buy shoes based on our arch and foot type. While the shoes often do what they say they will do (motion control shoes help control motion), scientists don’t know if pronoation is the actual problem and they admit that they don’t fully understand the biomechanics of the lower extremities.

So, what do they advise? Try on a lot of shoes, even the salesperson says you need a specific type. And get the shoes that don’t give you any aches or pains.

Well, I definitely believe the part that not much is known about the lower extremities! But I only say that because my sports medicine doctor could not come up with a reason for my stress fractures. Just “it’s you.” (What?!)

And I do think that some sales people seem to be really pushy about getting people to buy a certain kind of shoe (motion-control, neutral, etc). One salesperson kept pushing the Brooks Beast on Steven (a super heavy shoe) so Steven tried them but immediately had knee pain that he never had before.

The truth is, I don’t know what to think about shoes anymore. I have been looking for excuses for my injuries and my gaze has tended to head down. But really, I think runners get injuries for a lot more reasons that their shoes, so I am not sure if these studies actually mean anything at all!

Tell me about your running shoe experience! Do you think the “right” shoes can prevent injury? Or do you think injury-prevention depends on the runner’s entire approach to running? Do you swear by a certain “type” of shoe?

I would be really interested to hear from my friends who sell running shoes. I bet they have a lot of experience and advice to share!

Comments (52)

By kilax, March 30, 2010 7:03 am

Last week I called my mom while I was walking to the train*. She answered and said, “I shouldn’t talk right now. I’m driving. Oprah** said not to talk on your cell phone while you drive.”

We started talking about driving and talking on the cell phone (note: she did not get off the phone) and she told me that she saw all the statistics on Oprah about how your reaction time slows down when you are on the phone. She said she immediately thought, “That doesn’t affect me – I can drive and talk” and that was when Oprah said, “Most people think they are the exception to this. Most people think they CAN multitask while driving.”

And they do! My mother did! I’ve known other people to say the same thing.

I ran across this interesting article saying that only 2.5 percent of the general population are good enough at multitasking to talk on the phone and drive at the same time. The article calls these people “supertaskers.”

In the study, 200 people operated a driving simulator while using the cell phone. It took most people 20 percent longer to hit the brakes when needed, and their following increased 30 percent. However, the supertaskers displayed no change.

Of course, this study is very small, but it comes to the same conclusion as many studies I’ve seen – most people cannot drive safely and talk on the phone at the same time. And even though most people think they are the exception to the rule, they probably aren’t.

And while we’d probably all like to think we are the exception to the rule, the odds are overwhelmingly against it. In fact, the odds of being a supertasker are about as good as your chances of flipping a coin and getting five heads in a row.

Do you ever talk on the phone while driving (or even worse, text)? Do you try to avoid it, or do you think of yourself as a ”supertasker”?

Of course, I am guilty of this. I answer my phone while driving. I will make a quick call too. And I don’t think I am great at multitasking. In fact, I know I am bad at it. And I am an aggressive driver, so that isn’t a good combo. I try to keep the calls short. Get to the point, and get off the phone. Of course, that could be the same logic that got many people into bad accidents! This is probably something I should work on.

*Some studies say it is bad to walk and talk too.
**My mother loves Oprah. I haven’t seen her show since… maybe the 90s?

Comments (53)

By kilax, January 28, 2010 5:00 am

Have you heard about Dunbar’s number – the theory that your brain can only manage “stable social relationships” with 150 people?

Robin Dunbar, a professor* at Oxford University, developed this theory in the 1990s. He theorizes that the size of our neocortex limits us to managing social circles of about 150 friends – that’s 150 friends that you contact each year and can remember how they relate to each other.

Of course, the study was in the news this week in relationship to Facebook. There are many articles out there saying even though we amass hundreds of friends on Facebook, our brains are only capable of managing that core 150. Dunbar is revisiting his study to see how it relates to Facebook. From the UK Times article:

Dunbar is now studying social networking websites to see if the “Facebook effect” has stretched the size of social groupings. Preliminary results suggest it has not.

“The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 people that we observe in the real world,” said Dunbar.

“People obviously like the kudos of having hundreds of friends but the reality is that they’re unlikely to be bigger than anyone else’s.

“There is a big sex difference though… girls are much better at maintaining relationships just by talking to each other. Boys need to do physical stuff together.”

So, what do you think of his theory? How many friends do you have on Facebook? Do you know who they all are and keep in touch with them all? Do you think you stick to the core 150? Do you think he is right about the “sex difference”?

I have 112 friends on Facebook. I try to keep it limited. And I still don’t keep in touch with about 25% of my “friends.” The thing is, it doesn’t matter if you don’t keep in touch with people on Facebook. I don’t think that’s the point! It’s more for “networking.” They are not relationships you absolutely have to maintain.

I suppose I am just naive in hoping that some relationships are not ONLY maintained on Facebook.

After reading these articles, I really started to think about how the 150 rule may relate to reading blogs. I mean, how many blogs can you really keep track of? I subscribe to about 350 (and believe me, that number is WAY down!) but can only keep straight the ones I keep in my “daily read” folders, which is probably close to 150 or 200. To me, it just means so much more to read a blog and feel like you know who the person is, even if you don’t have a real life relationship with them. So, one more set of questions:

Do you think the 150 relationships theory could apply to reading blogs? How many blogs do you keep track of?** Do you think you could manage more than 150?

*Of Evolutionary Antrhopology
**As always, my apologies for the prepositions.