I'm so over Septermber 11th, this year I'm not writing about it. I really have nothing to add to last year's post. Well, maybe a big "Heckuva Job!" to all those protecting our country, as another terrorism-free year inside the USA stands as a testament to their effort and success. If it's overshadowed by the difficulties in Iraq, that's only more evidence that people have begun taking security for granted again. It's a nice feeling.

Instead, I'll talk about eating.

Around work, particularly around lunch time, the most common discussion is diet: how they're going, how unpleasant they are, how many people have died from it, etc. Of course the whole Atkins trend has taken over (much to my annoyance), along with the longstanding other fad diets.

Now this may surprise you, but I'm a bit skeptical of dieting. Just the idea that you can 'go on a diet' sets up the wrong psychological dynamic. The belief is that the natural state is to eat too much and become out of shape, while being healthy requires all the extra effort of dieting. No one should be surprised when they revert to their natural state of eating too much.

A much better mentality, in my opinion, is to eschew dieting and embrace responsible eating. Eating responsibly is not a special effort; instead, one should view eating irresponsibly as an exception to an otherwise healthy lifestyle. Consider the following question:

When do you typically eat?

A. On a schedule
B. At will (whenever I choose, including snacks and drinks)
C. When hungry

I think we can agree that access to food is not a big problem in the USA. In fact, resisting food is much more of an issue. So many things taste good, and are available in abundance, that is just seems to make sense to eat. It's a natural impulse - humans for thousands of years have had to struggle, in one way or another, for food. The ability to 'put food on the table' has long been a sign of at least minimal success in supporting a family. During those times, food was never in such abundance as now.

In order to eat healthy, one needs to moderate their food intake to be in proportion to the amount of energy they use. People don't necessarily have to exercise to be thin - they just need to eat less. And people who do work out can expect to be able to eat more - a reward of sorts for being in shape. Of course, it's much easier to maintain weight this way than to lose it - to lose weight, one needs to intake fewer calories than required by the body, which is unnatural and will cause the body to make changes in order to retain energy (fat). This is one reason that dieters often plateau after realizing sizable improvement in the first few weeks or months of a diet.

Looking back at my question above, people who eat on a schedule or at will are likely to intake too many calories. When one eats at the first sign of hunger, or when they are not hungry at all, they are basically keeping their body fully fueled all the time. Any extra calories will be converted to fat, and they'll gain weight. By only eating when hungry, one ensures that they are refueling their body only when required.

I think of hunger as a signal that my body is burning fat. Our bodies are always using energy, and if you're hungry, your body will convert fat into energy to keep you going. You don't necessarily have to work out, either - just going about your business will burn energy. Of course, most people don't like to be hungry. It resembles pain, and we're brought up to eat when we're hungry. Hunger is often associated with lack of means, a negative connotation. However, there is a lot to be gained by changing your perspective on hunger.

First, consider letting yourself get hungry well before most meals (say 1 hour or more). Not only will you enjoy your meals more, but you will be burning fat up until and during your meal. Note that I am not suggesting being hungry when you finish your meal - that is an unnatural state. Rather, you should eat to satisfaction but not beyond.

Skipping unnecessary calories reduces the total you intake, so you can actually eat more of whatever you want. For instance, if you skip lunch on a weekend, then you don't need to worry about having some ice cream or cheesecake in the evening. Your calorie intake for the day is still approximately the amount you need to function - not grossly more. Also, the meals themselves do not need to be especially healthy - since your body is going to use the fuel soon (before your next meal, especially while you are hungry), it won't store fat or carbohydrates - it will burn them. This is a virtuous cycle that will keep you healthier and eating more of your favorite foods while keeping a relatively constant weight.

Another problem people have getting into shape is the way they exercise - I'll talk about that on Monday.

Have a great weekend!

I'm reading the Bourne series by Robert Ludlum now. I was reluctant being that I saw the first two movies, and other movies, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Talented Mr. Ripley, and Jurassic Park followed their respective books pretty closely. I'm glad I decided to pick them up, as these Bourne books are nothing like the movies. At all.

The first movie, The Bourne Identity, follows the book pretty closely...for about 20 pages. Then it diverges wildly, with the only real similarities being the locations of Zurich and Paris. There is also a Treadstone project, but it's not nearly as active as in the movie. In the book, Bourne's main opponent is the famous terrorist, Carlos the Jackal.

Of course this wouldn't work for the movies, as they are modern-day thrillers full of sophisticated electronics and such. The Bourne Identity was published in 1975/1976, so the technology is quite different.

The second movie, The Bourne Supremacy, is a completely new script. It bears no resemblance at all to the book - the locales, the characters, the motivations - everything is different. Completely different story.

The movies are good, though. And they are, in my estimation, very true to the character of Jason Bourne. In particular, they mimic his resourcefulness from the first book quite well. The main difference between the movies and the books, aside from the storyline, is Bourne's mental equilibrium. In the books, he is much less independent than in the movies. The character of Marie, his girlfriend in the movie, is much more supportive. She's not just in the right place at the right time to help him - she is integral to his story and his success. The movies show some flashbacks as Bourne slowly remembers his past - in the books he suffers much greater anguish and general discombobulation.

I'm still working on the second book, and my review is mixed. So far, I've enjoyed the first book quite a bit more. However, I have a feeling that Bourne is about to start kicking ass and taking names in Hong Kong, which might change my overall opinion. I recommend the series, even to those who have seen the movies - trust me, they didn't spoil a thing.

This business in Russia is really terrible. So many people killed, mostly children - a really heinous attack. And it was planned, with forethought and malice.

Whoever did this - and Mark Steyn has the goods - were outsiders. People from the region would never do this. Forces like the IRA, at their worst, tried to avoid casualties of this kind. This was an attack from outside, by people who were focused on the body count, not political demands or other goals.

In short, they were terrorists. And, given the whole, uh, war that's going on, the smart money is on Islamic extremists. Surprise, surprise.

Listen folks: this is a war against non-Allah worshipping civilizations. The enemy has committed to destroy us, and they've demonstrated the will. They lack only sufficient means and opportunity. Any time we allow them to grow and prepare, any space we give them to organize, any "sensitivity" we show will be returned to us in the form of corpses. Corpses of children, corpses of adults - it doesn't matter to them. It is simple; it is not nuanced. The root causes must be eliminated, but they cannot be appeased. The enemy wants to kill us - literally, all of us - and why they want to do it doesn't matter. It's a war, and we need to win it (courtesy of Lileks).

I honestly don't think the Russian massacre should be looked at in political terms, but like Steyn, I think the overall war requires strong leadership. How the candidates would conduct of the overall war is important in this election; for me, the most important consideration. I have seen what Bush will do, and I believe he will continue in this vein. Kerry had, until last Thursday evening, been moving towards a legitimate position. But it's clear he doesn't feel it: under a bit of duress, during his midnight address he folded back to the Angry Left position. One can only conclude that the Democratic convention was a sham.

It's too bad. If both candidates were serious about the war, we could decide this election on other issues. Instead, it appears we may have a pro-war vs. anti-war election, and that won't be close. Why? Look at Russia, think back to 9/11, Bali, USS Cole, and all the other attacks. This is not a war we chose, and we have no choice but fight it. We can't turn the other cheek, old boy. We have to fight - not 'for the little guy', not 'for working families' - but actual warfare. Our enemy must be killed to be stopped, and only one guy on the ballot is serious about that, so the other things will just have to wait.

Aside from Artemis getting eaten by a Tyranosaur, it was a pretty good weekend.